1966-03-16

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965-66

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates E for the financial year ending March 31, 1966, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue), read by Mr. Speaker to the house and referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when the United States balance of payments guide lines were being discussed in this house on February 2, I said that it would be most undesirable if the effect of these guide lines was to induce strong new demands upon capital markets in Canada. I also indicated that if necessary we would take whatever action is appropriate to protect Canadian interests. Prior to our meeting with United States Secretaries in Washington it seemed clear that pressures on our capital markets were being accentuated as an indirect result of the United States guide lines, and we discussed this with them.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Under the guide lines, United States companies are being encouraged to raise funds abroad for their international operations. In response to this, well known United States companies and their foreign subsidiaries are issuing dollar securities for sale outside the United States. To the extent that this search for funds abroad by United States companies
attracts funds from Canada, it puts abnormal pressure on the Canadian market and could force Canadian borrowers to rely more heavily on the United States capital market.
It has been, and continues to be, the policy of the government to encourage Canadians to invest their savings in Canadian development. We are now entering our sixth consecutive year of significant economic growth. Heavy demands are being made on our capital markets as Canadian industry expands its capacity and improves its efficiency and as Canadian governments and municipalities undertake to provide the many services required by our expanding economy.
To meet this situation I am, on behalf of the government, making the following request today to Canadian investors.
To help ensure that Canadian savings are available to meet the present large demands for capital in Canada the government is asking all Canadian investors, including financial institutions such as the banks, life insurance companies, and trust and loan companies, as well as other corporations, pension funds and individuals, not to acquire securities, denominated in Canadian or United States dollars, which are issued by United States corporations or their non-Canadian subsidiaries and which are subject to the United States interest equalization tax if purchased by United States residents. Investments in such securities made by Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to cover foreign currency liabilities to non-residents of Canada and the United States are exempt from this request.
Canadian borrowers have co-operated with the government's requests in the past for the exercise of some temporary restraint in borrowing abroad in the national interest. I feel certain that Canadian investors on their side will co-operate fully with this request which is also in the national interest.
For some time the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance have, in answer to inquiries, been discouraging the issue of securities in Canada by foreign borrowers. I feel that we should continue to discourage such issues since the use of Canadian savings in this way could bring increased pressures on our capital market and lead to increased borrowings in the United States by Canadians

March 16, 1966
Finance
under the exemption from the interest equalization tax. I am confident that our financial institutions will continue to assist us in carrying out this policy.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) for taking this step, but I feel that it is long overdue. I feel that the steps he has taken at this stage are required. I do not know what teeth they may have in them to make sure that these guide lines are followed. I noticed that, according to the minister's statement, investments in such securities made by Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to cover foreign currency liabilities to non-residents of Canada and the United States are exempt from the request. I can understand this provision. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that despite the lateness of this action it does have the effect suggested.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: am sure all members will be pleased if the government is taking some measures to protect the Canadian economy against any adverse effects which might arise from the economic guide lines policy of the United States government. I think the minister would have helped the house and the country had he given us some indication of whether or not there has been large scale diversions of Canadian capital either to the United States or to United States investments in other parts of the world. If this has been going on to any considerable extent, I think that we ought to know about it.
We ought to know, second, whether or not the rather bland step mentioned in the statement is a sufficiently strong measure to grapple with the situation. Since we do not know how grave the situation is, we do not know whether the remedy which the minister has proposed is adequate to meet the crisis. I hope that at an early date the minister will tell us how serious is this capital flight. I hope he will also tell the house at an early date whether the measure which he has proposed today is having any beneficial effect. I am sure the house will watch the question with a great deal of interest; and I am also sure we are relieved that the minister is concerned about the matter and is apparently taking at least a preliminary step to cope with the situation.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance

(Mr. Sharp) really understands the situation which prevails at this time in Canada in the field of savings and investments.
The Minister of Finance is asking Canadian investors to invest in Canadian industry and borrowers to put an end to their borrowing in the United States.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the situation squarely, you will note that the biggest borrowers in Canada are the public bodies, namely the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities and the school boards.
They are the biggest borrowers and they get most of the savings of Canadians, and today the Minister of Finance is making an appeal to all Canadians, all private investors, in short banks, insurance companies, trust and loan companies, other corporations, pension funds and even private individuals, but he is forgetting the main institution which could solve the problem, namely the Bank of Canada.
The Bank of Canada is a public body which should be responsible for investing in the public sector, that is the federal, provincial and municipal governments and the school boards, thus leaving the private banks free to look after the private sector.
But as long as private savings have to meet the needs of public bodies, governments, I am saying to the minister that there will not be enough private capital in Canada to finance at the same time public and private investments.
Another solution will have to be found instead of the guide lines given at the present time by the Minister of Finance. In my opinion the only solution is to ensure that a public body in Canada, such as the Bank of Canada, can meet the needs of the public bodies, that is the governments. Private enterprise should be left free to meet the needs of private enterprise. Private investors should meet the needs of private borrowers, private companies, and a public body or the Bank of Canada should be given the authority to exist, in order to meet the needs of the public bodies.
That is the only solution and if the Minister of Finance does not want to get that into his head, he will never find another solution to the problems of our modern economy.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly we want to thank the
March 16, 1966

Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) for the announcement he has made this afternoon. It was only a few days ago that the leader of our party and I asked him some questions respecting this particular matter. There were announcements in the press that some large United States corporations were attempting to sell some issues outside of the United States and some rather large figures were involved. Had they moved into the Canadian capital market to raise money for use in their international operations, I am sure it is obvious to all members of the house that things would have been made very difficult for a capital market the size we have in Canada.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is not clear, Mr. Speaker, at first glance what the Canadian guide lines will be in the suggestion or the request that the Minister of Finance is making to the banks and to the other sources of credit. However, after we have had a little time to study these several paragraphs in his statement, perhaps it will be more clear.
We join with the Minister of Finance in that part of his statement where he suggests that governments and municipalities are undertaking now to provide for expanded services required in our expanding economy. It is interesting to note that the requirements for these purposes in Canada and borrowings in the United States have gone up from $15 million for the first two months of 1965 to $172,880,000 for the first two months of 1966, which is proof that there is a greatly expanded demand by our municipal governments for funds in this year.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should like to say very briefly to the Minister of Finance again that this is good and sufficient reason for his taking action that we expand the municipal development fund, and even take some action to set up a municipal development bank, because there is ample evidence now that this is required in Canada. We should not like to see our municipal governments, our school districts and so on being short of funds or having interest rates forced up. We should like to see this expansion I talk of taking place in the country.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 I was asked by the hon. member for
Water Resources
Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to make a statement regarding the discussions held in Washington on March 4 and 5 with respect to the urgent problem of pollution on the Great Lakes and with respect to the effects of a law of the United States Congress authorizing a study of the waters tributary to the Great Lakes. I undertook to make such a statement at an early date.
I may say first that the undersecretary and officials of the Department of the Interior of the United States attended the joint meetings in question and participated in a most constructive way in the discussions which were held on the matters which have been mentioned. In addition, I was invited with my officials to visit the Department of the Interior and took advantage of the opportunity which was thus afforded. Good working relations have existed for some time among the experts and specialists in both countries and relevant information is being exchanged freely, as well as views. During my visit we were able to review in particular a number of points pertaining to communication and liaison.
In the communique issued at the end of the ministerial meeting representatives of both governments recognized the serious implication of the recent interim report of the International Joint Commission on pollution in the two Great Lakes mentioned. In addition both sides confirmed the importance of co-ordinating our studies of this entire problem and supporting the program of investigation and research. Due note was taken of the urgency of curbing inflow to the lakes of certain pollutant materials.
May I say in passing that organizational changes have been undertaken recently in both countries to make sure that the federal governments are enabled to assume a more effective role with respect to matters of water pollution. It was valuable to receive in Washington an explanation of the Water Quality Act of 1965 and of the administrative measures presently taken. Our United States friends were most interested, too, in our proposed Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, with central co-ordinating responsibilities in the field of water pollution.
May I add for the information of hon. members that the advisory board to the International Joint Commission forecasts three phases of study of the pollution in the Great Lakes.
The first phase consists of short term concentrated studies to determine the extent,

March 16, 1966
Water Resources
origin and location of pollution in the waters. The second phase consists of continuing studies of the mechanics of the lakes as they affect pollution distribution and assessment of the changing effects of pollutants, and the effectiveness of remedial measures. The third phase consists of research into more effective means of treatment of wastes, the toxic levels of pollutants under Great Lakes conditions, the cycle of eutrophication-I have a technical definition of that, should hon. members want one-and the disposition of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
The details of the coming summer's work by Canadian governments have been assembled. Essentially they involve sampling of the eastern end of Lake Ontario and of the St. Lawrence River by the Department of National Health and Welfare; of the bulk of Lake Ontario and of Lake Erie by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and inshore sampling of the western end of Lake Ontario and of the margin of Lake Erie by the Ontario Water Resources Commission.
The investments made by mines and technical surveys alone, this year, in this research on pollution in the Great Lakes will be at least $600,000 for operation and $400,000 for beginning construction of the first of three research ships.
With regard to United States public law 89-298, this gives the United States Corps of Army Engineers a moderate sum of money to commence preliminary studies on storage and diversion in water basins supplying the Great Lakes system. Because Canadian interests might conceivably be affected by actions ensuing from such studies, I inquired as to American intentions. It was made clear, that the United States is not contemplating any action which would contravene its agreement with us under the Boundary Waters Act, or affect Canadian interests adversely. In this connection I might read a Canadian dispatch from Washington dated March 7, 1966 which represents an attempt to summarize the present situation. I quote-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: Order, we don't want press comments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, this is a somewhat technical subject and I thought it was the right thing to do.


Mr. Graffley:: Hire a precis writer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I see that at least the hon. member for Kamloops agrees. This dispatch says:
Officials here dispute a conclusion by water specialist Thomas Kierans of Sudbury, Ontario, that a 1965 United States law could unilaterally threaten water levels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
They also differ with his view given in a recent interview that the legislation authorized American diversions from water systems connected with the Great Lakes system without being affected by the Boundary Waters Act of 1909.
The Leader of the Opposition questioned me recently about the subject of the first paragraph. I continue.
Much more important, these officials say, is that any action must be in step with the Water Resources Planning Act and this specifically rules out any development affecting the "jurisdiction, powers or prerogatives" of the International Joint Commission.
I could go on-


Mr. Starr:: Go ahead; might as well, now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very well.
This Commission, a product of the Boundary Waters Act of 1909, is the Canada-U.S. agency which deals with boundary waters matters. Therefore, it is held, the threat seen by Kierans automatically would fall within the scope of the Commission.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: We appreciate the minister's having made a statement to us as to the scope of his discussions with representatives of the United States government. I do not want to appear to take an unreasonable attitude but the minister will appreciate that while we fully recognize the need for studies, the situation disclosed in the report of the International Joint Commission makes action imperative.
While therefore we are glad to hear of the plans for making studies of water samples from the lakes, we reserve our judgment on the question of whether sufficient action is to be taken. There are three programs of sampling. But here again, though we recognize that studies must be made, it seems that to date we have been given only a forecast of action rather than action itself. This is an urgent problem. I trust, therefore, that the planning and thinking in connection with matter covered in this report are being carried on with a greater sense of urgency than the report itself makes evident.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The only matter of detail upon which I would like to comment is that I am surprised to find there are apparently to be two agencies of the federal government carrying out sampling for the same basic objective, one the Department of National Health and
March 16, 1966	COMMONS
Welfare and the other the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I had understood the whole purpose now was to co-ordinate these activities under one agency and I am surprised, therefore, when we start our first study that we are undertaking to carry it out by two different departments.
I am at a loss to understand why that should be so. I think there would be less efficiency and greater cost involved; but I shall reserve final comment until we receive more particulars, and similarly with respect to the matter of the views of the United States officials and their difference of opinion with Mr. Kierans. I hope the minister's estimates will be brought in early in the supply program this year so that we can have the kind of discussion that is essential about this whole urgent matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the latter part of the observations of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Like him, I was somewhat puzzled by the fact that two federal agencies of government were being authorized to undertake these studies. However, it is possible that these studies may lie in different fields and, on the basis of further information we may be able to get, we can assess whether this is the most economical approach.
On the broader question of the announcement made by the Minister, I am sure all hon. members of the house welcome this indication that some specific action is being taken.
Certainly the reports we have been getting about the increasing level of pollution in the Great Lakes system show that some sort of crash program is required. Whether the study which is being proposed will be expedited to the point where it can launch corrective measures quickly enough to combat the growing level of pollution is questionable, but I think I can best sum this matter up by saying I am glad to see some attempt is being made to lock the door of the barn before all the horses have been stolen.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, without detracting from the urgency and importance of the statement the minister has made, we in this group will reserve our observations until we are able to study his report made this afternoon. But I would say it emphasizes in this one area the great importance of an over-all water resources policy which will include the subject of water pollution.
DEBATES	2759
Treaties with France Tabled PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT



JOINT COMMITTEE-HOUSE OF COMMONS PERSONNEL

['Agreed.', 'March 16. 1966\nQuestions']
Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the direction of the parliamentary restaurant, and that the members to serve on the said committee, on the part of this house, will be as follows: Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Bigg, Boulanger, Brand, Cantelon, Cowan, Crossman, Crouse, Emard, Ethier, Hales, Herridge, Homer (The Battlefords), Johnston, Langlois (Chicoutimi), Leblanc, (Laurier), Matheson, McNulty, Noble, Peters, Rock, Simard, Tucker, Vincent, Whelan and Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1966, the house made an order pursuant to motion No. 24 in the name of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for the production of certain papers related to agreements entered into between the Governments of Canada and France and of the province of Quebec. Subsequently the hon. member for Carleton pointed out that a number of additional documents were referred to in one of the documents tabled. Upon examination it was found that the documents referred to by the hon. member for Carleton had already been tabled in the house pursuant to motion No. 17 of the last session in the name of the former hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue which was adopted by this house on May 5, 1965.
The hon. member for Carleton suggested, however, that for the convenience of members it would be useful to have copies of the papers tabled under the earlier order along with those tabled pursuant to the order of February 9, 1965. In addition, since the date of the order of the house on February 9, a translation of one of the documents which was not available at the time of the order of the house has now become available and I would ask the concurrence of the house in making an order supplementary to the order of February 9 to permit the production of these additional papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Parliamentary
Secretary leave to table these documents as supplementary to the previous order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 16. 1966
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (e) medium security institutions (d) minimum security institutions (e) farm and work camps?
2.	What was the recidivist rate of males admitted to each Canadian penitentiary in the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	The average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 is as follows:
(a)	Federal institutions of all types
(b)	Maximum security institutions ,
(c)	Medium security institutions ..
(d)	Minimum security institutions
(e)	Work camps	
1962-63	1963-64	1964-65$2,753.83	$2,743.98	$3,074.512,624.03	2,650.84	2,964.673,135.12	3,054.78	3,464.152,572.65	2,687.99	3,019.922,261.09	2,408.54	2,595.78
The statistics with reference to farm camps are not available, since the operation and maintenance costs of these camps are absorbed in the expenditures of the parent institution.
2.	The recidivist rate of males admitted to each Canadian penitentiary in the years 1962,
1963,	1964 and 1965 is in accordance with the following table:


RECIDIVISM
[Stage Direction]
Males admitted to penitentiaries in fiscal years ended March 31, 1962 to 1905 inclusive, showing those previously committed to
penitentiary or to any correctional institution.
Total	Dor- St. Vincent	Saskat- British
Inmates Nfld. Chester de Paul Kingston Manitoba chewan Columbia
Fiscal Year 1961-62: Males Admitted	
Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
% Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution. % Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution	
Fiscal Year 1962-63: Males Admitted	
Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
% Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution. % Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution	
Fiscal Year 1963-64: Males Admitted	
Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
% Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution. % Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution	
Fiscal Year 1964-65: Males Admitted	
Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
% Previously Committed to Penitentiary	
Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution. % Previously Committed to Any Correctional Institution	
3,331 1,377 41.3% 2,556	29 3 10.3% 13	383 146 38.1% 266	978 370 37.8% 620	931 431 46.3% 805	241 79 32.8% 192	399 165 41.4% 342	370 183 49.5% 31876.7%	44.8%	69.5%	63.4%	86.5%	79.7%	85.7%	85.9%3,656 1,504 41.1% 2,808	28 7 25.0% 21	386 164 42.5% 271	953 366 38.4% 595	973 428 44.0% 850	253 90 35.6% 208	475 181 38.1% 408	588 268 45.6% 45576.8%	75.0%	70.2%	62.4%	87.4%	82.2%	85.9%	77.4%3,816 1,588 41.6% 2,948	41 7 17.1% 28	398 194 48.7% 301	1,172 434 37.0% 754	969 427 44.1% 823	294 106 36.1% 230	418 185 44.3% .368	524 235 44.8% 44477.3%	68.3%	75.6%	64.3%	84.9%	78.2%	88.0%	84.7%3,621 1,549 42.8% 2,787	46 9 19.6% 26	388 173 44.6% 290	1,115 410 36.8% 706	913 439 48.1% 774	303 129 42.6% 253	431 180 41.8% 374	425 _ 209 © 49.2% § 364 % 
.77.0%	56.5%	74.7%	63.3%	84.8%	83.5%	86.8%	85.7% |March 16. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
March 16. i966
Questions

Mr. Coales: 1.	Was a delegation sent from Expo '67 to Moscow, U.S.S.R. and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many delegates were associated with the delegation?
3.	What were the names, positions and expenses of each?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Over the past three years, five delegations of Corporation employees have been sent to Moscow, U.S.S.R. A delegation consisting of the Commissioner General, the Head-Master Programming Division and the Head-Cultural Division was the most recent to go to Moscow, at the request of the Commissioner General of Section of the Soviet Participation to meet with Russian officials to negotiate specific individual attractions. Examples of the attractions in question are the Bolshoi Opera and Ballet, the World Soccer Tournament and the Moscow Circus. A presentation was made to the Minister of Culture, Madame Furteba. Some members of this delegation also had discussions for the cultural program of Expo in London and Paris.
2.	Three.
3.	Names, positions and expenses of each
are as follows:	P. Dupuy, Commissioner
General, $2,922.55, London, Paris and Moscow; G. Hilker, Head-Master Programming Division, $1,695.91, London and Moscow; G. Lefebvre, Head-Cultural Division, $1,720.39, London and Moscow.


AID TO SOUTH VIET NAM-CANADIAN COMMITMENTS TO U.S.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What are the economic and financial aids now being provided by Canada in South Viet Nam?
2.	Is any extension of this aid being contemplated at the present time?
3.	Have any financial or economic commitments been made to the government of the United States with respect to South Viet Nam?
4.	If so, what are these commitments?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. Canada is providing aid to South Viet Nam in the form of both technical and capital assistance. There are four Canadian advisers now serving in South Viet Nam, three of them in the medical field, while some 183 Vietnamese students are presently undergoing training in Canadian schools and institutions. Capital assistance has

included the provision of laboratory equipment, foodstuffs and help with the construction of a science building at the University of Hud through the use of counterpart funds.
2.	Yes, particularly in the medical assistance field. Canada is prepared to undertake a major project in the field of rehabilitation medicine and has offered to provide and staff a T.B. clinic at one of the provincial hospitals.
3.	No.
4.	See 3.


BOX CARS SHIPPED TO AND RETURNED FROM U.S.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many Canadian Pacific Railway box cars have been shipped to the United States between August 1, 1965 and December 31, 1965?
2.	How many C.P.R. box cars have been returned to Canada during the same period?
3.	How many Canadian National Railways box cars have been shipped to the United States between August 1, 1965 and December 31, 1965?
4.	How many C.N.R. box cars have been returned to Canada during the same period?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: 1 and 2. I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Finance, Trade and Commerce and Transport that the information is not available.
3 and 4. The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 3. 60,832 Canadian National box cars were shipped to the United States during the period August 1, 1965, to December 31, 1965. 4. 59,208 Canadian National box cars were returned to Canada during the same period.


FEDERAL ROAD EXPENDITURES, MONTREAL
Mr. Vincenf: What has been the federal expenditure on roads, highways and grade separations, in each of the years 1964 and 1965, within the city of Montreal and its metropolitan areas?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the departments of Public Works and Transport as follows: In so far as the department of Public Works is concerned: Expenditures of the Department of Public Works were limited to contributions on the Trans-Canada highway. Federal payments between the Ile-aux-Tourtes crossing at Vau-dreuil and the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine crossing near Boucherville, including the two crossings, total as follows: 1964, $5,832,125; 1965, $28,732,922.
March 16. 1966

In so far as the department of Transport is concerned: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows: The amounts of money expended from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund toward grade separations in the City of Montreal and its metropolitan areas were: 1964, $1,169,007.50; 1965, $405,000.00.


PRISONERS UNDER 16 IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Macaluso: 1.	How many persons sixteen years of age and under are at present incarcerated in federal penal institutions?
2.	By separate offences, in what numbers are they incarcerated?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
Twenty nine.
2.	Breaking and entering with intent and breaking and entering and committing, 1; Armed robbery and theft, 1; Theft of motor vehicle, 4; Theft of motor vehicle and escape, 1; Theft of motor vehicle and causing damage to property, 1; Theft of motor vehicle and possession of property obtained by crime, 1; Assault, 2; Breaking and entering with intent, 2; Breaking, entering and theft, 6; Incorrigible offenders, 2; Possession of property *obtained by crime, 1; Theft, 2; Manslaughter, 1; Robbery with violence, escape, attempted theft, breaking and entering and committing and possession of property obtained by crime, 1; Assault causing bodily harm, 1; Escape, theft (2 charges), auto theft (3 charges), 1; Prison break by violence, 1.


PUBLIC RELATIONS PAYMENTS, EXPO '67
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Have any members of the press, radio or television received emoluments, financial benefits, payments or retainers from or on account of work performed for the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition?
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons, together with the names of the companies, agencies or services by which they are or were employed and what were the amounts paid out in each case (a) in 1964, and (b) in 1965?
3.	What amounts were paid (a) in 1964 (b) in 1965 to public relations firms or agencies in respect of services rendered in account with the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and what were the firms or agencies and what were the amounts involved?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Yes, one.
Questions
2.	David Crane of the Financial Post for the writing of a series of news letters with respect to advertising and promotion, (a) 1964, nil; (b) 1965, $200.
3.	The offices of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition opened in approximately February 1963. The following agencies were appointed around April 15, 1963 and amounts paid to each were as follows: (a) 1964: Publicity Service, $8,545.22; Monty Berger and Associates, $9,048.75; Public and Industrial Relations, $21,666.04; Desroches, In-kel and Poirier, $53,745.33; (b) 1965: Publicity Service, $4,325.00; Monty Berger and Associates, $2,217.50; Public and Industrial Relations, -; Desroches and Associates, (Name was changed), $97,967.87.


DISPLAY WORK, WESTERN CANADA PAVILION, EXPO '67
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What firm or firms received the contract or contracts for the display work for the western Canada pavilion for Expo '67?
2.	What are the terms and conditions of such contract or contracts?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Contracts in connection with the display work for the Western Canada Pavilion for Expo '67 were not the responsibility of any Federal Government authority. The information requested is, therefore, not available.
2.	See 1 above.


FORT CHURCHILL-SUGGESTED OVEREXPENDITURE
Mr. Brand: Has any correspondence been received from members of the public service of Canada regarding suggested overexpenditure in the Fort Churchill complex and, if so, from whom?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Since such correspondence would be of a departmental or interdepartmental nature it is not the practice to make this information public.


COUNCIL OF RESOURCE MINISTERS
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Since it was set up on the recommendation of the "resources for tomorrow conference," how many meetings have been held by the Canadian council of resource ministers?
2.	When and where were these meetings held?
3.	Who was the chairman of each?

March 16. 1966
Questions
4.	Who is the present chairman?
5.	Who is at present the Canadian government representative?
6.	When will the next meeting be held?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Five.
2.	First Meeting-Toronto, September 2021st, 1962, Second Meeting-Montreal, Nov-vember 19-20th, 1963. Third Meeting-Dalvey, P.E.I., June 22-23rd, 1964. Fourth Meeting- Victoria, B.C., May 13-14th, 1965. Fifth Meeting-Montreal, P.Q., December 14-15th, 1965.
3.	First Meeting-Hon. H. W. Spooner, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Government of Ontario. Second Meeting-Hon. Rene Levesque, Minister of Natural Resources, Government of Quebec. Third Meeting-Hon. L. F. Rossiter, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Fisheries, Government of Prince Edward Island. Fourth and fifth Meetings-Hon. R. G. Williston, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Government of British Columbia.
4.	Hon. R. G. Williston, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in the Government of British Columbia.
5.	Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
6.	Probably in May, 1966.


'STAFFS OF INDUSTRY. TRADE AND DEFENCE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total staff, including casual help, employed by the Department of Industry as of March 31, 1964; September 30, 1964; and March 31, 1965?
2.	What was the total staff, including casual help employed by the Department of Trade and Commerce as of the above dates?
3.	What was the total staff, including casual help, employed by the Department of Defence Production as of the above dates?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is: The total staff, including casual help, employed by the Department of Industry is as follows: March 31, 1964, 125; September 30,
1964,	321; March 31, 1965, 368.
The answer to the second part of the question is: The total staff, including casual help, employed by the Department of Trade and Commerce is as follows: March 31, 1964, 1,844; September 30, 1964, 1,920; March 31,
1965,	2,042.
[Mr. Fulton.)
The answer to the third part of the question is as follows. The total staff, including casual help, employed by the Department of Defence Production is as follows: March 31, 1964, 1,639; September 30, 1964, 1,845. This includes 84 employees taken on strength of the department from the Canadian Commercial Corporation; the increase also reflects casual employees particularly during the summer months and additions occasioned by recruiting. March 31, 1965, 2,213. This includes 232 employees taken on strength from the procurement, purchasing and stores branch, production branch, the outside printing production branch and the supporting services contained in the departmental secretary's branch, the administrative services branch and the financial services branch of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.


AERO-MAGNETIC SURVEY
Mr. Fulfon: 1.	When was the federal provincial aero-magnetic survey scheme first inaugurated?
2.	What was the original estimate of the length of time before completion of this scheme?
3.	What was the original estimate of total cost and what amount was to be borne by the federal treasury?
4.	What has been the cost to date and what has been the amount borne by the federal treasury?
5.	What was the area of Intended coverage?
6.	How many provinces have been completely surveyed?
7.	How many provinces have participated or are participating in the program?
8.	What is the percentage of completion (a) with respect to individual provinces (b) with respect to Canada as a whole?
9.	What is the relationship with the province of British Columbia?
10.	How many maps have been published each year?
11.	What is the program with respect to the Yukon and Northwest Territories and how much of this has been completed?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1.	1962.
2.	Twelve years.
3.	$18,377,000 of which the total federal share was $12,358,000.
4.	$5,288,806 of which the federal Treasury has borne $3,374,844.
5.	The Canadian Shield and its fringes and parts of the Yukon Territory.
6.	Three: Nova Scotia, by the Department and private companies; Prince Edward Island,
March 16, 1966

by the Department; New Brunswick, 90 per cent by the Department, 10 per cent by Federal-Provincial.
7.	Eight: Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
8.	(a) Newfoundland, Labrador, 10 per cent; Nova Scotia, 100 per cent completed by Mines and Technical Surveys previously; New Brunswick, 100 per cent; P.E.I., 100 per cent completed by Mines and Technical Surveys previously; Quebec, 20 per cent; Ontario, 65 per cent; Manitoba, 60 per cent (Shield area 85 per cent complete); Saskatchewan, 66 per cent (Shield area 100 per cent complete); Alberta, 25 per cent coverage by G.S.C. and Alberta, 45 per cent coverage privately, 30 per cent remains to be flown (Shield area 100 per cent complete); British Columbia (comprised of 70 4-mile map areas), 5 four-mile sheets published by G.S.C., 8 four-mile sheets flown commercially, 20 per cent complete (8 per cent by Canada and British Columbia, 12 per cent privately).
8. (b)
Aeromagnetic Surveys % Complete* for Canada as a whole
Total number of N.T.S.	Land	Sea	TotalMap sheets 1:250,000	801	261	1,062Private work complete	69	3	72Govt, work complete	234	23	257% complete private	8.6%	1.2%	6.7%% complete Govt. % complete private &	29.2%	8.8%	25.1%Govt.	37.8%	10.0%	31.8%
* With present-day instruments.
Note: It is the intention not to duplicate private work where it is up to standard of government surveys. Attempts are made (sometimes successfully) to get private mining and oil companies to donate data for government publication.
9.	During the planning stages of the scheme, the British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources was invited to send an observer to the meetings but it was pointed out that British Columbia was not included in the scheme because of the technical difficulties presented by the high topographical relief in that province.
In lieu of this, a less formal form of cost sharing scheme on experimental surveys was entered into between the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the British
Questions
Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. This program has proceeded satisfactorily since 1961, resulting in published maps giving the results of various methods of aeromagnetic surveying in the mountains.
10.	On the average, about 550 maps at a scale of one inch to the mile have been published each year.
11.	By 1967 the southern half of the Yukon will have been covered, except for the areas of severe topographic relief.
Contracts for certain areas in the Districts of Keewatin and Mackenzie have been let and are now in progress. A portion of Baffin Island will also be surveyed in 1966. The Northwest Territories are approximately 15 per cent complete.


APPOINTMENT OF CENTENNIAL COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Hamilton: Since December 1, 1964, did the commissioner of the centennial have prior knowledge of and did he approve of and endorse all specific recommendations, made by the associate commissioner of the centennial commission respecting the appointment of personnel, which eventually received approval by Governor General in Council?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR CANADIANS IN U.S.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What, if any, are to date the results of any steps taken by the representatives of the Canadian government with a view to reaching an agreement with the United States authorities in order to make unemployment insurance benefits available to Canadian workers in the United States, especially in the states of Maine and New Hampshire?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, what was in 1962-63-64-65, the number of Canadian workers employed in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York?
3.	On what basis of participation were the agreements with the other 47 American states reached on the same subject?
4.	With regard to this matter, did representatives of the Canadian government submit any suggestions to the representatives of the states of Maine and New Hampshire?
5.	What, if any, are the difficulties hindering such an agreement?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	In 1942 the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States entered

March 16, 1966
Questions
into a master agreement in substantially the same terms as that existing among the States. The Government of the United States has recommended to each of the States that it carry out the provisions of the master agreement with respect to Canada, but no State can be compelled to participate in the agreement if it prefers not to do so.
The Employment Security Commission of Maine, on 30 October 1963, indicated that it was not prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada and the same position has been taken by the State of New Hampshire. There has been no change in the situation since then.
2.	Information not available in the Commission.
3.	Agreements with the other American States were that, so far as possible, the provisions of the reciprocal arrangement already in effect among the States themselves should be extended and applied to Canada.
4.	Proposals were submitted to the Employment Security Commission of Maine and of New Hampshire on several occasions by letter, by informal discussions between American and Canadian officials and by discussion at several formal conferences, including meetings in 1959, in 1962 and in 1963.
5.	The State of Maine considered that it would be too great an increase in the cost to their Unemployment Insurance Fund. The State of New Hampshire stated that it was not prepared to make the required amendment to its legislation to provide for participation in an agreement with Canada.


LANDED IMMIGRANTS REFUSED READMISSION
Mr. Wahn: Have any persons holding Canadian landed immigrant status who have left Canada temporarily been refused readmlssion to Canada and, if so, how many of such persons have been refused readmission in each of the last four calendar years?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Tabulations of the 1965 statistics on deportation are not yet available. From 1961 to 1964 inclusive, no person with Canadian landed immigrant status who left Canada temporarily was refused readmission.


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.-MAINTENANCE OF CONFERENCE SITE
Mr. Stanbury: 1.	What are the arrangements between the governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island

for maintenance supervision and public view of the site of the Charlottetown conference of the fathers of confederation?
2.	Has any consideration been given, at this historic site, to (a) posting R.C.M.P. officers as a guard of honor (b) ensuring careful preservation and maintenance of the building (c) providing a more adequate program of public education?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. The site, the original Legislative Council Chamber within the Province Building, is owned and maintained for public viewing by the Province of Prince Edward Island.
2.	This site is under provincial control.


MR. ALEX WHELAN-CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Irvine: 1.	In what capacity is Mr. Alex Whelan employed by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau?
2.	Is his employment of a full-time nature?
3.	Is he connected with any other business outside the Canadian Government Printing Bureau which is of a similar nature to his work in the bureau and, if so, what business, and who are the other principals?
4.	If such other business does exist, has this enterprise received any contracts from the Canadian Government Printing Bureau and if so, what was the amounts of any such contracts?
5.	Does Mr. Whelan enjoy the use of any equipment or materials which are the property of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau in the operation of any outside interests?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one of the question is as follows. A Mr. Alexander Joseph Gerard Whelan is employed by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau as a clerk 4 in the production control division, main plant.
The answer to part two is yes.
The answer to parts three and four is as follows. No, however, on occasions, Mr. Whelan has taken photos, during working hours, with his own equipment for the staff magazine of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau in connection with suggestion award presentations, fire prevention activities and, on the occasions of distinguished visits to the bureau.
Records indicate that from the fall of 1964 to date, he was reimbursed in an amount of $213.35 for approximately 212 photos, sizes 5x7 and 8 X 10. Commercial photographers are presently charging between $2.50 and $3 for each photograph.
The answer to part five is no.
March 16. 1966


DOLLAR VALUE OF DREDGING OPERATIONS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: Norih and Victoria):
What is the dollar value of the dredging to be carried out during the fiscal year 1966-67 in (a) the province of Ontario, and (b) the province of Nova Scotia?


George James McIlraith: This information is contained in the estimates for the fiscal year 1966-67 which were tabled in the House of Commons on February 14, 1966 and is expected to be (a) in Ontario approximately $2,500,000 and (b) in Nova Scotia approximately $1,000,000.


IMMIGRATION FROM POLAND
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does Canada have an immigration office in Poland?
2.	If not, how are intending immigrants to Canada who qualify by reason of education, training and skills, processed?
3.	For each year since 1960, how many immigrants came from Poland to Canada (a) on a sponsored basis (b) in their own right?


John Carr Munro: 1.	No.
2.	The Immigration Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is unable to process applications for persons in Poland who might otherwise qualify for admission by reason of their education, training or skills. In Poland, as in a number of other countries, it is not possible to obtain the necessary information to permit a proper assessment of the backgrounds of prospective immigrants. Because of this, immigration from Poland is restricted to people who are sponsored by their immediate close relatives in Canada.
3. (a)
Year
1961
1963
1965
Sponsored immigration from Poland 2,562 2,355 1,545 1,405 1,902 1,923
Total
11,692
(b) No immigrants who qualified in their own right have come to Canada directly from 23033-175
Questions
Poland. However, there have been a few Polish immigrants who were not categorized as sponsored. These were persons who came to Canada as non-immigrants and eventually gained Landed Immigrant status while in this country and, to a lesser degree, persons classified as refugees who came to Canada directly from a Western European country. These two groups totalled 357 in the years 1960 to 1965.


LONDON, ONT.-DISPOSAL OF MEREDITH HOUSE
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the property known as Meredith House at 565 Talbot street, London, Ontario, formerly used as army officers' quarters, been turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposition?
2.	If so (a) were tenders or bids called (b) how many were received (c) what was the amount of each bid (d) who was the successful bidder?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Yes; (b) three; (c) $45,500, $38,760 and $31,000; (d) W. Junsen Limited, London, Ontario.
ENAMEL & HEATING PRODUCTS LIMITED-AWARD OF CONTRACTS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the estimated amount of overhaul and repair contracts to be awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Enamel & Heating Products Limited for the fiscal year 1966-67, and (a) what aircraft are involved (b) what is the estimate to be expended on each of the aircraft in question?
2.	What was the total amount of contracts awarded to this firm for the fiscal years 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	It is estimated that overhaul and repair contracts totalhng $640,000.00 will be awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Enamel & Heating Products Limited for fiscal year 1966-67. (a) The work covered by the contracts mentioned above applies to aircraft components. No complete aircraft will be allotted to this firm, (b) For planning purposes, Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., have been informed that the following forecasts of DND arisings have been made: Tracker (CS2F), $300,000.00; Argus Neptune & Miscellaneous (including sub-contracts) $180,000.00; MN1A, $160,000.00; Total, $640,000.00.
2.	Contracts were awarded to this firm in the total amounts indicated hereunder which are all subject to final audit by Audit Services

March 16, 1966
Questions
Branch Treasury Department. Fiscal year 1963/64,	$861,000.00;	1964/65,	$707,000.00;
1965/66, $695,500.00.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND BRIDGES
Mr. Orange: What are the details of the proposed expenditures in vote 50 of the main estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Yukon Territory, construction of roads and bridges; the details in vote 50, Northwest Territories and other field services, construction of roads and bridges?


Arthur Laing: Vote 50- Yukon Territory: Construction of roads and bridges.
1. Ross River-Carmacks Road:
Complete mile 0-50 Construct mile 92-142 (1st year of 2-year program)	$1,500,000
2. Boundary Mile 0-37
Road: Reconstruct

3.	Clinton Creek road: Construct 24 Miles of permanent access road (Representing 2/3 of total cost) Construct bridge over Fortymile river (Representing 2/3 of total cost)
4.	Whitehorse-Keno road: Preengineering mile 52-102 and various locations Installation of guide rails at various locations Complete painting Minto bridge
Complete Willow, Fox and McCabe bridges
Ease Curve and grade at mile 282
5.	Stewart crossing-Dawson road Replace six wooden bridges and raise grade at various locations and improve drainages
6.	Canol road:	Provide Ferry
across Pelly river and improve section mile 0-137
7.	General road construction
8.	General surveys for future development roads
Total

Vote 50-Northwest Territories and other
field services construction of roads and bridges
1.	Fort Smith highway Complete
mile 97.5 to 157	$ 555,000
Construction of mile 38 to 97.5 $1,300,000 Construct two permanent type bridges over Salt River and Little Buffalo River
2.	Hay River highway Reconstruction of Hay River highway within the municipal district of Hay River
3.	Pine Point-Fort Resolution access road clear right-of-way and construct trail from Little Buffalo River to Fort Resolution
4.	Ingraham trail Reconstruct mile 16 to 20 and 1st year of 2 year construction from mile
20 to mile 80	$	900,0005.	Fort Simpson airport road $	50,0006.	Mackenzie highway Extension, of Mackenzie highway from mile 117 toward Fort Simpson $7.	General road constructionMackenzie region	$8.	General road construction eastern Arctic areas	$9.	Access road from Coral harbour to Snafu beach	$	150,00010.	General surveys for futuredevelopment roads	$	100,000

$	50,000
600,000
196,500
114,000
Total

$	43,000
$	72,000
$	15,000


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- ADDITIONAL SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Unemployment Insurance Commission (a) at the head office (b) in the other Ottawa offices, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, $ 235,500 brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for
the Commission?
$ 250,000 $	50,000


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	(a) Three; (b) none.
2.	Appointments are made through the Civil $ 100,000 Service competitions held under the summer

 employment program for university graduates
$4,465,500 and under graduates.

 3. None to our knowledge.

March 16. 1966


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PENSIONS OF RETIRED OFFICERS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many officers In the armed forces have retired each year since April 1963?
2.	How many of said officers are in receipt annually of retirement pensions of (a) between $4 and $5 thousand dollars (b) between $5 and $6 thousand dollars (c) between $6 and $7 thousand dollars (d) between $7 and $8 thousand dollars (e) over $8 thousand dollars?
3.	How many of said officers on retirement were between (a) 40 and 45 years of age (b) 45 and 50 years of age (c) 50 and 55 years of age (d) 55 and 60 years of age?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one of the question is as follows. The number of officers who have retired to pension each year since April 1, 1963 is as follows: April 1 to December 31, 1963, 349; January 1 to December 31, 1964, 803; January 1 to December 31, 1965, 971; January 1 to March 2, 1966, 197.
The answer to part two of the question is as follows. The number of these in each pensions or annuities range listed is as follows: (a) 613, (b) 292, (c) 112, (d) 39 and (e) 33.
The answer to part three of the question is as follows. The number of these in each age bracket listed is as follows: (a) 473, (b) 1,405, (c) 353 and (d) 32.


BANK OF CANADA LOANS
Mr. Caouelfe: 1.	Since the establishment of the Bank of Canada, how many loans or advances have been granted (a) to the government of Canada (b) to each of the ten provinces?
2.	On what date was each loan made?
3.	On what date was it reimbursed?
4.	What was the rate of interest?
5.	Were the loans made in the form of cheques, cash or otherwise?
6.	From what sources did these sums lent to each provincial government come?
7.	Could a provincial government request a loan from the Bank of Canada, and (a) if not, what is the reason (b) if so, under what conditions?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The answer to question No. 2553, which appears on pages 11421 and 11422 of Hansard for February 17, 1965, gives the information requested, in so far as that information is a matter for public record.
5.	The advances were made in the form of cheques or deposit receipts.
Questions
6.	From the general resources of the Bank of Canada.
7.	The powers of the bank with respect to loans or advances to provincial governments are set forth in Section 18(1) (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act.


PLANS FOR CENTENNIAL YOUTH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government received the report on plans for Canada's centennial youth parliament?
2.	What action has been taken on the report?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one of the question is yes. A report by Mr. William A. Fair was received by the Centennial Commission on January 20, 1966.
The answer to part two is, the report is now under study.


INTEREST-FREE DEPOSITS IN CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Hees: 1.	Do the chartered banks have on deposit $100,000,000 on which no interest is paid?
2.	Is interest paid to the government of Canada on deposits with the chartered banks on $100,000,000 or over and, if so, what is the rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The accounts of Canada indicate that the chartered banks currently have on deposit $100,000,000 of Receiver General balances on which the banks pay no interest.
Such accounts do not take into consideration cheques drawn on the Receiver General which have been cashed by the banks but not yet presented by them for reimbursement.
2. The chartered banks pay interest on minimum weekly Receiver General balances deposited with them which are in excess of $100,000,000, as reflected in the Receiver General's accounts. Such interest is calculated on the basis of the weekly average accepted treasury bill tender rate for three-month treasury bill less 10 per cent.


EXTENSION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING TO SOME EMPLOYED GROUPS
Mr. Rynard: Will the government give consideration to extending federal assistance now provided for vocational

March 16, 1966
Questions
and other educational training for unemployed persons to those presently employed but whose educational standards are low, in order that they may be able to obtain training which would keep them in employment as automation increases in industry?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a number of courses in the programs operating under the technical and vocational training agreements between the federal and provincial governments are arranged, as the need or demand warrants, at hours specially selected to coincide with the off-duty periods of employed workers. Additionally, the training program in cooperation with industry, program 4 under the agreements, offers a special inducement for the development of in plant training programs, (a) for employees who, without retraining, would otherwise be displaced because of technological or other industrial changes; (b) for basic educational upgrading; and (c) for apprenticeship.


COMPENSATION FOR DISPLACED EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	Is the government contemplating any measures which would make it necessary for employers to compensate workers who are laid off or forced to move elsewhere owing to automation processes or new working methods?
2.	If so, what would be the nature of such compensation?
3.	If not, will the government give consideration to this question?


John Carr Munro: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The government has a number of programs operating in co-operation with provincial governments, industry and unions which provide financial and other assistance to workers faced with adjustment to industrial change. Any new programs or revisions of existing programs will be announced in the usual way.


HISTORIC SITES-POINT CLARK LIGHTHOUSE
Mr. Loney: Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources reached a decision regarding the question of the Point Clark Light Site for a National Historic Site?


Arthur Laing: 1. The question of preserving the Point Clark Lighthouse

was studied by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada at its 1965 meeting. The board felt it could not give an informed opinion on the merits of the structure until comparative data concerning other Great Lakes lighthouses was available. A study to produce such data was undertaken later in 1965 by the Canadian Historic Sites Division and the required information will be submitted to the Board at the spring meeting.


HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN BREEDERS ON TRADE MISSION
Mr. Moore: 1.	Were any breeders of Holstein-Friesian cattle in the western provinces asked to join the trade mission to Japan and Korea arranged by the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If so, what breeders were approached, and who selected the personnel of the mission?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2. Mission members were selected by the Department of Trade and Commerce in consultation with the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada.


AIR CANADA-ROUTE FROM WINNIPEG TO UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Sherman: 1.	In the next annual edition of Working and Living Conditions in Canada, will the Department of Labour, for the benefit of prospective immigrants, undertake to produce therein a map which will show (a) the existence of a direct Air Canada route from Winnipeg to the United Kingdom via Hudson Bay (b) the existence of a direct Air Canada route from Winnipeg to Ottawa (c) the existence of a direct transAir route from Winnipeg to Churchill?
2.	If not, for what reasons?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, the publication Working and Living Conditions in Canada has been replaced by a series of brief pamphlets outlining the major features of Canadian working and living conditions. These pamphlets do not contain a map of Canada.
The answer to the second part of the question is, not applicable.
March 16, 1966


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT-TOTAL LOANS
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made under the Small Businesses Loans Act assented to December 20, 1960, to date, giving total amount of loans?
2.	How many loans were made and what is the total amount of loans by years as follows: 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the amount of the average loan?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Since inception to December 31, 1965: number of loans, $127,116,521.	14,050;	amount of loans
2.		
Year Number		Amount
1961	2,977	$ 25,582,2691962	2,833	$ 25,687,4341963	2,558	$ 23,279,5171964	2,847	$ 26,534,2071965	2,835	$ 26,033,0943. $9,048.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT-MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made under the Small Businesses Loans Act assented to December 20, 1960. to date, in the province of Manitoba, giving total amount of loans?
2.	How many loans were made and what is the total amount of loans by years as follows: 1961, 1962, 1963. 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the amount of the average loan?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Since inception to December 31, 1965: number of loans, 714; amount of loans, $5,548,645.
2.
Year	Number	Amount1961	162	$	1,230,2641962	144	$	1,272,4631963	127	$	943,5271964	143	$	1,137,4451965 3. $7,771.	138	$	964,946


CANADIAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION-INCOME TAX
Mrs. Maclnnis (Van-couver-Kingsway): 1. Has the Minister of Finance had correspondence, in regard to income tax deductions, with the Canadian Homeowners Association or any officer thereof?
Questions
2.	If so, what were the dates of such correspondence?
3.	What was the nature of the minister's reply to the correspondence?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2.	Letter from the Canadian Homeowners Association dated February 7, 1966. Reply from Minister of Finance dated February 16, 1966.
3.	The reply stated that the proposal of the Canadian Homeowners Association would be carefully studied during the review of tax legislation before the budget is presented.


SALES TAX ON REDESIGNED AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the government considered the advisability of exempting from sales tax, aircraft designed or modified for agricultural purposes?
2.	If not, would the government now consider this matter?
3.	If so, what conclusion was reached and what reasons were considered in arriving at that conclusion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Requests that aircraft used for spraying crops be made exempt from sales tax, as well as representations on a wide range of other sales tax matters, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.


REPORTING OF PERSONAL TAXABLE INCOMES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	For the year 1964, how many personal taxable incomes were reported in each thousand dollar category commencing with 0 to $1,000, and up to $15,000?
2.	How many reported taxable Incomes were there (a) between $15,000 and $20,000 (b) between $20,000 and $25,000 (c) between $25,000 and $50,000 (d) between $50,000 and $100,000 (e) over $100,000?
3.	In each of the categories above, how much income tax was paid?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1, 2 and 3. Available information is based on classes of total income before exemptions and deductions. Information showing the number of taxpayers and also the tax payable by income classes which correspond very nearly to the classes called for in the question is published annually in Taxation Statistics. The latest year for which such information is available is 1963. This will be found in table form on page 8 of 1965 Taxation Statistics, Part One-Individuals. More detailed information of a related nature will be found on pages 24-33 and on pages 76 and 77.

March 16. 1966
Questions


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN SEAL QUOTA
Mr. Tucker: Is the government giving consideration to increasing the quota of seals taken in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this season from 50,000?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No.


BELLETERRE, QUE., RADAR STATION
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	Has the radar station at Belleterre, Temis-camingue county, been in operation since its construction in 1960?
2.	If so, for how long was it in operation and how many employees were there?
3.	Is this station no longer in operation and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	As indicated in Hansard 28 Feb. 1966, page 1,858, the decision to abandon the project was taken in April 1964.


CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION-NAMING OF FEDERAL PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,017
Mr. McCleave:: Will the government consider, as part of the centennial celebration, that former prime ministers who have died or who are no longer in public life be commemorated by ensuring that each has at least one federal project named after him?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, local centennial projects for the construction of projects of a lasting nature in local communities, and confederation memorial projects in the provincial capitals are undertaken under the terms of federal provincial agreements. These agreements do not provide for the naming of centennial projects and since the projects are undertaken by local communities or the provincial governments the responsibility for the selection of names rests with those organizations.
The government will give consideration to naming appropriate federal projects which will be recommended by the appropriate minister, after former prime ministers who have died or who are no longer in public life.
(Mr. Benson.)


FISHERIES REGULATIONS-LANDING OF FISH IN CANADA
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Do the fisheries regulations applicable to the landing of fish in Canada by a vessel, trawler or dragger registered outside Canada apply to a vessel, trawler or dragger registered outside Canada which is chartered to a provincial crown corporation?
2.	If so, will they be strictly enforced?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 104 and 105 are acceptable to the government with the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and subject to the consent of the provincial authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions 104 and 105 shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
PULPWOOD EXPORT FACILITIES Motion No. 104-Mr. Cashin:
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 referring to facilities for the export of pulpwood exchanged during 1964, 1965 and 1966 between any federal minister and any minister of the provincial government of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Asselin (Richmond-
Wolfe):
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, dated July 2, 1965, sent by the Minister of Labour to the province of Nova Scotia concerning municipal winter works projects for the winter of 1965-66, and for a copy of any reply.
Motion agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notices of motion Nos. 100 and 101?
March 18, 1966	COMMONS


ORDERS IN COUNCIL SUMMONING PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an	humble	address	be presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of the order in council, instrument of advice or other document summoning parliament for the sittings thereof commencing on November 12, 1953, January 8, 1957, October 14, 1957, May 12, 1958, September 27, 1962, May 16, 1963 and January 18, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr, Bell (Carleton):
That an	humble	address	be presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of the order in council, instrument of advice or other document dissolving the House of Commons before the general elections of June 10, 1957, March 31, 1958, June 18, 1962, April 8, 1963 and November 8, 1965.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after discussion with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), I realize that these two motions will not produce the information in the form in which I desire it. Therefore I would ask leave of the house to withdraw the two motions, without prejudice to my right to put a question or questions on the order paper which would elucidate the constitutional problem.
I would like to express my appreciation for the courtesy of the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council in the discussion.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motions 100 and 101 be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motion stand.
[English)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
DEBATES	2773
Inquiries of the Ministry direct a question to the Minister of Industry, and ask him whether or not representations have been received from the government of the province of Saskatchewan offering to enter into a partnership for the construction of a heavy water plant in Saskatchewan? Has the minister had such a communication from Premier Thatcher? Has the government given any consideration to that suggestion in determining the matter that is now under consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as this jurisdiction now falls under my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, I will turn the matter over to him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a similar question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). At that time I said that the three months allowance permitting discussion between Canadian General Electric and the provinces and municipalities interested in seeing this heavy water plant established in their territory, normally would end on Friday. So the decision should come the day after tomorrow. I do not think I can say anything more.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question I asked. The question is, did the premier on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan offer to proceed with the plant in the form of a partnership whereby the equity capital required to build the plant would be provided by a guarantee of the bonds of a company by the provincial government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not aware of such negotiations, Mr. Speaker, but I think they would interest only Canadian General Electric and the government of Saskatchewan. The government of Canada is interested in getting a contract with Canadian General Electric for the production of heavy water. The kind of contract Canadian General Electric has with Saskatchewan is, I believe, their own business.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one more question, Mr. Speaker. Was this suggestion not made by the Premier of Saskatchewan to the federal government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was not made to me, anyway.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I might clarify this matter, Mr. Speaker. There was some earlier discussion between myself and the Premier
March 16, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of Saskatchewan along these lines. It was pointed out to the Premier of Saskatchewan that for the time being the federal government was endeavouring to negotiate an agreement with Canadian General Electric and we would prefer to wait and see how this turned out before proceeding with alternative schemes.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Industry whether this was a salvage operation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, this was a constructive operation.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State of which I have given her notice. In view of the fact that on May 4 last her predecessor indicated that a committee of his department had been set up to draft a National Co-operative Act, I should like to ask the minister whether that committee has finished its work and if the National Co-operative Act will be introduced at this session of parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question, particularly since I had not heard of the matter before. I am glad to inform the house that a committee of four was established, as was reported earlier, to study the type of legislation needed to meet the requirements of co-operatives and to indicate the provisions of such legislation in sufficiently detailed form to allow preparation of a bill.
This committee has apparently held regular meetings, and substantial progress I am informed is reported. It is hoped that the committee will be in a position to report to the government within a reasonable length of time, but as yet I am advised that no fixed date can be established because of the complexity of the problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the committee working on this draft legislation holding conferences or discussions with co-operative organizations who, it would seem to me, could give a good deal of useful information in framing such legislation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not aware of the answer to that question but I should be glad to make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In view of the statement promised for early March on the Canada Labour Relations Board concerning the C.N.T.U. application to be certified as bargaining agent for the employees of the French network of the C.B.C., can the minister tell us when it will be made and when he will report on this application of the C.N.T.U. to be recognized and certified as bargaining agent by the Canadian Labour Relations Board?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the Canada Labour Relations Board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour and I cannot say when he will be in a position to make a statement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he tell us whether he is using his influence with the Minister of Labour to settle this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is unacceptable and against the rules.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my supplementary question in another way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is aware of the fact that a question to the Minister of Labour should be put to that minister, and not to another one.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think hon. members of this house and all Canadians have been proud to hear the reports concerning Mr. Chester Ronning's mission in the Far East as a special envoy of the government. In view of the fact that Mr. March 16. 1966

Ronning has returned to Canada and it is reported that he has had meetings in both Hanoi and Saigon, could the minister tell us something of this report and what the success of his mission has been?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend will remember that last week a question was asked of me in this context by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), and I asked him at that time if he would be good enough not to press his question. It is clear that the Canadian government, along with the other governments on the International Control Commission, has been anxious to ascertain whether or not in the opinion of countries concerned there is a role for the Commission to play in trying to bring about negotiations. Mr. Ronning will be reporting to the government in due course. Beyond that there is nothing I can add.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the minister could tell us if Mr. Ronning will be available to appear before the house committee on external affairs, which will probably be meeting very shortly, even if Mr. Ronning should have to appear in camera.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent that Mr. Ronning, who has been in Saigon and Hanoi, was not sent on a joy ride. I think my hon. friend will recognize that in order to achieve what is intended, there is a time for disclosure of what is being attempted, and I must say that now is not that moment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not hear all my question. I asked him whether it would be possible for Mr. Ronning to appear at an in-camera meeting of the house committee on external affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would think at this moment that it would not be desirable.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Several days ago, in a written reply to a question asked by the hon. member for

Inquiries of the Ministry Sherbrooke, the minister used these words,
and I quote:
The Canadian government continues to recognize the government of the Republic of China at its present seat of government.
I would ask the minister whether the inclusion of that last qualifying phrase was meant to imply that the Canadian government is entertaining some thoughts about a two China concept?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this is a question which should be placed on the Order Paper.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask the minister what he meant when he said that Canada recognized the Republic of China but only at its present seat of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe that question can be asked in its present form.

NATO___POSSIBILITY OF MEETING FOLLOWING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell the house if the NATO member-countries will soon meet in order to study the recent stand taken by France toward that organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consultations have taken place with our allies. A meeting is being held at the present time in Paris; there will be another one on Friday and we keep continuously in touch with the countries concerned.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked him a question regarding the note sent by President de Gaulle to the several countries comprising NATO, and there was an indication in his
March 16. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry answer that it was not available. In view of the fact that the note was set forth verbatim in the New York Times of March 13, one note being sent to the United States and a similar one to all the other countries of NATO, would he care, the note having been made available, to table a copy?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker. Until the government has had an opportunity of considering that note I think my right hon. friend would agree that it would not be proper to table it. The note which appeared in the New York Times is not in the precise terms of the note addressed to Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question. In just what terms might it be different and why is there a delay in time? Do we also receive it by slow boat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has forgotten that last Friday I said that the note had been received the day before. The note refers to matters which are of special interest to France and Canada, matters that concern Canadian bases, that concern aspects which involve our bilateral relationships in NATO-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Bilateral?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course. My hon. friend knows that there are two Canadian bases in France, and the French government has indicated that it is prepared to negotiate as to the modality of implementing its policy with regard to those bases. But these are Canadian bases, not United States bases. Therefore the note deals with matters of special concern to Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question. It was my understanding, though I may have been wrong, that these were Canadian NATO bases in France and therefore our relationship with France was on a multilateral basis. The minister denied the other day that we were dealing with them on a bilateral basis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -so which is the true position now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On January 24 I filed questions Nos. 202 and 212 with respect to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the province of Alberta. Could I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to answer the said questions; and if not, why not?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course it is the intention of the government to answer all questions. I assume in this case, as in every other case, officials of my department sent along to the Electoral Boundaries Officer, Mr. Castonguay, a request that this information be provided and that he then got in touch with the province of Alberta's commission so far as both these questions are concerned. The fact that the questions have not yet been answered simply means that we have not yet heard, I assume, from Alberta.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Is the message going by walk or by dog team?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The difficulty is not how slowly the message goes but how quickly the answer comes back.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Either.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government made any decision on the implementation of the report of the Senate committee on aging or in connection with old age pension increases generally?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this very important report is under very urgent consideration.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry.
March 16, 1966	COMMONS
As it is indicated that a sale of heavy equipment which entered Canada free of taxes and originated at the Harmon air force base is imminent, would the minister give consideration, if the quantities are substantial or alarming, to withholding parts of the sale so as not to cause an adverse impact of such surplus disposals on the Canadian market?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to answer so hypothetical a question.


James Russell Keays: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry. I wonder how hypothetical my question could be when the C.A.D.C. says that the sale is imminent.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Is the minister aware of the steady decrease in prices, or can he tell the house whether his department is watching closely the excessive variation of market prices for pork?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is somewhat general and I think that the hon. member might put it on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Yesterday, by leave, he laid on the table certain regulations dealing with alien employment. He did so in response to an undertaking he had made on February 24. Looking at Hansard for that date, I see that what the hon. gentleman then undertook to do was to table correspondence with what he described as the United States Consul here in Ottawa in relation to this matter. He undertook to do so at the request of the hon. member for Megantic. I wonder
DEBATES	2777
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the minister would table the correspondence which he then undertook to table?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is right. That is what I said. We were discussing the regulations concerning Canadian workers crossing the border and asking for work in the United States. I did not table the letter which transmitted the regulations because I was told that before tabling such a letter I would have to have the agreement of the United States Consul who supplied me with the regulations. If you want me to ask for that permission, I am ready to do so. However, the letter simply transmitted the regulations.


Richard Albert Bell: In the minister's interests I should like him to clear the record in relation to this matter.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise the house what progress he has made with regard to a formula or system whereby employers will be paid for over-contributions to the Canada Pension Plan?


Edgar John Benson: None, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Does the minister expect to formulate some plan in the near future?


Edgar John Benson: The United States government has been trying to do this for 20 years. We are looking into the problem but we do not expect to settle it in a few months.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Does the minister feel we should have to wait 20 years as in the United States?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Has a specific date been set for a meeting with U.A.W. representatives concerning the situation of Studebaker employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting arranged by my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration two days ago, I think, at

March 16, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry which the question of what could, should and would be done in relation to Studebaker employees was thoroughly canvassed during the course of almost the entire morning.



HAMILTON, ONT.-ALTERNATIVE USE FOR STUDEBAKER PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Has the minister received a request from the mayor of the city of Hamilton to discuss some alternative use for the Studebaker plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hope to see the mayor of Hamilton on this subject tomorrow morning.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation resulting from the ever-rising cost of living and the detrimental effect it has on people with fixed incomes and pensions, I ask if there have been any communications from the federal government to the provinces, in view of the constitutional powers in the British North America Act, for a joint effort to meet this serious situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend could wait for a few days-I know how important this question is to him and to all of us-I am sure the Minister of Finance, when he introduces his budget, will be able to deal with the question and explain to the house the steps that have been taken.


John George Diefenbaker: When the Prime Minister says, "in a few days", does that mean the budget is going to be brought down in a few days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, in a few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? Some time ago the Prime Minister asked the Economic Council if they would look into the question of rising prices to ascertain whether or not

they were warranted. How soon can we expect a report from the Economic Council on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have made, I think, two inquiries since my hon. friend asked the question and have urged on them the desirability of getting this study completed as quickly as possible. I will get in touch with them again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Prime Minister consider providing staff, if that is what is necessary, to get this report to the government at as early a date as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If it is a matter merely of a shortage of staff, I am sure that can be corrected for a temporary purpose like this. I doubt that that is the difficulty, but I shall inquire.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he set the date yet for the presentation of his budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have set the date in my own mind but I have not yet cleared it with my colleagues.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's announced cut-back in public works projects, has the government, in pursuance of its policy of co-operative federalism, enlisted the support of the provinces in this particular activity? I ask this question in view of the increased budgets of the provinces for public works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been taken up with the provinces.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With what results?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
March 16. 1966	COMMONS
Prime Minister? In view of the representations by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands with regard to a certain television program that was scheduled to appear yesterday and in view of the fact that such television program did appear, are we now to accept the fact that judicial inquiries and other judicial processes are to be replaced by trial by television?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the government considering a review of the pension and other rights of Mr. John Kroeker who was dismissed from the Civil Service for expressing views concurred in by many Canadians?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not been considering it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the minister consider such a request now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not aware that any such request has been made. I saw the gentleman in question yesterday on the hill outside the building, but I am not aware nor have I been informed by the Civil Service Commission that he has made any such request.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can indicate why it has taken so long to answer my starred question No. 927, which I filed almost two weeks ago at the suggestion of the Chair?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give immediate personal consideration to this question. It is one, I think, that should be answered very quickly.
DEBATES	2779
Inquiries of the Ministry EXPO '67



PERFORMANCE BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE BAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State in her capacity as minister for culture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the discriminatory practice being used by the vice president of the American Federation of Musicians in not allowing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police band to be recorded at Expo '67?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the way the question is put by the hon. member it cannot be accepted because whether or not the minister's attention has been drawn to the particular situation to which the hon. member is referring cannot be considered an urgent matter.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Ten o'clock, according to Provisional Standing Order 39A.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister explain today's report that the Canadian government has withdrawn support from McGill University's high altitude research project while United States military support is being extended?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe this is a question which should be placed on the Order Paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give us the approximate date when he intends to announce the government's dairy policy for the coming year?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government's proposals with respect to dairy policy will be announced shortly, certainly before April 1 which is the commencement of the dairy year.
March 16. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CROP INSURANCE-POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTER
On the orders of the day:


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I answer another question.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Chap-leau (Mr. Laprise), I wish to inform him, as I indicated to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on February 22 last, that a conference took place on February 17 with representatives of all the provinces, to discuss matters pertaining to crop insurance.
At that meeting, hon. Mr. Courcy and his advisers, spoke to us about the Massicotte report.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. Can he advise the house whether or not any members of the ministry, all of whom have sworn loyalty and fealty to Her Majesty the Queen, will be attending the reception tomorrow at the embassy of Southern Ireland to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Irish rebellion of 1916?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The other day I raised with him the question of pay for pilots in the air sector of our defence forces. Is he now in a position to tell us why certain members of the air force were told that they were getting a pay increase?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.



R.C.A.F.-CURTAILMENT IN FLIGHTS OVER FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, yesterday my hon. friend asked me two questions with respect to the curtailment of R.C.A.F. over-flight privileges in France. I am [Mr. Greene.)
informed by the staff of the Department of National Defence that the answer to both those questions is no.



FISHERIES


Hédard-J. Robichaud: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada; to provide, in connection therewith, that the Minister may undertake federal projects or participate in federal-provincial projects and make payments in consequence thereof; to provide also for the establishment of advisory committees for carrying out the purposes of the Act and the remuneration and expenses of their members; to provide further that all expenditures for the purpose of the said measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament therefor.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in January
of 1964, slightly over two years ago, I had the honour of convening in Ottawa a federal-provincial conference on fisheries development. The outcome of that conference was that the representatives of the federal government and the ten provinces agreed to co-operate in the formulation and implementation of a national development program. Such a program, it was decided, would include measures to expand available resources, measures to improve the technique of catching and processing and to facilitate their adoption, measures to diversify products and improve quality, measures to expand markets and reduce price uncertainty-in short, measures to bring about greater productivity and efficiency in all phases of the fishing industry.
We of the federal government, together with those responsible for fisheries in the provinces, have now had two years in which to formulate and implement, in part, a program to carry out the stated aims of the conference. It need hardly be said that the development and expansion of the fishing industry are rooted in productive capacity at the primary level. To harvest the resources of the seas around us and all our fresh water areas it is necessary that our fishing force, which is large and industrious, be well equipped for its trade. It must also be well trained in both the old methods of operation and in the newer ones which have been introduced in the past few years, and others now being explored.
March 16, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
To enable the fishing force to obtain the more modern, mechanized equipment-the vessels and gear-that they need, a number of forms of financial assistance already in existence have had to be improved upon and others have had to be inaugurated.
Much has been done in the past two years on development projects and much more is planned with a view not only to the further utilization of the traditional fisheries but also the exploitation of species of fish which are not now taken by Canadian ships. On the Pacific coast, we are encouraging the utilization of the offshore groundfish resource and exploring ways and means of making use of such species as dogfish to provide a new source of income for fishermen. We foresee also a very substantial development in the herring fishery, particularly in the Atlantic, where our fishing fleets, inshore, near offshore and deep sea, are undergoing the expansion and modernization which is imperative if we are to meet the increasing market demand for our fish products.
A new fishery is shaping up in the form of a substantial tuna development which is being established in New Brunswick. This in itself is unique in that it inaugurates what we might call the first far distant fishing operations by Canadians.
I could list scores of projects which are under way or planned for fisheries development. Some of these are being carried out by my department at 100 per cent federal cost, while others are joint endeavours in co-operation with the provinces and the industry.
I must emphasize that our total fisheries development program will stand or fall on the availability of qualified fishing crews both in the inshore and offshore fisheries. This very real manpower problem is presenting a major challenge to the provincial as well as the federal authorities. However, we are determined to meet it head on and to this end there is close federal-provincial co-operation not only in the design of vessels and improved fishing methods generally but in what we hope will be effective vocational training activities.
Development of the resource itself is fundamental to any development or expansion of the fisheries. I am gratified and impressed with the total response of our resources development personnel in all parts of Canada to the intricate demands which confront them in this regard. I say "intricate" demands for it is in this field that we attempt to improve upon
DEBATES	2781
Commercial Fisheries Development the natural environment of the fish and try to reduce or eliminate the damages caused by industrial and other uses of water resources. I shall have much more to say in this regard, Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are discussed before the Standing Committee on Fisheries.
The addition of industrial and other wastes to fresh water contribute to massive changes in plant and animal life up to and including the fishes. These changes are not really understood and, I am pleased to say, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada is to carry out a program in the area to identify what these changes are and why they occur.
This particular program is just one of many which will be launched by both Canada and the United States under reference to the International Joint Commission.
In keeping with the vigorous industrial and resource development programs there has been simultaneous and effective expansion of the technological and biological programs of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. In other words, development of the fisheries and broadening of scientific research have gone hand in hand as they must.
Today there is virtually no part or aspect of fisheries which does not come under the influence of science. As fishing techniques and methods of processing and of handling fish change, and as we seek to move out into new areas and to develop untapped resources, the active support of science becomes ever more vital. I am impressed that the Fisheries Research Board has found it possible to cope with its increased work load which has taxed its men and facilities to the utmost.
The excellent reputation which our Canadian fish products enjoy on the domestic market and in the many countries to which they go is indicative, I think, of the efforts of our industry to diversify their products and to maintain high standards of quality. It reflects also, I think, the contributions in the inspection field which my department has made in promoting high standards.
A major advance was accomplished with the passing of fresh and frozen fish plant registration legislation which became effective April 1, 1965. Excellent co-operation has been received from industry in meeting the requirements for construction, equipment and the sanitary operation of some 220 fresh and frozen fish processing plants.
The products of our fisheries generally are now enjoying excellent markets; the demand
March 18, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development is good both at home and abroad and prices are strong. The problem now is one of supply rather than demand, and it is to assure the supply that this Fisheries Development Act, which I now expect to have the privilege to introduce, has been prepared.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the comments of the Minister of Fisheries, as he announced the details of a measure for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada. This will certainly be a measure that is of considerable importance to Canada and to the Atlantic provinces in particualr.
Since I was first elected as a member of parliament in 1957 I have not been able to avoid feeling that in some parts of Canada the fishing industry is looked upon as being of little or no importance. Fish was something tolerated in the central and western Canadian provinces and on Friday, known as fish day, there was much rejoicing if an alternative to fish could be found. As a result of this attitude the consumption of fish in Canada is still only approximately 13 pounds per person, which is regretable in view of the high nutritional value of high quality sea food.
I welcome the minister's statement and I point out to him that the commercial fishing industry is vitally important not only to the economy of the Atlantic provinces but to Canada as a whole. Last year this industry reached a new peak of production. Nearly
925.900.000	pounds of fish were landed by Maritime fishermen, at a landed value of more than $65 million. When one realizes that marketed values are approximately twice the landed values, it then becomes apparent just how important these dollars are to the Maritime area and to the economy of Canada as a whole.
One cannot help but be impressed by the progress which has been made by the industry in recent years and by the growth of the larger long-liners, draggers and trawlers, which can only be described as bringing about a complete transformation of the industry. Unavoidably this has brought many new problems requiring solutions. A shortage of skilled manpower, as mentioned by the minister, for new ships is already developing. The training of new recruits and of adult fishermen is a problem in itself. In fact, in my opinion the future of the fishing industry in Canada will be jeopardized unless some
10.000	men are trained and added to the 
industry within the next ten years in addition to those who are now engaged in the industry.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The minister has stated he is aware of this problem but I should like him to be more definite when he outlines the government's program to assist in the training of these men. If we can develop the same progressive approach to manpower policies as we are now developing with regard to the design and construction of ships for the fishing industry, we can be assured of a bright future for this industry. I think the time has arrived for upgrading the industry. The fishermen of Canada's east coast have never had a status in society commensurate with the risks they undertake, the labour they perform and the contribution they make to the economic life of the nation. The income of a fisherman has never been a true reflection of, or a realistic reward for, the risks he undertakes in his profession. However, things are changing, and this measure would indicate that the importance of the fisherman as a producer is being realized not only by the industry but by all levels of government.
I would point out to the minister that the proper management of larger plants and larger fleets of ships is becoming a major problem. The present expanded industry has inherited the facilities of the much older inshore and salt fish industries and there are many communities which have not yet been able to achieve the transformation and equip themselves with the plants, harbours and wharves that a modern, highly competitive industry and trade require. There is a great opportunity in this area for the Minister of Fisheries, in co-operation with the Minister of Public Works, to provide extensive dredging, new wharves and breakwaters which are urgently required and are an integral part of a growing and expanding fishing industry.
Nearly three-quarters of the earth's surface is covered by water. It is the last great frontier on earth. In view of the foreseeable needs of humanity it is not a moment too soon to begin a serious and systematic study and exploration of the potential of the sea.
Our North America fishing industry is still somewhat primitive from a technological point of view. For example, the Soviet Union has increased its fishing production within the past year by 25 per cent. To put Canadian fishermen in their rightful place in world fisheries we must apply advanced technology to the industry without delay. We must tell
March 16, 1966

our problems to the scientists and enlist their aid in solving them. We must search the world for new markets. How many people are aware, for example, of the staggering tonnage of fish which is caught and then shoved overboard because in our western society the catch is considered unmarketable? Surely the industry, the scientist and the technologist can work together to utilize these species for the benefit of humanity as well as providing profit to the industry. Methods of fishing, types of boats and gear not yet used in the Atlantic provinces are proving to be successful elsewhere. There are resources of fish that the Atlantic provinces have not yet tried to exploit, products for which a good price may be obtained; yet no effort has been made so far to produce and sell them.
We must carry out greater studies of the ocean floor along our entire continental shelf. We must study the effect of ocean currents on our fish population. We must study the possibility of developing fish farms especially for the rearing of lobsters, to help improve our inshore stocks which are rapidly being depleted. I suggest that a special "sea grant" be made to our colleges. Such a grant would help to further the studies of those interested in marine science and technology and lead to the increased knowledge by which man will one day, it is hoped, begin to tap more of the untold riches of the sea.
I welcome the measure which the minister has introduced. He has told us his department has adopted improved methods of inspection in the fisheries plants throughout Canada. I commend him for this move because I am sure it is of vital importance that strict enforcement be carried out. It is perhaps one result of slack enforcement in former years that fish were exported or sold in Canada in a condition which only served to blacken the name of a product so vitally important to the economy of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces generally.
I cannot impress on the minister too strongly the need for maintaining strict fisheries inspection. It is essential to the entire industry. We welcome this move. I reserve the right to make further comments when the bill is before us at a later stage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his opening remarks gave us a brief summary of the modest program which is being carried out by his department and its agencies since the federal-provincial fisheries conference of January, 1954. What disturbed me was that

Commercial Fisheries Development as far as I could follow him the hon. gentle-tnan gaWTno indication at all oTwhat it is proposed to accomplish through the legislation to follow this resolution apafTfrom what is already being done according to him, by his department in^ co-operation with the prov-Tnces~Tn some cases. I hope That before the "present measure is passed the minister will do something to rectify this situation?
'"The minister said that joint projects had been undertaken since the conference. He mentioned participation in measures for training the work force in the fishing industry. He mentioned research programs by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. He mentioned also the growing interest which he suggested would be taken in the control of water pollution involving measures which would have a beneficial effect on certain of our fisheries.
But I had been looking forward to hearing something more from the minister in connection with this resolution. His statement, as he himself indicated, was only a brief summary of what is being done or has been done. I was looking forward to a statement about the additional work which would be undertaken as a result of the introduction of the legislation which this resolution precedes. I had the pleasure of being in Ottawa at the time that conference was held, and it was apparent there was a desire on the part of some of the provinces to give greater recognition in the future to the potentialities for economic expansion of Canada's fisheries.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In considering what legislation may be introduced as a result of this resolution we should pay attention to Canada's position in respect of the world fishery. World fishery production has more than doubled within a relatively short period of years, but if one looks at the statistics, curves and graphs indicating Canada's position it is apparent that over a long period of time our total volume has remained almost static at a level of approximately 1 million metric tons per year compared with total world production of 40 million metric tons. The volume of production of many other fishing nations has increased drastically, in some cases doubling, tripling and quadrupling.
I do not say this merely to be critical of the minister, but when the government introduces a resolution such as this we have the right to expect that it foreshadows a major
March IB, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development expansion in Canadian production through the efforts of the federal government and those of some of the provinces. A number of the provinces have been showing an increasing interest in participating in the expansion of the fishing industry. According to figures I have seen the most impressive progress has been made in Nova Scotia.
Some figures recently incorporated in a brief presented to the government of British Columbia indicated that between 1963 and 1965, the figure for 1965 being only preliminary, fishery landings in Nova Scotia increased from 425,000,000 lbs. to 592,000,000 lbs, with the landed value increasing from $36 million plus to $48 million plus. The figures for my own province of British Columbia show a decline in the volume of fish landings for the same period and the increase in the landed value has been very small, relatively speaking.
Before this legislation is passed in its final form I hope the minister will give us a detailed picture of the participation which the various provinces have indicated they are prepared to take in expanding the industry. If he cannot do it now, perhaps he can do it when the Fisheries Committee is considering his estimates.
The question of what is being proposed in this new legislation still bothers me. Is it to introduce a new program that could be compared in any way to the ARDA program? Perhaps I should remind the committee again of the suggestion contained in a letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Newfoundland in February, 1963, when the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, outlined the basic position and approach which would be taken by a government that he hoped to form after April 8 of that year. He indicated that after taking office he would promptly call a federal-provincial fisheries conference.
That undertaking was carried out with fairly reasonable dispatch, but the Prime Minister further suggested in his letter that the conference would work out a federal-provincial program for fishery development to be founded on the principle that national action for fisheries should parallel the action already being taken with respect to agriculture. This basic theme was reiterated before the federal-provincial conference by the Premier of Newfoundland when he presented his government's brief.
But I suggest the program of action outlined by the minister today could hardly be said to parallel the programs currently in effect in the field of agriculture. I do not suggest that such programs can be exactly parallel in every respect. Naturally there will be differences of approach because of the different natures of the industries, but I hope the minister will indicate that this resolution heralds something much wider and broader than the programs that have been developed since the federal-provincial conference was held.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am somewhat concerned about the question of whether the government of B.C. is showing any great sign of interest in the future of the fishery resources of that province. I know it has a two-man subsection concerned with fisheries and that a fisheries report was recently published under its auspices. But the present budget of the province of B.C. makes provision for only $32,872 for the commercial fisheries branch, which amounts to five one hundred thousandths of 1 per cent of the budget of the province of B.C. That is less money than the amount budgeted for the operation of the minister's office in the department of recreation and conservation of British Columbia. Naturally I am concerned about what effect the proposal which the Minister of Fisheries is putting before the house will have on the fisheries of British Columbia. I also am interested in what indications there are that the government of British Columbia is prepared to participate in federal-provincial projects as suggested by the resolution.
I think some of us were encouraged by the relative interest which was displayed at the federal-provincial fisheries conference by the governments of some of the inland provinces of Canada. To me there appears to be a real desire on the part of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that there should be a future for their inland fisheries. I should like to know whether, under the proposal that is being made here, anything will be possible in the field of fish farming which has been suggested as one of the ways in which our inland species of fish could be developed to greater levels of commercial importance.
There are many questions one could ask. However, my principal concern after having listened to the minister is that he did not appear to indicate in any way how this resolution would either expand or change the

March 16, 1966	COMMONS
programs which have been initiated in various parts of the country since the federal-provincial fisheries conference was held. He also gave us no idea, so far as I was able to determine, what order of expenditure he envisaged might be sought from parliament by the government for the purpose of carrying out what is suggested in the resolution.
These are some of the questions that need to be answered. Until they are answered it really is impossible for us to determine whether or not in fact the legislation which the minister suggests should be introduced will be worth while.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is any disposition on the part of the committee to conclude the discussion on this resolution before five o'clock but in case there is I propose to make my remarks comparatively brief. We have listened with interest to the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries outlining in a rather brief way the progress which has been achieved over the past two years. I am sorry the minister did not go into more detail concerning the plans for the future and just what he hopes to achieve in say the next two years.
So far as the resolution is concerned, it does not present in any detail whatsoever the proposals of the minister with regard to the measure which will be introduced following this discussion. I note that in the Speech from the Throne reference was made to the fact that measures would be introduced in the current session to assist the commercial fishing industry of this nation. I am wondering whether there will be just the one bill introduced or whether the minister has a series of measures which he feels will be necessary to achieve the objectives he has in mind so far as the fishing industry of Canada is concerned.
We do not have to speak at any length on the value of the fisheries resource to our nation. Reference was made a few days ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I believe, to the statement which is set out in the Canada Year Book. He pointed out at that time that the situation was rather static so far as the fishing industry was concerned in that the total market value was about $250 million. To emphasize the fact that this is of interest not only to our own nation the Canada Year Book points out that only about one third of this output is used domestically and that the remainder is shipped abroad in
DEBATES	2785
Commercial Fisheries Development fresh, frozen, canned, salted, dried or otherwise preserved forms.
It is also indicated that Canada is one of the major suppliers of fish and fish products to world markets, being surpassed by only Japan and Norway in respect of the value of such exports. So far as our over-all national economy is concerned, even though relatively speaking the fishery does not come anywhere near the economic value of some other industries, this resource does have a substantial influence and effect upon our economy.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg referred to the food value of this product and the fact that the consumption of fish production in Canada was very light indeed. I think this is regrettable because on many occasions it has been pointed out how important fish products are in so far as health is concerned.
I should like to refer to one statement found in a pamphlet, "Facts On Fish", dated October 7, 1964. It quotes these words of Dr. F. J. Stare, chairman of the department of nutrition, Harvard University:
The nutrient composition of fish makes it an extremely valuable food in terms of the present day concepts of nutrition in relation to better human health. This is because fish are really excellent sources of good quality protein, of many minerals and vitamins. Fish as oompared with most high quality protein foods are generally low in fats, and the fat that is present in fish has a generous proportion of the polyunsaturated fats.
This points out not only the importance of this industry commercially but also its importance so far as the health of our people is concerned.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Did I understand him to say that I misrepresented the nutritional value of fish?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. I did not mean to leave that inference at all. In fact, I understood the hon. member to be emphasizing the importance of it. I referred only to the fact that the hon. member had stated that the per capita consumption of fish products in Canada was very low indeed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you very much.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is also pointed out in so far as the employment picture in respect of our fish resource is concerned that more than
COMMONS DEBATES	March 16, 1966
Commercial Fisheries Development
80,000	commercial fishermen operate in Canada and more than 13,000 persons are employed in the fish processing industry. I think that no matter what criteria we use in assessing the importance of this industry this points up very well that we ought to give active consideration not only to the maintenance of the industry but to its development in every part of our country.
I should like to refer to the fact, as has been pointed out already by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that in British Columbia the Pacific fisheries are not in a very healthy condition. The brief presented by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union on February 20, 1966, refers to the problems of the Pacific coast fishing industry as representing a crisis. To point up the situation that exists they go into some detail in dealing with the problems that are encountered in the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia.
I shall not deal in detail today with these problems because no doubt on some future occasion we will be able to deal at some length with some of the problems mentioned in that brief. We should like to emphasize and re-emphasize the seriousness of the problems that face the west coast fishing industry as well as fishermen in other parts of Canada. No doubt the problems in other parts of the country are different but nevertheless all these areas are faced with peculiar and particular problems which require concentrated effort in order to find solutions.
As I mentioned, in the Speech from the Throne reference was made to the introduction of measures to assist in the development of our commercial fishing industry. Reference has been made this afternoon to the dominion-provincial conference held some two years ago at which many aspects of the fishing industry were considered and endeavours were made to work out joint programs and joint attacks on problems that are inherent in the industry.
I hope this co-operation will continue and will be expanded because we all realize that there must be co-operation at the various levels of government in order to achieve the desired results. While we acknowledge the fact that the federal administration has a tremendous responsibility so far as the fisheries of Canada are concerned, the provincial administrations must also assume some responsibility and work in co-operation with the federal government in regard to various programs and plans.
[Mr. Patterson.!
I do not propose to deal at greath length with the various areas concerned and the issues in regard to which joint programs are essential. They have been pointed out by the minister and mentioned by other members. But in all these fields I believe there must be close co-operation in order to apply sound principles of conservation, development and marketing and have regard to all the other factors that enter into this very important industry. We look forward to the introduction of the bill when we will have much more information and will be able to assess the various proposals which the minister will bring before us. We shall reserve further comment for that occasion.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a few minutes at this time to discuss the resolution before us. I would be very remiss in my duty if I did not speak on the resolution at this time in view of the fact that approximately 5,000 people in the province of Quebec earn their living from the sea. Sadly enough, there are approximately 1,100 who earn less than $3,000 a year. Fifty eight per cent of that $3,000 comes from payments such as unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance and family allowances. Therefore these fishermen are earning from their trade approximately $1,000 to $1,200 per year. I am referring to the inshore fishermen of whom there are quite a few and for whom from year to year it is much harder to earn a living.
Many changes have been made in deep sea fishing in the last few years. There is now the need to consider more help for these fishermen because of the technological advances that have been made. The fishermen must be aware of these new systems and must understand their operation. They must have a knowledge of the equipment with which they are working. I am sure that in this field alone the government can help in co-operation with the provinces and do much to alleviate the situation existing at the present time. There is a need for the fishermen to have technological knowledge and assistance in the realm of education. I hope that included in the bill to follow the resolution there will be a program along this line. There has to be research into conservation, preparation of fisheries products, sources of supply and species.
I hope the government will give consideration to extending some of the existing fisheries establishments. I refer to the one at Grand River. This is a biological station at which some seven or eight years ago the staff
March 16. 1966

numbered approximately ten or twelve but is now reduced to two or three. The minister may say they have concentrated most of their efforts at Halifax and St. Andrews-by-the-Sea, but I hope these establishments are retained where most of the fishermen of the province live and that consideration will be given to providing these people with more responsibility in the fields of research and study and to encouraging the local people to get in touch with them more often.
I am very happy to note that this is the first time in the history of Canada that we are worrying more about supply in this industry than demand. I believe this is very encouraging to the fisherman who has been so long forgotten and is now hoping to receive additional attention. When we think of the fisherman we think of a person wearing a rain hat and rubber boots, always subject to the winds and the elements of nature, the man who has been the stalwart of the industry and of whom we should be very proud.
I hope that in the legislation which will be introduced there will be measures to improve the lot of those living in such sordid and lamentable conditions as the inshore fishermen in many areas with which I am familiar. I believe the government has already allotted some $400,000 for the relocation of fishermen in the province of Newfoundland. I commend the government for doing this. I think it was a necessity, and this is one of the problems we must face today when considering the plight of the inshore fisherman.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I hope that when this bill is presented it will contain some provisions that will aid fishermen living under conditions such as I have just described and which are of a nature to discourage others from entering this industry. I hope that through the co-operation of the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works in complying with small requests for $500 or $1,000 for dredging operations, repairs to slipways and so on we will be able to work for the betterment of the life of the fishermen.
Very often people like to accuse fishermen of being uneducated and of being lazy in many cases. Personally I know of many fishermen who have never had a chance to participate in the industry because the facilities have not been there for them. I hope that more co-operation will be given by the various departments of government so that all means possible will be undertaken to improve
Commercial Fisheries Development the living conditions of the fishermen and permit them to share in the wealth of the ocean and in the economy of our country.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, it is infrequently that we have the opportunity to discuss this most important industry. For two or three minutes, I should like to address myself to this important resolution. Naturally I am delighted with it. My colleague, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, has spoken for all of us in our party. He has presented some excellent ideas. I think that anything we can do to improve the efficiency of the industry and to narrow the great risk which many of the fishermen of the country must undergo should be encouraged.
I agree generally with what the minister has said about the excellent state of the markets. There are some exceptions to which 1 hope he will direct his attention. For example, I am thinking of mackerel and smelts. These are two delicious fish and when the quantity is high it is difficult for fishermen to find markets.
What has brought me to my feet has been the suggestion by my colleague in connection with higher research. I refer to his idea of grants at the university level to bring more of our bright young people together to concentrate their knowledge and their attention upon fisheries research. This is a most excellent idea. I hope we will have a chance to develop it further, whether through some of our existing institutions or through an extension of the Institute of Oceanography. No matter which way it is done I think it would be well for the federal Department of Fisheries to assist in recruiting the ideas of young people in this sort of project. I should like to see a lot of our young people encouraged to engage in the pure and practical aspects of the kind of scientific work which will allow them to assist in the important work of conservation and redevelopment of our fishing industry.
We have not, for instance, found anyone bright enough to revive some of the excellent clam beds that we used to find in certain parts of the Atlantic provinces. The sand clam is a most important item of food and a very important economic item. I am told that the problem is very complicated and requires great knowledge in that particular field of biology. So I commend my colleague for this suggestion. I know great things have been accomplished in the training centres which the provinces are operating, in some cases
March 16. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development with federal assistance. I should like to support this further extension of the idea, and I look forward to the introduction of the bill. I hope we will find much in it to support but like all others we will, of course, say it should go further. This is to be expected.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and I will make my remarks brief. In listening to the minister I was not quite sure whether he had any program in mind that would assist what to me is a very important element of the fishing industry. I refer to the small fishing villages along the coast of Nova Scotia. I have a large number of them in Halifax riding and I am sure other members have as well. One of the problems that has been encountered there has been the lack of freezer facilities both for the catch and for bait. It is simply not possible for these fishermen to raise even the minimal amount of capital necessary for building such facilities under the present program of the government. If Canada is to do a proper job in helping to keep these small fishing villages going, I think the department will have to go into that field. My question is, does the minister intend to?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. First, I want to thank the hon. members who have offered constructive ideas on the introduction of the bill. I hope I will be prepared to answer the points that have been raised when I move second reading. In so far as the hon. member for Halifax is concerned, I am sure that when he sees the bill he will find his wishes are being carried out.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a few points this afternoon related to this resolution. It is a most interesting and most timely resolution. It is good to see that we are going to undertake to participate in federal-provincial projects regarding fisheries and to make payments in consequence thereof. There is one question which comes to my mind immediately. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister was reported to have said that he would encourage marine installations in aid of fisheries and industries connected therewith.
For example, I have a letter here from a fishing camp in my constituency, and it sets out this question:
Do I understand the government is willing to help tourist camps and fishing camps to extend their docking facilities?
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
We all recall the promise made by the Prime Minister in the last campaign. This is the question I should like the minister to take up in his capacity as the man responsible for the fishing industry.
How far will the government go to help our small fishing camps, some of which also have landing facilities for commercial fishing? They accommodate many of our tourists from the United States during the summer. This is a question that needs an answer as soon as possible in our part of the country.
I noticed there was a great deal of discussion this afternoon about ocean fisheries but not one word was said regarding our inland fisheries. I point out to the minister that one of the greatest sources of revenue for the balancing of international trade is our Lake Ontario fishery, a good share of which is carried on in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Slefanson:: And Lake Winnipeg.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hear an hon. member say that Lake Winnipeg is another important inland contributor to the international balance of payments position. I know the fishermen in my part of the country supply and benefit from the New York market to which they send fish overnight. They contribute tremendously in their own right to our international balance of payments position.
We have heard a lot of comments and opinions regarding our fishing industry ranging from seals to salmon and ciscoes to smelts. All of this concerns ocean fishing, but not very much time has been devoted in the house to the interests of the inland fishermen. Our inland fisheries, especially in Lake Ontario, are in a sorry state.
At this stage I should like to quote from a communication I received from the chairman of the Association of Commercial Fishermen of Eastern Ontario, Mr. Bruce Cooper. I will not read the whole letter but I should like to place this important paragraph on record:
The commercial fishing industry in this area is in a very critical condition and we feel that the time has come for a general airing of our problems.
I wish to point out to the minister that we cannot have development of our fishing industry and give proper assistance to that industry, as mentioned in this resolution, unless we have a program of public works which goes along hand in hand with it, one which will give our fishermen access to the
March 16. 1966	COMMONS
waters and ensure better safety and services both at sea and on shore.
A second letter which I received from Mr. Cooper reads in part as follows:
-there lies an area in Lake Ontario, from Brighton to Kingston, a shoreline distance of approximately 95 miles without a harbour that would shelter a boat with a draft over 5 feet. This 95 mile stretch is one of the most rugged, dangerous and formidable stretches in Lake Ontario. For example, it contains Salmon Point Reef, Main Duck and False Duck Reefs and Point Petre. These areas are notoriously known for the many shipwrecks in the past. There have been two groundings of lake ships in this area within a year.
The most central location for a harbour and one to offer the most protection after a vessel had reached the harbour entrance is at Wellington, Ontario. Once inside the breakwater at Wellington, a vessel or hundreds of vessels could seek haven in West Lake. Also, there is a government dock inside the harbour at Wellington that was practically rebuilt in 1965. Unfortunately, the breakwaters at Wellington have deteriorated considerably, having been washed away by heavy seas and ice, and sand has almost blocked the harbour entrance for a distance of 300-500 feet.
I pause here, Mr. Chairman, to say that when this debate began I telephoned an officer of the Department of Public Works, who informed me that the harbour is completely blocked by sand. However, the Department of Public Works promised to dredge it as an emergency measure so that the smelt fishing boats which are now marooned at the dock can sail out of the harbour for the spring smelt catch. I am glad that the government is co-operating there and I commend and thank them for dredging Wellington harbour as an emergency measure which will be acted upon, I am assured, within the next two or three days.
Mr. Cooper goes on to say:
At this time two commercial fishing tugs are trapped in the harbour-
As I have previously stated.
-because of the sand situation. During the second world war this harbour at Wellington was kept open to a depth of 12 feet from which the R.C.A.F. crash boats operated. Also at one time there was a commercial fishing fleet of 10 or more tugs operating from the Wellington area. The building of two new breakwaters and the opening of the entrance to West Lake would not only serve as a haven for lake vessels, but would add a great many more dollars to the tourist trade of the county and be an added attraction to the village of Wellington. West Lake is widely known for its great yellow pike and muskellunge fishing. If this harbour was open, boats would come from Toronto, the U.S.A., etc. At the present time when the yellow pike spawning migration from Lake Ontario starts in March, a single heavy blow could block the West Lake entrance and this prevent the fish from reaching their spawning beds...
DEBATES	2789
Commercial Fisheries Development With the fishing industry in such a drastic slump, some measures must be taken now to aid these fishermen. If the Wellington harbour were open and navigable now, some of the best smelt fishing could be done in the West Lake area. This area is almost free of ice and commercial fishermen could operate practically all winter when smelts are at a premium price. This would boost the income for the fishing industry by $30,000-$50,000. This would be a Godsend to the commercial fishing, especially since the fishermen have been experiencing such poor years for some time now.
That is all the time that I can spend on communications of that kind.
In Lennox we have the Hay Bay District Tourist Association and the Hay Bay District Fishing Association, both of which have handed me their recommendations with the request that they be placed on record for the consideration of the minister. This will give him an idea of the relationship between the commercial and game fishing industries in my part of the country. Hay Bay is internationally well known as a great game fishing ground and the home of sports fishing for pickerel and muskellunge.
The following recommendations were made at the February 27, 1964 meeting of the joint committee of the Hay Bay District Tourist Association and came up for review as to their present disposition:
1.	That the opening date of the fall 4^-inch mesh gill net fishery in the Bay of Quinte commence on October 15, 15 days later than the present opening date.
2.	That the taking of pike and pickerel by any means be prohibited during the month of April in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario, east of the 78th meridian.
3.	That carp gill net mesh size be raised from 8 inches to 9 inches stretched measure.
4.	That an increase in the studies of pollution in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario be instituted.
I will just mention one more matter, Mr. Chairman, in summing up. To have an effective program which will be useful to and productive for our inland fisheries, first of all we must have an effective anti-pollution program, which goes hand in hand with the terms of this resolution. Second, we need more generous appropriations for fisheries research, as has been mentioned by other hon. members. Third, we must continue to wage war on the lamprey eel. I believe that we are not losing this war. I have received good reports from some other stations along the shore of Lake Ontario which have been studying the nature of this pest and ways of
March 16. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development eradicating it. I believe we are winning the war against the lamprey eel.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Fourth, effective programming of public works, as I said before, goes hand in hand with the combined interests and use of the game fishing industry, the commercial fishing industry and the tourist industry. These three industries are first cousins. They will co-operate among themselves. These three industries, game fishing, commercial fishing and tourism, ought to be given the support they need right now. These industries contribute very much, I remind the minister, to our international balance of trade which means so much to this nation.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I only need one minute to put a question to the minister and make a suggestion to him. In my area there is a unique type of fishing which is practised, tommy cod fishing. It is practised in winter, mostly in January. This species of fish comes to spawn in the rivers.
In the last few years, this type of fishing has taken on so much that thousands of cabins are seen on the river, throughout January and part of February; streets are laid out, electricity and restaurants are provided. It attracts tourists from all over.
Here is my suggestion to the minister: many people interested in tommy cod fishing, which promotes the tourist industry in our area and represents a very profitable activity since it has become a commercial operation, are beginning to worry about the disappearance of this fish, because, for all practical purposes, the entrance to the rivers is being blocked. Those people wonder whether sooner or later, tommy cod fishing, which represents a gold mine for us, is not in danger of decreasing alarmingly or of disappearing.
If I am wrongly informed, I hope the minister will correct me, but could he tell us whether the province of Quebec is in a position at present to conduct extensive research on the habits of tommy cod and on the threat, if any, of their decrease or disappearance? Then, can the minister tell the house whether his department has the required facilities to carry out research on the habits and future of tommy cod?
I imagine, of course, that the matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, but perhaps I am mistaken, because it may come under the federal department. At any rate, whether it comes under the jurisdiction of one or the

other, I should like to know whether the minister has the required facilities to conduct intensive research and reassure the people concerned with the future of tommy cod, in order to ascertain if there is an actual threat and if some precaution might be taken to remove that threat.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to co-operate with the provincial authorities.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up any extra time in the committee. Indeed, hon. members will be surprised that I have risen to say a few words on the subject of fisheries. I want to draw to the attention of the minister and members of the House of Commons that the largest inland fishing port in the world, not in Canada, not in the United States but in the world, is in my constituency. I refer to Port Dover.
I want to support the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox in drawing to the attention of the minister the fact that when this legislation is put into force-and I want to congratulate him on this motion-the inland fishermen must not be forgotten. I might point out that out of Port Dover hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perch and smelt are sent directly to New York and the financial implications with respect to our trade balance are great. I wanted to bring this point to the attention of the minister. That is all I want to say.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Robichaud thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-145, to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



DIVORCE


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to make motions referring the subject
March 16, 1966



matter of a certain resolution and the subject matter of a certain bill to the Special Joint Committee on Divorce. May I have that permission?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is requested that the subject matter of certain bills be referred to the Committee on Divorce.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give permission for the hon. member to move the necessary motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: I move:
That the subject matter of Private Member's Notice of Motion No. 11 (Mr. Scott) be referred to the special Joint Committee on Divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John B. Stewart: I move:
That the subject matter of Bill C-133 be referred to the Special Joint Committee on Divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Canadian Citizenship Act and the regulations made thereunder to provide that (a) an applicant whose application for citizenship is refused be provided with full particulars of the reasons for such refusal (b) a Citizenship Review Board or similar body be established to which an applicant whose application for citizenship has been refused may appeal such refusal (c) Courts of Citizenship be established in more centres across Canada than is now the case (d) Courts of Citizenship should be open during evenings and on Saturdays and, generally (e) landed immigrants should receive much more encouragement and assistance in preparing themselves to become citizens at the earliest possible date after they become qualified therefor.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
He said: I cannot describe to you, Mr. Speaker, the relief one feels on rising to speak on a subject which is, I am sure, entirely non-partisan and which concerns every member of the house. There may be differences of opinion on details as to the best manner in which to accomplish a common objective but I am certain the objective is common to all of us.
May I suggest, first of all, that I am one who is perhaps particularly suited to raise the question of citizenship. I happen myself
Citizenship Act
to be a naturalized Canadian, having been naturalized by my late father back in 1929 as a youngster, and I happen to have gone through in my boyhood after I was 12 the experience of learning a new language and adjusting myself to a new country and a new environment. Accordingly, I have some appreciation of what is involved.
This subject was drawn to my attention particularly during the election campaigns of 1962, 1963 and 1965 in my own constituency and in other constituencies. I have the pleasure to represent a constituency in which there is a very large number of new Canadians, most of them of Italian origin. I found that more than half of these new Canadians who were eligible to be Canadian citizens had not become Canadian citizens. When we started a campaign, I looked at the situation in the riding and was certain there would be many thousands of new Canadians on the voters list. But when the list appeared there were fewer than half the number that might have been expected. When I went around the constituency, having learned a few words of Italian to converse with these people, I found that many of them were frightened about applying for Canadian citizenship because of the qualifications which appeared to be demanded of them before thay can attain citizenship status. It was brought home to me then that we ought to take another look at the requirements as we express them and at the machinery we have provided for those wishing to obtain citizenship.
I say this not because I think any one of us in any corner of this house would have been wiser had we drawn up the original regulations but because I think we should profit by the experience which has now been gained. I wish to make it clear that I do not want to relax the solemnity with which the taking of citizenship should be surrounded. I do not want to relax any of the symbols which should be used to convey to a person about to take citizenship the seriousness and value of this act. I have had the experience, as have other members, of travelling to other countries, in Europe many years ago and more recently in Central and Latin America. During these visits I had an opportunity to see how very highly a Canadian passport is regarded and valued in foreign lands. I say this not in any jingoistic spirit but in a sense of, I hope, pardonable pride. Frequently while walking through the streets of foreign

March 16, 1966
Citizenship Act
countries, or at their customs barriers or immigration gates, the fact that one has a Canadian passport proves to be of great value, and the men or women you meet on such occasions show great respect for it.
For this reason it is important to surround the attainment of citizenship with all the sensible and reasonable solemnity which is necessary to make it a fact of importance to the psychology of the person concerned. But this does not mean we should have provisions in our laws which frighten people. I draw attention, first, to subsections (e) and (f) of section 10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act where we say that a person can become a citizen only if he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French language. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know a great many people born in this country whose mother tongue is one or the other of those languages, yet whether or not they have an adequate knowledge of it depends on one's definition of "adequate". I have met a good many new Canadians and asked them why they had not applied for citizenship. They have replied: Look at the words in the act calling for an adequate knowledge of English or French; you can listen to me, talking in broken English; I obviously do not have an adequate knowledge of English, so why apply to become a citizen?
A provision of this sort does not make sense in a Canadian Citizenship Act. It is the wording which frightens the average person. We must remember that many people who come from other parts of the world may not have had an opportunity of attending school and may not have come here with any great literacy even in their mother tongue. For this reason they may not be equipped to acquire a new language in a way which would satisfy any interpretation of the term "adequate knowledge". But do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the courts generally impose too strict a definition, though I do think that in many instances the courts have not been very wise about it either and have demanded, in my part of the country, a greater knowledge than is really necessary or sensible. But the words themselves frighten new Canadians; they think they have to know more than, in fact, they need to know.
In my years in Canada since September, 1921, I have known hundreds of excellent Canadian citizens who have lived here for many years with only a very limited knowledge of either of the two Canadian languages. 
This does not necessarily make them less useful or less devoted citizens of this country.
Then we have another requirement which frightens these people. The Act provides that in order to become citizens they must have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship and intend to comply with the oath of allegiance set forth in the second schedule. I do not know how many people have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, or indeed, exactly what that term means. I often wonder whether the 20 or 25 per cent of Canadian citizens who do not go to vote on election day are accepting all their responsibilities as Canadian citizens. Yet they are already citizens, either natural born or naturalized. We do not need such statements as these in the Act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Let me indicate to the house this simple proposition: that even if a person is not a citizen, if he resides in Canada and is permitted to work here and carry on business here and undertake obligations, responsibilities and liabilities under the laws of Canada to which he is subject, that person is a Canadian in every sense except the important sense of being a citizen, having the right to vote, having the right to carry the Canadian insignia in the form of a passport or whatever document he carries with him when he goes to another country, and having the right to the protection of Canada and the Canadian authorities when he is in a foreign land. We ought to make becoming a citizen easier rather than harder, and I draw a distinction between the solemn act of becoming a citizen and the requirements for becoming a citizen.
Unless I am very much mistaken, my late father became a citizen in 1929 by merely filing an application in the required form, going through a few minor formalities and obtaining a certificate. All of his generation, all of the very large number of people who came to Canada after the first world war and who have made such a tremendous contribution to this country, were not required, as I recall the law and I hope I am not mistaken, to have the knowledge as the language in the act unnecessarily describes it.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is that at the present time the regulations require an effort on the part of the applicant for citizenship which again, perhaps not entirely reasonably,
March 16, 1966



prevents him from becoming a citizen. Normally he has to take three days off work. He has to appear at the place where he gets the application form. He signs it there. He has to swear an affidavit, and he is expected to appear in person which means one day away from work.
As I read the regulations they require him to appear in person. I think it is subsection 5 of regulation No. 5 which states that a person who resides 50 miles away from the nearest court can make out his application in triplicate and forward it by mail but if he lives within the court area he is expected to appear, make out the application and swear the affidavit. He is then required to appear in court at the hearing of his application. That is a second day away from work. Then he has to appear as a rule in the same court to be sworn in, to take his oath of allegiance, before he can obtain his certificate. That is a third day away from work.
Without exaggeration, Mr. Speaker, I met dozens of men in my constituency during the election campaign whom I asked, "Why have you not applied for your citizenship when you have lived here eight, ten or twelve years?" The answer I received was usually, "Yes, I make up my mind to go and become a citizen but on the appointed day I cannot get there. My work does not let me go and I cannot afford to lose the money."
If a man earns as little as $1.50 or $2 an hour on a construction job which may not be unionized, he will lose 10 hours pay that day, some $15 to $20, and that is why he does not become a citizen. There is no reason why that should be so. There is no reason in the world why Citizenship Courts should not be open evenings or Saturdays or even Sundays. Surely there is no more solemn act, religious act if you like, than the act of swearing allegiance to a new country, and there is nothing incompatible between doing that on the Sabbath and doing any other thing that is holy on a Sunday. There is no reason why we should present difficulties of this sort to the new Canadian who desires to become a citizen. He should not have to take three days off work in order to go through the procedures that are required.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member consider that one of these occasions should require a formal court appearance, if not the other two?
Citizenship Act


David Lewis: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that three appearances are necessary. The reason I did not suggest that two of them be done away with, although I would like to see them made more voluntary, is that I think if the new Canadian does appear to make out his application in an office specially set aside for that purpose and has a few words with the registrar or whoever may be in attendance, he can receive some explanation of the form he is filling out, something which may be strange to him. That is a useful introduction to the citizenship idea. I do not object to bringing him in and making him feel a part of the machinery, of the procedure, but I do object to having him come in at times which are onerous and costly to him. Certainly there should be a mandatory appearance when he swears the oath of allegiance and becomes a citizen.
I am sure the people in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, who have had much more experience than I can claim, will be able to think of a dozen other ways by which the procedure and the machinery can be improved. I merely plead with the minister and all those concerned with this aspect of the work that they take a very serious look at present procedures for citizenship, and in particular a look at the language in order to make it less onerous sounding to the new Canadian who wants to become a citizen.
I have had an applicant for citizenship come back to me and say, "I did not make it. You know why? They asked me what was the capital of British Columbia and I said Vancouver. Then they told me it was not, it was Victoria." I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, if I may use this expression with respect, dollars to doughnuts that if you ask people outside this building on Wellington Street here in Ottawa, as you buttonhole them walking along the street, nine out of ten would say Vancouver.


Mr. Deachman:: Good for them.


David Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is one member of the house who is apparently father to the thought and who himself would say Vancouver out of rivalry. The people on Wellington Street may not know any better but that does not make them any the less good Canadians. I would be surprised if some members of this house did not on occasion forget the precise names of some capitals that are close to them. Yet there are people who

March 16, 1966
Citizenship Act
feel that the refusal of their citizenship application was due to the fact that they did not have this sort of knowledge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the capital of New Brunswick?


David Lewis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks what is the capital of New Brunswick. Again I am sure dozens of people passing along Wellington Street would indicate Moncton or Saint John rather than what I hope it is, Fredericton. This kind of thing is unnecessary, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason why people who want to become citizens should know that Fredericton rather than Moncton and Victoria rather than Vancouver are the capitals of the respective provinces.
In our entire general education structure we pay far too much attention to irrelevant fact than to relevant principle. More important for the new Canadian is that he be given a sense of the principle of citizenship, of his duty to the community, of his heart and soul as a Canadian, rather than that he know the name of some capital of the English word for some word in his native language which can have very little relevance to his being a decent, good and valuable citizen.
In the remaining few minutes at my disposal I want to speak on the second part of my resolution, which deals with the fact that too many people are refused citizenship without being given a reason and without having recourse of appeal from such refusal. I have here in my own file three other such cases, which one of my colleagues was good enough to let me study, dealing with people who were refused citizenship during the last few years and had to go through all sorts of convolutions in order to find out what was wrong, what was the basis on which their applications were refused.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Therefore I suggest we ought to take a look at our statute to see whether or not we can provide at least more particulars, if not full particulars, in respect of any refusal of an application for citizenship, and above all that there be a citizenship review board or a similar body established to which a person who has had his application refused may come by way of appeal. When I am told of cases in respect of which the refusal of citizenship is based on security reasons, which I am sure occasionally is the case, then my answer is, Mr. Speaker, that there have 
been errors on that score as well and that the review body is needed in such cases just as well as in any other case. The procedure of the review body in a case of security may be different and perhaps the hearing might have to be in private but in such cases, as well as in others, it is needed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


John Carr Munro: In your suggestion concerning appeal and in your motion are you suggesting that if such an appeal board were set up-and I agree with many if not all of the things the hon. member states-the board's authority would be absolute once they made their ultimate determination or are you still going to reserve the final stamp of approval for the executive or the government?


David Lewis: I would think the latter. I am not a great expert or even an expert at all in this field. However, I would think the granting of citizenship in cases where there may be some doubt should be the responsibility of the executive in the final stage, although if the minister acted contrary to the finding of the review board he would have to give a pretty good explanation for so doing. If it is thought that the review board should have more authority than this, I have no objection.
I do not have any strong feeling on that score.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I place this resolution on the order paper and spoke today not merely to have a resolution to speak to but because it is a fact that literally tens of thousands of new Canadians in Canada today, as I speak to this house, are eligible to become citizens so far as their residence in Canada is concerned but are not citizens for no other reason than that the present law and procedures either frighten them or make it difficult for them to obtain their citizenship. I think it is unjust to invite people to come to our country and then place obstacles on the road to their becoming citizens. We ought to vest the obtaining of citizenship with all the solemnity, all the respect and all the aura of importance that we can symbolically put together, but we ought to remove every vestige of the kind of thing which places unnecessary obstacles in the way to citizenship for those who have joined our country.
March 16. 1966


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Welland.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member for York South has expired.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Welland, a very cosmopolitan riding, I know something personally of this problem and I know how important it is. Generally speaking I am in favour of the motion. The essence of the motion is that we should encourage immigrants to become citizens and not only should we encourage them to become citizens but that we should improve the procedures. However, this observation should be qualified by the statement that since the inception of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947 the machinery for obtaining citizenship by and large has been adequate and on most occasions very fair.
There are many strong reasons why people wish to become citizens. They want to be able to vote, they want to be able to participate in government, they want to be able to feel they are a part of the community and part of the country. However, at the same time there are many factors working against their desire to become citizens. Most of these people come from countries where they have seen much governmental control. They are afraid of signing forms, they are afraid of judges and they are afraid of anything pertaining to courts. The language barrier itself militates against many people applying to become citizens. To counteract these forces I believe that not only the government but also every citizen has a role to play.
I should like to go on record as stating also that our government has not been completely lax in respect of preparing people to apply for citizenship. We do have citizenship seminars. We have lectures provided in most urban and rural centres. There are lectures on history, geography and on the responsibility of citizenship. We have booklets on citizenship. I grant that these perhaps could be improved. However, I should like it to be mentioned that we do have facilities to encourage people to become citizens.
I have mentioned that the government, of course, should encourage immigrants to become citizens, but I think we as Canadians ourselves have a great responsibility. These people are shy and timid and we should in most cases encourage them. We should make
Citizenship Act
them feel welcome. We should help to dispel their fear of courts and procedures. This is our duty as good citizens also.
The suggestion with regard to the need for more courts, of course, is a laudable one. There is, however, always the question of cost and time. I think what is even more important is not the number of courts but the location of the courts. I can cite a very concrete example. At the present time we have a centralized system of Citizenship Courts. We have one in Hamilton, with a branch office in St. Catharines. In my riding we have the cities of Welland, Port Colborne, Niagara Falls and the town of Thorold. These are very cosmopolitan urban areas. There are many people who are seeking citizenship. At one time we had a Citizenship Court in Welland but it was moved to St. Catharines. I know as a matter of record that many possible applicants will not travel to St. Catharines in order to become citizens. This may seem peculiar, but people who are wavering between making a decision and not making a decision make the decision not to go. Therefore I would suggest that a Citizenship Court be re-established in the city of Welland.
One of the prerequisites of obtaining citizenship is an adequate knowledge of the English language, and I think this is right and proper. It is a matter of degree. I do believe that hardship is worked upon older people who would like to become citizens. Again from personal knowledge I know there are many older people of 55, 70 or 75 who would like to become citizens but cannot do so because of the language barrier. I think this is one area in which we certainly should do some revision and provide some remedy.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In respect of the actual hearing of these cases it has been my experience that by and large the ceremony is impressive and although the procedure is perhaps strict in some cases it is fair and proper. The Citizenship Court judges are on the whole experienced people. They realize how to handle witnesses and on the whole the procedure is carried on with efficiency and dignity. In regard to the submission that reasons for dismissal of an application should be given, I would contend that this is not a practical suggestion. This is not a court of law in which there are litigants and where reasons for judgment are given. This is an application for citizenship and the basic reason for people being denied citizenship is a lack of

March 16, 1966
Citizenship Act
adequate knowledge of the English language. In that case the application is adjourned and the person tries to improve his knowledge of the language and comes back at a later date.


David Lewis: He has to wait two years.


Donald Ross Tolmie: Not according to my information. As I have stated before, I think the application of the language barrier is perhaps a major weakness. I believe that generally speaking our Citizenship Courts and procedures are fair and just. Naturally any regulation and procedure can be improved upon. I think one of the major areas for improvement in this respect is the location of the courts. In addition, as I stated previously, the question of language should be re-examined and the rule made less stringent.
In conclusion I should like to emphasize that the government has a responsibility to facilitate citizenship applications but we as Canadian citizens have an even greater responsibility. If we wish to smooth the way for these people to become citizens of this country, it behooves all of us as Canadian citizens, regardless of political persuasion, to welcome our new Canadians, befriend them, encourage them and make them feel that becoming a Canadian citizen is worth while.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member agree with me that we might well consider the automatic granting of citizenship to people who have resided in Canada for five years as long as their record is clean and they have demonstrated good citizenship in those five years?


Donald Ross Tolmie: No, offhand I cannot say that I do. The reason is simply that I think any person who wishes to become a Canadian citizen should go through a certain formal procedure. It should not be so stringent and narrow that to become a Canadian citizen is made difficult but it should be important and impressive enough to make the person feel that citizenship is worth obtaining.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words at this time to indicate agreement with the general proposition that procedures for citizenship applications should be eased. I should like to begin by quoting from the conclusion of the Sedgwick report on immigration which came into our hands just yesterday. While this report deals with immigration rather

than citizenship, I think this conclusion applies. At page 20 the report says:
I think the Act should state clearly that admission to Canada, either as an immigrant or non-immigrant, is a privilege and is not to be construed as a right.
I adopt those words in connection with the question of citizenship. Citizenship in this country is a privilege and not a right. At the same time I think that those who would become citizens should not have unnecessary blocks placed in the way. The two hon. members who preceded me mentioned in particular the Citizenship Courts in urban areas. There is another problem that concerns those in rural areas. It is the fact that we do not have Citizenship Courts which are easily accessible to the person who wants to become a citizen.
In the rural areas one has to go to the county or district court office and there apply for citizenship papers. Then one must appear at the formal sessions of the county or district court, be examined by the judge and then be formally admitted as a Canadian citizen. I think this also is an impressive procedure. But there is one shortcoming in this respect, the infrequency of sittings of county and district courts. In Ontario particularly, of which I have knowledge, most of the county and district courts sit only twice a year. If one happens to miss the proper time it may be more than a year before an application for citizenship can be heard, whereas in the Citizenship Court in urban areas applications can come on very quickly.
I should like to mention one matter here that I think is not too well known. Applicants in rural areas have an alternative. They can apply to the County Court and go through the usual procedure or they can go to the nearest Citizenship Court and there take advantage of the fairly quick procedure that is adopted. I think many people delay making application because they are afraid it will take too long and they will become lost in the legal red tape.
I believe that while ease of access to the Citizenship Courts and the formal courts should be maintained, we should never forget the fact that citizenship is a privilege. I think we should make sure that the citizen is received with some formality and has a feeling that he has become, through some official act, a citizen of this country. While the proposition the hon. member put forward today would help, I think we need to give these people a feeling of acceptance and of
March 16. 1S66

the solemnity of the occasion, which is most important.
The question of language has been raised and this also is a problem in many rural areas. I believe that in the areas outside metropolitan centres in which many languages are spoken, it is more difficult for an immigrant to become a citizen. The standard of language is much higher in a rural area where either English or French is spoken mainly and other languages are not used. I believe that particularly in the case of elderly people who come to this country late in life it is difficult, and the language requirement for such people ought to be eased.
I feel that people wishing to become citizens of this country must have a basic knowledge of either English or French. They must have sufficient knowledge to enable them to speak, be well understood and understand what is being said to them. I believe this is essential. But older people in my opinion should be given a break. I think it is more important in many of these cases that the people have a sense of belonging, of being part of Canada, than it is to make provisions with which it is difficult for them to comply.
I wish to make just one more point in closing, Mr. Speaker. In the rural areas I think more assistance ought to be offered to people desirous of becoming citizens. In the urban areas there are Citizenship Courts. The staffs of these courts are there and there are people of the immigrant's own language and ethnic background to help him. These people are able to help because they have been through the procedure before. They know where to go, what to do, what the questions are likely to be and what the answers are.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is different in the rural areas because many of those who make applications come from isolated areas. They do not have the assistance and the friendship of people that those who live in urban sections have. I feel that such people require assistance from the government and also require assistance from their member of parliament. I believe this is one duty to which we should pay more attention. Most people who come to this country seem to believe that a member of parliament is a person to whom they cannot have easy access or a person who is not sufficiently interested in them. I think they would find most members of parliament are extremely interested in them, especially when it comes to their first vote. Of course, it is a
Citizenship Act
fact that when they do become citizens they are entitled to vote.
I urge all members of the house to make a special effort to give assistance. I think one of our problems is that in many cases we do not know who is applying. There have been occasions on which Citizenship Courts or county and district courts have helped by giving members lists of people who are about to apply. This is most helpful. I think this is all I want to say. I do agree that the procedures ought to be improved and I approve in principle of the resolution that has been presented.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am almost in complete agreement with the notice of motion of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) except as concerns the provision stipulating that
An applicant whose application for citizenship is refused be provided with the full particulars of the reasons for such refusal-
I think there are many reasons to refuse an application and the government should have the privilege of withholding its reasons. Obviously, I do not have the time to elaborate on this point. If I recall what my hon. friend said a while ago, to the effect that admission of an immigrant to this country remains a privilege, I believe that, in all cases, the government should not be required to give to the applicant, at his request, full particulars or reasons for such refusal. Reasons may be given by the government, but to require that they be given could, to my mind, be dangerous.
I have listened to the hon. member for York South who seeks to facilitate the entry of immigrants into the country. If he means to facilitate the naturalization of immigrants who have been staying in this country for a number of years, I am in agreement with him. On the other hand, I think we should make entry of immigrants into Canada more difficult.
I should like to mention instances which have occurred in my province, not to bring up those in other provinces, even though I may leave myself open to suspicion, and I accuse my own province. In Quebec, over the last few years, it has been noted that most troublemakers, who have caused regrettable events reported in the press, were immigrants.

March 16. 1966
Citizenship Act
If the officials of the immigration office had conducted a more thorough investigation into their cases, they might have discovered they were already agitators in their countries. Not so long ago, a lady of virtue, who was refused entry into the United States, was accepted in Canada. It is hard to take: The Americans are harder to please than we are. I think we should make it more difficult to enter the country in order to get the best people, and I am referring to their moral value.
Of course, I am not ruling out the possibility of security in some cases which could eliminate even outstanding people. Once again, I am against making it too easy to enter into the country. I would agree with some of my colleagues who claimed that immigration offices are not well organized. Judging by the situation in my city, there is only one officer in charge in our immigration office. He is away from the office most of the time. Immigrants and businessmen who could hire some immigrants are unable to reach him. There should be at least a staff of three persons in that office. If it is the same throughout the country, I feel the government is not organized as it should be to deal with our immigrants.
In my opinion, the soundest argument of my colleagues-I accept all the rest of the notice of motion-is that they advocate extending the services provided to immigrants after they reach the country. They should be given language courses, in French or in English, a bare minimum, in short, a small stock of 50 or 60 words to enable them to shift for themselves. They should be given lessons in citizenship, so that they might know what living conditions to expect. Why could those offices not be open for a few hours on Sunday afternoon, so that the immigrants might not waste any time? For, though Sunday is the Lord's Day, the ceremony which solemnizes the granting of a Canadian citizenship certificate is closely related to the religious services held on that day.
These are measures which could be adopted so that the immigrants might feel at home, and feel that type of warmth they lacked back home.
But I maintain that it would be unwise to lower the standards for entry to this country. On the contrary, I feel they should be a little more stringent so that we might be sure of welcoming only the best.

Similarly, I would not want to create difficulties for the government by forcing it to reveal all the reasons which might justify refusal of entry, for I feel that if the rest of the motion were applied-there would be representations made to the court, in an endless process, that would cause considerable embarrassment.
Therefore, I support the motion of the hon. member for York South, except for those details.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be useful if I were to indicate the business the government proposes to submit for the consideration of the house for the next few days. It would be our intention, tomorrow and Friday, to consider a few smaller bills and resolutions preceding bills on the Order Paper and the automotive agreement resolution. These items would be for Thursday and Friday of this week. On Monday we would call a supply motion. On Wednesday we would expect to make time available for private members to discuss the abolition of capital punishment bill.
Having said that, I should like to indicate the order of business for tomorrow and Friday. Perhaps it would be useful if I gave a rather extended list in the hope that some of the resolutions preceding bills could be passed and the bills made available to hon. members for consideration later.
The first item of business we would call tomorrow would be item 24, second reading of Bill No. S-15, an Act to authorize the construction of a bridge. We would then call item No. 23, second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company; then item No. 12, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act; then item No. 13, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
We will then take item No. 4 on the Order Paper, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Research Council Act; item No. 15, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of a Science Council of
March 16, 1966	COMMONS
Canada; item No. 5, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas; item No. 6, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act; item No. 9, a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act; item No. 26, second reading of an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, and then item No. 7, second reading of an act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. If by any chance we have time we would then take item No. 3, a resolution approving the agreement concerning automotive products between Canada and the United States.
I have given a rather full list, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that hon. members may find in the list resolutions which might go rather quickly. These could be put forward and the legislation made available to hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention to call item No. 3
DEBATES	2799
Business of the House
having to do with the U.S.-Canada auto agreement only after all these other items have been disposed of?


George James McIlraith: Not necessarily. We can consider that when we reach the last item concerning second reading of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. But since discussion of item No. 3 is likely to be a debate which will take some time, because it is a matter hon. members might want to go into rather thoroughly, we might put these other resolutions forward so that the legislation will be available to us.


Michael Starr: May I ask one question for clarification purposes? Did I understand the house leader to say that the capital punishment debate will commence one week from today?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I indicated.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2801
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 17, 19G6