1966-06-27

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, both in French and in English. It is stipulated in this report that several private bills regarding insurance companies are being referred to the house.
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA-CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE

Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, if the house gives consent I move: TLat the fourth and fifth reports on the special joint committee on the public service, presented to the house on Thursday, June 23, 1966, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
1Translation1


Mr. Gregoire:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division. o (2:40 p.m.)



INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT-CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on industry, research and energy development presented to the house on Thursday, June 23, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: that the third report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural devel-23033-434
opment, presented to the house on Thursday, June 23, be concurred in.
1Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since permission is again being asked that this committee sit regularly at the same time as the house, we object to the motion, which is agreed to on division only.

Motion agreed to on division.



REPORT BY MINISTER ON VISIT TO UNITED KINGDOM AND RUSSIA

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know I have just returned from a visit to London and the Soviet union. While in London I attended a meeting of Commonwealth trade ministers, and with the permission of the house I should like to table the text of the communique issued at the end of the conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: These discussions, which were very useful, gave me the opportunity to meet and exchange views with my colleagues from Britain and other Commonwealth countries concerned with trade, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, trade ministers from the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, many of whom we shall be receiving here in Ottawa next month for the Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada conference and, of course, trade ministers from the various Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa.
Our discussions reviewed developments in world trade, including progress in the Kennedy round of trade negotiations in Geneva, efforts being made to strengthen international commodity arrangements for such products of special interest to Commonwealth countries as wheat, cocoa and sugar, and ways and means of further strengthening trade within the Commonwealth.
June 27, 1966

Report on Trade Discussions
Right Hon. Douglas Jay, President of the Board of Trade, indicated the readiness of the British government to seek membership in the European economic community, provided the essential interests of Britain and Commonwealth countries were safeguarded. It was agreed that other Commonwealth countries would be kept fully informed by the British of the progress of their exploratory discussions. Mr. Jay indicated that the British government would consult closely with other Commonwealth governments at all stages of any negotiations that might take place.
Taking into account the variety and diversity of interests within the Commonwealth group, there was a good spirit of co-operation from all sides. There was a clear recognition of the value of relating the development plans of the different Commonwealth countries to one another through the exchange of information.
There is clearly scope for substantially increased trade among Commonwealth countries on a multilateral basis. A meeting of senior planning officials from Commonwealth countries is to be convened, with a view to exchanging ideas on planning techniques, regional co-operation in planning, and co-operation in trade promotion.
So as to help the developing Commonwealth countries in their export promotion efforts we have offered to bring to Canada, later this year, up to five officials from developing Commonwealth countries for special courses on trade promotion. In addition we have offered to make senior Canadian government trade commissioners available to conduct seminars on trade promotion in the developing countries themselves.
We have also undertaken to provide to the developing Commonwealth countries information on market surveys and trade opportunities around the world, as contained in the department's publication "Foreign Trade". This offer of assistance was well received, as well as our willingness to lend assistance in the techniques of tourist promotion, to which developing countries attach great importance.
I also took the opportunity while in London to call on various British ministers, including Right Hon. Douglas Jay, President of the British Board of Trade, and Mr. George Brown, First Secretary of State and Minister of Economic Affairs, who has special responsibilities for Britain's relations with Europe.

Among other things we explored how we might further strengthen the process of consultation and co-operation between our two countries. We agreed that it would be to the benefit of both countries if ministers concerned with commercial and economic relations were to meet at intervals for discussion of matters of common concern. To this end an Anglo-Canadian ministerial committee on trade and economic matters is to be established. It is hoped that we shall be able to hold the first meeting of the committee later this year.
In Moscow, as the Minister of Finance has already informed the house, I signed, on behalf of the government of Canada, a protocol extending for a further three years to April 17, 1969 the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement. Hon. members are aware that this agreement was first concluded in 1956 and subsequently extended by the protocols of 1960 and 1963.
Under the agreement each country undertakes to extend most favoured nation treatment to the other. This means that imports into Canada of Soviet goods will continue to enter at most favoured nation rates of duty, and Canadian exports to the U.S.S.R. will continue to enjoy similar treatment in that market. The agreement allows for exceptions on both sides, where matters relating to national security are involved.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The exchange of most favoured nation treatment, with respect to shipping, relates to the treatment to be accorded to the vessels of either country while in the ports of the other. The terms of the protocol signed in Moscow are in general the same as those of the protocol of 1963, and provide, on a fully reciprocal basis, for facilitation of visits for business purposes. Both sides have also undertaken to continue to consider sympathetically any representations either government may make to the other concerning implementation of the agreement, or other matters affecting their commercial relations.
While in Moscow I talked on a number of occasions with Mr. Patolichev, Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, about the development of Canada-U.S.S.R. trade. We both recognized the importance of widening the range of goods moving between our two countries, and we discussed the possibility of an increase in the number of trade missions that might be organized between the Canadian business community and Soviet foreign trade organizations.
June 27, 1966

In my discussions with Mr. Patolichev I emphasized the interest of our businessmen in marketing a broader range of Canadian manufactured goods in the U.S.S.R., as well as the basic materials, wheat and other goods now being exported. For his part, Mr. Patolichev explained the great importance which the U.S.S.R. attaches to developing Soviet exports to Canada. I explained to him that Soviet goods had the same opportunity to compete for sales in the Canadian market as the goods of other countries to which we extend most favoured nation treatment. So there would be no misunderstanding, I gave him a letter indicating that I saw no reason why, within the framework of our laws and regulations, it should not be possible for the U.S.S.R. to develop its exports to the Canadian market.
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table copies of the letters exchanged in this regard, and of the protocol extending the trade agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have both these documents, the one just mentioned and the one mentioned earlier, included as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: My colleague the Minister of Finance has already given to the house details of the very important wheat sales that have been concluded with the U.S.S.R. It is gratifying that Canada now has assured sales to the U.S.S.R. of nine million long tons over the next three years, including substantial quantities of flour. I need hardly point out the implications of these sales for the production and marketing of Canadian wheat and flour. This transaction will provide strong underlying support for our whole economy, and for our efforts to expand Canadian exports. As indicated by the Canadian Wheat Board, the wheat will be shipped from both Pacific coast and eastern Canadian port areas. The sales to the U.S.S.R. will be a factor of strength in the world wheat market, and will constitute an important element of stability in our trade relations with the U.S.S.R.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation and I personally were most warmly received by the Soviet authorities in both Moscow and Leningrad, and by the many Russian people we met. On every hand there was evidence of the Soviet desire to strengthen relations with Canada. I was able to note the efforts being
23033-434J
Report on Trade Discussions made to increase productivity and to improve social conditions in the U.S.S.R. I believe there is room for the development of technical exchanges between Canada and the U.S.S.R. to the mutual benefit of both countries, and that both would benefit from the knowledge and understanding that would come from more widespread contact between the two peoples.
I am delighted that Mr. Polyansky, first deputy chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers, with whom I had useful discussions in Moscow, is presently visiting Canada as head of the Soviet parliamentary delegation, and I am sure he will find his stay here both enjoyable and rewarding. I have invited Soviet trade minister Patolichev to visit Canada next year, and he is hopeful that it will be possible for him to come during the period of Expo '67. He will be most welcome.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the government regards the Soviet union as a valued and continuing trading partner of Canada. The extent to which our sales to the Soviet union may further expand and diversify will reflect, in part, the success of Soviet sales efforts in this market. Canadian businessmen, in deciding on the source of their import needs may wish to consider availabilities from the Soviet union in the same way as from other sources, and be guided in their decisions in this regard by normal business criteria. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that hon. members of this house welcome back the Minister of Trade and Commerce from his useful trip to London and Moscow, and that we have all found interesting the report he has given us on his talks with other commonwealth trade ministers at the conference which has just been concluded. This was a conference which I am sure will be helpful in promoting increased trade within the commonwealth and a better understanding among its members. Having taken part in conferences of this kind I realize their potential in achieving these things, and I am sure the latest will be equally useful.
We have all been interested to read in the papers and have had confirmed here today, that the talks the minister has had with the British trade minister have led to an arrangement for a Canada-Britain ministerial meeting dealing with trade matters. I am sure everyone will agree that this will help lead to a greater Britain-Canada trade in the future.
June 27, 1966

Report on Trade Discussions
We are all very pleased to hear ol the protocol renewal which will make it possible for us to extend our trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. for another three years, and which should make it possible to expand our trade with that country in the years ahead. I am sure all members of the house are hopeful that this expanded trade will make possible steadily improving relationships and understandings between this country and the U.S.S.R.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party welcome back the minister of trade. We are glad to hear his statement this afternoon having to do with two matters, the first relating to commonwealth trade. Unfortunately, commonwealth trade, as Mark Twain said of the weather, is something about which a great many things have been said but about which not too much has been done.
One problem that has faced Canada for years under successive governments relates to our very large trade deficit with the United States. Often our trade balance with other countries has not been sufficient to balance our total trade, and has never been sufficient to balance our international payments. This problem is increasing in that the nations with which we have a favourable balance of trade are becoming concerned. Quite recently in the city of Ottawa, Right Hon. Douglas Jay, President of the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom, commented on the fact that over a period of years the United Kingdom has been purchasing roughly 50 per cent more from Canada than we have been purchasing from Great Britain.
This has not always been just a matter of tariffs or most favoured nation agreements. It has often been felt by Britain, and I think with some justification, that the valuation for duty purposes has not been realistic and in many cases has been discriminatory. If we are really going to do something about commonwealth trade there must be a much more realistic approach than anything that has been taken to date.
I was very glad to hear the minister announce that there is to be an Anglo-Canadian ministerial committee on trade and economic matters set up to meet this fall. I know that what concerns many Canadians is the fact, as the minister has commented in his statement, that Great Britain is likely to make application for membership in the European economic community. While Great Britain, with the best intentions in the world, will try to
[Mr. Hees.l
safeguard commonwealth trade, it will have to bargain to get into the European common market. In the process of bargaining we could very easily lose some of the market which we now enjoy with Great Britain for many of our primary products. Therefore I think it is extremely important that this committee go to work and go to work quickly.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The second thing the minister referred to was the signing of the agreement with the U.S.S.R., something which has been applauded from all parts of the house. The minister referred to the question of extending trade between our two countries. If I remember correctly the figures over the last three years, we have bought from the Soviet union something like $27 million worth of goods and have sold to them something in the neighbourhood of $800 million worth, which is about 30 to 1. If we look upon the wheat deals as merely temporary, emergency situations, then the present approach is adequate; but if we are hoping to make the Soviet union a continuing market for Canadian products and Canadian wheat, then certainly every effort must be exerted to make possible increased sales of Russian goods to Canada.
Again, I do not think this is just a matter of tariffs. I think it is a matter of looking realistically at the valuation for duty purposes and canvassing the entire market situation so we can establish a genuine two way trade policy, because only on that basis can we hope to have continuing trade with the other nations of the world.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr
Speaker, we are happy to note that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr Winters) has had an excellent trip to Britain and Russia. We are also happy to note his return since his presence is always appreciated by the house of which he is a distinguished member.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has informed us of the talks which were held in Russia and Britain. Needless to say that we rejoice at the sale of wheat to Russia which has recently been made and at the protocol that he signed to facilitate trade between the two countries.
We also want to congratulate the Ministei of Trade and Commerce for his share in the talks held in Britain with a view to facilitating trade between Commonwealth countries
June 27, 1966

We believe Canada is an immensely rich country, capable of producing vast amounts of high quality products; we are also convinced that Canada is capable of helping other countries of the world by selling or supplying their needs and, in return, by obtaining from them what we cannot have here. To my mind, trade between countries should be promoted, since each country benefits and we congratulate the minister for his successful trip in this regard.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting briefly on the two matters raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should just like to say that we have already expressed our approval of the protocol that was signed extending the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. until 1969. I think the minister has pointed to one of the most important aspects of trade between the U.S.S.R. and Canada, in that we need to explore every possible, practical way of expanding the market for U.S.S.R. products in Canada.
I welcome the suggestion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the Canadian government would assist in sending to that country more trade missions made up of businessmen, who I think could in a practical way inspect the goods that are available within the U.S.S.R. and see whether they could find an immediate and growing market within the Canadian economy.
We would also like to know-and I have asked the Minister of Finance a number of times about this-how much flour is included in the contract. We would particularly like to know the amount for the first year. We have been told there is a firm contract for some 112 million bushels of wheat starting August 1, 1966, and perhaps the minister knows now how much of that 112 million bushels will be shipped in the form of flour.
The other matter the Minister of Trade and Commerce raised was the meeting he had in London with representatives of the other Commonwealth countries. He mentioned the Kennedy round of negotiations. I certainly hope that some greater progress will be made in these discussions than has been apparent in the immediate past. As far as the British entry into the European economic community is concerned, I am sure the minister understands that all these conditions must be fairly clearly spelled out before a Commonwealth country such as Canada can agree to them,
Canada Grain Aci
because a very, very large portion not only of our own trade but that of many of the other Commonwealth countries is tied up in trade directly with Britain, and we will have to be extremely careful to see that these Commonwealth preferences are not interfered with by Britain's entry into the European economic community.
Right Hon. Douglas Jay said, I believe, or at least is reported to have said, when he was in Canada that "either Canada increases purchases in the United Kingdom or faces a significant decline in British purchases in Canada." While Britain may feel there is an economic necessity for her to say and do these things, I think the minister ought to tell us, if he knows, what commodities Britain has in mind in cutting back significantly on purchases from Canada unless we are able to increase our purchases from the United Kingdom.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-212, to amend the Canada Grain Act (off-track elevator licensing).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the house previously. Actually it is an amendment to the Canada Grain Act which would allow the Board of Grain Commissioners to license off-track elevator storage. With the two transportation companies, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., moving into the trucking industry at a great rate and with the proposed rail line abandonments, it is only logical to assume that elevator storage off-track should now be allowed to be licensed. I hope the government will take this amendment into consideration and perhaps see that it is adopted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the

June 27, 1966
Questions
following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Canadian National Hallway Company to make capital expenditures and to supply the financial requirements of affiliated companies in amounts not exceeding, in the calendar year 1965, the amount of $161,600,000, and not exceeding, in the calendar year 1966, the amount of $192,000,000; and to make, in the calendar year 1967 prior to the 1st of July, 1967, certain capital expenditures, by way of investing in the securities of Air Canada, not exceeding $126,000,000 and certain other capital expenditures toward the acquisition of equipment, additions and conversions not exceeding $90,000,000; to provide for the financial requirements of Air Canada in an amount not exceeding $50,000,000, either by means of loans from Her Majesty to the National Company or by means of issues of securities of the National Company, authorized and guaranteed as to interest and principal by Her Majesty, the cash proceeds by either method to be used only for the financial requirements of Air Canada, the capital needs of the National Company itself being met entirely through the sale of preferred stock to Her Majesty and from reserves from depreciation and debt discount; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase until December 31st, 1967, Canadian National Company 4 per cent preferred stock in an annual amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the Company; to extend until December 31, 1967, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the Company authorized by the National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating reserves to June 30, 1967, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the Railway Company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Davis: 1.	What were the personal income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1963-64?
2.	What were the corporate income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1963-64?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Personal income tax payments to the federal government in total for the fiscal year 1963-64 were $2,454.6 million. The total includes old age security tax and provincial income tax collected by the taxation
CMr. Sharp.]
division. (The province of Quebec collects its own provincial income tax. Therefore, the figures for that province are net federal tax). Collection figures by provinces are not available because payments and refunds processed by the taxation data centre in Ottawa in 1963-64 relate to all provinces and district office collection figures, therefore, do not indicate correctly the amount collected in each province. The following table, based on an analysis of tax returns, shows the total tax payable by individuals in respect of the 1963 taxation year distributed by province of residence:
	Total	Average
	tax payable	per capita
Province	$ million	$Newfoundland	22.0	45.74P.E.I.	3.8	35.51Nova Scotia	47.0	62.17New Brunswick	33.0	53.75Quebec	474.3	86.74Ontario	1,049.7	162.79Manitoba	105.3	110.84Saskatchewan	86.0	92.18Alberta	156.4	111.32British Columbia	254.9	150.382. Corporate income tax payments to the	federal government in total for	the fiscalyear 1963-64 were	$1,472.2 million.	The totalincludes old age security tax and provincial income tax collected by the taxation division. (The provinces of Ontario and Quebec collect their own corporation tax. Therefore, the	figures for those	provinces represent net	federal tax). Collection figures by province, based on the district office of filing, are shown	in the following table:	Total	Averagecollections	per capitaProvince	$ million	$Newfoundland	14.2	29.49P.E.I.	2.3	21.62Nova Scotia	16.8	22.23New Brunswick	13.1	21.36Quebec	432.1	79.02Ontario	700.6	108.65Manitoba	47.1	49.63Saskatchewan	15.0	16.05Alberta	81.1	57.69British Columbia	149.6	88.28
June 27, 1966

Questions


PROSECUTIONS UNDER COMBINES ACT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past ten years, in how many eases did the government charge and prosecute companies for violations of the Combines Act, except for cases under section 33-(c) ?
2.	In each case, what were the names of the companies involved?
3.	In each case, what were the names of the companies found guilty when prosecuted, and what were the penalties imposed by the court?
4.	What were the costs to the government of investigating and prosecuting the above cases, exclusive of the salaries of permanent government employees, but including fees paid to lawyers, court reporters and other officials, travelling expenses for officers of the Department of Justice, cost of transcripts, etc.?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this is a starred question the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) put on the order paper.
The reply is ten pages long. I got in touch with the member, through the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I understand he would be willing, provided the house agrees, to accept that the reply be considered as read and then printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: 1. 28 Cases (This covers the period April 1, 1956 to March 31, 1966 and includes cases where prosecution proceedings were completed or instituted during that period but does not include 4 Cases in which orders of prohibition pursuant to section 31 (2) of the Combines Investigation Act were applied for and granted.)
2*
3*
Case
Prosecution	Companies and individuals	Date of	Companies and individualsunder section	charged	judgment	found guiltyPenalties	Costs ofimposed	CaseS	$
Wire Fencing.. 498 (1)(d) of Cr. Code
Electrical
Appliances..	34 C.I. Act
Quilting	 498 (1) (d) of
Cr. Code
Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Limited	 April 27, 1956
Canadian Steel Corporation, Limited Toronto The Steel Company of Canada,
Limited
Frost Steel and Wire Company,
Limited
Lundy Fence Company Limited New Brunswick Wire Fence Company, (Limited)
Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Limited	 10,000
Canadian Steel Corporation, Limited	10,000
The Steel Company of Canada,
Limited	  10,000
Frost Steel and Wire Company,
Limited	 10,000
Lundy Fence Company Limited ....	10,000
New Brunswick Wire Fence Company, (Limited)	 10,000

 60,000
Prohibition Order granted
43,217.60
Moffats Limited	Sept. 21, 1956 Moffats Limited	 500	8,206.66
Toronto	Prohibition Order
granted
Berback Quilting Ltd	
Oct. 3, 1957 Berback Quilting Ltd	
200	7,046.81Master Quilting Co. Ltd.	Montreal Master Quilting Co. Ltd.	1,000The Montreal Quilting Co. Ltd.	The Montreal Quilting Co. Ltd	1,000Quilted Products Ltd.	Quilted Products Ltd	
1,000Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd.	Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd.	1,000Ralph Baker (Baker Quiting Co.)	Ralph Baker (Baker Quilting Co.)..	150Israel Zackon and Walter Marczak	Israel Zackon and Walter Marczak(Bucky Zackon Reg'd.)	(Bucky Zackon Reg'd.)	
200Isidore Levitt, Henry Tylman	Isidore Levitt, Henry Tylman	(Experts' Quilting Co.)	(Expert's Quilting Co.)	
150David Zuckerstein, Arthur Shipper,	David Zuckerstein, Arthur Shipper,Joseph Weinberg, Joseph Luckfeld	Jospeh Weinberg, Joseph Luckfeld(Quebec Quilting Products	Co.)	(Quebec Quilting Products Co.)...	200Abraham Weintraub (Independent	Abraham Weintraub (IndependentQuilting Co.)	Quilting Co.)	
100
Matador Inc.
Coal-Winnipeg 498 (1) (d) of D. E. Adams Coal Ltd	
Cr. Code	Federal Grain Limited (Fort
Rouge Coal Company) Hagborg Fuel Limited Harstone Coal Company Ltd. Thos. Jackson & Sons .Limited
Matador Inc	 1,000

 6,000
Prohibition Order granted
Nov. 12,	1957	D. E. Adams Coal Ltd	
750	20,984.51Winnipeg	Federal Grain Limited	
2,000Hagborg Fuel Limited	
1,500Harstone Coal Company	Ltd	2,000Thos Jackson & Sons Limited	
2,000Jubilee Coal Co. Ltd	
2506858	COMMONS DEBATES	June 27. 1966
Questions
Transmission 498 (l)(d) of and Conveyor Cr. Code Equipment
Asphalt Roofing 498 (l)(d) of Cr. Code
Jubilee Coal Co. Ltd.	McCurdy Supply Company Limited 1,500
McCurdy Supply Company Limited	Northland Coal & Ice Co. Ltd....	2,000Northland Coal & Ice Co. Ltd.	Red River Co-operative Supply Ltd.	750Red River Co-Operative Supply Ltd.	Windatt Coal Company Limited
750
Windatt Coal Company Limited	The Winnipeg Supply & Fuel
The Winnipeg Supply & Fuel	Company Limited	
2,500Company Limited	John Beverley	
250John Beverley (Beverley Fuel	Jerry Nepon	
125Supply) ~	MaxFaiman	
125Jerry Nepon and Max Faiman	Robert Henderson Irvine	
125(Crown Fuel Co.)	William Irvine	
125Robert Henderson Irvine and	Joseph S. Miller	
750William Irvine (John Irvine &	Saul Simkin	
1,500Sons)	Alexander Turk	
750Joseph S. Miller (J. S. Miller	Ruben Wolfman	
100Coal Co.)	Sam Wolfman	
100Saul Simkin (Simkin's Fuel	Harry Wolfman	
50
Company)
Alexander Turk (Alex Turk Fuel)	

 20,000
Ruben Wolfman, Sam Wolfman and	Prohibition Order
Harry Wolfman (Wolfman Fuel)	.	granted
Link-Belt Limited	
United Steel Corporation Limited Jeffrey Manufacturing Company Limited
Forano, Limited Stephens Adamson Mfg. Co. of Canada Limited
Bond Engineering W'orks, Limited Webster-Small wood. Limited
Nov. 22, 1957 Link-Belt Limited	   10,000
Toronto United Steel Corporation Limited...	10,000
Jeffrey Manufacturing Company
Limited	 10,000
Forano, Limited	 10,000
Stephens Admanson Mfg. Co. of
Canada Limited	 10,000
Bond Engineering Works, Limited...	1,000
Webster-Small wood, Limited		1,000

 52,000
Prohibition Order granted
40,048.03
The Barrett Company Limited .... Jan. 7, 1958
Building Products Limited	 Toronto
Canadian Johns-Manville Company Limited
Dominion Tar & Chemical Company Limited**
Brantford Roofing Company Limited
Canadian Gypsum Company (Limited)
Sidney Roofing & Paper Company Limited
Alexander Murray & Company, Limited
Bishop Asphalt Papers Limited The Philip Carey Company Ltd. Currie Products Limited Canada Roof Products Limited
The Barrett Company Limited		10,000
Building Products Limited	 10,000
Canadian Johns-Manville Company
Limited	 10,000
Brantford Roofing Company Limited 10,000 Canadian Gypsum Company
(Limited)	 10.000
Sidney Roofing Paper Company
Limited	 10,000
Alexander Murray & Company,
Limited	   10,000
Bishop Asphalt Papers Limited....	10,000
The Philip Carey Company Ltd		10,000
Currie Products Limited	 10,000
Canada Roof Products Limited		10,000

 110,000
Prohibition Order granted
40,499.63
In accordance with the verbal request of the honourable member, individuals as well as companies are included in the answers to these questions. Charge dismissed.
June 27, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	6859
Questions
[Mr. FavreauO
Case
Boxboard Grades of Paperboard
2*	3*	4Prosecution	Companies and individuals	Date of	Companies and individuals	Penalties	Costs ofunder section	charged	judgment	found guilty	imposed	Case
oo
o>
o

	240,000
Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario
Clarence William Dent
June 15, 1960 Toronto &
Nov. 28, 1961 Toronto
Electrical Contractors Association	7,500
of Ontario	
Clarence William Dent	 7,500

r	15,000
Prohibition Orders granted.
21,154.85
Sugar- Western
Gasoline- Toronto
32 of C. I. Act
34 (2) of C. I. Act
The British Columbia Sugar	Aug. 8, 1960 Acquittal
Refining Company, Limited	Winnipeg
B. C. Sugar Refinery, Limited
The British American Oil Company March 10, 1961 Acquittal Limited	Toronto
71,173.11
4,236.61
Coal-Sault Ste. Marie
Oil Filters...
Sngar-Eastern
411 (l)(d) of Cr. Code
34 (2) (b) and 34 (3) (b) (i) of C. I. Act
Lyons Fuel Hardware and Supplies Sept. 6, 1961 Limited	Sault Ste.
Soo Falls Brewing Company Limited Marie McMaster Fuels Limited
Kralinator Filters Limited	 Nov. 21, 1962
Winnipeg
Lyons Fuel Hardware and Supplies
Limited	 4,000
Soo Falls Brewing Company Limited 3,500
McMaster Fuels Limited	 8,000

	15,500
Prohibition Order granted
Kralinator Filters Limited	 1,500
7,850.36
4,179.69
498 (l)(d) of Cr. Code
Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited.. . Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited St. Lawrence Sugar Refineries Limited
March 18, 1963 Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited Montreal (Acadia-Atlantic Sugar Company
Limited)	
Canada and Dominion Sugar
Company Limited	
St. Lawrence Sugar Refineries Limited	
26,008.20
25.000
25.000
25.000



4,174.07
4,916.21
COMMONS DEBATES	June 27. 1966
June 27, 1966


PENALTY FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Scott (Danforth): 1.	Has the government received representations from the Ontario Humane Society for an amendment to the criminal code to give power to magistrates to prohibit persons convicted of cruelty to or neglect of animals from owning or possessing animals as part of the sentence?
2.	If so, how many such requests have been received, and what has been the nature of the government's response to such requests?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Prime Minister's office as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Requests were received from 23 societies and branches, and from 305 individuals. They were informed that the Minister of Justice appreciated having received their views and that they will be carefully considered.


VETERANS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR WORK-IN FOR CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	How many veterans in the Canadian public service are affected by the terms of article 17 (2) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (7-8 Elizabeth II, ch. 21)?
2.	Are veterans working for crown corporations affected by the terms of the aforementioned article 17 (2)?


Hon. Leo-Alphonse Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. 1,141.
2.	Employment in a large number of crown corporations has been deemed to be employment in the public service of Canada and schedule "A" of the Public Service Superannuation Act contains a list of these corporations. Therefore, only those employed by these crown corporations are affected by article 17(2) of the CFSA and 3(11) DSPCA.


LESLIE FROST-AIR CANADA DIRECTOR
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Was Mr. Leslie Frost on the board of directors of Air Canada on October 1, 1965?
2.	Is Mr. Leslie Frost still on this board of directors?
3.	Did Mr. Frost make any political speeches or conduct any political activities while he was director of a crown agency?
4.	Has Air Canada a policy concerning political activity conducted by its officials and, if so, what is that policy?
Questions


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is not within the knowledge of the company.
4.	Members of the board of directors of Air Canada with the exception of the president, are not officers of the company. Air Canada's policy with respect to participation in political activity by all persons on its payroll is set forth in a Management Guide recognizing the merit of wide participation by all citizens in political affairs but requiring that they obtain leave of absence from the company to do so.


VALCARTIER-INQUIRY CONCERNING FACTORY OF CANADIAN ARSENALS LTD.
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence Manufacturing Company made a bid to buy the Valcartier factory of Canadian Arsenals Limited and, if so, what is that bid?
2.	What was the cost of the said factory at the time of construction?
3.	Does Canadian Arsenals Limited intend selling all its factories and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	Must decision by Canadian Arsenals Limited in this regard be approved by the responsible minister or by the governor in council and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Has the government recommended the sale of any Canadian Arsenals Limited factories?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	St. Lawrence Manufacturing Inc. and General Investment Corporation of Quebec have jointly made a proposal to purchase the Val Rose Plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited located near Valcartier, Que. The amount of the bid was $3,150,000.
2.	The cumulative original cost of land, buildings and equipment since construction of the plant began in 1936 is $21,906,000.
3.	No. However, some plants were offered for sale and sold because there existed no further requirement for their facilities. Where a requirement for limited defence use of the facilities exists, plants have been offered for sale to private interests to allow higher utilization of the overall manufacturing capabilities through the introduction of commercial production lines while retaining the essential military function for which they were designed.

June 27, 1966
Questions
4.	Decisions regarding disposal of capital assets, including lands and buildings, follow recommendation from the responsible Minister and approval by Governor in Council. Canadian Arsenals Limited are custodian only of such assets which are the responsibility of the Department of Defence Production.
5.	Yes. In the last two years, the government has recommended the sale of the Explosives Division of Valleyfield, Que., the Palace Hill Plant in Quebec city, and the Val Rose Plant near Valcartier, Que.


INCENTIVES ACT PROJECTS, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Have any projects been approved in the province of Manitoba under the Area Development Incentives Act and, if so, how many and in what areas are they located?
2.	Have any manufacturing or processing projects been approved and, if so, what type and what
Designated	No. of	Capitalarea	Projects	investmentBrandon	5	$24,235,000Dauphin	3	287,000Total	8	$24,522,000
Information on the distribution between available pending further advice from i
is the estimated capital cost and the estimated development grants for these projects?
3.	Are any of these projects now in production and, if so, how many?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1
and 2. Only projects involving the establishment or expansion of manufacturing or processing industries in designated areas can be considered for benefits under the Area Development Incentives Act or section 71A of the Income Tax Act. Firms have notified the area development agency of their intentions to proceed with 12 projects in Manitoba, involving a total investment of $24,807,000, in such a manner as to qualify for the benefits of the area development program. As of May 31, 1966, eight firms have received letters of assurance advising that if they proceed in accordance with their plans, the projects should qualify for a capital grant or for income tax benefits. Details of the projects are as follows:
Type of Industry Food	2
Printing, publishing	and	allied	1
Machinery	1
Chemicals and chemical	products	1
Food	3
capital grants and tax benefits is not
3.	Of the eight firms which have received letters of assurance, 4 report that they expect to be in production by the end of June 1966.


SATELLITE TRANSMISSION OF TELEVISION PROGRAMS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Have any feasibility studies been conducted by the C.B.C. into the use of a satellite of the Early Bird variety for transmission of television programs into areas presently not served by any television and, if so, what is their nature?
2.	Are there any plans by any agency of the government of Canada for putting a satellite of the Early Bird variety into space for use in communication?
3.	Are there any international plans for sending into space any satellite for use in television transmission?
4.	Has an estimate been made of the cost of such a satellite and, if so, what is it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Transport as follows:
1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that it is following closely the work being done in the United States by space agency people, the Communications Satellite Corporation, and network broadcasters, concerning potential network distribution satellites with a view to eventually taking advantage of any resulting developments.
2 and 3. The international telecommunications satellite consortium (known as INTELSAT), in which Canada is a partner, owns the Early Bird satellite and has plans for placing in orbit several additional communication satellites employing increasingly sophisticated designs. All of these satellites
June 27, 1966

are or will be, capable of being used for relaying television signals, as well as other forms of telecommunications, on overseas routes, but to do so they must operate in conjunction with complex ground stations. These satellites are not intended for distributing television signals within countries. With respect to the possibility of using satellites for this latter purpose, studies are under way in the United States and Canada to determine the feasibility of using more complex satellites for relaying television signals from a limited number of program origination points to a large number of broadcasting stations and using for this purpose ground stations of lower cost and complexity.
4.	The cost of placing a satellite in orbit might be $10,000,000, however this cost alone is not too meaningful. It is necessary in making cost comparisons with other forms of telecommunication, to also include the cost of the ground stations as well as to take into account the rather short satellite life. It is too early to estimate what these overall system costs would be, however, there are indications that they may ultimately be lower than the cost of an equivalent land based microwave service.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, MALAGASH, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a post office at Malagash, Nova Scotia and, if so. when?
2.	Have any investigations been carried out by officials of the government toward securing a site for a post office at Malagash, Nova Scotia?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. A post office building was completed on June 15, 1966.
2.	The site was acquired in 1965.


CONTRACT FOR LOBSTER RESEARCH
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries, or any other department or agency of the federal government, recently enter into a one-year contract with a vessel and its Captain, Louis Lourmais of France, to carry out research into lobsters and, if so, what are the terms of remuneration to Captain Lourmais?
2.	Were tenders called for the above-mentioned contract, and (a) if so, how many responses were there, and by whom (b) if not, what was the reason?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes. To conduct diving operations for purpose of (a) underwater explorations involving
Questions
observations of the operation of fishing equipment and gear and of marine life; (b) collecting living samples of marine life; (c) carrying out underwater photography; (d) undertaking underwater repair and maintenance of gear and equipment; and (e) such other activities as the minister considers worth while.
For above services, including use of the diving tender St. Brandon and supporting crew of not less than three professional divers for a term of 11 months, an amount of $88,000.
2. (a) No. (b) Captain Lourmais was selected for this work because of his broad experience and international reputation in underwater exploration, photography, etc.


DAMAGE CLAIMS, TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, N.B.
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Regarding claims for damages to property acquired, including moving same when considered necessary, on the trans-Canada highway between Andover, New Brunswick, and the Quebec boundary, what are the details of (a) ownership of property (b) remuneration claimed for damages or moving (c) remuneration allowed for damages and moving (d) cost of moving, if any?
2.	Was appraisal of value, and moving expense examined by a duly authorized official of the government of Canada before being approved and paid?
3.	Are any claims still unsettled and, if so, what are the details and value of same?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) No information of this kind appears in our files because the acquisition of property is the responsibility of the province and the cost is not shared by Canada, (b), (c) and (d) Canada shares in the cost of moving buildings from the highway right of way in accordance with the provisions of the trans-Canada highway agreement, including the reinstatement of facilities which existed at the original site. Canada also shares in expenditures necessarily incurred by the owner or person in possession of a building for the moving of effects and equipment and for board and lodging during the moving of his building.
2. The value of property being purchased by the province is not assessed by an official of the government of Canada. The moving expense is examined by a duly authorized official of the government of Canada before the extent of federal participation is approved.

June 27, 1966
Questions
3.	It is a responsibility of the province to deal with claims by property owners; consequently, this department is not aware of the status of any such claims.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;THE PUBLIC EYE&quot;
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the C.B.C. program "The Public Eye", presented on Tuesday. June 7, mention any of the positive accomplishments of the immediate past or present federal governments?
2.	If so, which ones?
a. What was the theme of the program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	No. The program was not intended as an over-all examination of what governments or parliaments have done.
2.	N/A.
3.	The theme of the program was an examination of the underlying causes and events which some observers believe have embittered party and person relationships in parliament over the past ten years.


STUDY OF UNDERGROUND WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Coates: Have any steps been taken by the government to determine the extent of Canada's underground water resources and, if so (a) what are they (b) in what provinces have studies been initiated (c) how long will it be before the reports will be available on these studies?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes. (a) Active evaluation of Canada's groundwater resources has been carried out by the Geological Survey of Canada since the 1930's. In the past few years some provinces have established agencies to evaluate and control their groundwater resources. Many of these provincial investigations are supported by grants from ARDA. The work of the water research branch in these provinces is becoming more concerned with the development of new techniques of groundwater exploration, rather than the actual evaluation of groundwater resources, which is being undertaken by the provincial agencies, (b) Groundwater investigations of various types have
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
been made in parts of all provinces and territories, with the exception of Newfoundland. At present investigations are being conducted by the water research branch in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. A national observation well network is being established to determine the amount of groundwater in storage across Canada, (c) Reports published by the geological survey are available for many of these investigations; others are in the form of non-published internal reports.


IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOUR AT POINTE-AU-PERE
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): Was a decision made by the government between 1955 and 1959 to improve the harbour facilities in Pointe-au-Pere in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so (a) in what year (b) what was the estimated cost of the planned work at the time (c) how much was spent thereafter in order to bring the harbour to its present state?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Yes, (a) 1958; (b) $3,152,000; (c) $4,125,000.


AIR CANADA SERVICE TO REGINA, SASK.
Mr. More: 1.	Does Air Canada plan to service the city of Regina with DC-9's in the near future?
2.	If so, what is the target date for the commencement of this service?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Planned introductory date, May 1, 1967.


WINTER HOME CONSTRUCTION BONUS, MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	How many applications were received in the province of Manitoba for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction incentive program?
2.	How many qualified for the bonus?
3.	How many qualified in (a) Metropolitan Winnipeg (b) Brandon (e) Selkirk (d) Gimli (e) Stonewall (f) Arborg (g) Riverton (h) Teulon?
June 27, 1966

Questions


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1963-64	1964-65	1965-661. Applications received	1469	1719	1593Less non starts	78	12	542. Applications qualified	1391	1707	1539for bonus	1264	1450	14193. (a)	870	1085	1109(b)	49	60	64(c)	12	23	10(d)	1	4	4(e)	no applications received	3	no applications received(f)	1	no applications received	1(g)	no applications	no applications	no applicationsreceived	received	received<h)	1	1	no applications received


INQUIRY CONCERNING HARBOUR AT RIMOUSKI EAST
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	How many times has the harbour of Rimouski -East been dredged since 1930?
2.	In what years has it been dredged?
3.	How much did each dredging cost?


George James McIlraith: 1. 20 times.
Year	Cost
1930	$ 45,000
1930	13,500
1932	15,500
1933	26,000
1934	600
1935	33,000
1937	25,000
1938	174,000
1938	11,500
1940	20,000
1942	3,000
1943	19,000
1944	3,500
1946	27,000
1949	6,000
1951	72,000
1952-3-4	369,000
1955	47,000
1957-58	388,000
1961	64,000


FISHERIES OFFICERS, N.S. COUNTIES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many fishing guardians or preventative officers were employed by the Department of Fisheries in Lunenburg county during the past lobster season?
2.	How many similar officers were employed in Queens county?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. 15.
2. 12.


UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO CANADIAN WORKERS IN U.S.
Mr. Dionne: Have representatives of the Canadian government taken any further steps in order to arrive at an agreement with American authorities so that Canadian workers in the United States, especially in the states of Maine and New Hampshire, may be eligible for unemployment benefits?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Representatives of the government of Canada have made repeated efforts to arrive at such an agreement, especially with respect to Canadian workers employed in the states of Maine and New Hampshire. At the time of the most recent discussions those states made it clear that they were not willing to make such an agreement and this was reported to this house at the time. In view of the clearly expressed views of the two states mentioned, no further steps have been taken in this matter.
June 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry THE MINISTRY


REPORTED DIFFERENCES RESPECTING INTEREST RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Over the week end a number of articles have been published by members of the press who are usually close to the government to the effect that a great battle has been fought between members of the cabinet and members of the shadow cabinet-the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) and the former secretary of state (Mr. Lamontagne)-on the question of interest rates under the Bank Act. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say which of the groups has triumphed, the cabinet or the shadow cabinet?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: It is not my practice nor would it be constitutionally proper for me to comment on sham battles in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister designate the activities of the former minister of justice and the former secretary of state as sham battles?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not often rise to correct myself, Mr. Speaker, but when I mentioned the shadow cabinet a while ago and was wondering which was going to dominate, the shadow cabinet or the cabinet, I referred to the former minister of justice and the former secretary of state. It was the former minister of finance to whom I had reference, and I apologize for making that mistake.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On Wednesday last the right hon. Prime Minister indicated that early this week he would tell the house what legislation the government intended to have dealt with prior to the adjournment of the house for a summer recess. I wonder whether he is now in a position to give the house that information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, as was indicated last Thursday night, to proceed with the matters outlined by the house leader at that time and to complete these items so


we can submit them to the Senate for consideration before going on to consideration of other items on the order paper. Indeed, they are on the order paper now and we hope to be in a position to proceed with them at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On June 6 the house leader indicated that among the items the government intended to have dealt with prior to recess was the medicare bill. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the house that the medicare bill will be considered and dealt with prior to the recess.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it will be possible to introduce the medicare bill immediately or shortly after consideration of the items mentioned by the house leader last Thursday night.


George Harris Hees: I
have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate when revisions to the Bank Act will be brought before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It depends to a great extent on the progress made in the list of items I have just mentioned.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the Bank Act will be brought before the house and considered before the recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not intend to remove any items from the order paper.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give a report to the house on who is winning the battle of the Bank Act, himself or the "gold dust twins".
CTranslation1



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us if Canada intends to take steps to have Communist China recognized by the United Nations at the next session of that organization?
June 27, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a very far reaching question indeed which, as I have already indicated more than once, is actively engaging our attention.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport and ask him when the governor in council will be dealing with the appeals respecting the C.P.R. passenger train service known as The Dominion.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As soon as possible, sir.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Can the minister define for us "as soon as possible"?



WHEAT-FURTHER INQUIRIES RESPECTING SALE TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in an earlier statement concerning the protocol signed with Russia, indicated that shipments of grain will go through both the east and west coast ports. However, in reply to a question put to him on June 20 the Minister of Finance stated that shipments will also be made through Churchill. Will these be token or substantial shipments, or would the minister like to correct this statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have no reason to correct my statement. In the contract signed by the wheat board and the Soviet union, provision is made for shipments through Churchill if that is the wish of the U.S.S.R.
While I am on my feet let me answer a question which was put to me last week by the hon. member for Medicine Hat with respect to the flour content in the contract between the U.S.S.R. and the wheat board. It provides for the shipment of 900,000 long tons of flour during the three year period, which is the equivalent of 45 million bushels of wheat. In the first year the contract calls for 300,000 long tons of flour, which is equivalent to about 15 million bushels of wheat.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, may I put the following question to the minister in view of the imminent recess of the house and since my question No. 587 has been on the order paper for almost five months. Can the minister indicate how much grain it is intended will be shipped through Churchill this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Provision is made in the contract for shipment through Churchill, but that will depend upon the circumstances at the time and the wishes of the buyers. When we sell wheat we try to sell it to the best advantage, and we find it a very good rule to consult the buyers on their choice of ports. Generally speaking we try to sell them what they want at the places where they would like to receive it.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was a request made by his government through him during the discussions in Moscow to extend the former contracts for shipments of wheat to Russia, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance and by Mr. McNamara, head of the wheat board that irreparable damage has been done to the contracts? Was there a request to extend the contracts?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure I understood the full meaning of the hon. member's question. I think I had better take it as notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I could be a little briefer. Was there a discussion concerning the extension of former contracts for the delivery of grain-not the contracts which have been recently signed but former ones-because of the delay in delivery due to recent strikes?


Robert Henry Winters: The matter never came up for discussion, because I do not think any such question arises.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and in view of the minister's statement that irreparable damage had been done by the strike, can the minister tell us what is the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's questions sound like a cross examination. I suggest that his question is not acceptable.


Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member's uncorrected statement could do damage to our
6872	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry commercial interests. I have never made any such statement as attributed to me by the hon. member, and I deny it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is a supplementary question which I wish to address to the Minister of Finance. I also wish to thank him for the information he has just given us respecting the flour content in the wheat contract. Can he tell the house whether some of this flour will be shipped out of west coast ports?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know the answer to that question.



MAINLAND CHINA-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS UNDER QUOTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are imports coming into Canada under an agreed quota subject to dumping duties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that question is acceptable. The hon. member seems to be asking a question of a very general nature and is perhaps asking for a legal interpretation. Certainly, the way he has phrased the question now, I do not see how it can be asked.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I be more specific. Are dumping duties charged against imports coming in under quota from mainland China, our good wheat customer? I think the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance is capable of answering that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question may be a little more clear now but I still feel that it cannot be asked at this time.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with a subject previously raised. I was in the right church but in the wrong pew. Rephrasing a question I asked previously, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he would not give consideration to removing dumping duties on goods coming into Canada from mainland China under a certain quota? I have in mind such items as cloth, suiting, or what have you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a question of general policy, and I doubt whether it should be asked.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of policy. I should like to know about the matter, because I

DEBATES	June 27, 1966
think it is very important. Would the minister not be prepared to answer in view of the fact that we shall be closing shop very soon?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not appear very anxious.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: All he has to do is answer yes or no.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he given any consideration, following the example of the premier of Prince Edward Island, to relenting somewhat in regard to his position on old age security pensions?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the premier of Prince Edward Island is made possible or will be made possible through the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of manpower having to do with appointments and classifications in the civil service which are causing disruption. With regard to the reclassification of officers of the National Employment Service, would the minister be prepared to make a statement with particular reference to the fact that a situation has been produced whereby employees who have been in the service for years have been informed they do not qualify for new classifications and are required to carry on in the same status as newcomers, who are qualified, but at lower salaries and without the prospect of increases? In other words, they have been placed in a frozen salary bracket. Would the minister explain this?
[Translation!


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a job evaluation within the National Employment
June 27, 1966

Service which began before last January 1 was undertaken under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. It was a complete evaluation which covered over 2,500 employees.
According to the reports which I have received so far, I am willing to admit that some mistakes were made and that it will undoubtedly be necessary to correct several evaluations. It is impossible to undertake such a re-evaluation without allowing at the same time a margin of error. When it is completed, a mechanism is then set up which will make it possible to correct the few errors which might have been made during the operation.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that 700 employees of the N.E.S., one in four, have failed to qualify under the new standards established for the service, would the minister not agree that such a situation is unjust and unfair?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friends opposite apparently do not like any questions asked about the civil service. I am trying to find out what this government is going to do to remove the feeling of uncertainty that exists today. I submit that this is a matter of grave importance. If Your Honour rules that it is not and that the question should go on the order paper, then I suggest to you, sir, that you look at the order paper to see how the government delays answering some of these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not suggesting there was no urgency in the matter, because obviously there is. The first question was in order but I was under the impression I ruled that the second question was argumentative in nature.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PENSIONS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It is supplementary to one I put to him on Friday, June 17, when he said he would have no objection to giving to the joint committee on the public service a term of reference under
Inquiries of the Ministry which that committee could discuss the pensions of civil servants already retired. May I ask him if he would be willing now to discuss with representatives of each of the parties the possible wording of such a term of reference, so this matter might be settled at an early date.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the joint
committee has dealt with the rather tremendous task it has in front of it, namely the consideration of the bills to implement collective bargaining in the civil service, I would be pleased to discuss such a resolution with representative members of the parties opposite as well as with my cabinet colleagues, whose approval I must obtain before putting such a resolution on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Even though we accept the fact that this matter cannot be dealt with in the committee until consideration of the bills has been concluded, would the minister not consider discussing the term of reference before that time comes?


Edgar John Benson: I am willing to discuss anything at any time, but I am not willing to make any promises.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister tell the house when the announcement of the adjustment of the salaries for class B employees can be expected?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the house last week, the Civil Service Commission has been pressing forward with this particular matter, and consultations are taking place this week with the civil service associations with respect to administrative support categories in group B. I suggest that by the end of this week or the beginning of next week I will have an announcement with respect to the administrative support categories included in this group, and the commission will push forward with all possible haste in dealing with the administrative groups of the category.
June 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? When the minister makes that announcement, will it include a statement with respect to persons who have been red circled, bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance that any injustice would be removed?


Edgar John Benson: I would not like to forecast what I am going to say in the announcement before I make it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry if the government is contemplating a free trade agreement with the United States in respect of the manufacture and sale of automobile tires?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are exploring, of course, every possible avenue in respect of all possible industries for increasing and promoting trade in both directions.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give the house an opportunity to debate such an agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think that is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can tell the house whether he has had any communication with Mr. Justice Spence, as to whether we can expect his report at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not customary to get in touch with royal commissioners in respect of reports which they are preparing.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister inquired of Mr. Justice Spence when his report will be available or is the [Mr. Benson.)

story correct that the right hon. gentleman does not want the report until after the house recesses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Well, the question has been answered.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and concerns the assistance the right hon. gentleman can give to members of this house. Would the Prime Minister have his staff turn over to the special committee on divorce any public briefs or portions thereof presented to the government in recent years on the subject of divorce reform?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look
into that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister give the house any report about the proposal to drive logs on certain salmon spawning streams such as the Owikeno river? I spoke to the minister earlier today about this matter.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a telegram, signed by representatives of a number of organizations, protesting against the driving or towing of logs on the Whannock river. I replied that since facilities for loading and unloading logs had not yet been completed in relation to an access road, I would allow the towing to take place, provided the water gauge read 11 feet, but that it had to be completed by June 30. Since sending that telegram and before coming to the house I received another telegram advising me that the water level on the Whannock river was down to 8J feet. Under such conditions no towing would be allowed.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister anticipate any objection or reprisal from the provincial government concerned as was the case with respect to the Stellako river?
June 27, 1966


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That was not the same.


Frank Howard: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister what were the results of the court hearing in Vancouver with respect to the Stellako river?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I heard this morning that the hearing which was supposed to take place on Friday had been postponed a second time at the request of the Attorney General of British Columbia.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Would he verify reports that some 40 Unemployment Insurance Commission offices are to be closed this summer in the four western provinces?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot give the exact number, Mr. Speaker, but several offices are being closed later this year. I am glad the question has been asked because it will be recalled that until a very few months ago the work of the National Employment Service was carried on by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Since a division of responsibility and a reallocation of work has taken place, it is not unreasonable to assume that a number of U.I.C. offices might be closed.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister verify whether in a large number of offices in the Atlantic area claims will be required to be filed by mail rather than people being allowed to file them in the offices where assistance, if necessary, would be available to them?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, This part of the work has been going on now for the past several months very successfully. It will continue.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Labour is supplementary to the one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to hearing the opinions, briefs or comments of the communities involved as to the need for the services of unemployment insurance offices during the summer months in those cities and
Inquiries of the Ministry
towns where it is intended to withdraw such offices?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission is an independent body which is given certain responsibilities by statute. The minister is its spolesman in parliament. The commission, which is an autonomous body, has been considering the matter raised by the hon. member for the past several months and has taken soundings across the country. It has made some decisions. I am sure if there are special circumstances in any particular community, the commission would be willing to reconsider its decision on the fact, in the light of those circumstances.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the Minister of Labour is the minister responsible to parliament for the Unemployment Insurance Commission would he not ask the commission to take into consideration the feelings and opinions of the people involved in those communities where the offices are to be closed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago letters went out over my signature to members of parliament for ridings affected by this decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I have received few if any suggestions with respect to changes, but I am quite sure that the representations of any hon. member who may have received such a letter will be considered by the commission.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. I understood the minister to say last week that he would look into the situation with respect to ten officials of the longshoremen's union in Vancouver and New Westminster who were sentenced to jail terms following their refusal to order their members back to work. Has the minister had time to look into that situation and, if so, can he say something about it?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to correct a statement by a fellow member, but the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. The learned judge who heard the application directed payment of fines with the alternative of a jail term in each case. My information is that the
June 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry record shows that the judge not only gave the persons involved the option of paying fines but he also offered to allow time for the ten persons involved to do so if they so wished. That is the position.
With regard to the other part of the question, the officials of my department have looked at the reasons for judgment and the judge's recommendation over the week end and are in touch with the Department of Justice regarding the matter. The Prime Minister or I will have something more to say on the subject within the next day or two.



NATIONAL GALLERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is prompted by a remark the Secretary of State made yesterday afternoon on a national television program. In view of the minister's statement that she hated to have the purchase of a $6 million picture equated with old age pension payments and in view of the minister's indication that the cost per person in Canada to purchase the picture would be only 36 cents, is it the intention of the government to include in the estimate for the cost of this $6 million purchase the old age pensioners of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I heard that statement on television and I did not draw that conclusion from it at all.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate in what way the conclusion I have drawn is wrong?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would say it was very wrong.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take from the Prime Minister's remarks that the old age pensioners are not included and that my interpretation of the minister's statement is wrong? Will not the government give consideration to the old age pensioners rather than purchasing a $6 million painting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will get the text of the statement from the C.B.C., and I shall be delighted to send it to my hon. friend.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether he will be making an announcement to the house shortly regarding the results of the recent conference in Montreal respecting safety on the St. Lawrence river and manning requirements for ships?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the drastic effect the lengthy shipping strike in Great Britain is having on commonwealth trade, would the Prime Minister consider offering his good offices to the leader of the Labour party in Great Britain, who is also prime minister of that country, to help settle this shipping strike?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will send my hon. friend there.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the aggregate of the amounts that the Minister of Finance may credit to the Atlantic development fund from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars, to extend the authority of the Atlantic Development Board to undertake projects alone or jointly with provinces or agencies thereof or other persons and to provide that any revenues received by the board from projects undertaken or financed by it may be credited to the said fund and expended for the purposes for which the Fund is established.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether the committee feels it would be
June 27, 1966	COMMONS
more convenient to accept the resolution almost without discussion and have the debate in a more formal way on the bill or whether hon. members would desire me to indicate at this stage what the bill is about and have some discussion at this stage in the hope that the second reading stage would be largely a formality.
There are no new principles at all involved in this bill, with one possible exception. I do not know whether one would call it a principle. In the view of the lawyers it was, because it turned out when we got a legal opinion about the present act that it was not possible for the board to do something which we thought the board had the power to do under the legislation as amended in 1963. It was the opinion of the board and it was my opinion as minister, an uninstructed opinion as it turned out, that the board had the power to make expenditures for projects and then either to keep the ownership of those projects or turn them over to some other agency of the federal government. We found out that owing to the peculiar way in which not so much this act but the Public Works Act was phrased, this was not possible in the opinion of the legal advisers of the government.
The act as it now stands envisages grants being made and the crown cannot make a grant to itself. This has not caused any great embarrassment so far, though it has given rise to some minor embarrassments. However, there are some projects in contemplation where it may be desirable to have a project carried out while reserving the title to the government of Canada. It would not be my intention nor my desire to see a project remain with the Atlantic Development Board as long as we could find some appropriate agency to take it over once completed. I think all hon. members would agree that it should not be necessary to turn these works over to a provincial government or a municipality if they come within a field which is more appropriately federal, and we ought to correct this defect. This is the only thing which might, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a new principle.
One effect would be that where certain works undertaken to promote industrial expansion could result in an annual revenue, this revenue could be collected in an appropriate way. This might be the only way of proceeding without giving an unfair competitive advantage to some new industry as compared with an industry already in existence.
DEBATES	6877
Atlantic Development Board Act It will be provided in the bill that in such cases, and they may be rare, any revenues would go back to the fund and be available for further use. This seems a sensible, businesslike arrangement.
The main objective of the proposed bill is to accomplish what the Prime Minister had in mind in October of last year when the question of the probability of the $100 million fund being exhausted fairly soon was raised, that is, to replenish the fund. I should perhaps say a word about the exhaustion of the fund. I do not want hon. members from any other part of Canada to feel that the board has been lavish or extravagant or imprudent or wasteful in the use of this money. I know that members from the Atlantic provinces will not feel so. The $100 million is far from being spent. But most of it has been committed, in some cases to projects which will take a number of years. The board cannot continue the kind of activity in which it has been engaged unless it has more funds to commit, and what we are doing is to replenish the commitment power by $50 million.
Hon. members may ask: Why $50 million? Why not $100 million? Well, there is a feeling that we ought periodically to have an opportunity in this house to review the activities of the board and the state of the fund which does not come under annual review in the same way as the other estimates. We do not want to make commitments which go too far ahead without members of parliament from all parts of Canada having a chance to consider what is being accomplished.
I have made a very serious endeavour as, I think, did the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, who had the responsibility for the Atlantic Development Board in the beginning, to keep as far away as I can from being a politician. Let me add that I have no apologies for being a politician or acting like one or trying to act like one, and I do not think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has, either, but the success of the board depends on dealing with two governments which are of the same political persuasion as ourselves and two which are not, and as far as we can we have tried to keep this activity above party politics and to treat all four provinces alike. I believe we have had a great measure of success in doing so and I am hopeful things will continue that way.
In this context I should like to say that the hon. member for Kings-I see him in his place today-was a member of the Atlantic Development Board before he was elected to
June 27, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act parliament. He was appointed by the government of which the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was a member. His place on the board was continued by legislation at the request of the present government, and I may say he was a most valued member of that board during the time he served on it. I am sure he would echo the view which I am expressing now, that we have tried to think only of one thing, the development of the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am very proud of what has already been accomplished. I feel sure, if we continue along the lines we have followed up until now, that all of us in parliament, regardless of what part of Canada we may come from or what political parties we may belong to, will feel that this is a work for which parliament is responsible, that it is helping to build up Canada and helping to create a better balance for a region which for many reasons did not advance as rapidly economically as other parts of Canada. I believe this legislation will give a real stimulus to the region.


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief at this stage. We appreciate the information which the minister has given us in connection with the general aims and objectives of the legislation to follow passage of this resolution. I believe my hon. friend from Kings wishes to make some comments about the resolution. I have no reason to think that they will be extended and I feel certain we can make good progress with the measure because we are almost completely unanimous as to the benefits which will be derived from it.
I feel that the minister's remarks concerning the advisability on occasion of having the federal government undertake certain projects are well-founded. There is no doubt that there are times when for one reason or another, and I do not think it necessary to elaborate, it becomes necessary for the federal government to undertake certain projects through an agency in which it has confidence, and if this amending legislation fills some of the omissions in the original statute no one in the chamber could have any objection to it.
In connection with the Atlantic Development Board I wish to emphasize the question of the initiation of projects. I do not believe that the initiation of projects should always rest with a provincial government or a municipality, but naturally the board, in keeping with the general terms of reference

given to it, will work through the medium of the provincial governments to the greatest possible extent, with the general interest in mind of fulfilling a long-felt need in that part of Canada from which the minister and I come.
As I have indicated, my hon. friend from Kings will have some remarks to make. He will bring much knowledge to the committee of the problems that have beset the board, he himself having served on it. No doubt what he has to say will be of great benefit to the Atlantic provinces region and to the activities of the board.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, we in this party are also not disposed to prolong discussion of the resolution. As the minister has told us it contains nothing very new or revolutionary in principle. It simply embodies the extension of legislation of which all parties in the house approved. But since the minister appealed to members who are not resident in the Atlantic provinces to try to become aware of some of the questions and problems besetting that region, I with to say that we in the New Democratic Party are heartily in favour of the Atlantic Development Board because it is an instrument of regional planning.
We believe in regional planning as a vital policy to reduce the inequities and inequalities in income and other standards as between different regions of Canada. We are aware of the chronic absence of equality of opportunity in certain areas. In this connection I would like to refer once again to the 1965 annual report of the Economic Council of Canada. I quoted from it the other day when the hon. member for Queens introduced a resolution dealing with the trade problems of the Atlantic provinces, and I wish to place this on the record again:
Our analysis has shown that over a period of almost four decades embracing buoyant expansion, a severe depression, a prolonged war and a period of revived national growth, the regional problem in Canada has remained essentially unchanged. Large inter-regional disparities in per capita income have stubbornly persisted despite various forces working towards better balance. These have included significant redistribution of population, far reaching adjustments in the structure of economic activity at the national level, and certain public policies aimed at greater equalization of regional incomes. Against such a background, the narrowing of income disparities and the achievement of this result consistently with other basic economic and social objectives, remains one of the most difficult issues confronting the country as a whole.
June 27, 1966

All of us should be aware of these matters. I think we must adopt a strategy of what I call redistributive investment. Without some control over the direction of investment and without some planning these disparities will continue to exist.
In this connection, and not because we think the additional $50 million proposed in the resolution is too much but because we feel it may turn out to be inadequate, I want to call the attention of the committee to a few figures covering private and public investment taken from joint publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. These figures show total private and public investment in the Atlantic region as a percentage of the average per capita investment in the rest of Canada.
In 1961 investment in the Atlantic region at the per capita rate was 72.5 per cent of the national average, in 1962 78 per cent, in 1963 72 per cent, in 1964 70.8 per cent, in 1965,
73.1	per cent, with the estimated figure for 1966 being 75 per cent. The actual figures per capita for those years were as follows: In 1961 the average for all of Canada was $448 per capita and in the Atlantic provinces $325. In 1962 the national average was $469 compared with $366 in the Atlantic region; in 1963 the national average was $497 and in the Atlantic region $358. The figures for 1964 were $569 and $403, in 1965 $654 and $478, and in 1966 the estimated figures are $730 for Canada as a whole and $547 in the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There is another figure which I think is very significant and to which I should like to direct the attention of hon. members. I refer to the amount of investment which would be needed in the Atlantic provinces to bring their average up to the average of the rest of Canada. In 1961 the figure would have been $233 million; in 1962, $199 million; in 1963, $271 million; in 1964, $327 million; in 1965, $350 million and in 1966, $365 million. Even taking average figures we have continuing throughout the years a level of investment in which there is a considerable gap between the Atlantic provinces and what would be the average for the rest of Canada. The national average of course includes the Atlantic provinces and therefore the comparative figures I have given do not give a fair comparison
Atlantic Development Board Act between these provinces and others. Nevertheless, the gap rises from approximately $200 million a year to $365 million.
One will say that the $50 million which is asked to be added to the capital of the Atlantic Development Board is but a trifle compared with the regular short-fall, if I may put it that way, of investment. I am informed that just the other day the Voluntary Economic Planning Board-hon. members will know that this is a voluntary board set up by the province of Nova Scotia-met at Truro and in an attempt to estimate the degree of productivity of industry and labour in that province said that it was roughly 75 per cent of the rest of Canada. I am not suggesting one can draw a direct statistical analogy between that figure which after all is only an estimate and the figure of the percentage of actual investment in the region, but I think it is very striking that the figure is roughly 75 per cent of the rest of Canada. I think it is obvious that if we mean business about ironing out these disparities we will have to raise investment in the order at least of the existing disparities in investment in this region.
I am well aware that this will not all be done by public investment. I am aware that the Atlantic Development Board and the federal government are only one instrument in this respect. Many other policies have to be co-ordinated to deal with this problem, but it seems to me that sooner or later in this house we must face the fact that the Atlantic Development Board is charged not only with making investments most of which, as I understand it, hitherto have come in the field of such fairly obvious things as power and transportation, which are fairly obvious needs in what is called the infrastructure.
I think the Atlantic Development Board has done wisely in putting into this field most of the $100 million which has been made available to the board. There is, however, another aspect, namely, a study of what is necessary to promote economic growth. This will require a partnership between public and private investment. If we in this house from all parts of Canada really believe in a redistributive policy or a national policy for the growth of Canada as a whole, we will have to recognize that we will have to assist in investment to a degree which makes the amount set out in the present resolution relatively small and certainly an amount which no one in Canada should begrudge at all.
6880	COMMONS
Atlantic Development Board Act
I think the minister explained that the bill will include the right of direct investment. I certainly am happy to agree with this because it gives a greater freedom in certain circumstances. We in this party take seriously a national policy in respect of the redistributive development of Canada and the ironing out of the inequalities which have persisted in the past. Naturally we will support the resolution.
[Translation1


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. First of all I wish to congratulate the minister for introducing that resolution.
The minister was hoping a little earlier that the debate on the resolution would not go on forever. That is exactly what I always hoped, for every resolution, because with only what is said in the resolution, we do not have enough information to discuss it and decide if we are for or against it.
The minister said earlier that $50 million for the Atlantic Development Board probably was not much. I was a little surprised to hear him say: it is not that the board has run out of money but to increase the funds at its disposal to fulfill a promise made to the board. I was wondering if it was only to fulfil an election promise or to strengthen that fund in order to do something for the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
If it is for the second reason, I am all in favour of strengthening the economy of the Atlantic provinces and trying to increase their standard of living.
Therefore, I feel that the introduction of the bill is our best opportunity to study the work done by those boards. As far as my province is concerned, I found out to my great surprise, when studying the operations of those boards, that most of the funds were spent on unnecessary studies when it would have been so easy to concretize wonderful projects if the money had been saved for that purpose.
I think that it is what you are doing in the Atlantic provinces; namely concretizing projects which are already under way; that is why I am in favour of that resolution. When the bill is submitted to the house, we will have the opportunity to see what was done with the money already spent-over 50 per cent of it has undoubtedly been spent-since we are asked for another $50 million.
We are anxious to see what was done, what the government or the board has accomplished; then we will be able to appreciate

DEBATES	June 27, 1966
what is being accomplished in the Atlantic provinces.
We are also in favour of helping the provinces because we want to help our people. It is very commendable to help foreign countries but I still prefer to see a few millions spent in the provinces to help them also. It is good to hear when travelling outside Canada that our country is wealthy, and that from countries which receive gifts from Canada. I can assure you that the Atlantic provinces, when they get that money, that help from the federal government to strengthen their economy will love their country more and will feel even closer ties with the other provinces. It is the same in all the provinces. That is how the work of the federal government in the province of Quebec is considered. When it is time, in the province of Quebec, to have assistance from the federal government-we need it also-we want it proportionately to the population.
The previous speaker said: $50 million may not be much. But we must keep in mind that the population of the Atlantic provinces is less than that of the other provinces, than that of the province of Quebec.
For instance, when taxes are levied, they are first levied in the provinces with a greater manpower; these are the ones which provide funds to the federal government. If we want to redistribute those funds fairly, we must think, first of all of those which paid and then of those which need assistance, without being unfair toward the provinces which supplied the money to these funds.
I think that the minister will be highly considered if such resolutions are introduced in favour of the province of Quebec, because I am sure he is aware of the economic situation of Quebec and knows that it needs federal assistance also. We hope this assistance to other provinces will be given proportionately to the needy population in every province of Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support this resolution because I am convinced that the establishment of the Atlantic Development Board in January of 1963 was without doubt one of the most progressive steps that has ever been taken by any government for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces.
The objectives of the board are clearly defined in the act which established it and I should like to quote from subsection 1 of
June 27, 1966

section 9 of the Atlantic Development Board Act:
The objects of the board are to inquire into and report to the minister upon programs and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada.
I think the words, "fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada", should be stressed because our economic growth in the Atlantic area has lagged behind the rest of Canada. In my opinion the reasons for this lag are three and may be classified as follows. First of all, in the Atlantic region there are none of the great factors which ordinarily make for economic growth or if these factors are present they are not present in a sufficient degree to provide a stimulus to our economy. Second, we have no rich natural resources or if we have them they have not yet been sufficiently explored and exploited. I think one of the chief aims of the Atlantic Development Board is to explore and exploit whatever natural resources we do have. The third reason we have lagged behind is our geographic position. We are more or less located on the periphery so far as our markets in Canada are concerned. The high cost of transporting raw materials in and finished products out puts the Atlantic area at a considerable disadvantage. Unfortunately we are shut out of some foreign markets located closer to us because of high tariffs.
I think the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada has set out very clearly the economic position of the Atlantic area and I should like to quote what he said in this regard:
For at least four decades the residents of this region have had the lowest average incomes in Canada and although they have shared in the general improvement in living standards they have not been able to improve their lagging position relative to other Canadians.
That very clearly sets forth our position in the Atlantic area today and statistics bear out that statement. In the Atlantic area unemployment has been consistently twice as high as in any other part of the country. Even today the unemployment rate, according to the latest figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the month of May, is still 5.8 per cent whereas in the prairie provinces it is
2.1	per cent. Nowhere else in Canada did the figure for the month of May reach 5.8 per cent.
The average per capita income in the Atlantic area is consistently at least one-third lower than in other provinces. I do not know
Atlantic Development Board Act whether the committee realizes this fact, but in the Atlantic area there are 40,000 male employees earning less than $2,000 per year and over 19,000 female employees earning less than $2,000 per year. In other words, we have a total of almost 60,000 employees who are today earning less than $2,000 per year, and I do not think anybody will deny that in order to maintain an adequate standard of living an individual must earn more than $2,000 a year. The average annual wage of the people working in the Atlantic area is only $2,752 compared with the average annual wage for Canada of $3,679.
The hon. member who preceded me suggested that the money to be provided to the Atlantic Development Board should be divided on a basis related to contribution and that if the Atlantic provinces are not contributing their fair share to the national revenue by way of taxes they should not expect to get as much by way of assistance. In my mind that is a very fallacious argument because we in the Atlantic area are a part of Canada, and if this country is going to have an economy that will flourish it cannot expect to maintain such great inequities between sections of the country. Our growth and economic problems in the Atlantic area must be the concern of every province and must be the concern of the federal government.
As Professor Cairncross said in 1961, "the federal government must be the principal agent of policies to eliminate the lag in the economic development of the Atlantic provinces". If we do not contribute our share, and I am not suggesting we do not, the only reason is that we do not earn enough.
The figures I have quoted I am sure would indicate to hon. members that we in the Atlantic provinces on an average earn only enough to provide essential public services. I am one of the first to admit that we are very dependent upon the central government in Ottawa. In my own province of Prince Edward Island 43 per cent of the general revenue comes from Ottawa. In the province of Nova Scotia 35 per cent of its general revenue comes from the central government in Ottawa and in the province of New Brunswick 35 per cent also comes from Ottawa.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are not ashamed of this fact because we feel that the reason the central government must contribute to us is that we do not have the opportunity of earning enough so that we can, as we would be glad to do, pay our share in income tax and other taxes to
June 27. 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act the federal treasury. In New Brunswick the average per capita tax paid to the federal treasury is $55, in Newfoundland it is $45, in Nova Scotia it is $62 and in Prince Edward Island it is only 36. That will give the committee an idea of how badly we need something down there to boost our economy so our people can earn enough money to make their contribution to the government of Canada. But until that period is reached there has to be a gap filler. There is a gap between what we in the Atlantic area earn and what is earned by people in the other provinces of Canada, and that gap must be closed. I suggest that one of the vehicles designed to close it and, if it is given the chance, one of the vehicles that will close it, is the Atlantic Development Board.
The minister mentioned the fact that the board is set up without relation to political affilation. I can substantiate this, Mr. Chairman. The board is comprised at the present time of good, solid-thinking, hard-headed businessmen who know the problems of the Atlantic area and are doing their best to solve them without receiving any remuneration at all. This is probably one of the few boards operated by the federal government whose members do not receive some daily remuneration for the time they sit.
The members of this board get nothing. They get their travelling expenses, but my experience with the board is that the red pencil is used very generously when it comes to allowing even these travelling expenses. However, this is not the important consideration. The important consideration is that the board is composed of men who know the problems of the Atlantic area and have the interests of the area at heart. Mr. MacKeigan has proved himself to be a very efficient chairman. The staff of the board, headed by Dr. Weeks, is very competent and is doing an extremely good job.
But I would point out, and I am not doing this in a critical way, that in spite of their efforts there has unfortunately been little improvement. Perhaps we have not yet had time to see the improvement. But if we examine the record I think we will see that, despite the good intentions of the government in setting up the board and giving it 100 million to work with, despite the good intentions of the members of the board and the staff, there has as yet been little improvement in so far as the economy of the Atlantic area is concerned. Although the spirit is willing, the results so far have been weak. I hope our
[Mr. McQuaid.l

development will speed up, because if the speed of Atlantic development continues at its present rate I am afraid that success will be deferred until the days of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
I am not satisfied that $50 million is enough at the present time to put into the fund. In April, 1963, $100 million was put into the fund. It is now almost three years later and the minister tells us that the fund is just about exhausted. I suggest that that statement could be verified, because I believe that in April, 1965, 14 months ago, $90 million of the $100 million had been committed. If that is correct, and I believe it is, the board has been working with only $10 million for the last 14 months.
When the fund was set up by the present government is was mentioned consistently on that side of the house that $1 billion over a ten-year period was no more than sufficient to be poured into the Atlantic area to assist its economy. If $1 billion over a ten-year period was necessary, which is $100 million a year, I suggest that the minister should give consideration now to increasing to $100 million the $50 million for which he is asking in this resolution, because I am sure the board will make the very best use of the $100 million.
Of course, and rightly so, expenditures are controlled by Treasury Board. The Atlantic Development Board may recommend the expenditure of $1 million of $2 million for a certain project but-and I repeat, rightly so- that expenditure has to be approved by Treasury Board. If we put another $100 million in the fund now I think it would give the members of the board more incentive to go ahead and plan immediately, as they obviously must do if we are to fill the gap that exists between the economic standards of the Atlantic area and those of the rest of Canada. I make these suggestions in all earnestness, Mr. Chairman, and again would assure the committee that in my opinion at least this board is doing a very excellent job for the Atlantic area. We in the Atlantic region are extremely grateful to the government which set up this board in the first instance and to the government which is now encouraging and promoting it.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, when a measure like this was before a previous parliament I spoke on all phases of the measure including third reading. This time I will be much less loquacious. I merely want to say-I am glad my colleague from Kings said it in his excellent speech-that while I join with
June 27, 1966

the sentiments expressed by members from the various parties, I cannot in candour suggest that I feel the $50 million is in any way an adequate amount. We surely have no difficulty in being convinced that the painful economic lag which has characterized the relationship of the Atlantic region to the rest of Canada is becoming more painful, that the gap is not in fact being narrowed. There are many economic indices which make this all too clear. The outstanding documentation of recent months, of course, is the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada.
In the face of widening disparity and against the background of the expenditure or allocation of the $100 million which was earmarked before, I am unhappy about the designation of an amount of $50 million. I noted carefully what the minister said about the frequent return of this measure to parliament but I cannot believe that now the Atlantic Development Board has been launched on its way, changes have been made in its personnel and experience has been gained by its officers-and I join with my colleague from Kings in saluting its officers because Dr. Weeks and others are most excellent men-and with the background of the board's proven efficiency in the face of the growing need for assistance in the Atlantic area, $50 million is sufficient. I would be much happier had there been allocated the first amount earmarked when the present government took office. We did not fix ceilings on the amount at all in our day.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think the minister is anxious to have the measure proceed through this stage and we all sympathize with that desire. I should be interested in hearing him illustrate for us a typical project which might, in the words of the resolution, be "undertaken or financed" by the board. I have been trying to think of some projects which might conceivably come under the terminology of the last two and a half lines of the resolution. I must reiterate my belief that $50 million is not sufficient. You cannot redress the economic grievances of generations by $50 million and heaven knows there have been grievances in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. I hope that the minister will not say to me again that my affluence is such that I sneer at $1 million, because I would never join those who say "what's a million?". A million dollars is a good deal of money but it is not so much if used to alleviate great problems and the longstanding inequities of our region. I do 23033-436
Atlantic Development Board Act wish the amount had been $100 million and I hope that this comparatively small figure will not act as a depressant in our region.
The establishment of the board and various other projects which were undertaken, es-peciallly in 1957 and 1958, have done a good deal of stimulate that which is essential to our prosperity, namely, vigorous self-activity in the economic field. Fine things have been done by the provincial administrations and the boards they have set up. However, I know they would all agree that the action of the federal government, the body which must be concerned about equalizing the economic opportunities of all regions, has given them a great start. I hope that this diminution of the figure will not depress those who in the region itself are moving forward vigourously in concert toward our continuing progress. As my hon. friend from Kings has said, this requires the sustained effort of all of us at all levels of the government as well as of the private sector of our economy. I wish that the main contributor could have been a little more-I will not use the word beneficent- generous in the amount apportioned to the fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a word or two mainly in response to the hon. member for Queens. In the first place, I am sure that he did not deliberately say there was a diminution because when you add $50 million to $100 million this is not my idea of a diminution. This sum will amount to a 50 per cent increase after three years. I will refrain from any comment about the amount of the increase over the fund at the time when this bill was originally introduced.


Hugh John Flemming: There was no limit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no limit to zero, as the hon. gentleman so wisely said. However, I do not wish to get into any kind of controversy on this matter. We took the view that there should be a fund and that if it was wisely used we would come back to parliament and ask for a replenishment.
I think hon. members will agree I have taken a very keen interest in the work of the board and I am sure the hon. member for Kings will agree with me when I say that while he was a member of the board no project that was at any time put before the board was turned down because of lack of funds, although a lot of projects did not seem to the board to be wise or expedient for other reasons at the moment they were put before
June 27, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act it. I hope that the $50 million will be committed very quickly. If it is, then, as we have twice shown to the house, we will see that a recommendation is made for a further replenishment.
I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Kings use the phrase "a gap filler" because I think I was the one who first used it. It has been my principle, as the minister responsible, to ensure that the Atlantic Development Board should never be allowed to spend a cent which could be made available from another agency. Mention has been made of $1 billion to be spent over a ten-year period. That was surely never envisaged as the amount to be granted from the Atlantic Development Board but was to include all expenditures such as, for example, the causeway to Prince Edward Island. I might say that another $30 million has already been committed by the Federal government for the development of trunk roads in the Atlantic provinces under the direct supervision of the board but not with the board's funds. That was done since the commitment of the $100 million and before this addition of $50 million.
Even in these days when we are faced with such staggering sums, this amount represents very large expenditures. I cannot entirely agree with the hon. member for Kings that we are not beginning to see some benefit. It is true that some of the projects which have been assisted by grants from the fund are only beginning to come into the stage at which they will appreciably add to the economy of the Atlantic provinces but I am absolutely convinced that as we improve transportation and make power cheaper and more accessible, together with the benefits brought about by the industrial sites that the board have so wisely established in all of the Atlantic provinces, we are going to have great dividends in the next three or four years.
I will resist the temptation to say that we should all take a new look at the whole question of transportation which, although it is a liability in some respects, is rapidly becoming an asset because the whole orientation of the international traffic is beginning to change and, oddly enough, it is the St. Lawrence Seaway which is changing it most through the increasing of trans-shipments which it presents. I predict, with quite a lot of confidence, that the ports of the Atlantic provinces, not just the ports of Halifax and Saint John, will in general see a tremendous
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
development as industrial sites precisely because they will enjoy in this air age and this age of monster ships advantages which they have not had for a long time.
However, all this is a very large subject which is not very directly related to this resolution. Let me conclude by expressing my appreciation to all the hon. members who have spoken for the constructive way in which they have approached this resolution.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to say anything but having noted that the Minister of Transport did not wish to be controversial I find that if he really wanted his wishes to be realized he could do so by ceasing to delude himself that in some connections he is speaking logically. I am now speaking of his reference to the amount of the fund. It is true that this is a means of financing but it is not realistic for him to say that because in the original act this method was not used the board had zero funds. It that were his logic he would find himself without any department to administer because his own department certainly has no funds. The money has to be voted annually. There is no great impediment to any emanation of the government being operated in the same fashion as the original concept of the Atlantic Development Board.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It could be argued that the present method might be an improvement. I am not going to argue about that, but it is not a case of something wholly good replacing something that was wholly bad or at least completely impotent as the minister, perhaps unintentionally, left the impression. It may be that he used phraseology of the kind he did because it was used so frequently for political purposes on different occasions.
Having said that, I do want to correct one impression that might have been inadvertently left by numerous spokemen for the various parties regarding the unsatisfactory economic situation of the Atlantic provinces compared with the rest of Canada. I am not saying that the Atlantic provinces are not a good area in which to live or that they are not an area in which there are great opportunities for the future. I believe there are.
More important, it is natural to assume that the economic disadvantages of the Atlantic provinces as they now exist are all caused by an act of God and are therefore something over which man has no control. Many of our disadvantages are man-made. We
June 27, 1966	COMMONS
have suffered under them because we have on many occasions forfeited our own immediate selfish desires for the good of the nation as a whole. Many of the economic difficulties of the maritime provinces compared with the rest of Canada are similar to the economic problems we have as a small nation next to a giant ten times as big as we are. The bigger the economic unit the greater is its attraction for investment capital and for everthing else.
Every year great quantities of money are drawn off from the Atlantic provinces by quite legitimate means by large insurance companies, for example, which have their headquarters in another part of Canada. When it comes to the reinvestment of this money the larger unit in some other part of Canada, which perhaps has even greater natural resources or greater markets, quite often attracts this money.
This is the type of difficulty against which we are struggling. We are on the periphery of the geographically huge nation of which we are proud to be a part. We have continued to be loyal to the concept of a nation from sea to sea because we believe that in the long run it will be of the greatest benefit to all Canadians. However, we would like to share in it as nearly equally as possible. This is a worthy method of bringing about something approaching equality and I support it wholeheartedly. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Queens who has just spoken, I should like to see the ceiling raised another $50 million-a rolling ceiling if that is what you want to call it- so that the fund will not be depressed and so that not only the cumulative total will grow but that the ceiling under which the board will operate will remain at at least $100 million.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-213, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When
shall the said bill be read the second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be agreement, if it were convenient and after members have had an opportunity of looking at the bill, to consider second reading later this day or at the next sitting?


Mr. Starr:: Provided the bill is distributed some time before that.
DEBATES	6885
Canadian National Railways


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there was any objection we would not proceed but we would be in a position to do so if there were agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance
was asked to leave for a few minutes to meet the parliamentary delegation from the Soviet Union. I have the Canadian National Railway bill relating to two branch lines and if it is agreeable to the house I could proceed with it while we are waiting for the Minister of Finance to return.


Michael Starr: Agreed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-210, respecting the construction by Canadian National Railway Company of a line of railway in the province of Manitoba from the vicinity of Stall Lake on the Chisel Lake subdivision of Canadian National Railways in a north-easterly direction for a distance of approximately 12 miles to a point in the vicinity of Osborne Lake in the The Pas mining district of that province, and of a line of railway in the province of Saskatchewan from the vicinity of Watrous on the Watrous subdivision of the said railways in a northeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 18 miles to a point in the vicinity of Guernsey in the Regina mining district of that province.
He said: Do hon. members want any explanation? I would be happy to give it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can give the explanation in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would now give us the explanation about these two branch lines.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you calling clause 2, Mr. Chairman?


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not call clause 1? It is not the short title.
6886	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
On clause 1-Definitions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the general explanation was given by my hon. friend, the Minister without Portfolio, the other day. At that time he said that either he or I, as circumstances warranted, weuld fill in the details of these two branch lines that this bill is asking parliament to authorize. I have a fairly succinct summary of the matter in my hand dealing with each of the lines. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter is for me simply to read the summary because, being produced by professionals, it is probably in better language than my own would be. With this modest beginning I shall now read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you not a professional?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a professional railway builder. Perhaps a professional builder-


Michael Starr: Get on with the reading.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not building
fences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a politician once who described himself as a cabinet builder.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will start with Saskatchewan, with deference to the Leader of the Opposition. The President of the Canadian National Railway Company has requested authorization for the construction of a branch line in the province of Saskatchewan from the vicinity of Watrous on the Watrous subdivision of the Canadian National Railways in a northeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 18 miles to the site of the shaft and processing plant of Alwinsal Potash of Canada Limited, situated in the mining district of Regina. The proposed branch line would, as I say, begin at or near Watrous at mile 129 and proceed for 18 miles as I have indicated. The estimated cost of construction of the proposed branch line is $100,000 per mile or a total of $1,800,000.
Exploratory drilling on Alwinsal's property since 1958 has established the presence of deposits of potash that will support production for many decades at the designed capacity of the company's plant. Alwinsal is currently in the process of sinking a shaft 18 feet in diameter to a depth of 3,290 feet and constructing a processing plant which will have a productive capacity of about 1 million tons of muriate of potash per year. The company plans to begin production early in

DEBATES	June 27. 1966
1968 and has asked the Canadian National Railways to be in a position to furnish rail service by that time. Although the plant site is connected to the Canadian Pacific Railway by a short spur, Alwinsal has requested Canadian National Railways to construct a branch line to its property in order that it will have the safeguard of service by two railways and will not be at a transportation disadvantage vis-a-vis its competitors.
If parliamentary authority is granted by about the end of July, 1966, construction could begin this year. That is the reason I have asked my colleagues to agree and why the house leader asked hon. gentlemen opposite to agree to having this measure brought in at this time. Apart from unforeseen events the branch line would be available for traffic early in 1968.
Alwinsal is planning to ship annually about 1 million tons of muriate of potash, which the company expects will be marketed in roughly equal proportions in the Great Lakes and northeastern regions of the United States and in certain Pacific areas of Asia. Movement over Canadian National lines of half of Al-winsal's planned production would generate annual gross revenue for Canadian National Railways of at least $4,500,000.
Subject to authorization by parliament of the proposed branch line, a traffic guarantee agreement has been entered into between Alwinsal Potash Company of Canada Limited and the Canadian National Railway Company. I do not propose to go into details but the agreement does provide for revenues which will make this a very profitable venture for the Canadian National. It is for that reason that this request is being made at this time so far as that branch line is concerned.
The other line is in Manitoba and is to run from the vicinity of Stall Lake on the Chisel Lake subdivision of Canadian National Railways in a northeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 12 miles to Osborne Lake and to the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company mine. The estimated cost of construction of the proposed branch line is $133,333 per mile or a total of $1,600,000. During the past few years diamond drilling and development by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company showed that there were substantial reserves of copper and zinc in the area which at the end of 1965 were shown to exist to a depth of 2,200 feet.
There are many other details of these resources which I could go into if the committee wishes. The indications are similar to
June 27, 1966	COMMONS
those in the other case, namely, that there would be a guarantee of traffic for a long enough period of years to make this also a profitable venture which would contribute to the revenues of the Canadian National in a significant fashion and which would therefore be a profitable venture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the minister referred to the line in Saskatchewan he gave exact figures of revenues anticipated per year. Does he not propose doing that in this case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just coming to that point. Perhaps I could give first the time required for the construction of the line. It could be ready by December 31 if there is authorization by the end of July. The annual movement from the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting plant at a minimum would be 270,000 tons of crude ore. Movement of this crude ore would generate revenues for the Canadian National of $737,000 per year. As I have said, because of the traffic guarantee which will become operative if parliament approves this legislation there would be a very substantial advantage to the company.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is one occasion in which the opposition can join in giving complete support to the propositions advanced by the Minister of Transport. The particular area where the projected 18 miles of rail line is to be constructed in the province of Saskatchewan is well known to me. It is an area which a few years ago was not regarded as hopefully from the point of view of development as some other parts of the province.
It has been found during the last two or three years that in various parts of Saskatchewan the actual hidden wealth in potash is even beyond the greatest scope of imagination. I well recall as a boy on the prairies that in the area in which we lived there were what were called alkali lakes. This alkali produced nothing. The areas that have alkali characteristics were believed to be devoid of any development potential. Certainly agricultural production could never take place where alkali was shown to exist.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There was an area in Muskakee next to Watrous where for a number of years an eastern manufacturer from Kitchener produced certain minerals. Other than that, there was nothing expected or anticipated in this area and others where alkali was to be found
DEBATES	6887
Canadian National Railways in the sloughs. Today the province of Saskatchewan is rapidly approaching a development which will bring to that province a production equal to wheat production in the years ahead, a production beyond anything that could have been expected. Railroad lines of this kind will receive the fullest support from Her Majesty's opposition.
In saying this I want to point out too that the projected line in the province of Manitoba goes into an area which will pay dividends not only in economic development but also by assuring a fair return on the money invested. We gave leadership in this connection. We were criticized very strongly when we made available to the C.N.R. the necessary guarantee of parliament prior to the building of the Pine Point Railway. I do not intend to deal with this at the moment except to say that it was criticized and ridiculed as part of what was known as my vision for development
That vision has been proven to be well-founded. Indeed, I hope that not only will assistance be given to the C.N.R. to build railway spurs or lines of the kind in question but that the government will also give favourable consideration to an expansion of the northern roads plan which has gone into cold storage under this administration. The northern roads plan opened up areas of the provinces which would otherwise have remained undeveloped. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the northern roads plan made possible mineral developments which would otherwise have been postponed.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was not here during the days when some of those who sit opposite ridiculed the whole idea. But he has become a convert and, having become a convert, he has gone forth and actually secured support among those ministers who a few short years ago in opposition regarded the whole proposition as an ephemeral dream. We welcome the conversion. We support the fruit of that conversion.


Mr. Laing:: Our conversion is from walking to running.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear that remark.


Michael Starr: He says he has been converted from running to walking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A misinterpretation.
June 27, 1966

Canadian National Railways


Mr, Diefenbaker:: It must have been a difficult task for him, bearing in mind the indifferent material with which he had to operate, to bring about the conversion of many ministers who had earlier ridiculed the whole idea.
Today the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean are also engaged in a program of conversion.
I noticed today that the Minister of Finance has begun to show signs that his malleability has been dented. When crusaders like those two hon. gentlemen, the former minister of finance and the former secretary of state, go to work on behalf of great principles and the abiding things in which they believe, there is always hope. I look forward to finding, when the banking legislation comes before the house, that the immovability of the Minister of Finance will prove to have been merely the stand of one who, to adopt the Prime Minister's exression, has been fighting a sham battle against the certainty and thoughtfulness of two hon. gentlemen who, come what may, like Roderick Dhu, stand firm upon this rock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the right hon. gentleman saying that our two colleagues are visionaries in the same sense as he is?


John George Diefenbaker: If they have achieved the objective of their vision as successfully as we did, we know now what will be in the Bank Act. In other words, this has been an amazing transition. I can just see St. Paul looking down from above on the Minister of Finance and saying: Up to the present my conversion has been regarded as the greatest change of opinion of all time but now I must give first place to the Minister of Finance.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, as an example of what can be achieved. I was very surprised to hear the Prime Minister today refer to the stand of those who have stood so firmly and who have been supported so generally by the Minister of Finance as a sham fight. One wonders who is conducting the sham. But the Prime Minister did not complete his answer today. I use this simply as an example of what is happening.
Having stood so firmly when in opposition against the type of expenditure which would open these areas for mineral development, the Minister of Transport now becomes a


proponent of action about which he expressed grave doubts when we were in office. I only hope this will be a prelude to his introducing a national transportation policy. I believe he is giving a great deal of thought to this subject. I am told his hours are now spent in contemplation of legislation designed to bring about a national transportation policy and I wish him all good fortune in that direction. I hope that the fight he is now waging on that behalf will not be described by the Prime Minister a year or two from now as having been a sham fight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the first part of his
speech, before the Leader of the Opposition got shunted off onto a branch line-


An hon. Member:: Off the rails.


Michael Starr: He threw the switch himself.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he spoke as a member from Saskatchewan. He did so, noting that one of the branch lines we are being asked to approve takes into account the developments occurring in Saskatchewan, particularly with respect to potash. Perhaps I might be given a moment or two, as a member from Manitoba, to welcome the branch line being approved for my province and in doing so to follow suit to the Leader of the Opposition, but not too far. I am not going to get into the theological discussion he indulged in but I do wish to say that the branch line in Manitoba draws attention to the tremendous mineral developments taking place in the northern half of my province.
For many decades Manitoba's north was looked upon as a huge area supposedly desolate and waste, but now tremendous discoveries are being made of copper, zinc, nickel, gold and other metals. This is good for Manitoba and good for Canada. If, like the Leader of the Opposition, I felt like wandering off onto a branch line or two, I could argue about the methods being used to develop this mineral wealth, whether it should primarily be for the benefit of certain private corporations or for the benefit of the people of Manitoba, but that question is being fought in Manitoba at the present time.
When I first saw that the minister was going to move second reading of this bill today I wondered if it had any political purpose. Then I realized it could not possibly have any such purpose because the Manitoba line does not go into the Churchill constituency, where one more seat has yet to be decided in the provincial election, and even if it did
June 27, 1966

Canadian National Railways go in there the Liberals do not have a Saskatchewan will be lost to the province. I candidate in that constituency.	would just like to give that word of warning.


Mr, Pickersgill:: You needn't rub that in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister does not like me to remind him that his party's candidate did not file his papers, or forgot to be there. At any rate, for once the Minister of Transport is as pure as driven snow.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Why do you say for once?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seriously, I am glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to the tremendous resources of wealth in northern Manitoba and to express our support for the bill.


Mr. Canlelon:: Mr. Chairman, as a Saskatchewan member I would like to contribute to this debate. In the first part of his speech the Leader of the Opposition clearly delineated the advantages that this branch line will bring to Saskatchewan, and of course I agree with him. But the construction of this branch line will give the railway system itself a great advantage that should be brought to the attention of the minister and everyone else. The $4J million yearly revenue that the railway will get will certainly help to change the profit picture of the C.N.R., but I did not hear the minister say whether the contract was for a specified time. Perhaps I missed that part of his speech.
I would like to point out that at present there is much talk about the construction of pipe lines to transport solids such as potash and sulphur. This scares me. It frightens me because such a development could practically ruin the advantage which the railways presently enjoy in Saskatchewan.
If such pipe lines are constructed the advantages which the railways are obtaining will be lost and they will be left in a most invidious position because of the extra expense they are being put to in undertaking the construction of these branch lines. Therefore I suggest that the government give the closest possible scrutiny to all suggestions concerning the construction of pipe lines in that area.
I may say I find this rather foreign to my own attitude toward scientific research. I am very much in favour of scientific research in every respect, but if pipe lines are put into operation the potash will be moved to the Chicago area, and once it starts going there in quantity the tremendous chemical products development which can clearly be foreseen in


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that the contract is for 15 years, long enough to obviate the contingency he has suggested because it is a firm contract with a company that has a proven mine.


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that there is unanimity about this bill. One thing it pinpoints is the importance of the railroads in transporting bulk material. This is something we must think about when considering railway line abandonment.
Further, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Kindersley I should like to point out that we seem to be adopting a new principle so far as railway bills are concerned. If I remember correctly, most bills of this type are sent to a standing committee where all those who wish can interrogate the minister and his officials and those promoting the railway line have an opportunity to give all the necessary information in connection with it. At committee hearings provincial governments can also make representations and so can competing railroads. I hope this practice will not be adopted with respect to all other bills of this type.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman made his intervention because what he said is very wise. Twice this session this procedure has been adopted because of the pressure of other business and because of the urgency of getting certain projects under way about which there seemed to be almost complete unanimity. But I can assure the hon. member I would not think of doing this in the case of a project about which there was controversy. Any such case should go to the standing committee and be thoroughly examined there. I speak for the government in saying that this is our view. It is only in exceptional circumstances, when a case seems so clearcut, that we would think of not referring such a bill to a committee.


William Marvin Howe: Did the
minister intimate that the C.P.R. already has a branch line running into this particular area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that was indicated, and the mining company has agreed to divide its business 50-50 between them.

June 27. 1966
Finance


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just in the Saskatchewan case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the C.P.R. is not in
northern Manitoba at all.
Clause agreed to
Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed to express my appreciation to the house for its co-operation in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)



FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-211, to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the provinces the proportions of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) at the resolution stage of this bill and I must confess I do not find any very compelling argument in it to support the policy the government is pursuing beyond the argument perhaps that they have succumbed again to having their arms twisted by powerful provincial governments. So far as I know, in my own province of British Columbia there is only one sizeable privately owned electric power installation, the West Kootenay Light and Power Company. It is a subsidiary of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company which in turn is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, not an organization which one would have thought would require any particular financial help at this stage in the game.

Gas is another question and I think it is the reason this whole thing is so serious. I do not think there is much doubt that those provinces which have not yet advanced so far in the field of public ownership and operation of electrical power generation and utilization, having regard to other provinces in Canada, will eventually follow suit with the other provinces and that therefore the question of the application of this act to electric power companies probably will become an academic one. But it is not academic in the case of gas producing industries, virtually all of which I believe are still under private ownership.
After almost 20 years in which the rebate has stood at 50 per cent-it was brought about, as the minister pointed out the other day, as part of the dominion-provincial tax rental agreements and was opposed, I may say, by many in the provincial legislatures at that time-I am at a loss to understand why it now is being increased to 95 per cent. According to the minister, the argument that was put up to the federal government by the provincial governments was that private enterprise was being left at a disadvantage vis-a-vis public enterprise. I should like to point out to you, sir, as I said, that I think in all the provinces all the way from my province to the province of Quebec the generation and distribution of electric power is in public hands and therefore the question of private enterprise being placed at a disadvantage is largely academic. On the other hand, gas companies almost all are privately owned, with unfortunately very little public ownership in that field.
The suggestion which apparently was made by some of the provincial governments that this worked a hardship not only on the privately owned utilities themselves but also on their customers would have more force if there was some provision in this legislation to make sure that the customers would benefit. It would appear that the federal government is going to remit this money to the provincial governments and that is all, and we do not know what will happen to it after that. The provincial governments may remit it in whole or in part to those particular companies whose taxes have been remitted. It may perhaps take some measure to see that the customers benefit from this but there is no provision for that in this particular measure.
Without being unduly cynical I would suggest it is rather a broken reed to lean on if we imagine the provincial governments will have very much concern about the welfare of the customers. I have in mind again my own
June 27, 1966

province where the provincial government now has control of a vast majority of the generation and distribution of electric power. We have had innumerable promises from the provincial government that the rates would be lowered. They were lowered by a very small amount a year or two ago but nothing commensurate with the savings the provincial government had made by the elimination of the corporation income tax in the operation of these concerns. I would suspect this will happen again.
While the present situation in the electric power industry means that this bill will have very little significance with regard to transfer of funds from federal to provincial hands, nevertheless with regard to gas it probably will be quite significant. Even more important than that, however, is that it seems to me it is setting a rather dangerous precedent. If we are to make this rebate on behalf of gas and electric power, why do we stop there? What is to prevent us continuing the process into other fields which also rely on the use of natural resources? I have in mind my own province of British Columbia where our largest industry is totally dependent on a natural resource. I am speaking of the forest products industry with its related industries of pulp and paper, lumber and plywood. If the provinces are to receive a rebate on behalf of the electric and gas companies, what is to prevent them being granted a rebate on what the lumber companies have paid? Perhaps they should have a portion of that.
It seems to me that in this way we will continue the process of erosion of federal control over the economy which has been a feature in Ottawa in the last several years, a dangerous trend which will lead to still more trouble in the future than in the past, particularly when we take into consideration that these companies have had and are still enjoying tax concessions. As the minister pointed out, some 2 per cent less than the general rate of corporation income tax now is imposed on these companies. They have had that advantage and now the provincial governments are to get a further advantage.
I would feel happier about this if I had some confidence that the people who are customers of these companies were going to receive some benefit from it, but I really cannot see any hope, even in this legislation, that that will be the case. It seems to me purely and simply to be another concession to the powerful provincial governments and another 23033-437
Finance
erosion of federal power for which we will pay a heavy price in the future and for which the Minister of Finance will pay a heavy price because his problems will be made more difficult. He has selected this one particular type of business and said that we will give it special treatment. Why do we not deal with the pulp and paper, aluminum and other industries in the same way?
Another point I should like to stress is that I do not think anybody today would argue with the fact that it has been considered by a growing number of people to be in the public interest that public utilities engaged in the distribution of electric power and gas should be in public hands. I doubt that any government in Canada would suggest putting the clock back.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I cannot conceive, for instance, of a government of Ontario deciding to abolish Ontario Hydro and I cannot conceive of a government of British Columbia putting the clock back and returning electric power generation and distribution to private hands.
Public ownership of utilities is obviously a trend that is being followed in this country. Why introduce legislation that will put the brakes on progress in that direction and a brake also on any attempt to follow a safe course with regard to another utility which is going to become of greater importance to the country and which involves the distribution of gas throughout Canada? Obviously this is a field in which public ownership is the inevitable end in view if we are going to have some concern for the consumer and some concern for the health of our economy which depends to such a large extent upon the distribution of power in its various forms.
I should like to register my very strong opposition to this bill. I hope that the Minister of Finance will perhaps experience another conversion such as suggested by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and that I may convert him to the point of view that it is in the public interest that public ownership of utilities be encouraged and not discouraged as this legislation proposes to do.
[Translation1


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on second reading of Bill No. C-211 to tell the minister that we are in favour of it because, under this legislation, part of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies

June 27, 1966
Finance
and which normally belongs to the provinces will be turned over to them. I heard the previous speaker refer to provincial governments which have nationalized electricity; he said that, as a result, electricity was cheaper. Well we have positive proof to the contrary.
In the province of Quebec-and I believe the saying that to administer a state enterprise always costs twice as much as to administer a private enterprise is true-since electricity was nationalized, apart from the loss of revenue from all taxes yielded by power companies, in some areas, electricity is much more expensive than when it belonged to private companies.
After experiencing nationalization-Quebec will probably not retrace its steps-we are convinced that it will always be more expensive, and cost twice as much, to administer a state-controlled enterprise.
As for the transfer of taxes mentioned in this bill, the field involved is not very extensive; mention is made of electrical energy, gas and steam. The province of Quebec is only concerned with gas. We would have been much more interested in the transfer of the paper companies' income tax, for instance, or of the taxes collected from the numerous mining companies operating in the province of Quebec. The ideal-and the minister would have been much commended for it-would have been a bill designed to turn over to the province of Quebec 100 per cent of the taxes collected during all those taxation months.
We were generous enough 20 years ago to surrender those rights to the federal government and we are looking forward to the day when the federal government will consider the advisability and the need to hand over what it borrowed 20 years ago-those taxation rights in fields belonging to the provinces. The effect would be, first of all, to remove the double taxation now existing in Quebec; to eliminate also duplicate administration, because the federal government is taxing in a provincial area, collecting money to pay over to the provinces later on, as if the provinces did not know enough to tax themselves.
Under this bill, the minister undertakes to hand over to the provinces a part, a small part of the tax to which they are rightfully entitled under the constitution. We ask that a bill be introduced to return all their rights to the provinces. Let the federal government act with logic and loyalty. The provinces only

loaned those tax fields with the definite intention of recovering them immediately after the war.
The provinces have kept their word but the federal government took the opportunity to defraud the provinces, to keep what had been a temporary loan and which has never been returned since.
Once and for all, let the decision be taken and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many disputes and clashes would be eliminated in the province of Quebec if it were possible to return the three fields of taxation which the province of Quebec is asking for, which it has loaned 20 years ago and has been asking back for 20 years in order to manage its own business and stop begging from the federal government. Furthermore, it is no longer justified since the federal government is collecting the provinces own taxes only to pay back a third or 40 per cent. Naturally, we are for the bill, even though it is only a fraction of what the province of Quebec is laying claim to. I hope that shortly the Minister of Finance will introduce the bill we are all looking forward to, all of us citizens of Quebec, and every French Canadian in that province will not only feel grateful, but will deem the minister to be a great man.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of continuing the discussion at any length but I should like to indicate my full agreement with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). Like him, I think this is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation in principle and, as he pointed out, in my view it has consequences which could serioulsy affect the proper functioning of the national economy and the proper exercise of its management, which in our view should be in the hands of the Minister of Finance for Canada. Under those circumstances this house should reject this legislation out of hand in order to indicate to the minister, the government, and some interests in the country who I believe have been promoting this legislation, that we in parliament want nothing to do with it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather):
That Bill No. C-211 be not now read the second time but that it be read this day six months hence.
June 27, 1966



[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. H. A, Olson (Medicine Hal): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and other members of the house will reject this amendment, and the sooner the better, because the provisions of Bill C-211 are in my opinion long overdue. They should have been brought before the house and dealt with by it some time ago in order to establish a fair taxation base between those provinces that have publicly owned power utilities and those that have privately owned power companies.
In the province of Alberta, for example, some of the power and gas companies are publicly owned by municipalities and, of course, many others are not. They are privately owned corporations which are providing excellent service, at the same energy rate in many cases as publicly owned corporations elsewhere in Canada. But there is a discrepancy in the amount of tax paid by these utility corporations. If they are privately owned they are subjected to the same corporation tax as any other private corporation in Canada but publicly owned power and other utility companies are not taxed on the same basis.
I suggest that the purpose of this bill, for which I commend the Minister of Finance-is simply to provide a measure of justice to those citizens of Canada in areas that are served by privately owned utility companies, because certainly the only way in which privately owned companies can get the money with which to pay the federal corporation tax is through the rates charged to their customers.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will later. It seems to me it is a complete injustice to have a tax base that requires citizens in some parts of Canada to pay a higher rate for energy when all other cost factors may be the same. If the hon. member for Comox-Albemi would like to ask his question now, I will endeavour to answer it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member this question. In common logic, does he suggest that this bill will reduce the rates of the private utilities?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I was just coming to that, Mr. Speaker. So far as the government of Alberta is concerned, it has made a pubiic announcement, I believe, that it intends to return this 23033-4371
Finance
tax money to the corporations which in turn have agreed to reduce accordingly the rates for energy. This would bring the situation more in line with the tax exemptions that are the privilege of publicly owned utility corporations. It seems to me that if this bill is not passed the effect will be an attempt to force the provinces to nationalize all utility corporations within their boundaries. That may suit the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and his philosophy but so far as we are concerned we can offer substantial evidence, in fact overwhelming evidence, that privately owned power corporations can and do deliver power to their customers just as cheaply and efficiently over a long period as any publicly owned utility in Canada, given the same set of other cost factors.
If it becomes necessary to come forth with all the facts and figures to compare, for example, a thermal power unit such as the one at Wampum, Alberta, with the one at Estevan, Saskatchewan, both of which use the same kind of fuel from the same kind of mining operation and are essentially the same kind of unit, it can be satisfactorily proven that the privately owned corporation producing power in Alberta does it in fact a little more efficiently than is the case in Saskatchewan. However, Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking up this much time this afternoon because I think this is a good bill which is long overdue. I ask the house to deal with it fairly and pass it as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.

June 27. 1966
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 3-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), Commonwealth Relations-West Indies-request for statement on customs union; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Administration of Justice-medical association request for compulsory breathalizer tests; the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Immigration-application for admission by those with visitors' visas. It being six o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of motions:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Canada Pension Plan in such a way

June 27, 1966
[Stage Direction]
as to insure that it and complementary pensions and retirement allowance legislation in Canada are based upon the following principles:
(a)	the immediate increase of the old age pension to $100.00 per month to all present recipients, and the integration and payment of such pensions out of the pension fund as amended;
(b)	the establishment of a plan to provide a national minimum retirement income, participation in such a plan to be available but not compulsory to all;
(c)	that a national retirement pensions plan should not be compulsorily superimposed on existing pension and retirement plans, but should be supplementary to them, on the basis of filling in gaps in coverage of existing retirement and superannuation plans so that all are covered up to the level established under sub-paragraph (b), participation being, however, elective to those who are already covered to or beyond that level;
(d)	that true portability of pensions as between industries and areas, which is not affected by the present plan, be the continuing aim of pensions legislation and negotiation;
(e)	that certain specific and foolish anomalies, such as those whereby more than one employer may be compelled to make a full annual contribution in respect of the same employee, with no right of recovery from the fund, and whereby some housewives will be compelled to make deduction from the wages of domestic help while others will not, although the basic wage rate is the same, be eliminated.
Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the hon. member for Perth to request that this item be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand, at the request of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SUGGESTED PROGRAMS OF INTERNSHIP IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES

Alfred Dryden Hales: ;
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a form of internship program in the House of Commons; the purpose of the said program being to better equip outstanding young political scientists, journalists and law school faculty members, with a better understanding of the national legislative process; the participants to be brought to Ottawa for six to nine months of full-time work as assistants to members of the House of Commons and to be paid a minimum stipend financed by the government and an established foundation grant, competition for the fellowship to be made each year, announced to coincide with the opening of a session.
He said; Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity afforded hon. members in private members' hour of being able to bring forth ideas and suggestions that they feel might be of benefit to this worthy chamber, to hon. members or to the government at large.
House of Commons
The motion I have presumed to bring to the attention of the house is one that was conceived out of the accumulation of work which I have found on my desk and on my shoulders since I have been a member of parliament for approximately the last ten years. I am sure that many other hon. members of this house have found that the amount of work which falls to their lot has become greater and greater as the years go on. I do not suppose there is one member in this chamber who would not admit that the ever-increasing amount of work, the great amount of reading, the numerous briefs and the great amount of research that falls to his lot as a member has become even greater and greater as the years have gone by.
I am sure that many of us come into this house not as well prepared as we would like to be to deal with the great mass of legislation that we are confronted with from time to time. Such unpreparedness makes the load of the member heavier and heavier. To illustrate what I mean, one has only to think of the Canada Assistance Plan bill that is before the house at the present time. With all the great complexity of this piece of legislation, how is any hon. member supposed to understand it as well as he should without first having had some assistance or some time to study it? Looking back, the same thing could be said about that enormous piece of legislation that was brought before the house and passed, namely, the Canada Pension Plan.
I ask, what can be done to help to rectify the existing problem of which I have spoken? Possibly the answer in part lies in the resolution I have put before the house. It says:
That . . . the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a form of internship program in the House of Commons; the purpose of the said program being to better equip outstanding young political scientists, journalists and law school faculty members, with a better understanding of the national legislative process; the participants to be brought to Ottawa for six to nine months of full-time work as assistants to members of the House of Commons and to be paid a minimum stipend financed by the government and an established foundation grant, competition for the fellowship to be made each year, announced to coincide with the opening of a session.
This resolution is twofold in purpose. It will provide outstanding help to students who participate as interns and will also be of great help to the member of parliament. I have suggested here only three classes of interns, namely, political science students, law students and journalists. My reasoning behind this is that I feel it would be better to

There are other details which would have to be worked out. Pay would start on, say, September 1 and continue on a monthly basis. The fares of successful candidates to Ottawa would be paid, as well as their return fares if they completed the course. A married student might receive between $4,500 and $5,500, plus $1,000 in respect of the first child and $500 for each additional child. Such a scale could be worked out. The program would be under the direction of the House of Commons internship committee and I believe the staff in the Speaker's office could handle the operational duties. It would be best, I think, if the scheme were confined to backbenchers.
I mentioned this idea at a meeting in my part of the country not long ago and one of the editors of the local paper wrote an editorial about it. With all due humility and modesty I should like to put a large part of this editorial on record. It is from the Guelph Daily Mercury and the heading is: "Political Internship A Sound Proposal". It reads in part as follows:
Alfred Hales' proposal to allow university graduates to serve political "interships" excited our interest. The idea has much to recommend it.
Mr. Hales said the plan would be invaluable to members of parliament who are required these day to do an ever-increasing amount of research to keep up with new developments on a wide front. He suggested the proposed "internship" should be open to graduates in journalism, law and political science. These should naturally be the people most interested in politics although we do not see why it should not be open to graduates in any field.
In any case, politics has become a difficult and complicated profession, making stififer demands all the time on those who practice the art. There is a great need for a training ground in practical politics and Mr. Hales' proposal would go a long way toward filling that need.
Too often in the past has the popular and charming fellow down the street or on the farm been sent to Ottawa simply because he happened to be popular and charming. We send people to parliament to do the most important job in the country, but seldom ask to see their qualifications.
To send a man who has only a background of experience in township, county or municipal affairs, to recommend him is like sending a junior hockey player to the National Hockey League. He is not ready for it. And while he may make it in the end, a lot of time goes by before he does-time that is spent on the bench listening to the coach and watching the professionals.
A program such as Mr. Hales suggests would provide a nucleus of young political hopefuls with valuable first-hand experience and training which would stand them in good stead should they decide to make politics a career. And the country as a whole would benefit.
House of Commons
I put this on record to show the view expressed in an editorial in my constituency. [DOT] (6.30 p.m.)
I should like to conclude by putting two quotations on the record concerning a similar program which has been in operation in the United States Congress. They are from letters written by Congressmen. Here is one from a letter written by Mr. Carl Elliott of Alabama:
Allow me to congratulate you on the exceptionally capable manner in which you have organized and directed the Congressional Fellowship Program this year. I have had an opportunity to observe several of the Fellows and could not be more impressed. It was, as you know, my great pleasure to have Mr. Edmund B. Lambeth in my office during the period from the first of the year until the Easter recess. Ed's work was, by all standards, truly outstanding. In view of the added burden placed on my office staff this year, I hardly can see what I would have done without him. He was, at all times, both alert and thoughtful, with a great gift for writing. His mastery of the important tasks assigned to him was a pleasure to behold.
I can think of no comments or suggestions which I might make regarding the operation of your program, with the possible exception that I would be glad to see you revise your policy so as to enable me to take on another fellow next year.
My second quotation is a short paragraph from a letter written by Mr. Ullman, Congressman from Oregon:
From every point of view, Dave's work was outstanding. He came at a time when my activities were somewhat restricted, moving into a schedule of full responsibilities with a minimum of prompting. His services to me as my Ways and Means Committee advisor, as well as his general duties in handling correspondence and agency work, were done with efficiency and good judgment. I have no criticism except that his term with me should have been longer so that we could benefit even more from the assignment.
Here is a sentence from another letter:
From my experience with Tom, I have learned how useful it would be to me to have a full time "legislative assistant" as an addition to our regular staff, to help me with the load of reading and analysis and more thorough study of legislation.
We in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are launching into a big operation in our parliament and must look forward to thinking in broader and wider terms. I can visualize someone speaking against this motion saying it may not be necessary because recently, as a result of a recommendation of the special committee on organization and procedure, we established a new branch for research in the library to aid hon. members. I believe it has a staff of eight and the budget for the branch runs between $75,000 to $80,000 a year.
However, this is a rather impersonal service. I do not think we get the same results from it

June 27. 1966
House of Commons
as we would on a day-to-day basis with assistance from an intern, but the branch could be continued as a complement to the internship program. That is something that can be decided another time.
I believe this resolution has great merit. I think Canada has reached a point where an internship program should be established on Parliament Hill. As I said at the beginning, it would be a tremendous assistance not only to the interns but also to the members of parliament. I hope hon. members will see fit to endorse the resolution or, if they do not feel like doing so right now, I suggest that the matter be referred to the special committee on organization and procedure the members of which, in their wisdom, could consider and recommend it to this honourable chamber.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting motion and I commend the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) for introducing it. It has two principal aspects, both of which have much value. The first aspect is the internship program as a means of training Canadian students in politics, government and law. The second aspect relates to the use of these interns as assistants to members of parliament.
I shall deal first with the first aspect, that is, an internship program in the House of Commons. There is no doubt that university courses have a tendency to become too academic, with the result that the student does not always get a correct picture of the Canadian government and its parliament. For three years I served as a lecturer in political science, teaching Canadian government, and I often realized the difficulties met by students who never saw parliament in action. As a matter of fact, as a lecturer and a person fairly extensively read in Canadian government I found the picture I had obtained from books was not always the true picture of how our government and parliament act.
In many other countries it is much easier for students to visit the seat of government and study it at first hand. In England a large percentage of students live within a few hours of the parliament at Westminster. The same applies in Paris, Rome and most other European countries. In addition, many of these countries have education and training systems somewhat similar to that which is suggested in this motion. In France the Institut des Sciences Politiques and Econo-miques, established in Paris, gives the student

who intends to work in governmentan excellent academic and practical training. While he may not work as an assistant to a deputy, he does keep in close touch with the practical processes of government.
Since Canada is a large, sparsely populated country it is especially important that some type of parliamentary internship be established. Many of our universities are such a long distance from Ottawa, and travelling to the national capital is so expensive, that such an internship program would help bring many students to Ottawa where they could get a first-hand viewpoint. Such a system would also do much to promote the national interest as opposed to the regional interest.
Students who might otherwise spend all their university years in the same province, subject only to provincial influences, would have the opportunity of spending a year in Ottawa learning to appreciate at first hand the national parliament. Such an internship program would not only do much to help students in their work and assist in the understanding of their respective sciences but it would also do much to upgrade the whole process of government in Canada. It would provide us with a group of men much better informed, more understanding and more knowledgeable of government and parliament.
The motion refers to political scientists, journalists and law professors but I would think it should include, as the hon. member mentioned, all students whose work requires an understanding of our government. These might be economists, law students, social scientists and social workers.
I find the inclusion of journalists most interesting. There is no doubt that the press gallery plays a most important role in our democratic process. They have the difficult task of reporting, interpreting and commenting on the affairs of parliament for the information of the Canadian people. Whereas today most members of parliament are obliged to concentrate on one or two areas of legislation, and cabinet ministers must necessarily concentrate, most of our journalists are expected to report intelligently on all types of bills, all types of statements and all types of political discussion.
In this age of specialization it is obvious that this may be too much to expect. One day the journalist is obliged to report on the technical intricacies of economic and fiscal policy, interest rates and taxation, the next day on the complexities of international law,
June 27, 1966

treaty making and United Nations procedure, and on the following day deal with labour law, collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration.
Just as ministers, members of parliament and civil servants are obliged to concentrate their interests, it follows that members of the press gallery may have to do likewise. It is only in this way that the Canadian people will be able to get the specialized reporting they need to judge properly the work of parliament and government. It is recognized that the press gallery already has specialists and men from specialized journals, but the vast majority are individuals who are required to do the general reporting of all parliamentary business. It would seem that a parliamentary internship for students of journalism or apprentice journalists might help give this profession a more highly qualified group of reporters and critics.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The second aspect of this motion recommends that the parliamentary interns be assigned to members of parliament as assistants. This suggestion has been made for many years and each year it becomes more and more urgent. As I have already mentioned, government business is becoming more and more extensive and more and more complex. While an intelligent member of parliament may have been able to keep himself fully informed on all legislation 30 or 40 years ago, this is almost impossible today. In the ordinary course of his duties a member of parliament is required to sit in the house each afternoon, to sit in committees at least two mornings a week, to attend caucus at least one morning a week, to meet constituents and various lobby groups, to answer correspondence, to keep informed about the bills and resolutions which are presented to the house and, from time to time, to prepare speeches.
If a member attends all sittings of the house, all the meetings of committees of which he is a member and caucus meetings, it is easy to observe that he will not have much time to do all the other things mentioned. One of the most important and time consuming tasks is the reading and research required to prepare his speeches and his house and committee work. Even if the member of parliament has taken the course in rapid reading which is being given here he still could spend five hours a day reading and not even scratch the surface of many subjects.
House of Commons
I might say that the member would be able to do much more reading and research if he was provided with such standard business equipment as a dictating machine. If ever there was a job where dictating equipment was required, it is that of the member of parliament. While his secretary is in his office from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., he usually is required to be in the house or in committee during these hours and therefore is often not able to dictate. If he had dictating equipment he could dictate at all available hours of the day and night without concern for the presence of his secretary. It would also allow him to make better use of his time and to plan his day in a more orderly fashion.
However, in order to perform his work properly the member of parliament must be given research assistance. The manner suggested by this bill is a good one. In this way we help not only those studying government but also the entire functioning of parliament.
In the United States Congress each congressman is provided with two secretaries and a research assistant. I understand that the United States senator has even more assistance than the ordinary member of the House of Representatives.
I should say also that the work presently being done by the legislative reference service of the parliamentary library is a good start. Although it was begun only recently it does provide us with a good deal of help in research. I think, however, that the type of research suggested in this resolution is necessary and should supplement the reference service. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent resolution and I give it my full support.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, as has been the case in respect of all the speeches that the mover of this resolution has made since he came to this house in 1957, this one is a product of careful thought, proper research and extremely good intentions. I am completely in support of the general purpose which he seeks to achieve by this resolution. I congratulate him on the purpose he has in mind and I think there is great need for it to be achieved. Both preceding speakers established that need.
One is never concerned when people denigrate the politician. They have been doing so ever since there has been the product of politics. But when the institution itself is publicly denigrated and seriously misrepresented we are concerned. I believe there is a great need for this sort of assistance, this sort of recognition of the complexity of the task

June 27, 1966
House of Commons
which a serious member oi parliament must undertake. Indeed, in line with the remarks of the hon. member who just sat down, how long would it take if one were to read all of Hansard after it is compiled, to say nothing of the statutes?
I went to great length to study the Canada Pension Plan, all three versions, but when one of my constituents asks a question I am never sure what the proper answer should be because I studied the preceding ones as well as the final one. The massive volumes of royal commission reports compound the complexity of what is before us. It is difficult to talk about all these matters because one is apt to give the impression, to use the expression of Hon. Howard Green, that one is whining about things. I think, however, that there is a legitimate case for the extension of our facilities. The research division in the library in my opinion is doing a fine job, but it is just a beginning.
It is so easy for us in Canada, with our curious superiority complex, to look upon the system south of us as being inferior, but I believe that if we look carefully at the average functioning Congressman and Senator we will see that in many ways he is able to function more effectively than we. I think the development of this sort of thing is part of the reason. I quite agree that we should give careful study to the internship program. I am delighted that my hon. friend has mentioned political scientists first because naturally these are the brainiest people of all. They have the proper training and are people who should be here.
Journalists certainly need this plan. Whether or not the house needs more lawyers is a question which there is not time to debate now, although I would like to take one side in that argument rather strongly. I suggest that perhaps the categories should be broadened to include many students, perhaps those in the humanities and social sciences and, indeed, perhaps those in the pure and applied science fields. Before we go as far as we must go, however, I think we will have to think of other changes here. We are going to need an increased physical plant on Parliament Hill. We are going to have to wake up to the fact that some time we had better look at the calendar a little more realistically and decide in deliberative assembly that we can pre-arrange the date of our convening and in a general way the date of our proroguing.
I believe that soon we must come to realize that a closer approximation to the academic

year would be a reasonable way for us to conduct our yearly schedule here. With that in mind the program suggested by the hon. member would fit in extremely well. I should like to see the interns doing the things the mover suggests, but I think the most suitable arrangement would be an approximation of the academic year. There are so many things that bright young people could do to benefit us individually, to benefit the institution as a whole and, I would hope, to benefit them.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
As a former professor of political science I agree with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) that exposure to the practical aspects of politics may have some enriching effect, certainly on the man behind the podium and I would think it would extend to those on the other side of it. Perhaps he and I, if we return to the halls of academy, will look back on our internship here as something useful at least to us and hopefully for those who may be in our intellectual charge, if I may put it that way. I would say that this is a most imaginative, useful and thoughtful suggestion and the kind of thing which our parliament and our country should consider carefully and favourably. The bread and water era of our country proving itself in an economic way has long since passed and I think we must now think of improving our basic institutions. This is a fine, practical and useful suggestion. I support it wholeheartedly and I will now make time available for others to speak and for all of us to vote.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up very much time of the house but I should like to make a few remarks in support of the notice of motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales). In doing so may I say that its implementation will be beneficial indeed not only from the viewpoint of those who are going to participate in the program but also from the viewpoint of members of parliament, particularly those of us who are in our legislative infancy.
It is interesting, and allusion has been made to this by other speakers, to make comparisons of the research facilities available to members of parliament and those to which members of the Congress of the United States have access. Certainly the notice of motion before us would seem to parallel almost the congressional fellowship program
June 27, 1966

about which the hon. member for Wellington South has spoken. That program has been sponsored by the American Political Science Association and financed by the Ford Foundation and other groups and it provides Senators and members of the House of Representatives with an additional source of assistance.
The program to which I have referred is one which might well be studied by those who are interested in how the mechanics of such a suggestion as the one we are now discussing might be worked out. As hon. members know, in addition to the facilities of the library of Congress research branch, which functions in a manner similar to the one recently set up in our parliamentary library, congressman and senators are provided with funds with which to engage administrative assistants who help in such things as correspondence, problems of constituents both personal and otherwise, the gathering of material for speeches and in dealing with government departments on behalf of constituents as well as analysing legislation. As has already been mentioned, senators and congressmen also have very large secretarial and office staffs to help them. They seem to be very much better off in this way than we are.
Speaking from that viewpoint alone, and as I have said I support the suggestion by the hon. member wholeheartedly, I wonder whether this motion goes far enough to provide the facilities which are required at this time and certainly will be required in future by members of parliament. The 12th report of the special committee on procedure and organization, submitted on October 7, 1964, suggested that the ideal situation would involve one assistant for every ten members of parliament and that the functions of the researcher would include the preparation of statistical data, the investigation of the pros and cons of any argument referred to him, the summarizing of press comments and the provision of notes for speeches. While I should not like to underrate the value of such a service, it seems to me that we would be doing every member of parliament, and particularly the backbenchers, a great service by allowing them to engage a qualified person who would have closer contact with the member for whom he worked and would be more partisan in the best sense of that word and thus better equipped to help his member nr group of members. Under the system of
House of Commons
research assistance in the library of parliament members have no choice in the selection of those who are to participate. Would it not be better to allow us some choice in the selection of those who are to serve us?
I could go on but I should like to see this motion come to a vote this evening. For that reason I will resume my seat and allow other members to comment.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, hoped that this motion would come to a vote and I am confident that it would have come to a vote had it not been for the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) gave the house a rather distorted impression of its purpose. It would be unfortunate to vote on it while that impression remains.
The hon. member dealt with the motion as though its purpose were to provide assistance to the members of the House of Commons. I do not think that is primarily the intention of the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales). His intention is surely more important, and one which I think inevitably would commend itself to every member of this house.
There is no doubt that we ought to try to provide people engaged in political science, journalists, members of universities' law faculties, and others with an opportunity to come to Ottawa and participate, vicariously if you will, in the operation of parliament. This would not be an easy thing to work out; and I do not think the congressional fellowship program in the United States provides us with all the instructive parallel desirable because their system of government is very different from ours.
It would be very worthwhile for these interns to hear one of our better informed members, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), talk about the constitutional role of the House of Commons and more generally the parliament in our system of government. Some of us heard him speak the other evening very accurately on this matter. I am sure that many members of the House of Commons and of the press gallery were edified by what he said. He showed quite clearly that we have a very much more complicated system of government than the American and one in which it would be more difficult to introduce a program for interns. I wonder, for example, how suitable many members of parliament, given

June 27, 1966
Finance
the particular emphasis that they give to their work, would be for many of the interns. Perhaps the answer would be to have the interns assigned to the offices of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition where they would be most directly involved with the on-going work of the House of Commons in the legislative process, and in the other processes of this house which are perhaps even more important in our system. However, there are obvious difficulties in that proposal as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for considering private members' business has expired and the house will now revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-211, to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the provinces the proportions of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: When the committee rose at six we were about to consider clause 3.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
On clause 3-Payments to provinces.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to detain the committee at any great length on this clause, but it does seem to me that in view of the fact that the house did not see fit to accept the amendment which I moved at the second reading stage, which if it had carried would have resulted in a rejection of this proposal, perhaps some consideration should be given to the terms of the bill as set out in clause 3.
If I understand this clause correctly, it provides that the Minister of Finance may from time to time pay to the various provinces of Canada out of the consolidated revenue fund certain sums which have come into the federal coffers as a result of corporation tax levied on private utilities. Under the terms of this clause the minister will be empowered to refund into the hands of the provincial governments 95 per cent of such corporation tax that they pay as a result of revenues obtained from their public utility operations.

It seems to me that if the house is going to approve this bill we should be concerned about what is going to be the end result of placing these funds back in the hands of the provinces. Indeed, in my view, if this action is to be taken at all, parliament in this bill should set out the terms and conditions under which these funds should be administered, once they are refunded to the provinces. Basically, as I understand it, this is federal revenue, revenue which has come into the hands of the government of Canada and in my view it should not simply be handed back to the provinces as another form of unconditional grant. We had a discussion earlier about the pros and cons of the advisability of the operation of public and private utilities. The question whether the operation of publicly owned utilities may be more in the interests of the consumers than privately owned utilities can be a subject matter of debate.
In regard to my own province of British Columbia, where of course within the last few years our major private utility was taken into public ownership and has been managed since that action was taken by the present government of British Columbia, there is some question in my mind whether it is being operated in what one considers to be the best interests of the consumers, the customers of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. One has in mind for example that perhaps an undue proportion of the revenues of that corporation are being siphoned off into financing expansions in certain parts of the province, rather than being used to bring lower rates and better service to the people of the province who are the customers of the corporation at the present time.
If I understand this proposal correctly, it will apply to the private utility corporations which are operating in the southeasterly part of the province. One of the questions that arises in my mind, at least as this clause is worded, is whether when the government of British Columbia gets its hands on the money which it is proposed should be rebated by the Minister of Finance, in effect the customers of the Kootenays in British Columbia will be doing what the customers of B.C. Hydro and Power on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island are now doing, namely assisting out of their power bills in the financing of the development of a project in the Peace river, which is commonly referred to as the Peace river dam and power development. These are the sort of considerations which I think should give us some cause for concern as we
June 27, 1966

consider clause 3 of this bill. In my view that kind of action should not be allowed. The hon. member for Medicine Hat earlier told the house that he had an understanding that, if it got this money in its hands, the present government of the province of Alberta, from which he comes, was going to do something, toward refunding it to the customers of the private utilities in the province. That may or may not be the case.
I am prepared to take the hon. member's word that this is the intention of the present government of Alberta. Nevertheless governments come and go, as those of us who sit in this house know only too well. Therefore it seems to me that some consideration should be given to what disposition will be made of these funds in the hands of the provinces. I am hoping that the amendment which I propose to move to clause 3 may in this instance receive the support of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, because in some respects it is along the lines he was arguing a little earlier at second reading stage. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move:
That subclause (1) of clause 3 be amended by substituting a comma for the period at the end thereof and adding the following words:
"provided the province agrees that such amount will be applied to reduce rates paid by the customers of the respective designated corporations."


Maurice Rinfret: May I ask hon. members if they would enlighten the Chair as to the relevancy to clause 3 of the amendment in its present form.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I was about to say something on this particular amendment with regard to its propriety, and whether it is in order. While it is an amendment to subclause (1) of clause 3 of the bill, it seems to me that if you read clause 4 fairly carefully you will find that it has essentially the same effect, because it says:
Where a province certifies that an amount that is all or part of an amount paid to it under this act has been paid or otherwise transferred or credited to a designated corporation for its own use and benefit, and certifies the amount that has been so paid or otherwise transferred or credited to the corporation, the amount so certified is exempt from income tax.
Therefore it seems to me that the amendment is perhaps slightly superfluous except for one point, and that is that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni spells out in his amendment that it will be applied to reduce rates paid by the customers of the respective designated corporations. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the argument I am
Finance
about to advance is not valid on a point of order. There are reasons to hold out that no province is going to apply for a refund of this tax unless the designated corporations do in fact agree to reduce the rates by a certain amount, perhaps to the extent of 100 per cent of the amount of the rebate. I think therefore that the sense of this amendment could far more properly be applied to clause 4 rather than clause 3, because as I read it, at first glance it seems there would be perhaps some conflicting and unnecessary wording in clauses 3 and 4 if this amendment were accepted to clause 3.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: This proposed amendment
would substantially alter the nature of this legislation. May I say to the hon. member who has proposed it that he is really calling in question the value of public opinion in the provinces of this country. After all, the purpose of this legislation is to avoid giving an artificial inducement to any province to nationalize its public utilities; that is the purpose of the bill. It is being brought forward in response to representations made by provinces that unless to a large extent these taxes are refunded-and this bill proposes 95 per cent-the privately owned utilities are at a great disadvantage compared to the publicly owned utilities. Moreover, the province or its consumers could gain a great advantage from nationalizing these enterprises.
As far as I am concerned the decision as to whether a particular utility should be nationalized or not should not be affected by taxation. I am not opposed to public ownership; indeed I have often advocated it and I defend it quite vigorously. However, I do not think the federal government should provide a reason for nationalization which has nothing to do with the inherent advantages of public ownership. The purpose of this bill is to remove this artificial stimulus to public ownership.
I believe it should be left up to the province concerned to decide whether it wishes to pass on the benefits of this refund of taxes to the consumers or whether the people of that province prefer to use the money for other purposes. That is a decision that should be made by the provinces. I do not think it is good public policy for us to require under this bill that the provinces pass this refund on to the consumers of the utility.
As I listened to the hon. member's argument, it was obvious to me that he was protesting against the activities of a certain

June 27, 1966
Finance
publicly owned utility in his own province. Surely if a public utility charges rates which are not agreeable to my hon. friend, that is something being done by the public utility which is under the control of the province itself.
I therefore believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment should be rejected. I believe that it would compel the provinces to take action which, in their own wisdom, they might prefer not to take, as against action which might be as much in the interest of all the consumers of the gas or electricity being provided in that province as would be a reduction in rates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I find the argument advanced by the Minister of Finance to be most intriguing indeed because the only interpretation I can place upon his argument, if it is to have general validity, is that in effect he is advocating the complete abolition of taxes. Far from recognizing his argument, that in the absence of this legislation there is a weight in favour of the provinces bringing about the public ownership of public utilities, I consider that this legislation is weighted the other way, toward the preservation of the private ownership of public utilities.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question? If the provinces were concerned about the effect of our general taxation upon other industries, why did they not make representations with respect to industries other than public utilities?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that probably by and large the reason for this is that the members of most of the provincial governments subscribe to the same philosophy as that advocated by the Minister of Finance. They believe in protecting the right of private industry to make profit, and they are not concerned with the most economical provision of services to the people of this country.
The whole principle of the corporation tax is based upon profits, and the only case where any discrimination arises is in the minds of certain people such as the premiers of British Columbia or Alberta or the present Minister of Finance. They consider that there is some imaginary discrimination in allowing a company to operate at cost and not pay corporation tax. This is the question of principle that is involved. The Minister of Finance can stand up here and talk all he wants about his belief in and support of public ownership, but in effect what he is doing by introducing this

bill is expressing, in very specific terms, his own belief in the preservation of private ownership even in the field of public utilities. This is what this issue is all about.
I am not disposed to argue the question of principle at any length. We had a discussion of this at the second reading stage of this bill. All I am seeking to do by my amendment, in view of the acceptance by the house of the principle of the bill, is trying to ensure that this refund of corporations tax will be passed on to the customers. This will, in a minor way, rectify the balance and put the customers of private utilities on the same footing as the customers of public utilities. If properly managed, public utilities will provide their services to the consumers at a minimum cost.
Let me turn for a moment to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I have been momentarily diverted from it. He referred to clause 4 which, if I understand it correctly, bears no relation to the principle of my amendment because it simply says that if the province turns this money back to the private utility, that will not be regarded as taxable income. There might be a need for a consequential amendment flowing from my amendment in clause 3, if it is carried. Clause 4 states that the province can turn this money over to the private utilities-the phrase used is "for its own use and benefit"-and the corporation will then not be liable for taxation on this sum. Clause 4 does not say whether the corporation is to pass this on to the consumers. All 1 am suggesting is that we should ensure that the corporation profits, which have come out of the consumers' pockets in the first place, be handed back to the provincial government; that, in giving this money, we should say "We want to make sure it goes back to the customers from whom it came in the first place". Quite frankly I cannot see that this legislation will protect the interests of the people of Canada unless we agree to ensure that what I have proposed does happen.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: The amendment submitted by the hon. friend for Comox-Alberni seems to ge beyond the proposed resolution and also beyond the bill entitled: An act to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the provinces a proportion of the income tax payable by certain public utility cmpanies. The amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill and introduces a new provision which, in the opinion of the Chair, is irrelevant and beyond the
June 27, 1966

scope of the clause that we are now considering. I would refer the members of this committee to Erskine May's seventeenth edition, page 549 where it is mentioned, in reference to the inadmissibility of amendments:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
I must declare with regret that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is out of order.
Shall clause 3 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must say, with regret, that I cannot accept your ruling in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. I believe it is within the ambit of the purpose of the bill to suggest the manner in which the province shall spend the money given. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I must ask that this ruling be appealed to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the Chairman of the committee made the following report:
The question is an appeal to Mr. Speaker pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59. In committee of the whole when clause 3 of the Bill No. C-211 was being considered, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni proposed an amendment as follows:
That subclause (1) of clause 3 be amended by substituting a comma for the period at the end thereof and adding the following words:
"provided the province agrees that such amount will be applied to reduce rates paid by the customers of the respective designated corporations."
The Chairman ruled to the effect that the proposed amendment went beyond the principle of the bill and introduced a provision which, in the opinion of the Chair, was irrelevant to and beyond the scope of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that the rules we have wrought for ourselves are not always too easy of application, and this applies particularly in the case of appeals that we have provided from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker. Hon. members realize, I am sure, that the Chairman of Committees follows the work of the committees very closely. When an amendment is submitted to him he has before him at that very moment the different clauses of the bill. I feel-and this might be only obiter-that the Speaker should not be asked to substitute his personal judgment for that of the Chairman of Committees.
Finance
In this particular instance an amendment in the following words was moved:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 3 be amended by substituting a comma for the period at the end thereof and adding the following words:
"provided the province agrees that such amount will be applied to reduce rates paid by the customers of the respective designated corporations."
In the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee this amendment seemed, or appeared, to go beyond the terms of the principle of the bill before the house. I refer to Bill C-211, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the provinces the proportions of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies.
The principle is further expressed in the resolution which says, in part:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize payments to the provinces equal to 95 per cent of that part of the income tax paid under part I of the Income Tax Act by certain corporations-
And so on. Later, at the end of the resolution it states:
-and sale in the province for distribution to the public of electrical energy or steam, or from the distribution and sale of gas to the public in the province; and to provide that an amount paid under the said measure that is paid or otherwise credited by the province to such a corporation for the use of that corporation shall be exempt from income tax.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
This resolution sets out the principle on which the bill is based. I have the impression therefore that the ruling of the chairman is justified by the authorities which have been brought to my attention. As hon. members know, an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter. I refer of course to May's seventeenth edition, page 549:
If it is irrelevant to the subject matter-or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration-amendments which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill be moved as new clauses.
Hon. members know that reference as well as or better than I know it. A judgment has been expressed by the Chairman of Committees that the amendment moved by the hon. member is beyond the terms of the principle of the bill, that it goes beyond the scope of the principle of the bill. I do not think it is sufficiently evident that an injustice has been done in the ruling of the chairman for me to rule otherwise. I think I

June 27, 1966
Finance
have to sustain the judgment rendered by the Chairman of Committees.
In these circumstances I regret that I do not think I should accept-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will you allow me a word, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I suddenly realized as I was rendering this judgment that I should have asked the hon. member to give his opinion. I invite him to do so, and I assure him that I shall not be prejudiced by the opinion I have already expressed in hearing the argument which he may want to make at this time in support of his view that the proposed amendment is in order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that it was with some regret that I felt I was not satisfied with the ruling made by the chairman in the committee of the whole.
Having checked the resolution to which the chairman referred while we were in committee, it is still my view that my amendment lies entirely within the principle of the bill. Had Your Honour not already done so, I had intended quoting precisely those parts of the resolution which Your Honour has already quoted.
The amendment I sought to move did not seek to alter in any way the principle that this money was to be paid to the provinces. In my view, the effect of the amendment is to alter the terms of the clause in question in such a way as to give more direction to the provinces as to the manner in which the money we are voting shall be spent.
This, in my submission, does not in any way alter the scope or the terms of the resolution, or the principle of the bill. The amendment seems to me to be relevant to the clause under discussion, which has to do with the paying of money to the provinces. All the amendment seeks to do is to allow the Minister of Finance to say to the provinces that this money shall be spent in a certain way. I therefore feel that the amendment is strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. While it could possibly be introduced as a separate clause, nevertheless the amendment ties in directly with the subject matter of subclause (1) of clause 3, and therefore in my understanding constitutes a proper and relevant amendment.
I do not consider myself to be an authority on all citations that are quoted in the house on this matter, but I feel sure in my own

mind that on a number of occasions in committee I have heard amendments proposed to bills that certainly were no more and no less within the principles of the original resolutions or bills than the amendment I now propose.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the views of my much more experienced parliamentary friend, who has just spoken, I suggest to you that the proviso that has been moved with respect to clause 3 (1) of the bill does introduce an altogether new principle. The resolution clearly forecast a bill, in which payments would be made to the provinces equal to 95 per cent of the income tax that had been collected by the federal government.
If, in fact, it had been intended that that money should in all cases be for the benefit of the customers of these public utilities, then I suggest that that would have had to be included in the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill. While I do not know at what stage an amendment such as the one Your Honour is considering might have been appropriate, being one that affects the principle of the bill it certainly is not appropriate at this stage.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The opinion expressed by the Minister of Finance is very much along the lines of what I suggested a moment ago, namely that in the amendment a new principle is being sought to be introduced. That amendment is not relevant to the clause now before us. I may be wrong, but looking at the bill itself and at the clause under consideration, in the light of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) it seems to me the amendment is a very far reaching one. The hon. member appears to wish, through his amendment, to regulate the charges being charged by the public utilities and by the provinces. In my view this is an entirely new principle and one which goes beyond the terms of the clause under consideration. I am sure this is the basis on which the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee was made. Again, in spite of the very intelligent and plausible argument put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I have to maintain the decision rendered by the Chairman of the Committee and refuse the appeal.
June 27, 1966

And the house having resumed in committee:
On clause 3-Payments to Provinces.


John Angus MacLean: I do not wish to hold up the passage of the legislation, since I support it, especially as it applies to the province from which I come where utilities of this sort are privately owned and where we have been suffering the burden of additional taxation, as compared with provinces where public utilities are publicly owned.
However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister for the sake of clarification. It was impossible for me to be here during the resolution stage and I have not read all the discussion which took place at that time. But I wonder why this was not introduced as an amendment to the Income Tax Act, following the budget, in the regular way. Why is the tax not being refunded to the companies? Why is it collected from them in the first place? I suppose the government has certain reasons for following this roundabout method of making refunds to the provinces. No doubt this has already been explained.
My other question is this: Have any of the provinces in their briefs to the minister on the subject of this type of public utility advanced the same arguments with regard to other types of public utility? I am thinking chiefly of telephone companies?


Mitchell William Sharp: We did consider whether we could not relieve these corporations of federal income tax. This is one alternative. However, as I said on the resolution stage, this course would have several disadvantages. First, the federal government would have to continue to assess these corporations for their liability under the old age security tax. Second, the federal government was obligated under the tax collection agreements with eight provinces to assess and collect the provincial corporation income tax on these corporations. Third, many of the larger public utilities earn income from sources other than their public utility operations, and it would be impossible to exempt them from income tax without jeopardizing the corporation income tax structure. Fourth, while certain provinces might wish to pass the tax saving on to the consumers by a reduction in utility rates, other provinces might not wish to forgo the share of the federal revenue they were presently receiving, or the additional revenue that they would receive under the new sharing arrangements. Fifth, if the federal income
Health Resources Fund tax were abolished, the shareholders in these public utilities would cease to be eligible for the dividend tax credit.
The question was then asked: Have the provinces requested that similar treatment be extended to other utilities such as telephone companies? As far as I am aware, no such suggestion has been made. I have heard some public discussion about this, of course, but I have had no conversations with any of the provinces about other utilities, nor I understand had my predecessor.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.


Maurice Rinfret: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Maurice Rinfret: By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



HEALTH RESOURCES FUND


[Stage Direction]
The house in Committee on Bill No. C-199, to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, the construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7-Conditions.
Mr. Basford:: I should like to move a technical amendment to clause 7 as follows:
That clause 7 of Bill C-199, "An act to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions", be amended by adding thereto paragraph (d) and Sub-Clause (2) as follows:
"(d) Provided to the minister an agreement, the terms of which shall be approved by the minister, by which the province to which such payment is to be made, shall show or indicate in a manner

June 27, 1966
Health Resources Fund
acceptable to the minister, the proportion and amount of the contribution of the fund towards the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions within the provinces to which such payment or contribution is to be made pursuant to section 4 or 5.
"(2) The Govemor-in-Council shall make regulations prescribing the manner of carrying out and giving effect to paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of this section in order that the contribution of Canada towards the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions within the provinces shall be acknowledged in a manner approved by the minister."
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I do not want to hold up the work of the committee. I shall only take a minute to explain that over the last 30 years we in the federal parliament have got ourselves into the position of raising vast sums of money. We as federal politicians take the responsibility of raising those moneys through income tax, excise tax and otherwise, and we are paying out this money to politicians who do not have the responsibility of raising it.
I suggest that this now constitutes a serious situation in Canada. We have heard a great deal about co-operative federalism in this parliament, and in this house. It seems to me co-operative federalism is a two-way street, in which we in this parliament must recognize our responsibilities to provide the provinces with the resources and the facilities they require to carry out the programs they must provide, and in which they in turn must be prepared to recognize the role of the federal parliament and federal government in the carrying out of our programs.
I could enumerate the shared cost programs to which the general remarks I have made apply, but I shall make reference to only three with which hon. gentlemen opposite are familiar. They are familiar with the very excellent program they initiated, the vocational training program, under which the government of Canada contributed substantial capital cost grants towards the construction of vocational schools. I compliment hon. gentlemen opposite upon initiating that program when they were in government, but I suspect there is not one out of a hundred Canadians who recognizes that federal money has gone into the construction of vocational schools.
I refer also to another program that hon. gentleman opposite initiated, the shipbuilding subsidy program, which was a particular application in my province. Under it the federal government paid a 35 per cent subsidy on ships built in Canada; yet I suggest
[Mr. Basford.i
only about one out of every one hundred British Columbians realized that federal taxpayers contributed that 35 per cent.
As I say, I do not Want to hold up the work of the committee, but I have moved this amendment to clause 7 of the bill, which is a government bill. I am a government backbencher but I have never regarded myself as a rebel or maverick. However, I regard it as important to preserve the prestige and stature of the federal parliament and the government of Canada, and this amendment is designed to do that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the amendment asks that the minister seek an agreement from each of the provinces covering projects to be approved under the legislation indicating, in a manner acceptable to the minister, the extent of the federal participation. The federal parliament is now, I hope, about to pass legislation providing for participation by federal funds, up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the cost of projects covered by the legislation. I think it is desirable that the funds that are voted by the federal parliament be regarded as having been provided through taxation exacted by the federal parliament, and to that extent I appreciate the objective of the amendment.
But I must point out to members of the committee that we have had several conferences with the provinces and at no time did we discuss this particular matter. The government has no commitment with respect to the provinces that this would or would not be done. In my view this is a matter upon which each member of the committee can decide for himself. It is not the kind of matter that I want to make the subject of confidence at this particular time.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some hon Members: Question.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I think we should take a second look at this. We are interfering with education, a provincial matter, but under this amendment w*e would be giving the minister complete control. A later clause in the bill provides for the establishment of a health resources advisory committee, consisting of eleven members, ten to be appointed by the lieutenant governors in council and the eleventh being the deputy minister of national health.
This committee should be a sufficient safeguard. When we reach that clause we shall
June 27, 1966

discuss the personnel at some length, but with respect to this amendment I do not see how the minister can go back and say to the provinces, "I am going to be the sole arbitrator as to the money you spend. It your plan does not agree with me, then out it goes." In this way he would be interfering with the B.N.A. Act and provincial jurisdiction over education.
This fund will provide $500 million, which is about the same amount as the province of Ontario plans to spend in a ten year period. Every member of parliament knows, or should know that this is the contribution of the federal government.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
This grant is made over a period of 15 years. My feeling is that this should be tripled. I believe it is the feeling of those who have spoken in the house from all parties that we must buck up our research. I would certainly suggest to the minister and the federal government that they should be underwriting research entirely; this should be in the hands of the federal government and it should supply the research tools, because it is of national concern and should be a national health policy. I do not see how you can say to a province: I am going to be the sole arbitrator of this situation. I think this is wrong, because then you would be entering as I have said before the field of provincial education, and perhaps municipalities as well who may contribute.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Simcoe East. I believe he misunderstood the purport of the proposed amendment. If I understood it correctly, the idea is not in any way to alter or change the terms under which money will be made available to the provinces for the purposes which are set out in the bill, but rather to clarify the situation in respect of the source of these funds.
Perhaps the hon. member for Simcoe East, representing an Ontario constitutency, has not encountered the kind of situation some of us have encountered, where we find that large sums of money from the federal treasury are put into projects and then heralded as being entirely provincial projects. Certainly as a member from British Columbia I am very much aware of this situation, so far as the contributions made from the federal treasury for the construction of the trans-Canada highway are concerned. Certainly in
Health Resources Fund British Columbia, except for the occasional time when a private member of the House of Commons raises his voice to point out a few of the facts of the situation, the people are led to believe that the trans-Canada highway was built by the provincial M.L.A. for the constituency of Kamloops.
In this connection I should like to point out that in some other jurisdictions this kind of situation does not apply. While on a trip down into some of the states of the United States last year I recall that where certain inter-states projects were under way there was a large notice board which set out exactly in figures the allocation of funds between the federal treasury, the state treasury, and so on. There was none of this business of making it appear that it was all being done as a personal favour by some particular member or official of government.
If I understand correctly the purpose of the amendment, it would seem its intention is to provide that under the health resources fund the payments which were in fact made from the treasury of Canada would be so designated that the people in a particular province would not have the impression that these facilities were being provided entirely as a gift of some particular minister of a province. With my experience as a member of the House of Commons, who has not been a supporter of any of the federal governments which have been in power while I have been in the house, and not having been in the position of being a political supporter of the government of my own province, I should like to say that I think such an amendment as this might have a rather salutary effect in serving to keep the records straight in the minds of the people of Canada with regard to where their tax dollars are being spent, and from what source they are being spent. From that point of view and in the light of the experience some of us have had, I think this is an amendment which certainly is worthy of serious consideration in this house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support wholeheartedly the amendment put forward by my colleague from British Columbia. Several months ago I had occasion to speak on a bill. It was a private member's bill providing for certain grants to the provinces. At that time I pointed out that the province of British Columbia-that is, the premier and his administration-were not duly recognizing the amounts of moneys that were being handed over to the provincial administration for

June 27, 1966
Health Resources Fund its disposal. With regard to the trans-Canada highway I pointed out, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-and I have to go entirely by memory now-that in respect of the portion from the arch entrance at the Banff National Park to Revelstoke $103 million had been spent, of which the federal government provided something like $98 million. Yet, when the former Conservative administration asked that a joint opening of this vast project be held, the provincial administration decided that they would not co-operate in such a project. They rushed in, and two weeks prior to the grand opening held one of their own. As I said earlier they had spent only, I believe $2,500,000 or $3 million. However, they had a grand opening, with a barbecue at which the minister of highways was the master of ceremonies.
Personally I think this was very unfair even to the former administration. This is only one example, but I have another. In the province of British Columbia a receipt goes to any person who has profited from our national hospitalization program. The government of the province of British Columbia sends out one of its receipts after payment on behalf of a person who is a resident of British Columbia has been hospitalized. I have with me a photostat copy of one of these receipts. It states:
The Government of the province of British Columbia through the British Columbia Hospital Insurance service has paid the hospital account shown below.
Of course there is no reference whatsoever to the joint hospitalization program of which the federal government pays approximately 50 per cent through regular taxation. Now, to compound the impropriety of such a receipt, in smaller type they say:
Due to federal government regulations this is not valid for income tax purposes.
The inference here, of course, is that when a person privately pays his medical or hospitalization account and it amounts to something over 3 per cent of his taxable income, he may make reductions in his income for tax purposes. However, the two administrations, that is the provincial and federal, make this payment directly to the person who has been hospitalized.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Inasmuch as the federal government had made a 50 per cent contribution, it would be irregular to expect that a taxpayer should receive double benefit. This would involve a

doubling or at least a compounding of the federal grant. In all fairness I think the committee should consider the advisability of insisting that the provinces give some recognition to the fact that it is the federal government, which is responsible for collecting the tax, and therefore must receive some recognition. Otherwise democracy could not exist.
Having recognized the astuteness of the hon. member for Simcoe East I find it difficult to understand how he could so completely misread this amendment. I hope he will reconsider it and give his support to the proposal.
[Translation1


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, for the past twenty minutes fantastic things have been going on in this house. An amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party to Bill No. C-211 has just been rejected under the pretext that it would be an intrusion of the federal government in fields coming under the provinces, in short, because it would simply be instructing the provinces how to administer the money turned over to them. At this stage, I want to mention that the money given to the provinces by the federal government is not a donation; it is simply handing over the taxes collected illegally in the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, you rejected the socialistic amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, and rightly so; but you are now accepting the very proposal made earlier.
According to the amendment now before us, the minister is appointed referee; the power of veto will be vested in the minister as to whether or not the moneys are granted to the provinces. It seems that having rejected the first amendment, the government reverses itself and suddenly reverts to socialism.
On Clause 6 of Bill No. C-199, the amendment which the New Democratic Party had moved on Bill No. C-211 is now being moved again, this time with government support; it is no longer deemed an infringement yet, to top it all, it refers to education. As far as education is concerned, the provinces will be bringing up a project; whatever its scope, the federal government will agree to reimburse-not to contribute, but to reimburse-50 per cent of the taxes that were collected, provided the province consents to appear before the minister and be blessed. And then it is claimed that this is not an infringement on provincial education.
June 27, 1966

Well, Mr. Chairman, I say this amendment is worse than the first one, as far as provincial autonomy is concerned; it is argued that provinces are using moneys granted by the federal government in some provincial projects without stating the fact. Can you imagine that the federal government will give justice to the provinces in reimbursing the moneys due under the constitution and that they will then be called to go before the entire population to say: The federal government has been a Santa Claus to us, they have given us 50 per cent.
No, Mr. Chairman, we do not see things that way. We are not asking the federal government to be simply equitable and to return to the provinces the moneys to which they, the provinces, are entitled; we go further, we demand that the federal government get out of provincial taxation fields. We shall have to demand it for a few more years, but inevitably, they will be forced out by circumstances. How right it is to say: Who pays the fiddler calls the tune. The government claims to be paying the provinces and will try to assert itself and say: You will now do this and that, or otherwise, you will get nothing. They claim the provinces are free, but it is a case of take it or leave it. Believe or die. You are free to accept but if you refuse, you get nothing. That is the way things are done in Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I say that this amendment must not be voted by parliament. It is worse, it is more socialistic than the first, because it concerns education and our group is violently opposed thereto.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard some fantastic proposals during the past three years from the other side of this house, but never before have hon. members over there come out with such a barefaced proposition as is contained in the amendment proposed this evening. This parliament is set up to try to bring forward legislation which will benefit the people, rather than to attempt to bring forward legislation that will reflect the beneficence of any particular group here. It is certainly fantastic on the part of the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to try to suggest that our objectives at this particular time should involve informing the people of Canada that we are a great bunch of fellows because we are contributing 50 per cent of
Health Resources Fund money in respect of a certain piece of legislation, particularly at this time when parliament is in the straits it is in today and when people are wondering why so much time is wasted.
Why should we be bogged down at this time by this kind of proposition, emanating from the government side of this house? I believe the hon. member for Simcoe East presented a valid argument this afternoon. I do not intend to take up any more of the time of this institution discussing a fantastic proposition-one which may be considered almost silly.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, let me remind the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that the amendment under consideration was moved by a private member and does not necessarily contain ideas that are shared by everyone on this side of the chamber. Although I am a colleague of the hon. member and a next door neighbour of his in the city of Vancouver, I do not happen to hold the same views in respect of his amendment.
Let me deal for a moment with what we are expected to do in this chamber. This is the federal parliament of Canada and we are charged here with the responsibility of doing certain things in the national interest. We are charged with raising the standard of living of Canadian people through various welfare programs thrashed out in this chamber. We are charged with building links from coast to coast, such as the trans-Canada highway, in order that Canadian commerce and Canadian people can travel back and forth throughout the country. We are charged with maintaining our harbours, with the operation of ferries and many other things. If we do not fulfil our responsibilities in this regard we will fail Canada. Even though legislatures everywhere in Canada decided not to give us recognition for doing these things, we as Canadians and as members of parliament sitting in this house would in any event have to do them.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Indeed, you and I as Canadians would be proud to do those very things because we would know that in the long run we would be forging the links that made Canada. So I do not believe we can legislate ourselves into any position where there is federal recognition for a shared program and provincial recognition for a shared program. Let me give you an example. A bill brought in by hon. gentlemen opposite during the period they were in power provided some subsidies

June 27. 1966
Health Resources Fund for the building of ships. Those subsidies assisted in building about one third to 40 per cent of the ferries which now ply between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island. Let us suppose that we had introduced into that subsidies program an amendment which said there must be some kind of recognition for this 40 per cent contribution. I wonder whether we in this house believe we would not have taken part in the program of linking the mainland of British Columbia with Vancouver island if the federal government has insisted that it would not take part unless some kind of recognition went with it.
What sort of federal recognition would we require? Would it satisfy our needs if a bronze plaque were put on the ferry which said "Forty per cent of the cost of this ferry was put up by the federal government". In the case of the tourists going back and forth it would be a good idea, someone here suggests. Certainly it would, and it would be a nice thing if any provincial government would recognize a federal government contribution and do it willingly, working hand in hand with the federal government in such a shared program.
But I am sure hon. members do not believe that unless this were done we would not participate in such programs, and that we should force it to be done by legislation. Would we be satisfied if the bronze plaque were there, and the tourists dashed back and forth to it from their cars? Would this satisfy the need? Or would we like to hear the captain get on the bull-horn halfway across and say, "Forty per cent of the cost of this ferry was put up by the federal government"? Of course this does not have to be done.
As a matter of fact, what has to happen is that members of parliament in this house, if they want the nation to know what this government is doing in shared programs, must themselves get on the bull-horn and say, "Forty per cent of the work done on this project was put up by the federal government". If we do not do this when we go to our own constituencies, if we do not do it when we get on the platform, if we do not do it when we speak to our own people, it will never become known to them. I can tell members that provincial premiers and
M.L.A.'s are not going to tell the people when they are on the vessel, crossing back and forth, and when they come to the bronze plaque, if we enforce its erection, they will put their backs to it and say, "See this fine

vessel. It was made and paid for by the government of British Columbia. This is what you get when you come to British Columbia." So I say to hon. members here: Toot your own horns; you do not need a piece of legislation to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated earlier to raise any point of order about this amendment, lest it might appear that I was merely unhappy about the ruling given on the amendment moved earlier by my colleague from Comox-Alberni. However, the hon. member for Roberval has in his speech, although it was a speech with respect to the substance of the amendment, raised the very point that I would like to ask Your Honour to look at. When the last piece of legislation was before this committee the hon. member for Comox-Alberni moved an amendment which attached a condition to certain payments that would be made by the federal government to the provinces. You, sir, ruled that amendment out of order on the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill, that it was beyond the scope of what was provided in the resolution that preceded the bill.
I ask you, sir, for a better description of this amendment. It proposes the attachment of a condition to payments to be made by the federal government to the provinces. I have re-read the resolution that preceded the bill, and do not see in it any reference to this kind of condition. I do not speak with a great deal of feeling or fervour; I am not blowing the bull-horn, but it does seem to me that at least within the same sitting of the house we should have consistency; and because this amendment looks so much like the amendment that was moved earlier by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I invite Your Honour's comments on it.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the point of order. I can see where superficially the suggestion may be made that this amendment is out of order on the grounds that the previous amendment was out of order; but I should like to point out to you, sir, that clause 7 deals with conditions, and this amendment is substantially in line with those conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) and is not a departure from principle, as was the amendment introduced earlier today which was ruled out of order by the Chairman.
I think, therefore, that this is merely an addition to clause 7 and does not substantially or in principle go against the intent of that clause. This was not the case earlier; we were
June 27, 1966

Health Resources Fund
talking about something different in the previous bill which was ruled out of order by the Chairman. Accordingly I would suggest that this amendment is in order, that it is similar to the other parts of the clause. I would urge hon. members to support it on the grounds, not so much from the short-sighted view, I might say, that may have been taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, or the previous speaker from the other side of the house, interpreting this to be a matter only as it applies to this particular piece of legislation and in that sense interpreted politically, but I would suggest that we ought to take a broader look at the impact, if there is any, of this amendment. Really, in my view, it has to do with the concept of the federal government, and has not really do do with any one particular party in the federal government, because this particular matter is not a political question. What credit a province gives the federal government for a specific project depends upon the political whims of the province. This is something that may change from time to time because governments are not always very permanent.
I would invite people not to look at this matter in the light of what may happen in this particular bill, because I do not think this amendment will do a great deal to bring about any changes or any greater public awareness in this regard. I do not think it will have any substantial effect. In my opinion it is a matter of principle and on that basis I would urge all hon. members to support the bill and would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that while the point of order may on its face appear to have some merit, when you examine clause 7 of the bill and the principle of that clause in relation to the amendment before the house, you will see it is different from the precedent cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, when you are considering whether this amendment is in order and should be put before the committee I should like you to consider these comments. I express some sympathy to hon. members from British Columbia, from Comox-Alberni, Vancouver-Burrard and Kootenay East, in their cries of anguish that they are unable to keep their people accurately informed as to the participation of the two levels of government.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am sure all hon. members will have some sympathy for this, because it is a rather
frustrating situation not to be able to keep up with the advertising campaigns which are carried on in the provinces so as to keep the public accurately and adequately informed. But to write this into the law and make this a condition before any federal funds are granted to a province is different from interpreting public opinion concerning participation in the health resources fund. For example, we know that the present government spent between $2 million or $2.5 million on advertising the Canada Pension Plan in September and October of last year. It seems to me this is the wrong way of using funds out of the public treasury.
I was really amazed at the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern, because while you can have some sympathy for the hon. members from British Columbia I do not believe the Conservatives have a case. When they were in office they had no difficulty in getting their message across to the people on the prairies, because I know there were times when it was mandatory that signs be put up on certain projects in Alberta before they qualified for federal grants.
In fact the hon. member for Ontario who is in the house tonight will recall I am sure that when he was minister of labour in the Conservative government it was made a condition that a sign be put up on each of the winter work projects to which the federal government had made contributions, or else a grant was not forthcoming. The name of the minister of public works in the Conservative government has been around the post office building and other public buildings in Medicine Hat while they were being constructed.
I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, that I have many objections to this clause, except that I think it rings a false note to hear a member of the Conservative party complain sanctimoniously about something which they did in exactly the same way throughout the years they were in office. I think that both parties have taken some pretty desperate measures at different times to see that they got adequate credit for what they were trying to do. I think that all this complaining that members of the legislative assemblies and provincial ministers are taking away the credit for the granting of federal funds to certain projects is a lot of nonsense.
I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra when he suggested that we should feel obliged to undertake these projects whether or not the provinces

June 27, 1366
Health Resources Fund give full credit to assistance given by the federal government. I think I would go a little further. I am not sure whether we should refer to these funds as federal, provincial or municipal funds. I wonder whether we would not be better off to refer to them as Canadian funds. Each member of this house would then take upon himself the responsibility of seeing to it that his own people are adequately and accurately informed on each one of the projects.
In closing I wish to say that I appeciate what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that he does not consider this to be a matter of confidence. He went even further than that and said that there were provisions in this bill, regardless of this amendment, which would make it incumbent upon the governer in council to make regulations in this regard. I believe he was not quite sure how the conditions contained in this amendment, even if it were passed, would be met. I am a little concerned about that. What will the conditions be?
Will there be a requirement that a big sign be put up informing the public of the share of the assistance provided by the federal government, or that advertisements be made through the media of newspapers, radio and television such as was the case with the Canada Pension Plan? If we accept this amendment, the minister will oblige the provinces to provide him with an agreement, the terms of which shall be approved by the minister, regarding the way in which the provinces will make this information public. I think it may be desirable for the federal and provincial governments to put up a sign for the duration of the construction period regarding the share of the contribution in the project, as is the case with most of the provisions in Bill C-199. I think this amendment is going a little bit far and no clear explanation has been given regarding how these provisions will be met. On these grounds I find myself unable to support it.


Mr. Baldwin:: I have very few comments to make. First of all I will say that I do not feel I can support this amendment. The main reason for my reluctance in supporting it is that I consider it to constitute a downgrading of the capabilities of hon. members opposite. From time to time we have to take issue with them and set them on the path of righteousness, which is quite frequently required. I think it is unfair to suggest that hon. members opposite are not capable of fully exploiting the situation by telling the

world about the few meagre accomplishments for which they have been responsible. There is so little they can talk about that I am quite sure they will have a great opportunity for doing so in the next election; and having been through several elections with candidates representing the party opposite I know very well how capable they are. I am not only speaking of the things they have done but also of things they have not done and things they might do. Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the abilities of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is piloting this measure are well known to me, particularly from the statements which have been made from time to time by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
He has told us of the accomplishments of the minister in describing the efforts of the government in regard to measures which they contemplate taking. For this reason I think it would be quite improper for me to approve this amendment, because in voting for it I would in effect be downgrading the really artistic accomplishments of hon. members opposite when they come to deal with matters of this kind.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: First of all I should like to deal briefly with the point of order that has been raised. One of the hon. members opposite questioned the validity of the amendment. On the grounds that the amendment was not covered by the resolution I would suggest to the committee that if this approach is taken we will discover that none of the existing parts of clause 7 of the bill are specifically dealt with by the resolution. For example there is no reference in the resolution to the submitting of information to the minister.


Mr. Ballard:: I am confused, Mr. Chairman, as to whether we are still discussing the point of order brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or whether we are continuing the debate on the clause. I think the discussions which have taken place seem to be alternating between one and the other. May I ask the Chairman to establish whether our discussions are in order.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for his remarks and I will ask hon. members from now on to confine their remarks to the point regarding the validity of the amendment that is now before the committee.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what I was doing. I regret, in one way, that
June 27. 1966	COMMONS
the hon. member who has just spoken did not raise this point of order during the remarks of one or two previous speakers, even though I thought their remarks were most interesting and most useful. While I might possibly have had the intention of straying from the point of order during these remarks, I did not have the opportunity of doing so. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary South has some of the faculties of a mind reader. If that is the case, he will be in a position to make an even more useful contribution to the work of this house on other occasions.
I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of things in the bill which are not covered directly or indirectly by the resolution. By reference to clause 7 of the bill, aside from the amendment, you will find there are certain things referred to which are not referred to specifically in the resolution on which the bill is based. For example clause 7 paragraph (a) refers to the submission to the minister of a program for the development of health training facilities in a province, and in paragraph (b), to such information respecting health training facilities in respect of which a contribution is requested. If you look, Mr. Chairman, at clauses 10 and 11, you find a reference specifically to the method of operation, and again you will see no specific reference in the resolution to this useful activity.
Certainly if these clauses are in order, and no one has suggested they are not, then I suggest to you that the amendment put forward by my colleague from British Columbia is no less in order. I think the reason the clauses in the existing bill to which I have referred can be said to be in order, in so far as the resolution is concerned, is that they refer to the administration of the fund or the method of administration of the fund in respect of both the federal and provincial aspects. I suggest that the amendment introduced by my colleague from British Columbia is along the same lines. It calls for writing into the law specifically something which I consider very important with regard to the method of administration of this very useful health resources fund.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in order. If it is in order, and if it carries, it will have the effect of helping to make known to the people of Canada the source and application of a large part of their federal taxes.
DEBATES	6915
Health Resources Fund


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should like to speak to the point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in raising his point of order drew an analogy between the N.D.P. amendment which was ruled out of order earlier this evening, and this amendment. I suggest there is no analogy. The grounds upon which the N.D.P. amendment to the income tax rebate bill was ruled out of order do not apply to the amendment I have moved.
The N.D.P. amendment to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made reference was an amendment to a bill which provided a rebate to the provinces, of certain corporation taxes on privately-owned utility companies, and that is all it provided. The
N.D.P. amendment went further than that, and provided how these corporation taxes that were being rebated were to be spent. You, Mr. Chairman, confirmed by Mr. Speaker, very properly said that the amendment was beyond the provisions of the bill.
This is not the case here, Mr. Chairman. There is no analogy between the N.D.P. amendment and this amendment. This amendment was carefully drawn within the provisions of the resolution that was adopted the other day prior to the introduction of the bill. The resolution provides for contributions from the fund to the provinces. This amendment was drawn, as was the bill, with the resolution in mind. The bill has provided for a fund and has provided for contributions from that fund to the provinces. Clause 7 refers to three conditions for the payment of contributions from that fund. I suggest this amendment simply provides a fourth condition. Clause 7 is clearly within the terms of the resolution, and the amendment is not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre argued, outside the provisions of the bill. I say, therefore, it is in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard I merely want to point out that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni added a condition relating to the disposition of the corporation taxes which were to be collected from certain private power utilities. His amendment was ruled out of order.
The amendment now moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard also attaches conditions, conditions which were not in the original bill. We are not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, terribly exercised about it. We simply feel it is unwise

June 27, 1966
Health Resources Fund in a single evening to allow any one part of the house the right to move an amendment attaching conditions when already a member on the other side of the house has had an amendment ruled out of order because it sought to impose conditions. Whatever your ruling may be, Mr. Chairman, we thought the inconsistency which in our opinion existed ought to be drawn to your attention. If Your Honour is not ready to make a ruling, I should like to say a word about the proposed amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, the Chair is ready to make a ruling on the validity of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I thank hon. members for the enlightenment which was offered the Chair. Hon. members sought to establish a parallel between the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and that put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. The Chair ruled, in the earlier case, that the amendment went beyond the principle of the resolution and the scope of the bill, because there was an attempt in that amendment to regulate expenditures of money by the provinces. In the case of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned, there are certain conditions attached but they are attached to the federal government in the making of grants of certain sums of money to provinces. This amendment would restrict the federal government, but places no control whatever over expenditures to be made by provinces out of federal payments to the provinces. I therefore declare this amendment is not out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In that case, Mr. Chairman, may I make a few remarks on the amendment. In my opinion, it would be unfortunate if this amendment were to be passed by the committee. For the past 20 years there have been a great many joint federal-provincial projects and, as a matter of fact, many projects which involved federal, provincial and municipal governments. This type of program has been extended to include highways, the development roads, natural resources, water conservation, drainage programs, the construction of old people's homes, housing and a great number of items which are of importance to the people of Canada. I think these joint efforts at all three levels of government justify the expenditures.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If the committee accepts this amendment, we are laying down what I think could be a very dangerous precedent. Is this now to be applied to ARDA, to highway programs, to resource development, to housing for aged citizens, and to half a dozen other items that I could easily mention? I understand the thinking of the hon. member who moved this amendment. It is true that there have been provincial governments which appeared to take deliberate pride in concealing the fact that the federal govermnent had made substantial contributions to a given project. I understand that some members of the federal parliament might be irritated and annoyed when this happens. But also I can think of times when the shoe has been on the other foot, when provincial and municipal governments have been equally exercised when it appeared that one government making a contribution to a joint program sought to take all the credit.
I hesitate to mention a procedure the federal government used to follow, for fear that the minister of health might adopt it again. I can remember when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs was minister of health. When a provincial government received an application from a local hospital board to build a hospital of, let us say, 50 beds, which hospital was going to cost $750,000, the federal government would be entitled to pay at one time $1,000 a head, which would have been $50,000, and later on $2,000 a head, which would have worked out to $100,000-


Michael Starr: But he was not minister when the $2,000 figure was in effect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At that time it was only $1,000. It was raised to $2,000 later. When the hospital board made an application to the provincial department of health, if the provincial department of health approved of the application it would agree to pay its share of the cost, after which the application came to Ottawa. Long before any of us were ever informed of what was afoot there would be a press release saying that: "Mr. Martin the minister of health had approved a $750,000 hospital at point X." The contribution of the federal government would have been $50,000, with $350,000 coming from the provincial government. This would still leave some $350,000 to be put up by the municipality.
I never objected to this procedure because I did not need to be annoyed. The hospital boards and local municipalities which were
June 27, 1966

putting up $350,000 as against the federal government's $50,000 were sufficiently annoyed to quickly advertise the total amount of the federal government's contribution.
I am glad that this sort of practice has been discontinued. I think we should grow up. If federal, provincial and municipal governments each make their contributions, we ought to rely on the integrity and generosity of spirit at all levels of government to give credit where credit is due.
Were this amendment to be accepted, and were there to be no mention of the contributions of local governments-and I will point out that in clause 7, as defined in the definition part, hospitals are included, and these hospitals may be built with the majority of contributions coming from the local people-local governments will not take kindly to legislation which insists that the federal and provincial contribution shall be advertised while the local government's contribution will be completely ignored.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, if we were to adopt this amendment we should be demonstrating a degree of childness that is not worthy of this house. I hope that we are prepared to make the most generous contributions we can to any particular joint project, and that those who take part in the program will see to it that those who receive the benefit of the project are fully informed of the contribution that each respective government has made.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for ancou-ver-Burrard had a forerunner seven or eight days ago when the Minister of Finance, cried, lamented, and wailed in Montreal that the press was not giving sufficient publicity and credit to what this government did. Probably the press has had no solid foundation for giving this government credit for anything it has done up until now. We had the spectacle of the Minister of Finance finding out that buying a newspaper for the use of the government would cost a great deal of money. The government probably felt that by moving the sort of amendment now before us to an act such as this, much trouble and expense in publicizing the government's efforts would be saved.
It is very strange that two weeks ago this same hon. member rose in this house on another bill, which provided for the payment of money with respect to a training program. He tried to leave the impression in the house 23033-4381
Health Resources Fund that what was being introduced was an entirely new bill that this government, through its benevolence, was introducing for the good of the people of this country. It was only when I rose, following his announcement, to point out that what was being introduced was not a new bill, that it had been with us for a long time, and that only amounts were being increased, that the hon. member, and the hon. member for Kootenay East stood in their places and gave the former government the credit for building the technical schools in this country. That was the first time I had heard such an admission from the members of the government.
I am not against any government's getting the credit for what it is doing, but surely this should not be done by way of legislation. If we read this amendment it states:
The Governor-in-Council shall make regulations prescribing the manner of carrying out and giving effect to paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of this section in order that the contribution of Canada towards the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions within the provinces shall be acknowledged in a manner approved by the minister.
As soon as the order in council envisaged is signed, I can just visualize the tremendous numbers of public relations people who will get to work across this country, publicizing what this benevolent government is doing, in the same manner as they publicized the Canada Pension Plan in every newspaper-the taxpayers had to pay for that-and in the same manner that that program was sponsored by the hon. lady who is now Secretary of State.
This sort of thing has to stop. I think it is up to the members of the government to make sure that their stories get across to their constituents and to the people of Canada. But they should not do that by smuggling such publicity into legislation which is meant to bring some good to the people of this country.
I have been studying the government during this session very closely, and I have come to the conclusion that today's performance is a very good example of how members of this government can mess up the progress of business in this house far more effectively than anyone else could. This, I might point out, has nothing to do with the opposition.
I think we have come to the stage now where we on this side of the house have adopted an attitude of responsibility in seeing that this government gets some work through the house. We find ourselves in a position

June 27, 1966
Health Resources Fund where, for one hour, because a backbencher rose in his seat and not one minister stood up trying to point out the error of his ways, the time of the house has been wasted. We almost had this piece of legislation through.
All I say is, let us have some good, sound reasoning from the government side of the house, let us try to run this country. You are the government, and if you are not capable of running the country, then tell the people of Canada that you are not capable of so doing. Let us stop all this nonsense. Let us quit playing around. Let us quit playing politics with legislation in this house.


Grant Deachman: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Will he say to the house that if his party were the government of this country it would not permit backbenchers to pass amendments, and to question government policy?


Michael Starr: Not at all, provided what was raised had the merit of common sense. But we have not seen that today.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I have some brief remarks to make about this resolution. I make them because I think this is a serious matter, and that this resolution, if carried, would do great damage.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think it introduces a needless irritant into what is already a difficult situation in the field of federal-provincial relationships. The hon. member seems to ignore the fact that many of these programs are supported only under duress by the provinces, and that the passage of such legislation as this could, in the case of some provinces, confirm their worst fears and lead to increased demands to collect their own revenues and go their own way.
To my mind this is a most dangerous piece of legislation. It arises perhaps from local pique in some areas of Canada. I fail to see the merit of foisting it upon the whole country. I have seen evidence of this petty kind of thinking at municipal level. Councils say: We are not going to be responsible for raising funds needed by boards of education; let them raise their own. Surely we are bigger than that in this house, and surely we need not descend to such petty levels, pitting the provinces against the federal government. I believe the hon. member who put this forward is preoccupied with public relations rather than the substance of the legislation,

and for this reason I hope the amendment will not be adopted.
[Translation1


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the people will credit the government with the blessing bestowed upon them.
Of course, I understand-and I thank the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) for his intervention-that since political parties are soulless and will never go to heaven, they must be rewarded in this world. Such concern probably does credit to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, since he shows himself loyal to the party by assuring it that Canada will find the best legislation in the best interests of all.
But the fact remains, it seems, that the mover and seconder of this amendment overlooked two or three main things. First of all, what does this amendment mean? Does the issue actually concern the federal government or rather the provincial government? What is involved, for instance, education or health? Those matters should nevertheless be cleared up.
So then, when education or health are involved, and under the constitution these are provincial fields, is the federal government well inspired to tell the provinces: I am giving you a pittance, and setting a proviso upon its use? I think that those of our colleagues who referred to federal-provincial relations were perfectly right. If this comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, let it fulfil its responsibilities without requiring the provinces to discharge them. If, on the other hand, this is a matter of provincial concern and if the provinces feel they are incapable of coping with it, let us then come to an agreement, by mutual consent and unconditionally, and let not the provinces be required to publicize the federal government.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, as an independent member-I am at liberty to say so-when I hear the good and great Liberal party or the good and great Conservative party mentioned by party supporters, I say to myself: There is quite a bit of truth in this, because the two parties have done much for the country. But if the legislation is going to contain a clause to ensure that the provinces which are being reimbursed money that is normally theirs and that they could have collected by themselves, and if the further obligation is imposed upon them to advertise
June 27, 1966

the party or the government in power, I say that this goes somewhat beyond the limits of decency and that the party at the helm of federal affairs, whether the Liberals of today or the Conservatives of tomorrow should be sufficiently conscious of the loftiness of their own intentions and purpose, and of the disinterestedness of their devotion to the public weal, to refrain from demanding that the provinces be further required to conduct their publicity.
Furthermore, this publicity would always be unconvincing and, in certain circumstances, it could boomerang against those who have asked for it. I have great trust in the sense of values and analytical minds of all the members who make up the government in power today or that which will be in power tomorrow, since it must be presumed that under the rules of the game, it will not always be the same. I have much greater trust in the influence that each member on the government side can exert in his own respective constituency by telling his electors that the government has accomplished for the common good, than in what could be required by a piece of legislation.
It was said a short time ago that national unity cannot be achieved by legislation. As far as I am concerned, I think that gratitude to a political party can only be achieved by facts, by legislation beneficial to the common weal, which will accumulate during the months in power and which will exert a much greater influence on behalf of such party than anything we are liable to add to the legislation.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I see something in the amendment which tends to confirm what I say and what others have said before me, and that is that the governor in council shall make regulations prescribing the manner in which the paragraph is to be implemented and enforced. I shall not impose the rest of the paragraph upon the house. "Shall make regulations". In substance, if my understanding of the legislation is correct, we are reimbursing until such time as the provinces are in a position to administer their own affairs, or we are reimbursing because some provinces recognize that they are not in a position to provide for the common good in this area, but that they need the co-operation of the federal government. We are, to a certain extent, returning the sources of revenue which essentially belong to the provinces,
Health Resources Fund but this we do with the proviso that they will cense the government and sing its praise.
I say this is not on a par with the reputation of the government and I do not exclude the party not now in power, for I have studied the history of this country and have noted that both parties have done great things for the country without having to require, through legislation, that their praises be sung. And it is to the honour of the members of the party in power who have spoken in this debate and who have objected, to have shown precisely such high-mindness, disinterestedness and concern to do well, in short, to do the best for the common good, without forcing the provinces to sing praise.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
o (9:10 p.m.)
Amendment (Mr. Basford) negatived: yeas, 10; nays, 67.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Advisory committee established.
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that an advisory committee be established consisting of 11 members, ten appointed by the lieutenant governors in council, and the eleventh being the deputy minister of national health, to serve as chairman of the committee. Would the minister consider providing for the statutory representation of those vitally involved in the problem of health education, such as the Canadian Association of Medical Colleges, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical Association?
In view of the stated purpose of the bill to co-ordinate these groups and use their ideas, would it not be wise to include statutory provision for their representation? I agree with the provision presently being made to give provincial representation, but I am wondering about national representation from the groups I have mentioned. I would like to hear the minister's views on this. Incidentally I am prepared to move an amendment but would like first to hear from the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The matter of representation from professional associations was fully discussed at the conference of ministers of

June 27, 1966
Health Resources Fund health in Ottawa early this year, and the unanimous recommendation of the conference was that the advisory committee be confined to representatives of both the provincial and federal governments. The ministers were fully aware of the representations made on this point, but that was their unanimous conclusion.
In the operation of the health resources advisory committee we propose to rely fully upon the advice that will be forthcoming from the professional associations, which will be available to that committee through a system of subcommittees.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Can the minister say what the personnel of these subcommittees will be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As my hon. friend is aware there are a number of professional associations interested in the question of health education, and the ad hoc committee that produced the report which was the basis of action by the conference of ministers included, in addition to the provincial representatives, representatives from the Medical Research Council, the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical Association. It would be from this group of professional associations that membership of the subcommittees would be drawn, with possibly additional representation from other professional groups in the broad field of health.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then, in effect, all these professional bodies would be covered, including university heads, the heads of medical faculties, and people from the nurses association?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I can assure my hon. friend that that will be the objective and that it will be carried out.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: In view of what the minister has said and his assurance that the groups I have mentioned, in addition to others, will have representation on the subcommittees, I shall not propose an amendment as I had intended to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree with the minister that the health resources advisory committee should be small, and that there must be technical advisory committees composed of persons with special knowledge and special training, representing the various health

professions and health activities, but may I ask him whether there is any authority in this bill for the payment of the expenses of these committees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have authority in the bill to set up subcommittees. The report of the ad hoc technical committee recommended that expert subcommittees be appointed as deemed advisable by the advisory committee, to provide that committee with qualified technical advice. If I am not mistaken clause 10 gives the advisory committee general powers to make rules for the conduct of its activities, and this would be broad enough to empower it to establish subcommittees to assist it in its work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And adequate authority to pay them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this particular bill I am going to begin by saying that if this legislation is adopted by parliament I am confident it will provide a sound basis for the development by the provinces of comprehensive assistance measures supported by preventive and rehabilitative welfare services.
June 27, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
Before dealing with specific features of the bill, it may be helpful to put the total program into perspective and to relate it to the people who will benefit from it. Almost one million persons receive direct aid through the various programs which come within the scope of the Canada Assistance Plan. These include some 85,000 persons still covered under the old age assistance program, 8,000 receiving blindness allowances and 55,000 receiving disabled persons allowances. Also included are 200,000 needy mothers with dependent children, 600,000 other recipients of assistance, the cost of whose assistance now is shared under the Unemployment Assistance Act, and 50,000 children in the care of child welfare authorities.
In introducing the resolution to the bill, I stated that the new cost anticipated under the plan would be some $85 million in the current fiscal year. These funds would be both for improving programs supported through existing federal-provincial legislation and for extending federal support in areas where it is not now provided. These new expenditures will bring the total federal outlays on public assistance and welfare services to more than $250 million.
Expenditures, of course, could exceed estimates, depending on the rate at which the provinces are able to implement improvements and extensions in their programs. If we add the provincial expenditures to the federal figures, the total commitment for public assistance and welfare services in Canada in 1966-67 will amount to well over $500 million. I give these figures to point up the scope of the program under condideration and to indicate that, in terms of the dollar amounts involved and the number of people directly affected, this is a program of substantial size and importance.
In moving second reading, I should like again to refer to the extent of federal and provincial agreement attained on the content of the plan as set out in the bill. The Canada Assistance Plan was discussed at two federal-provincial conferences of welfare ministers convened by my predecessor in April 1964 and May 1965 and at a third meeting which I chaired in January 1966. Through there meetings we were able to discuss proposals concerning assistance and welfare services in the light of provincial experience and to work out a mutually acceptable approach for this new program. At this time I should like to acknowledge the contributions made by the
various provincial ministers in the development of the plan.
The legislation that you have before you is divided into five parts. I think it would be of interest to members if I were to deal with the major parts of the bill in a general way. Part I deals generally with assistance and welfare services, part II is concerned with Indian welfare, part III with work activity projects, and parts IV and V make amendments to certain associated pieces of legislation.
In considering part I, I should like to centre my remarks around two of its distinct features; its coverage of assistance for persons in need and its provisions for encouraging the improvement and extension of welfare services. In referring to assistance, I should like to draw attention to the definitions of "assistance" and "persons in need" as contained in clause 2 and to the proposed terms of agreement as set out in clause 6.
The definition of assistance in the legislation sets out the scope of benefits for persons in need that may be supported through the plan. The core of this definition is contained in the reference to basic requirements; that is, the times that are essential to maintain even a minimum standard of living. These are food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies and personal requirements. Assistance programs whose benefits fail to cover these items cannot be thought of as adequate and it is proposed, in signing agreements under the plan, that provinces will agree to provide assistance in amounts which take into account individual and family requirements for each of these items.
Some concern has been expressed by hon. members about the position that the plan will take on standards in assistance programs. No doubt they have in mind the contribution of the old age assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances programs in securing a universal benefit standard in all parts of Canada. However, I think we must recognize, when benefits are being related to requirements, that variations in costs of living and in regional and individual circumstances rule out a definition in terms of a fixed number of dollars.
We are hopeful that the emphasis on adequacy in the plan, both in terms of assistance and welfare services, and the additional financial support available to the provinces

June 27, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan through the plan, will result in the development and maintenance of high standards. On the basis of our discussions with the provinces, I am confident that they subscribe fully to these objectives.
Hon. members may raise the question of standards as they relate to the role of municipalities in the plan. I would point out also that the assistance programs shareable under the plan are increasingly carried directly by provincial departments of welfare and in some provinces, including Ontario, steps are being taken to group smaller municipalities into larger units for the administration of welfare programs. The plan will make funds available to improve the staffs in municipal as well as provincial welfare departments.
Hon. members may have noticed the reference recently to the measures being introduced in the Ontario legislature by Hon. Louis Cecile, the minister of public welfare, in anticipation of the enactment of the Canada Assistance Plan. A number of these provide for more generous sharing with the municipalities in the costs of welfare programs. With federal funds assisting for the first time in staff improvements and also being used to relieve municipalities of some of the onerous costs of welfare, we have every reason to expect that those needing assistance will have their needs met with the dignity and impartiality that are the marks of a good social assistance program.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In addition to the basic requirements referred to earlier, the legislation will support the provision of other benefits as they are required. I might mention particularly items of special need, and items incidental to carrying on a trade or other employment. The latter provision illustrates the rehabilitative approach of the plan. This rehabilitative emphasis is also evident in its coverage of welfare services, such as family counselling or homemakers services. The inclusion of provisions of this kind adds flexibility to the plan and raises it above traditional assistance programs which tend to have been limited to minimal aid. The plan will be available to meet need as it occurs and will support the provision of assistance in a manner and in amounts calculated to help overcome the problems that led in the first instance to the need for assistance.
I would also like to make particular reference to the coverage of health care services.

This may include a comprehensive range of services such as medical and surgical care, dental, optical and nursing services, and drugs. This is important, not only as part of the rehabilitative emphasis of the plan, but also for persons who may need long-term income support because of age or disability.
The definition of "persons in need" in the legislation indicates its coverage in so far as the provision of assistance is concerned. The definition identifies the major causes that require persons to turn to some means of public support by referring to inability to obtain employment, loss of the principal family provider, illness, disability and age. The reference to unemployment carries forward a major portion of the unemployment assistance program, while the loss of the family provider incorporates coverage of mothers' allowances paid, among others, to widows and deserted mothers.
Hon. members will be aware of the concern that has been expressed in this house over the years concerning the test of permanent and total disability under the disabled persons program; this was referred to in the debate just the other day. The references to illness and disability in this definition will extend coverage to any person who, because of disablement of any kind or extent, is unable to support himself and his dependants. This will remove the necessity of meeting the medical test of total and permanent disability that now is required under the Disabled Persons Act.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister who the authority will be to make that determination?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The authority will, of course, be a provincial administration which determines that a person is in need, and this will be applied not as now, in the form of what many hon. members have regarded as a rigid medical test.
The definition also provides for the determination of eligibility on the basis of a needs test, which is a test that takes into account budgetary requirements as well as resources. There have been suggestions by some hon. members that the reference to a needs test as opposed to a means test in determining eligibility for assistance is simply a question of semantics. I would like to emphasize that the distinction is, in fact, a real and important one.
June 27, 1966

I think I can best explain the distinction by reference to the categorical programs of old age assistance and blind and disabled persons allowances which employ the means test. Under these programs, the factors considered are the income of the recipient and his assets computed as income, the income ceilings that are built into the programs, and the maximum benefits which now are $75 per month. If the needs of the recipient exceed the amounts that can be provided within these ceilings, there is no way of meeting them except through some other measure. Where the recipient has dependants, the problem is compounded since these programs were not designed to take adequate account of such additional needs.
Under a needs test, on the other hand, assistance payments can be related to the requirements of individuals and families. Several advantages are gained by this. The benefit provided can take into account the family size and composition and provide for any special needs that it may have, as well as the regularly recurring ones. At the same time, rates can continually be adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living. The needs test approach implies the development and use of community budget studies as a means of relating assistance rates more closely to adequate living standards. Anyone who is aware of the great variations in rent charges as well as other budgetary items from one individual or family to another, as well as from one community to another across Canada, will appreciate the significance of this approach.
I would like to comment briefly on the provisions of the plan concerned with institutional care. The plan carries forward the coverage of welfare institutions or "homes for special care" that is now provided under the unemployment assistance program. The majority of these institutions are homes for the aged and nursing homes. While the number of persons who require care in such homes is comparatively small, the costs involved can be quite high, sometimes more than $300 per month. The plan, in addition to basic care, will support special rehabilitative measures such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy undertaken as part of the institutional program.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not wish to interrupt the minister's statement, but again I should like to have a point clarified. When the minister 23033-439
Canada Assistance Plan refers to nursing homes, will this mean nursing homes accredited by provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in so far as I understand the situation, and I will be glad to clarify that point later.
In this connection, I should also refer to the fact that through the plan federal contributions may be made toward the cost of home care and similar services to persons in their own homes. This feature of the plan will help to reduce the pressure on welfare institutions and will enable many persons to remain in their own homes who would otherwise need institutional care.
Before leaving the definition of persons in need, I would like to refer to the provisions of the legislation as they relate to child welfare. Under the plan contributions will be made towards the costs of maintaining children who are the responsibility of child welfare authorities, and of foster children who are being assisted. Members will be aware that in some areas this support is provided through provincial departments of welfare, while in others it is the responsibility of children's aid societies. The costs covered will include all of those indicated in the definition of assistance, among them maintenance costs, any special needs that the children may have and costs of health care.
There has been a good deal of interest lately in the question of institutional care for children, particularly for the retarded and the emotionally disturbed. The bill covers institutions for children which are under welfare auspices and where the program emphasizes social rather than medical treatment services.
I come now to the provisions of the legislation that are concerned with welfare services. It is the intention that these provisions should be used to support a broadly based attack on the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect and dependence upon public assistance. In this way the plan can be given a preventive and rehabilitative emphasis that has been lacking in federal-provincial public assistance measures up to the present.
In discussing welfare services, I would like to comment particularly on some of the kinds of service that will be covered. An essential component will be rehabilitation services such as counselling, casework, assessment and referral designed to help those with family and social problems find solutions to them before they lead to family breakdown and dependence on public assistance. They will

June 27, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan also encompass efforts to break the cycle of dependency that exists in some families, and enable those receiving assistance to regain their capacities for self-support. We are hopeful that these services will be effective in enabling such persons to make use of the other community resources, such as those being developed through the department of manpower and immigration.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Also included are child welfare services, including child protection, adoption services and supervision of foster home care. In addition to supporting higher levels of service in these areas it is our hope that the plan will be used to develop an integrated approach to the solution of family problems, be they economic or otherwise.
A somewhat different group of services are those such as homemakers and day-care services which can play an important supportive role. I have already referred to the contribution that will be available for home care programs as an alternative to institutional care. Through the use of improved day-care services it is our hope that many mothers will be able to contribute to their own support when it is their wish to do so.
During the debate on the resolution, reference was made to the critical shortage of trained staff to man the welfare services. Federal support for staff training, both on an in-service basis and in schools of social work, has been available through the welfare grants program since 1962. Contributions will also be available for staff training and development under the plan. Also included will be costs of consultation, research and evaluation in recognition of the part these functions play in developing programs to meet changing needs.
Support under the plan will extend to welfare services that are offered by what are referred to as provincially approved agencies. In addition to provincial departments of welfare, they may include municipalities and voluntary organizations that have been given responsibility for providing any of the kinds of service to which I have referred. In this way the provinces can recognize that, along with welfare departments, voluntary agencies can play a significant part in a total community effort. As I mentioned earlier, an important emphasis in the plan is upon extension and improvement of welfare services.

In line with this, the formula in the legislation provides for contributions for costs in excess of those incurred during 1964-65.
I would now like to turn briefly to the provisions of the bill relating to Indian welfare. Members of the house will be aware of the federal-provincial discussions that have taken place with a view to extending provincial services to Indians on the same basis as to other residents. The objective in part II of the legislation is to secure access to the welfare services being offered to the balance of the population for those Indians to whom they are not now available, or who receive them under a number of ad hoc agreements. The programs that part II contemplates include financial assistance, institutional care, child care and other welfare services. The Indians to whom services may be extended include those who are living on reserves, on crown land or in territory that does not have municipal organization.
As I indicated during my earlier remarks, the plan will provide authority to enter agreements under which the provinces can assume administrative responsibility in this area without incurring burdensome costs. An agreement format tabled on January 19 indicated the approach that we have proposed to the provinces. Under it, the federal government would bear the full costs of providing assistance and welfare services for Indians to the extent that these exceed the per capita costs for the balance of the population in a province. Costs up to this level will be shared on a matching basis. An agreement covering assistance and welfare services has already been entered into with the province of Ontario and we anticipate that other provinces will take the same step.
I would like to emphasize, as has been done on previous occasions, that welfare assistance and services will not be extended to Indians under such an agreement unless the council of a band involved has indicated its consent. On the other hand, provinces will not be expected to extend welfare services to Indians on reserves or in unorganized territory unless they have entered into an agreement under this part. The provinces will, of course, continue as in the past to provide assistance and welfare services to Indians who have established residence in municipalities.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the provisions of the legislation that are concerned with work activity projects. Welfare authorities in several provinces have
June 27, 1S66

expressed the view that there is a need for new ways of helping persons who may appear to be able to work but who, because of personal and family circumstances or problems of motivation, are not able to obtain or hold employment or take advantage of the training and rehabilitation resources that are already available in the community.
The types of project that this part foresees will be experimental. We are hopeful, however, that under it measures can be developed through which sound work habits can be attained within a setting which provides counselling and similar welfare services. Similar efforts are being made in other countries; examples are the re-establishment centres which are operated by the National Assistance Board in the United Kingdom and the work experience programs in the United States.
It is also proposed that this part of the plan should be used to provide work for persons with physical or mental handicaps who can be employed if given an opportunity to develop their potential. These will include the retarded and the severely handicapped who can be helped to engage in some form of productive activity. Contributions will be made toward the salaries of personnel operating such projects and allowances paid to participants in them.
Agreements made under this part will contain safeguards to provide assurance that projects are not used to limit the right of any person in need to assistance and provisions under which welfare services will be made available as required. Because of the relationship of these measures to manpower programs, arrangements are included for close co-ordination of the administration of this part of the bill with those services.
Parts IV and V of the legislation have the effect of amending several associated statutes. Significant among these are the amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, and the Disabled Persons Act that are referred to in part V. As I have indicated previously, the provinces may if they wish discontinue their old age assistance and blind and disabled persons allowance programs and assist the groups now covered by them under a comprehensive needs test measure coming within the scope of the plan.
Part V covers the steps that this transition may involve. A province may indicate its intention to cease accepting new applications while continuing to provide categorical 23033-4391
Canada Assistance Plan benefits to those now receiving allowances. Alternatively, a province may cease taking applications and also undertake to transfer those in the existing caseload that can qualify under its integrated program. If the latter step is taken, part V provides that transfers may be made only when the recipient will receive at least as much under the new program as he was receiving previously.
Part IV has the effect of removing from the Unemployment Assistance Act the exclusion of mothers' allowances that it now contains. This change will enable the provinces to receive the funds that the plan provides for assistance to needy mothers with effect from April 1, 1966, and will authorize this reimbursement without waiting for agreements to be signed under the plan.
Part IV also extends the contracting-out provisions of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan. As I mentioned during the debate on the resolution, this is consistent with existing arrangements since the plan will cover the area now referred to in the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act as the "special welfare program." That program is made up of unemployment assistance, old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Several hon. members have spoken at length on the question of income support for the aged as it relates to the plan. What has not been recognized in some instances is that the Canada Assistance Plan is a program for persons in need in all age groups.
No modern industrial nation, no matter what other range of social security measures it may have, has been able to dispense with a general social assistance program. Universal flat-rate payments and social insurance programs are in every case complemented by social assistance provisions. Many hon. members of this house, and others before them, have spoken of the need in Canada to improve our social assistance programs as a part of the social security structure. You have before you now a measure that will do just that. We are in general agreement, I believe, that we should do our best to minimize the reliance on social assistance, but that objective must not deter us from proceeding with the development of a sound and effective public assistance program.

June 27, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
This government and others of this party have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the continuing development of universal flat-rate benefit programs and social insurance measures. I need only refer to the record of previous Liberal governments in introducing programs such as family allowances, old age security, unemployment insurance and hospital insurance.
Since coming to office, this government has shown its determination to improve Canada's social security programs. Within the past three years, youth allowances have been implemented and the Canada Pension Plan has been introduced. Expenditures on old age security have been increased from $755 million in 1963-64 to $1,035 million in this fiscal year-an increase of $280 million or 37 per cent in expenditures. This has been the result of improvements in the rate of benefits and the extension of protection to another 100,000 persons heretofore not covered. Before you now is a health resources fund bill, and within a few days you will have the bill for a medicare program.
Thus, while narrowing the scope of need to be met by public assistance, we are taking positive action to improve assistance and welfare service programs through the legislation before you.
I have already referred to the support and endorsement of the plan that has been given by the provinces and to one example-that of Ontario-of steps being taken by provinces in anticipation of this legislation. I could cite many other examples of such action. Newfoundland increased its social assistance rates some months ago in the knowledge that the plan was being developed, and new social assistance acts that will provide for more generous assistance on the basis of need have been enacted by the legislatures of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quebec has introduced a program to provide physicians' services for assistance recipients and has increased its mothers' allowance rates.
The measures being introduced in Ontario include family benefits legislation to provide assistance on an integrated basis as proposed under the plan. Saskatchewan adopted a comprehensive assistance plan on April 1, 1966 and has increased assistance rates. The province of Alberta has adopted legislation for the purpose of encouraging the development of preventive welfare services in the community.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
These are specific indications that the federal commitment to introduce the Canada Assistance Plan has already resulted in action to improve assistance and welfare service programs. They are also indicative of the value of close federal-provincial consultation in planning in the field of social programs.
I think it would be appropriate for me, in closing, to refer to the public support that has been given to the plan. It has been warmly received by the Canadian Welfare Council and its associated body, the Canadian Public Welfare Association, which have stated that they "are pleased to see that Canada is on the threshold of a necessary step in the development of its social security system". A similar view has been expressed by the Canadian Labour Congress, and perhaps I could quote briefly from its memorandum to the federal government, presented in February of this year.
It said:
We welcome the advent of the Canada Assistance Plan. We consider it to be an improvement over the categorical assistance programs now in effect. We agree that the change from a means to a needs-tested benefit, however subtle the difference may seem, will provide greater opportunities to provide an adequate benefit to those who will require assistance. We commend you for your decision to share with the provinces in the costs of allowances for needy mothers and medical care for the indigent, as well as the cost of improving administrative standards and of strengthening those rehabilitative services which will help to restore social assistance beneficiaries to a position where they are self-supporting.
In asking for the support of the house for second reading of the bill, may I express my confidence that it will bring about the development of welfare programs across Canada that are humane, effective and have a positive emphasis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister to
clarify a point with reference to provinces which provide health services for categories such as the recipients of old age assistance and mothers' allowances who, because they are in those groups, are automatically in need. Will this legislation now make it possible for the federal government to share the cost of those programs in its entirety or will it deal only with each individual case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure whether I understand the question put by the hon. member, but it is proposed that the federal government will share in the whole range of medical services for any person in receipt of assistance on the basis of need.
June 27, 1966


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I recognize that the federal
government will share any medical services given to an individual in need, but will it share in the program undertaken by the provinces to provide health services to an entire category, for instance health services provided to recipients of old age assistance or mothers' allowances?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously there is a relationship between this program and the advent of the medical care program for the total population. It is expected that when medicare is available in general and when the federal government will share in providing health services to the total population, the contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan will be suspended, but the coverage for persons in need will be continued and will be shared by the federal government in every province until a medicare program comes into effect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. member will be agreeable to continuing his remarks at this time?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I move the adjournment of the debate.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I should like to submit to the house a number of bills with the idea that they could be sent to the other place for consideration by them as early as possible. I would, therefore, list the following items for consideration tomorrow: item 45 on the order paper, the Canada Assistance Plan bill; item 77, the second reading and other stages of the Atlantic Development bill; then item 62, the Canadian Film Development Corporation bill; item 76, the crop insurance bill; item 49, the public utilities transfer tax bill; item 55, The Company of Young Canadians bill; item 62, the national arts centre bill; item 51, the public service and other superannuation acts bill; item 72, the Exchequer Court bill; then the Canadian livestock feed resolution and legislation.
I should like to ask that tomorrow hon. members be prepared to take these measures not necessarily in the order I have indicated, so that if there is an opportunity of having some bills go through fairly quickly early in the day to be dealt with in the other place we can do so. This would then leave two items,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the medicare resolution and the Bank Act resolution to be dealt with. If we could follow that program, I think it would be helpful.


Michael Starr: May I just say a word about this? If the government house leader would not take the Canada assistance bill first, but rather others that might go through quickly and get them over to the other place, then that would leave the Canada assistance bill for later in the day.


George James McIlraith: Later in the afternoon; I would be quite agreeable to that, if we could get some of the smaller bills over to the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we are going to do that, could we not be told tonight which would be the first three or four pieces of legislation with which we would be dealing tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Yes; other than the Canada assistance plan, we would take perhaps the Atlantic Development Board legislation; The Company of Young Canadians bill; the national arts centre bill; third reading of the public utilities transfer tax legislation; and the small bill concerning the Exchequer Court. I hope some of the legal members here would take a look at it because it is a very simple measure and could go through quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the understanding, that we will take those five and then revert to the Canada assistance plan?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it would be my idea we would revert to the Canada assistance plan some time in the latter part of the afternoon.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Why not get the superannuation bills through?


George James McIlraith: If we take those five first and then we could bring forward the Canada assistance plan bill. Hon. members appreciate what the problem is. We want to try to get as many bills as will not take a long time to debate here completed, and over to the other place tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put again a question which is of considerable importance I think to this
6928	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion country. I wish to ask what action the government contemplates taking in the immediate weeks ahead with respect to a great opportunity that our country faces in terms of its international trade.
On June 13 I asked in the house whether the Prime Minister, in light of the meeting to be held shortly in Ottawa with representatives and heads of government of the British West Indies, could not tell us whether the government was contemplating some form of customs union with the islands involved.
At a later date we had one hour's debate during private members hour about this, and we discussed in part the importance of such a proposal to the future economic trade of our nation, and to the future development of the islands known as the Little Eight, namely the Leeward and Windward islands of the British West Indies.
Perhaps I should put on the record the names of the islands concerned. They are the islands of Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Granada. The land area of these islands is about half that of Prince Edward Island. Their population is close to 700,000.
As I say, there is to be a conference in Ottawa between July 6 and July 8. It is believed by many of the representatives of these islands that there will be considered in Ottawa the possibility of far reaching economic and customs ties. I know for a fact that the Minister of Transport has made at least three trips to the islands and has shown considerable interest in the proposal I have referred to. I believe he has given encouragement to the whole idea.
Indeed, at the conclusion of the private members hour dealing with this question the other day the Minister of Public Works said this:
With your indulgence I should like to say something about the subject matter of the debate that has taken place in the last hour. The government will take cognizance of the apparent unanimity in respect of this important subject matter. It is of importance and concern to the government and is receiving active consideration. I might say that I have a personal interest in this subject, having had a somewhat similar motion on the order paper some years ago.
I heartily support the minister's interest.
Because we have this interest that has been expressed in this way, and because it will not be long before these islands have virtual independence, it is of great importance that we be assured publicly that the government of
tMr. MacDonald (Prince).]
DEBATES	June 27, 1966
Canada is moving in the direction that I have suggested. I can see that if the government takes far reaching action in the early days of July, without first having informed public opinion, the public might not be prepared for this kind of activity and might resent it. We all know what happens when public opinion is not informed and directed in the right way.
Time is running out. Representatives of the West Indies governments have come to Canada, almost cap in hand, in order to determine what our government's position on this matter is. We must have a statement either from the Prime Minister or from his representative. We must be put much more into the picture as to what action our government plans to take in this regard.


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince has expressed amazement in his suggestion that the government has been somewhat laconic about its relations with the commonwealth countries of the West Indies. I will try to put an end to that amazement by stating the following:
The high importance attached by the present government to Canada's economic relations with the commonwealth countries in the Caribbean is well demonstrated by the initiative which it has taken in co-operation with those countries to hold a meeting of prime ministers and chief ministers from the commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada in Ottawa in less than a fortnight's time. At the forthcoming conference much attention will be given to the question of the best basis for trade relations between that area and Canada.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The 1926 agreement between those countries or territories and Canada has served well the interests of all participants in the circumstances which have existed since it was negotiated. The problem of working out the best form of trade relations is not a simple one. A customs union would have important implications of various kinds which would clearly require the most careful examination by all prospective participants. Other arrangements would have different implications. We should be prepared to examine any reasonable proposal. The fact that the economies of the Caribbean countries and Canada are complementary means that the trading potentialities are very considerable. It
June 27, 1966

is important that these possibilities be developed for the benefit of all the countries concerned.
The political and economic situation has changed considerably since the 1926 agreement was concluded. Any arrangement which might be negotiated now, even more than in 1926, should show full respect for the integrity of all the participants and should reflect the interests of all the countries involved.
At the forthcoming meetings the house can be sure that the Canadian government's approach will be practical and yet farsighted. It will aim to deal effectively with any current difficulties which might be impeding trade. At the same time the Canadian delegation will not overlook any fruitful possibilities for expanding trade to the benefit of all the participants.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-MEDICAL ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR COMPULSORY BREATHALIZER TESTS

Barry Mather: On
June 15 I asked a question on the orders of the day which was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. The question was as follows:
Is the Minister of Justice aware of the action taken yesterday by the Canadian Medical Association in calling for compulsory breathalizer tests for impaired drivers in view of the urgent national problem involved in the slaughter on Canadian highways.
Since that time, in fact almost one week later, on June 21, what appears to me to have been the greatest Canadian assembly of federal, provincial and industrial highway safety experts ever to meet in Ottawa has placed itself on record unanimously in support of legislation for compulsory breathalizer tests.
In emphasizing the urgency of the question I tried to ask I wish to point out that in the six or seven days between the day I asked my question and the day the safety conference approved the breathalizer tests on a mandatory basis, some 90 Canadians have been killed in traffic accidents and some 2,900 injured in traffic accidents. Property damage amounted in those seven days to about $12 million.
It is estimated that between one third and one half of all traffic accidents involve people who had been using alcohol. Breathalizer tests are provided for in the Criminal Code on a permissive basis. They are recognized as being foolproof and accurate when conducted by experts under regulations which are
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion scrupulously fair to those subjecting themselves to the tests. The trouble is that the permissive character of the law at the present time enables the hardened drinking driver to escape their effect. He declines to take the test. In other words, while it recognizes the efficiency of the tests the present law does nothing to put drivers on an equal basis when it comes to taking the test. It does nothing to safeguard the rights of the ordinary citizen but it does something to safeguard the privileges of the drinking driver.
Further to the urgency of my question, I point out that Canada has the world's worst traffic accident rate of all countries reporting to the United Nations World Health Organization. We stand either 25th or 26th on the list. It is notable that the Scandinavian countries, which have much more realistic drinking while driving laws than we have, have a record of traffic safety that puts our country to shame.
In asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) if he is aware of the need and the growing pressure for legislation to make breathalizer tests mandatory in cases of impaired driving, I do not do so without having regard for the fact that in some circles there is criticism against this proposal on the ground that it interferes with the civil liberties of the person involved.
My contention, and it is supported by many people in many walks of life, in safety organizations, in the legal sphere, and throughout other states, is that the impartial breathalizer test no more interferes with the individual's civil liberties than do such things as the taking of fingerprints or the mandatory production at the scene of an accident of drivers' licences, or the mandatory inspection of the vehicles involved in an accident. I conclude by urging the minister to be prepared to back up the findings and the wishes of these neutral traffic safety people who met recently in Ottawa.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that we on this side of the house appreciate the importance of the traffic death toll on our highways and of the means that should be taken to try to reduce its incidence. As the hon. member knows, many witnesses were called to the hearings of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs which inquired into this matter. They heard such witnesses as Dr.
6930	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Ward Smith from the Attorney General's office in Toronto give testimony on the different aspects of the breathalizer test.
We have also read newspaper reports about blood tests and how much more easily they can be performed now. May I assure the hon. member that the remarks he has made this evening on the subject will receive the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and his officials, to whom I shall direct them tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION-APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION BY THOSE WITH VISITORS' VISAS

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on June 16 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) a question as to when he would be able to announce government policy in respect to the many thousands of non-immigrants who have applied for permanent immigration to Canada and whose status is in suspense, and I welcome the opportunity to expand on that question tonight.
It affects the whole system of immigration and its administration, and it is of great importance to thousands of people now resident in Canada, and their families. A serious administrative mess has developed in regard to this matter.
On March 7, as recorded at page 2323 of Hansard, when speaking on the estimates of the department, I raised this same question and said:
As the minister will have found out, for many months now and perhaps a year or two the government have been saying they were going to make up their mind on what to do in the case of visitors who come into this country as visitors with nonimmigrant visas, and apply to stay in this country. As the minister knows, there is a great backlog of cases awaiting decision while the department makes up its mind in respect of what to do with these visitors.
I went on to say:
This is a serious question because if an immigrant enters in an easygoing way he bypasses those who remain in their country and comply with the regulations in the normal manner.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I appreciate that this is not fair-
I went on to say that there were many many cases in which the department was saying "we cannot decide on your status; we will not let you in or turn you out; we have not made up our mind".
I hope the minister will be able to come up with a policy in respect of these visitors. I tell the
[Mr. HaidaszJ
DEBATES	June 27, 1966
minister it is common knowledge among some ethnic groups that would-be immigrants should not try to obtain an immigrant's visa through the normal channels but rather should gain admittance to this country as visitors because they perhaps may be able to stay here.
Then the minister in reply to this debate on March 7 at page 2327 of Hansard said:
I think that very soon, and I hope that it will be within a few weeks . . . we will be able to deal with this situation under which visiting Canada has now become a normal means of coming as an immigrant . . .
It is a hypocritical situation which explains why in Canada there are probably several thousands, possibly tens of thousands of visitors who came to Canada with the intention of staying.
We shall probably advise you, since it can be done according to the rules, on a policy to deal with this situation.
It is utterly unbearable. Mr. Chairman, as long as I am Minister of Immigration, which will probably not be for long but still while I am, we shall attempt to set up a policy. But once it is drawn up, we shall have to accept it.
It is now more than 3| months later and the minister has announced no policy. The situation grows worse. We are told there are 20,000 people in this state of suspension, some of them no doubt bona fide visitors, who have come to this country and who after they arrived were offered jobs or became engaged to be married to Canadians, and then changed their minds and decided to stay. However, there are many others who came to this country as visitors because they did not want to come in formally and apply in the necessary manner. When they are here they get a job and are left in a state of suspension. They cannot bring in their families and even though they are planning to strike roots in Canada, they do not know whether or not later on they will be thrown out. I wonder whether it will be possible to throw them out.
This situation is being exploited. Among the immigrants I have heard it said that travel agencies sometimes will say to people, "All right, we will get you a work permit for $50" or "Apply as soon as you come to Canada, and when you are working you pay us $500". I do not know how frequently these things happen, but I have heard of this type of thing quite a few times.
The minister may not be at fault, and of course his charm is such that we hesitate to think he is at fault. However, it is high time that the cabinet of which he is a member made up its mind in respect of this matter. Maybe the minister has made proposals and the government will not undertake them. The
June 27, 1966

present situation is unfair to those who administer the act. Let the parliamentary secretary ask anybody in this field; it is unfair to those who accept the rules of the game, apply as immigrants and go through all the careful investigation this implies. It is unfair to those whose status is kept in doubt month after month and who are subject to exploitation and often are separated from their families.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will convey to the minister the urgent importance of this matter. It is part of the duty of the cabinet and the government, which has been given responsibility by parliament to deal with this sort of problem and deal with it soon.
DEBATES	6931
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister and the government, as well as myself with the constituency I have, are aware of the difficulty which flows from the number of non-immigrants who are being left in an indefinite status. It is very unfortunate.
I do not wish just to repeat what has already been said, but I do believe with a good deal of conviction that the decision on this matter which the hon. member is looking for is in fact going to be made very shortly.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, June 28. 1966