1966-03-09

Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-137, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Elections on a Sunday).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two distinct objects, one being of an economic nature and the other, of a political nature.
One of its objects is economic in that employers would no longer have to grant three hours' leave to their employees, since the vote would be held on a Sunday.
The other is political in character, because electors would find it easier to exercise their franchise, since Sunday is not a working day.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-138, to amend the Civil Service Act (to provide a full and impartial hearing for an employee dismissed under section 50 of the act.)


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion arises out of a very recent debate and would add a section to section 50 of the Civil Service Act so that any government employee dismissed under that section would be given a full and impartial hearing by a commissioner or commissioners appointed under part 1 of the Inquiries Act, if the employee or his agent requests it in writing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. R. Comiois (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-
Montcalm) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-139, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Comiois:: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to grant a 12-month extension to those people who, through ignorance, inadvertence or incapacity, did not file an application for these benefits at the time stipulated by law.
This 12-month extension would spare losses and great inconvenience to people who forget their age (an error of one year is frequent amongst the aged, and more particularly amongst women) or those who, because the law has been changed (the age of eligibility being progressively lowered from 70 to 65 years), might forget to file their application on time.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacDonald (Prince): What is the number of paid employees of the National Centennial Committee from Prince Edward Island and what are the names of these employees?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: The national centennial committee is an ad hoc committee made up of two federal ministers and two representatives generally a minister and a deputy minister of each province of Canada, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State of Canada. It does not have any paid employees. A secretariat for the National Centennial Committee is provided by the Centennial Commission.

March 9. 1966
Questions


RELEASE OF K. H. KIRK FROM NAVY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has PiWS2 Kenneth H. Kirk been released from the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	If so, was Mr. Kirk given an opportunity to be heard concerning his release?
3.	If Mr. Kirk was not given such an opportunity, will the Minister of National Defence direct that he be given a full hearing?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.


ASSISTANCE FOR ONTARIO TOBACCO GROWERS
Mr. Madill: 1.	Has representation been made to the government by the tobacco growers of Central Ontario giving a survey of their losses incurred by frost damage on August 29, 1965?
2.	Will extended credit be given to these tobacco farmers who have suffered losses and need credit for 1966?
3.	Will crop insurance be available to these tobacco growers for 1966?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Representation on behalf of tobacco growers in central Ontario was received but no crop loss survey data supplied.
2.	Where an individual farmer who ordinarily meets his commitments to the Farm Credit Corporation satisfactorily suffers a loss of income through circumstances beyond his control to the extent that he cannot make his payment without hardship, the corporation will consider a request to defer such payment.
Farm improvement loans are administered by the banks and there are provisions for re-arrangement of repayment terms where such action is warranted.
3.	Since actual crop insurance programs are developed under provincial jurisdiction, any decision to make such insurance available for tobacco crops in 1966 will be made by the provincial government.


COST OF CONSTRUCTING CARGO SHIPS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Does the government have any (a) specific knowledge or (b) any means of estimating the cost, in Canadian dollars, of building cargo ships in other countries?

2.	If so. what is the cost in Canadian dollars by (a) specific knowledge or (b) an estimate of building (i) 10,000 ton cargo ships, and (ii) 20,000 ton cargo ships in each of the countries of Canada, Japan. United Kingdom and Sweden?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	(a) The government does have specific knowledge of the cost of building cargo ships in other countries secured through the cooperation of other governments.
2.	(a) The information available to the Department of Industry has been secured from confidential foreign government sources. Under the circumstances it would not be in the public interest to publicize such information. (b) However in general terms we can state that of the four countries mentioned Canadian costs appear highest. United Kingdom and Swedish costs correspond approximately to one another. Japanese costs appear the lowest.


EXPENDITURES ON NAVIGATION AIDS, LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How much money was spent for the aids to navigation program for lake Winnipeg and adjoining rivers and lakes for the fiscal year 1965-66, listing projects and locations?
2.	How much money is allocated for this program for the fiscal year 1966-67, listing proposed projects and locations?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. During the fiscal year 1965-66 $28,264 was spent for the aids to navigation program for Lake Winnipeg and adjoining lakes and rivers as per the list hereunder:
(1)	Red River Range-W & T FA-240 range lanterns were installed in the upper and lower lights replacing the old galvanized iron case type lantern. Repairs to the lower light tower were also carried out; these included repairs to the balcony, a new landing platform and sway bracing on the pile foundation.
(2)	Winnipeg Beach Range-W & T FA-240 range lanterns were installed on new galvanized steel towers, replacing wooden poles and galvanized iron boxes. Red and white fibreglass daymarks replaced small wooden ones and the rear tower was also moved back to improve range.
(3)	Red River Mouth Lighted Buoy-A two foot pipe extension was placed on the structure to improve visibility.
March 9. 1966

(4)	Willow Point-A new light was established on Willow Point, southeast of the Gimli Harbour. The installation consists of a 250 m.m. W & T lantern on a galvanized steel tower with a green and yellow fibreglass daymark.
(5)	Gimli Harbour Range-New red and white fibreglass daymarks were installed to replace wooden ones.
(6)	Hecla Island Range-A timber crib was constructed around the rear tower footings to protect them from the high water.
(7)	Hecla Wharf Light-Light was converted from battery to hydro.
(8)	Manigotagan River Ranges-Day beacons were repaired and painted. Scotchlits bands were nailed to daymarks and range lines were brushed out.
(9)	Black Island Reef-Metal can buoy, top of spar painted blaze orange.
(10)	Gull Harbour-Repaired footings of light tower.
(11)	Matheson Island Wharf-Light was converted from battery to hydro.
(12)	Black Bear Island-Repaired storm damaged wharf cribs.
(13)	Blood vein River Entrance-Placed spar to mark shoal area on main range.
(14)	Cox's Reef-Built new boat slide and three rock-filled retaining cribs to replace those taken out by storm.
(15)	George's Island Harbour Range-Installed battery operated FA-240 range lanterns to replace kerosene operated lamps. Built rock-filled crib around front light tower to protect it from high water.
(16)	Poplar Point Reef-Painted daymarks and tower base.
(17)	Big Black River-Painted day beacons.
(18)	Warren's Landing Upper Range-Installed W & T FA-240 range lanterns to replace galvanized iron cases. Carried out repairs to walkway between upper and lower lights.
(19)	Warren's Landing Lower Range-Converted from kerosene to battery electric. Installed W & T FA-240 range lanterns. Built new sea wall in front of lower light to protect it from high water.
Questions
(20)	Selkirk Island Harbour-Installed new W & T 250 m.m. beacon at entrance to Selkirk Island harbour.
(21)	Dauphin River Day Ranges-Painted and repaired day beacons and brushed out range lines.
Lake Winnipegosis
(1)	Winnipegosis West Side Range-Installed hydro operated FA-240 range lanterns replacing old type galvanized iron case. Rear light was moved back 166 feet and installed on top of new 45 ft. hydro pole.
(2)	Lunch Point-Installed new W & T 250 m.m. lantern on galvanized pipe tower.
(3)	Dog Point-Brushed out range line.
(4)	Three new lighted buoys were established on Lake Winnipegosis at Five Mile Reef, Dog Point turn and Weasel Island.
Cedar Lake
(1)	Easterville-Hydro operated lighted range was established at Easterville Harbour consisting of two FA-240 range lanterns on steel pipe masts.
(2)	Saskatchewan River-Cedar Lake-Four new spars were established to mark the entrance to the Saskatchewan River. Two spars were established marking shoals on Cedar Lake.
2.	$33,000 has been allocated for this program in 1966-67 as listed below:-
(1)	Blood vein River-Improvements to three sets of ranges and lights on one.
(2)	Winnipeg River Range-Converting three sets ranges to automatic electric.
(3)	Winnipeg River-Place lighted buoy at turn into river.
(4)	Poplar River-Day beacon at mouth.
(5)	Selkirk Island North End-Establish land light.
(6)	Red River Buoys-Position markers.
(7)	Icelandic River Range-Steel towers and new lanterns.
(8)	Hecla Island Range-New lanterns.
(9)	Loon Straits Range-New lanterns.
(10)	Barrel Rock, Pelican Island, Ironwood Point, Clements Point-New lanterns.
(11)	Nelson River and Play green Lake-75 new steel buoys.

March 9. 1966
Questions


U.S. SECURITIES COMMISSION REGULATIONS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the government know if the securities and exchange commission of the United States recently changed its regulations to require Canadian corporations engaged in interstate commerce and which have total assets of $1,000,000 or more than 300 shareholders resident in the U.S.A., to register with the commission and become subject to its regulations unless the corporations' shares are fully listed on the U.S. stock exchange?
2.	Does Canada have similar requirements for American firms doing business in Canada and, if so, what are they?
3.	Has the government of Canada taken any action to protect Canadian firms doing business in the U.S.A. against these new discriminatory regulations?
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for
External Affairs): 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. As the house was informed on January 27, formal representations have been made to the United States government and consultations have commenced between officials of the two countries. My colleagues and I will also be taking up this matter with representatives of the United States cabinet when we see them at the Canada-United States ministerial committee meeting on March 4 and 5.


TELEVISION SERVICE
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What percentage of the area in each of the provinces is not being serviced by any television?
2.	What is the estimate of the number of people in each of the provinces not receiving television?
3.	What percentage of the people in each of the provinces are within reach of (a) only one television station (b) two television stations (c) three television stations (d) four television stations (e) five television stations (f) six or more television stations?
4.	What percentage of the people in each of the provinces are within reach of American television stations?
5.	What is the estimate of the cost which would be necessary to provide television service to all the people in each of the provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has provided the following information:
1.	The C.B.C. does not have data on the percentage of area in each province not serviced by television.
2.	Estimated Population (June 1, 1961) Outside A & B Service Area*: Newfoundland, 83,600; Prince Edward Island, 10,300; Nova

Scotia, 8,600; New Brunswick, 11,100; Quebec, 82,300; Ontario, 85,000; Manitoba, 71,300; Saskatchewan, 169,300; Alberta, 88,100; British Columbia, 111,800.
Note: Statistics based on all Canadian television stations, relays and rebroadcasting stations in operation or recommended for approval by B.B.G., as of November 18, 1965.
* Satisfactory fringe reception is available in many of the areas outside the A & B Service Area.
3. Estimated Percentage of Population (June
1, 1961) Within	A & B	Service Area		of:
				Four or
One	Two	Three	moreSta-	Sta-	Sta-	Sta-tion	tions	tions	tionsNewfoundland	32%	41%	-	-Prince Edward	Island	59%	31%	*-[DOT]	-Nova Scotia	34%	52%	8%	2%New Brunswick	47%	40%	11%	-Quebec	13%	14%	14%	57%Ontario	17%	15%	19%	47%Manitoba	21%	3%	67%	-Saskatchewan	53%	28%	-	-Alberta	25%	61%	2%	-British Columbia	21%	1%	68%	-Note: Statistics based on	all Canadian	television stations, relay	and	rebroadcasting	
stations in operation or recommended for approval by B.B.G. before April 1, 1964.
4.	While the C.B.C. does not have data on percentage of population in each province within reach of U.S. television stations, the estimated percentage of households (January 1, 1965) covered by U.S. t.v. stations is: Newfoundland, -; Prince Edward Island, -; Nova Scotia, -; New Brunswick, 12%; Quebec, 50%; Ontario, 77%; Manitoba, 68%; Saskatchewan, 4%; Alberta, -; British Columbia, 84%.
Note: A county (or census division) is considered as having U.S. station's coverage if the number of homes viewing a U.S. station, at least once a week, equals 35 per cent or more of all homes where English is spoken.
5.	An overall cost estimate of facilities required to provide television service to all Canadians wherever located has not been undertaken because such complete coverage
March 9. 1966



is considered unrealistic at this time from a technical and economic standpoint.
To provide television service to about 50 areas with a population of 2,000 or more which are outside present national service coverage limits would involve an estimated capital cost of between 15 and 16 million dollars, the estimated annual operating cost of which would be between three and four million dollars.


TENDERS FOR PEAS FOR INDIAN AID PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 594
Mr. Enns:: 1.	On what date were tenders called for peas in the Indian aid program?
2.	Have McAllister Pea and Seed Cleaners Limited of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, commenced loading peas on to box cars and, if so, on what date?
3.	What is the amount of the tender awarded to McAllister Pea and Seed Cleaners Limited of Portage la Prairie and Ottawa Valley Grain Company of Renfrew?
4.	What other tenders were received and what are the amounts offered in these tenders?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian Commercial Corporation called tenders on January 12, 1966.
2.	McAllister Pea and Seed Cleaners Limited commenced loading peas onto box cars on January 25 for the Ottawa Valley Grain Company, who had successfully tendered.
3.	McAllister Pea and Seed Cleaners Limited of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, did not tender. Ottawa Valley Grain Company of Renfrew submitted a tender, which was accepted for 2,000 tons of peas, at a price of $268,487.50.
4.	Two other tenders were received,-(a) Northern Sales (1963) Limited. The amount offered was 850 tons, (b) B.C. Pea Growers Association. The amount offered was 1,500 tons.


FARMERS FINED FOR EXCEEDING QUOTAS
Mr. Rapp: 1.	How many farmers were fined for exceeding wheat board quotas in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during the present 1965-66 crop year?
2.	How does this compare with the 1964-65 crop year?
3.	What were the highest and lowest fines?


Bruce Silas Beer: The answer to this question is in three parts as follows:
Questions
1.	To February 28, 1966 the board had received reports of 50 convictions for exceeding wheat board quotas in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
2.	During the entire 1964-65 crop year, from August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1965, 143 producers were convicted for exceeding wheat board quotas in the three provinces named.
3.	The highest and lowest fines reported to the board to February 28, 1966 in the current crop year are $100 and $5 respectively.
The highest and lowest fines reported to the board during the entire 1964-65 crop year were $100 and $3 respectively.


GRANT TO PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Thompson: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been asked to grant $35,000 to the Canadian Peace Research Institute, and (a) if so, has the grant been approved (b) if not, has any grant been approved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On October 8, 1965, the government received a request from the Canadian Peace Research Institute for a grant of $35,024. The reasons why the grant was not approved were outlined in my reply of January 24 to Mr. Alan Newcombe which was read to the house on March 2 in answer to Question No. 72.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, PORTAGE DU FORT, QUEBEC
Mr. Lefebvre: Is a new bridge to be built at Portage du Fort, county of Pontiac, Quebec and, if so, what will be the approximate federal share of the cost of this bridge?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Yes; the federal government's share will be 50 per cent.


STUDY OF PEMBINA RIVER WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the International Joint Commission completed its studies of the proposed development of water resources on the Pembina river?

March 9, 1966
Questions
2.	Has the commission made detailed recommendations as to the methods of financing and costsharing of this proposed development of water resources?
3.	Is the commission in possession of information as to whether or not construction of any works on the Pembina river is scheduled and, if so, the proposed date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	I am advised by the International Joint Commission that no works are presently scheduled for construction on the Pembina river.


NATIONAL FLAG DAY
Mr. Saltsman: Will the Prime Minister consider declaring February 15 national flag day and a national holiday?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The government
is giving consideration to this important matter.


AGRICULTURAL PRICES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Using the base period of 1949, what is the index of the average price received in each year to date for (a) wheat (b) cattle (c) hogs?
2 In each year since 1949, what was the total value of (a) wheat sold (b) cattle sold (c) hogs sold?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The following table sets forth the required indexes. They are based on average prices at the farm which take into account all grades marketed. In the case of wheat, participation payments are included in the year to which they apply,
i.e.-payments made in 1966 on the 1964 crop are included with the price for 1964. The index for 1965 cannot yet be calculated because final payments have not been made on deliveries in the 1965-66 crop year.
Index of Farm Prices, Wheat, Cattle, Hogs 1949=100
Wheat	Cattle	Hogs1949	100.0	100.0	100.01950	95.7	123.4	95.71951	96.9	161.4	108.61952	96.3	122.2	84.01953	90.7	96.8	97.11954	80.1	89.0	99.81955	78.9	92.2	81.11956	82.6	91.2	82.91957	77.0	90.0	98.31958	80.1	108.8	90.81959	82.6	118.6	76.7I960	86.3	109.6	76.61961	100.6	110.3	88.11962	105.6	124.2	91.11963	104.3	118.3	87.91964	104.3	110.8	84.61965	115.1	101.92. The following table sets forth Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimates of farm cash receipts for these three products. In the case of wheat, two sets of data are supplied. The first column sets forth the cash received at the time of delivery. The second column pro-	
vides information concerning Canadian Wheat Board payments; these payments are included in the year in which they are paid by the board, e.g. payments in 1965 on 1963 are included in the 1965 receipts.
[Mr. Schreyer.J
March 9, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	2435
Questions
Total Value of Sales of Wheat, Cattle and Hogs, Canada, 1949-1965
	Wheat	Canadian Wheat			
Payments	Board Interim	Total	on Delivery & Final Payments	Wheat	Cattle	Hogsthousands of dollars	1949	470,469	211,337	681,806	361,524	291,9041950	378,533	7,525	386,058	423,394	286,8691951	423,050	271,350	694,400	478,783	339,6471952	587,500	165,708	753,208	350,778	337,8231953	655,475	125,353	780,828	341,421	298,9721954	323,854	97,393	421,247	334,806	321,6411955	331,834	25,717	357,551	377,954	289,5631956	461,795	61,987	523,782	390,982	298,2461957	379,415	79,314	458,729	413,616	292,1421958	437,053	64,258	501,311	509,850	325,0941959	435,260	72,662	507,922	475,090	345,0341960	444,652	70,640	515,292	484,954	277,5901961	487,320	122,330	609,650	534,138	317,7451962	526,527	152,523	679,050	573,669	330,3011963	598,102	123,968	722,070	550,342	318,1741964	741,004	199,744	940,748	559,577	325,5261965	660,057	271,974	932,031	671,183	380,035INTRODUCTION OF	METRIC SYSTEM	2. For the same	areas and during	the same
Question	No. 728-Mr.	Bell (Carlelon):	years, how many assistance?	persons received	the above
1.	What consideration has been given by the government to the introduction in Canada of the metric system ?
2.	Has any report been made to the government relating to the advantages and/or disadvantages of the introduction of the metric system including the cost thereof and, if so, when and by whom?
3.	Have any discussions or negotiations been undertaken with any international organization or other country on this subject and, if so, what is the nature and result of such discussions or negotiations?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. The metric system is already a legal system of measurement in Canada.
2.	While various representations have been received no comprehensive report has been made to the government relating to advantages, disadvantages, and costs involved.
3.	No formal discussions or negotiations have been undertaken.


OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the government, as old age assistance, during the years 1964 and 1965 (a) for Canada (b) for the province of Quebec (c) for the county of Portneuf?
3. For the same areas and during the same years, how many applications were received by the government for such assistance and (a) how many of these applications were accepted and (b) how many were rejected?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Fiscal years	Canada	Quebec	County of Portneuf	1963-64	$39,208,181	$13,860,075	Not	avail.1964-65	$44,990,955	$16,589,045	Not	avail.2. 1963-64	105,241.	38,206	Not	avail.1964-65	107,354	39,239	Not	avail.3.1963-64	34,668	12,040	Not	avail.1964-65	35,054	12,266	Not	avail.(a) Approved	1963-64	30,466	10,814	Not	avail.1964-65	31,004	11,193	Not	avail.(b) Rejected	1963-64	4,202	1,226	Not	avail.1964-65	4,050	1,073	Not	avail.
March 9, 1966
Questions


OLD AGE SECURITY PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 739-Mr. Godin: (Supplementary)
1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the government, as old age security pensions, during the years 1964 and 1965 (a) for Canada (b) for the province of Quebec and (c) for the county of Portneuf?
2.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many persons received the old age security pensions?
3.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many applications were received by the government for such pensions and (a) how many of these applications were accepted and (b) how many were rejected?
[Translation1
Allan Joseph MacEachen: 2. As at December 31, 1965: (a) 1,011,578; (b) 219,476; (c) No statistics available.


PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the government as pensions for the blind during the years 1964 and 1965 (a) for Canada (b) for the province of Quebec and (o) for the county of Portneuf?
2.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many persons received those allowances?
3.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many applications for such allowances were received by the government and (a) how many of these applications were accepted and (b) how many were rejected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Fiscal years	Canada	Quebec	County of Portneuf1963-64	$4,987,897	$1,642,869	Not available1964-65	$5,624,702	$1,892,813	Not available2. 1963-64	8,581	2,855	Not available1964-65	8,586	2,843	Not available3. 1963-64	1,133	339	Not available1964-65	1,217	401	Not available(a)	Approved	1963-64	675	198	Not available1964-65	728	220	Not available(b)	Rejected	141	Not available1963-64	458	181	Not available1964-65	489


CANADIAN EMBASSY IN ROME
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Does Canada own a residence for its ambassador in Rome?
2.	If not, does Canada own property in Rome on which it is planned to build an embassy residence?
3.	If a residence has not yet been built, when is it intended that such construction will commence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No.
2.	Canada owns a building site in Rome, known as the Porta Latina property, which was purchased in March, 1950.
3.	Plans for construction are under study.


PRINTING BUREAU-CHIEF OF STAFF TRAINING
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Who is the chief of staff training and development in the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	How many are on the staff of the staff training and development section of the Canadian government printing bureau?
3.	To whom is the chief of staff training and development responsible in the execution of his
duties?
4.	Does the Canadian government printing bureau offset division provide special after-hours courses for its staff in plate-making, stripping and lay-out, camera work, etc. and, if so, (a) to whom are the courses available (i) within the Canadian government printing bureau (il) outside the Canadian government printing bureau (b) is there a fee or charge for any such course and, if so, what is the amount?
March 9, 1968

5.	What is the duration of the course?
6.	To date (a) how many people have taken this course (b) how many have qualified (c) how many have been advanced as a result of this training?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Mr. A. M. Khan.
2.	Seven.
3.	The general manager through the acting personnel manager.
4.	After hour training courses are provided
by the Ottawa and Hull Training Institute for Lithography (founded in February, 1965), which is administered by an advisory board. This board consists of representatives from industry, labour and government; the board members are:	Mr. C. B. Watt, General
Manager, Canadian Government Printing Bureau; Mr. R. P. White, Executive VicePresident, British American Bank Note Company Ltd.; and Mr. R. J. Clarke, VicePresident, International Lithographers and Photoengravers Union. There is also a joint administration committee consisting of four representatives from industry; four representatives from labour; and four representatives from government (four officers of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau).
The Canadian Government Printing Bureau co-operates and encourages this after hour training endeavour by making available to the Institute a training room, audio visual equipment and press time in the evenings. All supplies utilized by the students during the courses are donated free of charge by graphic arts suppliers. OHTIL provides competent instructors paid from the fee revenue and, more recently, one of the largest manufacturers of offset equipment has supplied free of charge an offset press, for their use. This is the first undertaking of this kind in Canada where industry, labour and government have joined hands to upgrade the skills of lithographic craftsmen to meet the challenge of modern technology.
The aim of the Institute is to increase the quality of craftsmen for the lithographic trade and to upgrade their skills in order to better prepare the journeymen to carry out their responsibilities to the printing industry.
(a) (i) and (ii)-Courses are available to both union and non union journeymen and apprentice lithographic craftsmen employed by lithographic establishments in the Ottawa-Hull area, including the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, (b) Yes. $45 per semester for members of the Lithographers
Questions
and Photoengravers International Union. $60 per semester for non members. The reason for the differential being that the members of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union are paying, through Union dues, a portion of the cost of the running of OHTIL program.
5.	Courses started in February 1965 and are not yet completed. There are separate courses as follows: Camera: four semesters, 17 weeks per semester, one night per week, three hours per night. Press: three semesters, 17 weeks per semester, one night per week, three hours per night. Stripping and Layout: two semesters, 17 weeks per semester, one night per week, three hours per night.
6.	(a) Camera course, 13; Press course, 15; Stripping and layout course; 8.
A total of 36 people, 16 of whom are Canadian Government Printing Bureau employees, (b) Courses are still in progress, (c) In so far as C.G.P.B. is concerned, none. No information available as to non-government employees.


CENTENNIAL COMMISSION ADVERTISING
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Did the Centennial Commission recently arrange for about $5,000,000.00 of centennial advertising?
2.	To which firms was this advertising allocated and what was the total of each allocation?
3.	Were other advertising firms invited to submit proposals and, if so, which ones?
4.	Can any competent advertising agency in Canada expect an invitation to bid for Centennial Commission accounts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No. An estimate has been made of possible expenditures till the end of 1967 by the Centennial Commission and the Canadian Government Travel Bureau in the field of publicity, advertising and promotion for the centennial celebrations, including informational material, pamphlets, brochures, posters, press releases, film clips, radio tapes, and this estimate is $5,000,000. Of this amount approximately 50 per cent is expected to be spent on advertising.
2.	(a) The Centennial Commission is entering into an agreement with three advertising agencies: Vickers and Benson, Ltd., Toronto; MacLaren Advertising Co., Ltd., Toronto; L'Agence Canadienne de publicity Ltee, Montreal; (b) The total of each allocation has not been determined as the agreements are still being negotiated.

March 9, 1966
Questions
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Goodwin-Ellis Advertising Ltd., Vancouver; Ronalds-Reynolds & Co., Montreal and Toronto; La Maison Pub-licitex Ltee, Montreal; Bouchard, Champagne et Pelletier Ltee, Montreal; Cockfield Brown & Co., Ltd., Toronto and Montreal.
4.	No. According to a well established practice, presentations were invited on a selective basis and three agencies were chosen with which to pursue negotiations. No further requirement exists at the present time.


BRETON COVE, N.S.-REPAIRS TO ROADWAY
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): When will repairs be carried out to the roadway and haulout at Breton Cove, Victoria county, N.S.?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): After the funds for 1966-67 become available.


VAL D'OR NUCLEAR BASE EXPENSES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Are the expenses of the nuclear base at Val d'Or entirely paid by the federal government, or is there some kind of joint plan whereby the United States share these expenses?
2.	If the United States does share these expenses, what is the amount?
3.	What is the Canadian government's share of these expenses?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Canada provides 368 military and civilian personnel and pays the operating and maintenance costs of station Val d'Or. The United States provides some technical equipment and 40 military personnel.
2.	The actual cost of the technical equipment and the rates of pay and allowances paid to the U.S. personnel at Val d'Or is not known.
3.	The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $2,215,000.


CAMP PETAWAWA WATER MAIN CONTRACT
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What are the details of the services and material supplied in contract No. 6928 for a water main at Camp Petawawa?
2.	What was the cost of each item?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Defence Construction (1951) Limited advise that tenders closed on this project on February 23, 1966. A contract has not yet been awarded. The lowest tender was submitted by Gap Construction Company Ltd., North Bay, Ontario, for a total price of $136,119.20 based on estimated quantities.
2. This contractor's tender was composed as follows: Supply and installation of water mains (various sizes) in place including fittings, excavation, bedding and backfill, $119,387.20; Supply and installation of valves, $10,440.00; Supply and installation of line marker posts, timber shoring and concrete bridging $1,200.00; Supply and installation of hydrants in place, $2,592.00; Supply and installation of blow-off at river crossing, $1,000.00; Prime cost allowance re. alterations and repairs to existing engineers' office, $1,500.00.


CANADIAN VOLUNTEERS FOR VIET NAM
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has a proposal reached the government of Canada urging approval of Canadian volunteers for Viet Nam?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. Two private citizens, a Mr. Mitchell and a Mr. Echlin, both of Toronto, wrote to the Prime Minister and myself respectively enquiring as to the attitude of the Government of Canada regarding their proposal to recruit in Canada a Canadian Volunteer Battalion for service with the United States forces in Viet Nam.
2. The Department of External Affairs sought the opinion of the Department of Justice which advised that a proposal to enlist, in Canada, men for service with the United States forces in Viet Nam would, if implemented, appear to be incompatible with the laws of Canada applicable in this instance, in particular the Foreign Enlistment Act. Mr. Echlin and Mr. Mitchell have both been informed accordingly.


E.M.O.-STORAGE OF &quot;INSTANT HOSPITALS&quot;
Mr. Howe (Hamilion: South):
In what locations in Canada have emergency measures organization "instant hospitals" been stored, and in each case, what is the bed capacity of each hospital?
March 9, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Camp Chilliwack, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Camp Shilo, Manitoba; Guelph, Ontario; Camp Borden, Ontario; Camp Petawawa, Ontario; Brock-ville, Ontario; Camp Valcartier, Quebec; Camp Debert, Nova Scotia; Ottawa, Ontario. Each hospital has a capacity of 200 beds.


INGONISH, N.S.-POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government to construct a new post office building at Ingonish, Nova Scotia and. if so, when will tenders be called?


George James McIlraith: No.


GOGAMA, ONT.-PURCHASE OF LOTS BY POST OFFICE
Mr. Fawcett: 1.	Did the Post Office Department purchase lots 33 and 34, Poupore street, Gogama, Ontario in 1961 or 1962, for the purpose of building a post office?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price and does the department still hold the deeds for the property?
3.	If these lots were sold by the department, to whom were they sold and for what price?


George James McIlraith: 1. The Department of Public Works purchased lots 33 and 34, Poupore street in May 1962 as the site of a future post office.
2.	The purchase price was $2,000. and the Department of Public Works still hold the deeds for the property.
3.	Not applicable.


RECEIPTS FROM PARI-MUTUEL BETTING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 842.-Mr. Coales:
1.	What was the total amount of receipts by the federal government for pari-mutuel betting in Canada during 1965?
2.	What was the breakdown as between the receipts from thoroughbred racing and harness
racing?
3.	What was the breakdown by provinces?
4.	Does the government intend to initiate any new practices for the protection of the betting public and more especially with regard to the testing of animals involved in races as to the possible use of drugs and, if so, of what would these new practices consist?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisler of Agriculture):: 1.	The total amount of receipts by the federal government for pari-mutuel betting in Canada for the period January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965, was $1,385,837.48.
Questions
2.	Thoroughbred racing, $849,599.51; Harness racing, $536,237.97.
3.	Thoroughbred	Harness
	racing	racing
British Columbia $114,664.42		$ 4,793.51
Alberta	. . 92,404.33	21,597.23Saskatchewan .	. . 12,200.69	3,082.63Manitoba 	. . 42,047.23	239.83Ontario	. . 509,348.22	389,130.48Quebec 	.. 78,934.62	75,331.77New Brunswick	12,229.63Nova Scotia .. .	23,925.48Prince Edward Island	5,443.18Newfoundland	464.234.	The procedures for the testing of animals involved in racing are continually reviewed, and desirable new practices and procedures are instituted as they become available.


EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Orange: 1.	Is any action being taken to extend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act beyond its proposed expiry date in 1967 and, if not, when will a decision be made on whether or not to extend the Act?
2.	If the act is to be extended, is it intended to remove the provisions excluding assistance to gold mines coming into operation in areas outside established gold mine communities as defined by the Act?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisler of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was extended in December 1963 for a period of four years to the end of 1967. The amendment to the act did not change the formula used in computing the amount of assistance payable to the gold mines. However, the amending legislation did introduce a restriction which affects a new gold mine coming into production after June 30, 1965. After that date a new gold mine is eligible for assistance only if it provides direct support to an existing gold mining community.
Although no direct action is presently being taken to extend the act, we are well aware of the needs of the gold mining industry and the situation is constantly under serious study.

March 9. 1966
Questions
A definite decision for the extension of the benefits of E.G.M.A. beyond the expiry date of December 31, 1967 will not be required during the present year.
2. The restriction of assistance to gold mines giving direct support to already existing gold mining communities was intended to prevent the establishment of new communities, supported by gold mining operations, which would be dependent on government assistance from the outset. Consequently, it is not intended to remove this restriction.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-EXTRA SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of National Revenue (a) in Ottawa (b) in the taxation division (c) in the customs and excise division, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a) In Ottawa, Customs and Excise, none; Taxation, none; (b) Taxation Division did not hire any employees for summer positions in Ottawa or outside Ottawa; (c) Customs and Excise Division employed 248 during the summer of 1965 outside Ottawa.
2.	Appointments were made from Civil Service Commission eligible lists.
3.	Information not available.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT-EXTRA SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Royal Canadian Mint (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, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the Royal Canadian Mint?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The Royal Canadian Mint hires extra casual employees at anytime of the year when the work load so requires, but does not hire extra employees for summer positions as such.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-EXTRA SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Finance (a) at the head office (b) in other Ottawa offices, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	(a) Nine at the head office of the Department of Finance and one at the head office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, (b) None.
2.	The Civil Service Commission.
3.	Not to the knowledge of the department.


DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE-EXTRA SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Trade and Commerce (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, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. (a) 5; (b) Nil.
2.	Civil Service Commission.
3.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-EXTRA SUMMER STAFF
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of National Health and Welfare (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, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) 16; (b) 45.
2.	Hired through the Civil Service Commission and the National Employment Office.
3.	No records are maintained to show where the relatives of an employee are employed.
March 9, 1966


STUDENT LOANS BY SASKATCHEWAN CREDIT UNIONS
Mr. Soulham: 1.	How many Saskatchewan credit unions have requested the privilege of making loans under the student loan plan?
2.	How many Saskatchewan credit unions qualified to make these student loans?
3.	What are the names of those credit unions in Saskatchewan that were denied the privilege of making these student loans?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Eighty one, including two credit unions whose requests for designation are currently under consideration.
Questions
Ltd.; Marcelin Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Meadow Lake Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Milestone Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Naicam District Credit Union Ltd.; Ogema District Credit Union Ltd.; Paddockwood Community Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Pelly Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; St. Louis Credit Union Ltd.; Simpson Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Spalding Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Springside Credit Union Ltd.; Wadena Credit Union Ltd.; Weldon Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Young Savings & Credit Union Ltd.


HIGHWAY ACCIDENT STATISTICS
Mr. Gundlock: 2.	Forty two.
3.	Aberdeen District Credit Union Ltd.; Abernathy Credit Union Ltd.; Asquith Credit Union Ltd.; Bethune Credit Union Ltd.; Broadview Credit Union Ltd.; Bruno Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Choiceland Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Churchbridge Saving & Credit Union Ltd.; Denzil & District Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Dinsmore Credit Union Ltd.; Dodsland & District Credit Union Ltd.; Dorintosh Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Eastend Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Gainsborough Credit Union Ltd.; Langham Credit Union Ltd.; Lashburn Savings & Credit Union Ltd.; Lestock Savings & Credit Union
What are the statistics concerning highway and street accidents resulting in bodily harm and fatalities that show make and model of the automobiles involved?


Robert Henry Winters: No information is available on the make of automobile involved in motor vehicle accidents. In 1964, the total number of passenger cars involved in accidents in Canada was 370,236. Of this number, 2,953 were fatal accidents and 97,130 involved non-fatal injuries. Information is not complete on the number of vehicles involved in accidents by year of model, as data are not available for the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec,
Ltd.; Macklin	& District Savings & Credit	Ontario,	Manitoba and British Columbia.	Union Ltd.; MacNutt & District	Credit Union	However, information	by year	of model isLtd.; Maple Creek Savings &	Credit Union	available for the provinces listed below.	Number of Cars	Involved in Accidents,	1964-By Model Year	Prince	Yukon andModel	Edward	Nova	NorthwestYear	Newfoundland	Island	Scotia	Saskatchewan	Alberta	Territories1965	32	13	85	179	190	41964	1,100	264	2,315	3,125	5,480	671963	1,319	280	2,565	2,875	5,431	661962	1,151	220	2,149	2,061	4,631	541961	932	199	1,892	1,853	3,548	401960	900	211	1,776	1,969	3,760	341959	660	148	1,669	2,158	4,202	491958	400	138	1,182	1,630	3,001	281957	479	118	1,074	1,980	3,757	261956	395	126	-	1,566	3,156	351952-55	451	234	2,836	3,811	6,004	531947-51	22	42	-	1,174	1,354	91942-46	1	1	6	16	30	-Pre 1942	1	-	6	38	40	-Not Stated	2	14	270	127	836	4Totals	7,845	2,008	17,825	24,562	45,420	469
March 9. 1966
Questions


CRITERIA TO INDICATE POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Under what criteria does the chiel electoral officer indicate political affiliations in the list of candidates established for the armed forces?
2.	Does the chief electoral officer forward instructions to the returning officers in order that all provisions of the electoral expenditures legislation be complied with and, If not, what is the reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The criteria under which the Chief Electoral Officer indicates political affiliations in the list of candidates established for the armed forces are from the best sources of information available to him, as prescribed by subparagraph (3) of paragraph 16 of The Canadian Forces Voting Rules in Schedule II to the Canada Elections Act.
2. Subsection (1) of section 60 of the Canada Elections Act provides for the governor in council establishing a tariff of fees, costs, allowances, and expenses to be paid and allowed to returning officers and other persons employed at or with respect to elections held under the said act. At such time as an election is called, special instructions are sent to all returning officers regarding any expenditures to be made by them pursuant to the said tariff of fees.


OPERATIONAL FAILURE OF CF-104 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Harkness: 1.	During the period that the CF-104 aircraft has been in operation in the R.C.A.F., how many of these aircraft have crashed?
2.	How many of the aircraft which have crashed were of the operational configuration and how many of the training type?
3.	How many of these aircraft have been salvaged, repaired and put back into operation?
4.	Has there been any reduction in the number of these aircraft in the operational squadrons and, if so, what has been the amount of this reduction?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. 33.
2.	Aircraft at the training school are interchangeable with squadron aircraft, therefore all but one of the above were of the operational configuration.
3.	None, although some components were salvaged.
4.	No.


FINAL PAYMENTS ON VARIOUS GRADES OF WHEAT
Mr. Jorgenson: What was the amount of the final payment during the crop year 1964-65 for the following grades of wheat (a) No. 1 northern (b) No. 2 northern (c) No. 3 northern (d) No. 4 northern (e) No. 5 wheat (f) No. 6 wheat (g) feed wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) 38.296 cents per bushel; (b) 38.711 cents per bushel; (c) 36.228 cents per bushel; (d) 36.888 cents per bushel; (e) 44.022 cents per bushel; (f) 46.426 cents per bushel; (g) 47.638 cents per bushel.


STATUTORY RESERVE BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Hees: 1.	Do the chartered banks maintain a statutory reserve of 8 per cent on Canadian dollar deposits in cash and/or deposits with the Bank of Canada?
2.	What was the amount of their aggregate deposit on their fiscal year ended October 31, 1965?
3.	Does the Bank of Canada pay chartered banks any interest on these deposits and, if so, at what rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Section 71(1) and (2) of the Bank Act prescribe the cash reserve in the form of a deposit with the Bank of Canada and of Bank of Canada notes held by the bank which each chartered bank is required to maintain. The percentage in question is 8 per cent.
2.	Aggregate chartered bank deposits with the Bank of Canada on October 31st, 1965, were $1,018,157,106.
3.	No.


EXPO '67-FAMILY PLANNING EXHIBIT
Mr. Prittie: 1.	What is the theme of Expo '67?
2.	Will reference be made to the population problem in exhibits planned for Expo '67?
3.	Did the Canadian federation for population planning (now the family planning federation of Canada) or the Montreal family planning association apply to Expo '67 for space to present an exhibit in line with the theme of Expo '67?
4.	If so, what oral or written response was made to the federation?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. "Man and His World"-"Terre des Hommes".
2. It is too early to indicate with certainty whether foreign governments or Canadian industries will refer to the population problem
March 9, 1966

in their pavilions. With respect to the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition thematic pavilions, four at least will refer to the matter of population growth in their exhibits:	"Man in the Community",
"Man the Provider", "Man and His Health" and "Man, His Planet and Space".
3.	The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition was approached by the Family Planning Association in Montreal, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Family Planning Federation of Canada and of the international organization known as Planned Parenthood World Population. One aspect of the approach was in the nature of a request for space in which these organizations could set up a booth. The approach also brought about discussions on references to the population explosion in our theme exhibits, particularly in the sub-theme "Man and His Community".
4.	It was explained to the representatives of these organizations that the exhibition, being one registered by the International Bureau of Exhibitions in the first category, does not provide for the rental or the disposition on a free basis of booths for individual organizations. The discussions with the organizations concerned have proven useful in the development of thematic exhibits on the population explosion, and such discussions are continuing.


BAGOTVILLE, QUE.-PERSONNEL AT R.C.A.F. STATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	How many air force personnel are stationed at R.C.A.F. station Bagotville?
2.	How many dependent children are living with these personnel?
3.	Is there a public school in the Bagotville area which provides college entrance level education for English speaking students?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. As of 31 January 1966, 1137.
2.	The latest figures available are for 30 September 1965, 1985.
3.	Yes, two in Arvida.


SALARY OF R.C.A.F. FLIGHT LIEUTENANT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 907.-Mr. Howe (Hamilton
South):
What is the salary of an R.C.A.F. flight lieutenant, captain of a Cosmopolitan aircraft, after 10 years in that service?
Questions
Paul Theodore Hellyer: The type of aircraft flown has no bearing on rates of pay for pilots in the R.C.A.F. An R.C.A.F. Flight Lieutenant with 10 years in that rank, if married, draws $833 per month, and a single officer of the same rank draws either $668 if quarters and rations are provided, or $763 if quarters and rations are not provided.


AVAILABILITY OF PERITRATE SA
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has a drug of the trade name "Peritrate SA" ever been available in Canada and, if so, is it still available?
2.	If it is still available, has consideration been given to removing it from the market, in the light of recent United States findings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. No, since the United States action was not based on any question of safety or effectiveness of the drug.


MISSION TO JAPAN-HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN BREEDERS REPRESENTATION
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What breeders of Holstein-Friesian cattle in the Atlantic provinces were invited to become members of the trade mission to Japan and Korea sponsored by the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	By whom were the personnel of the mission selected?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. None.
2. The members of the mission were selected by the Department of Trade and Commerce in consultation with the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada.


KINCARDINE, ONT.-SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECT
Mr. Loney: 1.	Has the full amount of $127,600 awarded to the town of Kincardine to assist in a sewage treatment project been paid to the municipality?
2.	If not, what amount remains unpaid?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Full amount of loan based on final costs was $113,002.80.
2.	Final loan disbursement was made to the municipality on June 4th, 1965.

March 9, 1966
Order for Return


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	What is Canada's debt, gross and net?
2.	What is the debt of Crown corporations, gross
*\nd net?
3.	How much money do Canadians owe to banks and credit unions for personal loans?
4.	What is the amount of the gross national
product?
5.	What is the total money supply in bank notes and coins in circulation?
6.	What interest did the federal government pay during the last payment period on the national debt and on its bonds?
7.	How many finance companies are there in Canada and what are the names of such companies in each province?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I raised a question of privilege because of the fact that questions standing in my name, numbers 5, 163 and 210 had not been answered. Since that time there have been two opportunities for the government to provide the answers to these questions.
In view of the fact that there are now 198 questions standing on the order paper, and the question standing fifth from the beginning of the list has not yet been answered, this indicates the government is not providing the kind of co-operation which the opposition would expect if we are to go along with the provisional rules that have been given to the house.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, these repeated allegations have been causing the government a great deal of concern. The number of questions that used to be asked in an entire session was about 600. So far, in less than two months of this session we already have had 998 questions on the order paper. I am not complaining about that; but I do want to draw the attention of the house to a problem that is pressing because of the form in which

questions are asked and the resultant difficulty in answering them. I can give no better example than question No. 5 which reads:
What is the total amount of expenditure of the federal government made as of this date, or undertaken, or planned directly or indirectly, in connection with Expo '67?
I know that the answer to the expenditures was prepared and sent forward some weeks ago by the minister responsible for Expo, but the hon. member's question necessitates the checking of every department and agency of government to find out what expenditures were planned indirectly in connection with Expo '67.
The question is not in a form that is capable of getting a reasonably prompt answer, and I respectfully suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) has raised this matter for a second time as a question of privilege. I believe he will probably agree with the Chair if I say this is not truly a question of privilege.
If the hon. member would refer to citation 181 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition he will read:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal.
The hon. member is referring to three specific questions which he says have not been answered. My suggestion to him is that normally this type of objection would be raised as a grievance, when grievances are taken, or during the question period, by asking a minister why a specific question has not been answered, or whether a specific question will be answered.


Robert Carman Coates: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the ruling you are now making is with regard to oral questions, and not with regard to written questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The citation I have been quoting for the benefit of the hon. member refers not only to oral questions but applies equally to written questions.
Ken. Michael Sfarr (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise on a question of privilege as a result of the point of order raised. The reason that there has been an increase in the number of written questions is because there have been rulings that these questions should
March 9, 19G6



be put on the order paper. Now, if the same attitude is applied to written questions as is applied to oral questions, we will never get any answers. Even now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Starr:: -we have some 126 questions unanswered for over a month or more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member now seems to be entering into a debate with the government house leader, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). My ruling has to remain that there is no question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates).

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 102 is acceptable to the government.

ADVERTISEMENTS IN U.S. PUBLICATIONS Motion No. 102-Mr. McIntosh:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all advertisements in the February and March issues inserted in periodicals and newspapers in the United States by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 102 be passed?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Bechard:: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notice of motion 89? I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motion stand.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, SUDBURY AND TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Nielsen:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister, or any minister of the crown, and the Industrial Development Bank at Sudbury and Toronto, and the replies thereto, within the last three months.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the traditional position has been that it is not in the public interest to table anything which would reveal the affairs or identity of any individual applying for, or
Motions for Papers
obtaining, a loan from the Industrial Development Bank, as such information is considered to be commercially confidential.
In any event, a search of the records shows no correspondence as described in the hon. member's motion, the terms of which refer to correspondence by the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown.
I should add, however, that there is one letter to the Industrial Development Bank written by an executive assistant. This letter reveals the name of an applicant, and to produce it would offend against the principle I have just enunciated.
In view of what I have said, I suggest the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the minister to say that the letter which was written was by an executive
assistant to a minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I stated that the only correspondence between the Industrial Development Bank and any minister's office-and I was taking the interpretation of the motion very broadly so that I would be entirely fair to the hon gentleman-of such a kind is written by an executive assistant, and that letter mentions the name of an applicant. I said it offends against the principle I have enunciated in respect of the confidential nature of such information; but there is no correspondence which I or the bank have been able to find between any minister and the Industrial Development Bank at Sudbury or Toronto during the last three months.


Erik Nielsen: The question, Mr. Speaker, included the Prime Minister's office as well. I cannot withdraw the motion because I believe the minister's statement, quite unknowingly to him, is inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the motion is not withdrawn?


Erik Nielsen: I cannot withdraw it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

March 9, 1966
Division


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?
Agreed.

March 9, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of he Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether the fact that the Studebaker Corporation joined the automobile producing death list came about in any way because of the fact that the guide lines laid down by Washington to United States corporations may have drained the Studebaker treasury.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think almost exactly the same question was asked-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -arising probably out of the same newspaper article two days ago, and I replied then.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask the minister, is that a fact or not? The minister's reply previously was not definite. Has this been looked into?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman would consult Hansard, I think he would find that my words were that we have been unable to find any evidence that such was the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you tried?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so arrogant.


POSSIBILITY OF RETAINING EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDEBAKER WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilion Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Is he planning to meet with the executive of the U.A.W. from the Studebaker Corporation within the next few days and, if so, has he a specific proposal to make for keeping the plant in operation at Hamilton, or a proposal for an alternative use to which it may be put?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet with representatives of the labour union at any time. As I explained to the house yesterday and the day before, we are actively, but still, seeking alternative industrial uses for the Studebaker plant in Hamilton.
DEBATES	2447
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS


HALIFAX DOCKYARD-JOB EVALUATION WITHOUT CONSULTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister received a telegram from the Halifax Dockyard Trades and Labour Council, protesting the fact that a job evaluation program is being instituted by the department without any negotiations with the employees concerned? I want to ask the minister, will he consider delaying this action in order to permit negotiation of job evaluation as coming properly within the scope of collective bargaining of government employees?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there must be confusion here. We have this telegram.


An hon. Member:: The confusion is on your side.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: You are talking of job evaluation. I am not aware that job evaluation has been instituted in Halifax or anywhere else. What is taking place now is a review of the classification structure in the dockyard, and this is carried out by the bureau of classification revision of the Civil Service Commission. We are acting as an agent of the Civil Service Commission, as many other departments do. What we do is to transmit the information that we have gathered for the Civil Service Commission, to the Civil Service Commission. I am very willing to go deeper into this particular matter to find out about it, but I am quite sure that there is no job evaluation there. Last summer, in an interview with people responsible in the dockyard it was said that we were not considering this subject before the bargaining was instituted. Certainly as I said in my opening remarks, there must be confusion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister if it is true that the employees have received form
S.C. 3 (2265) setting forth the new classifications and pay system for service and maintenance personnel which is to come into effect on October 1, 1966. Has the government refused to negotiate this job classification?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I will have to take the second part of the question as notice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a further supplementary question.
March 9, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland rises on a question of privilege.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that two days ago the hon. member for Halifax asked this exact question of the Minister of National Defence, and at that time you found it out of order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
MR. CALVIN MacDONALD-REQUEST FOR HEARING
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we have not had, that I know of, any official communication from the French government on this matter. If and when it comes we shall naturally give it consideration and discuss the matter with our NATO allies.']
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has the right hon. Prime Minister received a communication or a telegram from a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Calvin MacDonald, asking to be heard before the judicial inquiry on national security, and requesting that his case be looked into on a special basis?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to make inquiries.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the exchange between President de Gaulle and President Johnson as it relates to NATO, wherein President Johnson has accused President de Gaulle of seeking to destroy NATO, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not he has any communication with President de Gaulle or the French government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not had, that I know of, any official communication from the French government on this matter. If and when it comes we shall naturally give it consideration and discuss the matter with our NATO allies.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader and ask him whether, in view of the fact that during the 1962-63 session up until February 22 there were 1,467 written questions, compared with 900 odd questions on the order paper now, of which only 126 have been answered, he would prevail upon his colleagues to do something, to answer those questions.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figure, but over 600 questions have been answered. Those are answers to written questions. There is, however, a real problem about questions on the order paper that are not in accordance with the rules. Some that are in accordance with the rules are put in such a form that a quick reply is impossible. A great deal of improvement could be made if there were better draftmanship of the questions.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. minister who has just cast aspersions on hon. members would indicate in what manner question 71 is wrong, in which it is asked how many dominion-provincial conferences have been held since a certain date. That question has been standing there since January 18.


George James McIlraith: I think if the hon. member will look at that question-I can tell the hon. member what is wrong with it, in a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I submit to the hon. member and to the minister that this exchange is not entirely according to the rules. The hon. member might ask why the question has not been answered, and whether it will be answered at an early date, but he cannot ask what is wrong with it. Neither can the minister say what is wrong with the question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I was merely seeking guidance as to how I might conduct myself in accordance with the traditions of this house. Now I will ask why the question was not answered.
March 9, 196G	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: I can tell the hon. member why it was not answered. Question 71 on the order paper reads as follows:
1.	Since June 15, 1963, how many Dominion-Provincial Conferences have been held?
2.	Which of these conferences were held at the (a) ministerial and which at the (b) official level?
When it comes to meetings at the official level, you get into an area where there is a very large number of meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: It is extremely difficult to know how many meetings are going on. For instance, today in my own department I do not know how many officials are meeting with officials from the various provinces. This is precisely the difficulty. If the hon. member would draft the question correctly we would produce an answer without delay.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On a point of order; may I point out that the hon. gentleman has been very gratuitous with his misplaced comments and suggestions. I was asking about dominion-provincial conferences, a fairly distinct kind of meetings.


George James McIlraith: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out that in the Department of Fisheries alone, there have been over 50 such dominion-provincial conferences.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any comment to make concerning evidence given yesterday before Hon. Mr. Justice Hughes in Toronto to the effect that the United States guide lines instituted early last year contributed to the collapse of the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. I was hoping somebody would ask me a question about this. I am sure the house would not expect me to comment on the financial affairs of a particular company which is currently under investigation by a royal commission. I might point out, however, that the United States balance of payments measures, qualified as they were by exemptions negotiated on behalf of Canada, did not prevent Canadian borrowers as a group from obtaining substantial inflows of capital in 1965.
DEBATES	2449
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in order to clear up a situation which has been going on for a few days.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether it is true the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has withdrawn at noon the resignation he handed a few days ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order.



INCREASE IN COMMODITY EXPORTS TO OVERCOME TRADE DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the United States secretary of commerce that Canada must be allowed to ship greatly increased quantities of oil and gas, base metals, livestock, lumber and other commodities to that market this year as a positive means of overcoming the commodity trade deficit with that country which increased last year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -by some $300 million to a total of more than $1 billion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been unable to hear the whole question, so perhaps we might give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and allow the minister to answer it.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his question so I am prepared to answer it. At last week's meeting of the Canada-United States joint committee on trade and economic affairs we emphasized the importance which Canada attaches to improvement in our current account with the United States, including in particular more exports to that market. While last year Canada's total exports increased by 5.6 per cent over 1964, our sales to the United States increased by 13 per cent and surpassed the $5 billion mark for the first time. They were more than $600 million higher than for
March 9. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the previous year. Our December exports to the United States were up by nearly 19 per cent over the previous December.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we are now witnessing an exchange of statistics between the hon. member for Northumberland and the minister. I think this is not the type of question and answer which should be allowed at this time.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for Northumberland?
Will the minister tell us if the trade increase between Canada and the United States which he mentioned a little earlier is due to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar which the Conservative government put into force in previous years?


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


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman's question is out of order.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say you allowed the minister to reply to a question put by the hon. member for Northumberland, and mine is related to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the hon. member to put his question and, with respect, I think his question is not in order. I felt that the original question placed by the hon. member for Northumberland had some aspects which indicated it was not entirely in order, and the response by the minister went beyond the terms of the type of reply that should be made to questions posed at this time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I would normally direct this question to his parliamentary secretary, but the intervention of that hon. member into the question period

the other day made it obvious he does not know any more than the rest of us. I should like, therefore, to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George, and ask him whether a telegram has been received today from the representatives of the Canadian Marine Officers Institute and the Seafarers International Union asking specifically for a meeting with the Minister of Transport to talk about safety on the St. Lawrence. If so, what response, if any, has been given? What is to happen with regard to this request?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: May I point out to the hon. member that the telegram was sent only by the S.I.U. and not by the Dominion Marine Association. In reply to this telegram, I stated that departmental officials and myself would be meeting in Montreal next week, on March 16, with all the interested parties, including the unions and the shipping industry, to begin a series of meetings on marine safety on the lakes and on the St. Lawrence river.


Mr. Churchill:: Would those be conferences or meetings?


John Napier Turner: Meetings at the technical and official level with the interested parties.


Frank Howard: May I be allowed to point out that I did not say the telegram came jointly from the Dominion Marine Association, but rather from the Canadian Marine Officers Institute and the Seafarers International Union? Could I ask the minister whether he is the only minister who will be in attendance at this meeting or whether the Minister of Transport will be there as well?


John Napier Turner: I will be the only minister present at this particular meeting, but of course the Minister of Transport will be fully aware of what is happening.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said the government would soon be in a position to reply to my question relating to the imposition of mandatory government specifications for safety features in Canadian motor vehicles unless the industry acted voluntarily in this field. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if he is yet able to reply to this question, and whether he can
March 9, 1966

inform the house of any conversations he had with the United States secretary concerned, a few days ago, on the subject of automobile safety.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the Minister of Industry could answer that question. Before he does so, may I be permitted to express my congratulations to the hon. member on his forthcoming visit to the Congress in Washington?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member's question was in two parts. With respect to the second part, may I say I did have a brief conversation on this subject with Secretary Connor in Washington indicating to him the interest we in Ottawa have in this question of automobile safety, and offering to co-operate. As to the question of mandatory safety provisions in relation to imported vehicles, it is clear that the federal government has jurisdiction. But the imposition of mandatory safety provisions applying to vehicles made in Canada might raise constitutional problems, and these problems are currently under study by the Department of Justice.


David Réal Caouette: May I put
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Is the minister aware that the Chrysler company is the one providing the greater security at present?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Could the Prime Minister say whether further representations have been received from the Federal Superannuates National Association for an upward adjustment in civil service retirement pensions with an escalator clause, and is any further consideration being given to this, additional to what the right hon. gentleman said on this matter some weeks ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to my best knowledge there have been no representations received since those with which I dealt in answer to a question a couple of weeks ago, when I did
Inquiries of the Ministry receive representations and replied to them. I shall be glad to inquire if any have come in since.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any consideration given by the Prime Minister to them? I did not hear the earlier part of his answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Consideration was given to these representations, and in the reply to the civil service superannuates I indicated the view of the government that no change could be made at this time.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Shame.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What action is the government prepared to take to offset the serious effects of increasing lumber prices, which are of concern to those desiring to build homes for their families?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very general question which I would invite the hon. member to place on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the Yugoslav seamen at Saint John. Has the minister any information with respect to the status of the seamen not deported?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 12 Yugoslav seamen broke ship in St. John, New Brunswick. Ten of them appealed to the immigration court of appeal from the deportation order which was maintained and they were deported. The other two will appear on March 24 before the immigration court and I do not know yet what judgment will be handed down.
March 9, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Notwithstanding the communique read in the house on Monday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would the minister inform the house just where United States subsidiaries operating in Canada stand regarding the United States guide line policy?


Mr. Speaker:: This may be a good question, but I wonder whether the hon. member is asking now for a statement of policy which the minister might want to make on motions. This is again the type of question which would normally require a rather lengthy reply. The Chair has to exercise some discretion on this type of question, and I suggest it should not be accepted now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce which I drew to his attention on March 1 prior to his visit to Washington. Would he look at page 1999 of Hansard and let me have an answer to the question concerning the sanctions applied by Canada against Southern Rhodesia?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he read a report on the Quebec medicare plan by Dr. Allan Goldbloom of Montreal, in which he states medicare must be accomplished in stages? Is the minister in agreement with this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; this question is not in order.


CANADIAN SITE FOR 1972 OLYMPICS On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and it is based on a collective telegram which I received from Edmonton. Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the house whether a decision has been made in connection with a Canadian site for the 1972 Olympics? If not, would certain professors from the University of Alberta, who are interested in this question, be given an opportunity to present their case to the minister and his officials?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I would invite the hon. member to place his question on the order paper.



CASSIUS CLAY-PERMISSION TO HOLD BOXING EVENT IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of immigration. Can he tell the house whether his department is prepared to allow the entry into this country of one Mohammed Ali, otherwise known as Cassius Clay, to participate in an event that no city in his own country would sponsor?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton South.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oxford asked me a question with respect to supplementary dairy payments, which I undertook to answer today. To date, 132,423 cheques have been issued, whereby the dairy farmers of Canada have received a total of $18,502,118 by reason of the government's supplementary payments policy. An additional 3,437 cheques totalling $412,440 will be issued by the end of this week, and there will then be 3,000 payments outstanding.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: As a supplementary question, when a similar question was asked of the minister, I believe on February 8, did he not say at that time that he expected all these payments would be made by February 14?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker.
March 9, 1966



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Because of the closing of the uranium mines in Bancroft, would the minister declare this area a designated area for industrial incentives?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the problem of Bancroft in an endeavour to find some way of alleviating its plight, and I would be glad to look at it again.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister advise the house whether the quota of 50,000 seal pelts has been filled?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Yes, it has. Didn't you listen to the news?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
Minister of Fisheries will be facing the com-mitttee of supply when presenting his estimates this afternoon, and I think that would be the proper time to ask this question.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard a statement made on the other side, that the quota had been reached. This is false news that came over the radio this morning and I would like to be allowed to make a statement to correct this.


Donald MacInnis: Who is
giving the false news?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister is seeking the permission of the house to revert to motions in order to make a statement, but I suggest he will have an opportunity to make whatever statement he has in mind when we consider the estimates of the Department of Fisheries later this afternoon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the minister's reports on Canada's efforts to pacify the Viet Nam war, and likewise having in mind the announcement by Australia today that she is going to quadruple her fighting force in Viet Nam, would the minister say what consultation exists between Commonwealth members on this grave situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the government of Australia to increase its military assistance to Viet Nam was made known to us in Ottawa yesterday by the Australian High Commission, as part of the continuing exchanges of view which we have both here and in Canberra.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any reports alleging that farmers in areas of eastern Canada, where there is a shortage of feed, are being charged completely unconscionable prices for feed, screenings and so on, sometimes as high as $6 per cwt.? Further, has he received reports that purchases of feed grain from western Canada are not being taken up because of lack of organization at the receiving end, namely eastern Canada.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we have had complaints in this direction from time to time. It is my hope and belief that the government policy in respect of the eastern feed grain agency, which we hope soon will be before this house, if the house proceeds with its business with some expedition, will help to solve the problem.



BONNYVILLE, ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John James Greene: Yesterday the hon. member for Athabasca asked me a question which I undertook to answer. The answer to the question is that I had not received the report from the Farmers Union of Bonnyville, Alberta, but I am very pleased that the hon. member sent it to me. I might point out that this requests payments
24S4
March 9, 1966

Supply-Secretary of State supplementary to the P.F.A.A. payments, and I think indicates I trust to the satisfaction of the hon. members for Peace River and Medicine Hat the soundness of the government's policy not to supplement P.F.A.A. payments in the three areas requested by the province of Alberta. This would in fact have been discriminatory, as this request now clearly indicates.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister made reference to a government policy in respect of feed grain. Does the government have any policy in respect of the immediate crisis which is being faced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be a good time at which to advise the house that the question period now is completed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $481,600.
The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Michael Starr: Before vote No. 1 carries, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has anything further to say with regard to some of the questions which have been asked, or which have been given to her in written form?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I received today questions from each of two hon. members opposite. One is from the hon. member for Churchill, who asks me to agree to provide a special sum of money during this session to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to complete its job of providing extended service, presumably in his own constituency. I thought last evening, in response to his remarks and those of others, I had made it very clear that while I was in sympathy with the request, the matter was being considered now by a cabinet committee, which the Prime Minister announced and which he chairs, and that this is a part of general policy on broadcasting.
I think my hon. friend realizes that, although it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be a conduit pipe, it is not my place to tell the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where they should extend service. As a government it is our responsibility to draw up plans in respect of how much

money we will ask parliament to vote, depending on the request put to us by the C.B.C.
I think my hon. friend also will realize that I cannot give him the assurance he wishes, particularly in respect of the estimates before this committee, the spending of which will be completed in about two weeks' time. He had some figures, which I now have had an opportunity to check, concerning the per-household cost for provision of service, of something in the order of $4 or $5. I should like to correct him, because I think if he checks he will realize that he made a slip. The $4 or $5 is per capita, and the per household figure on which we presently are working is $20.
I am informed by the corporation that they hope, even under present financing, they will be able to work up to a figure of something like $10 per capita in the next few years. If the government is able to recommend an accelerated policy and parliament agrees, that figure will rise much more sharply.
I also was asked by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that I give an undertaking to the effect that some money would be forthcoming to provide service by the C.B.C. in his constituency. I think it is quite obvious that constitutionally I cannot provide such an assurance. Last evening, in stating the government's position, I went further than any previous minister responsible for the C.B.C. ever has done before. I indicated, notwithstanding the fact that some of the hon. member's constituents feel aggrieved, as was shown in the return tabled February 7, the cost per capita today for Canadians is only .03 cents for radio and .09 cents for television. However, this still is a service which, when extended in certain areas, becomes extraordinarily expensive.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure my hon. friend that he will have service on such and such a date, or the year after, but I cannot do that. Also I am informed I was wrong in my recollection last night when, referring to the Fowler Report, I said our service now extends to 92 per cent of our homes for television and 96 per cent for radio. The figures properly should be 94 and 98. There are some people in Canada to whom we are not going to be able to bring television, partly because they are so scattered, partly because the cost per capita is extremely high, and partly because there is no way under present technology to extend the service there.
March 9. 196G	COMMONS
However, I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. friends, who I know are anxious to see the estimates of this department and the other two remaining departments pass quickly, that I am sincerely in accord with as rapid as possible extension of service. I know the management and board of the C.B.C. are of the same opinion. Although I cannot say it will be by the time the next set of estimates is before the house, it may very well be that within this calendar year we will be in a position to say when this policy of extension of facilities will be undertaken.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, last night, when the house adjourned, I was endeavouring to find out from the minister if the present government intends to postpone the date agreed upon for the construction of the C.B.C.'s Place des Ondes.
The minister did not give a satisfactory reply to that question.
Although I voted for the adjournment, I wish to say I did not intend to join the members of the N.D.P. in an attempt to delay the adoption of the department's estimates. I merely wanted to find out from the Secretary of State, whether she intends to make an early statement on this project of considerable importance to the city of Montreal.
On September 17, 1965, her predecessor made a statement in Montreal to the effect that this government had allowed an extension of one year, starting on October 1, 1965, for the carrying out of this project which is most important for the city of Montreal and particularly for that part of the city.
Yesterday, during the debate, the minister stated just the opposite, as can be found on page 2419 of Hansard:
But I do think it would be foolhardy for me at this point, while the Fowler report is being studied by the committee, to attempt to give hon. members here, or persons in the general public, a date upon which construction will be started or completed.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that answer is in disagreement with everything suggested by the former Secretary of State, that is that the work would start on October 1, 1966.
The purpose of this intervention-I would like the minister to help me shorten the time allocated to me to discuss this matter-is to ask the minister to tell us that she will be ready to make a statement in the house of commons within a week, 15 days or three 23033-156
DEBATES	2455
Supply-Secretary of State weeks concerning a final date for the start of the construction. I feel that would remove the prevailing anxiety and uncertainty from the people who live in the eastern part of the Canadian metropolis. Surely, the minister is aware that this situation seriously affects businessmen in that part of the city of Montreal.
This indecision on the part of the Secretary of State is detrimental to the implementation and execution of this extensive project. I feel the minister should study the merits and the objectivity of my request. I do not know why she persists in her refusal to tell us whether the project will be started as promised by her predecessor, or whether she intends to make a statement in the house within a few weeks so as to inform the public and Montreal authorities, who have asked for information, when this Place des Ondes project will start.
It seems to me that my question is not difficult, it is simple, perhaps too simple for the minister. She must admit that an answer would surely avoid anxiety and especially complications for businessmen of the eastern part of Montreal.
So, I ask the minister to confirm or deny the statement made by her predecessor, the former Secretary of State, in Montreal before the city authorities, when he said that a period of one year would be granted for the start of construction work, which then was to have started on October 1, 1965.
I ask the minister whether this statement was only a political football in the midst of an election campaign or whether it was a formal and official commitment on the part of the present government.
It seems to me that my request is logical and reasonable. I ask the minister to inform us on this point. I know that the problem concerns not only the voters of my riding but those of every riding in the City of Montreal who hope for the early implementation of this major project.
Therefore, I ask whether the minister is ready to give her answer to the effect that the project will be implemented without further delay, or undertake to make a statement in the house on this matter within a few weeks.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had explained this to my hon. friend last night. Let me first say that I did not, initially, pay the honours due my predecessor last night, for the very reason that I thought this
Supply-Secretary of State committee, being so delayed, would permit me to do so during the study of next year's estimates.
I should like to say, however, that in the time I have been in office I have never found such evidence of a man's devotion to the subject matters of a portfolio of government. The former Secretary of State I think is a shining example throughout the country of the stimulation and cultivation of cultural pursuits in this country. He is held in highest regard by all of those in the various fields of culture, who believe that he is the real hope for the people of Canada with regard to the advancement of these fields. My predecessor was, as a cultivated man, no cheap politician who would make promises which he did not intend to keep, nor is this government attempting in any way to retreat from any promise or undertaking ever made in this regard.
My hon. friend and all hon. members of the committee must realize that the Fowler committee was asked to look into a number of things regarding C.B.C. financing and its arrangements, and one of these was its consolidation plans. I assume that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie understands that it is intended to go ahead with the consolidations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Indeed, I have just received a request in respect of the city of Winnipeg regarding consolidation.
All of the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation need to be updated, which will require a great deal of money. But when public money is spent in setting up a committee which studies the problem thoroughly, and recommends certain things very much at variance to what the management of the board of the C.B.C. has recommended, I know my hon. friend will understand why the government believes it would be an arrant disregard of its responsibilities not to restudy these individual matters before committing itself to asking parliament for the necessary money.
The funds to be expended on each of these consolidation plans are very considerable. The buildings to be constructed we hope will last at least 50 years into the future, and will fit the requirements of broadcasting in the public sector. That being the case, the government is reconsidering the two opposed positions. I hope it will in a very short period of time be able to make its decision known with respect to the consolidation plans for these three cities.

March 9, 1966
I said last night, and I should like to repeat, that there has never been any suggestion from any responsible source that the C.B.C. was not going to build. In fact, I want to make this very clear; the C.B.C. intends to build and the government intends that it shall build. The government intends that this construction shall take place in Montreal on the site which is known as "Place Radio Canada".


Mr. Favreau:: It is Place des Ondes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, it is Place des Ondes on Dorchester east, in Montreal. As I said last night, the chairman of the committee, in whose constituency part of the building is to be located with the other part being in Sainte-Marie, has been extremely helpful to me in this regard. We have consulted almost daily on this as to what will happen on the site, and as to the requirements of the people in the area of the municipality, etc.
I want to say to the hon. member, and to all members of the committee, that the government is moving as quickly as it can in the whole field of broadcasting in order to arrive at certain dicisions, such as those in respect of consolidation, which need not await the white paper on broadcasting policy generally. I am very happy to undertake to all hon. members that as quickly as possible these decisions will be made and will be at once made public.


David Réal Caouette: would be provided to the people of Chibou-gamau and Chapais?
I should like the Secretary of State to enlighten us on this, because I think there is some political interference within the administration of the C.B.C. and I wonder whether this is a fact.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my hon. friend will forgive me for answering in what is my mother tongue. I am certain that no such special information was given to any candidate, Liberal or otherwise. It would seem to me that if such a promise were made, it was the kind of promise my hon. friend would make in his constituency or I would make in mine, namely that we would do everything possible to improve or bring service to the constituency if we were elected a member of this house. I am certain that if such a promise were made, that was the extent of it. I point out to my hon. friend that yesterday he brought in delegates from Chibougamau and Chapais, to discuss service there.
Contrary to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Churchill last night, and I checked this carefully again today with the C.B.C. authorities, no attention at all is paid to whether a constituency that is asking for service elects a member who is, politically speaking, blue, orange, red or any other colour. Everyone in this country who pays taxes pays for this service, and the service is extended on a basis that has nothing to do with the political complexion of the people in the area. It may be that had a Liberal member been elected the problem might have been brought to me and laid on my doorstep the day after I assumed this office. None the less, all I could have done with it is what I have done in this instance, that is pass it on to the C.B.C. to consider and list in their priorities. Then, as parliament votes them money to develop and extend their service they can make sure that every city needing and requesting service is included.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a supplementary question to the minister.
I do not want to delay the passage of the estimates, but I would like to mention that in our region the company Radio-Nord Incorporee serves all of Abitibi and Temis-camingue. Soon, it will serve as well the areas of Miquelon and Matagami, north of 23033-1561

Supply-Secretary of State Amos and east of Senneterre, on the road to Chibougamau and Chapais.
Now, if Radio-Nord Incorporee were willing to extend its services to Chapais and Chibougamau, would the C.B.C. be willing to look into the possibility of extending the Radio-Nord Incorporee network, and thus enable the people of Chibougamau and Chapais to receive the C.B.C. television signals as well as those already coming from Rouyn?
Then, there would be a possible agreement between the crown corporation and the Company Radio-Nord Incorporee, so that the people of Chibougamau and Chapais can get the service as soon as possible.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall be glad to stress that matter with the C.B.C. authorities.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I take it for granted that the Secretary of State does not intend to, or cannot, under the circumstances, confirm that the time limit for the beginning of the work at Place des Ondes, in Montreal, will definitely be October 1, 1966. I have to reach that conclusion since the minister will not tell us if she will make a statement to that effect within a few weeks or will confirm the date set by her predecessor, for whom I have great respect and whose devotion and loyalty I never suspected when he headed that department.
But that is not the question. I understand the difficult situation in which the minister finds herself. I know that there is the report of the Fowler commission and that there were discussions between the authorities of the C.B.C. and the government. I know also that a ministerial committee is trying to find solutions to those various problems, but it remains that the situation is serious for the city of Montreal and that the important projects already elaborated by development companies and organizations in the east end of the city cannot be carried out until the present government has reached a decision.
I must point out to the minister that by including in the discussion all the projects of the C.B.C. throughout the country, she is confusing the issue somewhat, because the construction of the Cite des Ondes, in Montreal, was the first pilot project of that kind which was decided on.
As a matter of fact, as far back as 1958, the city of Montreal proceeded with the confirmation of the land and everything was
March 9, 1966

Supply-Secretary of State signed on June 26, 1962, as expected by the former government and the authorities of the city of Montreal, as well as by the senior officials of the C.B.C. and the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, the latter having cleared the land.
In view of the fact that all parties have fulfilled their obligations up to now, I wonder why the present government keeps the contractors waiting so long, as they would be interested in great development projects in that part of Montreal, thus increasing the economic growth of the whole city.
I wonder if the minister could not help us-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Georges-J. Valade: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member say that not knowing exactly the starting date for construction will delay the construction or the development planned in the city of Montreal? On the other hand, if we are certain that Place des Ondes will be erected on the site described by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, if the C.B.C. authorities assure us of the implementation of this project, I cannot see why the contractors concerned cannot proceed with their project.
The hon. member insists on an exact date. I think this has nothing to do with implementation of the project.
I feel that my hon. friend is right in insisting on the implementation of this project. Besides, he should be aware of all the pressure applied by the members for Montreal Island on the government and on the C.B.C. authorities in this regard, and I know also that the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Rinfret) is also interested in seeing that project carried out-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. In my remarks yesterday, I was referring to the hon. member for Saint-Jacques, and the acting chairman of the committee interrupted me to say that I could not do so. So, I do not see why the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) would be allowed to make the same remarks I was not allowed to make myself.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Denis should be examined. However, I do not think the matter is very important and the hon. member seems to forget that the city of Montreal has presented an ultimatum to the present government, because the municipal budget for 
the current fiscal year depends on the government's decision in this respect. If the city of Montreal has some plans concerning the site, it must wait if it does not know the final decision of the government.
On the other hand, the contractors who are getting used to delays in official decisions will not commit themselves to undertake these major projects without knowing exactly what the decisions are.
I believe that this project will be carried out, but when? In one year, five years, ten years, 20 years? That is the question, and until the government makes a formal decision, until they tell us that this project will be carried out within a certain reasonable length of time, I believe that investors will hesitate to invest any money in this area of the city of Montreal and will not be able to make a definite decision.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The chairman of the Montreal executive council, in reply to my friend from Saint-Denis, had made the following remark when the then Secretary of State visited Montreal and had just announced that the government had decided to postpone for a year the execution of the contract.
For the information of my good friend and as can be found in La Presse of September 14, 1965, Mr. Saulnier would have said at the press conference of the former Secretary of State, after his statement at city hall, and I quote:
He reminded Mr. Lamontagne that official statements like the one made today about the projects of the C.B.C. in Montreal are starting to become a fine tradition.
Those are comments of the chairman of the Montreal executive council, who has the responsibility of looking after execution of the project.
I find that, in spite of my requests for information in this house, in an effort to discharge my responsibilities to the riding directly concerned in this endeavour, the minister persists in refusing to give the people any assurance that the project will be implemented within a certain time limit. I fail to see why the Secretary of State could not commit herself to the extent of promising a statement on the matter within the next few weeks, or possibly a month, so that by that time we might at long last know the decision of the government.
Should the project be postponed for a year,
I would consider it a great disadvantage but
March 9, 1966

at least the authorities of the city of Montreal, the investors, the businessmen, in short, the whole population could act accordingly and would surely not venture in developments and undertakings the success of which precisely depends on the implementation of that project.
I wonder why the government refuses to give an undertaking. For my part, I think I have accomplished here the duty for which I was elected, that is to see to it that the government respects its obligations. If the minister does not want to give a further undertaking, there will be only one course left open to me, that is to inform the population through all available media, that the government and the Secretary of State would not respect the undertakings of the former Secretary of State and that we will have to await further promises which, apparently, will not be worth more than those of the past.
I wonder whether the minister could not treat with a little more fairness the population of Montreal which has been faithful to the Liberal party, a faithfulness which is deplorable unfortunately, but which was nevertheless given to the Liberal party. If it were only for this reason, the minister should be more grateful and should now tell the people who showed so much loyalty what the present government intends to do in the metropolitan area.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Georges-J. Valade: Then the answer is no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
20. Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office including contributions to the International Office for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the International Office for the Protection of Industrial Property and authority for the Governor in Council, notwithstanding the Patent Act, to prescribe the fees payable for the registration of assignments and other documents, which fees shall be deemed for the purposes of the Patent Act to be the fees set forth in section 75 thereof, $3,171,900.
Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word before the whole of the estimates are carried. We on the opposition side do want to respond to the plea of the government to pass these estimates as soon as possible. However, I now feel that we have been misled. Before the estimates of the C.B.C. come before us next time, I want to
Supply-Solicitor General say that I am going to move a motion that they be reduced to one dollar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
5. Acquisition of equipment, $407,700.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two before the estimates for the National Film Board are carried; I was called away in a hurry.
I should just like to ask the minister whether she could tell us how that film to which all Canadians are looking forward on the Kootenay and Columbia region is progressing, and when can we expect the preview of the same?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I have not heard of the film before. However, if it is anything like the still pictures which my hon. friend has in his office of that very beautiful area, I know that the film could be nothing less than successful in its concept, its design and its reception.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.
The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates and pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, $64,370,494.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, vote No. 1. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, on discussion of these estimates I wish to raise the case of an Ottawa businessman who, in my opinion, has suffered a serious injustice. I do not apologize for any criticism of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or of the Department of Justice, because in my view the excellent reputation of the force can be maintained only if we in this house are frank and fearless in our criticism in cases where we believe the high standards of the force have not been maintained.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to discuss the case of a Mr. David Maunder, an Ottawa businessman. He is 36 years old, married, three children, a former
March 9. 1966

Supply-Solicitor General Canadian army officer who was cleared while in the army to handle top secret information. In 1962 Mr. Maunder, who was in the export business, was approached by the commercial counsellor of the embassy of the U.S.S.R., and this commercial counsellor sought to arrange the export of certain articles to that country. Mr. Maunder at once telephoned the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A constable contacted him immediately and after discussion told him to go ahead with meetings arranged with the representative of the embassy of the U.S.S.R. As these meetings developed, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Maunder gave to this representative of the R.C.M.P. full accounts of his discussions with the Russian representative and he furnished him copies of all invoices, and other documents.
Initially the shipments were made to Russia directly, but later, difficulties were encountered in getting permits under the Export and Import Permits Act. Mr. Maunder was advised by his own lawyer that there was a loophole about which I will not go into details, which involved shipping goods to Ireland, to be transshipped later to the U.S.S.R. He swore at the trial, which I will come to, that he discussed this proposed loophole with the R.C.M.P. constable, and asked him to check into its legality. The constable returned and told him that the loophole had been found in the act, and that he should proceed in the normal business manner.
At this stage I must say, and I do not want to spin it out, for the sake of completeness that he had had previous dealings with the export of goods to Cuba without the prior knowledge of the R.C.M.P. However, he says that he informed the R.C.M.P. of this, and was told that they were not interested.
On May 28, 1963, all the company's records were seized by officers of the Customs Investigation Branch, in co-operation with the R.C.M.P. The Russian Embassy staff members who had been involved in this matter were sent back to the U.S.S.R., and after more than one year's delay Mr. Maunder was arrested and charged with 12 breaches of the Export and Import Permits Act. Three charges were withdrawn. He was acquitted on one and found guilty on eight counts. He was sentenced to a fine of $41,000 or three years in jail, which was later reduced by the Court of Appeal to $16,000 or 18 months.
Mr. Maunder was unable to pay his fine and he served nine months in jail. He has
[Mr. Brewin.l
recently been released on parole. His business, as the committee will well understand, has been completely ruined.
At the trial he gave evidence of his dealings with the R.C.M.P. I have a transcript of the evidence given at the trial. In that, the Crown took the view that the discussions he had with the R.C.M.P. were irrelevant. Nevertheless, he was subjected to crossexamination, and his story in respect to his full disclosure of the Russian transactions, to the R.C.M.P., was neither shaken nor contradicted.
At no stage does it appear that the Crown requested that in considering an appropriate sentence, Mr. Maunder's actions in informing the security branch of the R.C.M.P. of his Russian dealings should be taken into account.
On September 23, 1965, Mr. Maunder wrote to the Prime Minister reminding him of his statement in another case, that the action of a person who gave information relating to a security matter to the R.C.M.P. should be praised and not censured; that there would be no question of prosecution. This is related to another case.
The text of the Prime Minister's remarks will be found in Hansard, May 11, 1965, at page 1139.
In his letter to the Prime Minister Mr. Maunder recounted the fact that his dealings with the U.S.S.R. had been fully disclosed to the R.C.M.P. and all documents placed at their disposal. In his letter he said, and I adopt Mr. Maunder's words, as he wrote them to the Prime Minister:
I cannot believe that persecution, prosecution, incarceration and financial ruin are just rewards for the service which I have given my country with the full knowledge of the Department of Justice through the R.C.M.P. Should you wish to corroborate any of the statements contained herein the R.C.M.P. records will substantiate what X have pointed out. The transcript of the trial of course bears my own testimony under oath.
No reply, Mr. Chairman, was received from the Prime Minister to this letter, or from anyone on behalf of the Prime Minister.
I have discussed this matter with the Solicitor General, who will no doubt make his own statement in regard thereto. Although I do not believe that there will be any denial that Mr. Maunder did consult the R.C.M.P. about his dealings with the U.S.S.R. It may be denied that the R.C.M.P. were aware of or authorized in any shape or form the illegality of his action under the Export and Import Permits Act.
March 9. 1966

It is very strange, Mr. Chairman, that if Maunder's version is not correct, this was not raised at the trial or in cross-examination or in some reply to his letter to the Prime Minister. I remind the committee that he swore this in court, that he was under crossexamination, and that he had written to the Prime Minister, setting out this story, and there was absolutely no denial or contradiction of his statements. Without the production of the records of the R.C.M.P. it may be difficult to assess whether his statement is fully correct. I know it is correct in some particulars.
I bring this matter forward because it seems to me that it is a shocking case of lack of sensitivity to the rights of individuals. It is not the duty of the prosecution to hide extenuating factors. Indeed, as I understand it, it is their duty to put them forward. It is not enough to say, as counsel for the crown said at the hearing, that the dealings of Mr. Maunder with the R.C.M.P. were with the branch that deals with security and that the prosecutions were the responsibility of another branch dealing with export and import matters. The excuse that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing is, under these circumstances, not good enough.
In my view the treatment of Mr. Maunder does not live up to the high standards of justice in this country. I ask, what sort of impression does this story leave on those who may be considering whether they should co-operate with the R.C.M.P. in security matters.
The seizure of his books, which were not returned to him until very recently after I spoke to the Solicitor General and then only in part, seems to me to have been in clear disregard of the provisions of the Criminal Code. The books were only returned recently, and many of the documents were found to be missing.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Maunder has paid a heavy penalty, a very heavy penalty for offences which in the light of his co-operation with the R.C.M.P. might well have been treated as minor, or at least visited with a modest penalty. He is a young man, a former officer in the army, and his reward for cooperation in the field of security has been the ruination of his business, the ruin of his reputation and a substantial term of imprisonment.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps the Prime
Minister would phone him.
Supply-Solicitor General


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this case underlines the necessity for the creation of the office of ombudsman. As a member of parliament I do not have access to the documents of the R.C.M.P., but an ombudsman I take it, would have the right to look at this information and determine whether or not a grave injustice had been done.
Mr. Chairman, I urge even at this late date that a full and proper inquiry be undertaken by an impartial authority. If it is found that an injustice has been done, his name can be cleared by a statement that he is a loyal citizen who co-operated with security officers, deserving, in the Prime Minister's words: "praise and not censure." I suggest that some form of assistance might be made available to him to help him recover from the tragic position in which he has been put if not with the encouragement, at least with the connivance, of one branch of the law enforcement officers of the R.C.M.P.
I hope that the minister will look into this matter very seriously, and make sure that an injustice has not been done.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly take any suggestions coming from the hon. member for Greenwood seriously. I take no exception to his raising this point, because I know that he has a genuine and deepseated feeling for the rights of the individual. However, I must say, with respect, that I cannot accept all the implications that he left during the course of his remarks.
[DOT] (4:40 pm.)
I must say that in the brief time I have had the privilege of being the minister responsible in the house for the R.C.M.P. I have found them fair, efficient and courteous. I hope I do not appear to be taking flight from the question but I think it is clear that a full discussion of this matter might carry us into the sensitive area of security. I can only say this-as I told the hon. member, who was courteous enough to come to me privately

that I have conducted some investigations and the information coming to me does not confirm the submissions he has made today. I cannot give the full undertaking that he has suggested, but I would give an undertaking to look at the files closely again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I asked the Solicitor General some questions when the estimates were before the house. Is he able to answer them today?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
March 9, 1966

Supply-Solicitor General


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They concerned my beloved S.I.U.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member for Kootenay West raised questions about the status of certain investigations being conducted by the R.C.M.P. into S.I.U. activities. I can assure him that the measures, which were brought to a halt by certain court actions, have now been reactivated. A large volume of documents has been put back into the possession of the R.C.M.P. Obviously, there will have to be a thorough examination of these documents to determine in which direction further steps are to be taken.
I believe the hon. member also asked whether special counsel had been engaged in this case. Though I speak from memory, I feel quite sure that the special counsel who was originally engaged in these matters is still being retained. All the relevant documents are being placed in his posssesion and the matter is being vigorously pursued.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the attorney general of Quebec shown any interest in this case?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I believe there were some consultations between the Department of Justice and the Quebec authorities, but since the conduct of this matter fell upon the federal authorities we are continuing to act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One other question; I suggested that this Mr. Heakes be given an opportunity to present his case to the officials of the department, in view of developments since the last occasion on which he had an opportunity to discuss the matter with them.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I apologize to the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am not familiar with the point he has just raised. I do not wish to appear to avoid it, and I would be glad to look into the matter if the hon. member would consult with me privately.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Solicitor General just one question.
This morning I received the following telegram:

Sir, request judicial inquiry into my case and that I be called to testify in security inquiry
Calvin M. MacDonald Ex R.C.M.P. under cover agent.

Does the minister intend to examine the possibility of granting Mr. MacDonald this

judicial inquiry and allowing him to give evidence during the inquiry on national security, so that he may be treated equitably?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I was not aware that any such telegram had arrived at my office up to the time I entered the house this afternoon. Of course, I cannot give any undertaking until I have had an opportunity to acquaint myself with the facts.
Mr. B re win: I wish to thank the minister for his statement about the Maunder case. I urge that the inquiry go into the original records of what took place at the time. Here is a clear case of a conflict of view, and without a searching examination it might be impossible to determine the accuracy of Mr. Maunder's allegations on the one hand, and the apparent denial on the other.


Lawrence T. Pennell: So there should be no misunderstanding, the inquiry to which I referred today will be a personal one carried out with legal advisers and the assistance of the Department of Justice. I will look up all the files and I would have to determine at that stage what other action should be taken.


Mr. Gilbert:: I wish to ask the Solicitor General one short question. I should like to know whether he is planning to set up a separate branch in the R.C.M.P. to deal with the investigation of fraudulent bankruptcies in much the same way as there is a separate branch dealing with narcotics cases.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I can tell the hon. member with complete sincerity that I have had discussions along this line with officials of the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Justice, but no final conclusion has yet been reached. The Minister of Justice announced the other day, I believe, that there was a development within his department relating to the setting up of a squad for bankruptcy investigations. We are having discussions now to see how the R.C.M.P. can work with the squad which will be set up within the Department of Justice.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Solicitor General this last question. According to the statements made by the Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Claude Wagner, who complains that the R.C.M.P. does not co-operate with the Quebec Department of Justice, can the Solicitor General tell
March 9, 1966	COMMONS
the house what action he has taken with regard to those complaints from the province of Quebec?
Is the R.C.M.P. working openly and cooperating wholeheartedly with the various police forces or the Department of Justice of the province of Quebec?
It is very important that there should be some understanding and liaison between the various law enforcement agencies in Canada, for instance between the Quebec Provincial Police, the R.C.M.P. and even the municipal police forces. There must be some co-ordination in the administration of justice, not only in Quebec but throughout the country.
But with regard to the matter which is of particular interest to us

because the complaints came directly from the Quebec Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General and high officials of the R.C.M.P. are aware of them-is the department taking action to ensure greater co-operation and understanding between the R.C.M.P. and the Quebec Department of Justice?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I made inquiries along these lines following the federal-provincial conference on crime. I was very impressed by the report I received that at the working level there was very good co-operation between the members of the forces. Following that conference, a committee was set up by the representatives of the governments concerned, of the Quebec provincial police, the Ontario provincial police and the R.C.M.P., to see how they could work in close co-operation with regard to a central intelligence bureau. This committee has met at least twice. There was to have been a third meeting last week but it was postponed because certain officers had to be here for the estimates. I understand these meetings will be resumed very shortly.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. When you called vote No. 1, you did not notice that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) was up and that he had something to say or questions to ask probably on that item.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I call on the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
DEBATES	2463
Supply-Solicitor General [Translation]


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot blame you because we, independents, are far removed from you and have not learned as yet how to indicate our presence by noisy interventions, but we will.
I should not like to extend the debate, nor make the life of the Solicitor General more difficult because I know that it is not easy, but there is a principle at stake in the question I should like to put to him.
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Minister of Justice, but I am under the impression that my letter was passed to the Solicitor General.
I pointed out the case of a citizen from Trois-Rivieres, who was taken to the R.C.M.P.'s office a few weeks ago and kept there for about 12 hours. In the course of the interrogation, even though that citizen was only in custody because no charges had been laid, and he had to be presumed innocent, until further proof to the contrary, he was beaten up to such a degree that he lost consciousness and had to be under the doctor's care.
I know the Solicitor General would not tolerate that treatment known as the third degree, which goes back to the middle ages. I known it is no longer permitted in the R.C.M.P.
If I raise the question, it is not so much to insist upon an immediate answer from the minister, because it is my impression that an inquiry is being made about that. I merely ask the minister to give strict instructions to all members of the R.C.M.P. so that no rough treatment be given to persons suspected of wrong-doing, even if they are found guilty, but above all if they have not been proven guilty. This is quite unacceptable.
I wish to insist on a letter I wrote asking that an inquiry be made and, if the prisoner is found guilty, as I think he will be, that sanctions be applied, and also that strict and clear instructions be given to the whole R.C.M.P. so that rough bodily treatment be prohibited when constables have to question someone who is merely a suspect and could very well be innocent.
[DOT] (4:50 pm.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly concerned at a suggestion that a citizen was held by the R.C.M.P., questioned for some time and not charged. The allegation that he was struck adds to my concern, and I shall certainly look into the matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?

March 9, 1966
Supply-Fisheries


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the R.C.M.P.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure all members will agree it was not a design on my part that these estimates should be overlooked so that the debate could be prolonged.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,387,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I thought the Minister of Fisheries would make an introductory statement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, following a commitment made during the question period I wish to correct a C.B.C. news report this morning which said that the quota of 50,000 seals had been filled last night. This is not true. I immediately asked officials of my department to contact the C.B.C. and ask them to make a correction. At noon I listened to the C.B.C. news again, but unfortunately the correction was not made. At 2 p.m. I contacted the area director in charge of the sealing operations and I was informed the quota of 50,000 seals would be reached before dusk this evening. I immediately issued instructions to close the season on white coat seals at the end of operations on this day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, according to the rules we have about two and a half minutes to deal with this department. I have no desire to make an examination in detail of its operations, something which could better be done when discussing the estimates for the next fiscal year in the committee to which those estimates will be sent. But there are certain aspects of the department, in relation to the picture which it occupies in the minds of the government as a whole, that require urgent discussion before the current estimates are passed. A rather gratuitous contribution to the discussion in this chamber last night by the government house leader stole a bit of my thunder in this connection. However, since the government took office I have become increasingly concerned that the Department of Fisheries seems to be an orphan
[The Chairman.]
among all the government departments. Matters concerning fisheries resources and potential fishery resources apparently receive little attention from the government.
I have before me a copy of the Canada Year Book for 1961, and at page 596, under the heading "Commercial Fishery Resources" I find these words:
The waters of two mighty oceans-the Atlantic and the Pacific-and the most extensive inland system of rivers and lakes in the world provide Canada's fishermen with valuable harvests. The annual catch	of	some 2,000,000,000	lb.	of fish andshellfish has	a	marketed value	of	more than

In the 1962 Canada Year Book, at page 568, under the same heading I find these words:
The waters of two mighty oceans-the Atlantic and the Pacific-and the most extensive inland system of rivers and lakes in the world provide Canada's fishermen with valuable harvests. The annual catch	of	some 2,000,000,000	lb.	of fish andshellfish has	a	marketed value	of	more than

At page 606 of the 1963-4 Canada Year Book I find the following words:
Canadian fishermen reap the harvests of two mighty oceans-the Atlantic and Pacific-and the most extensive inland system of rivers and lakes in the world. The annual catch of some 2,000,000,000 lb. of fish has a marketed value of more than $200,000,000.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Then, in the Canada Year Book for the year 1965 at page 622, under the heading Commercial Fishing and Marketing, I find the following words:
Canadian fishermen reap large harvests from two mighty oceans-the Atlantic and the Pacific- and from the most extensive system of lakes and rivers in the world. The annual catch amounts to some 2,000,000,000 pounds of fish and shellfish, which has a total marketed value of about $250,000,000.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should have brought down a somewhat larger number of issues of the Canada Year Book, but they are rather heavy volumes. What I should like to do is send to every member of the present government a copy of the Canada Year Book with the suggestion that they read the section concering commercial fisheries, because it is becoming increasingly evident to me that most of the members of this government do not know we have an Atlantic and a Pacific ocean as well as the largest system of inland rivers and lakes in the world, at least in so far as it is evident in the activities and the policies of the Canadian government. I only wish they would take the trouble to realize that, in addition to having quite a number of
March 9. 1966

acres of land we are a nation, because of our geographic arrangement, which has some pretty important resources potentially available to us. By and large, however, these resources are receiving very little attention from the Canadian government.
Mr. Chairman, not very long ago a delegation visited us here representing some of the fishermen of my own province of British Columbia. They presented, distributed and discussed with many members of this house a brief entitled "Crisis in the British Columbia Fishing Industry". They outlined at considerable length, using a considerable number of statistics, the situation in respect of fishing on the Pacific coast. Fishermen's Union of British Columbia is not the only organization in Canada which takes some interest in where we are heading with regard to our fisheries; there is another organization. I have one or two documents here from this organization, which is called the Fisheries Council of Canada. The views of this council and those of the Fishermen's Union do not always coincide in all respects, but there are some important areas in which there is pretty close agreement and outlook.
I am going to confine myself, so far as my remarks today are concerned, to the context of our fisheries in relation to the dealings of the government particularly with regard to our outside; waters and what is being done to protect and conserve Canada's position as a fishing nation in the world. In its bulletin of January 1966, the Fisheries Council of Canada says in part:
What this industry had hoped to read, somewhere in the Speech from the Throne, which was read on January 18 on the opening of Canada's 27th Parliament, was something of this order: "My government will recommend to parliament further measures calculated to give effect to Bill S-17 "An Act respecting the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones of Canada", which parliament passed in 1964. Our object must be, without undue delay, to protect Canada's fisheries for Canadian fishermen.
Then, a little later on in their review of what should be in the Speech from the Throne, they have this to say:
Among other measures, my government will propose a comprehensive program for the greater development of the salmon resources of our Pacific coast.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the Fishermen's Union brief had quite a lot to say about what is happening to the fisheries resources on the Pacific coast, in particular with reference to the situation arising out of the international
Supply-Fisheries
North Pacific Fisheries Commission, its operations and the state of the negotiations surrounding that treaty. They point out that this salmon fishery, which is a high seas fishery, did not exist until 1952 and began following the signing of the Norpac Treaty between Canada, Japan and the United States of America. They point out further that from that time this fishery increased from 11.1 million pounds in 1951 to a peak of 438.4 million pounds in 1958. That is the amount taken by the Japanese in the mid-Pacific salmon fishery. Since then, it has tapered off due to a general decline in both Asian and North American salmon resources.
The brief points out that Dr. W. Royce, director of the Fisheries Research Institute of the University of Washington College of Fisheries, speaking in Seattle on March 17, 1964, described this rape of North Pacific salmon resources as "intense, continuing, wasteful fishing by methods which largely prevent any special protection of weak runs".
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief reference to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. I am going to quote from the statement that was issued following the twelfth annual meeting of the commission in Seattle last November 12:
The matter ol the high seas salmon fishery in the area of intermingling of Asian and North American stocks west of 175 degrees west longitude was discussed. No agreement was reached concerning this problem.
Mr. Chairman, this is a situation in respect of which there appears to be very little action and very little interest on the part of the Canadian government. We have a Secretary of State for External Affairs in this country. He concerns himself, of course, with a broad variety of questions. He makes fairly lengthy statements from time to time on such questions as Viet Nam and our future relations with the United Nations.
Just before the minister leaves the house for a very important appointment, I am sure, I should like to suggest to him that if he cannot find the time and the energy to deal with some of these other very important national problems involving the economic future of this country and its welfare, perhaps he should suggest to the Prime Minister that he needs an associate minister such as there is in the Department of National Defence. Then, perhaps we can get greater attention paid to some of these problems. There is another aspect of our international relations with which I intend to deal. I wish to point out, in connection with the 12 mile fishing

March 9, 196R
Supply-Fisheries
zone and the minister's recent visit to Washington, that the Globe and Mail of February 21, 1966, reports Mr. Martin as saying he made some progress on the problem of Canada's 12 mile fishing limit with adjacent United States waters. I do not know whether or not it is fair to judge the relative importance which the minister attaches to certain subjects in his mind by the length of the statements he makes about them, but if this is an illustration of how important this matter is in the minister's mind, then I would suggest it is a very long way down on the totem pole.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I assure my hon. friend that this question is a matter of great importance, and I share his view of that importance.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I know we can always enjoy the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I am much more concerned at the moment to have some more tangible evidence of his interest than has been given to this house in response to questions.
However, Mr. Chairman, just to get on with this matter of the 12 mile fishing limit, I should like to draw the committee's attention to a brief which was submitted on January 28, 1963 by the Fisheries Council of Canada in which they set forth their conclusion. It reads in part as follows:
Action by the Government of Canada is required to:
1.	declare certain bodies of water as Canadian national waters,-
I should like the minister to note the priority given to that statement. Then, I continue:
2.	establish a straight base line to enclose the national waters,
3.	proclaim an exclusive fishing zone to seaward of the base line,-
Then, the Council talks about recognizing and negotiating historic treaty fishing rights. They state:
5.	make a unilateral declaration with regard to the aforesaid decisions, and
6.	enforce the above progressive steps.
That was in January of 1963. On June 4, 1963 the Prime Minister made a statement in this house on motions in which he said:
In the light of the failure of efforts to bring about an agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea and the contiguous fishing zone, the government has decided, after careful deliberation, that the time has come to take firm action to protect

Canada's fishing industry. It is well known that-foreign fishing operations off Canada's east coast, which have increased enormously over the past five years, are not only depleting our offshore fisheries resources but are posing other problems. There are indications also that Canada's west coast fisheries may soon be threatened.
Some events that have occurred since 1963 confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister at that time.
A little later in his statement, the Prime Minister said:
With these considerations in mind the Canadian government has decided to establish a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone along the whole of Canada's coast line as of mid-May, 1964, and to implement the straight base line system at the same time as the basis from which Canada's territorial sea and exclusive fisheries zone shall be measured.
That was on June 4, 1963. The Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was assented to on July 16, 1964, somewhat over a year later, and was proclaimed on July 23 of that year. I should like to ask why it is that the government, has not fulfilled, either in that bill or up until this day, the statement the Prime Minister made on June 4, 1963, in which he said:
-and to implement the straight base line system at the same time as the basis from which Canada's territorial sea and exclusive fisheries zone shall be measured.
I responded to the Prime Minister's statement at that time and said:
-we welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister.
We are, of course, concerned even more with the details of the manner in which the government intends to work out this proposal and what its end result will be-
I suggest that my hedging of the commendation at that time was very well founded, in view of events which have taken place since then.
We still have nothing more from the Secretary of State for External Affairs than the statement he made in Washington on February 20 or 21 that some progress had been made on the problem of Canada's 12 mile fishing limit with adjacent United States waters. I understood that to mean some progress on the question of establishing straight base lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But on June 4, 1963 the Prime Minister informed this house that the government would establish these straight base lines at the same time they established a 12 mile territorial fishing zone. Today is March 9, 1966 and this has not yet been done.
March 9, 1968



The events that have been transpiring in respect of our negotiations on north Pacific fisheries, the events that have been transpiring in respect of this complete about face, which is all I can call it in light of the Prime Minister's words, in the intentions of the government regarding the establishment of base lines and a territorial sea, can only lead one, after a lapse of this time, to ask why. Is it only because of a complete lack of interest on the part of the government regarding this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly not.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is there something more sinister involved than a lack of interest? Is this part of a deliberate deal by the government to sell out Canada's potential fisheries resources?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly not.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is this part of a deal to sell out the wealth of the two oceans? Is this part of some broader deal? If the Minister of National Defence were here I would ask him if this were part of some deal involving defence commitments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly not.
Mr Barnett: I should like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether this is mixed up somehow with our negotiations on the Canada-U.S. auto trade package.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly not.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the
Minister of Trade and Commerce whether this refusal on the part of the government as a whole to do something along the lines the Prime Minister suggested in 1963, and again in the election campaign that preceded that time, is part of some kind of deal. If it is, it is not without precedent in the history of this country.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs may recall that when the bill on the territorial sea was before the committee I referred to some of the old treaties between Great Britain and the United States. In many of these treaties this fisheries picture was treated as part of a package deal. The reason the United States now has these lop-sided treaty rights and historic rights is that years ago, in some of these package deals, the interests of Canadian fisheries were ignored. The negotiating authorities did not properly recognize the potential wealth which we might in Canada enjoy as a result of our geographic relationship to the rich producing areas of the
Supply-Fisheries
oceans. The interests of Canadian fisheries were shoved aside because of some other matters that apparently were considered more important.
This was probably the result of Britain's strategic commitments in those days on the continent of Europe. I hope the fact that we are now a member of the NATO partnership does not mean our government is passing by our real interests in this economic field because of some strategic commitment in Europe.
Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of question this government should answer before we pass those fisheries estimates. Perhaps it is not the kind of question that the Minister of Fisheries alone can answer. As far as I am concerned, I share the admiration of the minister for the kind of Canadians we have manning and operating our fisheries department, and for the kind of scientists we have who are attempting to enlarge the field of knowledge which will enable us to conserve, protect and extend our resources in the salmon spawning streams of British Columbia.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Unless there is some real recognition of the importance of this industry by people like the Minister of Industry and the government as a whole, we shall have to begin asking ourselves whether it is worth while spending even these few paltry millions of dollars a year that are in the fisheries estimates to develop, conserve and expand salmon production so it can disappear in the high seas of the North Pacific.
These are the kind of questions to which we need answers but to which answers have not yet been given. I do not know that there is much more I can add, Mr. Chairman, to what I have said on this point. In conclusion I wish to say, as I said last night, that this business of putting off consideration of the estimates and of the future of the fisheries resources of Canada to the eleventh and the dying hour of our consideration of estimates is just not good enough. There should be ample time, not only for an opposition member who happens to come from an area where fisheries are important to contribute to this discussion, but there should be an opportunity for members from the province of Newfoundland to have their day in court.
These hon. members should not feel constrained by the whip of the government house leader to remain silent when we are discussing important matters of this kind. It is perhaps unfortunate, if this is the way in

March 9. 1966
Supply-Fisheries
which the business of the house is going to be managed, that all the members from the province of Newfoundland happen to sit on the government side of the house where they are subject to that kind of throttling. I suggest that we should hear their views about the fisheries problems of the Atlantic coast.
We should hear from members from the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec on the question of fisheries. This strange silence today on the part of representatives of provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where all the members do not sit on the government side of the house, is passing strange. I hope that before these estimates are passed-


Mr, Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member who is now speaking has referred to the maritime provinces and the fact that members from those provinces have not participated in the study of the fisheries estimates. I point out to him that those of us who represent the province of Nova Scotia, and in fact members from all the maritime provinces, are just as aware of the problems facing the fishing industry as he is, but we are also desirous of assisting the government in the present situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Crouse:: It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that we have refrained from participating in this debate. I appreciate the hon. member's position and the fact that he wants to get his points on the record. We are refraining from participation in order to allow the hon. member and his party to make the points they wish to make. We hope to make these points at a later date. But I do hope the hon. member will confine himself to the area and the party that he represents, and will make the points he wishes to make, so that the committee can get on with the business of the house and pass these estimates fairly quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that his time has expired. The Chair is also in some doubt-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could I-


Herman Maxwell Batten: One moment, please. The Chair is also in doubt as to the method to be used at this time to regularize our proceedings.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be agreeable if we just do-not see the clock. I think in the circumstances that would probably be the fairest procedure. I should like to add that if the hon. member wishes to continue, I am sure the committee is agreeable to allowing him to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Does the committee agree that we proceed without seeing the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee also give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member does not need it, Mr. Chairman. He has been interrupted by two different speakers and has a perfect right to speak.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has not the proper perspective of the way in which we proceed. After all, they were questions of privilege that were raised, not interruptions of the hon. member's remarks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, if you can see any question of privilege in the last interruption I am sure you have greater sagacity than anybody else.


Michael Starr: It was much more a question of privilege than your interruption.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I assure you that I was on the point of concluding my remarks, in any event, before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I certainly recognize his right of decision about whether he participates in the debate. That is entirely a matter for his own judgment. However, I do not agree with the hon. member's contention that I should confine my remarks merely to the interests of my constituents. I am trying to put this matter in national perspective.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, sit down.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg or any other member of this house does not wish to participate in this discussion, it is entirely their right to so decide. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do hope it was not implied in the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg
March 9. 1966

that he disagrees completely with the arguments I was advancing with regard to the lack of interest being displayed by the government of Canada as a whole in their dealings with fisheries problems.
I hope that he and other members of the house who have some reason to be interested in the future of the fisheries of Canada will perhaps, on a future occasion, display more backbone in discussing these questions and in challenging the government to take decisive action, than they displayed when some of us were trying to introduce an effective bill in respect of the 12-mile fishing zone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries management and development
[Stage Direction]
5. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $14,557,000.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I should like to intervene just briefly in this debate. I too, heard the very able presentation made by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union delegation that came to Ottawa. The matter that concerns me about that brief-and this was alluded to by the previous speaker-is the way in which the causes of the decline in the salmon fishery were categorized therein. The question of Japanese fishing on the high seas was placed at the beginning of the causes. I asked the spokesman for the delegation, Mr. Stevens, whether they had placed it there because it was the most important reason. He said no, he could not say that it was the most important factor in the decline of this fishery.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I also asked him if he did not feel that salmon fishing in the Soviet Union was suffering probably more than the Canadian fishery, and that this might be our best lever in attempting to get the Soviet Union to become a signatory to the salmon fishing treaty in the Pacific. In reply, he said that he thought it would.
I think we need to be extremely careful, when we discuss fisheries, which points we are talking about. We must remember that one is very strategically placed. The province of British Columbia has a very great interest in fisheries. It also has very great interest in trade with Japan over a great variety of areas.
I should like to urge on the Minister of Fisheries three courses of action. I would urge that the budget of the Department of
Supply-Fisheries
Fisheries for research be raised to a level where we can begin to find some of the answers to our problems. In going back to the fishery people's own newspaper, the "Fisherman", how many times has one read that it is not known what are the factors involved; that there are a multiplicity of factors which result in the decline of salmon fishing. Japanese fishing on the high seas is only one of these factors. Therefore, I urge a much larger budget for research, which will enable the fishermen to know which are their most important problems.
I also urge the Minister of Fisheries to request the government to take every possible step to bring the Soviet Union into this fishing treaty. I do not think we should be satisfied with the reasons given earlier this session by the minister when he was questioned about this. He implied that we did not know whether the Soviet Union would want to participate in this treaty, and we would wait until we did know. I do not think we can afford to wait, Mr. Chairman.
If necessary, we should ask the co-operation of all members of the treaty to invite the Soviet Union to become a signatory. We have various levers which the other members of the treaty can use, and I am sure they would be amenable to issuing this invitation. We could then have an all-inclusive treaty participated in by all countries concerned. Surely, conservation must be of equal value to all; not just to Canada but to the United States, to Japan-a country very conservation-minded-and to the Soviet Union.
Lastly, I would urge as rapid action as possible over the headlands question or the 12-mile fishing limit, so that we can protect our fisheries to a greater extent than we have the fishery inshore. Perhaps the high seas question may take a little longer to resolve, but there are some areas where we can move more rapidly.
It seems to me that one of the reasons we press for further restrictions on Japanese fishing is this is the country which has been amenable to restrictions. In the fisherman's brief you will find a suggestion that the United States has not been amenable to conservation ideas which have been put forward by this country. The government of the Soviet Union has not been particularly amenable to conservation on the high seas or to being drawn into this type of agreement. Outside of North America, the one nation which has been amenable has been Japan.

March 9, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
I think we should also realize that because Japan has acceded to restrictions on their fishing in the North Pacific, they have all also had to accede to restrictions on their fishing in other areas. The justification for drawing arbitrary lines has been that they have accepted restrictions in the North Pacific. For a nation with so large a population and so many problems, the question of fishing is, to them, a very vital one, one in which they have as much interest in conservation as we have.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,100,000.
Frank Howard: Just a few brief words, Mr. Chairman. This is the last vote in the estimates of this departmnet and I think it is rather regrettable that in the whole course of considering, albeit scantily, the estimates of the Department of Fisheries for this fiscal vear we have not heard a single, solitary word from the minister except when he made a correction to an erroneous newscast of this morning concerning seal hunting. In view of the important points put on the record so very ably by my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi, and also the important question just dealt with by the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke concerning the relationship of the Soviet Union with the North Pacific treaty, it seems regrettable, shameful, a rather shoddy treatment of parliament and a rather callous disregard for the fishermen of this nation, for the Minister of Fisheries to sit, silent during consideration of these estimates.
In the last few years, we have seen the Department of Fisheries treated as a sort of orphan of government. On one occasion not too long ago the marine and fisheries committee made a recommendation to the house that the fisheries estimates be referred to it for study. Because of the intervention of the government, that committee report was never acted upon. Because of the approach of cabinet to the then chairman of the committee, the matter was sidetracked, indicating at that time a disregard for the desirability of considering fisheries as fully as we might.
During the current session, within the last two or three weeks we have seen on two or three occasions, to my mind, an attempt by government to push through the estimates of the Department of Fisheries without any debate. There has been an attempt to stifle

consideration of these departmental estimates by the government at the very time when the delegation from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers of America were buttonholing members in the corridors and presenting their problems .to them. This indicates an absolute disinterest on the part of the government, a sort of thumbing of its nose at the delegation.
Incidentally, we have seen this proposal not only emanate from the government side, but supported by the Conservative party. I say it is a shame-


Mr. Vincent:: Speak for yourself.


Frank Howard: I am telling my hon. friend what the attitude of the Conservative party was on two occasions to the estimates of the Department of Fisheries within the last two or three weeks. It was an attitude of: Let us get the fisheries estimates through without any discussion. On two occasions that has been the approach, which is a shameful commentary on both these two old parties. This is their attitude to a department which is vital, and of much concern to the welfare of fishermen on both coasts, as well as in other areas of Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I hope more than anything else that when the next fiscal year starts, and I say this now because we are almost at the end of the consideration of the past year's estimates, that the Department of Fisheries' estimates will be included in the first supply motion. I hope that they will be referred to the fisheries committee for examination. I hope that when the committee looks into these matters that it will give an opportunity to people interested, to private citizens, to appear before it and express their views.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Before the hon. minister answers the hon. member for Skeena, I want to say one or two words to impress upon him that although there are many issues that could be raised by hon. members of the Conservative party with respect to last year's estimates, in keeping with our desires to expedite the passing of these estimates we have refrained from debating them at any length at this time.
I would ask the minister if, when next year's estimates come before the house, he would give them priority and place this department high on the list so that it may be assured of early study. I ask this in view of
March 9. 1966

the fact we have dealt with last years estimates quickly, since time is pressing and they are last on the list. Second, may I ask the minister to give his assurance that next year's estimates will be referred to the committee, so that we may delve into the many problems that are affecting the fishing industry not only on the west coast, but in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec as well.
Hon. members who represent the maritime provinces or the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, or whereever there are large fishing areas, have just as much interest in fisheries problems as others who have spoken today. We have exercised restraint, so as to expedite the passing of the estimates. However, I hope that the minister will give us an assurance that the matters I have raised will be dealt with when next year's estimates are brought before the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the co-operation which I have received from all sides of the house in the passing of these estimates. I am pleased to see that all hon. members understood the situation we are in.
I want to assure the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who has just spoken, that if his party requests of the house leader that the Department of Fisheries' estimates be included in the first list of departments to be sent to committee, we shall certainly be pleased to do this.
I want to tell the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni, that I am just as anxious as he is about obtaining exclusive rights for Canadian fishermen. I hope to be in a position, when the fisheries estimates come before the committee, to be able to answer the questions which he has raised today. I hope to be in a position to answer them in a responsible way, and to answer them with all possible details.
I want to say to the hon. member for Skeena that at no time do I recall the government interfering to prevent estimates coming before the committee. I had agreed that this year's estimates, the ones we are discussing now, would be brought before the committee but this could not be done. However, I am looking forward to the meeting of the fisheries committee in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to cast any aspersion whatever on the intention of the Minister of Fisheries to have the estimates go before the fisheries committee. However, I should like to point out to
Ways and Means
you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister said the government had not interfered in any way with that intention, and that is really not in accordance with the facts. We know perfectly well that the action of the Prime Minister, as the head of the government certainly interfered with that.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries one question:	will the
Minister of Fisheries undertake to light a fire today under the tails of some of his colleagues to get them a little more interested in the important fisheries questions that should be of concern to the whole Canadian nation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 25 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. This completes the Department of Fisheries and also the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
House in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of $398,062,262.60, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-140, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-
Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a question with respect to clause 2, or with respect to the bill in general. When we pass this bill are we taking any final steps that need to be taken to approve the expenditures that were made during the election period by Governor General's warrants?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: The expenditures made by Governor General's warrants were, I believe,

March 9, 1966
Ways and Means
approved in the interim supply motion which was passed previously. This bill brings us up to the end of the fiscal year. The amounts indicated there are sufficient to include all the estimates for the fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any case the passing of this bill is the last act we need to perform as far as this year is concerned.


Edgar John Benson: Except for Royal Assent. Perhaps I should correct that statement. There will be final supplementary estimates for 1965-66. These will be introduced in the very near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we end this stage of our proceedings there is one comment I should like to make. A good deal has been said about the interest of civil servants in our getting this bill through, so that there might be no delay in their getting their cheques. I agree, but I should like to say to the government that its concern for civil servants could be expressed in another way, and that is by doing something for those who have already retired.
I was sorry to hear the negative answer given today by the Prime Minister when this question was raised once again by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that during the coming fiscal year something will be done to improve the position of our civil servants who have already retired.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: So say we all on this side.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, about what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said concerning civil servants, we of the Creditistes do not always believe the government house leader when he maintains that civil servants will not get paid until the house votes the estimates.
The government and the departments keep on receiving money from the Canadian taxpayers. So stop telling us that tomorrow civil servants will not be able to get their pay. The government is perfectly able to borrow any amount of money anywhere in Canada or to call upon the Bank of Canada. Let them pay their employees and stop threatening us by saying that civil servants will not be paid. That is not true.


Edgar John Benson: I should indicate that the government has not threatened anyone with respect to the payment of civil servants. But

it is a fact that the government cannot expend money, no matter how much it borrows, until it has the authority of this parliament to do so.


David Réal Caouette: Can the minister collect money in the meantime?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A, B, and C agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill. Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Before indicating the business for tomorrow I would ask the concurrence of the house in an agreement to suspend the sitting at six o'clock until eight o'clock, for the purpose of having Royal Assent to this bill, rather than adjourn it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to suspend today's sitting until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it to be eight o'clock precisely, or until the call of the bell?


George James McIlraith: Eight o'clock-with the assurance that the bell will be rung when the suspended sitting is reconvened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps, then, we can suspend the house until the call of the bell at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


George James McIlraith: I should like to indicate the business we propose to call Thursday and Friday-or beginning tomorrow until we finish the business I shall indicate.
I should like to call, first, item 11 on the order paper, the second reading of the bill to extend the Bank Act. Then, items nos. 16, 18 and 21 which are the three motions to set up joint committees. Then item 7 on the order
March 9, 1966

paper which is a resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, item 8, which is a resolution to introduce a measure for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada; item 4, which is a resolution to amend the Research Council Act, and item 15 which is a resolution for leave to introduce legislation to establish a science council of Canada.
Next I should like to call item 3 on the order paper, the resolution concerning the automotive products agreement with the United States, followed by items 23 and 24, the second reading of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company Bill and the second reading of the bill to authorize the construction of a bridge over the St. Croix River. Depending on the progress we make tomorrow, this order could be changed to meet the wishes of hon. members.


Michael Starr: Will there be a supply motion on Monday?


George James McIlraith: Yes, there will be a supply motion on Monday.


An hon. Member:: And capital punishment?


George James McIlraith: On Wednesday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The sitting is suspended until eight o'clock. I do now leave the chair.
At 6 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 9.04 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 9, 1966
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Gerald Fauteux, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, March 9, at 9.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Supply-Items Passed
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
At 9.40 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration, $481,600.
lb. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of Vote 1 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the expenses of the Committee on Broadcasting, the Committee on Feature Films and the Committee on Election Expenses, the grant detailed in these estimates, and to provide a further amount of, $540,000.
5. Companies and corporations branch, $160,600.
5b. Companies and corporations branch, $6,500.
10. Translation bureau, $2,497,900.
10b. Translation bureau, $60,000.
National museum of Canada-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian museums association, $1,707,400.
Patent and copyright-
20. Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office including contributions to the International Office for the protection of literary and artistic works and the International Office for the protection of Industrial property and authority for the governor in council, notwithstanding the Patent Act, to prescribe the fees payable for the registration of assignments and other documents, which fees shall be deemed for the purposes of the Patent Act to be the fees set forth in section 75 thereof, $3,171,900.
B-Centennial commission-
25. General administration, including the national conference on the centennial of confederation. $1,360,000.
25b. General administration, $582,300.
30. Programs and projects of national significance including grants toward such programs and projects, $6,876,500.
30b. Programs and projects of national significance including grants toward such programs and projects, $3,902,800.
35. Payment to the centennial of confederation fund to enable grants to be made to the provinces for local projects of a lasting nature (the total of such grants made from the said fund not to exceed $18,935,000) and to enable grants to be made to the provinces for projects included in the federal-provincial confederation memorial program, $9,000.000.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
C-Economic council of Canada-
40. Administration, $990,000.
40b. Administration, $132,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
L74b. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the purpose of acquiring, for resale to the public, articles related to the purposes and activities of the National Museum of Canada; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $10,000.
BOARD or BROADCAST GOVERNORS 1. Salaries and other expenses, $393,000. lb. Salaries and other expenses, $100,000.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
1. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $97,044,000.
International broadcasting service___
5. International broadcasting service including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue f °in,Tthe rentaI o£ facilities in Montreal, Sackville and Vancouver to an amount of $427,000 and to reexpend these moneys for the purposes of the international broadcasting service, $2,400,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L10. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of capital expenditures subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the governor m council. $14,000,000.	governor
Office of the chief electoral officer_
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $115,600.
National film board-
1. Administration, production and distribution of mms and other visual materials, $6,272,500.
5. Acquisition of equipment, $407,700.
National gallery of Canada_____
inii,,md?li^iStratlon. operation and maintenance including the payment of $300,000 to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 Natl°nal Gallery Act. and grants as detailed m the estimates, $1,462,000.
ib. Administration, operation and maintenance-to increase to $692,900 the amount of the payment to the National Gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $392,900.
Public archives and national library-
A-Public archives-
1. General administration and technical services $1,068,600. '
lb. General administration and technical services, $26,000.
B-National library-
5. General administration including a payment of $100,000 to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $683,500.
5b. General administration, $22,500.
Civil Service Commission-
1. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the incentive award plan of the Public Service of Canada, $7,139,600.
lb. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $61,500.

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing under contract-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates and pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, $64,370,494.
lb. Administration, operation and maintenance- to increase as detailed in these estimates the pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, $2,130.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land an dequipment, $3,908,000.
5b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $814,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including grants af^jf contributions as detailed in the estimates,
Fisheries management and development-
5. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $14,557,000.
dp. operation and maintenance including Canada's share of expenses of the international commissions detailed m the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $2,121,200.
do. operation and maintenance including Canadas share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates-To extend the
!?UrP,nf=S,?f/iSheries Vote 5 of the main estimates tor 1965-66 to approve any agreement entered into between Canada and the United States to amend the convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States as set out in the schedule to the Great Lakes Fisheries Convention Act increasing each section's membership in the commission from three to four members and to authorize payment of the expenses of the fourth member, $1.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including acquisition of land for the International Pacific salmon fisheries commission, as required by article VIII of the convention, $2,761,000.
10b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $632,000.
lOd. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $559,600.
15. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the subvote titles listed in the details of estimates $1,710,000.
March 9, 1966
[Stage Direction]
15b. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $2,150,000.
15d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the subvote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $866,000.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including an amount of $100,000 for grants for
Supply-Items Passed
fisheries research and for scholarships and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $6,906,000.
20b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $388,300.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 10, 1966