1966-02-07

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to advise the House that an objection, signed by the members for Quebec East, Villeneuve, Roberval, Kamouraska, Lac-Saint-Jean, Trois-Rivieres, Sainte-Marie, Nicolet-Yamaska, Sherbrooke and Red Deer (Messrs. Duquet, Caouette, Gauthier, Dionne, Simard, Mongrain, Valade, Vincent, Allard and Thompson) has been addressed to me in accordance with section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, with regard to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec on the proposed Trois-Rivieres electoral district.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

If the house will agree I would suggest that the house follow the procedure followed on two former occasions in this session, so that the text of the objection will be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table herewith two copies in English and two copies in French of "Juvenile Delinquency in Canada", being the report of the Department of Justice committee on juvenile delinquency in Canada.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills:
January 27-Mr. Howard-Bill intituled:	"An
Act to amend the Old Age Security Act".
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it had originally been my intention to introduce
23033-49)
a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act in order to increase pensions to $100 a month at age 65, effective January 1 of this year. However, contrive as I might I could not find words to develop the bill in such a way as would be in order and presentable to the house. May I therefore have permission without notice to withdraw the bill.


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Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-114, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons from 20 members to 50 members. Perhaps for the two hours between six and eight it might even be higher.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-115, to amend the Criminal Code (Commutation of penalty by provincial authorities).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer commutation of the death penalty to provincial jurisdiction.
I strongly recommend that the federal government forgo the prerogative it holds of commuting life sentences, as section 92, subsection 14, of the constitution gives the provinces the authority to administer justice.
In view of the tremendous new outbreak of criminality, I strongly support the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, Mr. Claude Wagner, when he advocates the upholding of the death penalty.

February 7, 1966
Questions
The federal government is constantly reluctant in applying the provisions of the criminal code, so much so that it has commuted all death sentences, even that of Leopold Dion, and this was rather shocking. The federal government could be relieved of this responsibility at the hands of provincial authorities who deem that the law should be strictly enforced in this regard.
My bill would simply allow the provinces to exercise their authority in that connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the house; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Tucker: 1.	What was the total number of passengers carried on the C.N.R. coastal ferries to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, from 1959 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	What was the total number of passengers carried by (a) the coastal ferry William Carson (b) extra ferries added to the service for this period?
3.	what was the number of motor vehicles carried each year from 1959 to 1965 inclusive?
[Mr. Choquette.j


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. Total number of passengers carried on C.N.R. coastal ferries to and from Port aux Basques: 1959, 57,721; 1960, 67,693; 1961, 69,163; 1962, 77,318; 1963, 92,304; 1964, 107,078; 1965, 127,760.
2.	(a) Total number of passengers carried on the M.V. William Carson: 1959, 52,251; 1960, 62,366; 1961, 62,566; 1962, 70,193; 1963, 77,408; 1964, 103,473; 1965, 120,108. (b) Total number of passengers carried on other ferries: 1959, 5,470; 1960, 5,327; 1961, 6,597; 1962, 7,125; 1963, 14,986; 1964, 3,605; 1965, 7,652.
3.	Number of motor vehicles carried to and from Port aux Basques (includes trailers, buses and motorcycles): 1959, 18,988; 1960, 18,540; 1961, 20,074; 1962, 24,148; 1963, 27,916; 1964, 31,932; 1965, 38,446.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Allard: 1.	What were the amounts paid in unemployment insurance in each province for (a) the year 1964 (b) the year 1965?
2.	What were the amounts paid by the federal government In unemployment assistance in each province for (a) the year 1964 (b) the year 1965?
3.	On December 31, 1965, what was the balance in the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
4.	Does the government Intend to implement the recommendations of the Gill Report which was submitted to the House of Commons on December 20, 1962?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.
Province	1964	1965Newfoundland $	17,911,354	$ 18,119,406P.E.I.	3,012,610	3,096,364Nova Scotia	18,224,795	16,516,912New Brunswick	16,732,293	16,570,485Quebec	110,480,021	101,592,822Ontario	99,506,360	86,234,252Manitoba	14,951,211	13,242,916Saskatchewan	10,045,802	9,487,081Alberta	18,839,320	15,032,724British Columbia	34,686,164	32,316,604Canada $ 344,389,930	$ 312,209,566
2. Payments to the provinces for unemployment assistance for 1964 and for 1965 to December 31 are shown below. Payments for 1965 do not reflect the full cost of assistance for the months covered because the provinces
February 7. 1966

are permitted six months within which to
submit final claims	for any month.		
			1965 to
		1964	Dec. 31
Newfoundland	$	4,704,418	$ 3,009,123P.E.I.	280,773	257,227Nova Scotia	1,863,481	1,227,026New Brunswick	1,413,764	1,195,674Quebec	41,015,897	17,374,393Ontario	21,051,196	20,321,723Manitoba	5,398,825	3,536,536Saskatchewan	4,585,894	3,407,465Alberta	9,211,736	8,212,331British Columbia	17,857,775	12,868,822Yukon Territory	72,109	50,300N.W.T.	97,505	42,767Total	$	107,553,374	$71,503,387
Questions
3.	$161,765,935.36.
4.	Careful consideration has been and is being given to the Gill commission's recommendations, and the results of such consideration will be reflected in the proposed legislation on unemployment insurance, which was announced in the Speech from the Throne on January 18, 1966.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD GRANTS
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Since July 1, 1963, what grants have been approved by the Atlantic Development Board in each of the four Atlantic provinces?
2.	As of May 31, 1965, which grants have actually been paid?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:


NEW BRUNSWICK
[Stage Direction]
(1)
Projects approved since
Project	July 1,1963
Mactaquac Hydroelectric Power Development	$ 20,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction of a hydroelectric power development on the Saint John River. These monies to be paid over a four year period of construction in parallel with, and not more rapidly than, equivalent expenditures by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission.
(2)
Payments as of
May 31, 1965 $	1,366,179.48
Mill town Water Supply
Construction of a water pipeline for an industrial park area.
Dorchester Point
Assistance in the construction of certain basic services in connection with an industrial park.
Shippegan-Fresh Water
Provision of a fresh water supply for fish processing. Shippegan-Salt Water
Provision of a salt water supply system for fish processing.
Trunk Roads
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
Research Buildings and Equipment
Capital assistance for laboratory buildings and equipment at Fredericton.
100,000.00
1.500.000.	00
152,449.29
275,000.00
3.000.	000.00
1.250.000.	00
60,697.15
1,762,249.92

[Stage Direction]
February 7, 1966
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(1)	(2)
	Projects	Payments
approved since		as of
Project	July 1,1963	May 31,1965Stellarton	400,000.00	-Provision of a general purpose building for Industrial Estates Ltd. Stellarton	200,000.00	Provision of an additional water supply system for the expansion of an industrial park. Industrial Park, Halifax	560,000.00	Assistance in the provision of basic services for an industrial park in Halifax County. Industrial Park, Truro	165,000.00	Assistance in the provision of basic services for an extension of the industrial park. Canso	747,919.55	29,192.94Provision of a suitable fresh water supply and sewage disposal system for fish processing. Cheticamp	140,000.00	350.00Provision of a suitable fresh water supply for fish processing. Grand Etang	46,629.14	300.00Provision of a suitable salt water supply for fish processing. Lower East Pubnico	218,774.72	Site preparation including access road and water supply for fish processing. Port Mouton	150,000.00	Site preparation including cribwork and retaining wall for fish processing at Willow Cove. Riverport	242,000.00	Provision of a suitable water supply for fish processing. Trunk Roads	3,000,000.00	Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways. Research Buildings and Equipment	1,750,000.00	Capital assistance for laboratory buildings and equipment at Dartmouth and Halifax.	7,620,323.41	29,842.94

[Stage Direction]
Submarine Power Cable	4,300,000.00
The estimated cost of constructing a power cable connection between the mainland and Prince Edward Island via the Causeway at a time several years hence when the interconnection can be made.

February 7, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Questions
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-cont.
(1)
Projects approved since
Project	July 1,1963
Summerside	112,400.00
Provision of water and sewage facilities for an industrial park.
Georgetown	850,000.00
Assistance in providing basic facilities (water supply and sewage system) for fish and food processing at Georgetown.
Montague	90,000.00
Provision of a water supply and construction of a causeway for food processing.
Roads to Fishing Centres	675,000.00
To cover 90 per cent of the cost of paving access roads to selected fishing centres within the province.
Trunk Roads	1,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
(2)
Payments as of
May 31,1965 102,337.28
74,922.52
22,744.37
NEWFOUNDLAND	7,027,400.00	200,004.17Bay d'Espoir Assistance in the construction of a hydroelectric power development on the south coast of Newfoundland. These monies to be paid over a four year period of surveys and construction at a rate not more rapid than equivalent expenditures by the Newfoundland Power Commission.	20,000,000.00	1,188,645.00Frequency Standardization Assistance to a program of frequency standardization for Newfoundland at various locations in the Province.	4,000,000.00	Bonavista Provision of a suitable water supply for fish processing.	267,066.75	-Newton Provision of a suitable water system for fish processing.	50,000.00	-Trunk Roads Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.	3,000,000.000	Bogland Reclamation To cover the cost of additional machinery required for the Provincial Boglands Clearing Service and to share on an equal basis with the Province, the cost of clearing an area of 1,000 acres of bogland on the Burin Peninsula.	156,000.00	Marystown Assist in providing trawler repair facilities at Marystown, Newfoundland. Cost to be shared with the Province of Newfoundland on the basis: Federal-75%; Provincial-25%. Note: It is possible that other arrangements may be made and the authorized contribution by the Board revert back to the Fund.	825,000.00	28,298,066.75	1,188,645.00
February 7, 1966
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(1)
Projects approved since
Project	July 1,1963
Pollution Equipment	10,000.00
Provision of scientific equipment for assessing the degree of pollution in inland waters of the Atlantic region.
Pollution Abatement	2,000,000.00
Assistance for the abatement of industrial pollution in the Atlantic Provinces.
Sundry Expenses	5,000.00
To cover the cost of advertising for tenders relating to the construction of projects, and other incidental expenses.
(2)
Payments as of
2,015,000.00
SUMMARY FOR REGION		
New Brunswick	26,277,449.29	3,189,126.55Nova Scotia	7,620,323.41	29,842.94Prince Edward Island	7,027,400.00	200,004.17Newfoundland	28,298,066.75	1,188,645.00Projects of a Regional Nature	2,015,000.00	-71,238,239.45	4,607,618.66

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 61 - Mr. Irvine:
1.	What is the estimated dollar value of the production of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau for the calendar or fiscal years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65?
2.	What was the revenue for the bureau for each of these years?
3.	What has been the annual net profit or loss of the bureau for each of these years?
4.	How does the government provide for any loss or deficit incurred in the bureau's operations?
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1,
2 and 3.
(1)	(2)	(3)
Fiscal Dollar Value	Surplus or
Year of Production Revenue (Deficit)
1962-	63	$ 9,709,872 $ 9,615,121	($ 94,751)1963-	64	10,122,903	10,373,122	250,2191964-	65	11,177,181	11,757,364	580,183
4. Any deficit which occurs in a fiscal year
is carried forward to next year and recouped by adjusting the selling rates in the succeeding period. (Surpluses in any fiscal year are transferred to the consolidated revenue fund).


C.B.C.-C.T.V. INCOME FROM CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Orlikow: How much income did (a) the C.B.C. and its affiliated stations, and (b) C.T.V. and its affiliated stations receive as a result of cigarette advertising during each of the past three years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: (a) I am informed by the C.B.C., that the approximate revenue to C.B.C. and affiliates from network cigarette advertising (radio and TV) for the year 1963 was $1,375,000; for 1964: $1,150,000; and for 1965: $915,000. The C.B.C. has no record of business placed directly with the affiliates by advertisers.
(b) I am informed by the C.T.V. network that gross expenditures placed with the network for cigarette advertising totalled in 1963-$337,500; in 1964, $110,000 and in 1965, $19,000. These figures cover the network only; figures for C.T.V. affiliates are not available.
February 7, 1966

Questions


APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN
Mr. MacRae: Is it the intention of the government of Canada to appoint an Ombudsman?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No decision has been taken concerning the appointment of an ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner but the question is being considered in connection with studies now going on concerning administrative tribunals and administrative decisions.


DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROJECTS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What projects have been completed In each of the four Atlantic provinces by the Atlantic Development Board?
2.	What is the total cost of each such project?
3.	What projects have been approved but not yet completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	No projects have been completed.
2.	N/A.
3.	Projects which have been approved but not yet completed-
Projects approved since
Project	July l, 1963


NEW BRUNSWICK
[Stage Direction]
Mactaquac Hydroelectric Power Development	20,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction of a hydroelectric power development on the Saint John River.
These monies to be paid over a four year period of construction in parallel with, and not more rapidly than, equivalent expenditures by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission.
Milltown Water Supply	100,000.00
Construction of a water pipeline for an industrial park area.
Dorchester Point	1,500,000.00
Assistance in the construction of certain basic services in connection with an industrial park.
Shippegan-Fresh water	152,449.29
Provision of a fresh water supply for fish processing.
Shippegan-Salt water	275,000.00
Provision of a salt water supply system for fish processing.
Trunk roads	3,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
Research buildings and equipment 1,250,000.00 Capital assistance for laboratory buildings and equipment at Fredericton.
26,277,449.29

[Stage Direction]
Stellarton	400,000.00
Provision of a general purpose building for Industrial Estates Ltd.
Stellarton	200,000.00
Provision of an additional water supply system for the expansion of an industrial park.
Industrial Park, Halifax	560,000.00
Assistance in the provision of basic services for an industrial park in Halifax County.
Industrial Park, Truro	165,000.00
Assistance in the provision of basic services for an extension of the industrial park.
Canso	747,919.55
Provision of a suitable fresh
water supply and sewage disposal system for fish processing. Cheticamp
Provision of a suitable fresh water supply for fish processing. Grand Etang
Provision of a suitable salt water supply for fish processing.
Lower East Pubnico Site preparation including access road and water supply for fish processing.
Port Mouton
Site preparation including crib-work and retaining wall for fish processing at Willow Cove. Riverport
Provision of a suitable water supply for fish processing.
140.000.	00 46,629.14
218,774.72
150.000.	00
242.000.	00
Trunk Roads	3,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
Research buildings and equipment 1,750,000.00 Capital assistance for laboratory buildings and equipment at Dartmouth and Halifax.
7,620,323.41
Questions
[Stage Direction]
February 7. 1966
Projects approved since
Project	July 1, 1963

[Stage Direction]
Submarine power cable	4,300,000.00
The estimated cost of constructing a power cable connection between the mainland and Prince Edward Island via the Causeway at a time several years hence when the interconnection can be made.
Summerside
Provision of water and sewage facilities for an industrial park. Georgetown
Assistance in providing basic facilities (water supply and sewage system) for fish and food processing at Georgetown.
Montague
Provision of a water supply and construction of a causeway for food processing.
Roads to fishing centres To cover 90 per cent of the cost of paving access roads to selected fishing centres within the province.
112,400.00
850,000.00
90,000.00
675,000.00
Trunk roads	1,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
7,027,400.00

[Stage Direction]
Bay d'Espoir	20,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction of a hydroelectric power development on the south coast of Newfoundland. These monies to be paid over a four year period of surveys and construction at a rate not more rapid than equivalent expenditures by the Newfoundland Power Commission.
Frequency Standardization	4,000,000.00
Assistance to a program of frequency standardization for Newfoundland at various locations in the Province.
Bonavista	267,066.75
Provision of a suitable water supply for fish processing.
Newtown	50,000.00
Provision of a suitable water system for fish processing.
[Mr. Plckersgill.l
Trunk roads	3,000,000.00
Assistance in the construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways.
Bogland reclamation	156,000.00
To cover the cost of additional machinery required for the Provincial Boglands Clearing Service and to share on an equal basis with the Province, the cost of clearing an area of 1,000 of bogland on the Burin Peninsula.
Marystown	825,000.00
Assist in providing trawler repair facilities at Marystown, Newfoundland. Cost to be shared with the Province of Newfoundland on the basis:
Federal-75% Provincial-25%.
Note: It is possible that other arrangements may be made and the authorized contribution by the Board revert back to the Fund.
,28,298,066.75

[Stage Direction]
Pollution Equipment	10,000.00
Provision of scientific equipment for assessing the degree of pollution in inland waters of the Atlantic region.
Pollution abatement	2,000,000.00
Assistance for the abatment of industrial pollution in the Atlantic Provinces.
Sundry expenses	5,000.00
To cover the cost of advertising for tenders relating to the construction of projects, and other incidental expenses.
2,015,000.00

[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Prince Edward Island
Newfoundland
Projects of a regional nature
26,277,449.29
7,620,323.41
7,027,400.00
28,298,066.75
2,015,000.00
71,238,239.45
February 7, 1966

Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Since July 1, 1963, what grants have been approved by the Atlantic Development Board with regard to each of the four Atlantic provinces?
2.	What grants were actually paid as of May 31, 1965?
Answer: See answer to Question No. 58.


ASSISTANCE-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STUDENTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many students from the Northwest Territories are attending university under the assistance program inaugurated by the Northwest Territories Council?
2.	What is the nature of the assistance?
3.	Of these students, how many are (a) Indians (b) Eskimos?
4.	What has been the total cost of the program to date?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Thirty nine.
2.	Assistance is provided in two forms: (a) Outright grants-These cover costs of all university fees, textbooks, and return transportation between the student's home in the Northwest Territories and the point of the nearest accredited university offering the desired course; (b) Loans-Where need is shown, loans may be provided to cover costs of board and lodging while the student is attending university. Loans are free of interest during the period that the student is attending university.
3.	(a) 0; (b) 1.
4.	Amount of assistance approved from June 1963 to January 20, 1966-Outright grants-$54,969.52; Loans-$16,322.12; Total- $71,291.64.


BEAUSOLEIL ISLAND
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the yearly number of visitors to Beausoleil island for the past five years?
2.	What is the fee charged to those visitors using the services provided and the fee charged for those who do not use such services?
3.	When was the garbage disposal plant installed?
4.	How many signs are there on the mainland indicating the location of Beausoleil island?


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. In 1965-66 from April 1 to December 31, 8,361 visitors; in 1964-65 from April 1 to March 31, 8,371 visitors; in 1963-64 from April 1 to March 31, 18,052 visitors; in 1962-63 from April 1 to March 31, 23033-501
Questions
19,126 visitors; in 1961-62 from April 1 to March 31, 14,230 visitors.
2.	Visitors using the services provided at the Cedar Springs camp ground are charged 50 cents per day or $2 per week per camp site. No other fees are charged in this park.
3.	The garbage disposal plant or incinerator was constructed in 1961 and first operated in 1962.
4.	As the department does not have any property on the mainland, it has no signs there, nor does it have any record of the number of signs on the mainland indicating the location of Beausoleil island. I understand that in this connection Ontario is planning to adopt a standard sign indicating locations of national parks.


INAUGURATION OF AIR CANADA FLIGHTS, HALIFAX-U.K.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did Air Canada inaugurate in the last ten years regular flights to the United Kingdom from Halifax international airport and, if so, (a) on what date was the first flight from Halifax; (b) who were the complimentary passengers on such flight?
2.	Did any members of parliament of the session of that year make such a flight and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Did the president of Air Canada or his office then make available a certain number of seats on said flight, to the Minister of Transport or any other minister of the government of the day and, if so, by whom were such invitations accepted?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No (a) On April 2, 1960 Trans-Canada Air Lines operated a flight from Shearwater airport, Dartmouth to the United Kingdom. This was the inaugural service on which 54 seats were blocked off for invited company guests, (b) Mr. R. Coates, member of parliament; Mr. W. L. Creaghan, member of parliament; Mr. L. Crouse, member of parliament; Mr. H. Macquarrie, member of parliament; Mr. R. Muir, member of parliament; Mr. J. Tucker, member of parliament; Premier Robert Stanfield of Nova Scotia; Premier Walter Shaw of Prince Edward Island; Hon. J. R. Pichette, Minister of Industry and Development, New Brunswick; Premier Joseph Smallwood of Newfoundland; Mr. A. Johnson, president of Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, St. John's; Mr. N. Mann, executive director of Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, Halifax; Mayor Charles A. Vaughan of Halifax; Mr. G. Pushie, director general of Economic Development, St. John's; Captain

February 7, 1966
Questions
R.	P. Welland, officer commanding, H.M.C.S. Shearwater, Dartmouth; Mr. G. R. McGregor, president, Trans-Canada Air Lines (travelled flight deck); Mr. W. G. Stewart, director of Trans-Canada Air Lines (travelled flight deck); Mr. T. F. K. Edmison, regional operations manager, Trans-Canada Air Lines; Mr. J.	R. B. Rankin, public relations manager, Trans-Canada Air Lines; Mr. D. Warrington, news editor, Canadian Press, Halifax; Mr. H. Bjornson, bureau chief, British United Press, Halifax; Mr. A. Nickerson, editor, the Mail-Star, Halifax; Mr. G. F. Brickenden, director of T.V., C.B.C., Halifax; Mr. D. A. Grant, commercial manager, CHNS radio, Halifax; Mr. F. MacDonald, manager, CJCH radio, Halifax; Mr. R. Morton, publisher, Dartmouth Free Press, Dartmouth; Mr. J. R. H. Sutherland, publisher, Daily News, New Glasgow; Mr. J. Mungall, publisher, Journal-Pioneer, Summerside; Mr. J. Murphy, publisher, Daily News, Truro; Mr. R. M. Black, managing director, Amherst News, Amherst; Mr. R. D. Duchemin, managing editor, Cape Breton Post, Sydney; Mr. M. Nathanson, manager, CJCB-TV and radio, Sydney; Mr. J. B. Burgoyne, asst, managing editor, Telegraph-Journal, Saint John; Mr. G. Cromwell, general manager, CHSF-TV and radio, Saint John; Mr. R. T. Bowman, manager, CFBC radio, Saint John; Mr. C. D'Amour, managing director, UEvangeline, Moncton; Mr. B. Isner, general manager, Times and Transcript, Moncton; Mr. F. A. Lynds, managing director, CKCW-TV and radio, Moncton; Mr. L. Loomer, managing editor, Atlantic Advocate, Fredericton; Mr. D. M. Neill, managing director, CFNB radio, Fredericton; Mr. B. Lewis, executive editor, Guardian Patriot, Charlottetown; Mr. R. Large, managing director, CFCY-TV and radio, Charlottetown; Mr. L. C. Currie, publisher, Daily News, St. John's; Mr. S.	R. Herder, managing editor, Evening Telegram, St. John's; Mr. N. J. Vinicombe, news editor, VOCM radio, Halifax; Mr. C. Jamieson, manager, CJON radio and TV, St. John's; Mr. L. Learner, Boston Globe, Boston; Mr. R. Bowman, Maritime Travel Service, Halifax; Mr. E. Mathers, I. H. Mathers & Son Ltd., Halifax; Mr. K. Lewis, Central Agencies Ltd., Travel Agents, Truro; Mr. C. Fraser, Fraser & Hoyt, Travel Agents, New Glasgow; Mr. G. C. Cherry, Cherry's Travel Service, Fredericton; Mr. M. Gallop, Canadian National Express, North Sydney; Mr. J. Gollan, Moncton Travel Agency, Moncton; Mr. J. Dew, Morton Dew Limited Travel Agents, Charlottetown; Mr. R. Day, Guy R. Day & Son travel agents, St. Stephen, N.B.

2.	Yes. Mr. R. Coates, M.P. for Cumberland; Mr. W. L. Creaghan, M.P. for Westmorland; Mr. L. Crouse, M.P. for Queens-Lunenburg; Mr. H. Macquarrie, M.P. for Queens, P.E.I.; Mr. R. Muir, M.P. for Cape Breton; Mr. J. Tucker, M.P. for Trinity-Conception.
3.	Company policy is to direct invitations for inaugural flights to the directing authority in the region in which the flight originates. This applies to provincial government authorities, news media, commercial and industrial organizations and travel agents. In the case of the federal authority, the Minister of Transport is asked, by the company, to assist in suggesting federal representation.


HALIFAX CITADEL
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What measures are being taken to ensure full accessibility to Halifax Citadel hill for 1967?
2.	What are the over-all plans for its total restoration and what is the schedule for its completion?
3.	In the style of what historical period will the restoration be carried out?
4.	What is the estimated cost of total restoration?


Arthur Laing: 1. Substantial portions of Halifax Citadel require reconstruction which cannot proceed until extensive drainage features are incorporated into the complex; the scope of the work to be undertaken is such that it is not possible to ensure full accessibility by 1967.
2.	A departmental task force was established late in 1965 to report on the measures required to ensure the comprehensive development of the site. Preliminary indications are that such a development should be phased over seven years.
3.	Wherever complete reconstruction is required, it will be to the first half of the 1850's; elsewhere the Citadel will be stabilized; the interpretation of the site will take into account the factors of the Citadel's evolutionary history thereby embodied in the complex.
4.	This information is not yet available.


VIMY RIDGE MEMORIAL GUIDES
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	How many guides were employed during the years 1963, 1964, and 1965, at the Vimy Ridge memorial in Europe?
2.	How many of these guides were on permanent staff, and how many on a casual or temporary basis?
3.	How many of these guides were veterans?
4.	What training and/or instructions were provided to acquaint them with a grasp of the history of this memorial?
February 7. 1966


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. During 1963 a total of eight guides were employed from April 1 to September 30. During 1964 a total of ten guides were employed from March 15 to September 30. During 1965 a total of nine guides were employed from April 1 to September 30. During these periods not more than three guides were employed at any one time.
2.	None of these guides were on permanent staff; all were employed on a temporary basis.
3.	None of these guides were veterans as no bilingual Canadian veterans are available for such employment on a temporary basis. All the guides employed were bilingual Canadian undergraduate or postgraduate students.
4.	Until May 1965 these guides were trained by Mr. Paul Piroson who had been supervisor of the memorial for 18 years. In May 1965 Mr. Piroson was succeeded by Mr. Marcel Robidoux, a Canadian bilingual veteran who has been responsible for training the guides since then. The duties of these guides are confined to conducting visitors through the underground tunnels behind the Canadian front line. No guides are provided for duty at the Vimy Memorial itself.


DEBRIS IN SALMON SPAWNING WATERS, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1963, has the Department of Fisheries compiled or received any information regarding the accumulation of logs, branches and other debris in salmon-spawning bodies of water in B.C. and, if so, when was this information so compiled or received.
2.	How many bodies of water in B.C. are considered to contain such an accumulation of logs, branches and other debris that salmon migration or spawning is interfered with?
3.	Are any steps being taken to clear such bodies of water of such debris and, if so, what in detail, is being done?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: 1. The duty of each fishery officer includes the examination of all spawning streams in the district for which he is responsible several times each year to report on the accumulation of logs, branches, and other debris. The results of each inspection are recorded together with the action taken. At the end of each year the area director's office in Vancouver compiles a report of each incident and shows the action taken to alleviate the situation. In addition, there is added to this report any major obstructions caused by and cleared by industry.
Questions
2.	At the moment very few bodies of water in British Columbia contain logs, branches, and other debris in sufficient quantities to interfere with migration or spawning of salmon. These include in the main only those where accumulations have occurred since the spawning in the autumn of 1965. They cannot be removed at the moment while the eggs and fry are in the gravel beds.
3.	Immediate steps are taken by the officers to clear the debris if the obstruction is small. If it is more complicated, the engineers of the resource development branch supervise the removal using heavier equipment not available to the local officers. Where industries are responsible for the obstructions, they are requested and forced to clear the stream under supervision. Reports on the various actions taken in the years 1963 and 1964 are available; the report for 1965 is almost complete. As would be expected, these are rather lengthy but we would be happy to provide copies to the hon. member for his information.


DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENTS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	During the period July 1, 1964, to December 31, 1965, how many (a) officers (b) non-commissioned officers (c) men retired from Canada's defence forces or did not re-engage as the case may be?
2.	How are these numbers distributed among the naval, ground (Army), and air (R.C.A.F.) components?
3.	Of these persons, how many in each category of non-commissioned officers and men had been entitled to rank or special pay for technical or specialist training?
4.	Of all persons who have retired from the defence forces during the said period, how many retired (a) on reaching normal retirement age (b) at own request prior to normal retirement age (c) compulsorily for disciplinary reasons (d) prematurely to the process of integration?
5.	How many (a) civilian employees (b) civil servants have been retired, transferred or laid off as a result of the process of integration of the defence forces?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National
Defence): 1 and 2.
Non Commis-
Officers	sioned Offrs	Men(Incl	Cpl to WOl	(IncludingService	O/Cdts)	(equivalent)	Apprentices)Navy	546	920	3726Army	1194	1848	7696Air Force 2353	1910	6007Total	4093	4678	17429
February 7, 1968
3.	Questions	
	Non-	
Service	Commissioned Offrs Men	
Navy	920	2723Army	1848	5577Air Force	1910	4598Total	4678	128984. (a), 2,036; (b), 13,142; (c),	1,255; (d), 912.5. (a) and	(b)-Statistics are not kept in a	fashion which shows which	actions are directly attributable to integration. The following figures represent the total actions for the	periods shown:	Prevailing Rate	ClassifiedEmployees	Civil ServantsRetirements	401	940Lay-offs	371	517Transfers*	29	627
* Statistics on transfers are for the period from January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965 only. A separate record of employees who transferred from the department was not kept prior to January 1, 1965.


PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Brewin: How many persons are engaged in the field of public relations or publicity, either as service officers, other ranks, or civilians (a) in the Department of National Defence (b) in each of the Armed Services?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: All public relations and information staffs in the Department of National Defence were integrated into the directorate of information services in October 1964 with a total establishment of 76 personnel of which 47 are service and 29 civilian.


TRIPS ABROAD BY FORMER HEALTH MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many trips outside of Canada have been *made on government business by the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, the present Secretary of State, Hon. Judy LaMarsh, since she became a minister in 1963?
2.	What were the dates of these trips, the destination of each, and the cost of each?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Six.
2. August, 1963, England, Holland, West Germany, Denmark, Sweden and France; to meet and discuss with officials of various countries pension plans in operation in their respective country, $1,684.55. January and
IMr. Hellyer.]
February, 1964, Australia and Italy; to attend winter Olympic games held in Austria and to consult with Italian minister responsible for the summer games in Italy, $1,796.60. January, 1965, London, England; delegated by Canadian cabinet to attend the funeral of the late Sir Winston Churchill, $940.30. April and May, 1965, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland; to visit national sport centres and interview officials of various countries re medicare programs. Also, attended, as head of Canadian delegation, the annual assembly of W.H.O. in Geneva, $1,430.70. September, 1965, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; to attend, as chief Canadian observer, the annual meeting of the Pan-American Health Organization W.H.O.,	$262.18. October, 1965, Edinburgh, Scotland; head of Canadian delegation to the Commonwealth Medical Conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland, $540.63.


USE OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PLANE BY FORESTRY MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Minister of Forestry have the use of a Department of Transport aircraft between January 13 and January 18, 1966, and, if so, for what dates and for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of the passengers and what was the cost of the flight?
Answer: 1. The Minister of Forestry used a Department of Transport Viscount, CF-TGP, on January 16, 1966, Ottawa-Quebec and return for the official opening ceremonies of a major ARDA project at Beaupre, Quebec
2. The Minister of Forestry, the deputy minister of forestry, the assistant deputy minister (ARDA), the regional director of ARDA for the province of Quebec, the director of feed grain administration, the minister's secretary. Since the plane was going on an official trip, and plenty of space was available several members of the families of the official passengers accompanied them, as has frequently been the practice for many years in such cases. The previously listed group travelled both ways. On the return flight, Mr. J. Berger, M.P., and two members of his family were also passengers. It is not possible to give a precise figure for the cost of any flight made by Department of Transport aircraft since both the aircraft and the personnel are employed on a year round basis and any allocation of these overhead costs would be purely arbitrary. In the case of flights by ministers it is the practice to charge the minister the equivalent of the first class fare by a commercial air line with a minimum charge of $100.
February 7, 1966


PRINTING BUREAU SABOTAGE REPORTS
Mr. Marlin (Timmins): Has the government received any reports or suggestions of equipment sabotage at the Canadian Government Printing Bureau and, if so, what action has been taken based on these reports?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In
so far as the Departments of Defence Production and Industry and the Canadian Government Printing Bureau are concerned, the answer is nil.


NATIONAL PARK, RIDEAU AREA
Mr. Hopkins: Has consideration been given by the government to the establishment of a Rideau National Park or to the extension of the Thousand Islands National Park to include the Rideau area?


Arthur Laing: 1. The government has received representations to investigate the establishment of a Rideau national park. Discussions have been held and are continuing on ways and means by which the recreation potential of the general area can best be developed in conjunction with the appropriate authorities. Specific consideration has not been given to extending the St. Lawrence islands national park to include the Rideau area.


EX-PRISONER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Hopkins: 1.	In each of the last three years how many ex-inmates have secured employment through the special services department of the National Employment Service?
2.	Has this program of ex-inmate placement proved successful?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	The information is not available exactly in the form asked. Ex-inmates are not statistically classified as such in the National Employment Service records, but are included in the category "personal problem" cases, which includes other workers with special handicaps. Ex-inmates do, however, constitute the majority of these cases. Moreover, it should be explained that although statistics of placements of applicants with "personal problems" are maintained, these do not reveal the number of persons placed. Many are placed more than once. The numbers of placements of persons who fall in the "personal problem"
Questions
categories for the calendar years 1963, 1964 and 1965 respectively, are as follows: 6,826, 7,770 and 8,998.
2.	The program is considered to be successful. The official report of the John Howard Society pays high recognition to the work of the National Employment Service in the field of ex-prisoner rehabilitation.
Background information regarding Question No. 197:
The special services division of the National Employment Service, is responsible for providing employment counselling and selective placement of special groups of workers. Competent physically handicapped persons, young people entering the labour market for the first time, older workers, veterans and long term ex-servicemen, those re-entering the labour market, workers wishing to undertake vocational training courses, and other similar categories of applicants receive employment services from special service officers.
Included among these categories of workers are those applicants identified as "personal problem" cases, the ex-inmate constitutes the majority of these cases. The ex-inmate is not statistically classified per se in National Employment Service reports. In each of the calendar year periods, 1963, 1964 and 1965, the number of personal problem cases placed was 6,826, 7,770 and 8,998 respectively.
The National Employment Service for many years has provided a continuing employment service to ex-inmates, including a visiting program to penal institutions. Special services officers regularly visit prisons for the purpose of interviewing, counselling and registering about to be released inmates. Documents concerning employment capacities of each individual are forwarded to the National Employment Office in which the ex-inmate plans to reside. A file is set up in the office so designated and efforts are begun to locate employment prior to the arrival of the ex-inmate. In some cases employment opportunities await the arrival of the ex-prisoner, this is especially true in the case of a skilled worker. Employers quickly discount the significance of a prison record of a man who possesses a high degree of skill. In the case of the ex-prisoner lacking easily marketed skills, his placement is of course more difficult.
Special services officers arrange social assistance for ex-prisoners awaiting job place-

February 7, 1966
Questions
ment by enlisting the support of such community agencies as the John Howard Society, Salvation Army and other welfare agencies.
The official report of the John Howard Society pays high recognition to the work of the National Employment Service in the field of ex-prisoner rehabilitation.


PAROLES
Mr. Hopkins: Since the Parole Act came into force in 1959, by years, (a) how many parole decisions were rendered (b) how many paroles were granted (c) how many paroles were revoked?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 
BAY OF FUNDY POWER DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Mr. Coates: When is a report expected by the Atlantic Development Board on the surveys at present underway in determining the potential of the Bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic
Development Board as follows: The board has undertaken the study of underwater foundation conditions at Shepody Bay, Cumberland Basin and Minas Basin as a necessary preliminary step before more extensive surveys will be undertaken. The reports on the former two potential sites have been completed and the survey on Minas Basin should be ready early in February 1966.


NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM EMPLOYEES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of employees, both permanent and seasonal, at the Nappan Experimental Farm?
2.	How many permanent employees were transferred in the last 12 months, and how many seasonal employees were laid oil?
3.	How many permanent employees will be transferred from Nappan Experimental Farm during 1966?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Eight research officers, 42 supporting em-[Mr. Munro.l
ployees in continuing staff positions, and 5 in seasonal employment.
2.	Seven employees on continuing staff have been transferred in the last twelve months; one seasonal employee has been laid off until next spring.
3.	Five employees on continuing staff will be transferred from the Nappan experimental farm during 1966.


DEVELOPMENT BOARD GRANT TO NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coates: What is the position of the Atlantic Development Board on the $20 million grant earmarked for Nova Scotia, and when can a decision be expected on the use of these funds by that province?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic
Development Board as follows: The use of the $20 million earmarked by the Atlantic Development Board for the purposes of encouraging industrial development in Nova Scotia is being worked out in discussions with the government of that province. Of the $20 million, projects costing approximately $2 million have been approved by the federal government and projects estimated to cost a further $14 million are under active consideration.
February 7, 1966

RAINMAKING EXPERIMENTS Questions No. 213-Mr. Laprise:
1.	Was there a program of experiments sponsored by the government from 1959 to 1964 on rainmaking by means of the seeding of clouds?
2.	If so, what were the results of this program?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. From 1959 to 1963 cloud seeding experiments were sponsored by the government.
2. The results of the experiments suggested that small changes, either positive or negative, may result from this type of cloud seeding but that the chances of making large changes in rainfall by this method appear very slight. As expressed by the statisticians, the probability of an increase or decrease in rainfall greater than 22 percent was found to be less than 1 in 20. Because of the large natural variability of rainfall it was found to be impossible to be more precise about the effects of the seeding. These results are similar to those found in most other controlled tests of cloud seeding such as have been carried out in Australia and the United States.


IMMIGRATION OFFICE, TOKYO
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the government decided to open an immigration office in Tokyo?
2. Has the office actually been opened and, if not, what is the reason and will it be opened in the near future?


John Carr Munro: 1.	The government has just now completed a study of the situation in Japan with regard to the possibility of opening an immigration office in that country. A decision is expected shortly as a result of this study, and at that time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will make an announcement.
2.	See answer to part 1.


AERIAL PATROLS, EAST AND WEST COASTS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What amount of money was set aside for general aerial patrol of the existing 12-mile fishing limit during the period ending March 31, 1965 (a) on the west coast (b) on the east coast?
2.	What was the actual expenditure (a) on the west coast (b) on the east coast?
3.	What amount has been budgeted for the current year for this purpose (a) on the west coast (b) on the east coast?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Funds are not provided specifically for aerial patrol of the existing 12-mile fishing limit by the Department of Fisheries but
Questions
instead for all aerial patrol purposes. In many instances several duties may be performed concurrently. The information on this basis is:
West Coast East Coast
1.	Provided	1964-65	$79,000	$109,0002.	Expended 1964-65	72,966	78,6413.	Provided	1965-66	84,000	184,500
In addition to aircraft chartered by the Department of Fisheries, patrols are carried out by aircraft of the Canadian Armed Forces.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: 1.	What progress has been made toward the establishment of a second national park in Saskatchewan, as announced by the government to the House of Commons in April, 1965?
2.	In the survey for a site for this park, has thorough consideration been given to the Moose Mountain parkland area?
3.	Has the date for the commencement of this national park development been set and, if so, what is the date?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. A survey of potential national park sites has been completed and the results sent to the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


NEW FERRY, NORTH SYDNEY-PORT AUX BASQUES
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What is the type of ferry vessel for ''Newfoundland 1966" project, as listed in supplementary estimates (B) for the year ending March 31, 1966?
2.	Between what ports will this vessel be used?
3.	Have tenders been called for this vessel and, if so, to whom has the contract been awarded?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Automobile and passenger type.
2.	North Sydney and Port aux Basques.
3.	Public tenders were called in Canada and Europe for an existing vessel to meet the requirement and the Prins Bertil was purchased from Lion Ferries of Halmstad, Sweden.


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, JONQUIERE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of

February 7, 1966
Questions
sums for work carried out in the town of Jon-quiere in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?	*


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
Date received	Date cheque sent
Project 317	April 22, 1965
	September 14,
Project 762	April 22, 1965
	September 14,
Project 1618	April 30, 1965
	September 14,
Project 1619	April 22, 1965
	September 14,
Project 2202	September 17,
[English]


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ARVIDA, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the town of Arvida in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
to province
1965	April 30, 1965 October 13, 1965
1965	April 30, 1965 October 13, 1965
1965	May 25, 1965 October 21, 1965
1965	April 30, 1965 October 21, 1965
1965	October 21, 1965
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows.
	Date received	Date cheque sent to province
Project 744	February 2, 1965	March 11, 1965
	October 4, 1965	November 16, 1965
Project 790	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 826	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 745	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 746	February 12, 1965	March 3, 1965Project 1656	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 1657	April 30, 1965	May 25, 1965October 4, 1965	November 16, 1965Project 2162	April 30, 1965	May 25, 1965October 4, 1965	November 16, 1965Project 2205	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 2239	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 2250	September 30, 1965	October 21, 1965Project 2252	September 30, 1965	October 21, 19652. Did the federal government pay these sums to	WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, NOTRE DAME eovernment	of Quebec and, if so, on whatDU ROSAIRE, QUE.	
Question No.	250-Mr. Gr6goire: [Translation]	
1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of Notre Dame du Rosaire in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
February 7, 1966	COMMONS
Date received
Project 2436	June 21, 1965


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. LEON, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Leon in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
DEBATES	787
Questions Date cheque sent to province July 16, 1965.
July 16, 1965
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
Project No. 1324 Project No. 1831
Date received August 18, 1965 August 18, 1965 August 18, 1965 December 13, 1965
Date cheque sent to province September 22, 1965 September 22, 1965 September 22, 1965 January 5, 1966


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, BEGIN, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of Begin in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
Project 2016
Project 90
Date received April 13, 1965 June 25, 1965 July 7, 1965 February 2, 1965 June 25, 1965
Date cheque sent to province
April 30, 1965
July 16, 1965
July 27, 1965
March 15, 1965
July 16, 1965


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. NAZAIRE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Nazaire in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows.
Project 59
Date received
February 12, 1965 August 3, 1965 August 3, 1965 December 13, 1965
Date cheque sent to province March 11, 1965 August 27, 1965 August 27, 1965 January 5, 1966

February 7, 1966
Questions


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. AMBROISE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Ambroise in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows.
Project No. 336
Date received February 2, 1965 July 15, 1965 July 15, 1965 December 12, 1965
Date cheque sent to province March 11, 1965 August 5, 1965 August 5, 1965 January 5, 1966


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. CHARLES BORROMEE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Charles Borromee in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows.
Project 796
Date Received
February 22, 1965 June 25, 1965 July 7, 1965 December 13, 1965
Date Cheque Sent To Province March 12, 1965 July 16, 1965 July 27, 1965 January 5, 1966


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS,
[Stage Direction]
ST. J E AN - VIANNEY, Que.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Jean-Vianney in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows.
	Date received	Date cheque sent to province
Project No. 1524	July 7, 1965	July 27, 1965
	July 7, 1965	July 27, 1965
	December 13, 1965	January 5, 1966

February 7, 19B6


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. DAVID DE FALARDEAU, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. David de Falardeau in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1. No.
2. See reply to 1.
Questions
fEnglish]


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. HONORE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of St. Honore in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so. when?
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
Date received
Project No. 521	February 22, 1965
June 25, 1965 July 7, 1965 December 13, 1965 Project No. 770	February 26, 1965
June 25, 1965 July 7, 1965 December 13, 1965


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, LAROUCHE. QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality ot Larouche in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so when?
Date cheque sent to province March 12, 1965 July 16, 1965 July 27, 1965 January 5, 1966 March 18, 1965 July 16, 1965 July 27, 1965 January 5, 1966
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Claims were received and payments made as follows:
Project 531
Project 1492
Date received February 22, 1965 June 25, 1965 July 7, 1965 July 7, 1965
Date cheque sent to province March 15, 1965 July 16, 1965 July 27, 1965 July 27, 1965


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, JONQUlflRE, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1. Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the municipality of Jonquiere in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2. Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2: Claims were received and payments made as follows.
Date received July 7, 1965
Date cheque sent to province July 27, 1965
Project 991

February 7, 1966
Questions


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS. KENOGAMI, QUE.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Did the federal government receive from the government of Quebec a request for payment of sums for works carried out in the Town of K6no-gami in 1964-65, under the act governing the Winter Works Incentive Program and, if so, when?
2.	Did the federal government pay these sums to the government of Quebec and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2: Claims were received and paymenta made as follows.
Project 154
Project 1198 Project 1199
Date received March 16, 1965 November 5, 1965 November 16, 1965 November 15, 1965 March 16, 1965 November 5, 1965
Date cheque sent to province-April 1, 1965 December 22, 1965 December 22, 1965 December 22, 1965 April 1, 1965 December 22, 1965


SHERBROOKE AIRPORT
Mr. Allard: Is the government thinking of designating the Sherbrooke airport as supplementary to the St. Hubert airport in order to meet the requirements of an increased air traffic for commercial as well as private aircraft during Expo '67?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is not proposed to make any special designation of airports in the Montreal area to accommodate either commercial or private aircraft visiting Expo '67. It might be noted that with the exception of St. Hubert, all other airports are civil and as such are open for use by the public.
In order to facilitate the use of these airports by visitors, arrangements are being made with officials of Expo '67 to publish a small pamphlet describing the airports and facilities available to the air traveller in the Montreal area. This pamphlet will include information concerning the Sherbrooke airport in addition to those others in the Montreal area which it is considered are suitable for this purpose. The use of St. Hubert will be subject to final arrangements being made with the Department of National Defence regarding its use.


RELOCATION OF &quot;KLONDIKE'', YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Lambert: What is the reason for the advertised extension of time from January 20, 1966 to February 3, 1966 for submission of tenders for the relocation of the stern wheeler Klondike at Whitehorse, Yukon Territory?


Arthur Laing: Extension of time for submission of tenders for relocation of stemwheeler Klondike, Whitehorse, Yukon, was made at the request of prospective tenderers to provide additional time to visit the site and assess the scope of work.
This extension will not seriously affect the scheduled completion of the work and in view of the location, season of year and whether it was considered a reasonable request and was granted as being in the public interest to secure competitive bids.


DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES, NEW TOURIST FACILITIES
Mr. Douglas: Do new tourist facilities constructed in designated areas qualify for accelerated depreciation allowances?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: New depreciable buildings and major additions to existing buildings used in the tourist industry in designated areas may qualify for a special accelerated depreciation allowance of up to 20 per cent per annum on a straight line basis.
This provision is covered under class 20 in section 1100 (l)(p) of the income tax regulations.


HALIFAX CITADEL RESTORATION
[Stage Direction]
AND MAINTENANCE	.
Mr. Forrestall: What amount was expended In the restoration program and continuing maintenance at the Halifax Citadel in 1957-1958, 1958-1959, 1959-1960, 1960-1961, 1961-1962 1962-1963, 1963-1964, 1964-1965?
February 7, 1966


Arthur Laing: 1. Year	Operation & Maintenance	Capital	Total1957-58	$ 73,442	$154,566	$228,0081958-59	82,779	225,991	308,7701959-60	89,142	121,632	210,7741960-61	89,743	225,877	315,6201961-62	96,143	325,225	421,3681962-63	66,402	314,250	380,6521963-64	199,429	180,987	380,4161964-65	143,895	49,567	193,462


WINTER WORKS PAYMENTS, ST. ANTONIN, QUE.
Mr. Caouetie: How much money did the government pay for winter works to the municipality of St. Antonin, Riviere du Loup, during the year 1965-66?


John Carr Munro: A total of $15,398.77 was paid to the Province of Quebec in respect to Municipal Winter Works Incentive project carried out by the municipality of St. Antonin, Riviere du Loup during the winter of 1964-65. One project has been authorized under the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program for the current winter on behalf of St. Antonin, Riviere du Loup. The estimated federal share of this project is $16,680. No claims have as yet been received from the Province in respect of work performed on the 1965-66 project.
iEnglish]


SECOND HEAVY WATER PLANT
Mr. Soufham: 1. Are steps being taken to reinitiate the development of a second heavy water plant in Canada and, if so, what are they?
2.	Will the present proposal for enlarging the Glace Bay heavy water plant jeopardize the possibility of the building of a second heavy water plant?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. It was announced on December 16, 1965 that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had been uthorized to enter into negotiations with Canadian General Electric Company Limited to underwrite the sale of products from a second heavy water plant to be built in Canada and that it was expected that the negotiations would be concluded within three months.
2. No. The present proposal for enlarging the Glace Bay heavy water plant will not jeopardize the building of a second heavy water plant.
Questions


EXTENSION OF AUTO PACT PROVISIONS TO OTHER INDUSTRIES
Mr. Allard: Does the government intend to extend soon to other types of Industries the formula of the Canada-United States automobile pact and, if so, to what types of industries?
iTranslationl


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Automotive Program is specifically designed for the particular circumstances which prevail in the automotive industries. For this reason, an automotive type plan is unique to this kind of industry. The Department of Industry is, however, continually examining opportunities for increased production and employment in various Canadian manufacturing industries.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What staff has been hired for the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	What is the responsibility of each person who has been hired?
3.	How many inquiries have been received concerning job opportunities?
4.	How many applications have been received for jobs as volunteers?
5.	Of the applications received, how many applications are (a) under 25 (b) from 25 to 39 inclusive (c) from 40 to 49 inclusive (d) from 50 to 59 inclusive (e) 60 years of age and over?
6.	How many of the applicants were males and how many were females?
7.	How many volunteers have been hired?
8.	What projects have been approved?
9.	What projects are under consideration?
10.	What training programs have been established or are in the planning stage?


John Ross Matheson: The answers to the following questions refer to the pilot program by volunteers in advance of parliamentary consideration of legislation to establish formally a Company of Young Canadians. I am informed by the interim director of that program as follows: 1. As of January 31, 1966, there are 13 persons on staff.
2. (a) Interim Director-Direction and coordination of interim programs and of policy relating to legislation on the Company; (b) Interim Associate Director-Assists the interim director and co-ordinates research on pilot projects; (c) Interim Recruitment and Selection Officer-Organizes recruitment and selection of volunteers for the pilot projects; (d) Interim Programs Officer-Develops programs in consultation with federal, provincial and municipal agencies and private groups; (e) Interim Program Liaison Officer-Assists in

February 7, 1966
Questions
developing programs, with special responsibility tor Indian and Eskimo projects; (f) Interim Research Assistants (2) Undertake research for pilot projects; (g) Interim Regional Supervisors (3)-Conduct liaison with government and private groups concerning pilot projects and generally to represent the Company in their regions; (h) Stenographers (3)-Work in the office of the Company in Ottawa.
3.	Since mid-April, 1965, there have been 1,398 general inquiries, as follows: by letter, 642; by phone or pers. contact, 756.
4.	There has been no call for applicants, and no application forms have been distributed. Thus, no definite applications have been received.
5.	Among the 1,398 inquiries, only 159 gave their age; 85 per cent were below 25.
6.	Of the 1,398 inquiries received, 619 were from males and 679 from females.
7.	None.
8.	None.
9.	All the pilot projects in 1966 will be in Canada. There have been hundreds of suggestions but none have reached the stage of detailed planning. Suggestions include: (1) urban and rural slums; (2) Indian reserves; (3) Arctic villages; (4) co-operatives; (5) school drop-outs; (6) young lawbreakers; (7) youth programs; (8) community development programs; (9) public health; (10) mental hospitals; (11) poor children; (12) old people.
10.	None have been established. Consideration is being given to a training program lasting from four to six weeks at the beginning of the pilot projects. Content and length for each volunteer would depend on the pilot projects to which he is going.


FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In 1964-65, how many applications for loans were made to the Farm Credit Corporation by the farmers of the county of Chapleau, and what was the amount requested in each application?
2.	How many applications were accepted and what was the amount of the loan granted to each applicant?
3.	How many applications were turned down and what was the amount requested in each case?


John James Greene: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that they do not maintain statistics on a constituency basis. However, in the municipal county of Abitibi, which approximately coincides

with the constituency of Chapleau, the answer is:
1.	Applications made-13. Amounts-$8,-000; $4,000; $9,000; $12,500; $24,000; $29,500; $6,000; $4,100; $20,000; $10,000; $8,200; $7,500; $6,500.
2.	Applications accepted-8. Amounts-$5,-600; $6,600; $24,200, $5,200; $15,700; $13,700; $8,500; $9,500.
3.	Applications turned down-5. Amounts -$8,000 $6,000; $4,000; $12,500; $29,500.


LOANS TO AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY, SYNDICATES. CHAPLEAU COUNTY. QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In the county of Chapleau, how many applications have been made under the Act authorizing the Farm Credit Corporation to grant loans to agricultural machinery syndicates?
2.	What was the amount requested in each application and (a) how many applications were accepted (b) how many were turned down?


John James Greene: The Farm Credit Corporation advise that they do not maintain statistics on a constituency basis. However, in the municipal county of Abitibi, which approximately coincides with the constituency of Chapleau, the answer is-
1.	Applications made-1.
2.	Amount-$5,350, (a) one, (b) nil.


WHEAT BOARD PURCHASES OF WHEAT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	From what companies and/or individuals has the Canadian wheat board made purchases of wheat since the first day of December, 1965, and at what prices and for what quantities were each of such purchases made?
2.	Are private traders permitted to buy wheat and hold it for future delivery?
3.	If so, as of this date, how many bushels are owned by private traders?
[Translation1


Mr. Jean Chreiien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. In addition to stocks delivered by producers to the Canadian wheat board, purchases of wheat made by the wheat board since December 1 were limited to surpluses from terminal elevators. Those surpluses were bought at the initial price paid for the category concerned.
2. As a sale practice, the Canadian wheat board allows grain traders who act as agents for the board to undertake sale commitments at a fixed price in the case of wheat held at seaports for immediate delivery or future delivery within the authorized time stipulated
February 7, 1966

in the contract. At present, the board has undertaken no such sale commitment for delivery after July 31, 1966. In some cases, the board's agents may buy this wheat to ship it to the consignee of their choice. In other cases, such sales are restricted to destinations which cannot be changed without the board's consent. Since August 3, 1965, the board has restricted its agents' sales to designated destinations. Recently in accepting to change in India's favour some destinations already agreed upon, the board allowed the Canadian government to purchase from agents of the board wheat to be shipped to India.
3. At present, most sale commitments without a fixed price, from the board to its agents, include designated destinations. Prior to the export shipment, the board has no way of knowing to what extent its agents have finalized sales to ultimate purchasers at designated destinations.


BRANDON, MAN-DESIGNATED AREA PROGRAM
Mr. Enns: 1.	On what basis does Brandon, Manitoba, qualify for inclusion in the designated area program?
2.	If employment figures and other data are used In suppert of this answer, what is the source of such statistics?
3.	What has been the rate of population growth in Brandon over the past five years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
The National Employment Service office area of Brandon, Manitoba, qualifies for inclusion in the area development program because of an annual average non-farm family income below the qualifying level of $4,250 per annum.
2.	The source of the income data is the 1961 Census of Canada, based on counties and census divisions, and reconciled to N.E.S. local office area boundaries where necessary.
3.	Population data on a census basis are not available beyond 1961 for National Employment Service office areas or for cities. However, the city of Brandon experienced a population growth of 13.6 per cent over the five year period 1956-1961, from 24,796 in 1956 to 28,166 in 1961.


PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE, MAN.-DESIGNATED AREA PROGRAM
Mr. Enns: 1.	On what basis is Portage la Prairie and district excluded from the designated area program?
2.	If unemployment figures and other data are used in support of this answer, what is the source of such statistics?
Questions
3.	Are persons employed on winter works projects considered as unemployed for the purpose of this calculation?
4.	What has been the rate of population growth in Portage la Prairie over the past five years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
The Portage la Prairie National Employment Service office area did not qualify for inclusion in the Area Development Program because it did not meet any of the criteria for designation. The annual average unemployment ratio over the latest 5 year period was only 18 per cent above the national average; employment growth was considerably above the national average; and the average annual non-farm family income was above the qualifying level of $4,250 per annum.
2.	The source of the income data is the 1961 Census of Canada, based on counties and census divisions, and reconciled to NES local office area boundaries where necessary. The source of the unemployment data is the number of unplaced applicants for jobs registered with the National Employment Service, taken as a percentage of paid workers in the area. Paid worker figures are derived from the 1961 Census of Canada. Employment figures are derived from confidential reports from employers on hirings and separations made to the National Employment Service and compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on a semi-annual basis.
3.	Persons are excluded from the count of unplaced applicants for work while employed on Winter Works projects.
4.	Population data on a Census basis are not available beyond 1961 for National Employment Service office areas or for cities. However, the City of Portage la Prairie experienced a population growth of 17.7 per cent over the 5 year period 1956-1961; from 10,525 in 1956 to 12,388 in 1961.


DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. McKinley: What cities and towns have been declared "designated areas" since July 1, 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The following National Employment Service Office areas, counties and census divisions were designated for the benefits of the area development program on August 5, 1965:
National Employment Service Office Areas: Newfoundland: Corner Brook, Grand Falls, St. John's (Labrador*).

February 7, 1966
Questions
Prince Edward Island:	Charlottetown,
Summerside.
Nova Scotia: Amherst, Bridgewater, Inverness, Kentville, Liverpool, New Glasgow, Springhill, Sydney, Sydney Mines, Truro, Yarmouth,
British Columbia:	Kelowna, Penticton,
Vernon.
Alberta: Blairmore.
New Brunswick: Bathurst, Campbellton, Edmunston, Minto, Moncton, Newcastle, St. Stephen, Sussex, Woodstock.
Quebec: Alma, Causapscal, Chandler, Chicoutimi, Dolbeau, Gaspe, Jonquiere, La Mal-baie, La Tuque, Louiseville, Maniwaki, Matane, Megantic, Mont Laurier, Montmagny, New Richmond, Port Alfred, Roberval, Rimouski, Riviere du Loup, Shawinigan, Ville St. Georges.
Ontario: Bracebridge, Elliot Lake, Parry Sound, Sturgeon Falls, Owen Sound, Colling-wood, Midland.
Manitoba: Brandon, Dauphin, The Pas.
Saskatchewan: Lloydminster, North Battle-ford, Prince Albert, Yorkton.
* to include Lake Melville district and coastal settlements south of the 55th parallel.
Counties and Census Divisions: Queen's, N.B., Beauce, P.Q., Labelle, P.Q., Pontiac, P.Q., Haliburton, Ont., Parry Sound, Ont., Manitoulin Island, Ont..
Census Division 10, Man.; Census Division 12, Man.; Census Division 18, Man.; Census Division 19, Man.; Census Division 5, Sask.;
Census Division 10, Sask.; Census Division 13, Sask.; Census Division 12, Alta.; Census Division 13, Alta.
The following National Employment Service Office areas were included in the list of designated areas under the area development program in effect on July 1, 1965, but were removed from the list with effect from September 5, 1965, due to a general improvement in their economic conditions: Chatham, Cornwall, Rouyn, Timmins, Val d'Or, Wallaceburg and Windsor.


C.M.H.C. REPRESENTATIVES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	How many representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are there in Quebec?
2.	What are the cities where the corporation has set up its regional offices in Quebec and (a) which counties are served by each regional office (b) what is the area of each of these regions?
3.	Does the government intend to appoint a representative in Rouyn in order to serve the Northwest?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. There are 426 employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the province of Quebec. This number represents approximately 32 per cent of all staff in the corporation's field offices throughout Canada.
2. There is one regional office of the corporation in the province of Quebec which is located in Montreal. There are, in addition, twelve local offices. The locations of these offices, together with the counties or areas served by each are given below:
Office
Quebec and Rimouski Offices
Chicoutimi Office
Trois-Rivieres Office
Counties or Areas Served by Each Office
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, Bona-venture, Charlevoix-East, Charlevoix-West, Dorchester, Gas-pe-East, Gaspe-West, Kamouraska, Levis, L'lslet, Lotbiniere, Matane' Matapedia, Montmagny, Montmorency No. 1, Montmorency No. 2, Portneuf, Quebec, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup, Temiscouata; Anticosti Island in the Municipal county of Saguenay.
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Chicoutimi, Lac-St-Jean-East, Lac-St-Jean-West; the eastern part of Abitibi district, bounded on the west by the townships east of and including Carpiquet north to Doreil and continuing north; the eastern part of Mistassini district, bounded on the west by the 76th meridian.
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Berthier, Champlain, Jo-liette, Maskinonge, Montcalm, Nicolet, St-Maurice, Yamaska.

February 7, 1966

Office
Baie Comeau and Sept lies Offices
Montreal Office
St. Lambert Office
Sherbrooke and Drum-mondville Offices
Hull and Val d'Or Offices
Questions
Counties or Areas Served by Each Office
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal county of Saguenay (excluding Anticosti Island); the eastern part of the district of New Quebec, bounded on the west by the 70th meridian; the western part of the coast of Labrador.
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Argenteuil, Deux-Montagnes, L'Assomption, Soulanges, Terrebonne, Vaudreuil; Montreal Island and lie Jesus (the municipal counties of Hochelaga, Jacques Cartier and Laval).
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Bagot, Beauharnois, Cham-bly, Chateauguay, Iberville, Huntingdon, Laprairie, Napier-ville, Richelieu, Rouville, St-Hyacinthe, St-Jean, Vercheres.
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Arthabaska, Brome, Compton, Drummond, Frontenac, Megantic, Missisquoi, Richmond, Shefford, Sherbrooke, Stanstead, Wolfe.
That part of the province of Quebec lying within the boundaries of the municipal counties of Abitibi, Gatineau, Hull, La-belle, Papineau, Pontiac, Temiscamingue; the western part of Abitibi district, bounded on the east by the townships west of and including Effiat north to Clerin and continuing north; and the western part of Mistassini district, bounded on the east by the 76th meridian; the western part of the New Quebec district, bounded on the east by the 70th meridian.
3. At present the northwest part of the province of Quebec is served by the Hull and Val d'Or offices. The main areas of activity in northwest Quebec are at Ville Marie, Te-miskaming, Lebel-sur-Quevillon and in a rectangle approximately 85 miles long by 55 miles wide bounded by Val d'Or, Senneterre, La Sarre, and Rouyn-Noranda. In all of these areas from January to November 1965, there were 188 NHA loans for 195 units. In addition, the corporation administers 96 rental units at Amos, 88 units at Val d'Or and 40 units at Rouyn.
The corporation is re-examining the needs of northwest Quebec and the facilities being provided so as to ensure that a high level of service to the public is being maintained.


RECEPTION DURING CONFERENCE ON POVERTY
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	Was a reception held on December 8, 1965, in connection with the federal-provincial conference to initiate the government's war on poverty?
2.	If so, how much money was spent for (a) food (b) liquor?


John Ross Matheson: 1. No reception was held to initiate the government's war on poverty on December 8, 1965. Hospitality was provided on December 7, 1965, in the form of a reception for the federal-provincial conference on poverty and opportunity as is the case for all major federal-provincial conferences.
2. Expenditures for food amounted to $180 and refreshments $240.10 for approximately 200 guests.


EXPORTS OF AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS
Mr. Gray: What is the value of (a) automobiles, and (b) automobile parts, exported from Canada to the United States in each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and in each month of the years 1964 and 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, question No. 359 relates to the value of automobiles and automobile parts exported from Canada during the calendar years 1958 to 1965 inclusive. As these contain a great many figures showing a very substantial rise in such exports, rather than take the

February 7, 1966
Questions
time to read them all out I ask that they may be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
Answer: 1. (a) The value of automobiles exported from Canada to the United States in each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964 is as follows:
$ Thousand
1958	121
1959	214
1960	424
1961	400
1962	322
1963	639
1964	20,822
On a monthly basis for 1964 and 1965 the value of motor vehicle parts exported to the United States is as follows:
1964	1965
	$ Thousand		$ Thousand
January	4,153	January	8,922February	4,165	February	6,037March	4,625	March	9,428April	5,573	April	9,990May	5,194	May	11,112June	5,264	June	12,338July	5,155	July	11,403August	4,687	August	7,162September	7,739	September	13,891October	7,770	November	9,347	December	9,763	
The latest export data available for 1965 is for September.
On a monthly basis for 1964 and 1965 the value of automobiles exported to the United States is as follows:
1964	1965
$ Thousand			$ Thousand
January	176	January	2,539February	1,067	February	2,157March	1,029	March	2,788April	1,252	April	2,632May	2,080	May	3,225June	2,345	June	2,690July	2,037	July	1,426August	1,498	August	272September	422	September	12,027October	2,469	November	3,376	December	3,071	The latest	export	data available for 1965	is for September.	(b) Export	data	does not	specifically
separate automobile parts from parts for other
motor vehicles.
The value of motor vehicle parts exported from Canada to the United States in each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 is as follows:
$ Thousand
1958	5,197
1959	18,871
1960	13,168
1961	10,535
1962	12,726
1963	36,358
1964	73,435


EMPLOYMENT IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gray: What was the number of people employed in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Canada (a) for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962,
1963	and 1964, and (b) in each month of the years
1964	and 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, question No. 360 relates to employment in the automobile industry. The figures demonstrate a very large increase in employment, but because there is a very great number of figures involved perhaps the answer might be printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1. (a) The monthly average number of employees reported by the motor vehicle manufacturers industry in Canada for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 are as follows: 1958, 28,263; 1959, 29,364; 1960, 29,183; 1961, 27,986; 1962, 29,954; 1963, 34,145; 1964, 38,784.
(b) Employees reported by the motor vehicle manufacturers industry in Canada in each month for the years 1964 and 1965 are as follows:
1964: January, 39,965; February, 40,047; March, 40,333; April, 40,687; May, 41,180; June, 40,974; July, 21,894; August, 39,018; September, 42,555; October, 31,363; Noveim ber, 43,504; December, 43,817.
February 7, 196S

1965: January, 44,928; February, 39,250; March, 45,973; April, 47,610; May, 48,107; June, 48,035; July, 36,910; August, 33,968; September, 45,133.
The latest figures available for 1965 are for September.


EMPLOYMENT IN AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES
Mr. Gray: What was the number of people employed In the automotive parts and accessories manufacturing industry in Canada (a) for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964, and (b) in each month of the years 1964 and 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as there are also a great many figures involved in this answer I ask that it too be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1. (a) The monthly average number of employees reported by the motor vehicle parts and accessories Industry in Canada for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 are as follows: 1958; 18,048; 1959; 19,321; 1960; 18,562; 1961; 18,350; 1962; 20,171; 1963; 23,468; 1964; 27,700.
(b) Employees reported by the motor vehicle parts and accessories industry in Canada in each month for the years 1964 and 1965 are as follows:
1964:	January, 26,925; February, 27,179;
March, 27,552; April, 28,121; May 28,150; June, 27,595; July, 26,745; August, 27,581; September, 28,411; October, 26,320; November, 29,034; December, 28,842.
1965: January, 30,233; February, 30,545; March, 30,641; April, 31,656; May, 32,061; June, 31,844; July, 29,831; August, 31,212; September, 33,603.
The latest figures available for 1965 are for September.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that when questions are starred they are to be answered in a reasonable time. Otherwise the procedure is completely ineffective. I point out that questions Nos. 359, 360 and 361, dealing with automobiles, automobile parts and the like,
Questions
were answered, whereas my question relating to the value of automobiles and automobile parts imported into Canada in each of the calendar years mentioned is to be passed up.
My question appeared on the order paper four days before these other questions and it will be of interest to know why this information cannot be given, and to know the reason for the haste in supplying the information asked for by the other hon. member.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the interest of the right hon. gentleman in his question. I am told that the answer to his question will appear in today's Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is an entirely irregular practice. My question is a starred question. What is the minister attempting to do by playing with the rules and simply saying he is not going to answer the question but is going to place it on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. gentleman what is the number of his question?


Mr. Gregoire:: It is No. 226.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is numbered 226.


An hon. Member:: It is the same question asked four days before the others.


Mr. Vincent:: You should know the number; you said you were going to put the answer on record.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I must offer my apologies. I did not realize this was a starred question. I do now offer my apologies to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, even though this might involve the minister leaving the house to get the information, will he now table the answer to my question? He apparently has it prepared.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the answer in my possession but I shall make sure that it does appear in Hansard at the same time as those answers I have handed in.


IMPORTS OF AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: What was the value of (a) automobiles, and (b) automobile parts imported into Canada from the United States in each of the calendar years 1963, 1964 and 1965?
February 7, 1966

Oshawa Newspaper Strike


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: now have, as undertaken, an answer to starred question No. 226 asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The answer to the right hon. gentleman's question concerning the value of automobiles and automobile parts imported into Canada from the United States as far as can be compiled from available statistics is as follows:
In 1963, the value of passenger automobiles and trucks was $41,322,000 while in 1964 it amounted to $56,700,000. The latest information available for 1965 covers the 8-month period January to August in which the value amounted to $72,110,000.
In reply to the second part of the right hon. gentleman's question, I am advised that the value of automobile engines and other automobile parts was $536,301,000 in 1963; $623,375,000 in 1964 and $482,942,000 for the January to August period, 1965.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of dicussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the explosive situation building up in the city of Oshawa concerning the strike between a local of the Toronto Newspaper Guild and the Oshawa Times, a situation which demands that this parliament discuss the archaic provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to picketing and take positive steps to modernize such provisions so that violence or other breaches of the law need not occur.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to address myself to the only relevant question in this regard, the matter of urgency. This is a requirement of which I am well aware, having used this standing order before.
I would not have moved this motion today except that I and many others consider the situation in Oshawa to be a tinderbox which might well ignite if we in parliament do not act.
As Your Honour is well aware, the Criminal Code deals with the matter of picketing and, as a result of interpretations by the courts, picketing has been limited to three or four, or a small number of pickets. Such a view is out of touch with modern times, since

Mr. Justice Rand in his judgment said that picketing must have an element of moral persuasion which stops short of violence or force.
The very grave situation that has arisen in Oshawa has arisen because organized labour has tried unsuccessfully to convince various governments to amend this decision, and is now determined to obtain a review of this law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that at this point the hon. member is discussing or debating the merits of the question he would like to discuss. I invite him to limit his consideration for the time being simply to the question of urgency.


Reid Scott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thought some general background was required to lay the groundwork. In any event, I have now reached the point in respect of urgency.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, an application is now pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario for an injunction to bar all picketing, and the grave urgency of this matter arises because the labour movement has announced that it cannot permit the court order to defeat a legitimate and legal strike. I need hardly paint for the members of the house the situation that is likely to follow and which gives rise to the urgency of this motion. For example, the mayor of Oshawa has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is not abiding by the spirit of the rule which governs the type of submission which he should make at this time to the Chair, which should be limited strictly to the question of urgency of debate.


Mr. Churchill:: He is a rule breaker.


Reid Scott: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are other hon. members who would like to enlighten the Chair on the question of urgency, I would invite hon. members who wish to make submissions at this time to limit their observations to the question of urgency and not debate the substance of the motion which the hon. member for Danforth is advancing.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I seconded the motion of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), and I want to advance as a reason for urgency the statements that have already been made by the mayor of the city concerned, who has said, according to press reports, that the local police will not be able to handle the situation; that the Ontario provincial police will not be able to handle the situation, and it will be necessary to call out the troops. I suggest, Mr. Mayor-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: -Mr. Speaker, that if this happens and we have a situation where the Minister of National Defence is called upon to send in troops, we will have a situation in this city where several thousand troops will confront thousands of picketers. The consequences of that kind of situation are serious enough that we ought not to laugh about it, as some members seem to be doing; we ought not to be arguing whether we are precisely in order, but we ought to act now to avoid what can be a very serious matter which could have consequences that I am sure every person in this house and every person in Canada would regret very much.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100, deals with this matter of the urgency of debate in moving the adjournment of this house under standing order 26. I am sure Your Honour has already noted the words of citation 100 which point out that a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 "must involve the administrative responsibility of the government", and in this case the federal government. I submit to you, sir, that the problem which appears to be arising in Oshawa is the responsibility and within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. That is the first matter.
Oshawa Newspaper Strike
The second point is that in paragraph 3 it says:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate"-
It goes on to say "when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit" a debate on the matter.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are told that this afternoon as soon as orders of the day are called we shall be discussing an interim supply motion, and certainly there will then be an opportunity to discuss this question if there is this kind of urgency involved. The other thing is that we do not have the Criminal Code before the house at the moment for amendment.
It also seems to me that it would be a fruitless exercise to be discussing this matter to the extent that you are simply going to urge on the people involved that they should obey the law that already exists. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 5 of citation 100 it says:
The adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
That there is a critical condition in this city no one would deny, but this citation spells out specifically that a situation involving critical conditions in a certain locality is not sufficient reason to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26. Furthermore, I believe we should recognize that this is not a matter which could be resolved by a debate in this house, and therefore this excludes the propriety of raising it under the question of urgency of debate; because if there is urgency of debate surely it must follow that the debate is going to resolve the problem or at least lead to resolving it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out an error in standing order 26. As a matter of fact, if you keep to the English version of the new standing order which is submitted to us, the motion is probably out of order; however, according to the French version, the motion is acceptable.

February 7, 1966

Oshawa Newspaper Strike
It is not the urgency but the importance of the matter which is underlined in the French version; it is the word "importance" which is qualified. There is the aspect of urgency, but the main point is the importance of the matter.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter raised in the motion submitted by the hon. member is very important, according to the French version, when it is a matter of urgent importance, but according to the English version, the matter of urgency may have less priority than that of importance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the French version is taken into account, the motion must be accepted, but it might not be acceptable if the English version is taken into account. In any case, I feel that the discrepancy between the two versions should be examined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of words to say with respect to some of the points that have been raised. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) contends that Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100, paragraph 1, puts this motion out of court because of the requirement that such a matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
I draw the attention of the hon. member and Your Honour to the fact that this question has been under discussion a number of times and that on October 23, 1964, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton ruled that anything that comes under the responsibility of parliament may properly, other things not being against it, be dealt with under standing order 26.
The heart of my colleague's motion is that we should discuss something that is in the Criminal Code. I submit that the Criminal Code is the responsibility of parliament and that therefore as a subject matter it would be properly before us.
The other point that has been raised is as to whether there is urgency of debate; in other words, should we discuss it now or do we wait to be seized of this matter on the ground that there will be an appropriate opportunity to discuss it within a reasonable period of time?
It is our feeling that the seriousness of this matter is such that it should not wait until later in the day when it would be discussed off and on with other matters which could be raised under interim supply, but rather that

the House of Commons should consider this issue by itself at the earliest possible moment, which is right now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In so far as urgency of debate is concerned, there is no suggestion in the rule that a parliamentary decision has to be made. What matters is whether the public interest might suffer if there is not discussion and debate in parliament. We think the provisions of the Criminal Code are such that a serious situation might develop in Oshawa within a matter of hours, and we feel this situation is one that this parliament ought to be discussing, by itself, at the earliest possible moment. This is the reason my colleague has moved this motion.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: I want to refer to citation 100, paragraph 1, where it is stated that the matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. This is a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the explosive situation building up in the city of Oshawa concerning the strike between a local of the Toronto Newspaper Guild and the Oshawa Times. The strike question is a matter coming under the administrative responsibility of the province of Ontario, not the federal government. Since this is the case, there is no way of bringing the subject matter of this strike under the jurisdiction of this parliament.
It is true that in the latter part of the motion the mover makes reference to the fact this parliament should discuss the archaic provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to picketing, and that steps should be taken to modernize such provisions. In other words we are asked to deal with an amendment to legislation. So long as the law remains as it is, and the matter is before the courts as I understood the hon. member to indicate it was, then that part of the motion, if it has any validity at all, would indicate that we ought not to be discussing the matter here at this time. Parliament has been very careful in such circumstances not to prejudice a matter before the courts.
On these two additional grounds I ask Your Honour to rule that the motion is out of order and not tenable here.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a most unusual motion. The argument in support of urgency is that tomorrow the question will be before the
February 7, 1966	COMMONS
court, and the expectation, based on the present state of the law, is that a decision unfavourable to a certain action anticipated or now being engaged in will be the result. This is asking parliament to do something it has no power to do. It is to that part that I take strong objection.
The motion refers to the archaic provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to picketing. It is not for me to say whether or not they are archaic. Then the motion goes on to say that we should take positive steps to modernize such provisions so that violence or other breaches of the law need not occur. The motion, sir, is a specious one and is worded in such a way as to cover the entire field. There must have been a recognition by the hon. gentleman who advanced it that parliament has no such authority.
What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to talk about this on the basis of being afraid of what the judgment may be tomorrow. Is parliament, under the threat of fear as to the judgment, to legislate today on the subject of picketing? Parliament does not have such authority. This subject can be discussed at length when the motion for interim supply comes before the house. This motion is one that would be detrimental to all the principles of parliament, because whenever there is a fear that the law, as it now is, is going to be carried out then this parliament as a result of that fear is supposed to change the law. Surely the very expression of that proposition supplies the answer.
I am not entering into an argument about the dangers or possibilities of a serious situation. The proposition that parliament should act today in the belief that a law is out of date, and should change that law because the courts may render a decision tomorrow, is something I would not have expected to be advanced in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I have much sympathy for the arguments which have been advanced by the Minister of Public Works and the Leader of the Opposition. I feel, as they do, that this is primarily a provincial responsibility. The part of the problem that is urgent is essentially within provincial jurisdiction. It appears obvious that to bring the motion within federal responsibility the hon. member referred to possible amendments to the Criminal Code. It seems to me that the amendment of the Criminal Code is not that urgent; it does not meet the requirements
DEBATES	801
Inquiries of the Ministry that we usually ask for in such an instance, that is the urgency of debate within the terms of citation 100(3) of Beauchesne.
I might make a passing reference to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe. I have looked at the translation and it appears to convey a different impression from the English text. I agree with him that we should look into this.
In so far as urgency of debate is concerned, which is really what should be considered by the Chair at the moment, I suggest that since the house will resolve itself into committee of supply later today, there will be ample opportunity at the time to discuss the subject matter of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Danforth.
For these reasons I cannot accept the motion.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to a speech which he delivered over the week end. According to a report in the press he stated that when a new group controls a province, then they too will be in a position to demand and get special status in confederation. I should like to hear from the hon. gentleman in that connection, and as to whether the statements allegedly made by him are representative of the new federalism.
[Translation1


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, here is what I said in Quebec: one often hears that the rights of an ethnic group may be related to the fact that the group was here first. I simply said that, in my opinion, that was not a source of absolute rights since the Indians were here long before the English Canadians and French Canadians and they have no privileges except those given them by the constitution.
I said-and I could very well refer to my speech if we were not on orders of the day-that if an ethnic group takes so much importance in the composition of our society that it can, at a given time, break up the nation, it has a particular position. If there were one million Ukrainians in Manitoba, that would probably be a source of rights not referred to in the constitution.
g02	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
I cannot say that the press report is false, but it is simply a press report that could not possibly, in a few lines, respect the whole line of thought I developed during three quarters of an hour.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Since he has mentioned Ukrainians who are second numerically to Anglo-Saxons in Manitoba's population, is he aware of any instance where they have sought special privileges in Manitoba?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram signed by some 6,000 persons in the Saint John, New Brunswick area regarding the granting of the refitting contract for H.M.C.S. Bonaventure"? Also, has his attention been drawn to complaints that men serving on H.M.C.S. Bonaventure were told some months prior to this contract being awarded that they were to prepare to move their families to the city of Montreal?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the telegram and my attention has been drawn to the complaints. I have discussed the matter with the minister most directly concerned, the Minister of Industry, who could perhaps answer the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion that the ship's operating personnel were advised some months in advance, of the location of the proposed refit, I should point out that some time ago tenders were called through the three shipyards capable of doing this work, namely, Saint John Drydock, Halifax Shipyard, and Davie Shipbuilding Company. Tenders were called some time ago with a closing date of 5 p.m. on February 1. Until that time, obviously no tenders had to be in, nor was there any knowledge of the prospective action that the shipbuilding companies were undoubtedly going to take.
The tenders closed at 5 p.m. on February 1. They were publicly opened with the results

DEBATES	February 7, 1966
which I announced at 11 a.m. on February 2. It does not, therefore, seem to me that in these circumstances there can be much question but that no one other than the companies themselves knew in advance what would be the results of those tenders nor how they were going to turn out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask two things, Mr. Speaker. First, how does the minister explain the unusual clairvoyance which seems to have pervaded the government service when they were able to advise months in advance that the personnel of the ship were to seek residence for their families elsewhere? Second, in view of the very severe economic conditions in Saint John, has the minister given any consideration to the possibility of granting this contract to the Saint John Drydock Company on a cost plus basis, which would enable the government to be assured that it would get the service not at cost but not very far above cost, and at the same time it would help this distressed area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the clairvoyance is concerned, we have been unable to discover who, if anyone, was told to seek accommodation in Quebec. Perhaps I might answer on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and point out that when the refit of the Bonaventure was contemplated information was sought from the Department of Defence Production where this might be done. There are only three possible locations and the Department of National Defence carried out a survey in each of these three locations to discover what naval accommodation was available. The answer to the questionnaire was that none was available in any location.
It then became apparent to the department that wherever the ship went it would be necessary for the naval personnel associated with the refit to find their own accommodation, with appropriate allowances. This may have given rise to speculation where they might be required to go and may have led to inquiries being made by individuals where they might go and what they might obtain by way of accommodation. I suggest that the clairvoyance is rather wisdom after the event.
In answer to the second question, I think this would represent a very significant departure from government policy which, under successive governments, has followed the sound practice in relation to procurement for the Department of National Defence of using our defence funds to the maximum possible
February 7, 1966

extent in obtaining value in defence equipment. This is the principal reason for strict adherence to a system of competitive bidding. If special assistance to an area is required by reason of a high level of unemployment, surely, as the hon. gentleman knows, there are both standing and emergency government programs which may be made use of for this purpose.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence with regard to this matter. Has the minister taken into consideration the fact that H.M.C.S. Bona-venture will be tied up all next winter by reason of the ice conditions in the St. Lawrence river, and that the ship might be needed in an emergency, as it was in the Cyprus situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was taken into account at the time the major refit was authorized.


Thomas Miller Bell: With what result? What is the explanation? What did you take into consideration, sir?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government has made alternative plans if there are operations during the period that the ship will be in refit.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production. Before the Bonaventure contract is officially awarded, will the minister consider the extra costs which will be occasioned to the taxpayers by reason of moving officers, men and protesting families so far from the home base of Bonaventure? Will he also correct the statement that Halifax Shipyards tendered in the light of information which he himself gave as reported at page 636 of Hansard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not convey the impression that the crew of Bonaventure were going to be moved, protesting, a long way from home. I do not think I should accept that premise. However, the total cost in relation to the overhaul and refit will be taken into account when awarding the contract.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry arising out of the answer he gave a little earlier on sound business practices in regard to Bonaventure. If
Inquiries of the Ministry this is government policy, may I ask why the frigate H.M.C.S. Waterford was referred to the Vickers shipyard in Montreal without tenders being called? I think this was last year or the year before.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
1Translation1



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour?
Since the General Cinema and Television Union affiliated to the Confederation of National Trade Unions does not seem to have obtained the support of the majority of the tradesmen employed on the French network of the C.B.C. and since the Committee on Labour Relations, the Canada Labour Relations Committee, refuses to recognize this union, could the minister institute an inquiry on this subject so as to be able to report to the house when the estimates of his department come up?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour should not and does not sit in judgment on the Canada Labour Relations Board. As I told the house earlier in the month I have had meetings recently with representatives of the C.N.T.U. I thought they were satisfactory meetings. We are to have a further meeting at the end of the month, and any action that the government may decide to take will be announced after that meeting.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he give the house any information now when the appeal to the Governor in Council respecting the Canadian Pacific passenger service will be heard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the various petitions that have so far been received are being studied very carefully. Until
804	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry that study has been completed I think it would be difficult to be categorical about it, but the government is anxious to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, as early as possible.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give an assurance to the house and to the people who have filed these petitions that there will be an oral appeal or a time for an oral appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the great interest in this matter that, although a final decision has not been made by the government, it would be very likely that this would be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the suggestion the other day that the broader matter of C.P.R. problems might be referred to the committee on transportation. Can the Minister of Transport say whether the terms of reference for that matter have yet been decided by the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. I have been giving consideration to this matter myself and I hope to discuss it with my colleagues with a view, if possible, to having something put on the order paper tomorrow.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that a committee in his department has been studying for over 18 months the possibility of a ban on hate literature, and in view of the fact that all parties in the Ontario legislature recently unanimously endorsed a measure urging that a ban be placed on hate literature, will the minister inform the house now whether the government is prepared to lift the curtain of silence on this very important question and whether we shall proceed with an amendment to this effect?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: As the hon. member knows, a commission has been studying the whole question and its report is now in the hands of the department and is being studied. The report is

DEBATES	February 7, 1966
also being translated and printed and it is hoped that the report can be brought down as soon as possible. However, I doubt whether that can be done within a month or two.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in connection with his answer to the hon. member for Ontario who asked a question about hate literature. As I understood it the minister said it would take a month or two to have this report translated, or did I misinterpret him? Was it a shorter period?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, it would not take a month or two to have it translated. I understand it will take a month or two, unfortunately, to have it printed by the Queen's Printer. Apparently they are overworked.


Mr. Fairwealher:: May I ask a supplementary question. Is this a lengthy report? Surely the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns a matter on which he made several statements in previous parliaments, namely the interdepartmental inquiry into the economic and social forces affecting the unity of Canada. Can he advise whether this committee's inquiry has yet been completed and if any part of the report will be made available to hon. members?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into this matter. I dealt with it in the last session but since that time the matter has been before the Economic Council of Canada as well.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have given him notice. Would the minister inform the
February 7, 1966	COMMONS
house whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police legal advisers have completed their examination of the records and documents recently seized from the premises of the Seafarers International Union? If so, does this examination warrant the laying of charges against Harold Chamberlain Banks and other persons?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the documents and records to which the hon. member refers have not yet been released by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am further advised by the Solicitor General that the investigations that were started and interrupted by the court procedures will be resumed as soon as these documents are released by the court.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Nothing would please me more than to hear my own voice again, Mr. Speaker.']
Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
A province of Quebec daily newspaper reported on page one this morning that, according to a member from British Columbia, besides the planned socio-psychological survey conceived in Washington to determine the degree of aggressiveness and dissatisfaction among various Latin American peoples, a similar project was prepared for the Canadian population of French origin. The newspaper heading reads: "Project Revolt-A Pentagon Survey on Quebec."
Could the Prime Minister tell us what the Pentagon is doing in Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this report. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could put the question on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a statement which I heard him make last night on a radio program called, I think, "Cross Country Check-up", or something of that sort. In answer to a question whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs was
DEBATES	805
Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to accept the estimate of such people as General Gavin that 80 per cent of the people of South Viet Nam were in support of the Viet Cong, the minister told his radio audience that he had in his possession reports which contradicted this assessment on the part of General Gavin and others. If the minister has such documents in his possession will he table them in the house so that members of parliament may also be seized of this knowledge to enable them to assess the situation in South Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I made, as I recall it, no comment about General Gavin in reply to the questions that were put to me, and I do not recall any question on the program directed to me which involved General Gavin. What I did say was that in so far as the advice given to me was concerned the Viet Cong did represent a considerable portion of the population in the south but that there was no evidence to warrant the belief that it represented the majority of the people in the south.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In notice of motion No. 45 I asked that the communications between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister and the Canadian government in relation to military assistance or other assistance to Viet Nam be filed, provided the President of the United States consented. May I ask the minister whether that request has been made to the President of the United States and are those documents now going to be filed?


Mr.   Marfin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was, I am sure, away on parliamentary business, but the government accepted that motion subject to the usual reservation, which in this case involved obtaining the concurrence of the President of the United States. That concurrence has not yet been received.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. I appreciate the preface to the answer of the minister, but has the President of the United States been asked to give his consent in this regard so that these letters and documents can be filed in the House of Commons? There was a conflict between the former minister of finance and the Prime Minister as to the statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refresh his memory by asking the C.B.C. to play back to him the tape recording of that interview? I have a very distinct recollection that he did net use the word "advice" but that he said he had reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing would please me more than to hear my own voice again, Mr. Speaker.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice say whether or not the Department of Justice is giving consideration to any amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to picketing. Has anything been done in this connection, and have there been any complaints up to the present time to the effect that the law as it now stands is archaic and not in keeping with modern conditions?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this question and make a report to the house later.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask the minister whether any research has been done by his department to determine whether the health of Canadians is being endangered by exposure to the potent pesticides now in use in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question.
Would the minister inform the house whether the government intend to take action as a result of this research?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, the research is of a technical character, and since receiving notice of my hon. friend's question it has been impossible to make the kind of examination that is necessary.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister could tell me whether the department has taken definite action concerning aldrin and dieldrin, as happened in Washington last week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.



NELSON RIVER, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I should like to ask him whether negotiations are now going on between his department and the province of Manitoba regarding the development of power on the Nelson river. If so, has any agreement been reached except in so far as a survey of the power potential is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he place his question on the order paper.



WHEAT-CLOSING OF POOL AND ISSUING OF CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Finance as it relates to the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the minister discussed or has he had time to discuss with the Canadian Wheat Board the time of the closing of the pool and when we can expect the cheques to be issued?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The board is not in a position to tell me exactly the date on which the pool will be closed. They are now working on the transfers.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Will the minister inquire into the delay delivering mail from the prairies, particularly in regard to the delivery of
February 7, 1966	COMMONS
daily newspapers, and will he have his department take action to speed up the arrival of these important newspapers from our constituencies?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the minister has noted the hon. member's question. If there is no appropriate action, perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper.



EXPO '67 PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT FLOODING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the water level of the St. Lawrence, particularly in relation to the island being prepared for the exhibition. The minister undertook to take my question as notice. Can he now answer it? Is he in a position to give the house any information on this matter.


Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is more properly a question for the Minister of Transport. As I read it in Hansard I came to that conclusion.


Raymond Langlois: Could the Minister of Transport take this under consideration and report to the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My estimates will, I pray, be up for consideration today. I shall be glad to discuss the question at that time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received a telegram from the Canadian Wire Service Guild complaining about alleged intimidating action by United Press International toward its employees who are now being organized? Has he also received now an official, formal complaint under the relevant statute about these unfair labour practices and what, if anything, is being done about it?
DEBATES	807
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Answering the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a wire. It was handed to me earlier today. It has been referred to my officers for a report, but I have not yet received this report. With regard to the second part of the question, I shall have to take the question as notice.



ONTARIO-PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS IN TRUCKING STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he anything further to report on the trucking strike in Ontario and, because of the prolonged duration of this strike, will he not call both parties together and try to bring about a settlement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I say I still do not think it is necessary for me to call them together. The parties met with conciliation officers of both my department and of the provincial government in Windsor over the week end on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Both sides have agreed to resume negotiations with the same conciliation officers present later this week, in Toronto or in Hamilton.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria concerning the employment situation at Point Edward naval base.
As of January 1, 1966, there were 157 workers at the Point Edward naval base comprising 64 classified, 64 prevailing rate, and 29 casual employees. On January 31, 1966, there were 34 workers separated, 22 skilled workers, two drivers and 10 labourers. There have been nine skilled workers referred to employment and two have already started work. It is expected that the other seven will start work shortly.
The applications of the remaining 13 skilled workers have been submitted to the heavy water project for the consideration of the contractors involved. The local office has not been successful in placing the unskilled workers as yet.
February 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LABOUR SAFETY CODE
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the assurance given by his predecessor, the former minister, when he brought in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, that legislation providing for a Canada labour safety code was being prepared and would be introduced soon, can the hon. gentleman say whether this legislation will be introduced during the present session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under study by the government and I hope that an announcement can be made at an early date.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, one which I am sure he will be as glad to answer as I am to ask. Now that the Prince Edward Island causeway is under way, will the government undertake to carry out feasibility studies concerning the linking either by causeway or tunnel of two other major islands with the rest of Canada? I refer to Newfoundland and Vancouver island.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think priority should be given to Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Tell us why.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport arising from the answer he gave to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Would the minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to initiate a study of the feasibility of constructing a tunnel underneath the straits of Belle Isle between Newfoundland and Labrador, as proposed by the premier of Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Chatterton:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order so there can be no supplementary questions. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich might wish to direct a new question to the minister.
[Mr. Marchand.}


George Louis Chatterton: In view of the reply given by the Minister of Transport to the effect that Vancouver island is to be forgotten, will the government now give consideration to making shipbuilding subsidies available in respect of ships being constructed by the province of British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That seems to be a hypothetical question.
[Translation1



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
CREATION OF MILK BOARD AND EXTENSION OF CROP INSURANCE On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: I
should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does he expect there will be a federal-provincial conference or a meeting at a lower level before he brings in his bill on a proposed Canadian milk board, as well as legislation on crop insurance in Canada?
Hon. J. J, Greene (Minister of Agriculture): I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. In reply, I wish to advise that officials of the Department of Agriculture are meeting the provincial representatives in Ottawa, on February 17, to discuss crop insurance. To date, arrangements have not been made with regard to an official meeting on a Canadian dairy board.

ESTABLISHMENT OF EASTERN FEED GRAIN BOARD On the orders of the day:


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Forestry a question complementary to the one I have just asked the Minister of Agriculture in whom I greet anew the first bilingual Minister of Agriculture since confederation.
Can the Minister of Forestry tell us whether he foresees a federal-provincial meeting of the various ministers concerned or a meeting at a lower level before the enactment of the act providing for the establishment of a feed grain board?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker.



ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. When he
February 7, 1966	COMMONS
meets with the provincial ministers of agriculture will he be able to tell Hon. Mr. Strom, the minister of Agriculture for Alberta, that at long last he is able to yield to our request to provide supplementary assistance over and above that provided through P.F.A.A. to the farmers of the Peace River country?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with Mr. Strom when I was in the west and my reasons for not being able to supplement P.F.A.A. in one particular area were, I think, made clear in the house. But certainly I shall be pleased to discuss with him any other measures which we might find to be within our proper constitutional responsibility and which he might feel beneficial.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received the Thompson report dealing with the Air Canada base in Winnipeg. If he has not, would he urge Mr. Thompson to bring in the report while there are still some people working in Winnipeg?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report. However, I understand it is all but completed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister received a request from the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded asking for increased assistance in their program for the development of adult training centres? If the minister has received such a request, can he inform the house whether the government intends to recognize the importance of the work being done by the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded by granting such increased assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very important matter, but I suggest the question should be placed on the order paper.
DEBATES	809
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-REQUEST FOR LOBSTER TRAP LIMIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the representations made by the fishermen themselves, is it the intention of his department to take immediate steps to put a trap limit into effect in Prince Edward Island and, if so, will this likely be done in time to apply to the lobster season which opens in May?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would also suggest that the hon. member place this question on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In response to questions in the last parliament his predecessor mentioned that a revision of the parole system was under way and that he would do his best to have the government's policy enunciated prior to a vote on capital punishment because of the interest which many members have in the parole system as it affects capital punishment. When may we look forward to that statement?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer that question since the responsibility in this matter has been transferred to the Solicitor General, revisions to the Parole Act are under active consideration and the specific question asked by the hon. member will be met during the proposed debate.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to bring in legislation this session leading to divorce reform?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has been studying the question of divorce but has not yet referred the matter to the government.

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

["Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with what the minister says because I am not allowed to. I perhaps should not leave the inference that I do not believe him. I have asked some members of the staff. I am not sure if he has. As I understand it, the translation staff still are not in a position to have a break for their lunch. It is a fact that members of the staff have told me that they have their lunch between stints on the floor.\nAll hon. members do not stay here. There is hardly a quorum here. If necessary I am going to start a hassle that will cause the government to have eight, ten or twelve cabinet ministers here for the private members' hour, if that is what they wish. I shall be happy to engage in this from time to time.\nWe are going to have to protect the staff. If anybody here does not like it, they are going to have to put up with it because I think it is a disgrace. The things that we have done here for a long time are a disgrace. These people who are members of the staff have no civil service organization to represent them. They have no bargaining agency. I am shocked that it is necessary to ask for the support of the members of the House of Commons in getting what I consider to be a fair deal for the staff.\nMr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.\n[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)"]
Mitchell William Sharp: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,720,674,987.61, being the aggregate of-
(a)	Four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except Agriculture items 5 and 60, External Affairs item 5, Finance item 15, Fisheries items 5, 10 and 20, Forestry item 15, Justice item 1, Labour item 15, Legislation item 5, Mines and Technical Surveys item 50, National Film Board item 1, National Revenue item 5, Northern Affairs and National Resources items 1 and 45, Trade and Commerce item 15 for which the proportion is three twelfths; Legislation item 20, Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45 and 60, Northern Affairs and National Resources item 15, Secretary of State item 30 and Transport item 95 for which the proportion is two twelfths; Mines and Technical Surveys item 25 and National Research Council item 10 for which the proportion is one twelfth; Agriculture items 25 and 45, Atomic Energy item 5, External Affairs items 15 and 20, Legislation item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys item 70, Northern Affairs and National Resources item 5 and Loans, Investments and Advances items L30 and L95 for which no proportion is granted hereby, $1,389,658,181.35;
(b)	Four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1966, as laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament except Finance item 15b for which the proportion is one twelfth, and Agriculture items 17b, 25b and 35b, Mines and Technical Surveys item 70b and Loans, Investments and Advances item L78b for which no proportion is granted, $76,800,986.34;
(c)	Eleven twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $254,215,819.92, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1966.
Provided the amounts hereby authorized to be paid and applied in respect of these items shall be deemed to include and not be in addition to the amounts authorized for such items by the special warrants issued by the Governor General pursuant to orders of the Governor in Council of November 1, 1965 (P.C. 1965-1966), November 29, 1965 (P.C. 1965-2131), December 29, 1965 (P.C. 19652330), January 7, 1966 (P.C. 1966-38) and January 17, 1966 (P.C. 1966-96) for $163,176,450, $345,696,168, $399,294,249, $12,000,000, and $425,000 respectively.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might say a word in explanation of the resolution now before the committee.

The funds requested in this resolution and the bill to follow are to cover government expenditures for the month of February in so far as can be done in this manner. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released and, indeed, where eleven twelfths of the items were previously released, no amount is asked for in this particular supply motion and bill. As hon. members know, all departments were presented in the supply motion of last week and detailed consideration is presently progressing in committee of supply. It is the government's intention to continue this consideration of government departmental estimates as soon as interim supply is granted.
The form of this motion and the bill to follow are the usual ones for interim supply bills. The passing of this motion and the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize or discuss any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this interim supply measure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct my remarks to one particular aspect of this motion, the extent to which it deals with a request by the government in relation to Governor General's warrants. As I heard the motion being read by Your Honour, it seemed that the very last paragraph was in the terms which have been used in the past regarding a request for interim supply where in an intervening period Governor General's warrants have been used by the government in order to finance government expenditures.
It is my view that a practice has grown up which is invidious and wrong, and I think I would be derelict in my duties if I did not bring this matter to the attention of the committee and register my objection to it. I do call the attention of the committee to this practice and point out to the government that the time is long past when some remedy should be proposed.
I have obtained the orders in council in question and, as I roughly calculate the amounts, something over $900 million is involved. The expenditure of $900 million includes all the Governor General's warrants which are dealt with by this resolution. They have been paid under the authority of section
February 7, 1966

28 of the Financial Administration Act which provides in subsection 1:
Where an accident happens to any public work or building when Parliament is not in session and an expenditure for the repair or renewal thereof is urgently required, or where any other matter arises when Parliament is not in session in respect of which an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by Parliament is urgently required for the public good, the Governor in Council, upon the report of the Minister that there is no appropriation for the expenditure, and the report of the appropriate Minister that the expenditure is urgently required, may order a special warrant to be prepared to be signed by the Governor General authorizing the payment of the amount estimated to be required for such expenditure.
In my view the original intention of this section, an intention which has been completely lost sight of during many intervening years, is that only in cases where a payment is urgently required and not contemplated under ordinary provisions for government expenditure can the government invoke the provisions of this section.
The government will undoubtedly reply that other governments in the past have not viewed this section in that light. It is true that in the past there has grown up a very iniquitous practice in the use of this section resulting in the authorizing of expenditures to be made which should not have been made on the basis that they were not contemplated. I will read again the first two or three lines of the section which state:
Where an accident happens to any public work or building when Parliament is not in session and an expenditure for the repair or renewal thereof is urgently required, or where any other matter arises when Parliament is not in session in respect of which an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by Parliament is urgently required for the public good-
Surely there can only be one interpretation placed on that section, namely, that where some payment has to be made which was not contemplated and becomes necessary as the result of an emergency arising during a period when parliament is not in session, the government may then invoke the provisions of this section.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that has not been the case in the past and I think it is high time we challenged the view now taken and suggested that something be done in this regard. Merely because a bank robber has been successful in the past in getting away with his actions does not mean that when he is finally caught he can invoke any statutory limitations. It is wrong to permit the executive branch of government to spend almost a 23033-52^
Interim Supply
billion dollars on the basis of a slim and slender reading of section 28.
This practice has been the subject of comment by the Auditor General. In the Auditor General's report to the house in respect of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, this comment appears at page 17, and the Auditor General was dealing with the question of Governor General's warrants. The Auditor General quoted the same section I have read and then said:
It will be noted that the above subsection simply authorized a "payment" which is "urgently required for the public good" when there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made. The subsection does not provide for any control over the entering into of commitments during a period for which Parliament has made no provision nor does it appear to contemplate provision of a continuing spending authority to the Executive for the financing of general government services during such a period. However, this appears to have been assumed by the Treasury Board Staff in carrying out the procedure followed in preparing the special warrants for February and March 1963.
This is in reference to expenditures under Governor General's warrants during the period which followed the general election of 1963.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think this is very neatly put by the Auditor General, I think he, by inference at least, takes the same view of the effect of this section as I do. He goes on to comment on some particular items, which I will deal with later, that were included in the Governor General's warrants for that year.
The matter was discussed in the Public Accounts Committee whose terms of reference covered a discussion of the Auditor General's report. Dr. George Davidson and other witnesses appeared before the Public Accounts Committee and questions were asked with respect to this particular method of financing the expenditures of government. In this connection I asked a question of Mr. Davidson, as reported at page 311 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Public Accounts Committee for the years 1964-65. I am pleased to say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that the Library staff are now indexing these reports of committees, which is very useful for members of the house. My question to Dr. Davidson was:
Dr. Davidson, perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question. Would I be right in suggesting that section 28 (1) of the Financial Administration Act was passed in contemplation of a situation arising following prorogation or a dissolution, when the normal situation would prevail and estimates would have been passed making provision for future

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
proper expenditures, and that having been done, before a new parliament appeared on the scene an additional force was required to be sent to Cyprus, for example, or if a flood occurred requiring emergency relief, such a situation would fall squarely within the wording "Urgently required ?or the public good"?
As a result of these discussions, the statements made by the Auditor General and the evidence which was heard, the Public Accounts Committee recommended very strongly that the whole question of the use of Governor General's warrants should be the subject of study and discussion and should not be left in the state in which it was as indicated by our examination at that time. That was in July of 1964. Here we are in 1966 and we are now asked not to appropriate probably, because I suppose the money might be taken to have been appropriated, but at least to confirm the expenditure of this very large amount of money, some of which at least, I suggest, on a proper, ordinary interpretation of this section, has been improperly and illegally spent.
The minister shakes his head. I recognize that in the past the custom has been different, but custom cannot change, practice cannot alter, what is the plain, ordinary meaning of words. I think it is about time, before we are faced with another situation of this kind, that this matter was clarified. We left this house in June of 1964 certainly confirmed by what was said by the Prime Minister and others in the impression that we would be coming back in the fall to complete our study of the estimates and, if necessary, to pass interim supply again. In this way the expenditures of the government would have been made in the normal way. Instead there was a hasty dissolution and we now find that under those circumstances the government, having been compelled to draw on Governor General's warrants not for emergencies but for the ordinary general expenditures of government, is coming back to the house and asking us to approve and confirm this practice. I think the house should give some recognition to this particular fact.
It may be that if the government decides some amendments should be made to the Financial Administration Act they will come back and ask parliament to amend the act to clarify the wording of section 28 and provide that under conditions of this kind, where there is a period elapsing between dissolution and parliament being called, Governor

General's warrants may be used for the normal, ordinary, general expenditures which government requires to make. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I would have great hesitation in supporting such an amendment. For far too long governments in recent years have been encroaching steadily upon the constitutional prerogative of the legislative branch to vote supply. This is the one weapon we have that permits us to exercise control over government. The British North America Act calls for parliament to be convened once in a year, ostensibly of course for the purpose of granting supply as the case may be, and when Governor General's warrants are used in this way it constitutes a travesty of this constitutional right which should rest in the legislative branch of government.
It may be, however, that I am not in a majority in this view and that parliament may see fit to grant to the government, by proper, apt words and the necessary changes to section 28, the right to deal with ordinary government services by Governor General's warrants. But even if that should be the case-and this is something to conjecture; it is something for the future-I go a step further and suggest that a careful examination of this $900 million in expenditures by Governor General's warrants would include many, many items which certainly could never be brought within the definition "urgently required for the public good". For example, Mr. Chairman, I notice two items calling for the purchase of pictures, I think, or works of art for the National Gallery. How those could by any stretch of the imagination be construed as being urgently required for the public good is more than I can conceive.
This, I submit, is not simply a fractious and mischievous approach to this matter; I think it is a very serious transgression by this government of the ordinary, sound practices of parliamentary government and control by the legislative branch over the executive. In my view the time has now come when the government should take note of this situation and should take the necessary steps to see that this sort of thing does not occur again.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if it is urgent that the Minister of National Revenue reply now I would defer my remarks.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not urgent.


Frank Howard: I did not think it was; that usually is the case. I should like to raise one matter which certainly is of concern to all
February 7, 1966

members of parliament, and I think we are perhaps the only ones who can do anything about it. This matter, which is and has been of concern to the Canadian public for many months now, in fact, we might say for the last two and one half years, concerns an attempt to bring about some stability of parliament itself, and I mean stability in terms of staying in business and thus being in a position to conduct the business of Canada without upheavals or the prospect of another election facing us for some reasonable period of time.
As we know, in 1963 and again last year the Canadian electorate decided that this was the structure of parliament they desired to have, regardless of whether one may agree or disagree with it. They decided that we would have a parliamentary arrangement whereby there was a house of minorities or, in other words, no one party would have more than half the number of members in the house in its own ranks.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: They did not decide that consciously it was the accidental result of the election.


Frank Howard: My friend from Winnipeg South Centre says it was an accidental result, that it did not result from the conscious action of the Canadian public. I have a little more respect for the decision of the Canadian public than he does. I think it was a conscious action on their part. As I said earlier, the hon. member may not like what happened but it did happen. It is a fact, we are in the same situation as we were following the 1962 election and as we were following the 1963 election. We are in a situation in which one party does not have more than half the members sitting on its side. Unlike the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am one of those who believe we should accept the decision of the Canadian public and try to make the house work.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is better than the decision they made in 1958.


Frank Howard: There is some doubt in my mind whether or not the decision in 1965 was better than the one in 1958. Nevertheless, there is a necessity for parliament to develop some means of remaining in business for a reasonable period of time in the future. There is an absolute necessity for this parliament to ensure that it stays in business in order to conduct the business of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just vote for the government and you will do that.
Interim Supply


Frank Howard: Perhaps if we had less interruptions from the voluble member for Winnipeg South Centre we would get along a lot better.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Talk some sense, then.


Frank Howard: We can never forget, of course, the delightful contributions he used to make when he sat on the other side and occupied various ministerial positions, all of them without foundation.
There is not only a responsibility that devolves upon this parliament and its members but there is a strong, overriding responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. He is the first minister, the government leader and the one who initiates action and guides government policy. As Prime Minister of this nation he has the responsibility beyond that of the rest of us or of the leaders of any of the other parties. He has the undeniable responsibility of making a few points clear to parliament. He should, I think, announce his desires and his intentions with regard to the stability of parliament in terms of the length of time it should stay in business.
I believe he has a responsibility as well to announce some concrete steps to attain this particular end. If the government is defeated on a so-called want of confidence amendment, be it to a supply motion or the Speech from the Throne, whether or not it is classified as a want of confidence motion presumably a number of things could happen. One thing that stands out in our mind as an alternative is for the Prime Minister to proceed to the Governor General and indicate he is unable to continue, that he has lost the confidence of the house and recommends dissolution. This, of course, would be an unthinkable course to follow at this particular time in our history. It is one of the choices facing the Prime Minister in the event that one of these want of confidence motions carries or in the event that a piece of legislation is defeated in the house.
Another alternative, which I am sure my friends in the Conservative party will applaud vociferously, is for the Prime Minister to tender his resignation and select someone else from within the Liberal party to try to form a cabinet and another government. Another alternative, and this is perhaps stretching the possibilities under our constitution to the limit, is for the leader of some other party, presumably the next largest group in the house, to form a government.

February 7, 1966
Interim, Supply
Another alternative is that proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre during the Throne Speech debate, and it is one which was lucidly explained and well documented. It was the course of the government turning a blind eye to any such motion or amendment which was carried and continuing in office. I think we can see that all of these alternatives, some of which stretch the constitutional possibilities to the extreme in the event a want of confidence motion is carried, are not really satisfactory in terms of the stability of parliament. We have to keep searching for some other way.
I suggest that one of the things which must be done is for the Prime Minister to take the proposals advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and give them very favourable consideration. Before any amendments or motions of the type referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were put to a vote the Prime Minister could announce that, regardless of the words in which they were couched, they would not be treated as want of confidence motions because of the necessity of maintaining parliament in operation to conduct the business of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member answer a question at this point?


Frank Howard: I would be glad to listen to one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. If the hon. member's suggestion is accepted by the Prime Minister, would that not put the party which the hon. member represents in control? The Prime Minister would have to accept their decision with regard to motions and the government would no longer be putting its legislative items before this house. The government would be put in a strait-jacket.


Frank Howard: I think not, although I would say at the outset that if the party to which I belong had a greater say in the affairs of this nation we would be on a lot more stable basis than we are at the moment.


Mr. Lamberi:: Obviously that is the biggest delusion since the beginning of time.


Frank Howard: I heard a comment from an ex-Speaker, one that was obviously out of order. I would have thought he would know better than that after the years of experience he had in the chair. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would simply put the government in a position to conduct the business of the country as

they had set out to do. It would not put anybody in a strait-jacket, although it is interesting to note the reference to a strait-jacket and the source of the reference.
Another thing which might well be done, I think, would be to follow the suggestion made last year and reiterated again this session with regard to the proposal relating to capital punishment. Presumably this legislation will be dealt with on the basis of a free vote. In other words, regardless of whether the bill is passed or defeated parliament will stay in business.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I submit that with respect to most items of legislation except, perhaps, those of a financial nature arising out of the budget, it would be a simple declaration for the Prime Minister to make to say that such legislation would not be looked upon as involving want of confidence amendments and that the government was not staking its life on it but was asking parliament to treat it on its merits. If it was bad legislation and was rejected, the government would not also thereby be defeated. There would merely be a re-assessment of the situation and perhaps legislation might be brought in more nearly fitting the needs of the situation and meeting the feelings of the majority of members of parliament.
The hon. member for Timiskaming has what I think is a rather clearly developed and well thought out bill on the order paper, Bill No. C-57, which seeks to put a floor under the years of operation of a parliament just as there is now a ceiling. At the present time there is a maximum of five years between one election and another. The hon. member for Timiskaming merely seeks to establish a minimum period between elections of not less than four years unless by a two thirds vote the house expresses its desire to dissolve parliament before then and have an election. This is a commendable piece of legislation which the Prime Minister would do well to look at and, for the purposes of this parliament at least, it might very well be made statute law in order to guarantee some permanency and stability, within reasonable bounds, respecting the term of years of the present parliament.
I can foresee in this parliament, as was the case during the last parliament, that every time there is a throne speech, if we have more than one, or every time there is a budget presented or a supply motion introduced, there will be a guessing game whether
February 7, 1966

or not an amendment will be moved and will carry. The newspapers on each occasion, as they have on two occasions this session, will be exploring the possibilities of a defeat and Canada will be in a continual state of flux in relation to election campaigns. The country will be in a continual state of turmoil, anticipation and expectation that something which the people do not want to happen will happen.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we must not try to play this game as we would the game of Russian roulette. We must not look to each succeeding vote in the hope that the hammer will fall on an empty chamber and that an amendment will not carry. I submit that one of the responsibilities involved in reaching the point where parliament can get down to the business of Canada with some reasonable assurance that it will stay here for some length of time is for the Prime Minister to take his position and functions as Prime Minister seriously. He should make some public announcement about the desires I have suggested and he should start off with a meeting of party leaders to see whether or not some continuity for this parliament can be worked out amicably. If it can be worked out-I do not know whether or not it can-and if Canada and this parliament can look forward to the next three and a half years with some guarantee that there will not be an election within that period, then this will be all the better for Canada.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak at length, but only to call the attention of the house to a few important matters already brought up, but which should be raised again, because no change has been made in those fields and those problems should be solved first.
Mr. Chairman, on the eve of the centennial celebrations, when bilingualism and bicul-turalism are being emphasized in this country, when everybody is talking of good will and national unity, I should like to raise a point which indicates that the federal government and various departments do not practise what they preach.
I have in hand a letter from a resident of my constituency who complains with good reason that, in his case, within the federal government, bilingualism and biculturalism have not been respected. This concerns a dentist from Jonquiere attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force base at Bagotville and
Interim Supply
who received the following reply to a letter he had written to his commanding officer.
No. 15 Dental Company RCD 772 Sherbrooke St. W.
Montreal 2 Que., June 2d 65 Senior Dental Officer No. 10 Dental Clinic R.C.A.F. Station Bagotville, Que.
1.	We are returning enclosed yours of June 21/65 on the subject indicated in the margin and request that you submit it in English.
2.	Unless otherwise indicated, correspondence and clinic reports to headquarters will be carried on in English.
(R. B. Jackson)
Colonel
Commanding Officer.
Mr. Chairman, here we have a man from my own riding, a Jonquiere professional, who ends his letter accompanying the one I have just read, in the following manner:
"A man from Jonquiere who is proud of speaking French".
This man, a citizen of Jonquiere, of the riding of Lapointe, receives an answer from Colonel R. B. Jackson, who not only requires him to submit his letter in English and returns the one he had already written in French, but also says:
Unless otherwise indicated correspondence and clinic reports to headquarters will be carried on in English.
I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) should not attempt to justify this answer by Colonel Jackson. Whatever effort this parliament makes to promote bilingualism and biculturalism, to promote good feelings between English and French Canadians, if even our professionals receive such answers, then I say it is useless to talk about bilingualism and biculturalism, as long as the government does not make efforts, as long as the officials of the different ministers do not make efforts themselves to correct the situation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in view of the importance and seriousness of the hon. member's statement, may I ask him if his report to the house is taken from personal correspondence or from an article in a Jonquiere newspaper? I see that the hon. member is holding a newspaper. Is he speaking of correspondence published in a newspaper or correspondence addressed to him?

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in answer to this question I must say that the dentist who received Colonel Jackson's answer was so shocked that he sent a copy to the local newspapers and then to me. He does not want to give up the original letter, to which he attaches great value. Moreover, that was his right.
That is but one example.
Here is another. It is about a circular letter from the centennial commission. In preparation for the celebrations, that commission set up various committees to promote the centennial. One of them is called in French "Voyages Echanges de la Jeunesse". I do not know what this committee is called in English. To begin with, "Voyages Echanges de la Jeunesse" is not too good a translation.
The centennial commission addressed to our university students the following circular, under the subheading:
Attention! finissant de l'annee prochaine. Attention !
I wish to point out that the letter is sent to our university students in the province of Quebec, our French Canadian students, who are able to read that circular and discover the mistakes in spelling, of which there are several. It says, for instance:
La commission du centenaire desirant encourager les etudiants serieux pourvoit des places au service civil pendant l'ete en dehors de leur propre province.
It is already obvious that the translation is not quite up to the mark. Listen to this for instance:
La Commission du centenaire-pourvoit des places au service civil-
This is rather difficult to read. Further on, we see:
L'experience d'habiter et de travailler-[DOT]
Those who will read the French version will have a hard time understanding it.
L'experience d'habiter et de travailler dans un environnement ayant un developpement de vie intellectuelle et d'activites culturelles different,-
"r-e-n-t". The word should be in the feminine plural whereas it is written in the masculine singular.
-ainsi que de connaitre les conditions d'emploi et les possibilities d'une carriere dans le service civil, contribueront a une meilleure connaissance du progres de notre pays.
Those who know French as you do, Mr. Speaker, should notice that the construction of sentences is rather original. But the circular also contains inadmissible mistakes of spelling. It says:



[Stage Direction]
"Cettes" is written with an "s".
CETTES DEMANDES D'EMPLOI doivent etre soumies avant le 31 janvier.
"Soumies" is written "m-i-e-s" instead of "soumises".
-et tous renseignements peuvent 6tre obtenues- "n-u-e-s".
chez 1'officier de placement de votre universite d l'actualite.
Can you imagine the astonishment of the students who will receive this circular.
-et tous renseignements peuvent Otre obtenues chez 1'officier de placement de votre universite a l'aetualite.
They will rightfully ask where one can find a:
universite a 1'actualite.
One would have to have the English version of the circular to understand its meaning.
Mr. Prud'homme:: It is probably just as badly written.


Gilles Grégoire: The member for Saint-Denis says the English version is just as badly written. It is up to us, Canadians, to protest. Those who are interested:
-peuvent ecrire pour s'informer de la possi-bilite d'une subvention centenaire des frais de voyage.
Since when is a grant centenary of travelling expenses?


Clément Vincent: It is an old one.


Gilles Grégoire: Attached to that is a form to be filled out. It reads:
Non de l'employeur
"n-o-n". It means, for instance.
Defauts physiques-details-taille-pesant.
I took it to mean "weight"-physical defect height, weight,
Annees r6ussits
"s-s-i-t-s". In two places.
Annees reussits.
L'Annee passe
At a certain place, information is required as to the citizenship of the applicant. The circular reads as follows:
Citoyennete couramment.
I am still at a loss as to the meaning of that translation.
Mr. Chairman, all those errors added up, whether it is "le bureau de placement de l'universite a l'actualite", "la citoyennete couramment", "pesant" meaning "weight" or
February 7, 1966

Interim Supply
"annees reussits" make one wonder whether there is really goodwill here. Needless to say there are no accents and whenever there are some, they are the wrong ones.
numero du cheque
A circumflex accent has been put above the "e" instead of a grave accent. The wrong accent was used.
There are other mistakes, Mr. Chairman, and one look at the construction of the sentences shows that no effort whatsoever is being made to remedy the situation. Not only is there no effort made along those lines, but the circulars are sent out to university students. You can imagine their amazement. No effort has been made to send them something in faultless French; on the contrary, the letter is full of mistakes.
Mr. Chairman, I feel one has to object to the centennial commission's attitude in this matter. There are enough qualified people in Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, to translate from English into French and vice-versa, without having to put up with such offending circulars as this one, sent out under the letterhead "Centennial Commission". They are a reflection on the whole federal government because they, a reproduction of the maple leaf, the emblem of Canada, and the name of the centennial commission are being used to spread such matter as that.
Mr. Chairman, that was the second point against which I wanted to protest. I trust that those responsible will take these remarks into serious consideration and that some improvement will be made.
I now come to a third point which has nothing to do with linguistics. I am surprised to see-


Clément Vincent: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Clément Vincent: Is the hon. member sure that it was a letter or a circular and not a draft copy that he picked up from the floor?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I find this question very much to the point. One could have wondered at first whether or not it was a draft copy, but it was actually printed and sent to students in our universities. It is printed matter, but unfortunately the printer's name does not appear on it. I believe the law requires that all circulars bear the printer's name, but that has not been done in this case.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is identified as the centennial commission-1867-1967; there are no mistakes in the figures. But it is certainly not a draft. It is an official circular sent on behalf of the Centennial Commission.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the centennial commission and the various departments should in the future be careful in matters of this nature, particularly so when it is intended for university students because university students are in a position to pick out these mistakes which are irritating, because they are making a real effort to improve more and more the beautiful French language we speak in Quebec and in other provinces of Canada.
Another point I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the problem we have noticed for some time and which has existed for many years; I refer to the fact that on occasion there too often arises a conflict between Canadian citizens from various regions. Since the start of the session, this has been noteworthy as we could see in the last few days in connection with two different matters:
First, the rivalry between the ports of Montreal and Halifax. At Halifax, the citizens of that province or the members for those ridings seek to prevent the government from permitting icebreaker activity in the St. Lawrence river to allow winter navigation to the port of Montreal.
That is the point of view of the people of Nova Scotia and of the port of Halifax.
On the other hand, Montreal citizens would like to see the St. Lawrence open all year round so that traffic could go up to the harbour of Montreal and the latter could benefit from it twelve months a year. That is a kind of rivalry which should not exist because a town will never be able to maintain itself and grow at the continual expense of another town or region.
The city of Halifax or the Maritime provinces will not always be able to keep the work that is done in the harbour of Halifax by preventing it from being done in the port of Montreal. That can last some time, but not too long.
That is why no such rivalry should exist. If there is a need for winter navigation right up to Montreal harbour, if this is a question of progress, in accordance with modern times, something good for the country as a whole, then, it should be done. Such things should be allowed to come true. But the development of Montreal harbour should not be prevented

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
merely because citizens of Halifax are opposed to it. You will not promote one city by trying to downgrade another, but by enabling each and every city to develop. The thing is to find for each city the suitable forms of development, those best suited to further their economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, this rivalry between areas always surprises me when, in Canada, it is possible for all areas, all ports, all cities to develop. I am convinced the port of Montreal has the right to develop as much as all the other ports, and in as much as winter navigation is now possible and practicable, the port of Montreal should benefit from the services of icebreakers.
Just think of it: in January, a Russian icebreaker or boat had to be brought in to free from the ice floes another Russian ship which lay trapped in St. Lawrence, while Canadian icebreakers could have done the job easily. But this has not been done, for fear of displeasing citizens from another area.
Another example is the number of questions asked today and a few days ago with regard to the repairs to the aircraft carrier Bonaventure. Of course, there are many ports and many shipyards in Canada needing work and which would like to get contracts. You have the shipyards of St. John and those of Lauzon. Tenders were called. The Lauzon shipyards across the river from Quebec submitted the lowest tender and are on the verge of getting this contract. But under the pretence that there is unemployment in another area, efforts are made to take away the contract from the Lauzon area and give it to another region in another province.
Well, everyone should know that there is just as much unemployment in Levis county, or in the surrounding counties, such as Dorchester, Bellechasse, Beauce or Lot-biniere. Unemployment is just as severe in these areas as in the Maritime provinces, but the government has used a most illogical method: tenders have been called but the government does not want to accept the lowest. The contract is meant for another area, just because there is unemployment in the Maritimes. But, Mr. Chairman, let us consider that there is just as much unemployment in the Quebec area and that it should be checked just like in the Maritimes.
Again, I say we shall never solve the problems of one area by trying to accumulate all the problems in another one.

The maintenance of unemployment in the Quebec area is not going to solve the unemployment problem that may exist in the Maritime provinces. Such a rivalry between those two areas should not exist. Every area should be allowed to develop and share in the economic development of this country. If the lowest tender was submitted at that time by the Lauzon shipyards, it is only normal that the contract should be awarded to them, and such a contract should not be taken away from them and given to another area merely because a few members of the house would like to see it awarded to another province.
Mr. Chairman, if every member exerts undue pressure to have contracts awarded in his area, this will entail competition between the various regions, cities and provinces. It is preferable to carry on with the established practice whereby the government asks for tenders, obtains information on the various contractors capable of carrying out the work involved and awards the contract to the lowest bidder, to the one most likely to do a good job. Then, this kind of competition will disappear and everyone will have an opportunity to tender and offer his services.
Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed this competition between various regions since the beginning of this session. In my opinion, this should stop, more especially with regard to Montreal harbour which some people would prevent from operating in the winter months by asking the federal government to refrain from using Canadian icebreakers to open the seaway up to Montreal harbour, under the pretext of helping the port of Halifax.
Well, Mr. Chairman, such competition should be stopped in my opinion. Each area, each province and each municipality should be free to make every possible effort in order to promote its own development.
This is not an appeal to partisanship, this is not an attempt to prevent another from developing; on the contrary, it is an appeal aimed at enabling every area and every province to develop.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on this interim supply motion. I wish in particular to protest the erosion of parliamentary rights as they relate to these interim supply motions. I hope the committee will not discount the sincerity of my contention because of the brevity of my speech supporting it. I do not propose to repeat the varied and substantial arguments advanced in this
February 7, 19S6



regard by the hon. member for Peace River with regard to Governor General's warrants and so on. I believe that granting supply and studying the estimates in detail was at one time and should be in the future the paramount prerogative of this elected House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This has not been the case during the past four years. For example, some of the departments have not had a detailed examination by the house for four years. You may recall that none of the estimates for 1962-63 were passed. The moneys were appropriated by Governor General's warrants because of the election campaign which took place between the first part of February and the end of that fiscal year. All that we had was some kind of subsequent supply motion but by that time all the money had been spent.
With respect to the estimates for 1963-64, six or eight departments were rushed through during the last two or three days. In fact, I believe four departments went through on a Saturday, the last day of the session prior to the Christmas adjournment, including one or two departmental estimates that members had been asking to have discussed for weeks prior thereto. I am not suggesting to the minister that we are in a position to do anything other than pass this interim supply motion and grant the remaining one twelfth some time before the middle of March, but I am rising to protest this practice and the way it is eroding the rights and paramount privileges of elected members.
When asked questions on orders of the day one of the favourite responses of ministers is, "Well, I cannot give you a detailed answer now but when the estimates of my department are under consideration we can discuss this matter in greater detail." We have had this kind of response and this postponement of detailed answers from year to year for the past four years.
We in this party think it is time we had a parliamentary discussion on transport policy with respect to grain and passenger service. The situation has reached the point where it is critical. Yet how long has it been since we had an opportunity to discuss railway policy thoroughly and how the railways are meeting the increased demand for transport? If you look at the records you will find it has been a very long time. That is only one subject and there are many others in the same category.
Today the Minister of Transport said he was praying that his estimates would be
Interim Supply
reached this afternoon and therefore I am not going to speak at length now. But if we are not to be given such an opportunity the matter is sufficiently critical that we should take time on this motion to discuss it. We should also have the opportunity to discuss the government's war on poverty, for it seems to be working in reverse with respect to some poverty stricken areas in Alberta which are in their present state through no fault of their own.
I note that the parliamentary secretary is going out behind the curtain but I hope he and his minister will use their influence, which I am sure is considerable, to arrange the business of the house so that members will have restored effectively to them what I consider to be their greatest prerogative, control of the public purse strings and an opportunity to peruse the estimates at least once a year.


Mr. Ormislon:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Medicine Hat I, too, believe that brevity is of some consequence and I do not wish to talk at length. But I would like to take this opportunity while we are discussing interim supply to bring to the attention of the government some of the problems facing agriculture. I do not do this out of force of habit. I do it because of the visit which the Minister of Agriculture made to the western provinces a short time ago.
If we are to believe the press, the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged that there were serious difficulties in the farming industry and that there was a great need to find answers to the questions being asked by farmers, agricultural experts and economists. During his trip the minister was disturbed by the attitude of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He was shocked at the lack of box cars. He was unhappy about the inequality of quotas and he said something was going to be done. Let us hope the action taken is not too little or too late.
Because of the recent large wheat sales by western farmers there is an erroneous attitude in many other parts of the country that the farmers' problems have all been solved. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While grain sales have certainly helped to bolster the economy, they have also tended to conceal the unfavourable cost-price relationship which would worsen in the event of a crop failure or if Canada were unable to repeat these large sales and had to store large quantities of grain.

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
One of the glaring inequities is inherent in the fact that farmers are receiving the same price for grain as they did 17 years ago. This statement was made recently by no less an eminent authority than Mr. Charles Gibbings, President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, when speaking at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It was also pointed out that while prices for grain had remained comparatively stationary during those years, the cost of production had increased by 54 per cent. Only by increased efficiency on the part of the farmers has the rising cost of production been absorbed, and the farmers have not been able to pass on the increased cost to the consumer.
Mr. Gibbings was not voicing only his own ideas. He was voicing the convictions of many farmers when he said that other countries had decided that the international wheat agreement price was insufficient and that those countries were subsidizing farmers to grow bread grain. In the six Common Market countries the wheat support price has been $3 per bushel and for Durum wheat $4 per bushel. Mr. Gibbings also said that the western farmers should not and could not be expected to continue to live on the price fixed under the international wheat agreement. We should give Mr. Gibbings some credit for coherent thinking and for making the policies of his organization known. He also made some suggestions which were embodied in a resolution that he presented to the meeting and which was adopted by it. Personally I have some reticence in believing in the efficacy of some of the suggestions he made but they certainly bear enumeration and discussion.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The suggestions embodied in his resolution included support prices for wheat, a guaranteed minimum wheat price based on production plus living costs, a forward pricing policy related to production costs on specified quantities of wheat, a subsidy on a basic quantity of wheat delivered in any one year, a two-price system for all cereal grains used for human consumption at home, and government payment of storage costs on all grain remaining in storage on July 31, the end of the crop year. No doubt some of these ideas are good but they are not a panacea which will cure the farmers' ills. The basic problem we must attack is that of making sure that the prices of wheat keep rising so that they will not be brought down by other countries' actions as has been the case in the past.

The Wheat Pool President is certainly well qualified to put forth ideas on agriculture and we welcome his suggestions. However, it seems passing strange that he should be the one in Canada to put forth ideas which should be accepted as policy by the government. Surely that is the duty and prerogative of the Minister of Agriculture. I can assure the minister that when he does put forth those policies which are in the best interests of the agricultural economy and the farmers at large he will receive the support of members in all parts of the house. We welcome the day and hope it comes quickly when some tangible evidence is forthcoming as to the government's intentions in the field of agriculture.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I rise to participate in this debate on the suggestion of His Honour, the Speaker. You will remember that this afternoon I attempted, prior to the calling of orders of the day, to raise what I thought was a matter of great public urgency and importance. At that time Mr. Speaker, after listening to my argument in support of urgency, decided that the matter could not properly be heard at that time. I accepted his decision, of course. He suggested that the appropriate time to raise the matter again would be during the debate on interim supply. It is for that reason I wish to make a short contribution. Like other hon. members, we in this party are not anxious to hold up the interim supply bill but certain matters have arisen which are so vital to the welfare of Canadians that we feel they must be brought to the attention of the house.
When one moves a motion for the adjournment of the house it is always difficult to make an adequate case because of the restriction as to urgency. However, I do say that we did receive a reasonable judgment from all members of the house in this regard except the leader of the official opposition who took the view that this was a specious move on the part of our party. I am sorry he adopts the view that any attempt to deal with issues of public safety and welfare and a respect for law and order should be considered in the category of a specious move. What I want to place before this committee is a situation that is developing in the city of Oshawa and which in recent days has reached the point where it has now become explosive, almost a tinderbox which could ignite and create very serious trouble.
This situation arises out of a strike between a Toronto local of the Newspaper
February 7, 1966

Guild and the Oshawa Times which I believe is owned by Lord Thomson. The crisis has come about as a result of the application by the courts of the law under the Criminal Code as it applies to picketing. This strike is a legal and legitimate strike. The company applied for an injunction under the Judicature Act restricting the number of pickets. Organized labour for some years now has taken the position that the Criminal Code and its interpretation by the courts in so far as it relates to the law on picketing is very badly outdated and very badly in need of modernization. They are not alone in this view, Mr. Chairman. A great many other people experienced in the field of labour relations have delivered similar opinions.
The Minister of Justice announced the other day that the former Mr. Justice Rand has been appointed to a very important judicial inquiry. The same individual, the former Mr. Justice Rand, dealt with the question of legal picketing in an extremely important case known as Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants reported in 1951, 3 Dominion Law Reports, at page 780. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee by reading the judgment of that eminent jurist but he did review the law and pointed out that in modern labour relations the whole concept of legal picketing has to be updated.
Under the Criminal Code, as most hon. members know, picketing is allowed for the purpose of enlightenment or the imparting of information. The courts have taken the view in their interpretations that this restricts picketing to a small number of people. In his judgment Mr. Justice Rand pointed out that the modern view of legal picketing goes far beyond that, that the right to picket means the right of moral persuasion, the right to have fairly large representation and the right to use every legitimate move to persuade the people involved in the industrial dispute as long as that persuasion stops short of violence. This is the modern view that for some years has been suggested should be incorporated into the Criminal Code.
The company involved in the labour dispute is to apply tomorrow for an injunction before the Ontario Supreme Court which is unprecedented in the history of labour relations. It is going to ask that all picketing be banned completely and that this basic right be removed from the people who are engaged in a legitimate and legal strike in the city of Oshawa. The labour movement has made it clear that it respects the principle of respect
Interim Supply
for law and order. No one has suggested that they do not hold the respect for law and order which is basic to a democratic system. However, that respect is a two-headed coin. One can only expect that people should respect the law when they feel that the law does not enshrine an injustice but that the law itself is just. It is only that appreciation which results in ultimate respect for the law of this land, and that is the point in issue in this case.
The labour movement has made it clear that it cannot permit a court order to be used to destroy a legal legitimate strike. We may disagree with them in this, and I am not taking issue with that, but statements have been made to the effect that if this course of action is pursued by the employer the collective trade union movement will be placed in a position of not being able to allow this to happen. This conjures up a vision of mass pickets. The mayor of Oshawa in a recent report has said that the local police could not possibly handle the situation, that the Ontario provincial police could not handle the situation, and that if the provincial police are sent there the army had better be sent too because that is what the situation will require.
It is for that reason we felt this afternoon that the situation in Oshawa has become so explosive and dangerous it was necessary for parliament to do something in an attempt to alleviate it. I suggested in my motion that one of the things we could do would be discuss the law of picketing under the Criminal Code and make it clear to the people in the trade union movement who are concerned that in our opinion this aspect of the Criminal Code is out of date and needs modernization and revision.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If the parliament of Canada had been prepared to do that, I think there would be a lot less tension in the Oshawa strike situation tonight. However, in its judgment the house did not seem to think this was necessary. But let no one be under any illusions, Mr. Chairman. Far from holding people back from violence and breaches of the law, the present law on picketing in Canada encourages and creates situations which ignite this type of violent conduct.
What we should be trying to do is to modernize and bring this law up to date. It was suggested in the house this afternoon that by so doing we would be "caving in" to defiance of the law. Nothing would have been further from the truth. We would have been

February 7, 1968
Interim Supply
indicating that the parliament of Canada is a responsible body of people aware of the explosive situation which has been created and welcoming the opportunity to express its concern and try to do something about it. Today was the day to have acted. I am sorry that we missed the boat. I believe we could have made a useful and constructive contribution in the present very difficult circumstances, and I only pray that in the weeks ahead we shall not have occasion to regret bitterly our failure to respond.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief on this occasion. I note that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat. However, I hope that his officials will at least take note of some of the remarks I shall make and perhaps do something regarding a problem I have written to them about but with regard to which there apparently is not going to be very much action. Since the department apparently is not going to take any specific action, I feel I must raise this matter in the house on the first occasion available to me.
The problem about which I wish to speak briefly is perhaps related to one that exists in northern Alberta. It seems rather ironic that after a year when we have had such abundant crops in most parts of the west we should also have pockets of crop failure. I represent an area that happens to have suffered that fate. Strangely enough, perhaps half the constituency did not suffer as much as the other half. However, the point is that when farmers suffer a crop failure in the midst of plenty the pressure on those people to pay their accounts is as great or even greater because they are in direct competition with other farmers competing for seed grain and the like.
Whether or not the Minister of Agriculture realizes it, through most of the northern part of Saskatchewan, or at least that part with which I am familiar, we were not able to get our crops in at as early a date as usual because of heavy rains that lasted for perhaps three weeks. In the result much of the crop in this area was harvested very late. Because of the frost and rains that came our way the maturing of grain was delayed and as a result we were not able to harvest the crops until after we had had a snowfall. This snowfall resulted in much of the grain being unfit for seed for the present crop year and this necessitates the acquisition of proper seed.

I think the minister is relying to some extent on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to deal with the problem in these areas and perhaps provide some of these farmers with needed cash. However, Mr. Chairman, the minister should take note of the fact that much of the area is not geared to an 8 bushel per acre crop from the point of view of surviving but to a 20 to 25 bushel an acre crop. This is the only way they can survive and if they get anything less they are in quite serious trouble.
I had occasion to write to the former minister of agriculture before that portfolio was taken over by the present minister. At that time I made several suggestions in this respect. I did not want at that time to burden the department with too many problems because I realized that the minister was giving up his portfolio. However, I did make several suggestions, one of which was that all payments made against farm improvement loans should be suspended and that no interest should be calculated during a year when there was a crop failure.
I hope the minister will see to it that no such interest is calculated in a year when there has been a crop failure because many of these farmers have had to buy very expensive machinery and find it very difficult to meet these payments. I think the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me that the price of machinery has soared to such a height that it is very difficult to purchase, and when the farmer finds himself in the position where he must purchase such machinery it is far more difficult for him to meet his payments. When you finish up in arrears you begin to wonder whether it is worth carrying on or whether you should give up the ship.
One other suggestion in my letter was that provision be made this year for sufficient seed grain to be available to these areas. I understand the attitude of the department is that these farmers can obtain a loan. But, Mr. Chairman, the minister should be aware of the fact that many of them have borrowed money to the hilt and cannot get further loans. It will therefore be necessary to make other provisions in order that a crop can be planted.
Another suggestion of mine was that there should be a moratorium on all accounts which may have accrued as a result of the year's operations. I appreciate that this may be difficult to administer and that in some areas it is not possible to do it. But I believe
February 7, 1966

the department should give earnest consideration to making some provision whereby additional loans may be obtained or the money made available in some other way. I know there are many areas in which credit has been obtained and the creditors would like their money back, and the department is in a better position to provide this type of assistance than the individual farmer.
Indeed, the department is in a better position to provide this type of assistance than are the banks. Some of the banks have been very reluctant, as a result of the government's tight money policy, to provide any loans. They say, "After all, we do not know how long this tight money policy is going to last. Furthermore, you are not even a good risk; you had a crop failure. What security do you have?" So the farmer finds himself in a position where he cannot obtain a loan with which to carry on his operation.
It seems to me that the department is relying too much on the prairie farm assistance program. I think the minister is by now aware of the fact that in order to qualify for prairie farm assistance farmers must form a block. There are many areas in which they cannot form a block because one happens to be in a particular corner or out of the way or in a strip, or some farmers along the way had a little better crop for one reason or another or perhaps had a smaller acreage and were able to get their crops in before the rains came, and so on. I do not want to elaborate on all the difficulties a farmer has to deal with, Mr. Chairman, but the point is that there are many areas in which a farmer does not qualify for this type of assistance.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer in crop insurance. However, I do not believe the Department of Agriculture is doing enough in this respect. I had occasion to question the minister about this matter on January 20 and 21 when I asked a question supplementary to one already put by the hon. member for Peace River. The minister's attitude at that time was that because no requests had been made by the provincial minister he did not feel it necessary to take any action in this regard. I want to know who is at fault here. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the department in this regard. Certainly other people must have written to the minister because they wrote to me. If the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan is at fault, I want that to be known. Furthermore, if the minister has communicated with the
Interim Supply
minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan, then I should like to know what steps the minister or his department is taking in order to help these farmers.
We hear so much these days about how many farmers are leaving the land. One sure way of making these farmers leave the land is by not providing assistance. I am sure if they were given assistance it would enable them to carry on through the next ten years. The situation is not a permanent one. I can recall that in 1959 the crop was snowed under and arrangements were made to provide assistance.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order which I hope will be helpful and commend itself to all hon. members. It seems to me that the hon. member is raising a very important question related to agriculture generally. This is the type of thing that can be discussed on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Part of his remarks relate to subjects usually discussed when the regular agricultural estimates are being considered. The Department of Agriculture will be the third department called and we indicated that it would be called immediately. I wonder if the hon. member would consider discussing this subject then rather than on interim supply?


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not know when the agricultural estimates are going to be considered.


George James McIlraith: It was indicated in the house that the government intended to call them soon.


Stanley James Korchinski: If the minister could tell me the date, I might give some consideration to the suggestion. I intend to deal with this point quite briefly. I should like these suggestions to be brought out into the open so they can be studied and when the agricultural estimates are being considered the minister can perhaps give an answer. As I pointed out, one of the problems seems to be the tight money policy of the government. Apparently they are applying pressure in the wrong places. Here is an instance in which farmers who have suffered crop failure are being denied any assistance by the government. I firmly believe that the Minister of Agriculture would perhaps like to go along with some of these suggestions but pressure is being applied by other members of the cabinet who tell him he should not do anything for these farmers. After all, who are they? These western farmers are not necessarily

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
Liberal; at least, they did not vote that way. As a result of this thinking no action will be taken by that department. I make that forecast.
I do not know whether or not those on the government side consider these matters important but those farmers who suffered crop failures have asked me to bring the matter before the house. I am sure that the problem I am about to present is also of importance to the senior citizens of this country. I should like a little attention at this moment.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to excuse me for interrupting him. However, I have difficulty hearing him. If hon. members wish to carry on conversations, I would ask them to do so in the lobbies. There are beautiful lobbies on both sides of the house and hon. members are welcome to them. I have difficulty hearing the hon. member and those who wish to listen should be able to listen.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rather hesitate to mention the other problem I have in mind. However, I feel that the general attitude of the entire government has created a problem whereby the senior citizens of this country are penalized. I have communicated with the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but I have not been satisfied with the type of reply his department has drafted. I do not know where I can turn except to bring this matter before the house.
An application was submitted by the Hudson Bay Pioneer Lodge to provide a senior citizens' home. I, along with other interested parties, the mayor and the contractor, approached the department to ascertain if this application could be accepted at their earliest convenience. On November 22 I was informed by Mr. Jean Lupin that everything was satisfactory. The department had inspected all the necessary documents and an order in council would follow. This was November 22. However, nothing was done. The contractor had submitted a very low bid in order to assist the project but the order in council was delayed for two and a half weeks. One has to remember that in the west the weather is cold.
The contractor did not know if he should proceed because in the meantime the cost of plywood was going up and the cost of copper was going up. Representations were made by the mayor, the contractor, the architect and other interested parties. I personally made

telephone calls to the minister and my secretary tried to communicate with his office. Nothing was done. In the meantime other applications were being approved. It was not until December that I was notified that approval had been given to this project. It seems to me that here is a clear case of the tight money policy of the government being applied to senior citizens, the wrong group to whom to apply it just as the farmers who suffered because of drought, frost or other hazards were wrong people to whom to apply it.
I wanted to bring these two matters before the house. I am sorry I took so much time that the minister found it necessary to ask if I would delay my remarks for a while. I felt the matters were of such importance that I should bring them up on this occasion.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I will not keep the committee long but I rise to add some thoughts on the issue raised by my friend, the hon. member for Danforth, in a motion earlier today and the remarks he made a few minutes ago. I want to speak on this matter because of my own, personal experience for some years in the field of labour law and some knowledge of the injunctions and orders that are so frequently issued by the courts. I want to say, first, that the Leader of the Opposition was mistaken when he suggested that the motion moved by the hon. member for Danforth was anticipating a decision of the courts to be made tomorrow.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
What I say may not be interesting to les honorables deputes d'en face but if they do not mind I should like to hear what I am saying.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I have
before me citation 164 of Beauchesne. It reads as follows:
(2) Silence is required to be observed in both Houses. Members should converse only in undertones. Whenever the conversation is so loud as to make it difficult to hear the debate, the Speaker calls the house to order. Members are not to disturb a member who is speaking either by hissing, singing, or exclamations or other interruption. Disorderly noises are sometimes made which, when members are impatiently waiting for a decision, it is scarcely possible to repress.
I do not have to add anything to this citation. If I have to repeat it in French in the next ten minutes I will do so, but I think everyone in the chamber will understand that they should refrain from engaging in conversations to a point where it may annoy the speaker who has the floor.
February 7, 1966


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to make it clear that I was not attempting to make anyone listen to me; it is just that the hon. gentlemen who sit exactly opposite me were holding a conversation which was distracting me. I wanted all the time to hear what they were saying instead of concentrating on what I had to say myself.
I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition was mistaken when he suggested this afternoon that the motion was occasioned by a court motion to be made tomorrow. The fact is that an injunction has already been issued by the Supreme Court of Ontario. The injunction order was made by the court on Monday, January 31, on a notice of motion served, I believe, on the preceding Friday after permission had been obtained from the court to shorten the time for service. The injunction limited the number of pickets to four at one entrance and to three at each of two other entrances, making a total of ten. It is this limitation on the number of pickets which has caused the trouble now brewing in Oshawa and which has caused concern.
In my experience, Mr. Chairman, employers have used the law as found in subsection 2 of section 366 of the Criminal Code and the law of injunctions in order to attempt to break legal and peaceful strikes and have used it for no other purpose. I have seen in this case, Mr. Chairman, the affidavits in support of the first motion and have been informed of those in support of the one coming up tomorrow. There is not a suggestion in the original notice of motion asking for an order limiting the pickets, nor in the supporting affidavits that there had been any violence or other breach of the law.
As a matter of fact, since that order was made on January 31 the members of the union directly concerned, namely, the members of the Toronto Newspaper Guild, have never exceeded the number of pickets the order required. The pickets were swelled by the support and sympathy of a large number of other employees in Oshawa and its environs.
While it is true that the injunction is a matter of civil law and comes under provincial jurisdiction and that it flows from certain sections of the Ontario Judicature Act, it is also true that in making their decisions on injunction orders in relation to picketing the judges are guided by outmoded words in the Criminal Code. Section 366 of the Code prointerim Supply
hibits watching or besetting in various ways, and subsection 2 provides:
A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.
It is sheer, utter nonsense to limit modern labour picketing to receiving or communicating information. This can be done much more effectively through the use of newpapers, radio or television. You do not need a person walking up and down in front of an entrance with a sign to communicate information, and information can be received, if there is any to be received, over the telephone.
Picketing by trade unionists-I will come in a moment to the question of a lawful strike-is for the purpose of winning support for their cause. I suggest that picketing is one of the important exercises of freedom of speech in our society. Picketing is an attempt by those who are on strike to persuade people not to go to work and to bring solidarity to their cause, to persuade customers and clients and other people dealing with the employer against whom the strike takes place not to make things easy for the employer by conducting business with him. All of that, Mr. Chairman, should be permitted by our Criminal Code if a strike is not to come bang-up against the law and against the issuance of injunction orders by the courts.
Some years ago a strike took place at any time the workers felt like striking and under the law it was lawful. They could strike in the middle of the term of an agreement or at any other time. Nowadays right across the country in all 11 jurisdictions of Canada -there are one or two provinces that do not have Labour Relations Acts-you cannot have a lawful strike unless you have gone through all the procedures which are provided for by the Labour Relations Act. The collective agreement must have expired. In the meantime you must negotiate, and if you cannot agree you must go through conciliation procedures. For this purpose there is a conciliation officer and a conciliation board, and only after the board has reported and some period has elapsed are you permitted lawfully to strike.
Thus, the law says to the employees of this country that a right which they had had for many years of withdrawing their labour when they felt dissatisfied or discontented they can no longer exercise lawfully except under certain conditions-after the passage of a certain period and after they have gone through certain procedures. When that has

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
happened, as in this case-the Guild negotiated with the Oshawa Times for months and some two or three more months were consumed by the conciliation procedure-and still no agreement is possible, a lawful strike then takes place. Section 366 of the Criminal Code makes it possible for the employer to enter a courtroom and obtain an injunction designed and intended to hamper and frustrate such lawful strike. This is the reason trouble is brewing in Oshawa and why some of us-I make no secret about this-have a great deal of sympathy with those who are unhappy with the law as it now stands.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It should also be recognized-this is another reason the hon. member for Danforth used the language he did in his earlier motion-that subsection 2 of section 366 which I read into the record dates from a provision contained in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act in the United Kingdom of 1875. This is why we call it archaic. Constantly in our law we pick bits out of some statute which was passed 50, 60 or 100 years ago and we leave it on our statute books unchanged. I am sure all hon. members will remember that the Criminal Code was completely revised in 1953-54, if I remember the year correctly; but even at that time, 10 of 11 years ago, we left that particular language the same or almost the same as it was in the statute of Great Britain dating back to 1875, a period when the trade unions were still fighting for the concept of legal recognition, let alone the legality of a strike and certain actions connected with it. These are the problems which now emerge and emerge as a result of the injunctions.
The facts of the legal battle are as I have stated; there has been no allegation even in the affidavits supporting the motions of any violence on the picket line. Unless I am mistaken, there is either an affidavit filed with the court at Osgoode Hall in Toronto today or mention of information in some affidavit to the effect that one of the officers of the police in Oshawa has confirmed that there has been no violence or threat of violence at any time on the picket line. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the number of pickets is limited and the union is threatened that an injunction prohibiting all picketing may or may not be granted tomorrow. The motion in court is that all picketing be prohibited and, more than that, that an order of mandamus issue to the chief of police of Oshawa, to the director of the Ontario Provincial Police, to

the sheriff and to all other sorts of officials to make people obey the earlier injunction or that which may issue tomorrow.
Every avenue of the court is used by Lord Thomson's newspaper in order to frustrate the lawful strike of some of his employees who in this case are journalists and white collar workers who feel aggrieved by the conditions under which they are being forced to work.
Furthermore, I also want to say that throughout the days of the strike not a single person who wanted to enter the plant has been prevented from doing so. Tenants, clients, customers and workers of this company have gone through the picket line if they have wanted to go through, undoubtedly to the displeasure of the picketers, a displeasure which may have been picturesquely expressed by some of them. None the less those persons I have mentioned were able to get through and did get through.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Danforth is entirely right when he says that the house missed an opportunity earlier to deal with a matter which is of great urgency at the present time. Since we did not do it then, I am adding my voice to that of the hon. member in requesting and urging that the Minister of Justice look at section 366 of the Criminal Code and consider carefully the necessary amendments to subsection 2 so that the courts of the land may have a different direction as to how to deal with strikes. At the moment. I am not concerned with wildcat strikes or with unlawful strikes because they are in a different category. However, I suggest that employees who have gone through all the procedures of the law and who go out on a lawful strike should have the right to picket with any number of picketers they desire. So long as they picket lawfully they should have the right to persuade people to support their cause in any way they desire. So long as they picket peacefully they should have the right to impose whatever economic pressure they can impose on the employer. I emphasize that they should have that right so long as they picket peacefully.
The purpose of picketing and the purpose of the strike is to pit the economic strength of the organized employees against the economic strength of the employer. At the moment the law permits the court to throw an imbalance into that conflict betwen the striking employees and the employer. And when the law permits the court to come down on the side
February 7, 1966

of the employer against the employees by an injunction or by other procedure and thus interfere with the strike, at that moment the law is being used as a strikebreaking instrument, as it is now used, rather than as an instrument of meting out justice to people. It is this unjustice that is inherent in section 366 of the Criminal Code, and the fact that it can be and has been used as a strikebreaking weapon, that makes this issue so important.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make some remarks in relation to labour disputes and I want to come a little closer home and discuss some of the problems that have developed within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the staff problems that we now have as a result of the action taken by the government in relation to the operation and hours of the house.
In a few moments, Mr. Chairman, we shall be entering private members' hour which for many years was considered to be the hour in which members had a break. It is perfectly all right if members of parliament do not have the opportunity to eat at a regular time.
I certainly am one of those that should not be eating too much because I have been trying to diet for some time. Perhaps this is the easiest way to solve my problem. I am reluctant to agree that I should not be able to eat a sandwich in this place but as a representative for years of labour I think it is a great disgrace that members of the translation staff and others in the next two hours will have to attend to their work in the house. They will go up to their offices and have a bowl of soup, they will then come back here and do their next stint, go back and have a sandwich, once more come back here for their next turn and then go back and have their coffee.
This is a very archaic type of operation. We talk about the rights of people. The Minister of Labour is in the house. He speaks for labour throughout the country and has been listening very impatiently to the remarks that have been made in the last few minutes, but it seems to me that we should give greater consideration to the people who work for us. Members of parliament can suit themselves and it may not matter to them, but if members do not care about themselves at least let us give some consideration to the staff. So far as I have been able to ascertain we have not increased the staff.
I asked the house leader if we were playing a game of sitting during lunch hours. Mr. DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Chairman, may I remind the committee that at nine o'clock in the morning members of the staff start to work. Committees will have to be established eventually.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has asked me a question. I am sure he does not wish to leave a wrong impression. The fact is that when the change in the hours was authorized immediate arrangements were made to increase the staff by a greater proportion than the increase in hours. I believe that most of the staffs have done that and it has been left to them to work out the necessary consequential arrangements.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with what the minister says because I am not allowed to. I perhaps should not leave the inference that I do not believe him. I have asked some members of the staff. I am not sure if he has. As I understand it, the translation staff still are not in a position to have a break for their lunch. It is a fact that members of the staff have told me that they have their lunch between stints on the floor.
All hon. members do not stay here. There is hardly a quorum here. If necessary I am going to start a hassle that will cause the government to have eight, ten or twelve cabinet ministers here for the private members' hour, if that is what they wish. I shall be happy to engage in this from time to time.
We are going to have to protect the staff. If anybody here does not like it, they are going to have to put up with it because I think it is a disgrace. The things that we have done here for a long time are a disgrace. These people who are members of the staff have no civil service organization to represent them. They have no bargaining agency. I am shocked that it is necessary to ask for the support of the members of the House of Commons in getting what I consider to be a fair deal for the staff.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, in conformity with standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), Income tax-examination of receipts for charitable donations; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), water

February 7, 1366
Prescription Drugs
resources-steps to deal with radioactive pollution; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), grain-reported inability to make certain export sales.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper namely, notices of motions.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider including the cost of prescription drugs in any national medicare program that may be established in the future.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion requests the government to take into consideration the inclusion of the cost of prescription drugs in any national medicare program which may be established in the future. It has been said that medical care is like a triangle. On one side there is hospitalization, on another side there are medical services while the third represents drugs. Inquiries show that at the present time no plans have been made to include prescription drugs in our proposed medicare program. I believe the Canadian public would welcome the inclusion of the cost of these drugs in such a program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but it is difficult for the Chair to hear what is being said.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If it is not practicable to include prescription drugs in our proposed medicare program then I believe the people of Canada are entitled to know the reason why. I hope the government can accept this resolution, at least to the extent of referring it to a committee for consideration. In any event the resolution should serve the purpose of bringing into the open some of the arguments both for and against the inclusion of the cost of prescription drugs in a medicare program.
I owe a personal debt of gratitude to several persons associated with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada who have taken an interest in this question and who have supplied me with a number of pamphlets and reports relating to prepayment plans for the supply of drugs. As I say, I am grateful to these people. These reports indicate that practically all those concerned with this question recognize the

desirability of expanding the insurance principle so as to cover the cost of drugs. However, some authorities suggest that more research is necessary before further steps are taken.
Insurance to cover the cost of drugs is now available from a number of sources. These include Blue Cross, Prescription Services Incorporated, which is operated from Windsor, the public service group surgical-medical insurance plan under the major medical provisions of that plan, and various other plans where it is included as one item in major medical coverage along with special services such as ambulance services, private room services, and so on. Further, the government of Ontario, and, possibly the governments of other provinces, will, in cases where patients are able to qualify under a means test, pay the cost of drugs along with the cost of medical services.
Costs vary. Prescription Services Incorporated charges $1.90 per adult per month and 65 cents per child per month to a maximum of three children in any one family. These rates are for those covered by a group plan. For individuals outside group plans, where these can be accepted, the charge is 10 cents more per person per month in each case. The maximum charge for a family of two parents and three children insured under a group plan would work out at $5.75 per month. In the case of a family not insured as part of a group it would be $6.25 per month. There is an additional charge of 35 cents for each prescription filled. The maximum cost per family per year under Prescription Services Incorporated would amount to $69 under a group policy and $75 under a non-group policy. It is reported that the Alberta government has in mind a program covering prepayment of prescription drugs. Their estimated cost is a $25 premium per family per year plus $1 for each prescription filled. The Alberta government is also proposing to try out its plan on a selected group of people such as school teachers with everyone to be included, both young and old, so that the higher cost of carrying the risk for elderly people may be averaged out with the lower cost of carrying the risk for younger people.
In a study by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada covering the cost of drugs in Canada, it is estimated that expenditure on drugs, whether bought from a pharmacy or dispensed in hospital, amounts to about $10 per person per year. This estimate is given in more detail on pages 352
February 7, 1966

and 353 of the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
As many hon. members will be aware, the Hall commission on page 39 and again on page 349 of its report recommends that prescription drugs be included in a medicare program. On page 39, under item 5, prescription drug services, the report reads as follows:
In view of the high costs of many of the new life-saving, life-sustaining, pain-killing, and disease-preventing drugs, the commission has concluded that prescribed drugs should be introduced as a benefit of the health services program. Again, the decisions respecting the scope and priority of this benefit would be made by the provinces, but its authorization should be an early objective of the Canadian parliament.
Turning to page 349 of the report we find this statement, again repeating words used in the first part of the previous statement:
In view of the high costs of many of the new life saving, life-sustaining and disease-preventing drugs, of the unequal incidence of the burden of paying for these drugs, of the integrated character of health services, and of the fact that market forces do not operate effectively to regulate the drug industry, all of which subjects are dealt with in later sections of this report, the commission has concluded that prescribed drugs should be included as a benefit of any comprehensive health care program for Canada.
To leave non-prescribed drugs outside such a program, at first sight might appear to conflict with the point made above about the integrated character of health services. However, as has been stated already, competitive market forces are likely to regulate the production and sale of nonprescribed drugs.
In any event, there are apparently few if any non-prescribed drugs which are costly, for which there is a valid and appreciable need, and which may be properly used without medical supervision. Thus there should be little tendency for prescribed drugs to be substituted for non-prescribed drugs resulting in an unwarranted increase in social costs.
At page 345 of the Hall report they have this to say about the cost of drugs compared with the cost of medical care:
Expenditures on drugs place almost as heavy a burden on the average Canadian family as paying medical bills. In 1961, for example, expenditures on physicians' services amounted to $383 million as against $364 million spent on prescribed and nonprescribed drugs. In effect then, drug expenditures are equivalent to 95 per cent of expenditures on physician services.
If nearly half the cost of illness is involved in the procurement of drugs, then it seems to me that we should be just as anxious to include drugs under our proposed medicare scheme as we are to include physicians' services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Prescription Drugs


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I now have some comments on the attitude of the drug trade and the attitude of the medical association to these proposals. I think it is conceded by all concerned that only with the wholehearted co-operation and good will of the drug trade and of the medical profession can any medicare scheme be fully successful.
Since our economy and habits of living are very much like those in the United States possibly some excerpts from a speech delivered by Dr. Montgomery, the President of the Illinois State Medical Society to the Central States Regional Conference of the American Public Welfare Association would be worth consideration. In it he said:
I know the standard complaint is that drugs cost the welfare department too much, that drug costs are getting out of hand, that they are "uncontrollable". On the other hand, I have checked some of the reports on vendor payments for medical care issued by the division of program statistics and analysis of the bureau of family services.
During 1963, vendor payments identified as for prescribed drugs made up 8.6 per cent of general and public assistance medical expenses, 9.3 per cent of public assistance medical costs. In 1962, the percentages were, respectively, 9.1 per cent and 10.0 per cent. And, just for comparison, in the fiscal year ending June 1958, "Drugs and Supplies" accounted for 13.9 per cent of general and public, and 14.1 per cent of public assistance medical care costs.
He gave these figures to show that drug costs, as a percentage of public assistance medical care costs, are coming down. Then he said:
If the parallel is not obvious, what I am trying to say is that the cost of prescriptions should not be considered simply as an added charge on the welfare budget, but in terms of what those drugs are saving the welfare department in terms of cost if they are not provided.
In other words, we cannot afford not to provide drugs because the cost will be greater if we do not provide drugs.
Dr. Montgomery summarizes it this way:
To my mind, this also leads to some question of the reality of drug costs as "a headache."
I might say that the speech was entitled, "Drugs: The Medical Care Program's Biggest Headache," and he goes on to show that he does not agree with that statement.
I wonder whether drug costs are truly so uncontrollable and such a matter of concern, or whether it is more that they are now becoming an identifiable and labelled medical cost, where before they were buried within the total cash grant.
In fact, putting together the statistical evidence that drug costs have decreased, as a percentage of total vendor payments in recent years and the fact that, during the same period, the number of states including drugs in their vendor payment

February 7, 1966
Prescription Drugs
programs has increased, perhaps our real question should be whether enough is being spent on drugs.
Then the doctor summarized the medical profession's chief objection to the inclusion of drugs in a medical care program:
The physician's real headache, as a physician, lies in his patient's not getting the drug the physician considers necessary tor proper treatment.
This is, I would say, at the root of almost all conflicts between welfare agencies and physicians in regard to agency control of drug expenditures. It is also at the root of any similar conflicts which might arise in regard to other phases of the welfare medical program, beyond those services the physician himself provides.
That seems to be the greatest beef of the medical profession, that governments in their efforts to cut down the cost of drugs try to impose control on the medical profession and the profession objects to this very much. This man puts it this way:
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
This gets down to the really basic controversy, where one exists, between physicians and welfare agencies on drug costs.
Later in his article he states:
Look at the matter like this-the Sears Roebuck catalogue lists phonographs for prices ranging from under fifteen dollars to over five hundred. They all have the same generic name-"phonograph"- and they can all play the same record, but you don't just order a "phonograph" and let the store decide which one to send you.
In other words, doctors want the privilege of recommending or prescribing drugs which they think best suit the patient and they resent any effort on the part of government agencies to restrict them in that freedom.
I do not intend to take any more time of the house except to say that the drug trade in general has accepted the proposition that drugs should be included in medicare programs throughout the North American continent. They could possibly oppose this inclusion and hold back the implementation of the programs for a year or two but they realize that they will eventually come and for that reason are generally prepared to accept that fact.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) and to put myself on record on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic party in support of the idea that

a national medicare plan should include hospital, medical and surgical services as well as prescriptions and apparatuses.
We agree with the view expressed in the Hall commission report that drugs impose a heavy burden on the public, particularly with regard to those people over 50 years of age and more especially in respect of old age pensioners. One has a heavy heart when he hears stories of some old age pensioners who pay more for drugs than they do for rent. The greater portion of their pensions in many cases is taken up by the high cost of drugs.
One of the reasons for the high cost of drugs has been the tremendous profits that pharmaceutical firms have made in the past. One would like to see some restriction with regard to the amount of profit they should make. There are two ways in which this could be effective.
First, there should be a working relationship between pharmacists and doctors whereby when prescriptions are given to the pharmacists they can fill them with drugs of a generic type rather than following the formula prescribed. The difference in the cost in this regard is very striking. The second thing that could be done, and will be done when a national medicare plan does come into effect and the government pays one half of the medical cost is to provide the provinces with an opportunity of incorporating into their plans the provision to which I have referred, thereby reducing drug costs.
Mr. Speaker, we are in full support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Middlesex West.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) on his presentation of this very "liberal" policy, if I may use that word. First of all, I should state that I agree in principle with the purport of his resolution. However, as he himself has said, we are dealing here with an expenditure of a great deal of money, almost $400 million, quoting the figures he used for the year 1961 as mentioned in the Hall commission report. When we speak about a medicare program for Canada we are talking about an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $1 billion per year, so you can quickly see that drugs represent a very substantial portion of the total cost, second only to the cost of medical services as provided by medical practitioners.
We are all aware of the different functions that drugs perform in curing illnesses and
February 7, 1966

preventing suffering and death. With the advent of newer, more potent and specific drugs we are finding that people who previously spent long periods in sickness are now able to go back to work much sooner. For this reason the Canadian economy is that much better. We have healthier people working for a longer time.
One of the interesting things that has happened with the advent of newer and better drugs is the decrease in hospitalization costs. As the hon. member mentioned, part of the cost of drugs is now paid for patients in hospitals who come under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This cost is paid for under an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. The cost of hospitalization has been cut down because of the increased potency of drugs and their effectiveness. We are also finding that in respect of specific illnesses more hospital beds are available. The best example of this, of course, is in relation to the treatment of tuberculosis. Sanatoria which previously had long waiting lists now have empty beds. Many of them have been converted to hospitals for the chronically ill or elderly patients.
Another field in which I think the benefit of new drugs has been evidenced is the field of mental diseases. We now find that more beds are available not only because people have been cured but because more people are being treated as outpatients and do not have to be actually hospitalized as was previously necessary.
At this time I should like to put on record a portion of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at the last federal-provincial conference in July of 1965 dealing with medicare. In respect of the proposal for medicare he said:
This proposal does not require detailed agreements governing the medicare plan. It calls only for a general federal-provincial understanding as to the nature of the health programs which will make a federal fiscal contribution appropriate. The federal government believes that there are four criteria on which such an understanding should be based.
First, the scope of benefits should be, broadly speaking, all the services provided by physicians, both general practitioners and specialists. A complete health plan would include dental treatment, prescribed drugs, and other important services, and there is nothing in the approach we propose to prevent these being included, from the start or later, if this were the general wish. We regard comprehensive physicians' services as the initial minimum.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Prescription Drugs


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Yes, certainly.


Reid Scott: Just for the record, am I to take it from what you have said that the proposal by the Prime Minister with regard to the range of services makes as a prerequisite the inclusion of prescription drugs?


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Would the hon. member repeat his question please?


Reid Scott: Can we take it from the Prime Minister's proposal that it is a requirement that prescription drugs be included in the range of services supplied?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Harry Cruickshank Harley: In the statement that I read, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not say that. The Prime Minister said that the minimum under the first condition would be physicians' services and that a complete health plan would include other things such as prescribed drugs, but the benefits at first should be those services provided by a physician whether he be a general practitioner or specialist. Perhaps I will clarify that point later. Speaking at the same conference the Prime Minister said later:
Prepaid medical care is the largest item in a complete program for health services, but it is far from being the whole of such a program. There are other areas in which either joint action or the concerting of parallel federal and provincial action ought to be considered.
One such area which we referred to in the last Throne Speech was the quality and availability of drugs and their relation to the prices that the public has to pay. As you know, parliament has established a special committee to enquire into these matters. We hope that its recommendations will have the effect of reducing the prices of drugs, and thereby make it easier for a complete health service to make drugs prescribed for major illnesses available on a prepaid basis.
I am sure every hon. member is aware that the committee mentioned in the Throne Speech before the last one actally was set up in the last parliament with the specific terms of reference to make recommendations to the government on things that could be done to bring about a reduction in the cost of drugs. That committee met but unfortunately it only met once or twice. However, the groundwork of the committee is there. The people who were to appear before the committee had already been contacted and professed an eagerness and willingness to come to talk about the cost of drugs. I am sure they are more than willing to come forward in this session.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, in the last Throne Speech it was repeated that this committee

February 7, 1966
Prescription Drugs
should be set up. We are looking forward to it being set up and hope that it will be able to present a report to the house on this question.
There is no question that the cost of certain drugs in common usage is very expensive in terms of dollars and cents. There is also no question in anyone's mind, I am sure, that many of these drugs are worth this much and much more in terms of the benefits they can give and the lives they can save.
There are many ways of measuring cost. If one compares, for example, the cost of drugs in proportion to the standard of living, I understand that Canada has the second cheapest drugs in the world. I should like to mention a few of the things that do contribute to the cost of drugs because whether, as the hon. gentleman suggests, the government underwrites this cost in the form of a medical care program or it remains in the field of private enterprise, it is very important that the price of drugs be brought down.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the basic or raw material from which a drug is made, it can be found either naturally occurring or is made chemically. Usually a drug that is found naturally is later made chemically in a much cheaper form. Often this basic material is imported into Canada, and is sometimes merely processed and packaged here. Because of mass production systems available in other countries, particularly the United States, it is often cheaper to import a drug than to make it in Canada. As an example, Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is no drug firm in Canada that manufactures penicillin; it is much cheaper to import it from the United States.
As this problem is related to the relatively small Canadian market in comparison with the United States, I really do not know the answer to it but would only say in passing that to place a higher tariff or tax on these imports into Canada would merely raise the price of the drug, which would have the opposite effect to the one for which we are searching. In dealing with drug research, Mr. Speaker, most of the companies quote a figure of approximately 8 per cent of their budget that is spent on drug research. Unfortunately in Canada at the manufacturers' level drug research is very limited. Most of the research is done at company headquarters and most of those companies with 100 per cent owned subsidiaries in Canada are now located in the United States, Switzerland or England.

Just a short while ago the only remaining large Canadian drug firm in this country passed into American hands. The drug companies point out that drug prices in Canada include the cost of research done elsewhere and justify this by saying that because Canadians benefit from the research done elsewhere we should share in that cost. A certain amount of research is done at the university level and financed by the federal government under the Medical Research Council. In passing I would say that the federal government is going to have to take more drastic action in this field and increase by a great deal the amount of money available for medical research in Canada.
So far as the drug manufacturer himself is concerned, he is usually but not always the one who discovers the drug. Some manufacturers, however, do no research at all. I shall come back to that point in dealing with price. Some manufacturers only manufacture a drug and market it. As a doctor I could manufacture drugs in my basement or my office if I wished to do so, and as long as I did not sell those drugs I would be conforming to the present laws under the Canadian food and drug directorate.
Drug manufacturers do research in many ways, all of which are expensive and all of which, because the market is competitive, they do independently of each other. They may test naturally occurring substances. For example, antibiotic manufacturers test thousands of samples of soil yearly from all over the world. Many antibiotics have been discovered this way. Manufacturers may take a drug with a known activity and try to change it in some way chemically either to make it act differently or to make it less dangerous to the human body. No drug, including aspirin, is completely safe to the human body. Any drug that is used carries with it a certain risk, and this is a fact that the medical profession has to take into account every time a drug is prescribed. One has to balance the risk involved in taking the drug with the risk involved in not taking it.
The researcher has to run a series of tests on new samples he has made on the chance that one out of many thousands may prove useful. Many manufacturers take well known drugs and combine them in various ways looking for a combination more effective or more aesthetically appealing than the product of their competitors. For instance, I am sure there are thousands of different kinds of stomach remedies on the market that literally
February 7, 1966

all contain the same type of drugs. I would hope this would be one area in which the price would be controlled and in which manufacturers would co-operate to cut down repetitive products on the market. Research in the medical field, as anywhere else, costs a great deal of money and most of it never produces a worth-while product. It follows that when a good product is discovered it unfortunately has to pay for all the research on all the products that were never of any value.
[DOT] (6.40 p.m.)
I should now like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about so-called generic drugs as against ethical drugs. Often cheap drugs are available that are made by what is referred to as a generic drug firm. That is a firm that sells drugs under the chemical name rather than a trade name. A generic firm generally produces a drug that has been developed by some other drug company. These companies do no basic research and no research on new effects of old drugs. They are literally manufacturers of products, in this case drugs. Because they do not do research they are able to sell their drugs cheaper than a company that does research. The medical profession often hesitates to prescribe the cheaper drugs because they are unsure of the Quality.
As I said before, there is nothing to stop people making drugs in their own garage provided these drugs have passed the food and drug directorate at some time. I have been told that in the near future the food and drug people in Ottawa will be licensing manufacturers and this will allow the directorate to know when and where every manufacturer is operating. The doctor wants to be sure not only that what he prescribes is actually the drug he has ordered but also that it will do the job that he intends it to do.
I should like to mention at this point that I do not want anyone to get a wrong impression. I am sure there are many generic firms in this country which undoubtedly do produce high quality drugs. As I am sure everyone is aware, the discoverers of medicines are protected by patent. The medicine itself it not patented but the manufacturing process by which it is produced is patented and protected for 17 years. There has been a great deal of controversy over medical patents. The restrictive trade practices commission recommends that they be abolished. However, the Hall commission recommended that they not be abolished for a period of five years but that freer use be made of the compulsory licence provision whereby a company applies
Prescription Drugs
to a court for permission to produce a certain patented drug and pays a royalty to the company holding the patent. If a new drug is not protected by patent, then any company can make the drug.
Naturally a firm can make a drug more cheaply if it does not engage in research. The major drug companies have stated that if they are not protected by patents, which literally give them a monopoly, they cannot afford to conduct research on new drugs and research will cease. They point out that countries without patent protection, such as Italy and France, have not made any major medical discoveries for many years.
In so far as drug promotion is concerned, once a drug company has developed a new product a market must be created for it. This is done in many ways. Most products of value medically are available by prescription only and therefore the company has to sell the doctor. This is done by advertising in medical journals as well as by detail men who call at the doctor's office. The distribution by mail of unsolicited samples has ceased, partly because of recent amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. Most of the mail that crosses a doctor's desk crosses it rapidly and ends up in the wastepaper basket. A great deal of money is spent on the promotion of drugs.
One of the suggestions made by many people, including the Hall commission, for controlling these promotional activities is a change in the income tax law to allow companies to deduct expenses for only a certain proportion of their promotion budget. The figure usually mentioned is 15 per cent.
In so far as the federal sales tax on drugs is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is a tax imposed after the drug is manufactured and is paid directly by the company just as it is on any other product. Personally I am in favour of the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs provided the saving is passed on to the consumer and does not end up in someone else's pocket.
In dealing with the Hall commission report, Mr. Speaker, may I cite something Mr. Hall said at page 40 of Volume 1:
It is no accident that the public interest has increased in direct relationship to the efficacy of drug therapy and the high cost of many of the most effective drugs. Expenditures on all drugs are equivalent to 95 per cent of the outlay on physicians' services with prescribed drugs representing about 43 per cent of medical expenditures.
On the next page of the report I find this:
That in the provision of the drug benefit, there should be required a $1 contributory payment by

February 7, 1966
Prescription Drugs
the purchaser for each prescription, subject to such discount as the retailer may offer.
In passing I should like to say that I oppose that principle.


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


Reid Scott: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill is going to be talked out anyway.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: I thank the house for its courtesy and I shall take only a few more minutes. In so far as the dollar fee is concerned I should like to say that I oppose this principle because if drugs are going to be available they have to be available to anyone. Often the people who most need these drugs are the people who can least afford the dollar.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say again that in principle I agree with the hon. member's suggestion. I should like to put on the record one other government statement in this connection, which is to the effect that physicians' services seem to be the minimum scope of benefits which would qualify for medicare but there would be nothing to prevent a province from providing additional benefits either at first or later. However, the federal contribution would be based on physicians' services only and whether the contribution should be extended later to a broader range of services would be a matter for future agreed decisions. I am sure that the federal government would accept suggestions from the provinces if they said they were going to include drugs in medicare. I would encourage the government to give this matter full consideration.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk the bill out. I am going to leave that for another hon. gentleman. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) on the very competent manner in which he discussed his notice of motion. I think that fundamentally he stuck to the real issue, that there is no valid excuse in this day and age for a single Canadian to be denied the benefits of medication. This is not the time nor the place to discuss in depth the cost of drugs because time does not permit.
I noticed that the hon. member for Middlesex West did not use those automatic phrases, "the high cost of drugs" or "the

exorbitant profits of the drug industry". As a member of the Food and Drugs Committee who has attended 28 or 30 sessions of that committee, I feel that these cliches are subject to question. What is more important, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a duty to all Canadians to make sure they are not denied medication. I think that the cost of anything, including drugs is a relative matter, and that the payment of 50 cents, 75 cents or a dollar for prescriptions in addition to the cost of medicine is a distinct hardship to thousands of Canadians who live on $75 per month.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Certainly medication costs of $10, $15 or $20 are of no consequence to many people who can afford them and who spend such sums on many other items of a more luxurious nature. In a few weeks time or less I hope that the Food and Drugs Committee to which I referred will meet again under the chairmanship of the learned member who has just taken his seat so that it may enter the second phase of its investigations into the cost of drugs.
The Hall commission report made many suggestions as to how the cost of drugs can be controlled or reduced. As a member of the Food and Drugs Committee I took the trouble to search through the library and to look into the available statistics of the percentage figures for expenditures by the Canadian pharmaceutical industry on promotional material and on that phase of their operations more familiarly known as marketing.
After doing a little arithmetic and having my facts very well substantiated, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to find that according to the annual statistical survey of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada for the year 1963, which was the last complete year I could get, 26.6 per cent of the sales dollar was spent on marketing. But the significant thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the amount spent on literature, the most obvious thing that comes repeatedly to mind, is one cent of the cost of a prescription, just one copper. This one cent goes directly to the production of promotional literature in this country. This amazed me, Mr. Speaker, and made me dig a little deeper. I found that the problem in this case is even further complicated by the fact that every pamphlet must be published, as it properly should in this bilingual nation, in both English and French. Those of you who may have some relationship with the graphic arts industry know what an extra financial burden this places on the pharmaceutical industry.
February 7, 1966

I could speak at length on this question but I know another hon. member would like to say a few words. However, one thing which has intrigued me in the debate this evening is the fact that we who feel so pro-Canadian-I know I feel this way-and at times antiAmerican in the industrial field are in a sense on the horns of a dilemma. If we are to encourage Canadian industry, we find ourselves in the unfavourable position of not being able to produce such life saving drugs as penicillin in this country without its production being heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. Therefore we are left with the unenviable choice of welcoming the importation of this type of drug into Canada to the detriment of the Canadian industry. I mention this because the firm of Frosst, which is close to my riding, has been purchased by United States interests.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, there is one particular reason why I accept the dubious honour that has been bestowed on me by my colleague from Verdun and it is that I have a particular interest in one aspect of the matter now before the house. I refer to the drug companies themselves. I noticed the reaction of some of the members in the New Democratic party when the hon. member for Verdun announced the honour that was to be mine. Perhaps those in that group will agree-I hope they will-with what I am going to say about the drug industry. Personally, I should like to think that we could nationalize the drug industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Joseph Cashin: However, I realize this would be a difficult thing to do owing to the fact that so many United States companies are involved. Therefore, if we could bring the United States companies into line perhaps what we ought to do is to internationalize the drug industry in both countries.
I say this because it seems to me that those in this industry have a greater responsibility than those engaged in the manufacture of soap. I see no difference in the way the drug manufacturers conduct their business and the way those who manufacture soap conduct theirs. Perhaps the people of Canada would not mind paying a few extra cents for their soap if they knew that some of their money went into promotion and advertising which in turn would pay for "Bonanza" and other popular programs. But when a considerable amount of the consumers' money is used in this wasteful way by the drug industry I think it is a different kettle of fish.
23033-53J
Prescription Drugs
Accordingly, I feel that when this matter comes before the committee on food and drugs serious consideration should be given to the proposition I have put forth. I realize the difficulties involved and they do not arise just because the industry is not nationally owned or centred in Canada. I could go on at great length-I should like to do so at some later date-to list some of the particular aspects of waste and inefficiency in the drug industry which, in view of its importance to the general public of Canada, should come under much stricter control and regulation than is now the case. It seems to me that it would be desirable, if it was in fact feasible, to nationalize this industry.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the general motion introduced by the hon. member is one I support wholeheartedly, though the one reservation I have about it is that if the industry is going to conduct its affairs as it is now it would be better if we paid for these drugs out of public funds than ask people who can ill afford to do so to pay for them themselves. It would be a far more desirable state of affairs if this could be avoided, but I do not think the matter of free prescription drugs can really be considered without taking into consideration some of the complaints which many Canadians have about the operation of the drug industry. In saying this I am in no way casting reflections on individuals who are necessarily engaged in the industry; I think it is the system that is at fault. They think they are in the same kind of business in many ways as soap manufacturers when in fact they are not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour reserved-


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour reserved for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
The house will now revert to the consideration of the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the following resolution-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Batten in the chair:
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,720,674,987.61, being the aggregate of-
(a) Four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except Agriculture items 5 and 60.
[Stage Direction]
February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
External Affairs item 5, Finance item 15, Fisheries items 5, 10 and 20, Forestry item 15, Justice item 1, Labour item 15, Legislation item 5, Mines and Technical Surveys item 50, National Film Board item 1, National Revenue item 5, Northern Affairs and National Resources items 1 and 45, Trade and Commerce item 15 for which the proportion is three twelfths; Legislation item 20, Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45 and 60, Northern Affairs and National Resources item 15, Secretary of State item 30 and Transport item 95 for which the proportion of two twelfths; Mines and Technical Surveys item 25 and National Research Council item 10 for which the proportion is one twelfth; Agriculture items 25 and 45, Atomic Energy item 5, External Affairs items 15 and 20, Legislation item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys item 70, Northern Affairs and National Resources item 5 and Loans, Investments and Advances items L30 and L95 for which no proportion is granted hereby $1,389,658,181.35;
(b)	Four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1966, as laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament except Finance item 15b for which the proportion is one twelfth, and Agriculture items 17b, 25b and 35b, Mines and Technical Surveys item 70b and Loans, Investments and Advances item L78b for which no proportion is granted, $76,800,986.34;
(c)	Eleven twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $254,215,819.92, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1966.
Provided the amounts hereby authorized to be paid and applied in respect of these items shall be deemed to include and not be in addition to the amounts authorized for such items by the special warrants issued by the Governor General pursuant to orders of the Governor in Council of November 1, 1965 (P.C. 1965-1966), November 29, 1965 (P.C. 1965-2131), December 29, 1965 (P.C. 19652330), January 7, 1966 (P.C. 1966-38) and January 17, 1966 (P.C. 1966-96) for $163,176,450, $345,696,168, $399,294,249, $12,000,000 and $425,000 respectively.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before six
o'clock I was discussing a matter affecting those members of the house who are interested in labour problems. I was suggesting that for the sake of harmony among the staff of the House of Commons some consideration should be given by each and every member to a very important matter. I apologize for the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has to have his time used in this way but is one of the occasions when a member of parliament is able to raise matters which come before parliament in a general way. For this reason I think that now is a very appropriate time to raise this particular matter.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: I did not interrupt the hon. member before the private members' hour but I am wondering if he has taken into account

the fact that some of the remarks he is making now have to do with a decision of the house which was passed by a resolution on January 21 regarding the new rules of the house. Has he taken that into account in the remarks he now makes?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this is the vehicle that caused the difficulty. What I am really discussing is not the rules or the changes in the rules but the results of those changes, as they affect members of the staff, and also to the extent that we are involved through legislation for the payment of wages to that staff. I agree that the house has made certain changes, and I should not presume to refer to those changes except with respect to the end result which, as I see it, has arisen from this particular change.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully submit to the Chair and to the hon. member that the remarks he is making with respect to the decision of the house, that private members' hour will be during the dinner hour, are out of order. However, I should be willing to undertake to the hon. member to take the matter of staff up with the commissioners of internal economy to make sure that the house is adequately staffed to carry out its decision, which was that it should sit through the ordinary dinner hour.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those remarks probably as well as the minister does. However I think that this was not really a point of order; it was an explanation.


An hon. Member:: A commitment.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, also a commitment which I am doubtful can be honoured, although it has already been undertaken.
May I say something in regard to some observations I made earlier? I believe I mentioned the translators. I apologize to the house leader for having used that word, because what I really meant was the interpreters. The interpreters staff of this house has a complement, as established I believe by the internal economy commission of the house, of 17 members. I presume, and I am only presuming, that Canada does live up to the labour code, and to the code that the Interpreters International agrees to, that allows intepret-ers to work for certain periods and to have certain periods off. The Canadian government has violently abused this code in the past.
February 7, 1966

The reason the government has abused that code is that interpreters are very scarce. We cannot get a full complement. The 17 interpreters the house is supposed to have turn out to be only 12. I suggest that this is not a sufficient number to carry out the duties they are going to have to carry out. Anyone who has studied the matter will know that the rules which have been laid down by international agreement indicate that these persons are being abused in the work they have to undertake in committee, and that they therefore find themselves taxed beyond their capabilities. That would be so if they were called on to do translation work in the house without taking on the added onerous job of committee work. However, the government has also used these people for what I call outside committees, and they do not pay them for these. They are hired by the year. They are on salary, and therefore they are working buckshee. They are moonlighting on behalf of the government, on the orders of the government, and the government takes advantage of these people.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that all members of the Liberal party, who were so very proud of the terms adopted in the new labour code which they were willing to tell everyone about during the recent election, would agree that at least the same kinds of terms should be applied to the people working in the House of Commons. I spoke to a member of the staff during the private members' hour, and I find that the system used is a very odd one, because some members of the staff decide that they will go and eat, and they have not really any replacement at all. They just slip out whenever it is possible to, get something to eat, and come back. There is no replacement.
These conditions should not exist. I should like to think that I am not out of order, but may I ask why they exist? I should also like to say, confining my remarks within the rules, that there are a number of things that a private member can do about this. You may have noticed during the debates of this house that the Prime Minister is very seldom if ever here, and also that most of the cabinet ministers are not here. There is some kind of tacit agreement that things should not be left entirely alone, and there are usually two ministers here. That may vary. I have no objection to this. If you look at my party you will find that we have a tacit agreement that we are not here all the time.
I think it might be advantageous if we were here. I think it might be advantageous
Interim Supply
for the house to operate as a real committee, with most of the members in that committee. I suggest a number of things, Mr. Chairman. My first suggestion would be that we take a roll call. That does not mean that the Clerk Assistant of the House should rise and call everybody's name. However, I think that there are ways we could have a roll call. It is a fact that there are members who are never in this house from one month to another. I have not been here very long, but I have been here a few years. However, in my opinion there were more members in this house for the several votes in the last few weeks than I have ever seen before.
This may be a good thing. It may also produce some very interesting results in the next few weeks. Mr. Chairman, what I am getting at is that I think the house should function properly, and to enable it to function there should be some rules. The Prime Minister or house leader should be in the house occasionally, and they should be prepared now to tell us what the timetable for the rest of the session is. They should be able to tell us now if we are going to have an Easter recess, not for my convenience to enable me to know what I am going to do, but at least so that the staff who work for us in the house and in the complex surroundings it should know what they will be able to do, and how they are to arrange their business.
Mr. Chairman, if some things happen as I expect they will, in the next few weeks, we might pass through some items of legislation embarrassingly quickly. If that happens the government may have to call a recess that it is not prepared for.


An hon. Member:: This has happened
before?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, it has happened before. I can see that this might be embarrassing. I do not think governments should operate in this way. I think that there should be a timetable, and if the government is going to have a summer recess, then why not say so now?
I am unhappy with the fact that parliament has a gun to its head all the time. If it is not the government, then it is the opposition. It is undoubtedly true that there is a gun held to somebody's head all the time to get something done to suit somebody, on some particular occasion.
This is an impossible situation. Soon committees will start at nine o'clock in the morning and go to 10.30 at night, theoretically without a break. That will not be impossible for members of parliament who, I know, are

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
endowed with a very strong constitution, but at least let us think about the staff who are going to be involved in this stupid rat race we are setting for ourselves.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I think the government has an obligation to act in these circumstances. The Prime Minister also has an obligation. I am sure he did not take into consideration the fact that people would be sitting through their lunch hour when he decided on a six months' recess last year. We were in an awful hurry before that election was called. It was doubtful whether we could get away by June; but we did get away all right. Then the Prime Minister decided that an election should be called. Time went by; the recess lasted six months. Now we have this terrific rush again. Let us look at the reasons for it. We have designed rules to take care of many of the problems which face us. We brought in one rule which would enable a start to be made on our committees work as soon as parliament met. But the committees have not been set up yet, though the business of the session is already almost a month old.
Mr. Chairman, the committees will be meeting, the house will be meeting and everything will be happening at the same time, all of this involving exactly the same people who function for the rest of the year. In any other establishment some kind of organization would be set up to deal with this chaotic situation. It is not your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, but you are well aware that we asked a senior civil servant to assist us in the better arrangement of our affairs. What happened to him? He ended up in the hospital and as soon as he got out he decided to quit. I don't blame him one little bit. He found that in all his experience there was no way of bringing organization into this chaos. Why do we not sit down for a few hours and try to reach a sensible solution. We are not going to make this country happy by arranging to work from 9 in the morning until 11 at night, if attendance is to be limited to the few members who are present in this chamber now.
Where are the rest? They went for supper; they are taking their turns. Well, Mr. Chairman, if parliament is of no value, why do we have it at all? If it is of value why do we not arrange to allow as many as possible to participate in its work. We should not sit through supper at the expense of the staff. This protest which I am making will probably not get anywhere. In all probability nothing will be done about it.


Mr. Bigg:: Headlines.


William Arnold Peters: I missed that. I do not think anything will be done about it because the people who could do something about it do not want to do anything about it. We can make all the silly changes in the rules that we want to make, but we shall have to change them more fundamentally if they are to meet the needs of the time, with all the many operations which have to be carried out. We are now discussing estimates from last year. We are being asked in interim supply to pass estimates in relation to money which has almost been spent. We are reaching the stage when eleven twelfths will have been spent. It is important, they say, that we should pass these estimates quickly. If that is so, why did we take a six months' holiday?
We have reached a stage at which we have decided to make changes in our rules in order to help us carry on the nation's business-not that this will help members of parliament. I have belonged to a number of organizations. I have been associated with the labour movement for a long time. I have taken part in the work of many committees and seen a lot of work done, but I think there has never been a committee in which I have been involved which was less apt to get things done than a committee of the House of Commons.
I believe the rules of parliament could still be improved, and if hon. members wish to improve them I suggest they do so. But merely lengthening the hours will not accomplish their purpose. You were here, Mr. Chairman, when we facetiously said at the beginning of the session that we would add a couple of hours to each day. Do you remember when we extended the hours and the hon. member for Port Arthur, the late Mr.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Our late colleague, our recent colleague, our departed colleague, made a motion extending the hours. But he forgot one thing. We had agreed that we should also sit on Sunday, because this was a day which seemed to be going to waste. He deleted the part about Sunday but left in the other extended hours. And the house went on to establish the longest session in parliamentary history up to that date. Instead of shortening the session we had lengthened it. Indeed, it could not possibly be any longer. It went on from one date to a year later at another date, and failed to accomplish anything at all.
Perhaps we are not competent to make the necessary changes. Perhaps we are not adult
February 7, 1966

enough in this place to do anything about it. But I would point out that we are now likely to be here for three or four years, if only because most members of parliament are well aware that nobody in the country wants another election. They are also aware that most members will find it necessary to accomplish a good deal of business if they are to be returned after the next election, whenever it takes place.
This should make for a good parliament. But we need to consider carefully what we are doing to the staff and to ourselves. We need to consider whether we can arrive at a better way of doing business. There is no need to fight another election. Hon. members need not throw campaign speeches around any longer. Ever since 1957 when I was first elected to this chamber every member has been campaigning constantly from the day he arrived till the day he had to leave. Perhaps this was understandable, since no one knew when an election might come. But I am sure that the Canadian public is not prepared for another election. This means that the people in power are probably not ready for one either. If we are to be here for another two or three years let us plan accordingly and do something sensible about the rules. Mr. Chairman, if we do not seek in every way possible to make these changes I will harass the government, and I intend to take every opportunity to do this. It can be done by one person. I am not asking for the support of anyone.
I do not think the rules are as good as they could be. I am not suggesting the changes I have in mind are the best, but I have not talked to anyone who agrees that taking away this supper hour will add nothing to the efficiency of the House of Commons. It will do nothing for the staff except create new appointments which really, would not be necessary if we were to revert to the old order of business.
I hope the government will consider these representations and give an answer to them. The newspapers will be watching this situation and they will be as hard on the government as they will be on the rest of us. On every occasion when the government fails to raise a quorum, they will make it known. Every time the government is represented by fewer members than the opposition, the public will hear about it. If this is the way in which they intend to operate in future, I strongly suggest to the government that it take steps to secure better attendance. The whip will find it hard to duplicate what he
Interim Supply
did at a quarter to six. For these reasons I hope the house leaders can get together to bring about a change which I believe is long overdue.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I, as a representative of labour, hope that some of the labour unions will take an interest in the House of Commons in the near future. I invite any of them who represent people who work in similar professions or trades to come to this house and organize the workers in it. They can do so out of my office, if they wish, and I hope the day will come when on parliament hill we can provide labour conditions that will at least be as reasonable as those provided in other industries, in other fields-yes, and even in the civil service of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Timiskaming brought himself into order by some unusual procedural acrobatics, I would like to support him in what he has said because we are dealing with a labour problem right here in this house. The hon. member is quite right in saying he has not met anyone who is really satisfied with our present arrangements. I want to support his protest against sitting during the dinner hour because, in the first place, it is distinctly unfair to the staff.
The hon. member for Timiskaming speaks from the heart; he does not speak from the book. When he was speaking on external affairs the other day he made an excellent speech. He was complimented right and left and was mentioned in the press. If anyone wonders why, it is because he spoke the language of the farmers, the men who walk behind the plough, or nowadays ride behind it. He spoke the language of the miners, the men who wield the picks, and the language of the men who use their saws in the woods. He is in close touch with the people he represents and I give him every credit for that.
Even though this matter has already been dealt with this session, I would suggest that there be a reconsideration of it. I have talked to quite a number of the staff, and personally I think it is most unfair to the Hansard angels. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I never forget to mention them. I understand there is someone being trained at present, or some people who may join the staff in the future. The same is true of the interpreters, of some other sections of the staff, and of the Hansard reporters. There are also others who are affected during the dinner hour. I support the

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
hon. member for Timiskaming wholeheartedly and I ask that some consideration be given to the staff.
Looking around at my hon. friends on the Conservative benches I may say that I understand on good authority they were largely responsible for our sitting during the dinner hour.


Mr. McIntosh:: You have been talking to the Grits.


Michael Starr: Your whip was pressing for it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand some of their backbenchers are not in agreement with it but, Mr. Chairman, this conversation that is going on here makes it difficult for me to be heard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Ontario is blaming me. I moved an amendment last session to get rid ot it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No matter who moved what, I trust this late effort on the part of the radical section of the N.D.P. will bear fruit in the near future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very much surprised at the last sentence or two from the hon. member for Kootenay West, blaming the Conservative party for the changes that have transpired in the rules. These changes were brought in by the government. The N.D.P. always supports the government and that is why we have these new rules. We were not the ones-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Was it not his leader, the leader of the official opposition, who proposed and pushed for the idea of sitting between six and eight?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, we certainly have heard everything now, trying to put the blame as usual on the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, isn't it the truth?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of course he is the most prominent, and active, and able politician in Canada at the present time, but everything that happens that does not meet with the approval of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre must be blamed on the Leader of the Opposition. Why don't you blame the government? You support the government all the time; put the blame where it belongs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you supported the government on this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: To blame the Leader of the Opposition for this is simply ridiculous, but is in keeping with the attitude of the members of the N.D.P. If they blamed the government-


William Arnold Peters: I was blaming the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -there might be some disappearance of that mutual admiration that they have for each other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Don't include me in that appellation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But over the years we have had the N.D.P. acting as Liberals in a hurry and now they want to put on our party, and on the Leader of the Opposition, the blame for something that was done by the Liberal government. What else do you want to blame on the Leader of the Opposition?
Let me say this about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He was the activating force in the committee on rules that worked for a couple of years trying to change completely the nature of this institution, and we had to spend a great deal of time restraining him. He was so convinced in his own mind that his ideas in regard to parliament were so superior to anyone else's that he bamboozled the members of that committee, along with one or two other former members of the house who are no longer with us, and tried to impose his will on the House of Commons. Now he wants to blame the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I propose sitting between six and eight? I certainly did not.


Mr. Smith:: No; it was a good idea.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I just say with regard to the words of wisdom given to us by the hon. member for Timiskaming that there are certain matters he brought up that should be considered very seriously. If the members of the staff of the House of Commons are being seriously inconvenienced by the rules we have now adopted, that should be corrected and corrected immediately. That is up to the government. The committee on internal Economy can deal with this thing right away and make provision so that the staff of the House of Commons is not inconvenienced.
So far as the members themselves are concerned the rule change providing for us to sit through the dinner hour on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the lunch hour on Fridays, is an experiment for one session. If it does not work it can be thrown out. If it does work it should achieve the object which
February 7, 1966

so many people have been after for a long time around here, the object of shortening the sessions of parliament.
We have heard that cry year after year, but by adding eight hours per week to our sittings it should be possible to complete the business of parliament in a normal year in six to seven months. That is why the hours of sitting have been enlarged. We were sitting only 25J hours per week previously. Now it is up to 331 hours. In days gone by we found that we had to extend the hours during the last two or three weeks of the session, sit late at night, and sit on Saturdays. Those who want to abolish the present rule will have to provide some alternative so that the house sits for a longer period than 25i hours a week. That is the way I see it.
Had I not been stirred up by the members of the N.D.P. and their unfair attack on the Leader of the Opposition I would not have spoken at this length. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I see no particular purpose in prolonging the discussion of interim supply. What I wanted to do was to express my sympathy with the Minister of National Revenue who has been selected as the sacrificial lamb, or sacrificial goat for the Liberal party. If his name is recorded in the history of this institution, as I am sure it will be, attached to it forever will be the fact that he was the minister who had to come in sack cloth and ashes to the House of Commons and ask for interim supply for the eleventh month of the fiscal year.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: This is a good suit.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I express my sympathy to him.


An hon. Member:: It should have been the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Transport.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish it had been the Minister of Public Works, the leader of the house, or the Minister of Transport-that would have been even better-who had to come here and ask the house for interim supply. Surely the Minister of Transport should have been the one to perform this difficult task on behalf of the government. Yet, no, the poor Minister of National Revenue had to sacrifice himself for his colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue has gained this distinction, he has set an important precedent. I should like to 23033-54
Interim Supply
let him know how important that precedent is. The Prime Minister has indicated how important it is. Let me quote the Prime Minister, who has a great understanding of parliament, when he made this statement on December 19, 1962 as recorded in Hansard at page 2834:
There is, I believe, no precedent in our parliamentary history for a government asking for the tenth monthly instalment of the total expenditures for a year before one single item of annual expenditure has been voted by parliament-not one. This is something that has not happened before in our parliamentary history.
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward its destruction.
What do we now have facing us and facing the Minister of National Revenue? What does that hon. gentleman have on his shoulders now but that, to use the words of the Prime Minister, which is destroying parliament. The Prime Minister said that when these rights are ignored and violated parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward the destruction of parliament. In Canada's history the Minister of National Revenue will be credited with having taken this fatal step by coming here asking for the eleventh month of interim supply. He wants a blank cheque for 11 out of 12 months of interim supply to cover the careless spending of the taxpayers' money, without an examination by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel sorry for the poor Minister of National Revenue, and I regret that it was not the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister himself who had to perform this unfortunate task.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, the precedent has been set by the Liberal party. I am pleased to see the Liberal party set precedents. It set another precedent in 1965. I have searched the records and I cannot find another instance when a government was returned to power by the people and immediately suffered the resignations of three senior cabinet ministers. That is another precedent set by the Liberal party. This government was returned to power only to see three members of the cabinet commit hara-kiri. This is the same Liberal government that is destroying parliament by not letting us have control over government expenditures.
No wonder there has been a change in the atmosphere of this house, a change which has

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
been noted by members of the press gallery. The change has been in the humility displayed by the treasury benches which was not evident during the last two and a half years. Those members are now quiet and subdued. The election turned out differently from what they expected and their cabinet is not as strong as it was before. Some of their supporters have had to withdraw and resign and that has made a difference in this place. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not people to gloat over this because it is an unfortunate thing and the great Liberal party should not be suffering so severely.
I note the Minister of Transport has taken his place. In his absence I was expressing my regret that it was the Minister of National Revenue who had to come into the house and humbly ask for interim supply for the eleventh month of the fiscal year. At that time other members suggested that the Minister of Transport would have been a more suitable individual to perform this task. I agree that it might have been better had he been the one to bear the burden for his colleagues in the cabinet, and for the Liberal party in asking for the eleventh month of interim supply and, in the words of the Prime Minister, take that step toward the destruction of parliament.
As I have stated, I see no particular purpose in prolonging the discussion on interim supply. We do not intend to do what the Minister of Transport suggested in his articles of 1962-hold up the vote on interim supply and force the government to the country. That was the irresponsible advice he gave to his party, but we are not going to do that. We do not think it would be the best means of indicating our dissatisfaction with this incompetent government with which we are saddled, to hold up interim supply and prevent cheques going out to employees of the government right across Canada.
The government got itself into this box as a result of its own actions and the Prime Minister carries the major responsibility in this regard. He was the one who called the election after telling us we were coming back in September to finish parliament's business. He called an election which did not come out the way he expected, and his cabinet began to fall apart. He could have called parliament back before Christmas but he did not. He has now had to ask his Minister of National Revenue to humbly beseech parliament to grant interim supply for the eleventh month.

We now have a precedent which will stand for all time, for which the Liberal party is responsible.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is very gratifying to many of us who feel that some consideration should be given to the staff of the House of Commons in respect of an appropriate break in their working day, to hear that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre strongly supports that point of view, as suggested by the remarks just made.
I believe that this committee should give endorsation to those views held by the Conservative party, to allow an appropriate supper break this evening for the staff of this house and for the 13 Liberal members who are now present.
Therefore I should like to move, based upon that support, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, at which time the house can make an appropriate order allowing a recess for supper.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It has been moved by the hon. member for Skeena that this committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again. All those in favour please rise.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: The vote has been called. You cannot rise on a point of order now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, no votes can be taken between six and eight o'clock.
Motion (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 34.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the motion lost. The hon. member for Cariboo.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We did not vote in this vote, but it was my understanding that no votes were to be taken between six and eight o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


Bert Raymond Leboe: -according to the rules.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member is correct, except for the fact that five members did not oppose the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it not take ten?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, there are two important matters which I wanted to raise and discuss before the committee of supply,
February 7, 1966

but the appropriate ministers are not present and I have no wish to hold up this interim supply measure. I am therefore going to content myself with referring to these two matters and express the hope that when we come to the regular estimates we shall be able to get some satisfactory explanation from the government.
The first matter I want to say a word about has to do with Victor G. Spencer whose case I have raised on orders of the day frequently since the session began on January 18. I am not going to take the trouble to review his whole case at this time, except to say that in the opinion of the members of this party this man has been treated shamefully and abominably; that he is being stripped of his rights as a Canadian citizen; that first of all he was accused in a press release by the Department of External Affairs of being implicated in espionage; that later on he was named by the Minister of Justice on a national television program and it was announced that he would be kept under police surveillance for the rest of his life if he continued to live in Canada.
What is even more serious is the fact that this man was dismissed from the civil service without any right of appeal and has been deprived of his pension rights. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the Prime Minister how this man could be dismissed without appeal, when the government itself had set up a committee to hear appeals of civil servants, the Prime Minister's answer was that this man's work did not have to do with security. Yet Mr. Spencer is dismissed because he is considered a bad security risk. More serious still, he was dismissed under section 50 of the Civil Service Act and denied the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
The other day the Prime Minister, as reported at page 497 of Hansard, said:
-Mr. Spencer was given an opportunity to state his side of the case to-
I pause there, Mr. Chairman, because my recollection of what the Prime Minister said and my recollection of what the blues said- and I examined them quite carefully-was that Mr. Spencer was given an opportunity to state his side of the case to the Civil Service Commission, "who explained to him the circumstances that led the Post Office Department to recommend his dismissal". It has since been inserted that he "was given an opportunity to state his side of the case to a senior officer of the Civil Service Commission." The fact is, of course, that this man was
Interim Supply
never allowed to appear before the Civil Service Commission. Apparently a senior officer of the Civil Service Commission interviewed him and on this senior officer's recommendation this man was dismissed without any right of appeal.
When the estimates of the Minister of Justice come before the committee of supply I want to know whether there was a transcript of that interview with Mr. Spencer. I want to know whether Mr. Spencer was allowed to have counsel when he was being interviewed. I want to know whether he was permitted to sign any statement or whether the sole evidence of this man's unfitness to occupy the position which he held in the civil service is the statement of the senior official who interviewed him.
The other day the Minister of Justice on orders of the day said that he had looked into the matter and he was satisfied. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not the keeper of the conscience of the Minister of Justice. If he is satisfied, then he has satisfied himself. But the laws of this country do not just require the Minister of Justice to be satisfied; they require that this house be satisfied and that the courts be satisfied-and this man has had no right of appeal either in the matter of his dismissal, his loss of pension rights, or any opportunity to prove his innocence or have his guilt determined in a properly constituted court of law.
I am not going to argue the case in any detail at this time. Both the Leader of the Opposition and members of the New Democratic party have urged the Prime Minister to appoint a judicial committee to look into this case to see whether or not this man has been deprived of his rights, has had his good name destroyed by the actions of the government and has been improperly dismissed and deprived of his pension rights.
The Prime Minister has promised to look into this matter. We are still awaiting his decision. I should like to say to the government that, while we are prepared to allow these interim estimates to pass at the present time, we shall expect a reply from the government when the estimates of the Minister of Justice come down, when we are dealing with the regular departmental estimates. We shall expect some decision from the government at that time with reference to the appointment of a judicial committee, and we shall expect some better explanation than any of the haphazard, evasive answers which we have had up to the present time.

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, the other matter I wanted to deal with-and, again, I shall only mention it-is the fact that I am disturbed, as I am sure every other member of the House of Commons is disturbed, on reading the report of the Auditor General. This report will undoubtedly be referred to the Public Accounts Committee; but as the Auditor General himself points out, his reports and the reports of the Public Accounts Committee have not always had too powerful an effect upon the government, and certainly have not always been reflected in government action.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
There is, for instance, the reference in the report to the fraudulent and irregular practices which have been brought to light in the administration of the winter works incentive program. There are the very glaring irregularities in the Department of National Defence with particular reference to the men who have been retired on the basis of military service stretching back to nine years of age. There has been references to irregular practices under P.F.A.A.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when the regular estimates come before the house we should have the right to an explanation from each of the ministers, not only as to what has happened but as to what steps they propose to take to correct these situations. I think we might as well serve notice on the government now that we are not going to be satisfied with merely saying that the Auditor General's report will go to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee will file a report to which the government may or may not pay some attention. I feel that the revelations contained in the Auditor General's report are of a sufficiently serious nature that the Committee of Supply is justified in asking for a full and complete statement from the various department affected.
We have a right to demand that the ministers tell us what action they propose to take to rectify the situation in order to satisfy the committee that there will be no recurrence of the practices which the Auditor General found so reprehensible.


Donald MacInnis: When the hon. member for Timiskaming was making his remarks in respect of conditions in the House of Commons, I was reminded of the commitment the minister made that these conditions would be rectified. Just what he intends to do in that respect, I do not know.

However, I ask the minister to give consideration also to the secretarial staff and other staff members of the house in connection with the retroactive pay increases. According to a recent announcement, as I understand it, no consideration will be given to the time worked by the staff when members of parliament were away from Ottawa, a period of six or seven months. The government saw fit to keep this staff at work, and I should like to have a commitment from the minister that when the retroactive pay is being assessed the time when members were away from the House of Commons will be included.


Mr. Priltie:: Mr. Chairman, I know that the government is anxious to get interim supply through, but I make no apology for speaking at this time. I do not believe I have spoken in the house since last May. The question period is becoming increasingly strict, so it is difficult for a backbencher to have an opportunity to say anything. In addition, there are many questions which are not suitable for the order paper. I have a few remarks to make on one or two subjects, none of which will take very long. They are subjects which are very much in the news these days such as the centennial, that hearty perennial Canadian unity, and the question of railway passenger services.
In thinking about the centennial year, 1967, it becomes clear that the majority of Canadians never really see anything of this country except the part in which they live. They may travel 100 or 200 miles away, but the majority never see very much of Canada. For example, I wonder how many people who live in eastern Ontario have ever seen western Canada and, in particular, the beautiful province of British Columbia? I see the Minister of Transport is here. I wonder how many residents of Newfoundland have been off that island? What percentage of the total population of Canada have ever seen Newfoundland? I have not been there myself, although I am looking forward to going one of these days.
I know there are some Canadians who do not want to travel a great deal. In British Columbia there is a feeling that if you have seen the coast, then that is all that is really necessary. It seems to me that in the centennial year we should make every effort to encourage Canadians to travel to other parts of Canada. A start has already been made in this direction. The Centennial Commission has given some grants in the past three years
February 7, 1966

to what they call the youth travel plan. As a result of this plan, thousands of young Canadians have travelled across the country. People from British Columbia and Alberta have come to Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. People from the Atlantic provinces have gone to the west. If you have read accounts by those young people, what they think of other parts of the country, how interesting it was to meet people in other parts of the country, then you realize how important such a program is.
I am thinking of the average Canadian who cannot afford to travel great distances. I am thinking of the average Canadian who works for wages and has two or three weeks vacation each year. He can only go for a short holiday in an automobile. Throughout western Canada, the tendency is to cross the border and go into the northwestern United States. Here, in Ontario, the tendency is to go to New York or the New England states. We do not get to other parts of Canada.
I believe that if you want to encourage people to do this there has to be some practical help given. I suggest that the Centennial Commission should give consideration to a plan for subsidizing travel in Canada during 1967. Subsidies might be given of the sort that are now given to the young people for travel within the country. If you want the average working man in Calgary or Vancouver to go, for example, to Montreal to see Expo '67, then you have to realize he is not going to be able to do it in two weeks vacation driving an automobile. Most of this time would be spent in driving there and back and he would have no time to visit Expo or other parts of eastern Canada.
I want to suggest that serious consideration be given to subsidizing railway transportation in Canada during 1967. This may cost a great deal of money, but I believe it would be worth it. It would have several good effects. In some ways, it would contribute to this thing about which we are always talking, Canadian unity. It would keep within Canada a large amount of Canadian money which is going south of the border each year to pay tourists' expenses. I know that a large amount of money might be involved, but I believe the results would be well worth it. I mention this now because this sort of thing needs a great deal of planning in advance. Railway passenger cars cannot be produced overnight; schedules cannot be arranged. We might even produce enough business by such a plan to
Interim Supply
encourage the Canadian Pacific Railway to keep the "Dominion" going.
However, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we will not achieve this travel in Canada by Canadians from the far corners of the country unless there is some incentive from the government. This incentive would have to take the form of a subsidy of several millions of dollars toward rail transportation. If this is not done I would say that very few people from the far west will ever get to Montreal to see Expo '67. It is no small thing for a person with a family of three or four children and two or three weeks holiday to drive across the continent and meet all the expenses. If he tried to make this trip by train it would be a matter of three days each way, and if there were some fare subsidy I think he would be encouraged to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just have two matters to raise and I think I am justified in raising them at this point. The first is in connection with the staff of the House of Commons. I am informed that the waitresses in the restaurant and cafeterias were entirely overlooked when salary increases were considered. I think this is most unfortunate.
[DOT] (8.00 p.m.)
These are some of the lower paid people. I urge the internal economy commission of the House of Commons to go into this matter to see whether this injustice cannot be corrected as soon as possible. That is item No. 1, Mr. Chairman.
The next item I wish to bring to the attention of the minister who is present, and who I know is very sympathetic to my appeal, is the question of the policy of the B.C. Hydro in relation to the purchase or expropriation of properties along the Arrow Lakes. The chairman of the B.C. Hydro, the famous Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, has indicated to his staff that on no account will they give a detailed appraisal of any property. They simply come to the property owners and the farmers and offer them so much, with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, although they back water a bit in a number of cases.
A question arose when some business people and farmers claimed depreciation on account of their premises or their barns or other properties owned in connection with their operations, and they wanted a detailed appraisal in order to be able to assess the recapture value when it came to filing their income tax returns this year or next year. This

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
matter has concerned them very much indeed. In fact, it is one of the reasons that the Arrow Lakes Property Owners Protective Association has been formed.
This group had a number of meetings and they finally persuaded Hon. Ray Williston to come and listen to their complaints. He spent three hours with them. They took a tape recording of what the minister said, which was a very good thing to do in the circumstances, and afterwards invited me to listen to it.
The minister in question agreed with them. He thought that B.C. Hydro should give them a detailed appraisal of their properties so that they would know what recapture there would be on their properties by way of depreciation which had been claimed in previous years.
I brought this to the attention of the minister last year, and he wrote me what I thought was a very courteous and informative letter. I informed these people of it everywhere I went, had it published in the press and also mailed out a lot of copies. This alerted a lot of them to what may happen in the future. In one instance a farmer claimed depreciation of up to $5,000 on his barn. If he accepts a certain price from B.C. Hydro without a detailed appraisal, then he may accept much less than he might if this matter were taken into consideration.
Unfortunately the minister has failed to act in this matter. I refer to the British Columbia minister, not to the Minister of National Revenue; he is lily white by comparison. Unfortunately, the minister failed to take a stand. A committee was formed, headed by a member of the Social Credit party. Its secretary is a member of our party and the rest of the committee is comprised of members from other parties. I told them they had to have a Social Credit member as chairman, so that it was completely unpartisan; and everybody knows that I speak in an unpartisan manner when I speak on questions of principle, especially moral principle.
I just raise this matter briefly tonight, Mr. Chairman, and I hope it will receive the immediate attention of the minister so that these people can be correctly advised as to the policy of the income tax branch. This will enable them to bring increasing pressure on B.C. Hydro or on the minister concerned in order to obtain a detailed appraisal of their properties, so they know where they stand in relation to any offer made to them by B.C. Hydro.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the committee for taking time at this moment, and I would not do so but for one factor. My remarks this evening, which will be brief, concern the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While the matter could be brought up just as well on his estimates, I see from the list that his estimates are well down and may not be reached for some time. Since it is the general understanding that the government is planning a variety of legislation to alleviate a number of evils in the field of welfare, I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the government in case it has not already been considered.
I refer in particular to the residence requirement connected with recipients of old age assistance, disabled persons allowance and the blind pension. At the present time a person is required to have 10 years residence in this country before he can receive any of these pensions. In a country such as Canada, which is so desperately looking for immigrants and needs them very badly, as everyone in the house knows, it is a very strange thing that at a time when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is trying to get people to come to Canada our legislation discriminates against them.
In the province of Ontario, where the widows pension is paid entirely by the province without federal assistance, the residence requirement is only one year. On the other hand, in the case of old age assistance, disabled persons allowance and the blind pension, to which the federal government contributes a very substantial amount, laying down the regulations in connection therewith, 10 years residence is required. Therefore if the minister or the government are planning any legislation to remedy some of these anomalies, I suggest this is one matter which should be given very careful consideration.
The other matter I wish to raise concerns the requirements for those who apply for disabled persons allowance. I am sure every member of this house regardless of party has constantly run into the problem of the person who is disabled, cannot work, cannot make any money, and is turned down for disabled persons allowance because he cannot meet the requirement that he be totally and permanently disabled. Under the present interpretation of the requirements, and under instructions from the government, a person practically has to have both arms and both legs off before he is eligible for this pension.
February 7, 1966

This seems to me ridiculous. I am sure every hon. member knows of case after case of persons really in need of this pension, being unable to work and eventually ending up on municipal relief of some sort. These people should get the pension but do not.
I would suggest to the government that if in fact they are giving consideration to this sort of circumstance two requirements might be met, and these regulations accordingly changed. One is that you cannot have everyone applying for this type of pension. There should be some basic requirement, such as that a person has been disabled for 12 months. It seems to me that the present requirement that a person be totally and permanently disabled is very difficult to meet, particularly as some doctors are really rigid with regard to signing certificates to this effect. Therefore it seems to me that unemployability should be the criterion to apply in deciding whether to grant a pension.
As long as a person is in the condition of being unemployable, or is unable to seek employment and make a living, he or she should receive this pension. There should be, let us say, a 12-month disability period as a basic requirement. Unemployability should be the criterion, not the strange, rigid rule presently applicable-namely that a person has to be totally and permanently disabled.
I think the present regulation is an iniquitous one which has worked great hardship on many people, as I am sure all hon. members know. If the government is planning legislation in this regard I certainly hope they will give consideration to a new criterion, namely that a person be substantially disabled and not able to work. I think this would be a more realistic approach to the matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Transport has just been called out of the chamber because I wanted to tell him that I was one up on the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, who was speaking a few minutes ago, in that I did have an opportunity of visiting the beautiful constituency of Bonavista-Twillingate, which the minister represents in this house, and that I had indeed climbed to the top of the lighthouse tower of Cape Bonavista.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you probably realize that my principal reason for rising is not to talk about the glories of that constituency, or indeed of any other at this moment. What I wish to do, Mr. Chairman, is to tell
Interim Supply
the Minister of Transport that when his departmental estimates are called I, as one member of this house, want to hear from him something further on the subject of the exclusion from the recently announced shipbuilding subsidies of ships built for a provincial government. I shall want to hear more than we have so far heard from the government side.
The official announcement issued by the minister on February 2 stated simply, with no explanation whatever, that these ships were to be excluded from the provisions of the subsidy payments. Of course some questions on this subject have been asked in this house. A suggestion was made by my colleague from Vancouver East that, in effect, this was discrimination against the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Transport at that time replied, in answer to the question, that this was not in fact the case because the elimination of the subsidy payment applied to all provincially owned ships that might be built.
The fact of the matter, however, is that to the best of my knowledge no indication has come from any provincial government other than that of British Columbia that they object to this provision. I think it is fair to assume, in the absence of any more complete explanation, that the province of British Columbia is the only one which is vitally affected to any extent by this provision. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the announced purpose of the shipbuilding subsidy is quite clear. The announcement says that it is to aid the shipbuilding industry. May I say that for the life of me I cannot see what difference there is, so far as the shipbuilding industry is concerned, between a ship that is built for provincial ownership and a ship that is built for any other ownership.
Members of the house are probably aware that we have a substantial fleet of ferry ships in the province of British Columbia which are held in the name of a crown corporation in right of the province. This fleet has in large measure replaced the service formerly provided, among others, by the Canadian Pacific, and at one time, by the Black Ball ferry system.
As the proposal now stands, if ferries were now being operated by either of these two privately owned firms, ships that they ordered for construction would be eligible for the subsidy. Therefore I think there is a prima facie case of discrimination against

February 7, 1966
Interim Supply
publicly owned and publicly operated shipping services. I think that the Minister of Transport, when we come to his estimates, should be expected to give to the house a major policy statement in respect of this matter.
I should like to inform the minister and the house, Mr. Chairman, that I am receiving a good many representations on this subject from my own constituents, who are vitally concerned. Rightly or wrongly the government of British Columbia is taking the position that this refusal or this lack of coverage for provincially built ships under the subsidy program is such that the government of British Columbia is not going to construct new ships for proposed ferry extension services. I know of at least two proposed extensions, which are under discussion and consideration, that the provincial government says it will not inaugurate so long as the present program remains as it is.
I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that I am not suggesting it is not within the financial capacity of the government of British Columbia to extend these two services. The requirements are fairly modest. I want to make it quite clear that it is foolish and not in the public interest that the people of the communities affected should have ferry services withheld while discussion on this matter is going on between federal and provincial authorities.
I also want to make it clear that I have little sympathy with some of the far fetched allegations and statements that are being made by certain ministers and other spokesmen for the government of British Columbia. At the same time I find it completely beyond my understanding as to why this exclusion should exist. I am serving notice at this time that I expect the Minister of Transport, when his departmental estimates are called, to give to the house a very full explanation of the reasoning behind the government's announcement of this decision.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to make a few brief remarks on the estimates now before the house.
I should like to go back on the observations made by the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) a few moments ago.
Barely an hour ago, while I was in the cafeteria myself, a couple of obliging and efficient waitresses asked me to make representations on their behalf as it seems they

are not included among the civil servants who are to be granted increases in the not too distant future.
I, therefore, wish to ask the minister not to forget those very conscientious workers who try, in every way, to give the very best service to those who go to the cafeteria.
There is another point I would like to mention to the minister: There seems to be some apprehension among the secretaries with regard to the way in which the amount of their increase will be arrived at.
They do not seem to know how to proceed to have their qualifications recognized and, hence, to submit their claims. Will a committee made up of competent people be established to assess the merits of those secretaries? They seem to know nothing about what is going on.
Therefore, I should like to ask the minister-I know him to be very humane-to be kind enough to consider this matter so that those secretaries are treated with justice and fairness.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I rise to remind the ministers who are affected that we shall be looking forward to a very complete report on the progress that is being made in connection with the paving and construction of the Alaska highway. This highway is very important not only to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Alberta, but to those of the United States, Alaska and Canada.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I should also like to remind the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and the Minister of Public Works, that highway No. 16 from the west boundary of Jasper park is now being completed and is under heavy construction at this time. Soon it will be ready for heavy traffic. But there is much work to be done in the Jasper area between the town of Jasper and the western boundary of the park. We are thankful to the minister for laying out about $1,250,000 for the extension of this work but I must advise him that several millions more will be required because there is a lot of rock work to be done and this is bound to take some time. We hope the minister will take this matter to heart and really get something going in this direction, because the project to which I refer is on the main artery from Edmonton and Calgary to the interior, part of what is known as the Yellowhead route to the coast. At times when other highways are blocked by
February 7, 1966

snow-in spite of the great work which has been done in the Rogers pass area-this route is usually clear; very little snow falls on it. Accordingly it would make an ideal second route even for those travelling from the southern part of the province.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West and I could not help feeling sympathy with what he said on behalf of these individuals in respect of whom the proper appraisals have not been made by B.C. Hydro. I can foresee a great deal of difficulty for these people when they set up their tax returns, arising from the fact that they have not been given a proper outline of their assessments. My advice to these people would be this: They should take what advantage they can of their situation by asking the income tax department to send an expert out there on a special visit to consider how to deal with this problem. The income tax department would then be faced with the necessity of examining this question and finding out exactly where these individuals stand. This is an important question to the individuals involved. I can understand their problem and I have a great deal of sympathy with them.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that toward 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 $1,720,674,987.61, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-116, 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 and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Now? By unanimous consent, now.


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of the bill.
Ways and Means


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the bill passes second reading can the minister assure the house that it is in the customary and usual form?


Edgar John Benson: I am very pleased to give that assurance. Except for one little error with respect to a date which was in the resolution, the bill is identical with the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon- Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to clause 2 of the bill. Shall clause 2 carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the committee does not have any copies of the bill at all. We cannot proceed until we do.


Edgar John Benson: Copies are on the table and can be distributed.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On clause 2-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I congratulate the
minister upon having found an error in the resolution, and which has been corrected in the bill. But I wonder, just so that the Auditor General will not come back and deny the minister the $100 million or so involved in this, whether something should not be done to correct the record so far as the earlier resolution is concerned.
In clause 2 on page 2, line 44, it will be noted that reference is made to an order in council of November 1, 1965, the number of which was P.C. 1965 dash 1-9-6-6 but in the resolution which the house passed earlier today, the wording was "P.C. 1965-66". That is the error that has been corrected; but unless something is done about it the record will show that we passed a resolution today which was not quite correct.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the error having been noted, I believe with unanimous consent we could have the resolution corrected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am certainly prepared to agree but I would suggest it be corrected where the resolution appears both in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that the resolution be corrected both as it appears in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings'!
February 7, 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (International Commissions for Supervision and Control in Indochina), secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; Canadian participation in the Commonwealth Arts Festival to be held in Britain in the fall of 1965; payments to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International Park; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $13,176,800.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on the subject of Southern Rhodesia. I expressed my thoughts on the Viet Nam situation the other day but I do not think enough attention has been paid by the committee to the problem created by the actions taken by Southern Rhodesia and by Canada in the current situation.
I support the criticism of the hon. member for Oxford of the method by which the government has approached this problem. I regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not at the opening of this session of parliament present us with a white paper, setting out the facts concerning Southern Rhodesia. He had time to prepare one, all November, all December and part of January, and it would have been very helpful to us.
I also regret that the minister did not present a resolution to the house asking the approval of parliament for the action taken
[The Chairman.]

by the government. Now in a roundabout way he is attempting to get the approval of the house for his actions. As recorded at page 700 of Hansard for February 3, speaking about Southern Rhodesia, the minister said:
That is what is involved in this problem and that is why the government has taken the position it has. That is why I am asking this house, by the reaction it takes to these measures, to clearly indicate that the course we have taken in support of Britain, and other Commonwealth countries, with the aid of countries outside the Commonwealth, was a course of wisdom, a course of courage and a course that represents a necessary development of our foreign policy.
How does the minister get the approval or disapproval of the house by that method? The normal procedure is to divide the house, if it wishes to divide, or have a resolution placed in front of it so that a decision can be reached one way or the other. Is the minister going to interpret the things that have been said here as representing the approval by the house of his wisdom and courage in his conduct of our foreign policy? I am not at all sure that I approve of any wisdom on his part, and I am not sure where the courage comes in. What is the danger that would call forth courage under these circumstances?
Now and again the minister gets off into the stratosphere and I would like to bring him down to earth. He bases his case for the action taken by the government on the Export and Import Permits Act, sections 3(c) and 5(c) which permit the act to be applied in circumstances "to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment," and he has placed in front of us an exchange of letters between Canada and Great Britain.
It may well be that technically he can base his case on that exchange of letters and on those sections of of the act, but I suggest to him that the act was never intended for the purpose for which he has used it. If the minister referred to Hansard for 1947 he would find set out in it the reasons for the drawing up of that act and its presentation to the house. It was drawn up as a modification of the War Measures Act.
In 1947 parliament was trying to divest itself of the excessive powers which were necessary in wartime. One of the problems that faced the government of the day was the question of what to do when there was a scarcity of essential goods, when countries around the world were looking for some of the materials and foodstuffs available in this country, and when Canada itself was looking for materials and supplies from other countries. So an arrangement was worked out
February 7, 196G	COMMONS
whereby control was vested in the government by virtue of the Export and Import Permits Act.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The purpose of the act is set out very clearly, and those who are interested may look at Hansard of February 18, 1947, pages 568 to 569. I will just read what the then minister of trade and commerce said on that occasion, and I quote:
While the main purpose of the export control is to ensure adequate supply in Canada, the export controls are also necessary to enable us to carry out Canada's commitments in connection with those foodstuffs which are in world short supply and which, by common agreement of the united nations, must be formally allocated to ensure an equitable distribution.
He then stated:
A similar situation arises in connection with the carrying out of our food contracts with the United Kingdom. A third type of control which is envisaged by this measure is that relating to the movement of arms, munitions and war materials and supplies.
That was the situation in 1947. Similarly, import controls were introduced into the act in order that goods brought into Canada that were in short supply might be allocated among those firms, corporations or individuals who required them, without anyone cornering the market.
In 1954 that act was rewritten and brought up to date, and the controls were continued. In 1954 a section (c) to paragraph 3 and paragraph 5 was introduced. If one reads the debates of 1954 he will find some comment with regard to that particular section. I will give you the citation as it appears on March 18, 1954 at page 3140. At that time the committee of the whole house was discussing clause 3(c) and Mr. Donald Fleming said:
-what governmental arrangements... are now in existence?
Mr. Dickey, who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade and commerce replied:
The only one... Is the United Nations resolution relating to the shipment of arms and materials of war to red China.
I submit, sir, that the Export and Import Permits Act was devised to control very largely the exports from this country of materials that might be used for war purposes and, on the import side, to be used in case the Canadian economy was disrupted by an influx of goods that were not needed, particularly agricultural products. One might think in terms of butter, turkeys, small fruits and so on.
DEBATES	851
Supply-External Affairs
This brings us to the present time. The minister has extended the use of this act to impose economic sanctions against Rhodesia. I think he has misused the act because it was never intended for that purpose. Of course it was intended to prevent the supply of comfort to enemy nations, by preventing their purchase of military supplies in Canada. In troubled or sensitive areas of the world, as external affairs calls them, war materials should not be supplied.
The minister has attempted to rely on what was done in respect of South Africa a couple of years ago when the export to South Africa of military supplies was prohibited. He used a rather strange example and said that trucks were not permitted to be exported from Canada because they might be used for military purposes. That sounded a bit ludicrous because all sorts of things can be used for military purposes. One could use bicycles, motorcycles, hand carts or wheelbarrows in times of war for military purposes. However, the act was used then to prevent the export of trucks from Canada. I am not at all sure that that was a wise use of the act. However, he built his case on this and said that this was a progression and that we had now reached the stage, based upon this example from the past, where we could use the act for sanction purposes against Rhodesia.
I am in complete agreement with the concept that military supplies should not be sent to Rhodesia, because it has become a sensitive area; but I think it is wrong to impose sanctions against Rhodesia by the use of this act. The proper step and the one that should have been taken would be by resolution to this house and approval by parliament before any action was taken. If action had to be taken rapidly, then there should have been subsequent validation of that action by parliament.
In this case the government has used arbitrary power-government by order in council. It has neglected parliament. When we were in opposition in the years of 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 we were fighting the battle of arbitrary control, fighting the battle of government by order in council, and we had many interesting debates on that subject. The government now has slipped back into this use of controls without reference to parliament. I give fair warning to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that when the Export and Import Permits Act comes up for review by July of this year we will attack his misuse of this act, and his
February 7, 1966

Supply-External Affairs flouting of parliament by his action on this occasion.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the minister could not obtain support for his policy with regard to Rhodesia had he brought a resolution forward. I think the House of Commons might have agreed with him. On the other hand we should have been given an opportunity to discuss the matter, allowing those who do not agree with his policy to register that disagreement.
I should now like to draw the minister's attention to another subject. Why did the minister not set out before parliament the five principles on which Great Britain and Rhodesia attempted to come to terms before that fatal day of November 11 when unilateral action was taken by Rhodesia? Why did he not set out those five principles and allow us to consider them? Why did he not suggest to us that our aim at this time is to reopen negotiations with Rhodesia? Why did he withdraw our trade commissioner in Southern Rhodesia? What harm was he doing there. He has left an international commissioner in Viet Nam, which is costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he suggests that we still have a chance to talk with opposition forces in an attempt to get them to negotiate, but with this sister country within the commonwealth he immediately withdraws our only point of contact, the trade commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I think the action taken by the minister is wrong in regard to Southern Rhodesia and the withdrawing of the trade commissioner there. We now have no one with whom we can keep in contact to obtain a clear picture of the situation there.
I suggest the minister has failed to give us a proper outline of the attitudes that have been set forth in other parliaments within the commonwealth. He might have related to us the full story in respect of the debates in the House of Commons at Westminster, the full description of the attitudes taken by the premier of New Zealand and by the former premier of Australia. Why should we not have received a picture as clear as the picture presented in those countries ?
A day or two ago when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in this house he asked this question, as recorded at page 753 of Hansard of February 4, 1966:
What right have the other nations of the Commonwealth then, at the prime ministers' conference to say to a colonial country under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: This is the course you shall follow . . .


What authority has the prime ministers' conference of the nations of the commonwealth to say this thing has got to stop, when it is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of one of the nations of the Commonwealth?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I notice that Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies of Australia expressed a similar point of view. This comes from one of the most experienced prime ministers within the Commonwealth. I quote from a press release received in Ottawa on January 18:
We have taken our decisions on this matter on a ground of important principle, adherence to which is in our opinion of the greatest importance to the long term future and interests of Australia and of the Commonwealth. We put them in this order because-
1.	Our prime duty is to Australia.
2.	If the modern Commonwealth, on the initiative of some or many of its members, begins to claim the right to intervene in and give orders in relation to matters which are the proper concern of some individual member of the Commonwealth, good relations cannot long continue, nor can the present Commonwealth structure long endure.
This is something to which we have to give the greatest and most serious consideration. Have we set a precedent now by which Commonwealth countries are going to interfere with other Commonwealth countries? Some time in the future will Commonwealth countries join together and raise trouble with Canada over something we are doing that is within our own internal jurisdiction? I doubt very much whether the course that has been pursued has been wise.
I should like now to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what attitude is he going to take for the future? He has told us what has been done. There has been escalation of the controls-this escalation has been in about four stages now-imposed against Rhodesia by the nations of the Commonwealth and around the world.
These controls started off with the withdrawal of the Commonwealth preferences and certain restrictions on sterling; then certain export and import controls were imposed, then controls in respect of oil, and just the other day the minister advised us that practically 100 per cent export and import controls had been imposed on Canada's part. So there has been an escalation of the action taken with regard to Rhodesia.
What if these controls fail? This is where I hope the minister will give some guidance to the house. My reason for asking him that question is based upon two grounds. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard when speak-
February 7, 196B	COMMONS
ing the other day in the debate said, as reported at page 727 of Hansard:
1 had hoped it would be made clear to Spain, Portugal and South Africa that should they not join with the rest of us in the imposition of sanctions we are prepared to impose sanctions against them also.
I do not know whether the hon. member was speaking with the knowledge and support of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but he is an important member on the government side and the minister had better tell us whether or not what the hon. member said meets with his approval. At page 728 the hon. member went on to say:
If sanctions do not work, then the only and ultimate weapon, may I say, that the international community has at the moment is force and the use of force.
He said further on:
Therefore it is important for us and for all the countries of the world that we should be determined in this instance to see that these sanctions work.
How are we going to make sure that these sanctions work; and if they fail, are we going to resort to force? The hon. member for York South made the usual fluent speech that he makes in this house. I listened to him without much trouble. I find he is easy to listen to, but I always examine what he has to say with the greatest care because he can lull you into fault. He was talking the other day about what I would call the blood bath theory. He led us to believe in the course of his remarks that what is happening in some of the developing countries of the world is a replica of what has happened to nations with a long history.
He recalled to our minds that our ancestors went through centuries of bloodshed in order to establish their freedom and he left the impression with me that we should immediately withdraw from any involvement in Africa and let the people there fight it out. I think that is a wrong thing to suggest in this century and I was surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not immediately answer the hon. member for York South. The minister gave me the impression that he rather approved of some of the things the hon. member was saying, and I think it is high time the minister told us whether or not he did approve of those remarks.
That brings me in the five or six minutes I have left, Mr. Chairman, to this question. How far is the minister prepared to go? His government has imposed economic sanctions
DEBATES	853
Supply-External Affairs against Southern Rhodesia. I am not here to defend Mr. Ian Smith and the action he has taken; I am concerned with what Canada is going to accomplish by her action. I am concerned that the minister is establishing a precedent here against which we should set up safeguards. Therefore I ask him now, what is the future? If these sanctions fail, what is the minister going to recommend to this house? I asked the hon. member for York South that question and he-and I paraphrase, Mr. Chairman

replied that he would leave it to Great Britain to institute police action. You know, let somebody else fire the bullets; we stand back and watch.


David Lewis: I did not say that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I could find the reference here in Hansard, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is on page 726.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -I would certainly give it to the hon. member. I cannot give the exact reference, but he was going to leave it-


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member would look at page 726.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The first paragraph in the middle of the page.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I see it now. Here is what he said:
-I would hope the British government would take the necessary policing steps to enforce its governmental authority in Southern Rhodesia.


David Lewis: Read the next sentence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is this now the attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Does he approve of the stand taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for York South? What is the next step? If force has to be applied, is the minister going to suggest that such action will be commended by him, whether it is supplied by Great Britain, by some international group or by Canada? This is the danger that I see, and the minister has not given us a clear exposition of his stand.
It is all very well to impose these economic sanctions. The economic sanctions are designed to get a quick and ready response from the present illegal government of Southern Rhodesia; that is the hope, I believe. The hope is that, as they put it in British Hansard, there will be a quick kill and Mr. Ian Smith and his government will have to yield to the British government.
February 7, 1966

Supply-External Affairs
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Ii there is not a quick kill, if the sanctions fail, what are we to do? The Prime Minister of Great Britain, pressed on this point, said that there would not be the application of force. However, we have people in this house suggesting that force should he applied. Now, what does the minister say to that? Are we going to advocate or support the use of force against Southern Rhodesia if it does not yield under the circumstances?


David Lewis: Against Ian Smith, not Southern Rhodesia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, against Ian Smith; but if you use force against the government of Ian Smith you will come into conflict with the people of Southern Rhodesia because I judge he has a great deal of support there. Have we calculated the effect of economic sanctions on the general populace of Southern Rhodesia? I believe Mr. Ian Smith has said that if massive unemployment results from the imposition of sanctions, the people who will feel the effect are the men who are working in Southern Rhodesia but who are not native residents of that country, who come from adjoining areas. They will be sent home, and they number in the thousands.
Are we looking for the economic collapse of Southern Rhodesia? If economic collapse occurs, then would you not be approaching a situation of anarchy? I hope the minister will deal with this point. I wish I had more time to elaborate on these points, but I want to close on this note. No matter what we may feel about the action that was taken by Mr. Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia, no matter how virtuous we may feel about having launched into the imposition of sanctions against that country, what is the ultimate aim and how are we to achieve that ultimate aim?
Surely the ultimate aim we are after is to bring back Mr. Ian Smith's government of Southern Rhodesia into our community of nations within the Commonwealth. This can be achieved only through negotiations and compromise by either side. Surely under these circumstances the Canadian position should be leadership along that line. There is no point in saying that this is the sole responsibility of Great Britain, because we have rushed in behind the government of Great Britain and imposed sanctions. Having done that, we are entitled I would think to talk to the government of Great Britain as well as the government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia.

Is there not an opportunity here for Canada to play an important part? Should we not have some representative in Southern Rhodesia who can keep in contact with the situation there? The minister talks about negotiations being essential in so far as Viet Nam is concerned, as well as other trouble spots in the world. It is just as essential with regard to Southern Rhodesia. It would be in the interests of the white population of that country as well as the African population if a peaceful settlement could be arrived at. It is difficult to see how that can be done by this stand-offish method, this arm's length method, of the imposition of total sanctions against that country; the withdrawal of our representative; the cutting off of our aid which must have been helping the African population, and saying there is nothing we can do. I hope there will be no bloodshed in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that there will not be complete economic collapse because that will bring hardship to most of the people of Southern Rhodesia. I hope the good offices of Canada may be used in order to bring a peaceful settlement of the problem.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all of us in this house, as well as millions of people across the world, are watching with anxious concern the results of the initiative which has been undertaken by His Holiness the Pope in trying to bring together the neutral nations in a summit conference at Geneva in order to mediate the Viet Nam war. I hope these negotiations will be successful, and I hope tremendously that Canada will be one of the first nations to respond to this call. The Minister of External Affairs has assured us that we are an independent nation in the full sense of the word. I do hope that this government will prove this is so by being ready to do whatever a neutral nation can do and should do if this summit conference becomes a reality.
The secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, is doing the same sort of thing. Somehow we have got to the stage now where, regardless of which authority attempts to get a conference convened, we shall have to go along. Many of us recall the uneasy months prior to the outbreak of world war II and have a dreadful feeling of familiarity, as though we have been through all this before, as step by step we seem to be getting closer to the brink of disaster. I hope that this time wiser counsels are going to prevail and, regardless of the rights or wrongs on either
February 7, 19S6

side of this war, the killings, bombings and maiming of people have got to be stopped.
There is a point of no return. Once we reach that point of no return we shall be in for a war so terrible that the imagination is just staggered at the thought of it. Inevitably, there would be a war along class lines, the have and have-not nations of the world, and along colour lines. I do not know that we even dare to contemplate the results of a struggle of that kind.
I do not want to deal at any length with the war in Viet Nam. My colleagues have dealt very ably indeed with the points at issue. I should like only to express my most urgent thoughts about the present situation by reading a paragraph from a speech delivered last May in the United States congress by the Democratic representative from Oregon, Edith Green. She said this:
For many, many months now I have searched for every possible excuse to support my government in the policies it is pursuing in Viet Nam- and I have supported it. In spite of the shaky "domino" theory, I have done my very best to believe in it; in spite of the fact that the people of South Viet Nam have been subjected to one unpopular and unstable dictatorship after another, I have done my best to believe we are defending their freedom; in spite of the fact that we have violated the Geneva accords, I have done by best to believe this was justified because the North Vietnamese did also, even though I know that two wrongs do not make a right; in spite of one humiliating military defeat after another, I have done my best to believe all the optimistic reports about our really winning the war over there; in spite of all the evidence of internal discord and revolt against the governments we maintain in power, I have done my best to believe this is what the Vietnamese people really want us to do but, my fellow Americans, there is a point beyond which credibility simply will not stretch-and it is that somehow by waging a wider war we pursue a policy of peace.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think we have got to the stage beyond which that credibility will stretch no longer. Today I feel that somehow the United States government must be dissuaded from its policy of widening the war in Viet Nam. It is not the business only of the United States government, it is the business of the whole world. Today it is not a case of being antiAmerican but being pro-human race when we urge that this war be brought to a close. That is why I feel that all of us must welcome with a hope born of great dread the initiative of Pope Paul.
Actually, we will never know what real freedom from war in the world is until we get down to the job of giving the United Nations the power to make and to maintain
Supply-External Affairs peace, no matter who the belligerents may be. We cannot forget that after 20 years of existence the predecessor of the United Nations 

incidentally the United Nations reaches its twenty first birthday only this year-the league of nations, gave up the ghost. And why? For one reason and one reason only -because it could not make the peace. Nobody else could either, but the league of nations was unable to make the peace. War came and the league of nations was its first casualty.
The United Nations has great achievements to its credit in economic, social and cultural fields. No one needs to be reminded of the tremendous job it has been doing in all of these fields and for people all around the world. But I am absolutely sure that unless the United Nations can somehow get over the hurdle of peace making and peace keeping and can come to grips with these tasks, it is going to fail as miserably as did the league of nations; and it will go up in the flames of world war III as surely as the league of nations went up in the flames of world war II.
This is why it is so imperative at this time to try to see what can be done to build the United Nations. You may say that it is too late for that kind of thing. I say no, it is not. We have seen one difficulty after another arise. If we get out of Viet Nam by hook or by crook then another situation will develop, and yet another and another. Sooner or later we will just have to accept the fact that the United Nations is the only organization with the world authority and with the moral authority to keep the peace and to make the peace.
We have seen that in the past Canada has been active in trying to pioneer along this road of peace making and peace keeping. A few years ago we in Canada were all very proud when the present Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for External Affairs, took the lead among the nations at the United Nations during the very difficult Suez crisis. He was instrumental in establishing some peace keeping machinery which really worked and which helped the world to avoid the danger of war at that time. You may say that he had the support of the big powers, Russia and the United States, behind the scenes, and so he did; but he had the nerve and the courage and the imagination to go ahead and to propose a peace keeping solution. The other nations of the world came along and supported it. We were in his debt then, as was the whole world.

February 7, 1966
Supply-External Affairs
I think we need a return to that spirit now, and need it very badly. The nations of the world have to have leadership, and I think Canada is the country that could and should give that leadership. As I say, the world needs to pioneer the idea that only the United Nations can and should be the peacemaker and the peace maintainer. We have to create the proper climate and convince all peoples that the United Nations can play this role.
That is why I for one am less than enthusiastic about a whole lot of these regional pacts. I think we are putting our trust and our confidence into something which is really only a halfway house and is not going to be able to meet the test of time. I think we have got to the stage where we have to believe that the United Nations is the authority in the world and that we have to put our weight behind it, if indeed the United Nations is going to be made to work. With courage and self-confidence Canada could give a lead. Canada could and should put forward, and work for, definite proposals openly and clearly, regardless of what any other nation thinks about them.
I realize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has his own private opinions, which as a matter of fact he has stated domestically within Canada, along a number of these lines. But he just does not state them openly and clearly on the floor of the United Nations. I should like him to support these opinions there, because I think he would get the backing of the Canadian people who are waiting for a lead and are wanting to lead.
I am going to mention four proposals which I think should have very high priority if Canada were able to give a lead on the floor of the United Nations. First, I think Canada should propose that the United Nations should now create a permanent peace keeping system ready to act in the first stages of trouble, no matter who are the belligerents or how powerful they are.
All right, so you are not listened to when that proposal is brought before the United Nations the first few times. I have been a member of an opposition all my political life and have seen things advocated by the opposition taken over by others and turned into legislation. Gradually ideas grow and are found to be worth while. Other people take them over and turn them into legislation.
If Canada would agitate and agitate and agitate, both in season and out, for ideas like the United Nations creating a permanent peace keeping machine to which all nations

would make a contribution, I believe we could gain the support of the people of a lot of non-aligned nations, like the Scandinavians, the Africans and a lot of the Asians for such a proposal.
I see the minister looking at me as though I do not know what is going on down there. Maybe this sort of thing has been going on but Canadians have not heard enough about it. We have not got to the point of pushing and working for this thing because we have not been given a strong enough lead in the United Nations itself.
Second, I think Canada should propose that the United Nations should prohibit any member nation from taking military measures against any other country for any reason whatever. If we are serious about the United Nations being the keeper of law and order, we can no longer afford to have a world in which any nation is allowed to run and help another nation on its own without first going to the United Nations for support and for authorization. I think we have gone past the time when this is a safe procedure. I believe Canada should advocate that henceforth only the United Nations should be the peace maintainer and that other nations should work through it, instead of unilaterally helping their allies and that kind of thing.
I know these proposals may seem far out, Mr. Chairman, but they will not seem far out if we work for them. They are essential to our survival.
Third-again this proposal will seem far out to some people, but I think it is essential-the United Nations should declare now that bombing human beings is an act of savagery which must not be tolerated in the modern world. I do not care who does the bombing or who the human beings are. I do not care whether this sounds like a fantastic fairy tale.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I can point to a series of very fine lectures given in the hall of the General Assembly itself during world co-operation year where, over and over again eight lecturers from eight different countries pointed out, and I wish to point this out today, that there is only one race in the world, which is the human race, that when you bomb and maim other people you will be bombed and maimed in turn, and you will be bombing and maiming yourself. Today there are no different races. There are just different places where different kinds of human beings live.
In the fourth place I believe that the United Nations should now amend its charter
February 7, 1966

to admit all nations regardless of what kind of governments they have, and regardless of whether we like them or not. One thing I should like to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs do is to go boldly into the United Nations and say that it is time we admitted mainland China, and that we do not care who hears us say it.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that in various places within Canada. I should like to hear him say that loudly and clearly within the United Nations itself. I am convinced that I am speaking for the majority of the Canadian people when I say that. I should like to see a poll taken on that. We cannot afford outlaws in the world community of nations. I think Canada is in a peculiarly useful and fortunate position to do the sort of pioneering along the lines that I am talking of, and for a couple of reasons. First of all, we are all told and we all believe that Canada has a great fund of respect among the nations of the world. I think that we have that position throughout the world. I believe it will entitle us to ensure that we get a hearing for this sort of thing within a measurable time, because we have had experience in pioneering in this country. I do not think that anybody who recalls the history of this country will really think that what I suggest is so utterly impossible.
That is especially so when we think of how the pioneers came to this country and envisaged the idea of setting up a country with the breadth and the diversity of this land, geographically, and in every other way. When we think of the early pioners and what they had to go through, it staggers the imagination. I never go through the Rockies, through those spiral tunnels and through the Connaught tunnel without thinking of what imagination and daring it took on the part of the pioneers, and the pioneer statesmen, to do that kind of thing. This country itself is a triumph of pioneering over obstacles of one sort or another. Today we are triumphing over the difficulties of our constitution, difficulties between groups of peoples in different jurisdictions, and so on.
I should like to see Canada go at this time, and try pioneering in the United Nations once again. Let us see if we could not evoke a response from a great many peoples and from a great many countries of the world. We have got to do it, and I believe Canada is the country best fitted to carry this out.
Mr. Chairman, I like to feel that these constructive ideas can be carried forward, in
Supply-External Affairs spite of the very great difficulties which I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has met and is meeting in the United Nations.


Mr. Winkler:: I wonder if the hon. lady will allow a question. I was interested in her remarks, and particularly in her approbation of the efforts of His Holiness Pope Paul in bringing about a solution in the problem that exists. I wonder if we should not have clarification from the minister in regard to exactly where Canada stands. After all, I believe that His Holiness the Pope asked for neutral or uncommitted countries to participate. I wonder if the minister would inform us and the house exactly what position we are in.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do
not know whether that is a question or a suggestion. In either case I should be very happy to ask the minister for an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should be very happy to give an answer. On that particular subject, as I said last week, Canada strongly supports the appeal made by the Holy Father. We note with satisfaction that, in the resolution proposed by Mr. Goldberg in the Security Council, there is an offer to utilize the neutral nations of the world as an arbitral body to consider the dispute in Viet Nam. Canada strongly supports that initiative. I sincerely hope that Hanoi and Peking will find it possible to modify their rejection of this proposal as put forward last Friday.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to have that made clear. Does the minister consider we are in that category?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Canada would be very happy to participate in this initiative.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was
prompted to enter this debate after I had heard the speech of the hon. member for York South. I believe at that time he said he was speaking on behalf of the New Democratic party. I sincerely hope that he was not. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Kootenay West does not go along with what he said, because I believe that the words uttered were the most subtle pieces of communist propaganda that I have ever heard since I came to this house. I will refer to his speech in a few moments.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, along with many other members of this house Canada's reluctance to enunciate a policy on many issues

February 7, 1966
Supply-External Affairs that are facing the world today. As a result of this lack of policy it leaves the Canadian people in the dark as to Canada's position in most of these issues which have been brought up in the debate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the government seems to have no direction in regard to foreign policy. Many of us think that the government seems to straddle the fence on practically all issues. I had not intended to say this, but it was the previous speaker who brought up the subject of the Suez canal, which was the start of this foreign policy followed by the present government, or the party that is in power at this time. They started it.
I well remember the debate on the issues, and I am not too sure but that that was one of the debates that made me a stronger Conservative than I was even before that time. I remember the remarks of the Canadian delegation at that time, which strongly supported the United States stand, along with Australia and New Zealand. However, when it came to the vote, New Zealand and Australia, although they had talked against Great Britain said that, because of their Commonwealth ties, they were compelled to support Great Britain.
What did the Canadian representative do? Canada was a country that we were very proud of. The Canadian representative made a very forceful speech. At the end of it, the member representing the Canadian delegation said: "I abstain". I do not think I was ever more ashamed of Canada than I was then. I shall have more to say about the word "ashamed" in a few moments. I do not want to say too much about it because my time is restricted.
It appears to me also that the attitude of this government, and particularly that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that we, as Canadians, fear to stand up and be counted. Why do we take this attitude? The minister appears to be afraid to make a commitment on behalf of Canada. Might I suggest that by his silence with respect to Canadian foreign policy the minister is undermining Canada's reputation abroad.
As members of this House of Commons, we ask ourselves what is the reason for this lack of policy on the part of the government? The minister seems reluctant to inform the house of facts that he surely must have in his possession, or should have in his possession. May I suggest to him that his failure to inform the house is also a reflection-and I

hate to say this-on the staff of his department. We might well wonder whether he is concealing information. On the other hand, are the members of his staff unaware of what is actually taking place in their parts of the world? Surely the Canadian public and we, as members of this house, have the right to expect some positive policy statement from our minister. We ask what is the government policy for example, with regard to Viet Nam and with regard to Rhodesia? These questions have been asked. What is Canada's stand on support to NATO? What is the stand respecting the admittance of red China to the United Nations, and to Canada's joining the Organization of American States?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I wonder, as did the member for Winnipeg South Centre tonight, why a white paper was not published on some of these issues. This would help to clarify the debate that has taken place in the house. It would also assist in informing the Canadian people, something which I believe should be done by the minister in charge of this department. To date, all I have gathered from the minister is that there is confusion within the Liberal cabinet on these points. I am not the only one who is of this opinion. It would appear to me that the hon. gentleman has failed to convince his colleagues as to what policy Canada should follow, or gain acceptance of any policy he has proposed. Possibly the government has adopted a policy of "wait and see" or of straddling the fence, as I have suggested, or of stalling. The hon. gentleman should let us know what the policy is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he agree with the policy of the government of Canada on Rhodesia?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will come to that in a moment.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked about the policy on the Organization of American States-and was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, to give his views on this subject, he said he had already done so. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition then continued his speech, taking the minister's views as being the policy of the government. The minister then got up to say: "I did not say that, I just said I believe that." So we do not know what the policy is. The hon. gentleman makes a statement and denies it later. If he does not deny
February 7, 1966

it, the Prime Minister does. The hon. gentleman should let us know what the trouble is. He should tell us why he cannot make these statements. Then, at least, he would have our sympathy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has lost his place.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, but I see my time is coming to an end and there is much I should like to say. For instance, I have a good deal to say about Canada joining the O.A.S. Let it suffice, however, to say that I agree with everything my hon. friend from Oxford said the other day. I wish to add two further points. I think the minister should tell us how many of the members of that organization-20 I believe-have paid their dues. Another point which occurs to me is this: What would the attitude of the minister have been had Canada been a member of the O.A.S. during the last world war when the policy followed by that organization was one of neutrality? I suggest there has been an admission by the minister that he is not allowed to speak for his department, and this presents us with a peculiar situation.
I believe Canada's basic thought in formulating foreign policy should be "world order with freedom". We must ask ourselves how this should be achieved. To begin with, I think most of us would agree that all racism is evil; that tyrannies are reprehensible; all inequalities must be remedied and that all individuals should have the same rights, commensurate with their responsibilities. Canada took a positive step in this regard in the advance toward world order with freedom when she joined NATO. Sir Winston Churchill said not long after the Korean war: "The world today is peering around the rim of hell." Certainly, one look at the international situation today would seem to verify his statement. We can only wonder what the situation would be had the NATO alliance not been formed. I am convinced-though I can only speak hypothetically-that this alliance did prevent a third world war. I will go further and say that if such an alliance had been in existence sufficiently early the first and second world wars would never have taken place.
I arrived at these conclusions after representing our party on a tour of NATO installations last fall. I should like to state clearly that I believe the Canadian people have received full value for their support of the NATO alliance. The question in our minds
Supply-External Affairs now must be: What is Canada's attitude to NATOs future? Does Canada agree with the theory put forward by the French General Gallois that nuclear weapons have made alliances obsolete? What is Canada' assessment of de Gaulle's policy regarding the future of NATO?
Canadian policy should also be declared on the situation in Viet Nam. I should like to know how great is the threat presented by red China to the security of Australia, one of our partners in the Commonwealth. A white paper should be issued on this subject. Does the minister have in his possession information to the effect that red China has designs on this territory? I might add at this time that I am one who is opposed to red China's joining the United Nations, particularly while she insists on laying down the conditions under which she would join.
The United States has made a commitment which must be kept. If the United States did not live up to the agreements it has made with countries such as Formosa, for example, I think that never again would one of these minor countries respect the word of a major power. Although I am not pro-American I think it is Canada's responsibility to do everything she can to support the United States attitude in this respect.
I believe the answer to the question about China which I asked earlier would give the Canadian people the information they are seeking with regard to the Viet Nam conflict. An answer stating that Canada must remain silent because we are a member of the peace commission is, I suggest, not sufficient. As far as I know, that is exactly what the minister has been saying.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been following the hon. member's interesting statement. Does he mean he would have Canada commit troops to the current conflict in Viet Nam?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Let us not fool ourselves, Canada is not a military power. I agree with what the minister has said. We are spread pretty thin with the commitments we have already made. I have no more to say on that subject. But if need be I would be prepared to support the commitment of Canadian troops. A surprising answer, isn't it?
Earlier, I said I believed the speech of the hon. member for York South to be the most subtle piece of communist propaganda I had ever heard in this house. I wish to refer to a few of his remarks. At one point he said: "I

February 7, 1966
Supply-External Affairs make no apologies about having doubts with regard to imperialistic or empire activities." I find that hard to reconcile with the rest of his speech. It seems to me he was supporting the actions of his friend Harold Wilson all the way. But he was apologizing.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he is a communist, too.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Could be.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In referring to one Conservative member's statement about time being required to give the African people an opportunity to learn the ways of democratic government, the hon. member for York South referred to the "whites" as if the name "whites" was a dirty word. At one time he said he had no apologies for saying he had no patience with this "white man's burden" kind of argument. Might I say to him there would be more peace in the world today if he and others like him stopped apologizing for being white.
On another occasion he said he was ashamed that a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations should have adopted policies such as the Union of South Africa had adopted. He also said he felt ashamed to be a citizen of a country that is associated with a member of the Commonwealth that had acted as Ian Smith had acted. He made no mention of being ashamed about accepting the protection these two countries provided for him during the last world war, nor is he ashamed for accepting the freedom he now enjoys because of the efforts of these two countries.
The hon. member for York South on another occasion said:
Nor is there any mystery about the repressive anti-democratic, indeed one might say neo-fascist laws which the Smith government has introduced in Southern Rhodesia.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre got up and asked the hon. member what he had to say about Russia's actions in regard to countries it has taken over. You can look up the answer in Hansard: He evaded the issue. That is the reason I said it was a very communistic type of speech. He seemed to be supporting the actions of all other types of governments that were not democratic. He used words like "anti-democratic" and "neo-fascist" in the ways we have heard them used in all communist propaganda. What did he say about Ghana? He seemed to vupport what Ghana has been doing.

Canada's position in regard to the Rhodesian question is, I believe, one that should be debated in this house. Much has been said about the unilateral and illegal actions taken by the Smith government in Rhodesia. I believe history will tell that the United States of America took similar action at one time, and so did the Union of South Africa.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves why it was that Ian Smith took this action? How did this situation develop? Could it have been avoided? Did the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, make a hasty and unfortunate decision for political reasons? Did he try to jump too fast into socialism?
We are told the declaration of independence was an unfortunate consequence of the dismantling of the Central African Federation headed by Sir Roy Welensky. I recently read that the Central African Federation was torpedoed by Kaunda, the present head of the Zambia government, and by Malawi, formerly Nyasaland. The article went on to say that Zambia and Malawi are rapidly moving toward one-man rule.
The slogan of majority rule has proven very useful for black leaders to prepare the way for their own autocratic regimes. So far, majority rule so ardently advocated by black leaders, has proven to be an extremely transient affair en route to one-man rule, with the same man then unblushingly explaining that parliamentary democracy is quite unsuitable to his country. Would the minister tell us if there is any evidence in his possession to deny or substantiate statements of that kind? I think this is the part of the story we have not been told.
The other day when the hon. member for York South was speaking he was asked a very sensible question by the hon. member for Oxford. He received a very facetious reply, I might say an egotistical reply. The hon. member for York South said he would be pleased at all times to educate the members of the house, and he would supply the hon. member for Oxford with a dossier of all the arguments. He seemed to think that the minister should take all his information from newspaper articles. Surely, with the amount of money we are spending on the Department of External Affairs, we must have contacts in all these countries from which we can get first hand information.
My time has almost expired, Mr. Chairman, but before I take my seat I would like to say that the government of Canada is shirking its responsibility to the Canadian people, and
February 7, 1966

also missing a golden opportunity to give leadership to the middle powers by not taking a positive stand on many of these international affairs.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few minutes to go until ten o'clock and I hope I can complete the remarks I had intended to make before then, but the comments which we have just listened to may give me a chance to expand somewhat on what I originally intended to say.
At the outset I must say I was very much impressed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-


John (Jack) McIntosh: He does not care.


Frank Howard: He does not care about anything, obviously. I was impressed by the depth of his ignorance about some extremely fundamental and basic rights of people, about the question of equality of people in other lands, and in this land as well. But all one can say about his references to the hon. member for York South, which were grossly distorted, is that this is the standard approach of those who are intolerant, those who are bigoted, those who are ignorant. It is an approach to cover one's lack of full appreciation of the rights of humanity.
I do not want unduly to elevate the hon. member's status but I would think he would fit quite properly among that rank of people who include Torquemada and the late Senator McCarthy of the United States, noted for an approach to smear by falsity, by falsification, by outright lies if necessary, in order to put across a particular point of view.
I had intended to speak about a couple of important international organizations to which Canada belongs, one being NATO and the other NORAD. Within three years it will be 20 years since Canada became a member of NATO. I think it was some time in May 1949 that the Prime Minister, who was then the Secretary of State for External Affairs, signed the NATO alliance treaty which has an initial lifetime of 20 years, after which any member nation may cease to be a member of NATO on one year's notice, or something of that sort. In any event three years hence will be the time when Canada, or for that matter any other nation, can seek to release itself of its participation in NATO.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
With respect to NORAD, which is a bilateral arrangement between Canada and the United States, it has a 10-year period of effectiveness and its expiration is in 1968. In
Supply-External Affairs this case I believe there is also a one-year notification of intention to discontinue the letters which were exchanged, and which constitute the NORAD agreement. In any event, within two years in one case and three years in the other we will be faced with having to make a decision, if a decision has not already been made, about our continuing participation in NORAD and NATO.
NATO is primarily a European structure and in its formative years was dominated by United States military and economic supremacy. It has continued to be an organization dominated by the United States, if for no other reason than that the United States, until recent years, was the most powerful military nation within NATO in possession of a nuclear capability. This position has since been challenged, notably by France, and it may well be that France will not remain in NATO within the remaining period of its life. There may, of course, be some change in this speculation in the future.
NATO was established to act as a deterrent to the westward Soviet movement, in an attempt to forestall the Soviet bloc from the taking over of countries by persuasion or by war, particularly in that western section of Europe which had been decimated by the second world war. This was a war which, apart from the results of Pearl Harbour, left the United States unscathed and in a dominant position so far as military and economic strength was concerned. Hence the United States forcefully determined the formative and continuing role of NATO.
I am particularly concerned with Article II of NATO. I understand this is the child of our Prime Minister, and that it was included in the terms of the NATO treaty upon his insistence. I am sure he recognized at that time the necessity for an economic advancement in the western world as a result of economic collaboration and co-operation. He must have seen the prospects for developing within the NATO structure an economic alliance and well-being in the North Atlantic area which would act as the greatest single bulwark against communist infiltration, which might have prevented the advancement of our growing economic system and interfered with our political democracy.
Article II has never had any great significance to NATO strategists, but it is a matter which has concerned interparliamentary conferences and various governments. However, so far as NATO itself is concerned and the council of ministers, it has been exclusively a military machine and alliance.

February 7, 1966
Supply-External Affairs
The prospects which the Prime Minister thought NATO had for economic development within its structure have wafted away with time and have been overshadowed by the military machine itself. I have thought for some years that the greatest threat, in so far as the northern hemisphere and the western portion of Europe are concerned, has existed for some time and has been an economic threat posed by the state operated economic machine that exists in the Soviet Union. We only have to look back to 1957 and 1958 to gain some idea of this fact.
In 1957-58 the aluminum industry in North America almost collapsed. The smelter at Kitimat, in my own riding, almost folded overnight. I am given to understand that actually what happened was that the Soviet Union dumped a fairly large volume of aluminum on the world market to undercut the prices. This had the effect of a depression or repression on the aluminum industry, which thought that the Soviet Union had immense quantities of aluminum for export to world markets. The fact of the matter was, as was subsequently discovered, that the Soviet Union dumped this aluminum, which it had in short supply, to drive the prices down in order that it could by one means or another purchase its requirements at prices much lower than previously existed.
That is only an example of the type of damage that can be done by the economic activities of another country. In this regard it has been recognized that the preservation of economies and freedoms in western countries has to some extent been effected by the development of economic organizations, the most notable being the common market and the O.E.C.D. These are multilateral agreements, between nations, really, that have developed within the last few years, based on a recognition that there must be this type of co-operation in order to preserve economies and democracies. To all this development Canada has been aloof in its participation. With the exception of the O.E.C.D., Canada has remained outside these developments. It has maintained its relationship primarily with the military alliances of NATO.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



STANDING COMMITTEES


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day on

which the striking committee of the House of Commons, set up under standing order 65, can report personnel of committees. That committee is now prepared to report. For that purpose I ask leave of the house to revert to motions and to the presentation of reports by standing and special committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I move, seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin):
That, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 65, the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, the committee on transport and communications shall each consist of 25 members, and the committee on miscellaneous estimates, the committee on privileges and elections, the committee on standing orders shall each consist of 23 members.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order 65 as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Lefebvre
MacDonald (Prince)
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
Beer
Berger
Choquette
Comtois
Cote (Dorchester) Crossman,
Danforth,
Ethier
Faulkner
Forbes
Gauthier
Gendron
Godin
Grills
Herridge
Honey
Hopkins
Horner (Jasper-Edson),
Isabelle
Johnston
Jorgenson,
Laverdiere
Madill
Matte
Moore (Wetaskiwin) Muir (Lisgar)
Nasserden
Neveu
Noble
Nowlan
Olson
Peters
Pugh
Ricard
Roxburgh
Schreyer
Tucker
Vincent
Watson (Assiniboia) Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Whelan Yanakis-(45)
February 7, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS Messrs.
Basford	Mather
Bechard	McCleave
Berger	Nielsen
Brand	Nugent
Clermont	Pelletier
Cowan	Prittie
Dube	Richard
Fairweather	Smallwood
Gregoire	Stafford
Hymmen	Stanbury
Lamontagne	Trudeau
Leboe	Woolliams-(25).
Macquarrie	
CROWN	CORPORATIONS
	Messrs.
Addison	Lind
Allard	Loiselle
Allmand	Maclnnis (Cape Breton
Beaulieu	South)
Coates	McCutcheon
Comtois	McLean (Charlotte)
Dionne	Monteith
Gilbert	Otto
Hees	Ryan
Kindt	Stafford
Korchinski	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Rosemont)
Lewis	Wahn-(24).

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Barnett	Keays
Basford	Leblanc (Rimouski)
Bechard	MacLean (Queens)
Blouin	McLean (Charlotte)
Carter	McQuaid
Cashin	Me William
Chatterton	Noble
Crossman	Nowlan
Crouse	O'Keefe
Deachman	Patterson
Granger	Stefanson
Howard	Tucker-(24).
HEALTH	AND WELFARE
	Messrs.
Ballard	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Brand	(Vancouver-Kingsway)
Brown	Matte
Cameron (High Park) Monteith	
Chatterton	O'Keefe
Cowan	Orange
Enns	Pascoe
Harley	Rideout (Mrs.)
Howe (Wellington -	Rochon
Huron)	Rock
Isabelle	Rynard
Knowles	Simard
Laverdi£re	Stanbury-(24).

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allmand
Asselin (Charlevoix)
Basford
B re win
Chatterton
Dube
Faulkner
Forest
Groos
Harkness
Klein
Laprise
Lind
Macdonald (Rosedale)
Macquarrie
Mandziuk
McIntosh
Nesbitt
Pilon
Stanbury
Thompson
Trudeau
Wadds (Mrs.)
Walker-(24).
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Alim and Badanai
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Cashin
Gauthier
Gendron
Gilbert
Gray
Habel
Keays
Loiselle
Loney
Macaluso
MacEwan
Martin (Timmins)
Mongrain
Neveu
Nielsen
Pelletier
Ricard
Ryan
Scott (Victoria (Ont.) ) Stewart
Watson (Assiniboia)-(24)*
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Andras		Hees
Basford		Irvine
Cameron	(Nanaimo-	Laflamme
Cowichan-The Islands) Lambert		
Cashin		Lamontagne
Chretien		Leboe
Clermont		Lewis
Coates		McLean (Charlotte)
Comtois		Monteith
Flemming		More (Regina City)
Gordon		Munro
Gray		Stafford
Gregoire		Valade-(25).
[Stage Direction]
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Badanai
Baldwin
Bell (Carleton)
Crossman
Grafftey
Guay
Howard
Klein
Macaluso
Moore (Wetaskiwin) More (Regina City)
Messrs.
Munro
Nasserden
Orange
Orlikow
Prud'homme
Reid
Roxburgh
Skoreyko
Tremblay
Wahn
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie)-(24).
[Stage Direction]
February 7, 1966
Standing Committees INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Messrs.
Addison	Hales
Andras	Laflamme
Beaulieu	Latulippe
Bower	McCutcheon
Cashin	McNulty
Choquette	Peters
Code	Racine
Davis	Saltsman
Faulkner	Scott (Victoria (Ont.) )
Forest	Stefanson
Goyer	Tremblay
Grafftey	Wahn-(24).
JUSTICE	AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Addison	Legault
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Loiselle Clermont	Mandziuk
Cote (Dorchester)	Neveu
Fair weather	Nixon
Forrestall	O'Keefe
Hopkins	Peters
Horner (The Battlefords)Simard Johnston	Smith
Lachance	Wadds (Mrs.)
Langlois (Chicoutimi) Whelan Laverdiere	Woolliams- (24).
[Stage Direction]
Aiken
Asselin (Charlevoix) Bell (Carleton)
Brewin
Cameron (High Park)
Cantin
Choquette
Chretien
Forest
Fulton
Goyer
Honey
Messrs.
Laflamme
Langlois (Megantic)
Lewis
MacEwan
McQuaid
Nielsen
Otto
Ryan
Stanbury
Trudeau
Wahn
Woolliams-(24).
Brewin
Carter
Deachman
Dinsdale
Dube
Fane
Foy
Groos
Harkness
Hopkins
Lambert
Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Messrs.
Langlois (Megantic)
Laniel
Lessard
MacLean (Queens)
MacRae
Matheson
McNulty
Nixon
Smith
Stefanson
Rock
Winch-(24).
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Barnett
Duquet
Emard
Faulkner
Gordon
Gray
Guay
Hymmen
Johnston
Knowles
Lachance
Lefebvre
Maclnnis (Cape Breton South)
Mackasey
McCleave
McKinley
Morison
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Racine
Regimbal
Reid
Ricard
Skoreyko
Stefanson-(24).
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allard
Andras
Badanai
Berger
Bigg
Blouin
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Dinsdale
Granger
Gundlock
Habel
Haidasz
Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Howard
Isabelle
Laprise
Leblanc (Rimouski)
Legault
Mather
Mitchell
Nielsen
Orange
Simpson
Southam-(24).
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES Messrs.
Alkenbrack Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
Beaulieu
Cote (Dorchester)
Emard
Ethier
Forbes
Forest
Foy
Godin
Kennedy
Leblanc (Laurier) 
Lind
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
(Vancouver-Kingsway)
Matte
McLelland
Ormiston
Pugh	,
Richard
Roxburgh
Tardif
Watson (Chateaugay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Webb-(23).

[Stage Direction]
Aiken
Boulanger
Caron
Howard
Hymmen
Korchinski
Lachance
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lessard
Lind
Macquarrie
McWilliam
Messrs.
Mongrain
Nielsen
Nugent
Prud'homme
Richard
Rochon
Scott (Danforth)
Tardif
Thomas (Middlesex West) Valade
Woolliams-(23).
February 7, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS	LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
		Messrs.
Baldwin		Prittie
Ballard		Bacine
Bigg		Stafford
Cameron	(High Park) Tardif	
Dionne		Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Flemming		Rosemont)
Forbes		Thomas (Middlesex
Gendron		West)
Hales		Tremblay
Leblanc (Laurier)		Tucker
Lefebvre		Winch
Morison		Winkler
Muir (Lisgar)		Yanakis-(24).
	STANDING ORDERS	
		Messrs.
Asselin (Richmond-		Guay
Wolfe)		Gundlock
Baldwin		Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Bigg		J ohnston
Boulanger		Leblanc (Rimouski)
Brown		Loiselle
Caron		MacDonald (Prince)
Carter		McNulty
Churchill		Mongrain
Coates		Thomas (Middlesex
Duquet		West)
Ethier		Winch-(23).
Groos		
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS		
		Messrs.
Andras		MacEwan
Bell (Saint	John-	McIntosh
Albert)		Olson
Blouin		Orlikow
Byrne		Pascoe
Cantelon		Rapp
Carter		Regimbal
Deachman		Rideout (Mrs.)
Duquet		Rock
Fawcett		Sherman
Honey		Southam
Lessard		Tolmie
Macaluso		Tucker-(25).
	VETERANS AFFAIRS	
		Messrs.
Carter		Latulippe
Clancy		Legault
Cowan		Madill
Emard		MacRae
Fane		Martin (Timmins)
Groos		Matheson
Habel		Morison
Harley		Ormiston
Herridge		Pi Ion
Horner (The Battle-		Thomas (Maisonneuvefords)		Rosemont)
Kennedy		Tolmie
Laniel		Webb-(24).
	Messrs.
Allard	Nixon
Dube	Pelletier
Enns	Prittie
Fairweather	Schreyer
Godin	Smith
Gordon	Stewart
Honey	Wadds (Mrs.)
Klein	Wahn
Lamontagne	Woolliams
Macquarrie	Yanakis-(21).
Nesbitt	
PRINTING	OF PARLIAMENT
	Messrs.
Boulanger	Klein
Caron	Laverdiere
Choquette	Leblanc (Laurier)
Clancy	Loiselle
Code	MacDonald (Prince)
Cowan	McKinley
Ethier	Nixon
Grills	Rapp
Harley	Rochon
Irvine	Saltsman
Johnston	Simard-(23).
J orgenson
Mr. Pilon moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the Library of Parliament, and that the members to serve on the said committee on the part of this house will be as contained in the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order 65 presented this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members to serve on the said committee on the part of this house will be as contained in the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order 65 presented this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
February 7, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we commence the next item of business could I ask the house leader one question. Will the members of the special committees that are anticipated, namely those on consumer credit and drugs, be appointed at an early date?
George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
[Translation1



INCOME TAX-EXAMINATION OF RECEIPTS FOR CHARITABLE DONATIONS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, having been detained in Hull, at the Fleur de lis Club, for a conference, this evening, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asks that his question be allowed to stand.


Mr. Walker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is there any provision in the rules that takes care of a situation such as this? This is the second night in succession that this particular question has stood. The government is ready to give the answer. I am just wondering, do these questions maintain their position-


George James McIlraith: No.


David James Walker: -or are they dropped?


Some hon. Members:: They are dropped.



WATER RESOURCES-STEPS TO DEAL WITH RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION

Mr. Norman Fawcell (Nickel Bell):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I raised a question on the floor of the house with respect to action being taken by the government on the matter of the radioactive pollution of public waters in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas. Your Honour's ruling was that this was a matter for the order paper and I am raising no objection to your ruling because I realize that the answer is one which might require a detailed reply. However, I subsequently

served notice in writing that I wished to bring this matter to the floor of the house at ten o'clock this evening.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I am not an alarmist nor am I striving for sensationalism, but it is because of genuine concern that I am seeking an answer regarding government policy on what I consider to be an imminent and all-important issue. Two weeks ago I visited the Elliot Lake area and talked with numerous prominent citizens. At that time, I availed myself of a copy of the report entitled, "Radiological Water Pollution in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft Areas". I have given this report a great deal of study and I am firmly convinced that the situation has not been given the prominence it deserves. I find, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great area of uncertainty, and what you might call semi-contradiction, which would lead one to believe that we are lacking in research in positively defining what is a safe and what is an unsafe level of exposure to radioactive elements.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to an item found at the bottom of page 35 of the report to which I have just referred. In dealing with the situation in connection with radiological pollution of the Serpent river prepared by the Ontario Water Resources Commission in April, 1964, I find the report has this to say:
-that a major problem existed in the Elliot Lake area with respect to controlling radioactive contamination entering public waters. While there was no immediate hazard to health, a full investigation of the extent of the problem, and of what corrective measures could be taken, was obviously needed.
I should like now to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to two other quotations from the report, which in my opinion are at least a partial contradiction of the reference I have just made. On page 21, under the heading "Biological Effects", I find this:
Knowledge of the biological effects of ionizing radiation is based largely on the results of animal experiments, on clinical studies of human beings exposed during medical treatment, accident, war, or through the inhalation or ingestion of radioactive materials, and on studies of populations living in areas having a high exposure to natural 'background' radiations.
I quote from page 22 the following startling statement:
With respect to genetic effect, it is generally accepted by authorities that there is no threshold dose below which some effect may not occur.
February 7, 1S66

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should draw to your attention one of the conclusions of the deputy ministers committee which produced this report. It was as follows:
It now appears that provincial statutes are inoperative in view of the overriding authority which is assigned to federal agencies under the Atomic Energy Control Act.
This is the prime reason I am now bringing this matter to the attention of hon. members. Following through the chronology of surveys made at numerous mine sites in both the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas, two things seem to stand out. First, there was a lack of essential precaution in the impounding of radioactive wastes on mine property. Second, the surveys could not be properly completed on all properties because the majority of them had closed down in the period from 1960 to 1963. This leaves in my mind the very important question of what the situation might be today, had all the mines continued in full production.
I feel, as all other hon. members do, that it would be a great boon to our economy if these mines could return to full production. If and when this occurs, however, I hope that there will be no room for uneasiness or scepticism on the part of anyone with regard to the protection of citizens from a very hazardous situation. Perhaps the government is giving this matter urgent consideration. I hope this is the case. However this matter is of prime importance in the minds of many people, particularly in the minds of those who are of necessity more directly exposed. I am sure they would be grateful for assurance from the government that the matter is being given the active consideration it deserves.
Just let me reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that it is my opinion that there should be continuing research into this matter of what is a safe or unsafe level of radioactive exposure. I feel that there should be more restrictive measures with regard to the impounding of radioactive wastes.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, these two areas which the hon. member has mentioned are where uranium mining has been found to be economically feasible. Mining companies have been permitted to operate in these areas under federal legislation-atomic energy control regulations-but the permit covering these operations has also indicated that they would
23033-55J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be subject to appropriate provincial regulations.
For a number of years the Ontario Department of Health and the Ontario Water Resources Commission have collaborated in a study of the effect of these operations on public water supplies in these areas. A little over a year ago a report was released by the Ontario Water Resources Commission which showed that radioactive contamination levels in certain parts of the watershed had been found on occasion to exceed accepted permissible limits for continuous use by members of the public.
A special Ontario government deputy ministers' committee was formed to study the Elliot Lake and Bancroft area problem. The report of this committee was recently published and copies were sent to the federal government by the premier of Ontario, with a request that a meeting be convened to examine the situation and review the adequacy of existing legislation to control radioactive pollution.
A meeting was convened early in January 1966 and the extent of the pollution was carefully reviewed, as well as possible ways of controlling the pollution. Another meeting is to be held to collaborate further in the ways and means that the two levels of government can employ most effectively to find a solution to this problem.
The radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is concerned with radiation and health matters nationally, has already offered assistance to the Ontario Department of Health in the form of laboratory analyses and other related radiation measurements.



GRAIN-REPORTED INABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN EXPORT SALES

Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance has had to remain beyond the normal adjournment hour expressly for the purpose of answering my question I regret it very much because I realize he is busy. However, on two occasions last week I put a question to him which had to do with the matter of the movement of grain to export markets and I was not able to get a reply because of your interpretation of the rules, Mr. Speaker.
I put the question to the minister now, because I feel it is a matter of considerable importance and urgency-if not urgency certainly importance. In following the reports in the prairie wheat pool newspapers, and other newspapers, one finds conflicting accounts as
868	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to the nature and extent of the problem of moving grain to the port terminal and from there to the export market.
Some would maintain that the cause of the problem has to do with C.P.R. inefficiencies. Others say that the problem with grain movement has to do with the inadequate terminal and port facilities. Still others contend that there is really no great problem at all; that if it is a problem it is not a serious one because they maintain that grain shipments this year are actually ahead of those for the same period in the previous year.
I should like to hear from the minister some statement which would clarify this situation. Just to what extent is there a problem in the movement of grain? Second, has this problem been of such an extent that it has caused Canada to forgo any additional export sales? Certainly I did notice in the Western Producer, which is the publication of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the statement that Canada has had to forgo additional sales because it simply was not able to meet any further contractual obligations. I hope that at this point the minister will make a statement which will help clarify the situation and dispel any doubts.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: -at the beginning of the crop year, at the time the Canadian Wheat Board entered into the very large contract for delivery of wheat to the Soviet Union, I said that the government was establishing a target of exports for this crop year of approximately
DEBATES	February 7, 1966
600 million bushels of wheat and wheat flour. This was approximately 5 million bushels higher than the highest total achieved in any previous crop year, that is, which was achieved in the crop year 1963-64.
I also said at that time that the attainment of this target would require the utmost efficiency and the greatest good fortune. In fact, our exports of wheat so far this crop year, from August 1, 1965 to January 26, 1966 have been approximately 275 million bushels, and in the same period, or for a few days longer, of the crop year 1963-64 when we obtained almost the target figure that I fixed this year, exports were 274 million bushels. As you can see from this comparison, we are just about on target.
Exports of all grains-and as I recollect the hon. gentleman's question, it was relating to grain and not only to wheat-exports in the two periods were 335 million bushels this year, and 324 million bushels in 1963-64.
From the point of view of our exports of all grain we are doing somewhat better than we did in the previous record year. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the Wheat Board has found it necessary to turn down certain prospective business that offered. I do not know how much business we might have got if our facilities had not been taken up so fully, but there were inquiries which could not be pursued.
I should like in conclusion to say, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the wheat board is doing very well in attaining the targets that we fixed early in the year.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, February 8, 1966