1966-03-07

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
ROGER DUHAMEL, r.R.S.C.

[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 7, 1966


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the second report of the committee on transport and communications and moved that the report be concurred in.
He said: The second report of the committee on transport and communications asks permission to sit for tomorrow only while the house is sitting.
Mr. Speaker:: The report should be read before the motion is made.
[The Clerk Assistant having read the report of the committee:]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that early in February the Prime Minister announced plans for the tenth meeting of the Joint Canada-United States Ministerial Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs. This meeting took place last Friday and Saturday in Washington. With the co-operation of the house it was possible for me and my colleagues, the Ministers of Trade and Commerce, Finance, Industry, Mines and Technical Surveys and Agriculture, together with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to meet with a United States delegation led by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and including Secretaries Fowler, Connor and Freeman. I now wish to table the English and French language versions of the communique issued at the end of the meetings. For the convenience of hon. members, the house might wish the text of the communique to be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard, as was done in other years.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the communique records the nature of the discussions and agreement reached on a number of subjects of concern to Canadians and of great significance for Canadian-United States relations. Naturally, a document of this kind cannot do full justice to the spirit of understanding and friendship in which the meetings took place, nor to the fullness and vigour of the exchange of views we had on a wide range of subjects of common interest, both in the meetings and on the various other occasions which provided me and my colleagues with opportunities for private and less formal discussion with our United States counterparts. [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
May I draw the attention of the house to the references in the communique to three of the specific subjects which we raised at the meetings: the United States balance of payments program; the proposed S.E.C. regulations on "over the counter trading in securities"; and the United States foreign assets controls which affect trade with countries such as Communist China and Cuba.
We reiterated in some detail our views on the implications for Canada of the United States guide lines regarding direct investment as they have been commonly understood, and our objections to them. The United States response made it clear that there is no thought that these guide lines given to their corporations should lead to companies in Canada being requested to operate other than in accordance with their normal commercial objectives.
The United States secretaries explicitly recognized that companies in Canada should be governed by Canadian national interest as good citizens of this country. As the communique states:
The committee discussed the balance of payments of both countries. They recognized that decisive progress had been made toward reducing the United States balance of payments deficit and reviewed measures being taken to bring the U.S. external accounts into balance. In this connection, the committee noted measures that have been taken to maintain access to the U.S. capital market for an unlimited amount of new Canadian securities free of interest equalization tax. The United States members reaffirmed that in buying such issues U.S. investors were completely free to be guided by market considerations.
March 7, 1966

Canada-U.S. Ministerial Meeting For our part we expressed our concern over the possible implications for Canada of the United States voluntary program on direct investment and the relation of this program to the position of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. The United States members made clear that the U.S. government was not requesting U.S. corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any way that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies, or their other financial and commercial activities. The United States members re-emphasized the view that U.S. subsidiaries abroad should behave as good citizens of the country where they are located.
Secretary Rusk later confirmed to the press that we had tried to resolve, and he thought succeeded in resolving, "any misunderstanding or differences of approach on this problem as between our two countries". The communique, moreover, records the agreement reached that the United States government would ensure that any misunderstandings on the part of United States companies as to the government's views would be dispelled.
Turning now to the S.E.C. problem, we put forward the strong Canadian views on the proposed regulations as an intrusion into our sovereignty. Responsibility for securities and exchange matters in the United States rests with a quasi-judicial body, but the chairman of the S.E.C., Mr. Emmanuel Cohen, was present for this part of the joint committee's discussion and the communique records that:
-the United States members appreciated the concern of the government of Canada and assured Canadian members that most careful consideration would be given to Canadian views in an effort to work out at an early date mutually satisfactory arrangements.
There was also a thorough and useful discussion of United States foreign assets controls which have on occasion created serious difficulty for Canadian companies trading with such countries as Communist China and Cuba. As the communique states:
-the United States members reaffirmed their readiness to consult promptly on any transactions of importance to Canada which are affected by United States foreign assets control. They also stated that regulations over exports of technical data are being revised and that, in the light of the committee's discussions, further consideration will be given to the possibilities of additional modifications to these regulations.
On all these major subjects I consider that the results achieved are very substantial. The 
government is confident that, on the basis of the understandings reached, experience will confirm our judgment that the problems which were threatening have been effectively dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, the Joint Committee also discussed a wide variety of other matters of common interest to our two countries. In particular we reviewed the Kennedy round negotiations in Geneva and agreed on the importance of their timely and successful conclusion; we agreed to continue to work closely together towards this objective.
In addition to dealing with these matters of general concern, the committee also discussed a number of questions of great practical interest to different sectors of our economy, including the progress which has been achieved under the automotive agreement, Canadian exports of cheese and oil to the United States and trade in agricultural equipment, tractors and aircraft between the two countries, the problem of water pollution in the Great Lakes and the food aid programs of our two countries, notably in the light of the current Indian food situation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I had several opportunities to review a wide range of international problems with Secretary Rusk. One that I might mention here is Viet Nam. Secretary Rusk made it amply clear that he recognizes and appreciates the obligations and commitments we have assumed as a member of the International Control Commission and that he hoped we would continue in this capacity to make such contributions as we can toward a peaceful settlement of the Viet Nam problem. At no time did Secretary Rusk press for any contribution other than that which the Canadian government decides in the light of these responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, this was the tenth meeting of the Joint Committee. I am sure that hon. members on the other side who have participated in the past recognize how useful these meetings can be and I would say that this particular session has been the most constructive and fruitful of the three meetings in which I have had the privilege of taking part.
In taking my seat, I want to thank my colleagues for their co-operation on the Canadian delegation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the wish of the house that the communique referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs be printed as an appendix to Hansard?
March 7, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For the communique referred to above see appendix A],


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I again express the thanks of the opposition to the government for the courtesy extended by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in providing a copy of the statement that he has just made. In so far as the concluding words of the statement are concerned, as to the benefits that flow from these meetings, all of us who have participated at any time in any of these meetings are fully aware of the beneficial effects of meeting together and exchanging views. However, in so far as the statement is concerned, I think it is far too optimistic, regarding the attainments of this meeting. I might point out that it has been apparent for a considerable time that this government has been carrying into effect rather too literally the recommendations and suggestions of Mr. Merchant and Mr. Heeney, which were issued I think last July, and which placed Canada in the category of being seen and not heard. As I review the events which have taken place since the imposition of the United States guide lines, I can only say that the attitude of the Canadian government has been so supine, so meek, so weak, that interferences with our sovereignty have taken place, which are, and have been, unfair and unreasonable.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Yet as I read the statement of the hon. gentleman I find that the only place in which strong views were expressed was in connection with the S.E.C. program. It is stated in this regard:
Turning now to the SEC problem, we put forward the strong Canadian views on the proposed regulations as an intrusion into our sovereignty.
In so far as the guide lines were concerned, the words used do not give that degree of certainty which should be expected and which the Canadian people have the right to demand. It is stated:
We reiterated in some detail our views on the implications of the guide lines for Canada.
When these guide lines were first imposed no serious objection was taken by the government. The attitude was, indeed, that some of these guide lines might perhaps be a kind of windfall for Canada-if I might use that expression without appearing to intrude on any royal commission investigation which is taking place.

Canada-U.S. Ministerial Meeting
The communique says:
The United States members made clear that the United States government was not requesting United States corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any ways that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies, or their other financial and commercial activities.
I say that those guide lines have been detrimental to Canada, and are detrimental, and that they constitute an invasion of what should be an exclusively Canadian area of decision and regulations. The wording of the communique gives no indication that this problem has been met in a way which is acceptable and reasonable.
There was mention also of the two or three other phases which were dealt with, including the United States balance of payments program. What has happened here is that the United States has a balance of payments problem because of the fact that it sells so much elsewhere less than it is importing. Our position is the very reverse. Yet Canada is made to pay for the settlement or the solution of a United States problem.
In the field of automobiles to which the hon. gentleman made reference, it is of interest to note that according to the communique, the arrangement entered into has been of benefit to Canada. Well, in the latest weekly bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, dated March 4, we find the following figures: September, 1964, 52,144; September, 1965, 52,421.
There is very little difference there. Now we come to passenger automobiles. The Canadian consumer still buys, and pays through the nose, though under this agreement Canadian manufacturers are selling their cars abroad and meeting American competition while the Canadian has to pay. Imports of passenger automobiles in 1964 amounted to $96,184,000 from January to September. In the same period in 1965, the amount of imports was $144,315,000.
I am disappointed in this statement. It is simply a diplomatic statement which could have been made before the minister made his visit together with those others who took part in the pilgrimage. It is simply a general summary of a serious situation which in no way has been resolved by the communique.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for sending me a copy of the statement which he has just made to the house.
2262	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Ministerial Meeting
The communique, in the main, has dealt with three topics. The first had to do with the application of the United States guide lines to Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations, and I was interested in the minister's statement that the communique oould not possibly convey the vigour with which the views of the Canadian delegates were expressed. I hope the vigour in Washington was much stronger than has ever been expressed in Ottawa-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -because I recall that last December the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said of these United States guide lines that they were in effect in line with the Canadian government's policy, and they constituted a political economic windfall for the Canadian government.
Had it not been for the objections which were raised to those guide lines on this side of the house, buttressed by the letters sent by Hon. Eric Kierans of the Quebec government, there would have been no serious objections to these guide lines.
It is true that the government began to have second thoughts about this matter, and a few days ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on a national television program that Mr. Kierans was not the only one who had registered objections with the United States government, and that the Canadian government had registered objection. However, I have not been able to And any written objection from the Minister of Finance, from whom one would expect it to come, and other than an aide memoire, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs says he sent, but which so far he refuses to table, and which dealt only with the S.E.C. regulations, no formal objection has been registered by the government to the United States guide lines. Now we are told the ministers have expressed themselves with great vigour, and the communique says they have expressed their concern over the possible implications for Canada of the U.S. guide lines.
It seems to me the communique is most unrevealing in saying what the attitude of the United States government will be. It says:
The United States members made clear that the U.S. government was not requesting U.S. corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any ways that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies, or their other financial and commercial activities.

DEBATES	March 7. 1966
But, Mr. Speaker, I point out that this very vague and general statement is, to a very large extent, offset by Mr. Thomas C. Mann, United States Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs who, at the week end, when asked in Washington by the press what it meant when the American government said it expected firms in Canada, which were subsidiaries of United States corporations, to act as good citizens of the country, replied that-
-the guide lines are flexible enough to let American subsidiaries abroad be good citizens although unnecessary retention of earnings abroad is not desirable.
Which of the guide lines is the United States going to follow-the vague, nebulous statement of the communique, or the very specific statement of the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs that a retention of earnings abroad is not desirable?
I think the Canadian government has a responsibility to tell the house what this communique means. Does it mean that the United States government is not going to apply these voluntary economic guide lines to Canada? Certainly Mr. Mann, when he was asked, did not say that there would be any difference in the application of these guide lines to Canada from their application to any other country.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The second matter which is dealt with in the communique has to do with the change in the Security Exchange Commission regulations. I am glad the Canadian government in this case put forward strong views to the effect that these proposed regulations constitute a violation to our sovereignty. The communique does not offer too much comfort. It says that the United States members appreciated the concern of the government of Canada and assured the Canadian members that the most careful consideration would be given to Canadian views.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much that means; but I certainly want to urge the government to press for more than consideration and, if early action is not taken, that the government take a much more forceful and forthright attitude than they have taken to date.
The third matter which was dealt with had to do with the United States foreign assets controls which, the minister's statement says, have on occasions created serious difficulty for Canadian companies trading with such countries as Communist China and Cuba.
March 7. 1966	COMMONS
Again we are not given any specific information other than the statement from the communique that the United States members reaffirm their readiness to consult promptly on any transactions of importance to Canada which are affected by United States foreign assets control.
Mr. Speaker, this does not answer the concrete questions. Is there to be any repetition of the deplorable situation which arose last summer when three milling companies in this country, wholly owned subsidiaries of United States corporations, refused to mill Canadian wheat into flour because that flour was going to be sold by the Soviet Union to Cuba. Has the government received any undertaking that there will be no repetition of this kind of incident which makes Canada look like nothing other than an economic satellite of the United States?
There is one last observation in the statement of the minister which intrigues me; that is the one which says that at no time did Secretary Rusk press for any contribution other than that which the Canadian government decides in the light of these responsibilities-referring of course to the Viet Nam situation. Knowing with what care the Secretary of State for External Affairs selects his words, sometimes in order to clarify a situation and sometimes in order to confuse it, I am intrigued by the word "press".
When the minister says that Secretary of State Rusk did not press for any contribution, I want to know whether he has asked for any; I want to know whether he has suggested any. I want the minister at the earliest opportunity to tell the house exactly what position the Canadian delegates took at the Washington meeting. It is not enough for us to hide behind the fact that we are a member of the International Control Commission.
It seems to me the Secretary of State had a clearly defined responsibility to make it clear to the United States that since they have intervened unilaterally in southeast Asia, the Canadian government feels no responsibility to give any support whatsoever in this military venture irrespective of whether or not we are a member of the International Control Commission.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened intently to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
DEBATES	2263
Canada-U.S. Ministerial Meeting
I thank him for sending me a copy of his press release. But I call his attention to the fact that he has sent me an English copy. We hear all the ministers of the crown tell us that there are two official languages in Canada. I wonder a little what the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition would have been if he had received that statement in French without an English copy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is true that I have sent an English copy to the hon. member,
I must say that the French copy which should have been sent to him was received by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to inform his departmental officials that the leader of the Creditistes is not the leader of the New Democratic party and that we do not want the leader of the New Democratic party with the Creditistes.
Mr. Speaker, I see four main items in the minister's statement.
First, American investments in Canada;
Second, trade with the communist countries, for which we must secure the Americans' blessing;
Third, the situation in Viet Nam;
Fourth, co-operation in other areas with the United States, in this case the matter of water pollution with regard to the Great Lakes, etc.
But there is one point which we must consider a little more closely, because the statement does not change in any way the statements which we have been hearing in the house in the last month and a half, that is since the opening of the new session. I would even say that there is not much change between last year and this year.
Here is the paragraph which caught our attention and was read a short while ago by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Here it is:

We reiterated in some detail our views on the implications for Canada of the United States guide lines, regarding direct investment as they have been commonly understood, and our objections to them. The United States response made it clear that there is no thought that these guide lines given to their corporations should lead to companies in Canada being requested to operate other than in accordance with their normal commercial activities.
2264	COMMONS DEBATES	March 7, 1966
Canada-U.S. Ministerial Meeting [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this whole matter concerning the United States can be summed up as follows: when American companies decided to ask their Canadian subsidiaries to refrain from investing in Canada and to try and repatriate their earnings without delay to the United States, the situation changed considerably as soon as the U.S. Federal Reserve Commission announced early in February that the interest rate on its loans would be raised from 4 to 4.5 per cent.
Shortly after, the Bank of Canada followed suit and increased its rate by .5 per cent or l/200th.
The obvious purpose of the American government in announcing a stop to investments at the time was to increase its interest rate; afterwards, as soon as the interest rates were accepted, as soon as the Bank of Canada had followed suit and the Minister of Finance had given his consent, we are told today that the United States does not intend to prevent Canadian subsidiaries from acting otherwise than Canadian companies proper and as good Canadian citizens.
So much for investments, Mr. Speaker.
As far as trade with communist countries is concerned-I said only a word about it a while ago-the minister must ask the Americans permission to trade with China, Russia or Cuba, in short with any communist country in the world; otherwise, the U.S. will resort to reprisals against Canada. The minister is aware of this but breathes not a word about it.
I believe that to insure respect of our sovereignty, we should make up our own minds about trade with these communist countries and the Americans should keep their noses out of our national affairs. I think the minister should take a strong position in this matter.
I come now to my third point: Our participation or contribution in Viet Nam. There is here, and the minister himself stated-
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

"Finally, Mr. Speaker, I had several opportunities to review a wide range of international problems with Secretary Rusk."

Reference is made here to our participation in Viet Nam. Canada is a member of the international control commission for the maintenance of peace. When the Canadian government decides to send technical aid, doctors, nurses or equipment to Viet Nam [Mr. Caouette.l
while being one of the three members of a control commission for peace in the world whose aim is to help solve the problems that might come up here and there, I wonder if there is not a glaring contradiction in our sending technical aid to Viet Nam when we must work to have peace respected in that country, or at least for the establishment of a peace that does not exist at the present time.
The fourth point, Mr. Speaker, has to do with co-operation and collaboration in other fields. I think we are in favour of that. There are several fields, I believe, where we are already co-operating and collaborating with the United States. Inasmuch as our sovereignty and our internal administration are respected, we can co-operate with the United States in many fields, as long as it is to the advantage of both Canada and the United States, but not at the expense of one or the other. That is a sound policy. I feel that is the policy our government should follow.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this side of the house, and particularly our group feels that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs did not tell us very much that was new today. We are naturally eager for something more concrete, more details and especially to see more action on the part of the federal government.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to thank the hon. minister for seeing that we had copies of his statement prior to the convening of the house. I would say that this general conference now taking place annually between the cabinet members of the Canadian and United States governments is a good thing. We hope it will continue. We hope that as a result of this conference many of the problems that we face will be clarified.
One of the points that concerns me is this. Where does Canada come out of this so-called voluntary investment squeeze with the United States? This statement certainly does not clarify the picture. What is the situation going to be for the more than 900 American subsidiaries that are now operating in Canada? Is it true that Canada has really been given some special status under this United States guide lines program aimed at trimming direct investment and the repatriation of the earnings of these subsidiaries?
These are items upon which there will have to be much more elaboration if we are to understand what the situation really is in Canada. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
report of the minister and the communique that is referred to mentions that these guide lines which have been set out by the American government are intended to act toward reducing the deficit of the United States' external accounts. Recognizing that the United States does have a balance of payments problem and that it is a very acute problem for them, I find there is no mention at all of the tremendous imbalance in our own trading situation with the United States.
Certainly it is a good thing for us to consider their problems, but what about our problems? While we may be able to ease our own conscience in this regard because of our comparatively favourable balance in the over-all world trade picture, it would be much more favourable than it is if it were not for our imbalance of trade with the United States.
Another point I am concerned about is whether or not these guide lines will permit the United States subsidiaries in Canada to float loans in Canada for the international operations of these companies in their development outside both the United States and Canada. Just the other day the Chrysler Corporation in Canada announced that they were going to raise $50 million outside of the United States for their international operations. Does this mean they are going to do it in Canada? If so, this matter should certainly be clarified as well.
The statement also referred to the Viet Nam situation. I gather from the remarks of Secretary Rusk that he agrees that the contribution of Canada in so far as the Viet Nam picture is concerned can best be made through the International Control Commission. I wonder whether this means that the so-called secret letters that are supposed to have passed between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of our country now indicate that the Americans have changed their policy from that of a few months ago in relation to our contribution.
I find, also, reference in today's press to the fact that the United States maritime unions are concerned about United States companies trading with North Viet Nam and are planning a waterfront strike to protest against this action. Can it be that Canada is trading with North Viet Nam as well? We would like answers to these questions and I believe the minister must elaborate in much greater detail than he has so far.
We note that the headlines about this conference say that it has been most profitable
DEBATES	2265
Administration of Justice and productive and that the exchanges covered numerous topics. I think the minister owes it to the house to report on some of the discussions as they relate to topics other than just the guide lines and the Viet Nam picture. We trust that the government will see fit to report on these matters, because not only do I think it is our right in this house to know what the situation is but the Canadian public should have more information in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members would allow me at this point to bring to the attention of the house the provisions of provisional standing order 15 (2a) regarding ministerial statements and comments. I shall not read the standing order to hon. members and I have purposely up till now refrained from bringing this matter again to the attention of hon. members so that it would not be suggested that I am pointing an accusing finger at any particular commentator. But in my view, when we spend something over 40 minutes commenting on a statement at this time of the day we are in some way offending the requirements of the provisional standing order dealing with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members will want to take this into consideration whenever ministerial statements and comments are made.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like the permission of the house to table copies of correspondence between the solicitor for Mr. George Victor Spencer and officials of the Post Office Department and the Privy Council, referred to in last Friday's debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have the consent of the house to table the documents he has referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



CANADA PENSION PLAN AMENDMENT


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo South) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-135, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives contributions and benefits).
March 7, 1966

Financial Administration Act


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr.   Bailsman@: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable housewives to make contributions to and collect benefits from the Canada Pension Plan.
Since many housewives spend part of their careers working in industry as well as working at home, they should be permitted to continue their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan while at home, to ensure them a full pension at retiring age.
The bill recognizes the equal importance of work performed at home with the work performed in industry and provides housewives with the same pension opportunity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT


Robert Norman Thompson: the first reading of Bill No. C-136, to amend the Financial Administration Act (parliamentary commissioner for administration).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is related in intent but not necessarily complementary to Bill No. C-113 which would provide for a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman.
I believe this bill is necessitated by the tremendous number of cases coming before members of parliament regarding the administration, to which it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain adequate answers.
This bill would extend the duties of an office already in existence, that of the Auditor *General. This is an office which is already organized to deal with such matters. This bill would provide authority for certain functions and duties which the Auditor General has by his own admission already assumed because of the nature of his office. This would not require a new appointment or new personnel but would merely extend the authority and would eliminate possible conflict of jurisdiction by channelling complaints through members of the federal house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to remind the hon. member of the provisions of standing order 71(2), which allow an hon. member to make a short or brief statement.

It seems to me that he is now going beyond the limitations of that standing order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many grievances have the unions representing C.N.R. employees filed with the company in each of the past three years?
2.	How many of these grievances (a) have been settled (b) are still outstanding?
3.	Of the grievances that were settled, how many took longer than (a) one month to be settled (b) two months to be settled?
4.	Does the C.N.R. use a system of demerits for disciplining its employees, and, if so (a) when was this system established (b) was the system established unilaterally, discussed or negotiated with the unions representing C.N.R. employees?
5.	Have the unions representing C.N.R. employees made representations to the company urging abolition or revision of the system of demerits and, if so, on what occasions and what was the response of the C.N.R. management?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Management advises that all collective agreements set out procedures to be followed in the handling and adjudication of grievances between the Company and its employees. It has not been the practice to disclose information as embraced by the questions, it being considered that such information concerns confidential matters between the signatories of the collective agreements.
The C.N.R. has 168 collective agreements covering 85,000 employees. Such information has not been compiled in the form asked, nor is it a requirement under the various requests for information and statistical material made upon the Company by the Board of Transport Commissioners or the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which publishes extensive material concerning the railways.
The traditional and accepted system of railway discipline is known as the Brown System which was inaugurated by the Company in 1923. No representations have been made for its abolition.
2.	See above answer.
3.	See above answer.
4.	See above answer.
5.	See above answer.
March 7. 1966	COMMONS


GRADE CROSSING FUND PAYMENTS
Mr. Allard: What were the amounts and the percentage of the grants paid from the federal grade crossing fund each year, by province, from 1962 to 1965 inclusively?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise
DEBATES	2267
Questions
as follows:-Table No. 1 hereunder shows the amounts and percentage of commitments, by provinces, made against the railway grade crossing fund for the years 1962 to 1965 inclusive.
Table No. 2 hereunder shows the amounts and percentage of payments, by provinces, made from the railway grade crossing fund for the years 1962 to 1965 inclusive.


TABLE No. 1 COMMITMENTS
[Stage Direction]
1962	1963	1964	1965	Per-	Per-	Per-	Per-Amounts	centage	Amounts	centage	Amounts	centage	Amounts	centageB.C	525,086.41	3.17	1,390,105.40	12.78	1,239,213.10	6.76	336.222.55	1.95ALTA	575,055.11	3.47	961,202.64	8.84	822,771.34	4.49	1,423,626.35	8.26SASK	323,130.00	1.95	439,310.30	4.04	802,692.96	4.38	176,292.89	1.02MAN	318,283.61	1.92	133,943.81	1.23	830,220.00	4.53	309.620.46	1.80ONT	10,892,629.30	65.69	5,203.951.50	47.84	9,126,275.45	49.80	9,561,230.13	55.51QUE	2,111,775.79	12.73	1,793,133.08	16.48	3,520,860.29	19.21	3,963,032.65	23.01N.B	384,735.82	2.32	229,883.73	2.11	650,437.40	3.55	461,226.07	2.68N.S	1,021,387.89	6.16	456,455.73	4.20	418,593.36	2.28	666,778.63	3.87P.E.I	45,770.00	.28	46,604.29	.43	10,232.66	.06	41,840.00	0.24NFLD	169,300.00	1.02	10,080.00	.09	679,267.24	3.71	55,489.92	0.32Non allocated Refiectorized	crossing signs. Refiectorized	187,336.78	1.13	187,412.00	1.72	200,670.50	1.10	202.674.50	1.18markings on cars	27,275.63	.16	25,805.24	.24	24,491.09	.13	27,786.84	0.16Total...	16,581,766.34 100.00	10,877,887.72 100.00	18,325,725.39	100.00	17,225,820.99	100.00TABLE No. 2	PAYMENTS	1962	1963	1964	1965	Per-	Per-	Per-	Per-Amounts	centage	Amounts	centage	Amounts	centage	Amounts	centageB.C	208,557.93	1.89	556,057.24	4.28	1,386.714.95	9.55	187,701.72	1.47ALTA	1,330,741.93	12.05	1,601,694.67	12.32	531,013.36	3.66	450,759.17	3.52SASK	392,719.25	3.56	405,821.87	3.12	155,273.52	1.07	85,939.23	0.67MAN	1,030,180.25	9.33	491,962.41	3.78	678,993.40	4.67	480,376.52	3.75ONT	5,936.538.11	53.76	6,394,609.41	49.18	6,997,258.75	48.18	8,844,443.63	69.06QUE	858,783.23	7.78	2,383,006.49	18.33	3,381,576.58	23.28	964,656.69	7.53N.B	573,434.11	5.19	177,837.70	1.37	352,988.02	2.43	564,927.56	4.41N.S	511,177.45	4.63	619,906.05	4.77	387,765.69	2.67	877,739.68	6.85P.E.I	64,021.57	0.49	59,277.97	0.41	8,167.74	0.06NFLD	115,397.76	0.89	473,155.75	3.26	207,980.62	1.63Non allocated Refiectorized	crossing signs. Refiectorized	173,904.97	1.57	165,161.03	1.27	93,985.09	0.65	113,351.01	0.89markings on cars	26,696.23	0.24	26,384.64	0.20	24,491.09	0.17	20,117.59	0.16Total...	11,042,733.46	100.00	13,001,860.84	100.00	14,522,494.17	100.00	12,806,161.16 100.00	
March 7, 1966
Questions

Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the amount of federal shipbuilding *subsidy paid to Scarab Fishing Ventures Ltd., on the tuna seiner Golden Scarab?
2.	How many pounds of tuna were landed in Canadian ports by this Canadian subsidized ship since it started fishing operations?
3.	How many Canadian fishermen are employed *on the Golden Scarab, and what is the total number of crewmen?
4.	What is the amount of the special subsidy paid to the owners of the Golden Scarab by the industrial development service of the federal Department of Fisheries?
5.	What value was received by the Canadian taxpayer for this expenditure?
6.	What are the names of Canadian government officials who accompanied the Golden Scarab on her first two voyages, and what were their duties?
7.	Has any Canadian company indicated it intends to purchase the Golden Scarab?


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the departments of Fisheries and Transport as follows: 1. $764,250.
2.	Nil.
3.	At last report 1 Canadian in crew of 13.
4.	$25,000.
5.	The principals involved in construction of this vessel are proceeding with construction of a large tuna plant in southern New Brunswick. Furthermore, construction is proceeding in Canada of three 210-foot trawler seiner tuna vessels to supply raw material to this plant. An industry of considerable magnitude is being established which will be significant to the economy of the Atlantic region.
6.	First voyage, G. H. Imbeault, technical officer, Department of Fisheries. Second voyage, Clarence Savoie, fisheries specialist engaged under contract with the Department of Fisheries.
Their duties were to observe and report on the operations, and to collect information useful in a biological and technological assessment of this new fisheries development.
7.	Unknown.


OTTAWA-RENTAL OF FEDERAL PROPERTY
Mr. Howard: Does the Alexander Fleck Company Limited or Beach Foundry Limited lease or otherwise rent any property from the federal government or any agency or branch thereof and, if so (a) upon what day did the lease or rental arrangement commence (b) what is its duration (c) what, in detail, are the rental or lease fees?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows: no.


OFFICE FACILITIES OUTSIDE OTTAWA
Mr. Ormiston: What is the location of government office space and office facilities, if any, outside of Ottawa now being utilized or made available to Ministers, parliamentary secretaries and members of parliament?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Arichat, N.S., federal building; Inverness, N.S., federal building; Quebec, Que., Champlain Harbour station; Montreal, Que., postal station "B"; Youville postal station; Drummondville, Que., federal building; Lon-gueuil, Que., Post Office building; Kingston, Ont., Federal building; Niagara Falls, Ont., Customs building; Toronto, Ont., Arthur Meighen building; Manitoba, St. Boniface Federal building; Vancouver, B.C., Federal building; Customs House,


OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 38 AND 39, ST. NICHOLAS DE LEVIS, QUE.
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Has the National Harbours Board ever been the owner of lots Nos. 38 and 39 In the municipality of St. Nicholas de Levis?
2.	If so, is the National Harbours Board still the owner of these lots?
3.	If not (a) when were they sold (b) to whom (c) at what price (d) who were the bidders and what was the amount of each bid (e) for what reason was the successful bid accepted?
4.	Are the records in which such deeds of sale are registered available to the public and, if not, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board informs as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) October 10, 1963; (b) Paul Beau-rivage; (c) $3,000; (d) (i) Mr. Jules Cantin offered $100 on June 8, 1957. (ii) Mr. Paul Beaurivage offered $3,000 on May 22, 1962. This offer was accepted, (iii) Mr. Andre Can-tin offered $3,300 or $3,500 on March 26, 1963, but the offer of Mr. Beaurivage had been accepted by that time.
4.	Property transactions are usually filed by the purchaser with the local land registry office, and such records are available to the public.
March 7. 1966


PERMANENT VOTERS LIST
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	Has the government received a report from the representation commissioner with regard to establishing a permanent voters list?
2.	If so. what plans has the government for implementing any recommendations contained therein?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	The Representation Commissioner Act of 1963 provides in Section 9 that the Commissioner shall report to the Speaker on this subject within two years after the issuance of the first representation order made pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I am informed by the Representation Commissioner that no such report has yet been made.
2.	N/A.


CIVIL SERVICE HOLIDAYS AND OVERTIME, 1965
Mr. Winch: 1.	Was an order issued in 1965, that all or certain classification employees in the government service had to take holidays owing or accumulated overtime prior to December 31, 1965, or lose their rights to same?
2.	If so, what consideration was given to those employees, who because of their responsibilities in government service, were unable to take the time off?
3.	In the circumstances outlined in (2) above, has or will immediate consideration be given to make provision for time off to be taken in 1956, or pay, for the services rendered by these loyal civi) servants in 1965?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No.
2.	n/a.
3.	n/a.


C.B.C. SERVICES ABROAD
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	How many representatives or employees work for the C.B.C. in countries other than Canada?
2.	What has been the cost of maintenance for the C.B.C. of these services (employees, material, equipment, etc.) outside Canada for the last three years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	A total of 55 employees, including foreign correspondents and clerical staff hired locally, are employed by C.B.C. foreign offices at eight locations outside Canada.
2.	1962/63,	$636,519;	1963/64,	$825,094;
1964/65, $954,815.
Questions


DESALINATION OF SEA WATER
Mr. Laprise: 1.	For how long has the government been interested in the economic aspects of the desalination of sea water?
2.	Has the government asked anyone to make a study of this question and, if so (a) who was asked, and (b) what amount of money was required for such a study?
3.	Who were the representatives of Canada at the first international symposium held on the desalination of water, and how much was the government required to pay to defray the expenses of its delegates?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Mines and Technical Surveys and Industry as follows:
1.	Progress in the development of an economic method or methods for the desalination of saline water has been of general interest to the government of Canada since its development began. Interest in this possibility became definite late in 1964 when the United States government began to organize the first international symposium on water desalination which was held in Washington, D.C. during the period October 3-9, 1965.
2.	No.
3.	Mr. J. A. MacDonald, chief delegate, assistant deputy minister, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, $276.45. Dr. S. Sourirajan, National Research Council, $286.82. Prof. R. L. Hummel, University of Toronto, $335.00. Mr. A. Wyatt, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $270.46. Dr. J. F. Fulton, water resources branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources (now Mines and Technical Surveys), $224.52. Total, $1,393.25.


FILM BOARD FILM ON MOTORCYCLE HILL CLIMBING
Mr. Hales: 1.	Did the National Film Board pay a midwestern Ontario motorcycle club for the opportunity of making a film on "Hill Climbing" and related feats, in 1965?
2.	If so, how much was the club paid and in what form was the obligation paid?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	& 2 No payment was made to the club itself. However, payments totalling $95 were made to seven club members for their services in the film over a 17 day period. Furthermore, the film board incurred expenditures

March 7. 1966
Questions
0	1 $81.72 for (a) rental of premises and (b) refreshments provided to a group taking part in a kind of party sequence.


AVONLEA, SASK.-SERVICES FOR C.N.R. SECTION HOUSE
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	On what date were tenders called for sewer and water in the section house at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?
2.	Were the C.N.R. officials aware that there were no sewer and water connections available to service this property?
3.	When will these modern conveniences be connected to the town sewer and water system?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. May 31, 1964.
2 & 3. As stated in reply to question No. 424 by Mr. Watson as recorded in the Hansard of Wednesday, June 16, 1965, page 2488; sewer and water connections were not available on railway property. However, application had been made for an easement through school property to enable connections being made to the town facilities. At that time, approval was expected almost immediately; however, such approval was not received until late in 1965. As it was considered to be too late in the year to commence installation of sewer and water lines, the work was postponed until this spring when weather permits.


CIVIL SERVICE RADIO OPERATORS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Have representations been received from radio operator personnel of the civil service calling attention to the discrepancies between their wage levels and that of staff members with similar responsibilities ?
2.	Is consideration being given to a pay review for working-level radio operators of the civil service?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1	have been given the following information by the civil service commission:
1.	The civil service commission has received representations from a staff association on behalf of radio operators pointing out that another class of employees, performing duties unrelated to those of a radio operator received a slightly higher maximum salary while the qualification requirements were lower than those for radio operator.
2.	Measures are to be taken very shortly by the Department of Transport and the civil

service commission to develop a new classification standard for radio operators. Salaries for the class radio operator, grades 1, 2 and 3, were revised effective October 1, 1964 and August 1, 1965. This class will be subject to a special review in expectation of transition to collective bargaining before the regular cyclical review of July 1, 1967.


CLOSING OF C.N.R. STATION, CONISTON, ONT.
Mr. Fawceft: Has Canadian National Railways a master plan which involves the closing of some stations in Northern Ontario and, if so, is the station at Con-iston one of these and for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
In connection with express freight operations, all accounting associated with carload, express freight, passenger and telecommunication functions was transferred from Coniston to Sudbury in October last year.
No decision has been reached regarding the closing of the station at Coniston. The closing of any station is dependent on approval being obtained from the Board of Transport Commissioners.


SEAWAY INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CORPORATION
Mr. Caouette: 1.	When was the Seaway International Bridge Corp. Ltd., a subsidiary company of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, incorporated?
2.	Does this subsidiary company have an official name in French?
3.	Since its incorporation, what have been the profits or the losses of this subsidiary company?
4.	Is this subsidiary company a Crown agency?
5.	Does this subsidiary company pay municipal taxes?
6.	Since its incorporation, how many employees has it had each year?
7.	Do its employees come under ordinary labour legislation?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
1.	November 13, 1962.
2.	No, the company is owned jointly by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the United States and The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
3.	Since its incorporation the excess of income of the corporation over the cost of
March 7. 1966

operating and maintaing the bridge has amounted to $556,570. In accordance with the agreement between The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and its U.S. counterpart, this excess has been transferred to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to be applied against amortization of the cost of the north channel bridge.
4.	Yes.
5.	As the Bridge Corporation owns no land it pays no municipal taxes. The corporation does, however, reimburse The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for grants in lieu of taxes related to the land occupied by the bridge.
6.	1963, 19 employees; 1964, 18 employees; 1965, 18 employees.
7.	Yes.


MUNICIPAL TAXATION ON CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the government Intend to make Crown corporations, carrying on business of a commercial nature, liable to municipal taxation?
2.	Do the subsidiary companies of the Canadian National Railways pay municipal taxes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Transport as follows:
1.	Crown corporations of a commercial nature are already paying grants in lieu of municipal taxes. The payments are generally ex gratia and the corporations involved are therefore not legally liable for the payments which they make. In general this arrangement has worked well and there does not appear to be a need to alter the tax exempt status of our crown corporations. There are, however, some differences between the grant practices of different crown corporations and a review is being conducted to determine whether all of these differences are warranted.
2.	The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: yes.


WHEAT SALES TO AND IMPORTS FROM CHINA
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	What has been the amount realized from wheat sales to mainland China during the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What is the value of Canada's imports from China during the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What items are on the sensitive list which limits China's exports to Canada?
4.	Are worsted fabrics from mainland China on the sensitive list?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	The value of wheat exports to mainland
China during the calendar years 1963 and 1964, and January to November 1965, latest figures available, was as follows:	1963,
$103,001,000;	1964,	$116,725,000; January-
November 1965, $95,042,000.
2.	The value of imports from mainland China during the calendar years 1963 and
1964,	and the period January to September,
1965,	latest figures available, was as follows: 1963, $5,147,000; 1964, $9,420,000; January-September 1965, $11,512,000.
3.	The following is the list of goods for which separate limitations have been established on exports by Chinese trading corporations.
I.	Cotton piece goods: (a) Velveteen and other pile fabrics, other than terry cloth;
(b)	Yarn dyed fabrics; (c) Greige cotton fabrics excluding gauze and corduroy; (d) All other cotton fabrics.
II.	Cotton yarn; cotton sewing thread.
III.	Other cotton products, not including those with substantial hand embroidery or other hand work, (a) tablecloths; (b) handkerchiefs; (c) pillowcases; (d) sheets; (e) cotton garments (sub-quotes on shirts made from woven fabrics, blouses, trousers, slacks and shorts, knitted shirts, including T-shirts).
IV.	Other textile items not including these substantially of silk, linen, ramie or wool: (a) ladies' dress gloves; (b) work gloves;
(c)	bedspreads; (d) dish towels and hand
towels;	(e)	other towels and	bath	mats;
(f) fabrics wholly or substantially of manmade fibres; (g) narrow fabrics; (h) garments of man-made fibres or mixed fibres.
V.	Non textile items:	(a) plywood; (b)table flatware; (c) waterproof rubber footwear; (d) rubber soled footwear with fabric uppers;	(e)	polyester buttons;	(f)	metalfriction toys; (g) flashlights; (h) vacuum flasks;	(i)	sewing machines;	(j)	paint
brushes.
4.	No.


STOP-OFF CHARGE AT TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the amount of the "stop-off charge" levied by the railways at terminal elevators for each year that the grain is in storage?

March 7, 1966
Questions
2.	For how many years can this he charged?
3.	How much has been paid in this way to the railways in each of the years from 1955 to 1965?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	The railways provide in their freight tariffs that barley, oats and wheat shipped by, or for account of the Canadian Government (Canadian Wheat Board), now in storage or hereafter received for storage in: Canadian Government terminal elevators at Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Alberta, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Elevator of Eastern Terminal Elevator Company Limited, North Transcona, Manitoba; Elevator of Searle Grain Company Limited, Kenora, Ontario. Also screenings from such grains, may be shipped from storage point within the periods specified below from date of inward expense bill, at the stop-off charges listed below, subject to the conditions (other than time limit for reshipment) governing storage-in-transit privilege provided in Rule 14: If reshipped within twelve months after arrival at storage point, 3 cents per 100 lbs. If reshipped later than twelve months after arrival at storage point but not later than twenty four months, 5J cents per 100 lbs. If reshipped later than twenty four months after arrival at storage point but not later than thirty six months, 71 cents per 100 lbs. If reshipped later than thirty six months arrival at storage point but not later than forty eight months, 9f cents per 100 lbs.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	Information not available.


USE OF INSECTICIDES ALDRIN AND DIELDRIN
Mr. Monteith: 1.	Are Aldrin and Dieldrin permitted for use in Canada as insecticides?
2.	If so, on what specific types of crops are they permitted to be used?
3.	Are they permitted for use on any vegetable, green or forage crops?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Aldrin and Dieldrin are registered for use as insecticides in Canada.
2.	These insecticides are registrable at the present time for use on the crops noted with the following provisions as specified: Provision 1-that such crops or parts thereof are not for animal feeding purposes; Provision

2-where soil applications are recommended, that such crops are not grown in rotation with root crops for animal feeding purposes.
Seed crops: Provisions 1 and 2, alfalfa, clover, grasses and sugar beets.
Fruit crops: Provisions 1 and 2 as applicable, apple, blueberry, cantaloupe, peach, cranberry and strawberry and in addition for Dieldrin only: apricot, cherry, pear, plum, prune, currant and melons.
Vegetable: Provisions 1 and 2 apply, asparagus, celery, beet, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrot, cauliflower, cucumber, eggplant, kohlrabi, lettuce, marrow, onion, pepper, potato, pumpkin, spinach, squash, tomato, turnip, rutabaga and in addition for Alrin only: collard, endive, gourd, horseradish, kale, mustard, greens, parsnip, pimento, radish, Swiss chard.
Grain-Group 1, Provision 2 applies, bean peas, soybean and corn. Seed treatment and preplant soil treatment only. Group 2, barley, oats, rye and wheat for grain production only. Application not to be made later than the shot blade stage, and straw not to be fed to livestock. Group 3, flax and sunflower. Application not to be made later than the flowering stage, and the straw and stocks not to be fed to livestock.
3.	Answered by 2.


SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES ON B.C. FERRIES
Mr. Davis: Since the inception of the federal subsidy policy for shipbuilding (a) what total sum has been remitted to shipbuilders on ferries built for the account of the government of British Columbia or its toll authority (b) what is the estimated subsidy on ferries approved but not yet completed?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows: (a) $13,759,980.05; (b) $2,106,822.29 of which progress payments in the amount of $1,685,457.82 have been made to date and are included in the answer to (a) above.


SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES
Mr. Davis: 1.	How much has been paid in subsidies for ship construction since passage of the ship construction assistance regulations in 1961 for (a) the whole of Canada (b) each of the shipyards on the Pacific coast?
2.	What was the percentage of such subsidies to the total cost of construction (of those vessels which qualified) for (a) the whole of Canada (b) each of the shipyards on the Pacific coast?
March 7, 1966


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows: 1. (a) $130,721,047.52; (b) Allied Shipbuilding Ltd. $1,659,774.80; B.C. Marine Engineers & Shipbuilders Ltd., $364,720.25; Bel-Aire Shipyard Ltd., $166,546.70; Benson Bros. Shipbuilding Co. (1960) Ltd. (formerly A. C. Benson Shipyard Ltd.), $771,062.17; W. E. Bond, $3,400.00; Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited, $4,192,772.82; International Shipbuilders Ltd. (formerly Matsumoto Shipyards Limited), $266,689.98; John Manly Ltd., $606,630.08; McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co. Ltd., $1,117,292.59; Osborne Shipyards Ltd., $12,023.43; Star Shipyards (Mercer's) Ltd., $1,403,805.30; Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited, $12,798,123.68; West Coast Salvage & Contracting Co. Limited, $49,944.34; Yarrows Ltd., $6,263,568.39.
2.	(a) 32.7 per cent, (b) Allied Shipbuilders Ltd., 33.8%; B.C. Marine Engineers & Shipbuilders Ltd., 27.3%; Bel-Aire Shipyard Ltd., 36.8%; Benson Bros. Shipbuilding Co. (1960) Ltd. (formerly A. C. Benson Shipyard Ltd.), 39.2%; W. E. Bond, 40.0%; Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited, 39.5%; International Shipbuilders Ltd. (formerly Matsumoto Shipyards Limited), 38.8%; John Manly Ltd., 37.6%; McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co. Ltd., 33.1%; Osborne Shipyards Ltd., 40.0%; Star Shipyards (Mercer's) Ltd., 29.9%; Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited, 36.1%; West Coast Salvage & Contracting Co. Limited, 31.5%; Yarrows Ltd., 31.5%.


BIDS FOR N.R.C. ACCELERATOR BUILDING
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Did V. K. Mason Construction Limited of Ottawa submit a bid for the construction of a National Research Council accelerator building, and (a) if so, what was the amount of their bid (b) has this company an agreement with the unions affiliated with the Ottawa Building Trades Council?
2.	Did Sirotek Construction Limited of Ottawa submit a bid for the construction of a National Research Council accelerator building, and (a) if so, what was the amount of their bid (b) does Sirotek Construction Limited have an agreement with the unions affiliated with the Ottawa Building Trades Council?
3.	Which company's bid was accepted?
4.	Is it the policy of the federal government to award contracts, all other things being equal, to companies that are unionized?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes. (a) $1,547,000. (b) We have no information from the company in this respect, but advice from the Trades Council indicates
Questions
that the company has an agreement with unions affiliated with the Ottawa Building Trades Council.
2.	Yes. (a) $1,547,000. (b) No, we have been informed that Sirotek have agreements with other unions.
3.	Sirotek Construction Limited.
4.	Labour conditions applicable to these contracts are set by the Department of Labour and are included as part of tender documents. Under the system of public bids, therefore, no preference is given to contractors whose employees belong to any specific labour union since all bidders must meet the labour conditions applicable to the contract.


WEST BLOCK ELEVATORS
Mr. Marlin (Timmins): 1.	On what date were the existing House of Commons West Block elevators installed?
2.	Were tenders called for these elevators and, if so, which concerns submitted tenders, what were the amounts bid, and which bid was successful?
3.	Was the successful bidder a Canadian firm?
4.	Is the firm in question still in business, and if not, when did it cease operation?
5.	Did any guarantee accompany installation of the elevators and, if so, what were its terms?
6.	What has been the total cost to the government of maintenance and repairs to these elevators since installation?
7.	Is any action proposed to improve elevator service in the West Block?


George James McIlraith: 1. Installation completed May 21, 1963.
2.	Not by the department. At least three elevator companies submitted tenders to the general contractors in accordance with standard practice. The elevators formed a part of the general contract. These were: Beckett Elevator Co. Ltd., Toronto, amount $183,675, Turnbull Elevator Co. Ltd., Toronto, amount not known, Otis Fenson Elevator Co. Ltd., Hamilton, amount not known. Successful bidder, Beckett Elevator Company Limited.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. The materials and workmanship of the apparatus installed would be first class in every respect; and that the contractor would make good any defects, not due to ordinary wear and tear or improper use which may develop within one year from date of final acceptance and commencement of operation by the owner.

March 7, 1966
Questions
6.	Up to September 30, 1965-$9,760.77.
7.	Yes.


WAR VETERANS RECEIVING PENSIONS
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	How many war veterans received pensions from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1965?
2.	What is the total amount of such pensions?
3.	How many war veterans, by province, received a pension in 1965?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. There were 141,612 Canadian veterans of World War I and World War II in receipt of disability pensions from the Canadian Pension Commission as at September 30, 1965, the last date for which complete information is available.
2.	The total amount of such pensions was $128,815,387.00.
3.	War veterans, by province, receiving disability pensions as at September 30, 1965:
Both
Province	W.W.I	W.W. II	WarsNewfoundland	535	978	1,513Prince Edward Island	277	1,200	1,477Nova Scotia	1,798	6,330	8,128New Brunswick	957	4,621	5,578Quebec	2,180	13,935	16,115Ontario	11,751	38,082	49,833Manitoba	2,709	8,556	11,265Saskatchewan	1,409	4,829	6,238Alberta	2,160	8,458	10,618British Columbia 6,228	15,112	21,340Outside Canada	5,093	4,414	9,507Totals	35,097	106,515	141,612


REPAYMENTS BY MUNICIPALITIES UNDER WINTER WORKS
Mr. Ricard: According to the audit made by the provincial governments of the books kept by the municipalities on account of the winter works, what are the sums recovered by each of the provincial governments and what is the share to be recovered by the federal government for the years of 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 673 is as follows: The information is not available. Municipal claims under the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program must 
be submitted in the first instance to the provincial governments for approval. The provincial auditors delete ineligible items and relevant costs from such claims before transmitting them to the federal government for reimbursement of the federal share. The provincial pre-audit therefore does not lead to recovery as no payment is made in the first instance in respect of ineligible items discovered by the audit.


SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES TO C.N.R.
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Have any subsidies been paid toward construction of any vessels for Canadian National Railways or its subsidiaries under the program instituted by the previous government?
2.	If so, for what vessels and in what amount for each vessel?
3.	Are vessels which may be constructed for Canadian National Railways or its subsidiaries eligilble for subsidies under the program announced by the Minister of Transport on February 2, 1966?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.


PURCHASE OF COAST GUARD LIFEBOAT
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	When will the Department of Transport purchase the first new type lifeboat for the coast guard?
2.	From what company will this lifeboat be purchased?
3.	What will be the size of the lifeboat and of what material will it be constructed?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Purchasing action has commenced and delivery is scheduled for November, 1966.
2.	Procurement of the prototype for evaluation purposes will be from the U.S. coast guard.
3.	Length overall, 44'-10J"; breadth extreme, 12'-8"; draft, 3-2J". The boat is of steel construction.


LEVEL CROSSING REMOVALS AND PROTECTION
Mr. Noble: 1.	For the last period of one year available, what sums have been paid out under the railway grade crossing fund by way of assistance directed toward the removal of level railway crossings?
March 7, 1966

2.	In the same period, what expenditure has been made for signal protection devices?
3.	Will the government consider increasing these grants as a centennial project in 1967?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows: 1. During the calendar year 1965 the Board of Transport Commissioners authorized the payment of $8,874,292.34 from the fund to assist in the actual construction of overhead bridges, subways and railway highway diversions which eliminated level crossings.
2.	During the calendar year 1965, the board authorized payment from the Fund of $2,891,876.98 for the installation and improvement of automatic protection devices.
In addition to the two amounts stated above $1,040,091.84 was paid out of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund for the reconstruction of inadequate grade separations, improvements to grades and vision at crossings, the installation of reflectorized crossing signs and the placing of reflective markings on railway box cars.
The board also authorized commitments to be made against the Railway Grade Crossing Fund in the amount of $17,231,674.95 to aid construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway railway crossings, during this same period.
3.	No information is available in so far as the Board of Transport Commissioners is concerned.


HALIFAX-NAVAL SHIPS AND LAND FACILITIES
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	How many ships of the Canadian navy now have Halifax as their home port?
2.	Which land facilities are controlled by the navy at Halifax?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 26, excluding two British submarines on loan to the RCN, seven ships in reserve and civilian manned auxiliary vessels.
2. In the Halifax area-HMCS Stadacona, HMC Dockyard, Central Victualling Depot, Seaward Defence Base, RCN Supply Depot, Outside storage site, Gladstone Street Stores, Garage site, Melville Island, Part of McNabs Island. In the Dartmouth area-HMCS Shearwater, RCN Armament Depot, Albro Lake Radio Station, RCN Diving School-French Cable Wharf, Shannon Park-Married Quarters.
Questions


REGISTRATION OF DRUG MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Harley: 1.	Does the government intend to register drug manufacturers as recommended by the special committee on food and drugs?
2.	If so (a) under what terms of reference will this be brought about (b) what is the expected date of commencement of such a program (c) what will be the method of enforcement of such a program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As this is a matter of government policy, any announcement will be made by the government at the appropriate time.
2. See answer 1. above.


WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS, ONTARIO
Mr. Lind: March 7, 1966
Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. $4,200,000.
2.	Information not available. The division of project costs between member municipalities is made by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
3. Information not available, (See No. 2).
4. Information not available, (See No. 2).
5.	Benefit will depend on plan of operation, for which the Province of Ontario is responsible.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.
8.	$1,471,800.
9.	Approved cost $4,635,252; actual cost $4,799,000.
10.	$3,966,563.87 to November 30, 1965.
11.	$2,598,126 to the Grand River Conservation Commission; nil to the Grand River Conservation Authority.
12.	No federal contributions for flood control projects have been paid directly to the Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority. The Province of Ontario has been paid $3,473,758.14 to November 30, 1965, as the federal government contribution to the shareable portion of the Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority program which had been completed at that date.
13.	Information not available, as it is not a requirement for appraisal of flood control project proposals submitted by provinces in applying for federal government contributions.
14.	The largest flood control structure built in Ontario in terms of total water storage capacity to which the federal government has contributed a share of the cost is the Shand dam.
15.	The largest flood control structure in Canada to which the federal government has contributed a share of the cost is the Greater Winnipeg floodway, now under construction with completion scheduled for early 1968.


AIR CANADA JET SERVICE, MONTREAL-HALIFAX
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What is the frequency of Air Canada's overseas jet service with regard to Halifax?
2.	Will at least once weekly jet service be maintained between Montreal and Halifax?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	Air Canada's jet service Halifax-Overseas for the Winter 1965/66 consists of twice weekly service, and for summer of 1966, three times weekly service.
2.	Yes.


MIDDLESEX COUNTY, ONT.-THIRD JUDGE
Mr. Irvine: When will the necessary federal amendment be presented to permit the appointment of a third county court judge for the county of Middlesex?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) r
As soon as may be appropriate, having regard to the progress made with the legislative program.


WINTER WORKS APPLICATION, KAMOURASKA COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many applications were made by the municipalities of Kamouraska county under the winter works incentive program in 1965?
2.	Of such applications, how many were accepted and what was the amount granted for each of these municipalities?


John Carr Munro: 1. 26 under the 1965-66 program.
2. 26. The estimated Federal Government share of payroll costs in respect to projects approved for these municipalities is as shown hereunder: Andreville, $3,000; Kamouraska, $7,800; Mont Carmel, $9,210; Woodbridge, $22,800; St. Alexandre, $18,960; St. Andre (5 projects), $35,900; Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, $10,740; St. Athanase, $36,300; St. Denis, $2,640; St. Eleuthere, $3,600; St. Gabriel Lalemant, $2,700; St. Germain, $7,200; St. Helene (4 projects), $15,912; St. Joseph de Kamouraska, $3,000; St. Louis de Kamouraska, $10,440; St. Pacome (Parish), $6,600; St. Pa-come (Village), $15,240; St. Pascal (Parish), $9,300; St. Pascal (Village), $31,200.


ALLOWANCES FOR DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the government, as allowances for disabled persons, during the years 1964 and 1965 (a) for Canada (b) for the province of Quebec and (c) for the county of Portneuf?
March 7, 1966

2.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many persons received the above allowances?
3.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many applications were received by the government lor such allowances and (a) how many of these applications were accepted and (b) how many were rejected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Fiscal Years	Canada	Quebec	County of Porneuf1963-64	$20,206,543	$8,081,258	Not avail.1964-65	23,365,493	9,090,736	Not avail.2.1963-64	51,671	20,753	Not avail.1964-65	53,103	20,171	Not avail.3. 1963-64	17,268	7,870	Not avail.1964-65	14,532	4,235	Not avail.(a) Approved	1963-64	5,635	1,162	Not avail.1964-65	6,344	1,215	Not avail.(b) Rejected	1963-64	11,633	6,708	Not avail.1964-65	8,188	3,020	Not avail.[English]


SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS BEING REPAIRED
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Who establishes safety regulations for vessels being repaired while in Canadian ports?
2.	Who has jurisdiction for the enforcing of any such regulations?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. Assuming that the question relates to regulations for the protection against accident of workers engaged in repairing ships in shipyards, there are no Federal regulations on this subject; it is presumed that there are provincial regulations in most provinces.


COST OF OPERATING ARMED FORCES CAMPS
Mr. Sherman: What is the annual cost of operating (a) Fort Osborne military barracks in Winnipeg (b) H.M.C.S. Chippawa in Winnipeg (c) Camp Shilo, Manitoba (d) R.C.A.F. Station, Gimli, Manitoba?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Annual estimated costs for 196566 are as follows: (a) $3,020,000; (b) $50,000; (c) $3,214,000; (d) $1,670,000.
These costs include housekeeping costs of the bases comprising civilian labour, com-
Questions
munications, construction and engineering maintenance, salaries of commissionaires and teachers for dependants, heating and cooking fuel and public utilities.


HARBOUR DEEPENING, PORT COLBORNE, ONT.
Mr. Tolmie: 1.	Is the Department of Transport negotiating for the deepening of harbours in Port Colborne at Canada Cement Company Ltd., and Maple Leaf Mills Ltd.?
2.	If so, what progress has been made in these negotiations and when may a decision be expected as a result?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in two parts.
1.	The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is negotiating with Maple Leaf Mills Limited, but not with Canada Cement Company Limited.
2.	Surveys of the work have been carried out and cost estimates prepared by Authority engineers. A financial proposal is presently being worked on for presentation to Maple Leaf Mills Limited toward the end of March.


WELLAND CANAL BYPASS
Mr. Tolmie: 1.	Was an anouncement made by the Minister of Transport on December 6, 1965, that some 4,000 acres were to be expropriated in the Welland area for the possible construction of a Welland canal bypass?
2.	If so, when will the committee of officials considering this proposal make their report?
3.	Is there a deadline for receipt of the report, and if so, what is it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in three parts.
1. Yes.
2 and 3. The matter is presently under consideration by the government and an announcement will be made when a decision is reached.


REVIEW OF PENSION ENTITLEMENT OF WIDOWS
Mr. Brand: Will the government consider reviewing the case of the widow of airman Edward E. Chambers, and other cases like it, with regard to pension entitlement?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: An appeal board of the Canadian

March 7, 1966
Questions
Pension Commission will deal with the case of the widow of Airman Edward E. Chambers as soon as her advocate indicates that the case is ready for presentation.
With respect to other cases, the Canadian Pension Commission is always ready to entertain applications submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Act.


FREE SHIPMENT OF TEXT BOOKS TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Mr. Hopkins: 1.	Has any consideration been given to arrange that text books and related reading materials (used or otherwise) be shipped postage free to underdeveloped countries?
2.	If so, when will this come into effect?
3.	If not, would the government consider adopting such a measure?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. Exchange of mail between countries is governed by the provisions of the Convention of the Universal Postal Union which do not provide for free postage for text books and related reading materials. Such materials mailed in Canada for destinations abroad may benefit from the special arrangement provided by the convention for transmission in bulk at a rate of postage calculated on the bulk weight.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Unilateral action is not possible under the abovementioned convention.


RESEARCH INTO AIR POLLUTION AND CANCER
Mr. Fawcett: Has research shown that air pollutions caused by fumes from industrial plants, cars, asphalt dust, etc., are contributing factors to lung cancer and, if so, has the Department of National Health and Welfare instituted a program of research to study this grave problem with a view toward implementing some corrective measures!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been well established that a significant relationship exists between the incidence of lung cancer and long term exposure to pollutants in certain industrial environments as well as what may collectively be called urban pollution. The Occupational Health Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is carrying out a research program related to aspects of this matter.
[Mr. TeiUet.)


CROP LOSS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How much money has been paid out by the federal government to Ontario and Quebec farmers under the crop loss assistance program?
2.	When did the payments start and what will the closing-off date of the payments be?
3.	What was the average price for feed grains at local feed mills in Ontario and Quebec before the subsidy rate took effect and the average rate now for feed grains after the subsidy has been in effect for some months?
4.	What was the average rate per ton for hay before the subsidy was announced and what is the average price for hay now that the subsidy has been in effect for a number of months?


John James Greene: 1 and 2. Federal government payments under the 1965 feed assistance program are made as reimbursement to the provinces. The provinces issued redeemable coupons to eligible farmers. As the provinces redeem these coupons used by farmers in the purchase of hay and eligible feeds, claims are made on the federal government for reimbursement.
Coupons were issued in Ontario starting about October 1, 1965 and in Quebec starting about January 1, 1966. No claims for reimbursement have yet been received from Quebec and reimbursement totalling $190,000 has been made against claims received from Ontario.
Coupons are eligible for use in Ontario on hay purchased and delivered in the period commencing May 16, 1965 and ending May
15,	1966 and on other eligible feeds purchased and delivered in the period commencing July
16,	1965 and ending May 15, 1966.
In Quebec coupons are eligible for use on hay and other eligible feeds purchased and delivered in the period commencing July 1, 1965 and ending May 30, 1966.
3. Average retail prices, per 100 pounds, delivered (bags included)*:
Ontario	Quebec
Aug. 1,	Jan. 1,	Aug. 1,	Jan. 1,1965	1966	1965	1966Corn, cracked	$3.65	$3.65	$3.89	$3.84Oats, unground	3.10	3.17	3.14	3.23Barley, ground	3.30	3.41	3.34	3.41Wheat, unground	3.64	3.65	3.72	3.71
Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
March 7, 1966

4. Average price, per ton, received by farmers at the farm for hay and clover in
bales*:
Ontario	Quebec
July, 1965	$24.09	$25.38August, 1965	25.68	28.51December, 1965	27.27	33.25
*Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


CONFEDERATION SQUARE-EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Referring to part I of the sixty-fifth annual report of the National Capital Commission at page 12, what are the names of the "numerous consultants" employed in respect of the area of Confederation square?
2.	For what particular purpose was each such consultant employed?


George James McIlraith: 1. Consultants employed by the National Capital Commission with respect to the redevelopment of the Confederation square area; and
2. The purposes for which they are employed are as follows: J. B. Parkin Associates, Architects and Engineers, Toronto, overall project planning and design. De Leuw Cather & Co. of Canada Limited, Consulting Engineers, Ottawa, traffic engineering. Sasaki, Strong & Associates Ltd. Landscape Architects, Toronto, landscape design. Larry Smith & Co., Toronto and Washington, economics, marketing and real estate. Hart Massey, Architect, Ottawa, detailed design, war memorial area.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION-INDUSTRIAL SITES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What industrial sites have been developed by the National Capital Commission and where are they located?
2.	Of these sites, how many have been sold or otherwise disposed of, since April 23, 1963?
3.	To whom have they been sold or otherwise disposed of?
4.	What was the price and/or other terms attendant upon such sale or disposal in each case?


George James McIlraith: 1. Four industrial areas have been developed by the National Capital Commission. They are: (a) Belfast Road, Registered Plan 725, east of the new Ottawa Station, south of the Queensway, west of St. Laurent Boulevard, City of Ottawa, (b) Coventry Road, Registered Plan 747, east of the new Ottawa
Questions
Station, north of the Queensway, west of St. Laurent Boulevard, City of Ottawa, (c) Sheffield Road, Registered Plan 783, adjacent to east limits City of Ottawa, south of Innes Road, north of Walkley Road, (d) Bell's Corners, west side of Moodie Drive, north of Highway No. 15 and No. 7, Township of Nepean.
2.	Of these sites, 25 parcels have been sold or otherwise disposed of, since April 23, 1963.
3.	The sites were sold to: Gamble Robinson; Boyd Moving and Storage Limited; Ivor Chandler and Sons Limited; Electronic Materials of Canada Limited; Queensway Centre (Ottawa) Developments Limited; General Motors Products of Canada Limited; Ottawa Transportation Commission; Raport Fruit Company; Ledon Investments Limited; Baker Brothers Iron and Metal Company; Florence Realty Company Limited; Gould Cold Storage Company; National Grocers Company Limited; Langelier Limited; Red Line Taxi Company; Consumers Gas Company; Dominion Loose Leaf Company; Doran Construction Co. (1960) Limited; Beauregard Press Limited; Emco Limited; Sunshine Uniform Supply Company; Miron Freres Company; Bell Telephone Company of Canada; William Teron Limited; Royal Canadian Legion Br. 593.
4.	The price and/or other terms attendant upon such sale or disposal in each case is as follows:
Gamble Robinson, $27,248, terms-cash; Boyd Moving and Storage Ltd., $76,800, terms-cash; Ivor Chandler and Sons Ltd., $30,420, terms-cash; Electronic Materials of Canada Ltd., $24,000, terms- Agreement of Purchase and Sale $1,000 with agreement, $2,324 each and every year until 1 December 1975 unpaid balance at 6% per annum; Queensway Centre (Ottawa) Developments Limited, $153,000, terms-cash; General Motors Products of Canada, $131,436, terms-cash; Ottawa Transportation Commission, $30,253.50, terms-cash; Raport Fruit Company, $12,000, terms-cash; Ledon Investments, $33,900, terms-cash; Langelier Limited, $26,040, terms-cash; Red Line Taxi Company, $35,928, terms-cash; Consumers Gas Company, $87,500, terms-cash; Doran Construction Co. (1960) Ltd., $24,000, terms-cash; Beauregard Press Ltd., $24,750, terms-cash; Sunshine Uniform Supply Co., $41,250, terms-cash; Dominion Loose-Leaf

March 7, 1966
Questions
Company Ltd., $45,000, terms-cash; Emco Limited, $57,360, terms-cash; Florence Realty Company Ltd., $36,000, terms-cash; Baker Brothers Iron and Metal Co. Ltd., $35,718, terms-cash; Gould Cold Storage Company, $36,680, terms-cash; National Grocers Co. Ltd., $60,000, terms-cash; Miron Freres Company, $45,690, terms-cash; Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, $38,200, terms-cash; William Teron Limited, $22,650, terms-cash; Royal Canadian Legion Branch 593, $28,357, terms-cash.


ST. VICTOR DE BEAUCE-WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Caouette: What amounts has the government paid in 1964 and 1965, to the municipality of St. Victor de Beauce for winter works?


John Carr Munro: Payments were made to the province of Quebec on behalf of the municipality of St. Victor de Beauce as follows: 1964, $9,553.24: 1965, $17,240.48.


'SPORTS-SALE OF TELEVISION FOOTBALL RIGHTS
Mr. Basford: Will the government examine the situation with regard to the sale of television football rights by the eastern and western conferences to assure that the matter is settled well before the start of the Canadian conference games?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the disposition of television rights for the Canadian Football League is not a matter which falls under the purview of the government. However, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is holding preliminary discussions on this subject with other interested parties and that the corporation, for its part, is making every effort to bring about a solution. It is my further understanding that to this point there has been no final disposition of the rights as between the vendor of them and any purchaser.


NARCOTICS ADDICTION-B.C.-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Groos: 1. Has the government received, through the government of British Columbia, a brief from the Narcotic Addiction Foundation of British Columbia, dated July 1965, asking for federal assistance?

2. If so, what was the response of the federal government to this request?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. A brief was sent to the Department of National Health and Welfare for information. No federal assistance was requested.
2. See answer 1, above.


EXHIBITIONS-LOANS FOR BUILDINGS
Mr. Dube: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture or any officials of his department conferred this year with representatives of exhibition associations on the topic of long-term loans to exhibitions for the purpose of constructing multi-purpose buildings?
2.	If so, does the minister hope to propose legislation in this regard?


John James Greene: 1. Yes.
2. This is a matter of government policy and should a decision be taken to implement such a program, parliament will be advised in the usual manner.


FATAL ACCIDENTS AT RAILWAY CROSSINGS
Mr. Noble: How many fatal accidents occurred at railway crossings in Canada in 1964 and in 1965?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows: 1964, 154 fatalities; 1965, 150 fatalities.


FATALITIES FROM OPERATION OF FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 838
Mr. Noble:: How many deaths were the result of accidents involving farm equipment and farm machinery in 1964 and 1965?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In 1964, the number of deaths caused by machinery on farms was 113. Information for 1965 is not available.


TECHNIQUE IN USE OF INSTRUMENT OF ADVICE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1. When was the technique of an instrument of advice first used as a method whereby the Prime Minister of Canada might advise the Governor General with regard to the appointment of ministers
March 7, 1966

and privy councillors and the summoning of parliament?
2.	What was the technique previously used?
3.	Why was a change made?
4.	In respect of whose appointment was this technique first devised?
5.	In respect of what matters or appointments specifically is the technique of an instrument of advice now used to advise the Governor General?
6.	What is the accepted constitutional technique to advise the Governor General in respect of other matters?
7.	What is the constitutional or other reason for the differentiation between those matters upon which the Governor General is advised by instrument of advice and those in respect of which the advice is submitted in accordance with the answer to part 6?


John Ross Matheson: 1. For appointment of Minister and Privy Councillor: 17 Sept., 1953; for summoning of Parliament:
7 Oct., 1953.
2.	Minute of Council.
3.	The Minute of Council was considered inappropriate as a means of advising the Governor General on those matters on which the tendering of advice is the responsibility of the Prime Minister alone and not of the committee of the Privy Council.
4.	The Hon. Robert H. Winters as Minister of Public Works, and the Hon. Jean Lesage as member of the Privy Council and Minister of Resources and Development.
5.	Appointments to the Privy Council and to ministerial office; summoning of Parliament; dissolution of Parliament.
6.	A Minute of Council.
7.	See answer to 3 above.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-COLOUR TELECASTS
Mr. Allmand: 1.	Was an announcement made on Friday. February 25, 1966, that the C.B.C. will start colour telecasts on the English network for 30 hours per week starting on October 1,	1966, and on the
French network for 15 hours per week sometime during the fall?
2.	If so, how much of this colour programming, both in English and French will be produced in Montreal?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is yes. The C.B.C. issued a press release to this effect on February 25.
In reply to the second part, the C.B.C. advises that most of the estimated 15 hours
Orders for Returns
of French network colour programming plus some English network originations such as sports telecasts will be Montreal produced. The English network will have a greater volume of network and colour film imports available, making up perhaps two thirds of the 30 hours of English network colour programming. Canadian colour production by C.B.C. Montreal is expected to be approximately the same as that for C.B.C. Toronto. The corporation's Ottawa studio will originate a small portion of the colour programming for both networks.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the estimated cost to date of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism?
2.	What was the total cost of the most costly royal commission inquiry between 1945 and 1965?
3.	How many persons are employed full time by the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism'?
4.	How many are employed part time?
5.	How many of these employees are paid at the rate of $10,000 per year or more?
6.	What was the employment of each of these persons immediately prior to joining the staff of the commission?
7.	What qualifications did he or she show for the duties required with the commission?
Return tabled.


DAIRY STATISTICS
Mr. Vincent: 1.	In Canada, for the calendar year 1965, what was (a) the number of milk cows (b) the production per cow (c) the milk production and the fluid cream production, as a percentage of the total production?
2.	How much natural milk, as a percentage of the total production, was sold (a) per province, and (b) for the whole of Canada?
3.	How much milk per province was produced in 1965, as a percentage of the total Canadian production?
4.	How much milk, as a percentage of the total Canadian production, was used in 1965 with regard to (a) the sales of fluid milk (including the equivalent in milk of fluid cream) (b) the milk used on farms (including the milk given to cattle, the milk used for the making of farm butter, and milk for human consumption) (c) creamery butter (d) Cheddar cheese (e) the other cheeses (f) condensed milk products and (g) ice cream?
5.	For the calendar year 1965, what were the production and the distribution of creamery butter under the following headings (a) stocks as to

March 7, 1966
Orders for Returns
February 1 (b) production (c) imports (d) supplies (e) exports (f) national consumption (i) total consumption (ii) consumption per capita, and (g) wholesale price in Montreal.
6.	For the calendar year 1965, what were the production and distribution of Cheddar cheese under the following headings (a) stocks as to February 1 (b) production (c) imports (d) total supplies (e) exports (f) national consumption (i) total consumption (ii) per capita (g) wholesale price in Montreal?
7.	For the calendar year 1965, what were the production and the distribution of whole evaporated milk under the following headings (a) stocks as to February 1, 1966 (b) production (c) imports (d) total supplies (e) exports (f) national consumption (i) total consumption (ii) per capita consumption (g) wholesale price per case in Montreal?
8.	For the calendar year 1965, what were the production and the distribution of skim powdered milk under the following headings (a) stocks as to February 1, 1966 (b) production (c) imports (d) total supplies (e) exports (f) national consumption (i) total consumption (ii) per capita consumption (g) wholesale price in Montreal (cents per pound)?
9.	What is the average price which farmers have received on the farm, during the calendar year 1965, for the following products (a) fluid milk (in dollars per hundred pounds) (b) creamery butter fat (in cents per pound) (c) milk intended for the condensing and making of ice-cream (in dollars per hundred pounds), (d) milk for cheese (in dollars per hundred pounds) and (e) all categories of milk (in dollars per hundred pounds)?
10.	What cash income did farmers receive from the sale of byproducts of the dairy industry during the calendar year 1965, under the following headings (a) total income (b) sales of fluid milk products (c) creamery butter fat (d) milk intended for the making of cheese (e) farm butter?
Return tabled.


COMMUNITY PASTURES, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many community pastures were there in 1965 in (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta?
2.	What is the name of each pasture, the federal electoral district in which it is located, and the year each opened since 1957?
3.	How many acres are fenced in each pasture?
4.	What was the total construction cost of each?
5.	What was the assessed carrying capacity of each for 1965?
6.	How many stock were pastured in each, in the year 1965?
7.	How many patrons used each pasture in 1965?
8.	How many pastures will be using artificial insemination in 1966?
9.	Do the local pasture committees have any control over this policy and, if so, how many objected?
Return tabled.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, PONTIAC AND TEMISCAMINGUE COUNTIES, QUE.
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	What projects under the winter works program have been accepted for this winter for (a) Pontiac county (b) Temiscamingue county, and what is their value?
2.	What was the total amount paid to each municipality, listed separately, of Pontiac county and of Temiscamingue county under the program last year?
3.	Have all the municipalities in these two counties been paid for winter works projects completed last year?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS PROGRAMS
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour informed the authorities in the provinces that the government of Canada would make financial contributions toward the cost of municipal winter works programs and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was an application received from the province of Nova Scotia for a contribution toward the cost of winter works projects and, if so, (a) what sum was requested for work in each of the several municipalities in Nova Scotia (b) what work was proposed in each municipality?
Return tabled.


TECHNICAL TRAINING PROGRAM PAYMENTS
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	During the last three years, what sums have been paid to each province under the technical training program?
2.	What are the criteria which determine the amount to be paid to each province?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking him if he would outline in general the views expressed by Canada in regard to Viet Nam. I should like to ask him whether, on the basis of the information which he has obtained but without revealing it, he can comment on the dire
March 7, 1966

and frightening statement made by the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Fulbright, to the effect that what is taking place now may very well lead to war with communist China.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will appreciate that, much as I would like to be able to deal fully with his question, it is not possible on the orders of the day to do so. In any event, as my talks with Mr. Rusk must necessarily be regarded as having been of a nature which cannot be fully disclosed, I cannot really answer the question in the detail I should like.
I may say that there were certain aspects of this problem which I frankly discussed with him, ten days ago. My main concern had to do with the Canadian proposition that there should be a negotiated settlement, and that the international control commission was the vehicle which I felt was more calculated to serve this purpose at the present time than the United Nations or any other available medium.
I think the Secretary of State agrees fully that the situation must be brought within the Geneva framework. I indicated some of the steps which Canada has taken to try and bring about understanding in this area along with our two colleague states on the commission. The observation made by Senator Fulbright was one which appeared in the press over the week end, and it undoubtedly covers an area which concerns not only Senator Fulbright but the government of the United States, as it must concern all people in the world at the present time.
I hope there will be an opportunity very soon for the external affairs committee to meet, and I hope my right hon. friend will understand if my answer does not satisfy his question. He will fully appreciate that our procedures as well as the circumstances of the question, important as it is, do not really offer me the opportunity to make a more extended reply.


VIET NAM-SENDING OF CANADIAN TROOPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my question did not get a more affable reply than it did get. I would ask the minister whether there is any foundation for the statement, made by one of the ministers of the cabinet in a television appearance the other evening, that Canada made its own policies

Inquiries of the Ministry and did not fall in line with those of the United States. Then the minister went on to say that Canada resisted being pressed into a position of supplying troops for Viet Nam.
Is there any foundation for that suggestion, particularly in view of the words of the communique, which would indicate that if that were so in the past it is not the case now?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Siale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that at the press conference on Saturday afternoon Secretary Rusk himself, without any prompting or questioning, volunteered the statement that the United States had not pressed and was not pressing Canada to occupy a role other than that on the commission. I can tell my right hon. friend, in view of what we have been endeavouring to do in this regard during the past three weeks, that I am sure it would not be in the interests of a negotiated settlement for anyone to press Canada to play a role other than the one we are now seeking to maintain on the international control commission.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the announcement that the Studebaker company will be closing its auto manufacturing plant in Hamilton, I should like to ask the minister two questions. First of all, has he looked into the reasons for the proposed discontinuance of the company's operations? Second, are the reasons in any way connected either with the United States economic guide lines or with the Canada-United States auto agreement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a preliminary look into this problem and have been able to find no evidence whatever that the decision taken by Studebaker to close its operations in Hamilton was in any way related to the operation of the United States guide lines. Second, so far as the automobile agreement with the United States is concerned, it would appear that the effect of this agreement has largely been to enable Studebaker to continue its operations longer than might otherwise have been the case.
March 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
I may say that, seized with the problems of facing Hamilton in this particular situation, the Department of Industry is urgently canvassing the possibilities of alternative industrial use for this plant. At the same time my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is urgently undertaking a survey of the proposed release of men by Studebaker with a view to formulating some constructive proposal.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry. I wonder whether the minister would give his comments on the suggestion made in the telegram received by the government today from the mayor of Hamilton to the effect that the government consider taking over this industry as a national industry. Further, what action is the government specifically contemplating in the way of adjustments under the T.A.B. arrangements similar to those which are received by other auto workers.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the mayor of Hamilton is an interesting one. Perhaps I would be misleading the house if I were to indicate that there was any likelihood that the government would nationalize this particular concern. In so far as the arrangements under T.A.B. are concerned, this is largely the purpose of the survey which is being carried out by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to elaborate on that question by asking the minister when a decision on this question could be made by the government, because it does involve between 600 and 900 men who will become unemployed in Hamilton.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has acted with considerable speed and vigour.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in his capacity as minister of manpower. Is the minister prepared to meet, or has he made arrangements to meet, with representatives of the auto workers employed in the Studebaker plant to discuss the placement of these displaced workers, and particularly the placement of

those auto workers who, because of their age, will find it difficult to obtain other employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that when the hon. member for Hamilton West was asking his question the translation system was not operative. This is the report I have received from the table and I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question again.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That is the same information I received, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as designate minister of manpower. Is he prepared to meet, or is he going to meet with representatives of the employees at the Studebaker plant in Hamilton to discuss the placement of these auto workers, and especially to deal with the placement of those who, because of age, will find it difficult to obtain other employment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the N.E.S. is already in contact with the company and the unions. We are sending somebody from Toronto today to meet with the unions and the company, and to solve as many problems as we can at this stage.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a somewhat supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the frequency with which these lay-offs are taking place would the minister give serious consideration to the setting up of machinery for prior consultation before plants dismiss their employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Last Friday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) surprised the whole house when he brought out the Munsinger case.
In the interest of justice and truth, does the Prime Minister intend to tell parliament all
March 7, 1966

he knows about the Munsinger case, so that we might know if the security of the state was in danger or only that of the former minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the order of business for the house today will be to go into committee of supply to consider the estimates of the Department of Justice, which I hope will take place very shortly. I suggest that question might be asked of the minister at that time by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr, Caouette:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
It seems to me that the Chair allowed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to ask similar questions about the Spencer case, and now I would not have the same rights as the Leader of the Opposition to ask similar questions?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair must give a ruling in each particular case. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve, the Chair feels that it could be dealt with when the department's estimates are considered.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the meetings now taking place in Paris between the ten great financial powers of the world. Would the Minister of Finance inform us who are the members of the Canadian delegation to this meeting, and what is their policy as it relates to the maintenance of the status quo, the new suggested gold policy, or some other alternative.


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


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING-STEPS TO OVERCOME DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Did the Minister of Finance outline to the United States ministers conference in Washington at the end of last week the definite steps which Canada proposes to take now, to overcome the $1.4 billion current account deficit which this country has with the United States, as outlined by Dr. Andrew Brimmer, Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce, when he spoke in Toronto last week?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you answer a question of that kind on orders of the day. The United States is very well aware of the policies of Canada in the field of trade. The United States knows that, in contrast to the policies which have been followed in the past by the previous administration, we made a very successful effort in reducing our balance of payments deficit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: -while increasing the prosperity of the country, and today Canada's dollar is stronger than it was then.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that our current account deficit with the United States is greater than their current account deficit with the whole world, has the minister asked the United States government to understand the magnitude of our problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now entering into argument with the minister.


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did the minister point out to the secretary for commerce of the United States, with whom he was talking during the weekend, that Canada's deficit in commodity trade with the United States in 1965 amounted to more than $1 billion, a figure which increased by $300 million during the last year, and did he outline the steps he was taking to overcome this shocking situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not asking a question. He is making a speech.
2286	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON BILINGUALISM-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will consider holding consultations with the civil service staff organizations before he and his colleagues reach a final decision in relation to the report of the interdepartmental committee on bilingualism in the public service.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend knows that the interdepartmental committee had consultations with all those concerned. Its report is now before the government. I would be very glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion.



REPORTED STATEMENTS BY MINES MINISTER RESPECTING BILINGUALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Defence I believe. In view of statements made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to the effect that all recruits to the civil service will have to be bilingual, is it the intention of the Minister of National Defence to issue the same directives with regard to recruits for the armed forces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I rise on a point of personal privilege. I should like to say some words to the hon. member on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister stating government policy, when he said, as he is reported to have said, that civil servants in western Canada who have reached the top of their departments in that area will not be eligible for senior positions in Ottawa unless they are bilingual?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they refer to Beauchesne, citation 171, which is to the effect that a question, oral or written, must not refer to a speech made outside the house. In the case of a cabinet minister it is permissible to ask the Prime Minister whether such a speech represents the policy of the government. I do not

DEBATES	March 7. 1966
think the question, in the way it was asked, can be accepted at this time.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he say whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was stating government policy when he said, as was attributed to him, that civil servants from western Canada who have reached the top of their department in that area will not be eligible for senior positions in Ottawa unless they are bilingual.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister): The hon. member referred to a statement alleged to have been made by the minister. Naturally I am not going to comment at this time, until I confirm that statement. It may not have been said.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister?
Could he tell us whether consultations took place among cabinet members before he contradicted himself a second time Friday and disowned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and a few other ministers with regard to the Spencer case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is probably aware that he cannot put questions referring to consultations held among members of the cabinet.



GEORGE VICTOR SPENCER-REQUEST FOR TERMS OF REFERENCE OF INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask him if he is in a position to table a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry which he said on Friday would be set up in connection with the Spencer case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member would wait until we come to the estimates of the department concerned, when I shall have something to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question. My question is simply whether the Prime Minister is in a position to table the terms of reference; whether they have been set up and
March 7, 1966

whether we could see them today. This is very important with relation to the discussion later on the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the first question has been answered by the Prime Minister. I should like to follow up the suggestion I made a moment ago, that this type of question might be asked when the house resumes in committee of supply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think I am right in stating that documents cannot be tabled in committee. 1 think they can only be tabled in the house. That is why I asked whether the terms of reference are ready; and if so, whether they will be tabled now so that we can have them officially before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If such a statement is made, then the committee might decide at that time to rise, report progress, and table the document. At the moment this is purely hypothetical.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the order in council has been passed, and whether we can see the terms of reference today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question, and he is not entitled to insist, as he knows very well under the rules, on any specific reply. In fact, he is not entitled to receive a reply at all. I urge him to follow the suggestion I have made in this regard.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Calgary North asked a question with respect to conditions with respect to and the situation on the R.C.N. vessel Cape Scott, now in Brazilian waters. On Thursday, I indicated that I would give a reply today. As the hon. member knows, the Cape Scott is a mobile repair ship accompanying the fleet to provide the backup repair facilities required in extended manoeuvres.
According to temperature readings obtained from H.M.C.S. Cape Scott, the average below deck temperatures were about 12 degrees higher than the outside air temperatures while the ship was in harbour. The average high temperature for Rio for the month of February is 93 degrees, and in only one area 23033-145
Inquiries of the Ministry has the below deck temperature risen to above 110 degrees.


Mr. Nielsen:: How comfortable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Hot enough for the cabinet.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While operating in southern waters awnings have been rigged to reduce the heat built up by the sun's rays. The ship's hospital is equipped with an air conditioning unit and while the ship is at sea trade winds ease the temperature somewhat. The morale of the ship's crew is good.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house when the cabinet committee studying the Fowler report will be in a position to indicate which of the recommendations of that committee will be accepted by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if that is a question that can be answered at this time. The implication is not clear to the Chair, but it does appear to me that it is the type of question which should wait for a reply, and which should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This house being aware that the seal hunt begins today in the gulf, would the right hon. gentleman soothe our anxieties by denying the rumour that the Minister of Fisheries, who was with the hunters today, was skinned alive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which I
March 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry have given him notice. Is it the intention of the government to deprive 160 Canadian citizens who are employed as seamen on gypsum transportation vessels the right of participating in the Canada Pension Plan, while at the same time demanding that they pay Canadian income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to invite the hon. member to place this question on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as leader of the house. Has the government given any consideration to the statement made last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition, who said we had covered some 15 departments during our consideration of the estimates, and that in order to assure that supply would be available the official opposition would be prepared to give consent to the introduction of the necessary appropriation bill, and then give it first, second and third readings right away.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid the opposition house leader was under some misapprehension as to what the Leader of the Opposition did say on that occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Well, some of the newspapermen who wrote stories for today's papers were also under this same misapprehension.


An hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I have read it very carefully in the light of what was said. I have read it several times. In any event, Hansard now indicates that the departments which the Leader of the Opposition had in mind at the time were those which had already been passed. I had heard that, and I heard him say at one point that he included the other items in the Department of Justice except, presumably, item one. Then, at another point, I thought he intended to include the other departments not yet passed. Unfortunately, when I checked to inquire what was meant when this second reference was made, I was told it meant only the departments which had already been passed. This does not help materially to solve the very serious problems confronting the government with respect to


paying its accounts. The expenditures which are required to be made involve all the departments, particularly the Department of Public Works, as well as those already passed.


John George Diefenbaker: Call Public Works immediately this afternoon, so that you will not be troubled.


George James McIlraith: That was my request at five o'clock on Friday, and that was the request which was rejected.
In any event, rather than try to discuss the matter here in the house I would prefer to discuss it with the house leaders and consider what our position should be, because it seems to me the suggestion would not meet the problem. However, I will look into it and communicate with the other house leaders.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario about the matter of an appropriations bill, I want to ask the government house leader if he has been able to determine what date the appropriations bill is required, so that no salaries, wages or cheques for government services during the current month will be issued later than usual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I doubt whether this question is in order because the hon. member is asking for an interpretation of a statute, or for a legal opinion. On the other hand, I realize the importance of the matter, and if the hon. minister is prepared to reply to the question at this time I shall allow him to reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not ask.ng for an interpretation. This is a matter of mechanics and I hope the government house leader would know when some cheques may have to be withheld.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the strict
answer to the question is Friday of last week, but that involved relatively small amounts arising mainly out of certain payments to contractors for services rendered. Some of the service work, like cleaning and that sort of thing, is done under contract, and in some of the smaller cases payments have not been made to the contractors. Then, there is the question of casual help, which is spread about the country in different places, and some of this casual help may not have been paid.
March 7, 1966

When it comes to the main body of the civil service, or what we in Ottawa commonly refer to as the civil service, Wednesday of this week would be the latest possible moment before salaried civil servants would be injured. But long before that, and increasingly each day, other persons are being affected, many of them being people working for the government as casual, prevailing rate employees, or employees of these smaller types of contractors.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It arises from a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that mutually satisfactory arrangements concerning the S.E.C. would be made between the two countries, that is, between Canada and the United States. Does this imply that the federal government is now planning to set up some form of regulatory machinery in relation to a national security commission as recommended by the Porter commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: The mutually satisfactory arrangements referred to in the communique were mutually satisfactory arrangements concerning the United States law. We took very strong exception to the extraterritoriality of that law, and we are hopeful that this aspect will be removed.
We did not bargain about our own regulations, but we did say that it is our intention to support the passage here and in the provinces of whatever legislative action we have to take in order to ensure that Canadian securities regulations are satisfactory for us.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether he will order an immediate investigation by royal commission into the bizarre circumstances surrounding the trial and conviction of 14 year old Steven Truscott for rape and murder, so shockingly revealed in a book released by publishers McClelland 23033-145J
Inquiries of the Ministry and Stewart over the week end, in order to rectify what appears to be an astounding example of a miscarriage of justice in the courts of Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper, if it is in order. The Chair will have to look at the question before it is allowed to go on the order paper.


Richard Albert Bell: On a point of order. Would Your Honour at some stage in the future take under consideration the point of order which I raised earlier in relation to parliamentary secretaries making inquiries of members of the ministry?


Mr. Speaker:: I might tell the hon. member for Carleton that the Chair has taken that question under consideration. The point has been raised before. It seemed to the Chair, after looking at the precedents and relating our practice to the practice in Britain, that there is an essential difference between the office of parliamentary secretaries here and the position of parliamentary secretaries in the British house, where they are junior ministers.
I suggest to the hon. member that there is nothing in our rules, nothing in our precedents and nothing in our practice, to prevent parliamentary secretaries from asking questions, though I realize there may be a question of propriety in certain instances. This is as far as the Chair can go at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Are we, as parliamentary secretaries, to be deprived of our rights as sitting members of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he read the ruling I have just made when it is printed in Hansard. tomorrow.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the representations he received from the Royal Canadian Legion on November 25 and from other veterans' associations regarding the urgent need for an increase in war disability pensions. Has the
2290	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry right hon. gentleman replied to these representations, and if so would he indicate to the house the nature of his reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to check into that. It was last November. I will be very glad to table my reply when it is appropriate to do so.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: A supplementary question: Can the minister tell us whether the report of Hon. Mr. Justice Wood has yet been received and, if not when he expects it?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have made inquiries as a result of a question which was asked a few days ago. I am informed that Mr. Justice Wood expects to complete his hearings at the end of this month. I have no indication when the report will be completed, but this work is being done as quickly as possible.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this is consumer week and that the Prime Minister has personally endorsed it, is the right hon. gentleman planning any action this week to check the rising cost of living?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
give notice that I intend to raise this matter at ten o'clock.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister, since it raises the question of public confidence in the government, following the news reports on the radio at one o'clock today. Has the Prime Minister received a letter of resignation from the Minister of Justice, or been informed of his intention to resign?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

DEBATES	March 7. 1966



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Aihabasca):: I wish to direct a question to the eastern Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious crop failure in the Bonnyville district of Alberta, would the minister say whether in the last week he has received a request for assistance by way of acreage payments from the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we received any further request during the past week. I think we received only the original request from the provincial minister last December. However, I shall check, and if there has been any correspondence during the past week I shall let the hon. member know tomorrow.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that prevailing rate employees at H.M.C. Dockyard in Halifax did not receive their T-4 slips prior to the end of February, as required by law? If he has been so informed, is the government giving any extension of time for them to file their 1965 income tax returns?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this situation but I shall be very glad to investigate it and communicate with the hon. member.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour if she or he can report briefly to the house regarding the labour dispute which has arisen between the C.B.C. and certain of its employees, resulting allegedly from the refusal of the corporation to bargain collectively with several unions which have been certified as bargaining agents?
March 7, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the question is very urgent.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order please. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate the urgency of the question by rephrasing it.


Richard Albert Bell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest, and I am sure the Minister of Labour will agree, it has very considerable urgency in that the present collective bargaining agreements have run out and there is grave danger of problems arising in the C.B.C.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On the question of urgency-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seems not very clear in what he is talking about, but if he is talking about matters which have arisen in connection with the C.B.C. in Quebec province, of course I am aware of these. That is the only question he asked me. He did not even mention where the labour trouble might be, and of course I could not know every place where there might be labour trouble.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. lady if she would report.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF ENGINEERING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a question which comes strictly within the rules. I regret I have not been able to send him notice because I have been sitting here in anticipation since the sitting commenced. Will the minister inform the house when he intends to table the 1965 report of the permanent engineering board on the Columbia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because the question is asked with so much charm, Mr. Speaker, I shall do it tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, this matter is now being seriously considered.']
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the great interest taken by Hon. Eric Kierans and the Quebec government in American decisions, does the minister or the government plan to report to the Quebec goverment, as soon as possible, on the results of recent meetings between Canadian and U.S. authorities and to communicate their confidence and their optimism to that provincial government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the hon. members have had the opportunity to look over the report which I read to the House this afternoon, but I will add, if I may, that I believe the suggestion to be worthy, and I will look into the situation.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he supply the house with the information he is alleged to have given Secretary Rusk, namely the amount by which Canadian agricultural aid to India will be increased?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated on Friday last, it is the intention of the Canadian government to provide assistance in addition to the total of $25 million that has been made available in accordance with the announcement of this February. The amount of additional aid will be substantial, and over and above this figure of $25 million.
There is soon to be a meeting perhaps in Washington when Canada and the United States hope that other countries, both wheat producing and non-wheat producing, will find it possible to join with us in giving the assistance which India so badly needs at this very critical period. We feel that the course we have taken is one that is calculated to encourage other countries to follow our example.
2292	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Reid Scott: As a supplementary question, can the minister inform the house whether or not he gave Secretary Rusk the precise amount by which the Canadian aid is to be increased, information which he has now denied us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I gave Secretary Rusk an indication of our intention, but as we have not finally agreed on the amount it was not possible to put it as precisely as my hon. friend suggests.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister say whether a request of very recent date has come from another Commonwealth country, Pakistan, for assistance of a similar kind, and what has been the response thereto?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now being seriously considered.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. Would the government consider setting up a joint committee of both houses to consider the matter of divorce legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question as I was coming into the house, and I can tell him we will certainly consider this matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? I should like to ask the minister whether he has yet made a favourable decision in respect of the proposed grain elevator extension at Prince Rupert.


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	March 7. 1966



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether, as a result of the ministerial meeting in Washington, the government now is in a position to establish geographical co-ordinates in order to delineate the base lines from which Canada's territorial waters and exclusive fishing zones may be measured.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations in connection with Canada's proposals with regard to the law of the sea were discussed two weeks ago in Washington. The government of the United States has not yet responded to the proposals we have made, but we do expect to hear from them shortly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether negotiations with all other countries have been completed, and is it only the negotiations with the government in Washington that have not been concluded?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government considers it would prefer, in Canadian interests, to wait until it has a response from the government of the United States before proceeding further with other governments.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister tell the house how many countries have not yet agreed to these base lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The particular proposal has just been put to the United States.



OATS AND BARLEY-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When may we expect an announcement with regard to the final accounting of the oats and barley pools of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board to arrive, as soon as he can dig himself out of Winnipeg.
March 7, 1966



WINNIPEG, MAN.-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it arises out of the answer just given by the Minister of Finance. In view of the very heavy costs being faced by Winnipeg and its environs as a result of the unprecedented storm over the week end, will the government consider making an offer to assist in paying these costs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend of course knows the normal procedure in these matters is for the municipalities to get in touch with the federal government first.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by Treasury Board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.


The Chairman:: On Friday when the committee rose the committee was discussing item 1. The hon. member for York South had moved an amendment thereto and later requested unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make clear, in view of the fact that the terms of reference have not been laid before the house and in view of the time which has elapsed, that my request for withdrawal is, with your permission, on the table until the terms of reference are seen by hon. members including myself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to satisfy the very legitimate interests of my hon. friend and other members of the committee in this and perhaps one or two other related matters.
I indicated to this committee last Friday, Mr. Chairman, that in light of the very considerable concern which has been expressed about the nature of the dismissal of George Victor Spencer from the public service and the resultant denial of his pension
Supply-J ustice
and other benefits because of the nature of the action taken by the Civil Service Commission, I would favour an inquiry into the nature of the dismissal, particularly because Mr. Spencer for the first time the day before asked for such an inquiry.
The committee may recall that I indicated then, because all we had was a telegram addressed to a member of the house signed by a lawyer in Vancouver and Mr. Spencer, that I would determine myself-having given the commitment myself-whether Mr. Spencer in fact sent the telegram, although I underline that I had no reason to doubt my hon. friend's word, and whether the telegram represented his view in respect of the inquiry. So, I talked to Mr. Spencer by telephone on Friday evening and asked him simply this question, whether the telegram which had been read into the record of the House of Commons, and his name as having signed it, were confirmed by him and whether he confirmed the request for an inquiry in the terms outlined in the telegram. He did confirm both his signature on the telegram and the wording of the telegram with regard to the inquiry that he requested.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, an order in council was passed this morning, the text of which I have now before me, having received it a very short time ago. I should like to read that order in council and then, if the committee gives unanimous consent, I will be very glad to table it. The pertinent parts of the order in council read:
(1)	that the Honourable Mr. Justice Dalton Court-right Wells, Toronto, Ontario, be appointed a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to make such investigation, as in his absolute discretion he deems necessary, into the complaints made by George Victor Spencer as set out in the following telegram of 4th March, 1966:
"I have had a long interview with Victor Spencer with the approval of his solicitor, Harry Rankin. Spencer wants an inquiry of his case, either a judicial inquiry or by parliamentary committee because he does not feel he has been fairly dealt with. His complaint is with the nature of his dismissal and the unfair deprivation of benefits associated with his job such as pension and insurance benefits. He has no complaint with the treatment he has received from the R.C.M.P. but on the contrary feels they have been most considerate with him. Mr. Harry Rankin has also authorized the sending of this telegram."
The order in council goes on, having quoted the message:
-and to report whether, in his opinion, Mr. Spencer has been dealt with fairly and, if not, what rectification appears to him to be fair;
(2)	that the procedure to be followed be in the absolute discretion of the Commissioner, including the power to hold the sessions in camera and to

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
adopt such procedures as the Commissioner considers appropriate for the protection of the security of Canada;
3.	that the Commissioner be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred upon him by section 11 of the Inquiries Act;
4.	that the Commissioner be authorized to sit at such times, and at such places as he may decide from time to time;
5.	that the Commissioner be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff and technical advisers as he may require at rates of remuneration and reimbursement approved by the Treasury Board; and
6.	that the Commissioner report to the Governor in Council with all reasonable dispatch.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the committee to table the document which I have just read into the record.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think our procedure might be more properly carried out if the unanimous consent of the house were requested when the Speaker is in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have the document before us as soon as possible in order to serve our purposes in the subsequent discussion. I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the proper procedure is to have it produced in the house. May I request that it be done at once, and the Speaker asked to return to the chair immediately for the purpose of allowing this document to be tabled.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I support the request the hon. member has made. We, also, would like to see these terms of reference as quickly as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would have saved time, Mr. Chairman, if they had been tabled earlier in the day.
Progress reported.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the order in council which has just been read into the record of the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the
Prime Minister have the leave of the house to table the document referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by Treasury Board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, vote No. 1, Department of Justice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would have been glad to have spared the committee that slight delay except that I received the order in council only a short time ago, found in it a slight typographical error and had to send it back to be retyped. I wanted to make sure that I read the retyped version before it was tabled, otherwise it could have been tabled, of course, on motions.
I think the order in council is very clear in the terms >of reference it sets out for the inquiry in question. It is limited in the sense that it emphasizes the employee-employer nature of the inquiry. I myself believe very strongly that it should be limited in this sense. It has been in our minds from the beginning that an ordinary royal commission or commission of inquiry in which security matters concerning this case could have been discussed, even in camera, and where there would be a number of people present, might be prejudicial to the security services of the state.
The Minister of Justice who I believe, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this matter has been scrupulously fair, honourable and correct in his desire to protect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the rights of the individual and the security of the state, has felt that such a limitation would be essential in regard to the security aspects concerned. I hold very strong views on this score myself. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the terms of reference are sufficiently wide to deal fairly with Mr. Spencer himself in the kind of request he has made. Indeed, Mr. Spencer has already given himself an inquiry by agreeing to appear on television, where in a very interesting, I think I can use that word, interview-


John George Diefenbaker: Was the government consulted on that?

March 7, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government was not consulted about this appearance in any way, shape or form and I was just as surprised when I heard about it as no doubt my right hon. friend was. But it was in Mr. Spencer's mind no doubt when he asked for this inquiry, because I have the text of what he said. He stated the following when speaking last night:
I asked for the inquiry because I thought that there were certain things that happened after I was fired that I did not quite like:
Then the questioner said:
In other words, you lost your pension rights and your health benefit rights and your insurance rights and your death benefit rights. Is that what you are referring to?
Mr. Spencer said "Yes". Mr. Spencer later in the interview was asked by the inquirer:
Do you feel that your rights have been violated as a Canadian citizen? Have your rights been violated?
And Mr. Spencer said "No." Those are his words, Mr. Chairman. There was a discussion about the terms of reference of such an inquiry on Friday afternoon in the committee, and I should like to read to the committee the words used in this connection by the hon. member for York South, who moved the amendment in question. I am quoting from page 2228 of Hansard of March 4 when the hon. member said:
It is certainly possible for a commissioner of inquiry to consider in camera the treatment of this man in respect of his insurance, pension and other benefits without affecting the security of Canada. It is certainly possible to give this man justice without affecting the security of Canada, particularly in an inquiry held in camera.
Later in the afternoon the hon. member for York South said this:
I think the terms of reference ought to be broad enough not merely to enable the judge sitting to say whether or not the action was legal. I do not have very grave doubts about that, anyway, and it is a very narrow thing. The terms of reference should be broad enough to enable the person making the inquiry to say whether, in his view, in all the circumstances of this case, what was done with respect to the insurance and pension was right, in terms of human and decent treatment of an employee of the government.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the terms of reference that I have tabled and read to the committee are so drawn as to give the commissioner an opportunity to inquire into this matter in the light of the words used by the hon. member for York South and give Mr. Spencer that kind of inquiry and that kind of 23033-146
Supply-Justice
protection. I believe that these terms of reference are such that the interests of justice will be served. While there have to be limitations on security investigations it is natural that an inquiry into the nature of his dismissal and the rights which he may claim have been prejudiced by that dismissal should lead into an inquiry into the nature of his offence. I do not believe that it does, and I do not believe it should, substitute the opinion of a commissioner for that of the Civil Service Commission. It should only determine whether the Civil Service Commission had a reasonable basis for its decision, which it made within the law, and as the result of that decision, Spencer was deprived of his job and certain superannuation rights.
Mr. Chairman, there is of course a wider issue in this particular matter that has been referred to on occasions during the discussions. In recent months there has been a good deal of controversy over the handling of security cases generally in this country. The result has been to throw some doubt on measures which have been established over the years to insure the protection of the national security-doubt not so much as to their effectiveness, because I believe myself they are effective, but doubt as to whether they afford adequate protection to the rights of individuals involved.
I should like in this regard to remind the house that on October 25, 1963, I and the then Minister of Justice announced a number of new procedures to apply to public servants whose duties required them to have access to secret and confidential information. I made quite a lengthy speech in the house on that occasion, and the then Minister of Justice made an even longer one. These procedures were put into effect after a most careful and exhaustive review of those which had been in effect up to that time; since 1947. Mr. Chairman, it is this wider aspect of the situation and the more general question of our security procedures that I want to deal with for a few moments.
We did attempt to deal with a certain category of public servants in October of 1963 in a way which would reconcile or balance, if you like, the rights of these individuals with the security of the state. We introduced procedures then, for the first time in our parliamentary history, which I think improved the effectiveness of this reconciliation by establishing a system of appeal against decisions, by establishing a procedure by which a person involved would first be informed that his security or reliability was in

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
doubt, and by giving him an opportunity to resolve that doubt.
Mr. Chairman, we then improved the effectiveness by also introducing a requirement to insure that a second look would always be taken by a separate body before a dismissal was finally decided upon. This second body was to be a board of review drawn from members of the interdepartmental security panel. Since 1963, Mr. Chairman, this procedure has worked effectively and well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, would the Prime Minister permit a question? I do not wish to interrupt his train of thought, but can he tell the committee how often that board has been used and why it was not effective in the Spencer case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot tell my hon. friend exactly how often it has been used because I would have to look that up, but this was a procedure designed to deal with members of the public service who had access to confidential and secret information, and who had to be given special clearance before they were given this kind of an appointment.
Mr. Spencer's case does not come within these procedures because of that fact, but his case, excluded as it was from this procedure, because of the nature of his employment and because of certain other considerations, raised a number of broader issues and has caused a good deal of broad public concern.
Mr. Chairman, the government feels strongly that its actions in the case of Mr. Spencer were correct and that he was treated fairly. It was on that basis we took the action which we have taken. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the government to insure that the public is satisfied that our security procedures on the whole and in general, covering all public servants and others, preserve that balance of national security and individual rights.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said in the house last Friday the time had come for a full and complete investigation to see whether our security measures are what they should be. I expressed that view in the past and, indeed, in debates we have had on the Spencer case I have said that a full examination of our security procedures is now desirable. My hon. friend, the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, has raised this at least once of which I know, on January 31, as recorded at page 434 of Hansard, and I believe on other occasions, when he referred to questions of security. In answer to his

query on the orders of the day, I believe on January 31, I indicated that I was concerned with the individual case but that I was also concerned that the inquiry might be extended to other cases, the examination of which might throw further light on our security matters generally. This has already been under discussion now for many weeks.
I should like to assure the members of this committee that in 1963, we took very seriously the request made by certain members and others outside the house that we go into the whole question of security in regard to confidential information and in regard to the attitudes-perhaps "attitudes" is the wrong word-the activities of security officers on university campuses and the like. We did spend a great deal of time on that with the result that in 1963 we brought in the changed procedures to which I have referred.
Just as we were concerned with these general security procedures and problems at that time, so are we concerned now with doubts about our security procedures generally. In the last month or so especially, indeed this goes back over a year, we have been giving careful consideration to the most appropriate means of re-examining these procedures in relation to the security problem that makes them necessary. Unfortunately there is a very real problem which does make security measures necessary.
We hope to introduce legislation shortly which will establish, among other things, the department of the Solicitor General under a minister who will have responsibility for the R.C.M.P. and for security matters. This will be a responsibility to which he will be able to give considerable time, because this increasingly important aspect of the work of the present Department of Justice will then become the responsibility of a separate minister. The new minister will be able to give much closer attention to these difficult problems than has been possible in the past. A high priority function of the new department will be to examine in detail the problems of espionage and subversive activities, and to determine how best to deal with them.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is also the question, which has been raised by nearly every member who has participated in the discussion, of section 50 of the Civil Service Act, under which Mr. Spencer was discharged, which does not provide for an appeal, and which was retained in the civil service legislation in 1962 by a
March 7, 1966

unanimous vote of this house. The civil service legislation will, I hope, shortly-and again I emphasize "I hope shortly"-be reviewed because of the desirability, indeed the necessity, of bringing in a bill to establish, among other things, collective bargaining inside the civil service, a bill which has been prepared. At that time I think it would be well for this parliament to consider not only collective bargaining in the civil service but the sections in the existing legislation, sections 50 and 60, which provide for dismissal of civil servants. This will be another occasion, and an important occasion, to discuss an important matter which has come up in the study of this particular case-the use of section 50 with regard to the dismissal of civil servants.
It is now about 20 years, Mr. Chairman, since a royal commission examined in detail a very serious wartime situation in Canada, one which threatened not only our own security but that of our allies. It was as a result of that inquiry into matters in this security field arising out of the war that most of our present security procedures were established. They have been under review since that time by successive governments and a number of changes have been made, I know, during these years in the light of changing circumstances; I have already mentioned one this afternoon.
In the intervening 20 years, peacetime years technically, so far as Canada was concerned, profound changes have taken place in international affairs, some of a very subtle nature and others quite obvious. Measures taken to deal with a situation prevalent at one time, say 20 years ago, have been shown on occasion to be inadequate or inappropriate to a later situation. Restrictive measures, such as those in the field of security, tend to have their own inertia and to prolong themselves without change after the reasons for their initial establishment may have changed.
We have been aware of this tendency, Mr. Chairman, as have no doubt governments which have preceded us, and we have attempted by continuous review of our procedures in the last three years, as well as by one very important change, to ensure that the procedures which were in operation were appropriate to the conditions of the moment. But by the very nature of the problem based on the fear of subversive action from within our own borders,-and unfortunately there is reason still for that fear-it is immensely difficult to adjust such procedures to the
23033-146J
Supply-Justice
subtly shifting concerns and desires of the people of this country in whose interests such procedures were established. Therefore I repeat that it is desirable that they should be subjected periodically to close examination by an outside objective authority.
Dealing as we are with a matter of national security, which transcends parliamentary and party considerations in the security sense but not in the individual freedom sense, I hope that any approach to this problem in the general field as to what we should do now, in the light of our experience over the years, in national security procedures, should be something on which we in this house would find general agreement.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the public concern which has been expressed, not only over a particular case but over the general situation, and in order to assist the Solicitor General in his particular and new responsibility, the government has decided to institute a judicial inquiry, but not into any particular case. This has been done already through the order in council in connection with the case before the committee. The inquiry will be into the operation of our security procedures generally, with a view to ascertaining firstly whether they are now adequate in light of present circumstances for the protection of the state against subversive action; secondly, whether they sufficiently protect the rights of private individuals in any investigations which are made under existing procedures.
I would not, Mr. Chairman, nor would this committee, desire such an inquiry to be considered in any way a reflection of the present conduct of security investigations. On the contrary, I believe that in addition to reassuring the public in this matter, it would confirm that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act in this field with great care and great efficiency.
Having taken a decision of this kind in principle, Mr. Chairman, we now have to decide how to implement that decision most effectively by deciding on the nature and the form of such an inquiry. Announcements will be made on that score, Mr. Chairman, without delay. In working out the terms of reference of an inquiry of this kind dealing with national security and security procedures, perhaps it would be desirable for a representative of the government to consult with representatives of other parties to see whether agreement could be reached on the terms of reference to cover this wider question.

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
The Spencer case with which we have been dealing and which has received so much publicity is only one of many cases which would be relevant, of course, to such a study so far as the procedures adopted in the case were concerned. Many others have occurred since security became a problem. I feel quite certain that any commissioner who was appointed to look into this matter would naturally wish to go as far back as he might want to go in order to ascertain the procedures of the past. Then he could decide how they should be changed, in light of the experience gained over the last 15 to 20 years, to be brought into line with the requirements of the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister allow a question at this stage. Would this commission have the responsibility to go into individual cases, and would it have available to it the evidence given before the United States Senate sub-committee on security, which met in 1951 and 1952?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot speak for the commissioner but I am certain in my own mind that any terms of reference of a commission of this kind should make it possible for the commissioner to go into exactly the kind of thing my right hon. friend has mentioned. If there have been hearings held in Washington or London or any other foreign capital which affect Canada, or there are any documents bearing on our security procedures and problems, the commissioner should have the right to ask for them and to study them in camera. I myself have no feeling that he should be limited in any way as to how far back he might wish to go. That is my view of the nature of this kind of inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that on procedure? Is the Prime Minister saying there will be no limitation as to how far back he can go on the question of the procedures followed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right, Mr. Chairman, as well as the effect of these procedures; their adequacy or inadequacy in regard to the security problems of the time, and the responsibility of the government in carrying out these procedures.
I should think that the commission, or if it was one man, the commissioner, should have great discretion in this regard. The terms of reference, if this house agrees he should not be limited in any way by time or the nature of the inquiry as long as it bears on national

security procedures and the responsibility of the government for that very important national question.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to deal with two aspects of this question this afternoon. One, the immediate problem of Mr. Spencer and the kind of inquiry which I believe will meet the necessities of this particular case as they were outlined by me on Friday afternoon when I talked about the new element which had been introduced into this question when Mr. Spencer himself requested an inquiry. He himself laid down the kind of inquiry he would desire to have and he repeated that last night. This would be inquiry into the employee-employer relationship, the nature of the dismissal, and matters which the commissioner would have to look into in order to determine whether the nature of his dismissal inflicted any wrong on him.
Then, the other question, Mr. Chairman, is the general question of national security procedures and what might be done in regard to investigation into that whole, very important field.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in the last few days we have witnessed a change of front and of attitude that gives added weight to the sovereignty of parliament, and the effect of parliament upon a government which, up to the present time, has shown no signs of accepting the suggestions of the opposition.
I say at once that in the field of security the responsibility that rests on the Prime Minister is a great one. If, a few days ago, or at any time during the past two weeks the Prime Minister had taken the stand which he today adopts with such equanimity, and which he and his ministers opposed with such harshness, the debates would not have been as acrid as they have been. However, I want to say that these things were requested by the opposition. They were ridiculed out of hand. These requests were answered by successive ministers speaking for the government, including the Prime Minister, with derision and contempt. But all these things are over.
On Friday, minister after minister stood up and said, "Never, never, never will a judicial inquiry be permitted." "Jamais, jamais, jamais" was the answer on Friday. On Friday three ministers stood up and said "Never, under any circumstances would there be any inquiries permitted or allowed."
March 7, 1966

Mr. Chairman, not since Saul's journey to Damascus has parliament seen such a welcomed conversion.
I know that it will be embarrassing to the Minister of Justice after he said, "Here I stand." He said, "No change will be made in any circumstances; we are right." The Prime Minister had taken the same stand. Along came the Solicitor General who, with a suavity that appeals to me greatly, spoke against anything being done. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a very brilliant contribution, and ended up by agreeing with the government and the stand that it had taken. I welcome this change of heart from the Prime Minister to the youngest of the cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It just shows the power of parliament to convert what appeared to be the unconvertible, and to bring about such a change of heart that even the President of the Privy Council must marvel. As for the Minister of Justice, I feel very keenly for him, because he stood where the government stood. He stood absolutely firmly and said, "Never." When he went to sit down, the Prime Minister had removed the chair. Everything that he said-and he followed the Prime Minister meekly in this-and that the other ministers said, today is cast overboard. Common sense has taken the place of stubbornness and absolute stupidity.
I want to make one further reference, and it is this: I cannot understand the endeavour to blackmail the opposition. That is what it was.


Mr. Churchill:: Shameful.


John George Diefenbaker: The President of the Privy Council some days ago told one of the hon. members sitting on this side of the house that if we pressed the Spencer case there would be a revelation relating to what took place during my administration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shameful.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. We shall have more to say about that.


An hon. Member:: Terrible.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice looked over at me and said, in effect, "We will fix you." Threats and intimidation, Mr. Chairman, do not work. We do not scare easily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-J ustice


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, for the past two or three weeks the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: Well now-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is this a question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor. Is the Minister going into another of these tirades? I have that fear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no privilege going back two or three weeks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of Justice rises on a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, for the past two or three weeks the right hon. gentleman and others on the other side of the house have been making insinuations of all types to the effect that this government was hiding something from the people, and that we have acted in a wrong way. Hon. members opposite have been making insinuations of that sort continuously.
No one on the opposite side of the house, or on this side, ever mentioned anything about blackmail. I have during the course of the debate just asked that the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -explain his part-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -and go home.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair is not able to discern any question of privilege in the minister's remarks. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, he
thought by that-and the threat was made over and over again as to what they were going to do-that they were going to close our mouths. Let me make this statement unequivocally: in no case, and I am naturally bound by my oath as a privy councillor -which apparently did not apply to the Minister of Justice-was there ever any breach of security in this nation in any case referred to or conjured up by him. Second, there was no danger to national security, and I will go into that tonight, in anything that took place.

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
I would have to deal with some of the criticism of those of us who have responsibilities regarding certain of the procedures that took place.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am not now dealing with procedures in the detection of wrongdoing. One of the things which has to be examined is the whole matter of wire-tapping, telephone tapping, if this is taking place. I read in the papers that the R.C.M.P. had a secret camera ensconced in some of the lights, and brought about pictures I have never heard of before. I do say this: if that kind of thing is going on, it needs to be looked into and carefully expunged.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What year was that?


John George Diefenbaker: What does the hon.
gentleman say now, by insinuation?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: When was that?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the minister is the man who dropped the insinuation and began the cowardly attack he made. Now, he has to run. Never in the years I have been in the House of Commons have I seen ministers placed in such positions as they are placed in today since the complete turnabout on the part of the Prime Minister. I welcome what has been achieved. We fought for it. We were condemned. They thought by intimidation we could be kept quiet.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Just explain the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Explain? I say to the
Minister of Justice that all his explaining went out with the refuse today. There he stands, naked and unashamed, deprived of every argument he brought before this house. He said: "This is the position I will take, and no other." But the force of public opinion, the force of right, has brought about on the part of the Prime Minister the decision to take another course.
Last evening I heard Spencer. The Prime Minister said the government was not consulted in any way. I do not want to prejudge any case which might be taken against Spencer. But the mounted police, with the surveillance they placed over him, denied the hon. member for Vancouver East an opportunity to see this man.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They did not.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what he says, and he is the one who knows. The Prime Minister does not know. The hon. member does. He tried for hours without success. Suddenly this

person who has been out of circulation for three months finds himself persona grata on the television screens of our country.
I add this: reformation, however late, is always welcome. The Minister of Justice said: "I am right. I know I am right. Nothing is going to change." Now it is changed. He was in this fight for ten days supporting the Prime Minister. Now, the Prime Minister in effect says: "Goodbye, Minister of Justice. Your views do not in any way bind me and as far as I am concerned we are going ahead with the necessary action."
It has been an incredible performance all the way along. I will always find it one of those rather unbelievable things-the Prime Minister on the telephone talking to the spy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is a spy, now, is he?


John George Diefenbaker: I never will understand that. I can only say I am glad to see that the power of argument is not lost in this chamber, that public opinion cannot be ostracized in this chamber. The government has antennae, and even if these do not work for a long while, these enable it to understand-after matters have been brought home, as this has been brought home. The government got the message that the people want the protection and preservation of their security. At the same time they want the maintenance of that degree of freedom which, while not denying security, will not prostitute the rights of citizens.
It is a difficult balance to achieve. To the Prime Minister, I say: I am glad that you saw the error of your ways so definitely and that you were not convinced either by the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice or by other ministers who spoke. Security is one thing which haunts the hours of a Prime Minister. The problem is before him at all times. I had but one principle when I occupied that position. It was this: there shall be no consideration given to anyone who would undermine the security of the state. That course, I followed. That course was the one which all of us, I believe, in the tradition of our parliamentary life, must follow. All I can say to those opposite who threatened is this, when blackmail failed, the government altered its position.


David Lewis: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that what the Prime Minister dealt with today were precisely the things which members on this side of the house have been asking about for some weeks. My
March 7, 1966

own leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, asked the first question on this subject way back on January 21.
While the Prime Minister was, of course, right in a literal sense when he said he had received no request from Spencer for a review of his case, I respectfully suggest that in the light of the correspondence which was tabled today, neither he nor any one of his colleagues had to be a genius in order to recognize that Spencer and his attorney were not satisfied. Indeed, the first letter which was tabled today, the letter dated December 21 and written by Mr. Spencer's solicitor to the personnel director of the post office, says:
I understand that Mr. Spencer has spoken to you on several occasions about being allowed to go on superannuation because of his health.
That was the first request made by Mr. Spencer to his superior. Later in this correspondence one finds letters from Mr. Rankin, the solicitor, to people in the Post Office Department and to people in the Privy Council office clearly indicating that Mr. Rankin, on behalf of Mr. Spencer, wanted to know the reasons for his dismissal. He would obviously not direct those questions if Mr. Spencer was entirely satisfied with the treatment he had received. I submit that a careful reading of those letters would have persuaded the government that Mr. Spencer was not satisfied.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It was not necessary for the government to wait for me, as happened in this case, or for any other member on this side of the chamber to get in touch with Mr. Spencer, through some solicitor in Vancouver, to find out what his wishes were. The government could have done that weeks ago. The Minister of Justice, through the R.C.M.P., could have found out weeks ago that Mr. Spencer wanted an inquiry, or that his solicitor was advising him to have an inquiry.
I must say it is an astonishing thing that not only did the government fail to make the simple inquiry I made last Wednesday but it insisted, every minister insisted, that there had been nothing wrong; that Mr. Spencer was happy, and that everything was going to be left as it was, no matter what. Then the Prime Minister on Friday last

and I do not for one moment question his statement-said that my reading of Mr. Spencer's telegram to me into the record was the first time he heard Mr. Spencer was dissatisfied. Undoubtedly that was so but, if it was so, it was the result of obvious incompetence, obvious
Supply-Justice
callousness on the part of members of the government or their advisers who could have found out that simple fact before I found it out last Thursday.
I cannot understand why that was not done, except it be the suggestion I made last Friday that the minister was so obsessed by an obstinate determination not to budge that his common sense left him at that point. If he had not been so obsessed, he could have acted in a proper and humane way.
I regretted very much, Mr. Chairman, some of the things the Prime Minister said in his remarks after he tabled the order in council. It seemed to me he arrogated to himself the right to lay down guide lines for Mr. Justice Wells to follow as commissioner under the order in council, and I submit the right hon. gentleman did not have the right to do that. It was not his business to tell the commissioner what he ought to do or how he should behave himself. It is the order in council that tells him what to do and how he is to behave. The right hon. gentleman had no right to lay down guide lines, and I am certain Mr. Justice Wells, who is a respected member of the bench in Ontario, will go by the order in council and not by any attempt by someone here to tell him what to do.
I submit that Mr. Justice Wells will not be able to do his job, the job that Mr. Spencer asks him to do, unless he makes some investigation into at least the reasons for Spencer's dismissal. It is not possible, as I suggested elsewhere, for Mr. Justice Wells to say whether the punishment fits the crime unless he can make an investigation which will show him, (a) what the crime was, and (b) the extent of the man's culpability in that crime, if there was any.
This is the simple proposition that I am sure was in the mind of the Governor in Council when the order in council was drafted.
I agree that parliament has prevailed in this. Public opinion has prevailed, and remembering that none is so zealous as the convert, I hope the government will proceed in similar cases when they arise in such a way that no one here will be able to criticize it.
I think the debate in the last number of days has been regrettable in many respects, and in some respects was a shameful one. Personal vindictiveness and personal attack have been followed by a return of personal vindictiveness and personal attack. The time

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
of this parliament was taken up with references and accusations which have nothing to do with the welfare of the people of Canada, or the welfare of people anywhere on this earth, which should be our job. It is regrettable to me as a member of the house that some of those exchanges took place. I hope they are now ended, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the order in council tabled by the right hon. Prime Minister, and the inquiry which he has undertaken to promulgate, will now end the recriminations, personal attacks and personal accusations to which we have been listening for some days, in my case with some shame and some very considerable regret that this kind of thing was happening in the parliament of Canada.
As to the inquiry into the procedures of our security system, that is something which our leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, will comment on when we see the order in council, or he will designate someone else from our party to do so. I will not say anything about it at this time.
I must say the order in council for the inquiry into Mr. Spencer's complaint, in my opinion gives Mr. Justice Wells all the authority he requires to make a thorough inquiry into that complaint. I took the trouble last night to ascertain once again by a long distance telephone call whether there was any change in the position taken by Mr. Spencer's solicitor, given in the language of the telegram which I read into the record on Friday. I was assured by a return long distance call that there was no change. As I read the order in council the government has said to Mr. Justice Wells, "Here in the language of Spencer himself is the complaint which he makes," and Mr. Justice Wells is given unlimited discretion to investigate that complaint.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, I would be merely destructive, negative, and would be wasting the time of this parliament if I did not say that the order in council and the terms of reference are such as to make it my duty to withdraw the motion which I moved.
I ask for the consent of the house to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are in no hurry about it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: No.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about Victor Spencer, who

was dismissed under section 50 on the Civil Service Act and after hearing the usual harangue of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who sought to crush others to prove that he alone was right, I suggest that we must point out in all frankness and in all fairness that it is due to the initiative of the leader of the New Democratic party that the Spencer case was drawn to the attention of this parliament on January 21, 1966. Only then did the Leader of the Opposition intervene. Today, he tries to give the impression that he is the great champion of Mr. Victor Spencer. Mr. Spencer was dismissed under section 50 which clearly stipulates that there is no right to appeal and, in view of the fact that section 50 was passed unanimously by the house, by the Conservative party as well as by all the others, I wonder why the Prime Minister reversed his stand, when the order in council-once again, I am sorry but I have just the English copy-reads as follows:

The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable Lester Bowles Pearson, the Prime Minister, advise
(1) that the Honourable Mr. Justice Dalton Courtright Wells, Toronto, Ontario, be appointed a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to make such investigation, as in his absolute discretion he deems necessary, into the complaints made by George Victor Spencer as set out in the following telegram of 4th March, 1966:

That telegram was read by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) last Friday.
Mr. Chairman, I am not against the Leader of the Official Opposition raising that matter, even trying to make political hay, in the name of justice in Canada, in the name of common sense, as he said earlier; the hon. member for York South says that abuse was hurled from both sides of the house and that the business of the house was delayed. I say that if such a situation exists with regard to the Spencer case, the opposition parties cannot be blamed, because the government itself is responsible.
The Minister of Justice spends three weeks stating that that he will not appoint a judge or a commission and will not change his mind, and the Prime Minister, about that matter, asserts: "No, Mr. Speaker, no commission will be established to study the Spencer case because it is closed". At a certain moment, on Friday, after standing up to the opposition for three weeks, the Prime Minister declares that a judge will be appointed to study the Spencer case.
March 7, 1966

Mr. Chairman, I say that the Prime Minister has led his Minister of Justice to the guillotine. It is the Prime Minister who is responsible for this situation, because he does not know how to make a decision when one is needed. He forgets that he is the Prime Minister of Canada and that he may no longer act like a mere diplomat. The Prime Minister must forget that he was a diplomat, he must devote his energies to making decisions.
In the Minister of Justice's place, Friday afternoon, I would simply have handed my resignation to the Prime Minister, because the latter had just placed him in an utterly intolerable situation. I did not understand the attitude of the Minister of Justice at that time.
That the Spencer case should crop up again today, that it should be decided to appoint a judge to investigate the facts, even going back to 15 or 20 years, to determine whether sabotage took place in 1944, 1951 or 1961, it is unthinkable that a Prime Minister should put on such a show at the expense of the Canadian people. We have already spent too much time on that matter and I hope those who are trying to make a political football out of the Spencer case will fail miserably.
We, in this group, want justice. We favour respect of human rights. We want a man implicated in something to have a chance to be heard. Until a man is proven guilty, we want him to have the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, this is not the case with Spencer, because after three weeks of debate and four weeks of questions on the order paper, there is a change of attitude.
It is not my intention to belabour the point. Nevertheless, if this situation is prevailing at present in parliament, the blame should not be put on the opposition but on the Prime Minister who could not take his own responsibilities at the proper time.
The other question in my mind is one mentioned Friday night by the Minister of Justice himself, the Munsinger affair. The Munsinger case was thrown like a charge, without warning, right here in the house, and no details were given. We ask for details. We do not know anything, but we hear all sorts of rumours about that. No charge should be made in this house without proof. Let this whole Munsinger matter be brought before the federal parliament. If there has been sabotage or spying, if ministers were involved, or a former minister of the previous government, as we hear it said in the corridors of parliament, let the light be made, but
Supply-J ustice
no one should make all sorts of accusations while talking through his hat. When one makes such a serious charge in front of all the members, one should at least have the courage to give details.
We want equal justice for all, not only for a small group here and there, but for all. If there are things to be revealed in the better interest of the nation, of the Canadian parliament, let them be revealed, let that accusation be cleared up.
I urge the Minister of Justice to do away with discretion. He made charges in connection with a so-called Munsinger case. I ask the Minister of Justice to enlighten us as he is supposed to know something about it. Let him rise and tell us what he knows about the Munsinger case. With regard to Mr. Spencer, he has the opportunity of pleading his case before a judge appointed by the cabinet. And, in that connection, I say to the Prime Minister that Section 50 of the Civil Service Act is pretty worthless. If this section 50 gives no recourse to an accused, let us repeal it; let us keep and use section 60, which gives a right of appeal to an employee who is dismissed from the civil service for certain reasons. Then we will not look ridiculous in the eyes of the Canadian people.
In concluding my remarks, I ask the right hon. Prime Minister to come to a decision in due time so that we may no longer consider that we have been taken in.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. member for Villeneuve. Would the hon. member for Villeneuve permit this question. I have had a debate with myself about modesty, but modesty has lost. The first question on the unnatural surveillance of Spencer was asked by the member for Royal on January 19, the first day on which questions were allowed. I do not care who receives the credit, but I think the record should be straight.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the situation in which we presently are in this house borders almost on the ridiculous. The estimates for the year practically past have been under debate now for several weeks. There is a financial crisis. There is not money to pay for the administration of government and the situation daily becomes more critical. There is no money for the civil servants, there is no money for the military, and there is no money for the pensioners.

March 7, 1966
Supply-Justice
The government stands in complete confusion, after weeks of resisting the demands of the opposition in justification of their position on the Spencer case. Then the Prime Minister chooses to capitulate completely, and in so doing has completely pulled the rug out from under the ministers who have, in making the case, ably carried out the argument of the government. At this point the words that the hon. leader of the official opposition has spoken, while they were hard, do present the actual situation in which we find ourselves.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I find that my sympathies in this situation rest with the three ministers who spoke last Friday and to whom reference has already been made. Certainly the case for the government's position prior to five o'clock last Friday was well presented by these men. In fact I am personally grateful to the hon. Solicitor General for his brevity in explaining the situation as he saw it. Certainly his contribution was most helpful, as was that of the hon. minister of manpower. These ministers, having done this, the picture changed completely because the Prime Minister chose to capitulate to the requests of the opposition. Even the hon. Minister of Justice presented a fairly clear case, which indicated that part of his argument was sound and well taken. If he had not lost his temper in the heat of debate, his position would have been stronger.
Today we find the government almost like a ship in a storm without a rudder. I believe that the general public of Canada are confused as they see the situation. I am not speaking as a lawyer because I am not a member of that profession. I must look at this situation through the eyes with which I believe most Canadian laymen see the situation. It makes one wonder just what is taking place within the ranks of the government at this time.
After all, Mr. Chairman, we have here a man, who, on his own confession, is a Communist collaborator, sympathizer, spy, or call him whatever you wish. He has not been charged with this offence by any member of the government. This is on his own confession. He does not even mind coming before the people of Canada and admitting it on a television program, as he did last night.
This is not a new case. It has been dealt with by four successive Ministers of Justice; first by the hon. member for Kamloops, who last Friday made a very worthwhile temperate and reasonable presentation in the house

of the case as he saw it; and by his successor Hon. Donald Fleming. The President of the Privy Council dealt with it when he was Minister of Justice and now the present Minister of Justice has taken charge of the case. He has been assisted by the Solicitor General since his new duties project him into a case such as that involving Mr. Spencer. In addition, Mr. Chairman, two commissioners of the R.C.M.P. have dealt with this case, Commissioner Harvison and Commissionei McClellan.
For the Prime Minister to take the stand that he has taken, in view of this, even in the face of the demands of the opposition, is something which I say verges on the ridiculous. Then, Mr. Chairman, the record of the previous Conservative government is such that if they had had this case to handle today, they would not have dealt with it in a way too much different from the way it was handled prior to last Friday.
Therefore we find a situation that is not only critical, but it is one to which we must return with a reasonable sense of responsibility in order that we may go on with the business of the house. I believe that the Spencer case is an example of bumbling by the government. We do not share the concern of the other opposition parties that there has been any attempt in this case to hide corruption or skulduggery behind the scenes. As far as we can see, even the words of Mr. Spencer himself, seem to deny this. Thus, we do not consider an inquiry into the firing procedures of Mr. Spencer to be anything but a minute part of the kind of investigation that has been previously demanded, unless we can be assured that the government will now investigate the whole area of crime, not only of crime but of subversion within this country; the impact of international crime and, yes, the question of corruption.
Unless this is done, Mr. Chairman, I do not see how the public of Canada will ever be satisfied or have any assurance that what is being done is the right thing. So, it would seem that it has become evident that in agreeing to this inquiry, the government have forced themselves into a corner where they will have to agree to the setting up of a commission to investigate crime in this country as it relates to every facet of those things that we read and hear about continually through our news media. It is not that we blame the government for the fact that there is crime in Canada. It is not that we blame
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
them for the fact that world communism might send its agents here to try and subvert some of our governmental employees. What we can and do blame them for is that in the face of continuing appeals from all parties for an investigation of crime in its wider aspects, they have refused to do so. Now they have capitulated in such a way that in my opinion, the ministers who are concerned with this case, particularly the Minister of Justice, has been placed in an untenable situation. It seems almost an impossibility now for the Minister of Justice to carry on and do the work expected of him, while maintaining the confidence of this house and the public.
I do not intend to belabour this matter any further, Mr. Chairman, but in two respected newspapers today there are comments which I believe should be drawn to the attention of the committee. I believe these comments to be indicative of the situation as the general public sees it, putting this matter in its correct perspective. In the first place I would quote very briefly from an editorial in today's Ottawa Journal. It begins in this way:
Whether Mr. Spencer had too little or too much justice is something we may learn now that the government has granted the inquiry it should have granted months ago.
The editorial says later:
What possessed the Prime Minister to telephone Mr. Spencer. It is all like a bad movie, a James Bond sillied for juveniles. The R.C.M.P. could have checked Mr. Spencer's wishes as to that telegram, or the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice; or, better still, the Deputy Postmaster General whose department is the only one concerned with Mr. Spencer's complaints.
Mr. Spencer's complaints are not about security or injustice, they are that he was fired by his employer for reasons about which he is not satisfied and on terms which do not satisfy him. The editorial continues:
But no, the Prime Minister himself phones this dubious character and invites Mr. Lewis to listen in-
I think we can be thankful that the hon. member for York South had the common sense to refuse such an invitation. The editorial continues:
-pitiful pantomime of the propriety and processes of government.
We don't know yet whether Mr. Pearson and his government have offended the human rights of a man at the bottom but they have certainly offended the public's right to expect that the men at the top will do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time.
Today's edition of the Globe and Mail contains an editorial that I believe is perti-
DEBATES	2305
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration nent and relevant as well at this time. It
says:
It is impossible to believe that any government would hush up such a scandal-that the Conservatives would have dared to conceal it or that the Liberals would continue the conspiracy of silence only to refer to the sensational story when they themselves were cornered in an embarrassing security debate. If such were the case, substance would be added to the charge of former Justice Minister E. Davie Fulton that Mr. Cardin was making an approach to blackmail.
The editorial says later:
The tragedy, of course, is that we cannot much longer afford such federal blood-letting. Almost no legislation has been passed in this session of our parliament; our government is running out of money and must beg for supply; our provincial governments gain muscle every day while the federal house dissipates its strength.
"When discords and quarrels and factions are carried openly and audaciously," wrote Francis Bacon, "it is a sign the reverence of government is lost."
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In such a time, said Bacon, men have need to 'pray for fair weather'. In March of 1966 we are indeed standing in such a need.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of these things the right hon. Prime Minister has chosen to capitulate to the demands of the opposition. I do not believe that should have been necessary. I believe the government had, in a lumbering way, presented its case. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has done this and the hon. member for York South has withdrawn his motion of censure, because that is, in effect, what it was. I think the only action left to us in this house now is to let these estimates pass for this year, so that the business of the government can be carried on with the estimates for the next fiscal year, as well as budget matters and many other items of importance being placed before us.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of what has transpired in the committee today, and the Prime Minister's statement, we withdraw our objection to the request that the motion be withdrawn.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed by the committee that the motion put forward be now withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,257,800.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 7, 1966
2306	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Michael Starr: Just one moment; let us not get over enthusiastic, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of members who would like to ask questions, and I know a member of this party would like to say a few words at the commencement of our consideration of vote 1. If I may make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you should take your time on item 1.


Richard Albert Bell: The minister is not here, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We do not want to pass his estimates before he arrives.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister is here.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, is it the hon. minister's intention to make an opening statement?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a short statement at this time. I will be receiving the estimates which are still in my office. I never thought that things would go so fast this afternoon.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate my predecessor, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), for the progress he achieved when he was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I should like also to pay special tribute to all the former Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration now sitting in this house-I think there are six. Of all ministers, I am probably the one most closely watched by his ancestors knowing that they are all men of distinction,
I am glad to pay tribute to them.
Now, as you know, the immigration branch will eventually become part of the department of manpower. In due course, we shall have the opportunity to discuss this aspect of the matter. For the present, concerning immigration, I should like to point out to the house that, last year, 142,000 immigrants entered Canada, an increase of probably 30 per cent over the previous year. According to figures just received for January, another increase of 30 per cent also is shown over January 1965.
There is no doubt that, for the development and growth of Canada, continuing immigration adequate to meet the needs of the labour market is essential.
Now, I do not wish to limit or restrict if you wish, the value of immigration to mere statistics, but the house may be interested in
[The Deputy Chairman.)

knowing that to bring an immigrant into the country costs approximately $100, while the investment value, that is, the money the immigrant brings with him to Canada, is approximately $1,000. That is to say, last year, the financial investments of immigrants are said to have reached $150 million.
Our immigration is surely not always what we would hope it to be, and for many reasons. As a matter of fact, we are unable to obtain all the skilled labour we would like at present, not through fanaticism or, let us say, owing to a predetermined policy, but because certain countries refuse or are reluctant to send immigrants to Canada. For instance, France rather frowns upon the immigration of its citizens. There is also the fact that we do not have an immigration office in every country of the world. And, finally, I must point out that, at this time, we are not the only country seeking skilled labour. Most European countries enjoy full employment and want to keep their skilled labour, and rightly so, but this obviously puts a limit on our immigration sources.
This is the first time I submit to this committee estimates which are already spent, and were spent by another minister, but nevertheless I shall readily accept the questions you may want to ask.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that the committee is crowded for time in the discussion of these estimates. No department of government could profit more from a thorough and exhaustive examination of its policies and practices, and from a clear directive by the government and parliament regarding its future activities. In my view, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has suffered from parliamentary neglect with the result that dedicated officers, unable to see in what direction the government and parliament wished the policies of the department to point, have been made to feel like orphans in the storm, not a few of them frustrated and enraged by the persistent shifts, and changes of emphasis in policy.
So, sir, the congratulations I offer to the minister on his maiden presentation of the estimates to parliament must be tempered by the recollection of the manner in which the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been slighted by the Prime Minister; I may say, even treated with disdain approaching scorn. One need only recall that in a period of only 40 months there have been six
March 7, 1966

Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration, three Deputy Ministers and one long time Acting Deputy Minister, to realize the handicaps under which the department has laboured. No one has had the opportunity to take firm command, to give force and direction to policies and practices.
Since this government took office there have been four ministers, one Acting Deputy Minister and two Deputy Ministers. The hon. member for Papineau held the portfolio for something like nine and a half months. Then the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was the incumbent for slightly over 16 months, after which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was vouchsafed only about five and a half months.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
These changes, sir, were not made in the interests of the department or in the interests of the advancement of immigration policy, but solely for partisan reasons in an attempt to solve internal problems within the Liberal Party. What sort of game of ministerial musical chairs is this to play in such a vitally important portfolio? Not one of the ministers, no matter how talented he might be, has been given the opportunity by the Prime Minister to become more than vaguely acquainted with the fringes of the department. It is even more significant that only the hon. member for Vancouver Centre actually believes in immigration as an instrument of national policy, and only he had the enthusiasm and the zeal to seek to formulate consistent policy for the department.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I have the gravest reservations about the absorption of the old Department of Citizenship and Immigration into a new department of manpower and the appointment of a new deputy minister. Far be it from me to object to the appointment of any individual on the ground of active participation in politics. I have never believed that political types should be eliminated from advancement, but the new deputy minister is a figure so controversial by nature, so prone to attract attack, so lacking in knowledge or understanding of immigration, that I confess to believing his appointment a grave mistake and a genuine blow to the public service of Canada.
However, more important than the personality of any individual is the proposed structure of the new department of manpower. When the establishing legislation is before the house I shall have considerable to say on this subject. I want to say only this now in
DEBATES	2307
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration an attempt at this late date to try to convince the Prime Minister that the submerging of immigration into what is basically a labour portfolio is a grave error in national policy.
From my own experience in the portfolio, I know that it was the Department of Labour which consistently and persistently brought pressures to bear to reduce immigration, to cut back, to hold down, and at a time when, in my view, the economy needed the stimulus of expanded immigration. Last year I had the privilege of visiting both New Zealand and Australia and spending considerable time with the ministers responsible for immigration in those countries, and much more time in detailed discussions with their departmental staffs. I was treated with the most exceptional courtesy in both countries, and therefore I hesitate to make any comparisons, certainly ones which would be invidious.
In New Zealand the immigration portfolio is an adjunct of the labour portfolio, both being held by a dynamic and very able minister, Mr. Tom Shand. But in retrospect I am unable to escape the feeling that immigration is much subdued as an instrument of national policy by comparison with Australia, where it is a separate portfolio. Of this I intend to have considerably more to say when the legislation is before the house.
One of the highly unfortunate by-products of this game of musical chairs with the portfolio of citizenship and immigration has been the delay in a white paper on immigration. I believe it was on December 31, 1964 at a press conference when the Prime Minister promised a white paper. He used these words:
I have asked the Minister to prepare a white paper on immigration policy, immigration administration and immigration procedures, telling what has been done and what is in process, and to have that available if at all possible-and I believe it is possible-at the beginning of the next session of parliament.
That next session has come and has been dissolved, Mr. Chairman, and we are well launched into the next session of parliament. Fifteen months have passed and still no white paper, though the Prime Minister was convinced that it could be ready before the opening of the last session.
The fault is not with the officials of the department. The fault is with the procession of ministers which we have had since December 31, 1964, and the long range interests of Canada have suffered, in my view, by the delays and the neglect in this regard.
2308	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
So far as the officials are concerned, Mr. Chairman, their files are bulging so full of material that they could produce a white paper in a fortnight. But no minister, and certainly not the cabinet, has taken the time to decide on policy; and so our immigration policy merely drifts.
A further by-product, of course, is the delay in revision of the Immigration Act itself. The former government enacted the new regulations as long ago as January 1962 and decided to postpone a general revision of the act itself until some experience with the regulations could be gained. There has been ample time to observe the new regulations in operation, and the time has come for the minister to proceed with a full scale revision of this obsolete, antediluvian Immigration Act.
This committee will be indulgent, of course, with the new minister today, but I say to him that it expects from him before the next year's estimates are considered the formulation and enunciation of a dynamic but stable long range immigration policy. Dynamic and forward-looking it must be. The development of this nation has suffered greatly from our timidity and vacillation in both immigration policy and immigration programming. In my view we must establish targets and objectives and refuse to be diverted from those targets and objectives by any or every economic breeze.
It is not enough, Mr. Chairman, for this country simply to pursue passive policies on immigration, and as and when our economy creates vacuums for jobs in the labour market which cannot be met internally to seek immigrant workers for such purposes. In terms of the present supply situation for immigrants, this approach tends to be self-defeating. A passive attraction of immigrants -a negative policy-simply does not enable Department of Citizenship and Immigration to compete for immigrants.
Canada has been built on the strength of immigrant people. Therefore, I say let us not be afraid to adopt a positive approach. I have said before in this house, and I will repeat it many times, that I believe the planning of our immigration policy can no longer be formulated on an annual basis. The "feast or famine" approach to immigration, the "tap on, tap off" approach, has been the curse of the department. These approaches will not produce a satisfactory flow of immigrants to Canada, particularly not from our traditional sources. What we need to do-and I earnestly

DEBATES	March 7. 1966
hope that the white paper will advocate this-is to set long range targets and objectives and to stick with them whatever the temporary domestic economic climate.
I have often stated publicly, and I now reiterate, my personal belief that our immigration policy should be based on an average flow equal to one per cent of the Canadian population per annum, with deviations therefrom in any year of not more than one quarter of I per cent. If we are to adopt this as a long range policy, then there is something to fight for in the department of immigration.
There is one further factor I should like to put before the minister as he takes over this portfolio. In my view it is the task of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to bring a warmhearted understanding to the cold print of immigration laws. Humanitarian and moral considerations are basic considerations to be respected and to be applied in the immigration administration. I think the fundamental task of any minister of immigration is to maintain a fair, impartial and nondiscriminatory administration, coupled-and I emphasize the word "coupled"-with a warm and sympathetic understanding of the basic human problems which are involved.
I hope that as one of the factors in achieving that objective, the minister will seek to extend greatly the authority and prerogatives of the immigration appeal board. In many ways an appeal to that board is now simply a farce. It should be made a real and genuine appeal with proper discretionary authority vested in the board. Unlike some people, I do not advocate the complete abandonment of ministerial discretion. At least a residuum of discretion should be maintained by the minister, for the simple reason that I have never seen any board, commission or civil servant, no matter how senior, who is prepared to stick its or his neck out as far as a politician frequently must and will do. I say that the total abandonment of ministerial discretion would lead to a more rigid, inflexible administration.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
One further matter relating to staff, Mr. Chairman. In my view the "on again, off again, gone again, Finnegan" nature, of our immigration policy has had a highly deleterious effect upon the morale of the department. Just as plans are prepared and ready, they are scrapped. It is a tribute to the dedication generally of the staff that wholesale departures of staff have been avoided.
March 7, 1966

I think that the overseas staff suffers from a major discrimination when compared with the overseas staff of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Trade and Commerce. I appeal to the minister to use his moral authority within the government to secure for his staff overseas at least the status and prestige enjoyed by the overseas staff of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I should say that the overseas staff is a dedicated staff. Since I ceased to be minister,
I have visited offices in many countries as an ordinary citizen and I have been universally impressed by the calibre of our officers. I hope it will not be invidious to say, that when I visited the office in Hong Kong in the month of September, due to the very great courtesy of the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I was tremendously impressed by the skill and intelligence under the most difficult circumstances of the staff. I was especially impressed by the fine, understanding leadership of their chief, Mr. Robert Wales. I should say that he and his staff are a credit to Canada.
The minister, sir, will have a more difficult time when his estimates are next before the house unless, in the meantime, he enunciates in a broad, decisive way, a genuine immigration policy for this country. Every day I am impressed by the role which recent immigrants have played in the enrichment of Canadian life and in the advancement of our culture. Each day I have been reminded of how new arrivals, filled with enthusiasm, energy, and the will to succeed have enriched our national life, expanded our Canadian traditions in fields such as science, education, the arts, yes-even in politics. Canada needs more, Mr. Chairman, of these people.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, may I ask the government house leader if he can tell us in what order he expects to bring up the balance of the estimates of the various departments?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have just had it drawn to my attention by the table that the item for the R.C.M.P. was omitted when the committee was considering estimates for the Department of Justice. Perhaps it might be as well, since that item was inadvertently omitted, to put it through now.
DEBATES	2309
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We want to proceed in this order, apart from that: finish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Then deal with the Departments of Health and Welfare, Public Works, the Secretary of State, and Fisheries.
I should like to now call the item that was inadvertently omitted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. One or two questions arise under that item.


Maurice Rinfret: In view of the fact that the house is proceeding to consider private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), finance-inquiry as to assistance to gold mining industry; the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), Canadian centennial-suggested restoration of grave of D'Arcy McGee.

The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska: Agriculture-dairy policy;

It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: That a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed as soon as possible to be called the "Joint Committee on Federal-Provincial Relations" to consider all reports dealing with federal-provincial matters in which this Parliament is interested, as for instance the reports of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, the Carter Commission and other similar commissions, so that the said Committee may make a study of such reports and of the evidence submitted thereto, and that the said Committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses, to report its recommendations from time to time, and to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary.
2310	COMMONS
Federal-Provincial Relations
Mr. Speaker, among the numerous problems that Canada must face and solve, one is of vital importance. It concerns the future of the Canadian federation.
Since 1867, the two great founding nations of our country and the other groups which came after, have shared an experience which should be analysed today.
Moreover, the federative system itself saw the central and provincial governments change, and that coexistence gave rise to new and controversial aspects in Canadian life.
That is why it is advisable to bring in the open now the grievances and difficulties which exist, so that we may look toward the future with more realism, understanding, efficiency and serenity.
This notice of motion involves Federal-Provincial relations and asks that they be studied, defined and directed. These Federal-Provincial relations are operative in the political, cultural, economic and fiscal fields.
On the political plane, Mr. Speaker, the political system itself is at stake.
The report of the royal commission on the constitutional problems in Quebec, the 1956 Tremblay report, in volume 2, part I, page 98, had this to say about federalism:
Federalism should consist in a system of association between states where the exercise of state powers is shared between two levels of government, co-ordinated with each other but not subordinated one to the other, with each one enjoying supreme powers in the field of activity assigned to it by the constitution.
The 1867 Constitution did not reflect, in several matters, the principles of true federalism, but gave birth instead to a near federalism.
The principles of a real federalism should contain the ten following characteristics: independent and equal governments; a clearly defined distribution of taxation powers; a balance of power between the different governments; the supremacy of the constitution; the impartiality of the courts; the expression of freedom and security; a pluralist conception of the common good; the bringing closer together of ethnic groups rather than their unification; residual powers left to the provinces; a Senate to which the provinces could also appoint members.
Now, the British North America Acts (1867 to 1965) are wrong on many points: the power given to Ottawa to disallow any provincial legislation; the granting of general legislating powers to Ottawa; letting Ottawa have vaguely defined and almost unlimited

DEBATES	March 7, 1966
powers of taxation; implicitly giving Ottawa the latitude to spend as it wishes; authorizing Ottawa to grant subsidies to the provinces; the overlapping of the parliamentary principle and the federative principle; having senators appointed exclusively by Ottawa; abandoning residual powers to Ottawa.
Those anomalies in the Canadian constitution have allowed the central government, in cases of war or economic depression, to channel into the hands of Ottawa most of the important powers and most fields of taxation, thus going against the spirit and the essence of a true federative system in this country. If we, in the federal Parliament are now asking for the creation of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, such parliamentary committee would, in a way, become a replica of the parliamentary committee on the constitution at Quebec. The house knows that for more than 18 months the Quebec government, conscious of the changes and of the difficulties which necessarily came about during the century the Canadian Federation has existed, established a parliamentary committee on the constitution and invited individuals, associations and various organizations to appear before that committee in order to explain the nature of their grievances and to suggest in all honesty appropriate remedies. And before this committee on the Constitution in Quebec, the people who appeared precisely emphasized the five political options being considered by one of the outstanding provinces of the Canadian Federation, namely, the province of Quebec, for its political future. While this province is affected by an upsurge of dynamism and restiveness, as far as I am concerned, this will enrich Canada as a whole, and while Quebec is carefully weighing the problems, it should be our duty in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, to take our responsibilities, we legislators of this house and the other place, so that we can enter into an open and free dialogue, in order to define clearly the different positions of federal-provincial relations which will envisage a more efficient and dynamic future for a Canada promised to many prosperous years.
The five following options were submitted to the committee on the constitution in Quebec City: Even though the report has not yet been published, it appears from the discussions that past experience, which I would term a status quo, has not given satisfaction to Quebec, to French Canada. This is the
March 7. 1966

negative aspect. We shall consider the positive aspect later on. It did not give satisfaction because of the anomalies in the wording itself of the B.N.A. Act and also because this whole experience, in all fairness, has made Quebec and French Canada the losers in several fields.
It should be kept in mind in 1966 that Quebec citizens only control 5 per cent of the economic activity of the whole country and that, in their own province, they only control 10 per cent of the activity of the province of Quebec, and in this bulwark of the French Canadian nation, they hold only 20 per cent of key jobs. Those are obvious and clear facts that can be proven as they were most abundantly before the committee on the Constitution in Quebec. As a result, the whole population-unless I am wrong-no longer will accept the maintenance of an unfair system we have known as political quasi-federalism.
Others spoke of the co-operative federalism. We know that in this house, some members became the advocates of this theory. What is, after all, co-operative federalism, which the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys recently called harmonious federalism. In short, it is the continuation of this quasi-federalism which Quebec does not consider for its political future, within the framework of a Canadian whole. Why? Because a revision of the Constitution, a literal and written adaptation of provisions according to the problems of 1966 is refused, and efforts are being made to restrict discussions of the problems and evolution of the country and of Quebec in this national whole and only at interministerial meetings and federal-provincial conferences. In other words, these important and serious problems, these political, constitutional, fiscal and economic problems should be left at the mercy of the succeeding governments in Ottawa, subject to the whims of politicians making up those governments.
Well, Quebec refuses to accept this blindly.
The associate states system was also raised before the committee on the Constitution. According to this system, there would be a state of Quebec and another state composed of the nine provinces and the two other territories; each would have absolute power in certain spheres and they would join only in rather general fields, such as banking and external relations.
Of course, this associate states option seems logical, but it does not seem to be accepted or even discussed with the nine English provinces.

Federal-Provincial Relations [DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
There is the other alternative of independence, where Quebec would withdraw from Confederation. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am for the time being opposed to this formula, for no one has yet established, neither Mr. Chaput, Mr. Bourgault, Mr. Jutras, Mr. Barbeau nor the others, that it would be to Quebec's advantage to secede from the rest of Canada, either on a short or a long term basis. Why secede when, throughout the whole world, with modern evolution, ties are multiplying within a single state, as also between different states?
There remains then the option for a new Canadian constitution that would give Canada a true federalism, a positive and bicultural federalism, which would imply for Quebec, because it is the stronghold of the French-Canadian people, a special status in certain spheres. Here are, Mr. Speaker, serious problems, current problems, contemporary problems, that should be discussed in this parliament instead of letting commissions outside parliament deal with them and adopt a definite position regarding an important situation.
There is also, in this committee, on the political level, the problem of the amendment of the constitution, the Fulton-Favreau formula, which has been agreed to by nine provinces and postponed indefinitely, after having been seemingly accepted by the Premier of Quebec.
At the meeting of this committee, the Quebec Minister of Justice could be invited to set forth his main grievances, so that we could see on what basis he objects to an amendment of the constitution.
The federal-provincial relations that the committee could consider would also extend to cultural relations. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has already filed its first report and the conclusions are expressed thus:
Canada ... is passing through the greatest crisis in its history. The source of the crisis lies in the province of Quebec.
This is not sham, Mr. Speaker. There is a serious crisis, and why? Because French Canadians in Quebec and outside Quebec feel deprived, they suffer from discrimination, they ask only for equal treatment throughout the whole country. They ask no favours, and, in spite of the recent claim of Miss Charlotte Whitton, former mayor of Ottawa, they are not seeking to dominate Canada, far from it; they only want to be treated on an equal
March 7, 1966

Federal-Provincial Relations footing, and it is in the province of Quebec that minorities are placed on an equal footing. Since 1867, our compatriots we like, the English Canadians, are treated on an equal footing; they are not made to pay double taxation for their own schools. But, in other provinces, French Canadians do not receive equal treatment. It started in 1871, when New Brunswick prohibited French tuition in the schools; then, Manitoba followed in 1892, and Ontario in 1917, through its Regulation No. 17. But, the province of Quebec never did anything like that.
Consideration should certainly be given to these problems right here in parliament, in order that Canadians sprung from the two main cultures, the two great founding nations, may feel at home everywhere in this vast country of ours and live with the feeling that we are all equal and brothers.
The economic aspect of our federal-provincial relations could also be discussed to advantage there. We received the first report- and there will be others-on economic matters, the report of the Economic Council of Canada. It seems that there will soon be published a report on the economic questions examined by the province of Quebec.
We know that in Canada, there are roughly five great economic areas. Canada is a vast territory. Due to its small population spread over such a vast territory, Canada has been a challenge to intelligent people who are faced with economic and industrial differences as well as varying amounts of natural resources.
That is why we should read those reports, call witnesses, discuss things together and assume our responsibilities in order precisely to find a modus vivendi to establish in our country, in every part of Canada, a stable and happy prosperity.
Finally, the federal-provincial relations could be analysed with regard to taxation. Once the legislators of our country have solved the problems of economic, political, constitutional and cultural relations, it will be necessary to set the basis of assessment with regard to priorities which will be established and understood between the various legislatures.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, such a committee is useful. I am quite aware that some hon. members might oppose it, but I believe that we have come to a crossroad of our life as a nation, and that nobody would have anything to lose by accepting the setting up of such a committee, so that we the representatives, may work together all across Canada toward

a clearer definition of our political, cultural, economic and financial thinking, in order to get ready for a constitutional conference, because some provinces are ready for such a discussion while we are not.


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with a lot of what has been said by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) but disagreeing with the resolution. In his far ranging address which offered a number of potential solutions to the problem, but that dealt very briefly with his notice of motion which specifically recommends that a joint committee be established to deal with subject matters already discussed by royal commissions. I think his proposal would simply involve a rehashing of work already done by royal commissions, and in that sense is unnecessary and redundant, even though many of the things which he said in his speech on the more general subject did make a lot of sense. However, I intend to deal with his notice of motion.
The fact that the problem is a serious one is generally agreed by members on both sides of the house. We have had notices of motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), demanding a white paper on the subject, by my distinguished colleague from St. John's West, dealing with the field of education, which is indirectly involved in the same general question, and by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). Therefore on both sides there is a consensus that this is a serious problem.
One of the cornerstones of the problem is that within our federal system, jurisdiction is either overlapping or in some measure confused. We really do not know where jurisdiction should lie in such matters as water resources, conservation and education, but we do know that decisive government action is required in these areas. However, there is dispute as to which level of government should take that action. In my view we will never get decisive government action from a meeting of minds of 11 representatives from 11 different governments. However optimistic we might be, I do not see how we can possibly hope that a consensus will be arrived at by dominion-provincial conference on a long term basis with respect to a wide range of subjects.
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
In the debate on the Speech from the Throne I expressed my misgivings about federal-provincial conferences, these ad hoc arrangements designed to deal with fundamental problems, and I still have those misgivings. I do not see how we can hope to resolve a lot of the problems associated with our federal system by such conferences, and in my view it is necessary that we try to clarify federal and provincial jurisdictions. We need to undertake a total view of the disposition of authority and responsibility, something I also mentioned in the Throne Speech debate.
It seems to me imperative that jurisdiction between the provincial and federal level be both separate and discrete, that is, discernible one from the other, and the concept of cooperative federalism, although it played an important role in a recent stage of our evolution, is one about which I have certain misgivings. I say that conditions of survival for a viable federal system involve certain prerequisites.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
In the first instance there must be a certain uniform pattern of distribution of authority between the provincial and federal governments. It is to me inconsistent with a viable federal system that certain authority will exist at the federal level, whereas that same authority in the case of a particular province would be undertaken by a particular province. This introduces an inconsistency in the distribution of power and one which I think in time will undermine the federal system. It is for this reason I have said outside the house, and would like to say inside the house, that I particularly am opposed to the concept of a special status for any province, and I would include of course the province of Quebec.
It seems to me the very concept of a special status will accomplish the very objective that the concept itself is trying to obviate; namely, the two nations theory. It seems to me that eventually two nations will result from applying the concept of special status.
Furthermore, it is heretical, in this sense, that so long as you accept the proposition of a special status for Quebec you are implying or directly saying that Quebec is the instrument, and must be the instrument, of the French-Canadian population of this country. That identification is anathema to me and it is heresy to any legitimate federalist, if I may be presumptious enough to go that far. It is a thing which worries me. I reject the idea that
DEBATES	2313
Federal-Provincial Relations somehow the expression of French Canadians must be in any way exclusively identified with the provincial government of the province of Quebec.
The second need for a viable federal system-and particularly of our own federal system-is of course the need for a re-distribution of authority between the federal and provincial governments to bring our federal system in line with 20th century problems. The distribution we are working under today applies to conditions which existed a long time ago. I have suggested that we should have a constitutional conference. I am not sure this is a sound suggestion,-it may prove to be traumatic-but certainly a constitutional committee of the house would make a great deal of sense to me to deal with this problem of the distribution of authority so that that authority can be placed clearly at one level. I am thinking of such things as the responsibility for water resources, air pollution and things of this nature.
Finally, I would like to deal with another dimension of this problem which I think in this house we have not discussed, because after all it is not a constitutional problem. It is our problem, namely, that in a viable federal system there must be a policy initiative at the federal level. I was interested in the remarks made by the member for Peace River when he discussed his particular notice of motion on February 14 at page 1182 of Hansard:
Let the government of Canada take the initiative for once. Let them be strong, decisive and resolute.
These are fine sentiments.
Who knows, they might even seize upon this as an opportunity to test the bold and excite the daring. I am sure if they do so they will secure from many members,-
I am assuming that applies to both sides of the house.
-certainly from me, such measure of support as they may require.
The fact of the matter is that was said sometime ago, almost a month ago. Since that time this house has been pre-occupied with last year's estimates. It seems to me to be inconsistent that the hon. member for Peace River can encourage the federal government in these terms to take an initiative in that direction which will excite the bold or challenge the daring, whichever way he put it, and at the same time persist in discussion of last year's estimates. This may be the assessment of a new and naive member, but it
March 7, 1966

Federal-Provincial Relations
seems to me this is totally inconsistent and that it is imperative-and again this may be presumptuous for a new member to suggest -that we progress with the legislative burden we have inherited, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) pointed out to this house this afternoon. It is wrong and hypocritical to admonish the government for failure to take initiative in policy matters when on the other side of the house there is a refusal to allow the government to get into that field. We know the legislation is ready.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that he now is straying away from the resolution which is before the house and which we should be considering at this time. I invite him to return to the subject matter of the motion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to define more clearly what he has in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor has not indicated his willingness to be asked a question at this time.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would receive the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you. I was very interested in some of the things the hon. member said with regard to pollution, because obviously I am very much involved in that. He said that the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the provincial governments could be defined very clearly in that field. I think he said that. Would he expand on this suggestion.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is not exactly what I said. What I intended to say is that it is necessary, for decisive legislative action in this field of pollution, that the jurisdiction be clarified and be precise. The reason I said that is I do not feel the consensus of eleven heads of government so-called is the best way to deal with these immediate problems, and that presently is how we are trying to do it. The brunt of my argument is that the legislative demands upon this house are such that we must have clear authority and clear jurisdiction. This is equally true at the provincial level. It seems to me the present motion does not really help us much in arriving at this goal which would be a sine qua non of a viable federal system.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one or two comments on this motion. First of all I would like to concur most heartily with the great amount of good sense and intelligent comment made by the previous speaker, except for the comment he made when he seemed to wander away from his sound good judgment. He previously has wandered more than once, because he still is sitting on that side of the house.
I want to speak very feelingly because, coming from the smallest province in this dominion, I know that we have participated in federal-provincial conferences which have tried to place a good deal of responsibility and decision making in the hands of a new institution. Earlier in this parliament it was recorded that we had something like 130 or more federal-provincial conferences last year. A small province such as Prince Edward Island finds it almost impossible-and indeed I would say impossible-to try to institute a new program, either in the field of welfare, community development, or perhaps education; it is difficult to institute these programs so that they will have equal value to a province the size of say, Ontario, and the province of Prince Edward Island.
I say it is impossible because we must realize there obviously must be a different kind of administrative set up for a small province than for a larger one, if both are to be effective. We have seen the kind of situation at federal-provincial conferences where the financial solution is adequately suited to the ability of the larger province but certainly not financially suited to a province like Prince Edward Island. In many cases it causes great harm.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
But it was assumed that by the implementation of these programs things would happen which really did not happen. It is therefore of great concern to me that there be appointed at the very earliest possible date some responsible body that would deal with this problem. I think it is most fitting and appropriate that such a body involve the parliamentarians of this country, because I believe there has been a great sense of helplessness on the part of the representatives of the various constituencies throughout this country in their being, shall I say relegated to the minor position of approving faits accom-plis on questions that have been grappled with, are on the threshold of implementation,
March 7, 1966

and then as a sort of an afterthought are presented to parliament.
Time and time again we find that decisions which have been arrived at months or even [DOT]years previously finally come before us in suggested legislation and are presented to this house for approval. In my opinion this is not the basic responsibility of the people's representatives. Surely then, we need to take a long, hard look at how we can restructure our relations and responsibilities both federally and provincially.
I think we should not fear change simply because its new and should not promote it simply because it is novel. Rather we should realize that much of the structures of government that were laid down almost 100 years ago now were laid down for an almost entirely different kind of world. The provinces did not then have nearly the kind of responsibilities which they have today, because in those days we were not able to communicate by word of mouth or be transported from one place to another in the way that is possible today. We are in a new age and we must not be hamstrung by decisions made by legislators in this house almost 100 years ago.
I think we must act, and act soon, or we shall make a mockery of the institution that we call parliament. I believe this very strongly, Mr. Speaker, because coming from a province in which in many ways we are still deprived of the rightful benefits that belong to a Canadian citizen, it is important to me that we face this question.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Anligonish- Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is couched in terms that would lead one to expect a little different type of debate.
I shall turn later to the motion before the house, for I think there is much in it that deserves some direct comment. Before doing that I wish to make some remarks in the vein of the debate up to this moment.
There has been a strong tendency of thought in some quarters to commend a unitary system of government while federalism is derided. The confusions and difficulties of federalism are called frequently to our attention.
I was very interested to listen to the concise and succinct remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald). I could not help thinking as he spoke that he comes from the one province in Canada which above all others should rejoice in our federal system and in the fact that we did not over the years

Federal-Provincial Relations become more and more unitary in our constitution. I suggest to you, sir, that if over the years our constitution had become more and more unitary we would have had an increasing concentration of economic wealth and political power in Quebec and Ontario. It has been federalism which has permitted the extremities of the country to some extent to counteract this pull toward the centre.
When I think of the Premier of Prince Edward Island coming as one of the 11 heads at a federal-provincial conference I can see the advantages to that province of the federal-provincial conference. Despite the small population of Prince Edward Island, the premier of that province is one among eleven. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the same is true of the premier of my own province. Those of us who come from the smaller provinces ought not to be too scornful of the institution of the federal-provincial conference. We ought not to yearn too much for the fleshpots of a unitary system of government.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn to the motion before us. It proposes the establishment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider all reports dealing with federal-provincial matters in which this parliament is interested. In other words, this joint committee is in a sense to prepare a report on reports. We are to be second-guessing the commissions established by the Governor General in Council. We are to prepare a more refined, a more sublime, a more elevated report; a report not to the Governor General in Council but, instead, to the two houses of parliament.
I do not think this would be a desirable undertaking. When a commission is established its membership is selected, presumably, on the basis of expertise and knowledge. The commissioners are supposed to know a great deal about one particular subject, finance, let us say, biculturalism, or some other topic. I do not see how we politicians, amateurs, can undertake to prepare a more refined report on their reports.
The second criticism I have of the motion is that we, by adopting it, would be establishing a kind of parliamentary study group. I assume that all members of the other place and this house read the reports prepared by the experts and examine them diligently. But why should we want to do additional and more recondite research? Under the motion
2316	COMMONS
Federal-Provincial Relations we are to have the power to call for persons, that is witnesses, papers and records and to examine those witnesses. We are to take the matter, in a sense, one more step in the process of refining. This would be very interesting for the members of such a joint committee-and if this motion should pass I want it recorded that I should like to be one of the members of the committee. It would be very edifying. But I do not think the establishment of the committee would be justified merely on the grounds of the edification of certain members of the other place and this house.
My third contention against the motion is that the establishment of such a committee would be contrary to the normal processes. These commissions are established by the government, by the Governor General in Council, and make their reports eventually to the Governor General in Council. The government is charged with the duty of governing; consequently, it has to decide what to do with the recommendations contained in a report from such a commission. It has to decide what action it should take independent of parliament, or, when parliamentary action is necessary, what action to recommend to this house and to the other place. That is the normal process; and I think it is the process that should be followed.
There is a tendency-we all slip into it from time to time-to think of ourselves in this house as being charged with a constitutional duty to govern the country. That is not a valid description of the constitutional position. The government of the day has that duty and responsibility. Our job here is to co-operate with the government in certain legislative activities and to act as a kind of board of auditors on the work of the government. We are not a congress. The government is not our executive to whom we give instructions. The government is not a body that we order to do things.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The government is charged with the job of governing. It comes to this house with certain requests for acts, certain bills, and we either co-operate or we do not co-operate. But we are not charged under our constitutional system with the work of a congress. I think this motion points toward what I would call con-gressionalism. It contains the assumption that we should set up a committee whose job it would be to take the initiative in these constitutional questions, important as they admittedly may be.

DEBATES	March 7, 1966
The final point I want to make is that even though this committee would be simply, in terms of the motion, a committee to consider all reports in the area of federal-provincial relations, it would, I think almost inevitably, as time went on, become a kind of constitutional convention developing within the two houses of parliament. I am not one to argue that a constitutional convention is absolutely undesirable, but that is another question. But if we do want a constitutional convention, I suggest we ask for it directly.
If we want a constitutional convention I think we should start by attempting, not in any great detail but with a considerable amount of frankness, to define its terms of reference. I do not think we should undertake to establish a constitutional convention indirectly in the guise of a committee set up to consider all reports dealing with federal-provincial matters.
I promised myself I would stick very closely to the terms of the motion before the house, but there is one obiter dictum that I cannot resist. I think the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was implying what I have in mind. It is all very nice to imagine that if we were to sit down to carve the constitutional pie anew, we would be able to do it neatly and cleanly and have a tidy division of power. I think that is just not going to happen. No matter whether we go on in our present pattern using the various devices that we now use, no matter whether we do have at some time a constitutional convention, things are not going to be done very much differently in so far as tidiness is concerned. We are going to have overlapping jurisdictions. We are going to have jurisdictions that interlock. The fabric of our national life from ocean to ocean is too closely interwoven for any easy delineation of the separate fibres. I say that, sir, by way of general comment on the debate brought on by this very interesting motion.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words so that I cannot be accused of killing this resolution. But here is what I should like to point out: we heard on both sides of the house arguments for a conference that would study anew the fundamentals of our constitution.
Reference has been made to co-operative federalism. However, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), pointed out, it has been rechristened a while ago, since the
March 7, 1966

Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) called it recently in Montreal the federalism of harmony.
It has not been too successful since its creation. Since co-operative federalism was conceived and created by the present government, I think there never have been so many discussions about the constitution as at present with the provinces.
When I heard earlier the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) say that he did not want Quebec to have a special status, I think that he misunderstands the meaning of a special status. I believe all the provinces, at some time or other in the last few years, have enjoyed a special status with regard to the central government. Any province wishing to withdraw from certain taxation fields was free to do so, and the province of Quebec, perhaps more than any other, often preferred to have the fiscal equivalent rather than participate in joint schemes administered by the federal government.
Is it recognition of a special status for Quebec in Education when Quebec claims the Federal government is not to intervene at all, and when, as is well known the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in education. This means that in exercising its exclusive rights in education, Quebec is respecting the constitution.
Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan could exercise the same option. When our English speaking members claim that under cooperative federalism, Quebec has been granted special status, I think they are mistaken.
Before time allotted to this motion runs out as I do not want to be charged with killing the motion of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I want to say that it is time the central and provincial governments meet once and for all, to discuss together constitutional differences they are faced with.
The constitution will soon be 100 years old; it has seldom been touched during its existence.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he really thinks our constitutional arrangements can be discussed and settled once and for all, or if that really is not just a kind of pious hope in which we all indulge? Does he think it is realistic?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, naturally a conference alone will not settle all our constitutional problems, but the very sug-
DEBATES	2317
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration gestion of the member for Sherbrooke for the formation of a joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate to study this question and the report on constitutional law is, in my opinion, an excellent way of beginning the study of the problems which concern the provinces and the federal government.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I wholly support the measure introduced by the hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

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


[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration, $1,257,800.
Reid Scott: Let the record show that there are no ministers present.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The cabinet has collapsed.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, do you know whether the cabinet knows that private members' hour ends at seven o'clock?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I believe there may have been some slight confusion caused by the fact that today the committee proceeded beyond six o'clock, I believe until about seven minutes after six.


Michael Starr: Very well.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention tonight to make a lengthy or detailed analysis of the department. After all, we are dealing with last year's estimates which to a large extent have been passed. We have a new minister, and I hope that in the near future this year's estimates will go before the standing committee which will be able to give the minister and the department the kind of searching examination that I think is long overdue.
I must say I was disappointed in the very general statement which the minister made. I had expected and I still expect some very excellent leadership from the minister. But I must tell him that the kind of speech he made has been made by every minister of citizenship and immigration appointed since I came to the house.
March 7, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Talking of ministers of citizenship and immigration, I could not help but be struck by the speech of the hon. member for Carleton, a former minister. What he said in effect, in his speech was: "Do as I say, but don't do as I did". If there was one thing which was characteristic of immigration policy while the hon. member for Carleton was minister, and also the minister who preceded him, it was the fact that they did not clear up any of the basic problems which the department faced then and still faces now. While I have not the figures here and do not want to precipitate a long and acrimonious debate on this department, the fact is that in the years in which the former government was in power we had some of the lowest rates of immigration that we have had in the last 25 years.
This was because to a large extent, I suppose, we had large scale unemployment. Naturally when you have large scale unemployment the people who have to work for a living are sometimes not too happy about immigration. They look on immigrants as prospective competitors for jobs. The way to get the co-operation of labour is to have full employment. Then the working people do not worry about immigrants who come to Canada and compete for jobs.
The tide has turned. Immigration figures are now up but not up to the level which, I suppose, many members would like to see. I think this is partly due to the fact that in Europe and those countries to which we have traditionally looked for immigrants there has been full employment for about the last ten years. Up until this year Canada had pretty heavy unemployment while Great Britain, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Belgium were experiencing prosperity with full employment. Therefore it has not been too easy to encourage people from those countries from which we have traditionally received the bulk of our immigrants. We have had to turn, and we have turned with some success, to countries such as Greece and Portugal for our immigrants.
I am not being critical in this regard. I think we ought to open the gates to immigrants from many countries who in past years we have seemed to discourage. But I am concerned about the fact that morally, and I think even legally, it is the responsibility of the federal government to bring people here. After all, the federal government encourages them to come to Canada. It is the federal government which has immigration offices in most countries in Europe, the

Middle East and Asia. It is the federal government which informs these people of the kind of living they can expect here. Yet having brought them here and encouraged them to come, once they arrive to a large extent they are forgotten.
I have before me an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for February 18,	1966 entitled "Victims Of
Language". It reads in part as follows:
An informal survey of Toronto secondary schools has uncovered evidence that immigrant children with language difficulties are being encouraged to leave school.
Then the editorial goes on to say a little further on:
As a consequence, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of boys and girls, many of them of university calibre, are succumbing to pressures to drop out. Whether the pressure originates in the family or in the school, whether it is overt or implicit, is immaterial. The fact remains that they are being denied the opportunities of a full education.
The editorial concludes by stating that the provincial and municipal governments have a responsibility to see that this kind of thing does not happen.
I suggest to the minister and the government that the federal government has a responsibility in this regard. I am not going to minimize the difficulties which are created for the federal government by the fact that education is the responsibility of the provinces and I am not suggesting at this time that this situation should change. But I do suggest to the minister that if in its wisdom, and I think with the agreement of the Economic Council of Canada as well as business, industry and labour, the federal government believes that we need an aggressive and active policy of immigration and that we need to encourage people from countries in which the mother tongue is neither English nor French to come to Canada, then it must somehow find ways to help the young people who accompany their parents and who are not fully conversant with the English language to overcome their language deficiency. If we do not do so then these people will become the future unemployed, the future poverty cases, the people who will inevitably become a charge on the state in generations to come.
I suggest that the minister might well look into this matter now. As one of the ways of combating poverty in the war on poverty, which so far has really been a war of words, the government might consider co-operating with the provincial governments in this respect.
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
I am bitterly disappointed that the government has not yet seen fit to bring out its white paper on immigration which was promised.


Reid Scott: It is yellow with age.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Dan-forth says it will be yellow with age. That may well be the case if we continue to change ministers. That white paper was promised before some of us came here in 1962.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
It is not only our immigration policy which needs to be looked at but the Immigration Act and the regulations also need to be completely revised. There has not been a year in which there has not come to light a glaring example of error, mistake and confusion caused not simply because there may be an official somewhere in the department who does not like a particular immigrant because of his colour or race but by the fact that such difficulties are inherent in the Act as it is today.
I am not going to analyse the present Act and the regulations. That has been done many times by many members. The minister needs only to look over old issues of Hansard to find those difficulties listed.
I am not certain whether I agree with the hon. member for Carleton with respect to the minister requiring to have discretionary power. When we talk about cases we are not complaining, I certainly am not complaining and I do not think any other member is because the minister or the deputy minister has not been co-operative. In fact, I can honestly say, coming from a constituency which is largely ethnic, its people being nonEnglish and non-French in origin, that I have handled a large number of cases since I have come here and in all of them I have had the utmost in co-operation from the minister and former ministers, the new deputy minister and former deputies. I cannot think of a single case I brought to their attention where I was certain they were wrong that they did not accede to my suggestions.
When a member of parliament has to intervene I think something has gone wrong. A member of parliament should not have to concern himself with these problems, though I do not mind doing it. But the law and regulations should clearly set out the position of the Canadian government. They should indicate that we want people generally to come to Canada, that we want qualified people to come to Canada, that we want people to come regardless of their race, colour, origin or 23033-147
DEBATES	2319
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration religion. If the government would make its position clear then most of the difficulties which have arisen and which hon. members have dealt with would disappear.
I know it is said that we do not have the kind of problem we used to have. It is said that we do not keep people out because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background. Personally I do not think the situation is as bad as it used to be. Discrimination certainly is not as open as it used to be. In this regard may I bring to the attention of the new minister one paragraph from a speech made at the University of New Brunswick on May 20, 1865, by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. Eric Williams. Here is a prime minister of one of the Commonwealth countries, one of our associates. I want the minister to listen to what the Prime Minister of Trinidad said:
Today the world has worked out the curious hybrid of juridicial equality of states and racial inequality of peoples. Australia is determined to remain white; Canada eases its conscience by accepting a handful of domestic servants; the contemporary slogan is "keep Britain white", the very Britain which was built up by African and Asian labour in Africa, Asia and the West Indies. Whatever the Commonwealth may be in theory, it is in practice being increasingly tainted with a racial limitation. Viewed in historical perspective the Civil War in the United States is still raging.
That is a sad commentary for the prime minister of one of the Commonwealth countries with whom we are associated to make about Canada. It may be that is not correct, although I think it is. If it is not, then I think it is incumbent on the minister, on the department and on the government to clear up the situation, to issue a white paper and to bring in amendments to the Immigration Act and the regulations so that this kind of thing will not only disappear but so that it will become known to the people concerned that in fact our immigration policy is one which ignores questions of race, colour, and religion. I suggest to the minister that if this world is going to remain free, if this world is going to remain democratic, we must convince those people who are not white, who after all far outnumber those who are white, that we in fact believe them to be the equals of the white peoples.
There is just one more question I wish to raise very briefly. On February 16 the minister answered a series of questions I put on the order paper with regard to the problem being encountered by foreign doctors coming to Canada, particularly non-white doctors from Asia and Africa. In the answers which
March 7, 1966
2320	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the minister gave, and I am sure he will remember them, it is indicated very clearly that the federal department is carrying on an aggressive policy, of which I am not critical, of encouraging skilled people which of course includes doctors.
We have a shortage in this country of medical doctors. We are encouraging doctors from Africa, Asia and the Philippines to come to this country, as we should. I know that the problem is not a simple one to solve. I know that the licensing of doctors comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial medical bodies responsible for this matter. For example, in the province of Ontario the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is responsible. I am satisfied that if the minister will look at the records and at the correspondence between his departmental officials and the Ontario medical authorities, he will find that the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is carrying on an open and deliberate policy of refusing to permit doctors from Africa and Asia to practise in Ontario. This is the worst kind of discrimination.
These doctors are encouraged to come to Ontario and to work in Ontario hospitals, to staff hospitals, to head departments and to do all kinds of work for which doctors get very little money and which other doctors do not want to do. But when a doctor from Asia or Africa wants to practise privately he is told that because his medical college does not have the qualifications of others he cannot even write the examinations which are set by the medical council.
It is not true that Asiatic and African colleges are not qualified to maintain high teaching standards. Records kept by the Medical Council of Canada indicate very clearly that doctors who have come from India and Pakistan and have written examinations here have constantly done better than many others. I am speaking from memory but I think that in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent or 85 per cent of these doctors who have written examinations have passed them and have been ready to practise and have been able to practise in every other province but Ontario. Doctors from other countries such as Germany and France have scored much lower marks, perhaps because of language difficulties though I do not know. But they have been permitted to write the examinations set by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and go into private practice in the province of Ontario if they so wished.
[Mr. Orlikow.i

I have before me a letter I received yesterday from a Dr. Conde. I am not going into details but I will send the minister copies of this correspondence. This doctor came to Canada after graduating from a university in the Philippines. He worked satisfactorily at the Hamilton General Hospital. He then practised in Manitoba, wrote examinations in British Columbia and then practised in British Columbia. He is now practising in the province of Manitoba.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Nevertheless, he has been refused permission by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons to write their examinations and practise in Ontario. He has been told to go back to medical college, study there and then become an intern before he may be allowed to practice. This is at a time when this province like every other province in this country is crying for doctors, not in the cities, of course, but in the small towns and villages where no doctor can be induced to practise.
I recognize that this is primarily a responsibility of the provincial government. I know that the government of Ontario has set up a committee or commission to look into this question. But as long as the federal immigration department continues its present policy-and the answers I have received to my questions indicate that it will-it is not enough to wash our hands and say this is a provincial responsibility. As long as we are encouraging doctors to come to Canada we have a responsibility to see that every doctor who is qualified, regardless of whether his skin is red, black, yellow or white, will have the same right to practise as any other doctor.
I have tried to raise two or three questions which I think are important and which I hope the minister will examine with the energy and the ability I know he possesses. I hope that by the time the standing committee meets the white paper will be tabled and the amendments to the immigration law which have been so long awaited as well as the amendments to the regulations which are so necessary will be brought down so that a year from now the long and acrimonious, though necessary, discussions which have taken place when the estimates of this department have come before the committee in past years will no longer be needed.


Mr. Cowan:: Are we on item 5 or on item 1?


An hon. Member:: Item 1.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have a number of questions I should like to ask the minister. They relate
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
directly to citizenship. I might as well ask them on vote 1.
I happen to be a personal friend of Roy Thomson, best known today as Lord Thomson of Fleet. He is a natural born Canadian having been born in the city of Toronto.
I should like to ask the minister how a natural born Canadian loses his Canadian citizenship when the Queen of Canada sees fit to confer a peerage on him. Do we write him a letter telling him he is persona non grata with the Canadian government? Do we ignore him? Or do we refuse to send him $75 a month after he is 70 years of age? How is a native born Canadian deprived of his citizenship? I have one or two other questions on the same lines. Shall I ask the other questions now?


Jean Marchand: I will take all the questions and answer them together later.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Here is another question for you. The king of a European country of great note in world affairs a little while ago conferred the Order of the Phoenix on a well known native born Canadian, Premier Jean Lesage of the province of Quebec. Will Mr. Lesage be deprived of his Canadian citizenship?
Here is the third question. A very close friend of mine who is a naturalized Canadian has been offered a senior decoration by a foreign government and hesitates to accept it because he does not wish to lose his Canadian citizenship. When we deprive a native born Canadian like my friend Roy Thomson of his citizenship because he accepts a peerage from the Queen of Canada, what hope is there of a naturalized Canadian retaining his citizenship if he accepts a foreign decoration from the head of another government? My friend is fearful on this score because he recognizes he is a naturalized Canadian whereas Roy Thomson and Premier Jean Lesage are native born. Which example would we follow, the one set in the case of Roy Thomson or the one set in the case of Jean Lesage, if my friend accepts a foreign decoration this spring?


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, my intervention will be very brief. I should like to call the minister's attention to an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram on December 30, 1965 having to do with a doctor, originally from Hungary and latterly from Austria who became a Canadian citizen on
DEBATES	2321
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the basis of his residence here from 1949 to 1959. Because he had been unable to earn his livelihood in Canada he then went back to Austria where he was gainfully employed. I will read part of this article:
A short time ago he applied for a new passport at the Canadian Embassy. He got the passport. But he was told he would lose his citizenship if he didn't return to Canada within 10 years.
Officials here explained that under the Citizenship Act naturalized Canadians had to give up their citizenship if out of the country for more than 10 consecutive years.
The article goes on to quote an authority within the department as saying:
Certainly it is true that in this regard naturalized Canadians don't have the same rights as people born here.
My contention is that we are making second class citizens of people who have come here and been accepted by the Canadian government. The doctor to whom I have referred, Dr. Devladar, is reported as saying:
I am proud of my Canadian citizenship and I don't want to lose it.
Canada is a free country, and very democratic. I can't understand why it is that Ottawa authorities are still clinging to these discriminatory, obsolete regulations.
According to this article the doctor stated that neither the United States nor Australia adheres to similar regulations. The article concludes:
The government apparently has had its own misgivings about the second class status accorded naturalized Canadians.
In Throne Speeches in 1963 and 1964 it promised to introduce legislation giving full equality and rights to all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
I bring this matter up now because the minister might care to clarify the situation when preparing the white paper or be prepared to give it consideration now during the passage of these estimates. I have had a number of letters from constituents on this point. A number of good and honest citizens who have been granted citizenship through naturalization regard this as an important matter. I have one letter before me now which is relevant to this issue. It illustrates the significance of this matter to good and honest citizens who are making a valuable contribution to this country. My constituent says:
I read tonight with regret in a Toronto newspaper that the government of Canada regards me as a second class citizen. This is because I was born in another country. When I came to Canada in 1928 I came at the direct invitation of a country which was at that time looking for new citizens.
2322	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The situation is the same today.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Now, after 37 years and the holder of a certificate of Canadian citizenship for many years I find that I do not enjoy all the privileges of a Canadian who happened to be born here and had little choice, while I chose Canada as my country at its direct invitation.
As my representative at parliament I would respectfully ask that this situation be remedied as soon as possible through promised legislation. You are aware that it is not likely to seriously affect my position as a citizen, but there is a very distinct reluctance in any citizen to find himself referred to as "second class."
Without unseemly boasting I might state that I feel that I have been a useful citizen, sharing in any community effort in any place in which I have lived since coming to Canada. No citizen could be more proud of this great land than I, nor love it more.
For this and many other reasons I feel that complete and unrestricted citizenship is my right, not only for myself but for my sons, and for my dignity as a very happy member of so great a nation.
Because such legislation was promised some time ago, I believe in 1964, because nothing has been done to date, because the situation has been drawn to the attention of the public, I, on behalf of many citizens who find themselves in exactly the same circumstances, ask the new minister to take this matter under consideration and rectify the wrong which these people feel has been done them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the minister on his appointment and say it is very interesting to see on the front benches sitting on his right a gentleman whose life has been spent with management and on his left a gentleman who has been with organized labour most of his life. I think it indicates we have a democratic country.
I too can say that during my nearly 21 years experience in the House of Commons I have dealt with hundreds of people who wanted to bring immigrants to this country and it has never cost anybody, in the 21 years I have represented Kootenay West, a cent to consult their member of parliament for advice because I know what the law is, I know the regulations, and I know the people to whom representations should be made, whether it be the minister, the board or officials of the department.
During the hearings in connection with the Columbia River Treaty in the External Affairs Committee we were promised that it would be the policy of the B.C. Hydro Power Authority not to allow anyone to be employed on any project on the Columbia River who had not been a resident of Canada for at least

DEBATES	March 7, 1966
60 days. That promise is not being kept and I bring it to the attention of the minister, because organized labour and local residents are quite concerned about it.
What is happening is that citizens of the United States come into Canada as landed immigrants. They fill out the necessary forms and the next thing we know they are employed on the High Arrow, Duncan or Mica dams. The United States foremen in charge of these jobs send to the United States for their pals when they want them and their pals come in and go to work at once. Even though there is good employment in the district there are occasions when local and other residents do not get an opportunity to obtain employment, and this causes concern to them.
We had the same situation during the building of the gas pipe line. Hundreds of people came in from the United States as landed immigrants. They worked on the pipe line and as soon as the work was completed they returned to the United States. Prior to coming to Ottawa for the opening of this session three or four men who are working on these jobs spoke to me and told me, "These Americans are laughing at our regulations which permit them to come in under these circumstances. They tell us frankly they intend to return to the United States, that they are not real landed immigrants."
I bring this to the attention of the minister in order that he may check the situation. During the building of the pipe line project I asked the R.C.M.P. to check these people's car licences. On that occasion they came into Canada for the three, four or six months and practically all their licences were visitors' licences. They did not think enough of Canada to purchase a regular licence.
I think something should be done to make certain that these people who come into Canada as landed immigrants are really landed immigrants and that they intend to settle in Canada. The minister should have another look at whatever form is signed to make certain these people pledge themselves, so far as humanly possible, to come to Canada with the intention of becoming Canadian citizens.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the subject of immigration for quite a long time, indeed for a long time before becoming a member of parliament. We have had a whole series of ministers of immigration and I have been testing my memory to see if I can remember whom they have been during the time I have been interested in this matter. There was Hon.
March 7, 1966

Walter Harris, then the present Minister of Transport who stayed until the government changed, then the present member for Kamloops, then Hon. Ellen Fairclough, then the hon. member for Carleton, then the present President of the Privy Council, then the present member for Matapedia-Matane, then the present Minister of Labour, and now we have the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. During the short time I have been in the house the list includes at least five or six ministers.
Every time the new ministers have risen, bright with promise, full of enthusiasm, and announced bold, new plans for a new Immigration Act that would remove all the troubles of the past. They have said they would publish new white papers and all difficulties would be removed. I say to the present minister that hope springs eternal. If he only stays in the job long enough, and I hope he insists on doing so, he finally may be able to produce the necessary changes in the Immigration Act, in the regulations, and in many of the practices carried on under the act.
Since the new minister has occupied his present position but briefly and no doubt thinks problems of manpower are vastly important, it would obviously be unfair to expect him to jump in and deal with all immigration problems, but I would tell him that the root of the troubles which have blackened this department for years has been the failure to adopt the basic principle of granting a proper hearing to would-be immigrants.
We have had the power of ministerial discretion and we have had so-called appeals. The courts have said that our procedures in immigration matters are hugger-mugger and farcical. The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with these matters and has said that the way in which would-be immigrants have been treated has not been in conformity with the basic standard required by the act, namely, a fair hearing. Yet we are still continuing these farcical procedures.
We still have questions asked of would-be immigrants, such as, "Do you have an immigrant visa from the department", when everyone knows they have not got it because the department has not issued visas to them. In addition, the department will not tell them why. They just say, "You do not meet the regulations under the act". Whatever else is dealt with in the white paper I tell the minister this problem must be dealt with.
DEBATES	2323
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration [DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
If we want to abandon the idea of giving any hearing, let us be honest and say so. Let us say that it is left to the minister's discretion and there is no such thing as a hearing but give the reasons for so saying. So long as we pretend to give consideration to bringing, immigrants into the country and to people who are trying to bring their relatives here, if we are going to give them a hearing it must be a proper and fair hearing. The minister will find that there still is a section in the Act which includes the right to pass orders in council to exclude people of different ethnic origins. This is in the Act, but right in the regulations there is a double standard. If you come from Asia or Africa you are in a lower class; you can only bring in restricted relatives. It is not necessary now to go into the details of that. If you come from Europe or some parts of America you can bring in a wider range of relatives.
What possible justification can there be for this discrimination? I know it is not put on the ground of race but we know the people who live in Asia and Africa and we know those who live in the continent of Europe. We do not apply the same standards. This is in the regulations. I think it is regulation 33. To this very day some people do not have the right to bring a relative to this country and I believe this is a continuing discrimination. I wish the minister would take a careful look at this matter and I would hope that he would deal with it in the white paper.
One other thing in respect of immigration on which I hope we can obtain a decision from someone is this: 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 non-immigrant 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 know this problem contains difficulties. You do not necessarily want to have the same harsh rules in respect of the examination of those who come in as visitors but, on the other hand, once they come in as visitors, become engaged to a Canadian citizen, secure a job or are otherwise admissible there is the question of whether they must be sent back for a long period of waiting in their country of origin.
2324	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
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. I appreciate that this is not fair, but at the present time the Immigration Act gives such visitors the right to stay in this country. There are, however, hundreds of cases, and I have 20 or 30 of my own, where people have been told "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 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. I know this is not a very nice problem.
I will conclude by asking the minister whether he has yet received the second report that was sought from Mr. Joseph Sedgwick of Toronto. Those who were in this house before will recall a time when there was quite a problem concerning people who were kept in detention for long periods awaiting a decision, and at that time Mr. Sedgwick was asked to furnish a report to the government on this matter. At the same time, when the present Minister of Labour was minister of citizenship and immigration he was asked to deal with the question of procedure on appeals and fair hearings and I know he went into that matter very thoroughly. I would ask the minister whether that report has yet been received and, if not, when does he expect it to be received? If it is available, will he make it available, as was the previous report, to the members of the house? I am sure it will be helpful.
I say to the minister that, notwithstanding the important responsibilities which devolve on him as minister of manpower, in dealing with the human and economic problems involved in immigration he will find not only a fascinating task but also a most demanding one. I think this is a field in which the long promised reform is overdue. When we talk about fair hearings and justice to others we must have regard for the principles involved and clear up these difficulties so far as immigration is concerned.
I wish the minister good luck in his task. I hope that when the white paper is prepared it will be thoroughly studied by a committee

DEBATES	March 7. 1966
and that this will be followed by a thorough investigation of the Act and regulations and the many points which need change. There are antiquated phrases like "insane" and such things in the Act which have no application today. The minister has undertaken a big task and I hope he will be able to carry it through.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I have some brief statements to make tonight regarding the mobility program and the manpower program under the new department. I had a rather lengthy speech prepared but I am going to save the minister and myself from that in the interests of getting these estimates through as quickly as possible.
There are a number of things which concern me at this stage and I should like to bring them to the minister's attention. Before going into that, first of all I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I might add that perhaps very few ministers who have ever received such an appointment have been met with such hope and optimism as has this present minister and his department. We know he has a great deal of experience and some of his initial statements in respect of a mobility program and manpower program are very encouraging.
I would particularly like to commend the minister on the statements he has already made in respect of the continuance of the unemployment insurance benefits during the period of retraining. I also would like to indicate our approval of his apparent decision to increase the grants for persons undergoing retraining. I think both of these measures are very important and very necessary and certainly will help to ensure that the retraining program-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. The topic of manpower came up under the Department of Labour. At present we are studying the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I should like to bring this to the attention of the hon. member.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall adapt my remarks to conform with the rules. I think the congratulations which I extended apply equally to this as to the other department. I should like to raise a number of questions with the minister on the question of immigration. I have in the past raised with the present Minister of Labour the question of Portuguese immigration
March 7. 1966	COMMONS
into Canada. I am very much concerned about this matter and would like to obtain an answer from the minister in regard to whether he has increased the number of his officers overseas in order to help Portuguese immigration.
These people have done a fine job after immigrating to this country. They have proved to be first class citizens. The industries in my riding are most anxious to see that as many Portuguese as would like to come to Canada and are qualified to do so are permitted to come here. We are hopeful that the long delays of the past, sometimes as long as two years, may be over now and that the admission of relatives and new immigrants is expedited.
One of the suggestions I should like to make to the minister, which is in harmony with the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, is that more attention be given to the matter of immigrants coming to this country in terms of providing some measure of protection to them as they join the work force. As a member of an immigrant family myself, perhaps it is just as well that my mother got off the boat in time or I would not have been a natural born Canadian. I am very much concerned about the exploitation of immigrants that has taken place. They have come over here and have not been informed about trade unions or about their rights as far as voting is concerned. I think this is a very knportant matter and the minister has a responsibility in this regard.
The minister has a responsibility to immigrants coming to this country who do not speak English or French to see that brochures and pamphlets are distributed or courses arranged for them informing them of their rights and in particular encouraging them, I hope, to join a trade union that will protect their rights regardless of their origin.
I have had numerous occasions to get in touch with the office in Waterloo and I should like to go on record at this time as indicating how thoughtful and helpful this office has been to immigrants coming into my riding and how considerate they have been in looking into any of the problems that have been brought to their attention. I would also point out that the office in Kitchener is deserving of equal praise. I should like to close, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that the minister will rise to the challenge that some of his predecessors perhaps did not meet, and I wish him well in his new job.
DEBATES	2325
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration [Translation]


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister begins answering some of the questions put to him, I should also like to ask him two or three questions which he can answer at the same time as the other ones.
At the beginning of his remarks, the minister said that certain difficulties were encountered in having immigrants come to Canada, and more particularly qualified labour. Among other examples, he quoted France, a country which would be reluctant to have its qualified labour emigrate to Canada. Could the minister tell the house whether, in his opinion, our present immigration services in France are adequate and whether he has had any opportunity to discuss, with the Quebec provincial authorities, this matter of immigration from France? Could the minister also tell us whether the government of "La Belle Province" intends to set up immigration offices in France in order to look itself after immigration or still promote the immigration of certain persons considered as skilled workers?
I have a last question to put to the minister. During his discussions with provincial authorities, if he had any, did the minister emphasize the fact that if our services are divided between the federal government and the Quebec government, it might be detrimental to the interests of both governments because they would compete with each other to obtain skilled labour from other countries?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word about a matter that concerns people in my area. This problem is the same as that mentioned hy the hon. member who just spoke and has to do with provinces, areas and certain industries bringing immigrants into this country for specific purposes. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the hardships worked on people brought into this country under these conditions. I am speaking particularly of the need that is apparent in the mining industry for immigrants of a special category and the persuasion being used by the immigration department and in many cases the province of Ontarib-I refer to immigrants from England and Scotland in particular-by means of advertisements that in my opinion do not present a true picture and are not in keeping with the facts that exist in this country. The immigrant does not find this out until he
March 7, 1966
2326	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
comes to Canada and this creates great disillusionment on his part. It also seems to me that it is not in keeping with good immigration policy.
If the areas that need immigrants cannot appeal to them honestly and place the correct facts before them, then probably immigration to these areas should not take place. The mining industry over the years, the gold mining industry in certain areas and particularly certain mines, have used a pretty unfair method of getting people to work in this country. This method has meant that these immigrant employees have become tied by contracts entered into by reason of their being advanced money for transportation and other considerations with the stipulation that they must stay in the area for a set period of time.
While this is all well and good if the immigrant knows what the conditions will be and what the stipulations are, immigrants have reported to me that the conditions which have been presented in this advertising-I have seen newspaper advertisements that bear out the statements of many immigrants-have not been found to be factual and this has created a great deal of resentment on the part of these people.
This type of advertising also means that in many cases the immigrant will stay for the length of time agreed upon but leave immediately that time has expired. The situation is then made that much worse. This type of policy also produces criticism in the countries from which the immigrants come because this situation is pointed out in correspondence with the people at home.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
In the matter of immigration I also hope the minister will give some consideration to a fairly specific problem that has been raised by the Federation of Agriculture. I refer to the problem raised by the Federation of Agriculture whereby there has been no definite arrangement made in the immigration law through which transient employees can come to Canada for the purpose of picking berries, harvesting tobacco and other products, and under which the department can supervise accommodation made available and wages paid to these transient workers. These people enter Canada for a certain period of time specifically to carry out this kind of work.
I might point out that on occasion there is a great shortage of this type of labourer. Some of these transient workers come from Mexico,

work in the United States and then come to Canada to take advantage of the later season here. However, when they reach the Canadian border they find that the same type of arrangement available to them in the United States is not available to them in Canada.
The Federation of Agriculture is of the opinion that much of the difficulty in finding workers in specific agricultural fields would be alleviated if assistance could be provided these transient workers when they cross the border from the United States to Canada. I believe that if that kind of arrangement could be made it should be undertaken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
I intended to mention some other specific problems with regard to immigration and offer some suggestions, but I know the minister is not directly responsible for these estimates and I will therefore defer my remarks until the house has an opportunity to look at those estimates for which he is responsible.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the passage of the estimates of this department but I should like to say that I associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. members for Waterloo South and Greenwood in extending congratulations and best wishes to the new minister of this important portfolio. I should like to bring once again to the minister's attention the grave concern expressed to me by Canadian citizens originating from countries of central Europe, who have found it very difficult to sponsor immigrants or visitors from those countries to Canada. I should like to ask in particular whether the minister or his predecessor have held or intend to hold any discussions with representatives of the governments of central European countries in order to facilitate the processing of applications of immigrants from those countries. I say that this has raised many problems, and in view of the delicacy of the matter and the representations made to me I should like to know whether the minister is in a position at this time to make a statement on this subject.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was very impressed by one remark made by an hon. member concerning the life expectancy of a minister of immigration and I may say I am a little bit worried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This time the department is being done away with.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North was disappointed with the
March 7, 1966

few remarks I made at the beginning of the consideration of my estimates. I may say that I am also disappointed, but they were short on purpose. He will admit, however, that I took only a few minutes of his time whereas he took about twenty minutes of mine.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is not unusual. [Translation]


Jean Marchand: There are a few points, Mr. Chairman, on which I would like to dwell in reply to questions. First of all, there is one that struck me and I should like hon. members to understand that their words touched me. It is the issue of discrimination in immigration. Undoubtedly, discriminatory provisions remain in the act, and I believe there will shortly be means to eliminate such discrimination in a democratic country like ours.
There are historical reasons for that. Doubtless, many historical reasons explain the situation, but I feel the past should be obliterated and we in Canada should be in a position to accept immigrants whatever the colour of their skin, their religion their race and their language. That is basic.
Now, I believe it was the hon. member for Carleton who referred to a general immigration policy, that is that policy which is to be adjusted on a short term basis, as opposed to a long term one that would take into account the normal, gradual and continuous development of Canada.
On this point, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Carleton. Our policy cannot be a short term one, because then it easily becomes absurd. Since we do not know about the short term movements and can hardly forecast them, as the hon. member said, we spend our time opening and shutting the tap; but since our forecasts were wrong, the tap is always opened or shut at the wrong time.
Therefore, I think that we will have to disregard those short term movements and try to elaborate a policy-I am not saying that we will not make mistakes-which will at least be a little more in agreement with our ideas and our views about the future of Canada.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) talked about immigration. He touched upon a sensitive subject, in view of the ethnic composition of Canada, namely immigration from France or French speaking countries compared to immigration which might come from other countries, such as England.
DEBATES	2327
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
That is a problem which exists in Canada and it might be better to talk about it since it exists.
There is no doubt that our facilities are much better in England than in France as far as personnel and offices are concerned.
But, in spite of that, it remains that France is still a country which does not favour immigration, and the French people themselves do not emigrate easily, especially at this time because there is full employment in France.
But there is no doubt that there is something to be corrected, and we will try to correct it. However, as I was saying at the beginning of my remarks-I did not say much but at least I said that-we cannot decide alone where we will take our immigrants, because it is necessary that immigrants should want to come and that the countries where they live should also be ready to let them come.
Therefore, we will have to submit and accept the situation as it is.
We have improved our offices in Portugal. I think that last year immigration from Portugal increased considerably; it might increase again during the current year.
I will try to be as brief as possible for reasons that you understand as well as I do.
There was something said also about a policy-I think it was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who spoke about the situation of visitors in Canada.
I think that very soon, and I hope that it will be within a few weeks-that depends of course on the house because it might also be in a few months if incidents such as those we witnessed today and last week should happen-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 but what is the reason behind it? Undoubtedly, it is due to a number of difficulties in the countries where those immigrants come from. But, at the present time, there is no doubt that many people who come to Canada to stay come as visitors, because it is easier or because we do not have in their mother countries facilities where they can pass the required examinations before coming to Canada.
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.
March 7, 1966
2328	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
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.
At the present time, Canada is in danger of losing control over its immigration policy. We will need a better control than in the past. Whether it is conservative or liberal according to the wishes of the people or the House of Commons, we will have to come to a decision, but once it has been decided, we shall have to stand by it, because, as things are now, we do not know where we are going and have not known for years.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we shall have to try and make adjustments.
Now, I believe that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) dealt a little with the criteria that should be used in setting our immigration policy in Canada.
Until now, the main criterion has been professional skill, that is the means to earn a livelihood, an educational background and also what is called sponsorship.
He said that, traditionally, the Department of Labour has been opposed to immigration. What he meant, no doubt-and he may correct me if I am wrong-is that this stems from the influence exerted by labour unions on the Department of Labour which has been rather conservative in the field of immigration.
It is a fact that labour unions are conservative in this respect.
They are conservative to the extent that there is unemployment in Canada, that is to the extent that they feel immigrants will add to the number of unemployed in Canada; well, labour unions will protect their membership first, and I can readily understand that.
But in a normal full-employment situation,
I know of no labour unions in Canada that would oppose immigration, provided that there is no increase, through immigration, in the number of unemployed on the Canadian labour market.
Therefore, I believe that so long as we have a normal employment situation, there is nothing to fear from the labour movement; they will agree to immigrants coming to enrich the economic and cultural life of Canada.


Therefore, this is a matter of maintaining a proper balance, but it is obvious that Canada needs qualified labour, and emphasis should be placed on this. But, at the same time, we must realize that by accepting immigrants in Canada, we accept human beings, that is people who may have relatives-wives, sons, mothers, etc.-and that they may be interested, once they are established here, to have their relatives come too, which means that immigration cannot be exclusively selective. It must also be human.
All these factors must then be combined. I think that for the last few years, on the whole, these factors have been taken into account, but perhaps our immigration policy has not yet been properly defined.
There have been complaints that the white paper-
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Complaints have been made that the white paper is not yet ready. I am going to do exactly what former ministers of immigration have done and tell the committee that I am going to try to have it ready as soon as possible.

There is something new.

I would also do something new. I will be in a position later this week, I hope, to table the Sedgwick report which I trust will help us solve the problem of the appeal board and the discretionary powers of the minister of immigration. I think it will be tabled this week, so this is something new. I think it will also help me to convince hon. members they should wait a little longer for the white paper.


Richard Albert Bell: We will wait ten days.


Jean Marchand: Ten days is a little short. The hon. member for York-Humber asked some questions about Lord Thomson. I do not know this case personally but I am informed that he voluntarily became a British subject and this is why he lost his Canadian citizenship.

As far as the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) is concerned, it is true that Ontario has immigration offices in England while the province of Quebec has none, neither in France nor elsewhere.
March 7, 1966

Now, I have yet to meet with the provincial authorities to come to an understanding with them. If the province of Quebec should decide, like Ontario, to set up immigration offices, I think it is up to the Quebec authorities to contact us, because under the Canadian constitution-and let us say that for once that seems rather clear-the federal government's jurisdiction has precedence in matters of immigration. Therefore, that means that if Quebec wants to become interested in the problem of immigration, it is up to that province to contact the federal government. We would be very glad to discuss the matter with the provincial authorities in order to find out what their intentions are and to assist them in achieving their objectives.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

There are a few other questions, Mr. Chairman, but if you will allow me I would prefer to answer them in writing. I know that immigration problems are very inportant. The hon. member for Greenwood said that for many years he has been told by ministers of immigration that everything would be corrected and yet nothing has been done. I can state tonight that it will be the same in a year or two. In the meantime we would hope to try to improve the situation now existing. I think that by proceeding along those lines some day we shall have a sound immigration policy.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, in his reply the hon. minister has been sufficiently provocative that I am tempted to follow him in some of the matters which he has raised. I resist that temptation, however, because I am as anxious as he is to see these estimates put through tonight. I want to refer to one matter only and that, without recapturing any of the atmosphere of this afternoon, is the matter of security.
The minister appreciates that both in immigration and in citizenship the whole subject of security is a very difficult one. Indeed it is probably the most difficult one which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has to face. There are many times when he must wrestle with his conscience as he reads reports in front him. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister this afternoon has suggested that there will be a commission which will investigate security problems, I wonder if I might put to the minister-I do not ask him to reply or necessarily to commit himself 23033-1481
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration -a request that he will insist with his colleagues that the whole subject of security as it affects immigration to this country and as it affects the grant of citizenship in this country be among the terms of reference of the commission which the Prime Minister proposed.
I believe that this would give some hope tee quite a number of people who have been in difficulties in matters of citizenship. There are on the files of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration views which I have expressed in relation to this matter, whicl* views perhaps are unorthodox. I do not think that necessarily questions of security are a reason for depriving persons of citizenship who have been in this country for many years. I should like to see the question of possible membership in organizations which, if persons were coming from abroad, might be considered of a very delicate nature in the security light, considered in a somewhat different light in relation to the question of the application of citizenship.
I spent many hours myself in wrestling with my own conscience in relation to this subject. Speaking for myself, I should be delighted to appear before any commissioner and tell him my experiences in this field as a minister. I think it would be wise and sound for this question to be part of the terms of reference of the commission proposed this afternoon by the Prime Minister.


Jean Marchand: I thank the members of the committee and I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, but that matter troubles my conscience very deeply too.
Like the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), I feel the need to say that I am not any more at ease that he is; I try to see under what standards, at a given moment, citizens or immigrants are turned down and I am a little lost, because there is as much subjectivity in considering those standards. At one time, people can be turned down or accepted in a discretionary manner without knowing exactly what the deeper reasons are, because there are in our laws-and that is true on both sides of the house-sections which are difficult to apply. I must admit that I can say a lot of things because I am new here and people will say: "He did not know, he did not understand the difficulties".
Let us say that I would rather state that there was basic hypocrisy, because we wanted to discourage only one kind of people,
March 7, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration without naming them, mentioning them. As a matter of fact, I remember coming across cases where people were accused of doing certain things. I would study them and say to myself very frankly: If I were not already a Canadian citizen, I would not be accepted in Canada, because I did all those things myself in the past.
In any case, I think that is a very important matter which should be cleared up, so that we will no longer be in the dark and we will know exactly why we turn down those people, in short, we will know the true reasons why we turn them down or refuse them their rights.
Let us say that my conscience was deeply troubled about certain things which happened, and the federal officials are not responsible, because I think they try to be as generous as possible; but it seems that there is some confusion in the application of the act and of our traditional policy in that field.
A while ago, I stated categorically that the federal government had priority in the field of immigration. That does not mean that, should a conflict arise between the provincial and federal governments, the latter has the priority. I wanted to make that clear, in order not to create a new problem between Quebec and the federal government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if he can give me some sort of answer to my question dealing with the deprivation of rights of people who are naturalized Canadians. I believe in 1963-64 in the Speech from the Throne it was mentioned that legislation would be brought in to clarify and rectify this situation.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are going to bring in amendments dealing with that situation. We agree that it is nonsense at present. Once a citizen is naturalized I think that he should have the same rights as all other Canadian citizens. I think that even if the white paper has been postponed a little, and I do not want to tell you how long I think it will take, we shall do something. In the meantime, I think that we can bring very important amendments before the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am only going to raise two matters at this time relating to questions of citizenship and immigration that are involved when a person becomes a citizen. In the first place, I think we all agree that a person in applying to become a

naturalized citizen is really showing an expression of faith in that he wants to become part of this country and become one, with the rest of us. Such an application is an expression of faith because it is voluntary and because it is not a requirement. Because of that I think we are somewhat rigid in maintaining the five year residence requirement. The period of five years may have had some value in the past even though then, as now, it was an arbitrary figure. I know of many people who have come to Canada in recent years who are patiently and sometimes impatiently waiting for the day when the five years of residence will be up so that they can make an application to become Canadian citizens. There would be no difference whatever in their value to themselves, their value to their families or to this nation if they were permitted to make application for citizenship after say two years rather than after five years.
I think we should look closely at the arbitrary five year requirement with a view to reducing it somewhat for persons wishing to make applications to become citizens. Whatever length of time is established it will be an arbitrary figure. There will be some fixed length of time involved. I am rather partial to a two year period or a three year period, which is approximately half that existing at the moment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I know that in recent years there has been a tremendous influx into Canada from all parts of the world of people who have come here to settle down, raise their families and become an integral part of our nation. They are only waiting for the day when they have fulfilled the requirement of five years residence. I seriously urge the minister, in his easy and frank approach to these questions, to concern himself with this matter along with the others he has to consider. Possibly in one of his weekly or monthly statements he can tell us that the residential requirement will be reduced to something like two years or three years, admittedly an arbitrary period just as any other period would be arbitrary.
With respect to the mechanism by which a person becomes a Canadian I should like to suggest to the minister that there is a marked difference between the approach taken by the various Citizenship Courts, a marked difference in the attitude of the various judges who hear and determine applications for citizenship.
March 7, 1966

A case comes to mind of a judge we had at home who was considered so rigid and so difficult in his insistence on applicants naming all the great lakes and rivers of Canada, geographical nonsense of that kind about which many native Canadians would be uninformed, that many new Canadians refrained from making application for citizenship because they knew of the difficulties their friends and relatives had experienced when appearing before him. A change was made in the judgeship. This gentleman was moved or promoted to another post within the judicial structure. He was replaced by another judge, one who brought a kindly, gentlemanly and pleasant approach to his consideration of these applications. The approach of this second judge is the one which I think should be followed. His concern is not so much with an applicant's knowledge of the geography of the country or his ability to recite the number of provinces and so on. He is concerned about the expression of opinion and feeling on the part of the applicant. He goes further than what may be memorized; he seeks to look into an applicant's heart and mind, to find out the nature of his expectation and desire to become a Canadian citizen.
I use the example of these two judges, not naming them, to show the minister how there can be such marked, almost extreme differences in the approach taken by Citizenship Courts when considering applications. I admit at the outset that it is impossible to set down a set of rules for such cases as if one were introducing tests to determine an applicant's fitness for a driving licence. Nevertheless I believe an attempt should be made to set down guide lines or general criteria for judges in these courts to follow so that there might be some uniformity in the treatment of individuals who voluntarily make applications to become citizens with the rest of us.
These are general thoughts I pass on to the minister. They have been mentioned to many of his predecessors. I hope the present minister will remain in his post long enough to do something about them or that if he leaves he will be able so to imbue his officials with these concepts that whoever replaces him will have no choice but to carry on the policies which he has developed along these as along other lines.


Jean Marchand: On that point, the hon. member probably knows that the citizenship branch is supposed to be transferred to another department in due course. I know that my colleague, the Secretary of State, will
DEBATES	2331
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be happy to be convinced by the hon. member that what he has said is the right thing.


Mr. Winch:: In view of the fact that we have in the chamber this evening the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as well as the former minister there are one or two remarks I should like to make without keeping the committee too long. I made a statement during the last parliament and I want to repeat it now for the benefit of the new minister. In the 13 years I have been in the House of Commons the present Minister of Labour, formerly the minister responsible for citizenship and immigration, showed more humanity in my opinion than any other minister of citizenship and immigration I know of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope the humanity and understanding which the former minister showed in relation to the matters I discussed with him-I have many cases from my riding -will be continued by the present minister. The points I should like to bring to the attention of the present minister are similar to those which I drew to the attention of his predecessor. First, I do not like or appreciate in any way the policy which has been followed both by Liberals and Conservatives of permitting applications for citizenship to be denied, even after they have been recommended by the courts, without the person concerned or the member of parliament acting on his behalf being told why.
I represent, as I have said, a riding where there are a great many people of varying ethnic origins. What happens when relatives wish to visit them? What happens when sons and daughters wish to visit their parents in Canada? A visitor's visa is denied them without any explanation being given. If these people wished to become landed immigrants there might be some reason for these refusals. But when they ask only for a six month visitor's visa to see parents or other relatives whom they may not have seen for 30 years I can see no possible reason for denying them a visa and refusing to give any reason.
I am sure the present Minister of Labour, formerly minister of citizenship and immigration, knows what I have in mind. A landed immigrant who has been in Canada for five years may make a successful application for citizenship to a court. Then the authority in Ottawa says no. Surely the person concerned is entitled to know the reason for not granting citizenship in such cases and surely the
March 7, 196S

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member of parliament who is asked to look after the case is entitled to know, even in confidence, the reason for refusal.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There are three people in my constituency whose relatives would like to get visitors' permits to see their mothers, sisters or brothers, and when the answer is no surely they are entitled to know the reason or, if necessary, their member of parliament should be given the reason in confidence. This matter has concerned me during the 13 years I have been in this chamber. It is absolutely unfair that a person should be denied citizenship after spending five years in Canada and that his relatives should also be denied the right to visit Canada on visitors' visas.
There was one case I tried to handle for five or six years. I could not get anywhere but the present Minister of Labour, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, showed his humanity and said the persons involved should be let in and they were. I am asking that this trend be continued by the new minister or at least he should give us the reasons people are denied their rights and found guilty without the opportunity to answer the charge that must have been laid against them.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with Citizenship Courts first. I must echo the words of the hon. member for Skeena and say, speaking from my own experience in the Hamilton-Niagara peninsula area, that I completely agree with them. I have before me a booklet entitled "Guide to Canadian Citizenship," some 90 pages long. At the end of each chapter there is a list of questions, the answers to which an immigrant is supposed to know. In the preface it states:
When your examination takes place the judge may ask you questions on any of these subjects as a means of testing your knowledge of Canada and Canadian institutions.
At the end of each section of the booklet you will And a number of questions. The answers to many of these questions will be found in the text of the booklet. Other answers you may discover by reading or asking your friends.
That is very illuminating.
It is most important for you to understand that the questions in this booklet are not necessarily the ones that will be used by the judge in your court examination. They are simply to test your knowledge of what you have read.
And at the bottom it says "Good luck". I say that many of the people who appear before Citizenship Courts need all the luck they can get to pass the examinations because

there are some questions to which not even the Court Presidents know the answers. I tell the minister and the minister-designate that a serious look must be taken to ensure uniformity across the country concerning questions asked by Citizenship Court Presidents.
I submit that some of the qualifications of these Court Presidents are certainly not ones which fit them for the posts to which they have been appointed. If you think I am being overly harsh, Mr. Chairman, let me state that I intend to be in some respects. I have complained for three years about the Citizenship Court in my area and from personal knowledge I say a serious look must be taken at the appointments made to the presidencies of these courts.
From personal experience I know of the very arrogant approach which some Court Presidents have taken to immigrants, so arrogant that the immigrants' friends and relatives refuse to apply for citizenship because of the insults received. I know of a case where only one question was asked of the applicant but he was turned down and abused. I can understand the qualifications so far as language is concerned, but when the county court judges were handling citizenship applications we did not receive the complaints we are receiving today. There is a difference. Many representations have been made on this matter. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, was aware of the complaints made regarding Presidents of Citizenship Courts. I know personally that such complaints were made to him by a former member. This is a matter which I intend to bring up in a more detailed manner when the estimates of the department next come before us.
Something else which has been bothering me for many years is the question of Chinese immigration from Hong Kong. Not too long ago a statement was made in the House of Commons providing for an amnesty and an extension of time to enable Chinese people to come forward and clarify their status. Many of the Canadian Chinese community did so voluntarily, but an incongruous situation has arisen when these self-same people, having clarified their status and having received their certificates of Canadian citizenship, try to bring their relatives from Hong Kong. They are told they do not meet the requirements of the Act because they made a false statement at the time the sponsoring relative came to Canada. Even though the sponsor's status has been clarified, the proposed immigrants are
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
refused admission. I ask the minister to look into this serious matter. It is a ridiculous situation.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I believe many hon. members spend more than enough time on immigration questions concerning their constituents and I feel there are cases where this is not necessary because it is due only to the red tape, bureaucracy and arrogance of staff in various offices and branches of the department.
In many cases where people have come to a member's home or office seeking to have representations made on their behalf, not overly representations but with respect to normal applications and procedure and assistance, we have found that some of these people come back to us and say something to this effect, that when they went to the department of immigration they found that the clerk, officer or administrative official dealing with the case, when he discovered an M.P. had been approached, took an altogether different approach. They were told in effect, "Your member of parliament cannot help you. You should not have gone to him. It is too bad."


Harold Edward Winch: Or, "You should go to a lawyer."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When there is no need.


William Arnold Peters: If there was no money they would not help. They are a bunch of gangsters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pay $300 to get into Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: Arrogance is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When they are already paid as members of parliament to do the job.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Those are not my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I am only saying many members of parliament only wish constituents did not need to come to them to get action but many of these people come to us because they do not understand what is happening.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Many members of parliament advise these people in good faith to deal with the officials in the immigration department in their own particular communities, and when these persons come back and relate to us that a particular officer or official has been arrogant and abusive to the particular person who had the nerve to see his member of parliament, then I suggest something is wrong and the matter should be looked into very carefully by the minister.
DEBATES	2333
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I do not intend to take up the time of the house any longer on these matters but I do intend to deal with them at length when the estimates come forward again. However, I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister at this time. I echo the words of the hon. member for Skeena when he said that something must be done about the Citizenship Courts.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just one very brief word. I could not help but listen with great attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena and the member for Hamilton West concerning the procedures in the Citizenship Courts. A long step forward was made in this regard when the courts were placed in areas rather than in counties, because in one county a judge may have been good and in another county not so good. In respect of guide lines and methods in Citizenship Courts I should like to mention to the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the methods and procedures used by His Honour Judge Campbell Calder in the London Citizenship Court in my area could not be carried out in a better or more practical way. They are a credit to the office he holds.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words. I shall not be as long as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), because I do not want to be accused of delaying the estimates of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). I also wish to congratulate him on his appointment to his new position; I hope that he will perform his duties satisfactorily.
In his opening remarks, the hon. minister said that there were 148,000 immigrants to Canada last year. He also pointed out that there were certain difficulties concerning immigrants of French origin.
Could he tell me the percentage of immigrants of French origin who came to Canada last year and to what parts of the country they were directed?
This question may involve statistics and the minister probably cannot answer me today, but I should like him to give me this information in the next few days.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I could give them in writing tomorrow if the hon. member so wishes.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to know why it is so difficult
March 7, 1966
2334	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to bring French speaking immigrants. Is it because the officers of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration care very little in having French speaking immigrants? I would ask the minister to give me reasons for such difficulties.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, may I answer something in this regard? It may be at the time the hon. member was at lunch but when I spoke about my estimates, I gave the reasons why this is so.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of those reasons, but I feel there may be others for the Minister to discover upon inquiry with his officials. I should be pleased to know of other reasons as I am convinced there are some.
The minister also replied to the question put by the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) concerning the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government in the field of immigration. The minister somehow did not think too clearly in this respect; at the outset he said immigration comes under federal jurisdiction, but later on he changed that, saying that there could be concurrent jurisdiction in the case of Quebec where, at the present time, the Minister of Cultural Affairs seems greatly interested in this matter. An act has been adopted in Quebec, as the minister knows. In that case, must the provinces get in touch and co-operate with the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to this important question of immigration?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the province like the federal government has jurisdiction in the field of immigration. But section 94, if my memory serves me correctly, says that in the case where the provincial legislation conflicts with or contradicts the federal legislation, the federal government takes precedence.
I said the same thing twice, but I meant to clear it up.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell me whether the Quebec government got in touch with him about the establishment of an immigration service in Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, Quebec did not get in touch with us.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two matters for the minister. First of all, I should like to express my agreement with those who have raised various problems in respect of the Citizenship Courts. There should be some unification of approach to the granting of citizenship to immigrants so there will not be discrimination and hardship in respect of the questions asked of these people and their knowledge concerning Canadian citizenship. The former minister of citizenship and immigration knows that last winter I raised this matter with him. I am dissatisfied with the way these courts have been extended. I know the new minister will be interested in this. I know we are catching up gradually but I hope the government will see that these courts are extended as quickly as possible.
A matter has come to my attention concerning a particular case. I will not mention the name but I should like to tell the minister about the facts of this case because I do not believe his departmental officials can cope with the matter. I want to say that there is no recrimination against the officials. Personally I have had very good co-operation from the ministers and any officials with whom I have had to deal either here in Ottawa or in my constituency of Regina. The case concerns two children who were born out of wedlock and a subsequent marriage. The law says that only the mother may apply for citizenship for the children. In this case, regardless of what kind of citizenship court we have, personally I do not think the mother ever will qualify to become a Canadian citizen and yet she is a good mother and it is a good family. In Saskatchewan either the mother or father has authority for these children but I am told that under federal law the mother only can be granted the right to ask for citizenship. The father is a citizen. He wants his children to be Canadian citizens. They are good children and will make good citizens.
Unless some change is made, in my opinion there is no hope of these children ever becoming Canadian citizens. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because I think that if I have a case like this there must be other cases throughout the country. I see no reason in a particular case like this and under these circumstances why an application by the father on behalf of these
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
children should not be recognized and citizenship arranged. I should like the minister to look into this.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the matter raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West is a very interesting one which I think warrants some comment because over a period of time we have seen a change in this regard. I should like to congratulate some of the senior officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the former minister of citizenship and immigration on the change which has taken place.
There is no question but that many sections of the Act lend themselves to misinterpretation. For many years there has been-and I think this is a fact-a great predominance of attention to legal arguments that have been used on behalf of certain classes of citizens in certain fields and the department itself has not used any discretion. In many cases this created terrific hardships.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think the minister is to be congratulated for the changes that have taken place. I have had considerable experience with some of the senior officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and have found some of them to be completely unsympathetic. But I have found in recent months that many of the officials are much more sympathetic and willing to pay some attention to many of the wishes of the ministers of this department. I have been in the house since 1957 and I think each and every minister has said that changes would be made in many of the fields that have been discussed this evening and in every case these changes have not come to pass.
I think it is safe and fair to say that some of the senior officials of the department are now paying some attention to the desires and wishes expressed by ministers and supported by most members of parliament. They have given consideration to the fact that the legislation has not been presented and are really paying heed to some of the suggestions that obviously will be included in the legislation when it is introduced. I believe the previous minister is entitled to a considerable degree of credit for the changes that have been made in the department and its personnel. I think it would be unfair to leave the impression that perhaps many hon. members have, namely, that all the officials of this department are not as honest as they should be and
DEBATES	2335
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration have not used discretion in cases where discretion should have been used.
This was true in many cases in the past and over a period of years to my knowledge, but I am of the opinion that the previous minister was a credit to the department and assisted many Canadians and other people wishing to bring their families into this country. I certainly hope the attention that has been paid to the human element involved in immigration cases will be continued. Immigrants have not always told the truth. They have been advised by officials not to tell the truth because if they told the truth they would not be able to do certain things. This is why we got into the terrible mess with regard to the Chinese communities in this country. Over the years a lie was compounded by dozens of people until they reached the stage where they really did not know who they were and what their relationships were. Consequently we found brother marrying sister and other relationships that created an impossible situation. To a large extent I blame the officials of the department who over the years have made this situation possible. If necessary I could give the details of some of the stories in connection with this department with which many hon. members are familiar. These cases occurred a few years ago and are no credit to the department.
To my knowledge most of these abuses have been corrected and I am quite proud of the change that has been made and the human element that has now been introduced into the field of legislation. At all times the human element should be a deciding factor in immigration cases and I hope the new minister and those now responsible in the department will continue to give this type of understanding which I think is very necessary in this particular field.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I asked the minister some questions about two aspects of citizenship policy. He replied in the vein that I should know what his reply was, but he answered that the citizenship branch was being transferred to the Department of the Secretary of State for administration by that department. Could the minister tell the committee when the decision was made to make that transfer and whether it involves only the citizenship branch?


Jean Marchand: It involves only the citizenship branch, Mr. Chairman. I do not know exactly when the transfer will be made. It
2336	COMMONS DEBATES	March 7, 1966
Supply-Health and Welfare will have to be approved by the House of Commons. With regard to the first question put to me, I think we all agree that there should be some uniformity in the Citizenship Courts. I know this is something on which the department has been working, and we shall continue to work in this direction. It has been announced that the citizenship branch will be transferred to the Department of the Secretary of State. This transfer will be effective when the House of Commons approves of it.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What about the citizenship registration branch? Will that branch be transferred also? Will both branches be transferred?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I did not ask when the transfer would take effect; I asked when the decision was made to make the transfer. May I follow that question with one other thought before the minister replies. It is my understanding that under the Transfer of Duties Act this sort of transfer could be made by order in council as was the transfer of the Indian affairs branch to northern affairs. The minister shakes his head and says no, that it must be done by statute. I accept the shaking of his head to this effect. When was the decision made to make the transfer?


Jean Marchand: It was announced when the Prime Minister announced the creation of the department of manpower. He announced at the same time that the citizenship branch was going to be transferred.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, an hour or so ago I asked the minister a three part question regarding foreign decorations. I received a passable answer to the first of the three questions. I was told that Lord Thomson of Fleet, who was decorated by the Queen of Canada, had chosen to become a British subject. I also asked a question as to what happened in the case of Premier Lesage of Quebec who accepted the Order of the Phoenix from the King of Greece. Did Premier Lesage become a citizen of Greece?


Jean Marchand: No, not that I know of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration, $2,330,100.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Health

and Welfare, Item No. 1, to be found on page 284 of the blue book. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr, Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to make a statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to make an extended statement. I hope to have an opportunity to reply to any questions or points that may be raised by members of the committee following their participation in the debate. All I wish to do is tell the committee that I welcome this opportunity to appear before the committee in my new role of Minister of National Health and Welfare and pay tribute to my predecessors in this portfolio on both sides of the house.
I have learned since going into the department about their leadership and appreciate what they have done as much as I appreciate the excellent work being done in the department by the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare. If hon. members wish me to direct my attention to any particular points which are raised I shall be glad to do so.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not know whether this is a rest from labour or how he got this appointment but I am very glad to see him associated with this department. I was also very pleased to see the hon. lady member for Westmorland appointed as his Parliamentary Secretary and I am sure she will make a very capable assistant. This situation is all the more charming because the hon. gentleman is a bachelor. I am sure the hon. lady will help smooth out the difficult ruffles because ladies usually tend to lend a more sympathetic ear to human problems, with which the Department of National Health and Welfare is very much concerned. In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman-I have now been distracted from my speech, and am slightly embarrassed-I should like to congratulate the minister and his lovely assistant.
At this point I want to deal briefly with medicare and some of the problems inherent in it. Medicare was a plank in the Liberal platform, added very hastily and proclaimed across this country in a promise that we would have an almost universal medicare plan, 95 per cent, by 1967. In this regard I have grave doubts.
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
I am sure the minister is sincere. I have been following some of the speeches he has made outside of the house but I sometimes wonder about his success in this regard, particularly when I think back to a platform of Mackenzie King in 1919 which has as a Plank free hospitalization for Canadians. I was in the house in 1958, 39 years after that promise was made, when the Conservative government passed an Act now known as the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This became a fait accompli in 1958, as I say, 39 years after that promise.
I do not believe this government intends to take as long to implement their promise regarding a medicare service but I have some doubt about the 1967 target for several reasons. I do not think the way they went about this would lend itself to success. They held a meeting here in Ottawa and said they would pay the average national per capita cost of medical services across Canada at the rate of $28, but that is also the average cost in the province of Quebec. I do not even hint that Mr. Lesage was consulted in this regard, but that was not the average cost in the province of Ontario nor in many other provinces. The average cost in this province was $42 per capita, and I suggest the reason for this-this would apply to the province of British Columbia and other provinces-is that fees and para-medical services are higher. Ontario is a high cost province and I suggest it was not much wonder why Ontario and some of the other provinces did not accept this idea, particularly the province of Ontario which pays 45 per cent of taxes in Canada.
In view of these facts I am sure it is no wonder that Ontario launched its own medicare program. It is a plan that starts at a base which can be built up. This in my opinion is what is necessary in Canada in the position we find ourselves today with a shortage of doctors, para-medical services, hospital beds, research, medical schools and teachers. In my opinion it is supreme folly to say that we can have a complete medicare service in 1967. It is utterly impossible to expect such an accomplishment when one considers that the work load of general practitioners is greater than they can handle today.
I should like to suggest to the government that it take a look at what the province of Ontario has done. It has adopted a medicare scheme that will cover almost two million people. This is a plan related to Physicians Services Incorporated in the province of [DOT]Ontario which pays 90 per cent of medical
DEBATES	2337
Supply-Health and Welfare fees and is totally acceptable to the doctors of this province. When the Ontario plan comes into effect on July 1, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of its people will be covered by public carrier or private carrier.
I should like to suggest to the federal government, keeping these facts in mind, that it could go ahead and pay the per capita costs to the province of Ontario and to other provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia. In support of this suggestion I should like to quote from a statement made during the last election campaign, as reported in the Calgary Herald for November 1, 1965:
Agriculture Minister Harry Hays said today. . . . "If Alberta should decide to stay out of any national (medicare) plan, then I'm sure some way can be negotiated to make sure the people of Alberta don't lose any of their rightful tax benefits.
I suggest that is a pretty clear indication of straight thinking so far as the province of Alberta is concerned, enunciated by a former minister.
I should also like to point out that the former minister of trade and commerce, the present Minister of Finance, is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of November 5 as having said in Toronto on November 4:
Trade Minister Sharp told an all-party rally Thursday, November 4, a Liberal government may have to delay introduction of a national medical care scheme because of a shortage of doctors and nurses. "I don't know if we'll be able to reach that (1967) target."
The minister goes on to say:
The doctor-nurse shortage would be given immediate attention by the next government following the federal election Monday.
I should like to hear from the minister as to what he has done regarding the doctor shortage.
The former minister of national health and welfare, as reported in the Canadian Press article of September 24, said:
-the goal is to have at least 95 per cent of the people of a province covered, but if that cannot be achieved initially, 90 per cent will be acceptable and there may be flexibility in the 90 per cent figure.
I suggest that both those statements contain commonsense facts.
I should now like to refer to the Hall Commission report which pointed out that there was an acute shortage of doctors, and that this plan could not be implemented at once. It pointed out that it should be started although it could not be implemented immediately because of a shortage of doctors, dentists and para-medical services. The re-
March 7, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare port suggests, however, that this plan should be at least started. The people should not be cheated. They have been promised something and the government should go ahead with that promise. The government must start to make an effort to increase the number of doctors-not next year but now.
In this regard the government must take steps to provide four additional medical schools before 1971. We must have 500 new medical students each year in each faculty of medicine across the country. There has been a little diffidence in this regard. Some medical schools have not been able to get their quotas of students in past years. Only 7 per cent of grade 13 students is all we have been able to attract to medical faculties and that is not enough to attain the 500 new students per year which are required. I should also like to say that when we attain this 500 students per year figure it will take seven to eight years before they begin to practise medicine. I might say in this regard that we doubled the per capita grants to universities. I think in 1959.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Above all, when we get these 500 students per year it will be seven or eight years before they can be put to work in the medical field. This is not good enough. Even if the government were going to embark on medicare four years from now, they should now be creating a crash program in our medical schools, and there is no reason this cannot be done.
In 1940 a crash program was started across the land to produce doctors. The doctors were produced and medical schools were open all year round. Why should these expensive buildings and facilities remain idle during the summer months? This is a waste which at the moment we cannot afford either from the standpoint of producing doctors or cost. The minister will say we have not got the teachers to do this but we found a great many teachers between 1940 and 1945 in our forces overseas, so I suggest this would be a pretty lame excuse. In addition, through research we should be able to produce quicker and more modern methods of teaching. We could use closed circuit television in our medical schools to release teachers for research work which would make this country great. We could have special centres for special diagnostic work and information.
There is no question that we must have teachers and in this regard I think we could use some certified general practitioners. IMr. Rynard.l
When I went to medical school one of my greatest teachers was a general practitioner. I believe we could use these doctors today to get us out of this crisis, and I do not think any problem would arise. We have to get students, universities and teachers before we can produce any more medical doctors. I would say to the minister, do not deceive the people by saying that you are going to bring in this plan and provide full service because it simply cannot be done.
I should like to say a few words on the question of hospital beds. I am sure the minister is well aware that only this past month Mr. Robarts presented a report to the Ontario house from the Ontario Hospital Services Commission which stated there were not enough beds for the people who need them. This is a very serious problem and may mean that lives are lost.
The minister will probably reply that this is not his responsibility. But let me tell him that when the Conservative party came into power in 1958 it immediately doubled hospital grants for beds. Since that time nothing has been done. Our party provided for interns' quarters, for nurses' residences, for laboratories and for physiotherapy units by way of grants to each service.
I do not want to berate the minister on this subject but I would draw to his attention, because he is new to the job, that I found when I looked up the record that in the last eight years the provincial government of Ontario has increased its grants three times. Therefore I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that there is a serious deficiency on the part of the federal government which should be remedied at once. As I say, Ontario's government increased its grants three times, and building costs have risen from $10,000 per bed eight years ago to $20,000 to $25,000 today. During the last year I was told by an architect that hospital building costs in one city have risen 30 per cent. I am sure the minister will recognize that some of this increase is due to taxes imposed by his government.
So I just draw the attention of the minister, Mr. Chairman, to the necessity for action by way of providing beds. I would ask him whether he does not think it fair or right to plug these loopholes before embarking on a full scheme of medicare which he cannot fulfil and for which he is going to charge the people of Canada, leaving doctors overworked and patients frustrated with poor attention.
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
Another problem is that we have been a long way behind in many things but as we look back over the years we find that in 1951 we graduated from our medical schools 34 doctors more than were graduated in 1961 and this in spite of the fact that, excluding immigrants, there was a natural increase in population of over three million people. This is an astonishing thing. Neither governments nor universities have taken the necessary steps to correct this, and this inaction has left us in a very serious predicament. During that period of time we have had between 500 to 600 immigrant doctors per year, 90 per cent of them from the U.K. These people are well trained and a great asset. Most of them left the United Kingdom because of the introduction of state medicine and they came to this country. I should like to put on the record the fact that these doctors represent a gift of about $3 billion by way of earning power in this country over their natural lifetimes.
This money, Mr. Chairman, would build a lot of universities and schools and would provide for a lot of the research so badly needed in this country. I should also like to point out to the minister that in this country we spent last year on medical research approximately $10 million while the United States spent $1 billion. I say that is just not right. How in the world are we going to get highly qualified teachers and keep them in our universities and schools if that is all we give them for research? I hope the minister does not do this year what he did last year when he spent only 60 per cent of his budget which was approved for research purposes, leaving 40 per cent of it to go by the board. The consequence was that 40 per cent of the people who would have conducted that research were left to go to the United States or elsewhere, which is not good enough. That is why I say to the minister in a spirit of kindness that these are loopholes in his department that must be plugged.
Another loophole in his department is the handling of mental health cases. The federal government does not contribute to the cost of beds in mental hospitals. It is a fact that 50 per cent of the hospital beds occupied in Canada today are filled by patients with mental disease. I would suggest that the government must do something to remedy this situation. The federal government should recognize support for mentally ill patients just as for physically ill patients. Are these
DEBATES	2339
Supply-Health and Welfare
people going to be covered under the medicare plan? At the moment the federal government does not contribute to the cost of their hospitalization or provide hospital beds. Are these people going to be ruled out under medicare? These questions must be answered and we must straighten out the position of these people.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There are a lot of other matters on which I could dwell but I will cut my speech a little short and go to the question of research. We are spending only $1 million on research into mental disease. I am sure that the minister knows as well as I do that we are spending, I think, $54 million in defence research and we are only spending $1 million for mentally ill people. The brain is the finest creation of the Creator, and it is not being accepted when a person, a physical being has anything wrong with hin, that money should be spent on him. One million dollars only is being spent on research in this field. When you think of the terrific economic loss that it means to the public and to the families of those people who are sick mentally, you realize that we should be spending $10 million or more on research into mental disease.
I want to say one thing more to the minister and then I shall expect some answers. I realize that this is a new department for the minister. I have always respected him and thought of him as a reasonable man. I will expect when he looks at this question of mental illness that he will come back to his estimates with an altogether different viewpoint than expressed in some of the things I have read. It seems to me that his attitude is to seek full medicare or 90 per cent medicare coverage by 1967. I shall have more to say about this to the minister. I will not say anything more now except that I think we are ten years behind where we ought to have been in starting medicare. I think we have not many potholes or loopholes to clear up, but we may be or going to get into trouble. We may break or do considerable harm to our medical profession. We may harm those who are carrying the load, which is another thing you have to think about, and lower seriously the medical standard that we now enjoy.
I would ask the minister from Nova Scotia if he knows what the president of the Nova Scotian medical society said? He said that the situation is so serious with regard to the shortage of doctors in general practice today
2340	COMMONS DEBATES	March 7, 1966
Supply-Health and Welfare that, "We must consider shortening the course to four years." That comes from the minister's own province. I would submit to the minister that he talk to Dr. Gorman, who is very well known, to get some of his viewpoints on this very important subject.
I also want to say that we are spending about one hundredth per capita of the amount spent in the United States in research. We are away down the scale compared with most of the have countries of the world. We are away down the scale compared with Great Britain. Research in universities is the science that brings to light new products, new ideas, new drugs, that finds out new diseases and finds out how to treat and cure chronic diseases.
Research is of inestimable value. I want to point out that we are still benefiting from the research done by Banting and Best at the University of Toronto in 1923 in the discovery of insulin. If we do not want to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water we shall have to put money into research. So long as we are prepared to let the United States do our research, so long, Mr. Chairman, will we remain hewers of wood and drawers of water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the minister to his new post in the Department of National Health and Welfare and I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Westmorland on her appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the minister. I should also like to join with the minister in the tribute that he paid to the efficient and hard working staff -that he has in his department. I have been around here now for a few years and I have got to know a few civil servants. It happens because of the committees I have been on and particular interests I have had that I have got to know the members of his staff, and the work that -they do in a special way. I want to say that in my view his tribute to the work they do was well deserved.
I said at the outset that I welcomed the minister to his new department. I am sure that he will not be surprised if I remind him that in the department he left, he left behind a number of items of unfinished business. I will not recite them now because it would be out of order to do so. I recited them the other night when the estimates of the Department of Labour were before us. However, he is already aware of the fact that, if he left behind some items of unfinished business, he

inherited some when he came into the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not detract for a moment from the good job that his predecessor did, with a little help of course, in getting the Canada Pension Plan onto the statute books. However, there were a few items that even she was not able to accomplish in the last parliament.
Mainly, what I want to do in these few minutes in which I now choose to speak is to remind the minister of these items and to urge him to get cracking on them.
First of all, and I say this briefly because my colleague, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway will deal with this as well as other matters in greater detail, he must not ever get the notion that the old age security pension can be left where it is, at $75 a month. The fact that this house made a decision the wrong way on a couple of motions earlier in this session does not settle the issue so far as the Canadian people are concerned. All the arguments that were used last session to the effect that the pension package would have been a better one if we had matched the Canada Pension Plan with $100 a month as the old age security pension not only still stand but are given greater force by the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since that time.
I urge the minister to realize that he simply must cope with this issue. It is just as urgent a matter as were the important matters that he had to deal with when he was Minister of Labour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has not the minister already committed himself in the public speech that he made the other day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to talk about that later, but without transgressing on the ground that I know my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway wants to cover I may say that in our view a pension increase should be an increase. There should not be any tests or strings tied to it. We will develop that later, but we think it would be a mistake if you spoiled the old age pension program that was built on a universal basis by having tests or strings attached to it.
The second item, Mr. Chairman, about which nothing has been done for a long time, although it has frequently been raised in this
March 7, 1966	COMMONS
house, is the question of the amount of the family allowance payments. It is true that the youth allowance was added in the last parliament, but the amounts that are paid under the Family Allowances Act are still those that were set when the legislation was first passed back in 1944. The only change made in all those years is that instead of having four rates there are only two. But those two rates are rates that were set in 1944 and came into effect on July 1, 1945. That is an item of unfinished business on which we will expect action from this minister.
The minister also knows that left over from the last session is the Canada Assistance Plan. I know that this leads us into questions of policy that are close to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre a moment ago. At any rate, there certainly are some aspects of the Canada Assistance Plan which in my view would represent a forward step in social security, and I regret that no action was taken about this legislation at the last session.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As I recall the legislation it was promised it would be brought down last session. And I believe during the election campaign last fall two or three Liberal speakers referred to the Canada Assistance Plan as though it had actually been passed. Some of their research people had to let them know that it was merely on the list of things yet to be done. That is where it remains. We were told that the target date for this legislation to be in effect was April 1, 1966. Well, today is March 7 and the minister will obviously have to hurry up. I would remind him that this does happen to be a month in which there are 31 days. This gives him an extra day. He will know what I am referring to. Another item on the list was the health resources fund, the target date for which was January 1, 1966. This date has already gone by, so even the fact there are 31 days in March will not help the minister to meet that target.
These are in outline some of the items of unfinished business which this minister has inherited. If he is to earn the bouquets that are coming his way he must see to it that action is taken on all of them.
The other subject, the important one to which the hon. member for Simcoe East devoted the greater part of his remarks, is medicare. Though I have saved it to the last of the items which I am reciting tonight I hope the minister will recognize that it ought to have top priority in his scheme of things. I
DEBATES	2341
Supply-Health and Welfare must say at the outset that I am in disagreement with the hon. member for Simcoe East. He will not be surprised at that. However, whereas he was trying to persuade the minister to depart from the medicare election promise of the last two or three campaigns, I stand here again to urge this Liberal Minister of National Health and Welfare to take steps to implement the promise which his party has made over the years.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wonder if I could make a correction? I said that we should have started this scheme 10 years ago. I am all in favour of this. But I want to fill up the potholes so that we will be ready to go ahead and not deceive the people. The hon. member could not have been listening to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was listening carefully. That was one of the points the hon. member made, and I made a note of it because I wanted to draw attention to the inconsistency of telling the government it was 10 years behind the times and then urging it to slow down, to wait another 10 years or another 47.
I want to say what hardly needs to be said because it is a principle which has been recognized time and time again and it has been documented extremely well in the Hall report-that in this field of medicare there is no room for any kind of means test such as one finds in the plan which has been brought into effect in this province. In the Ontario plan a division is made between those who have one level of income and those who have another, thereby introducing into this important social legislation a basis of discrimination which will before long, I believe, prove just as damaging to the dignity of human beings as the means test was for the many years when it was applied to determine eligibility for old age pensions.
I urge the minister to face the fact that precisely because Ontario and other provinces have come along with inferior plans is no reason for the federal government to go slowly. On the contrary, this is all the more reason for the federal government to move faster. Indeed, the fact that some of the provinces have come in with other plans underlines the mistake which has been made by the federal government in delaying. Had action only been taken in this area a long time ago we should be a lot better off.
Speaking of the hon. member for Simcoe East and inconsistencies on his part to which I wanted to draw attention, I note he complained because Mr. King delayed for so
March 7, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare many years with regard to hospitalization as one aspect of national insurance-delayed and delayed until it was left to a Conservative government to implement the first hospital insurance plan. I think that for the record it should be pointed out that the Liberals brought in the legislation just before they were defeated in 1957 but it took the Conservatives to make the necessary amendments so that the legislation could be implemented.
The hon. member complained that Mr. King was so slow. But tonight he employs the very arguments that we used to hear from Mr. King. He used to tell us it was no use having hospital insurance until we had the hospital beds. Now, tonight, the hon. member who condemns Mr. King is saying it is no use having medicare until we have all the doctors and all the facilities necessary for carrying it out. I suggest that one of the things which led to an increase in the number of hospital beds and to the building of hospitals was precisely the growth of hospital insurance and I contend that the same would happen in the field of medicare. I urge the government not to retreat by one iota from the four points the Prime Minister laid down in July, 1965. Personally, and speaking for this party, I would like to see the Hall report implemented in full. But at least those four points which the Prime Minister laid down last July are good and provide a basis for a good medicare scheme in this country. Let me repeat them.
First, it was proposed that the contribution by the present government to provincial schemes would require that coverage in the province be universal; second, that the coverage would take into account the broad range of medical needs required; third, that the plan should be government operated; fourth, that the plan should be portable among the provinces of Canada. I suggest that nothing less than this is good enough and I urge that action on this kind of plan be taken during the present session.
The hon. member for Simcoe East, drawing attention to the change which had to be made in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, reminded us of the fact that the Liberal government of the St. Laurent day stood for a long time on the position that it would not move into hospital insurance until a certain number of the provinces representing a certain portion of the population would enter this field. For some time the present government was taking a similar position with regard to medicare. Recently, however, 
the government has moved away from that position, and I hope it stays away from it.
What the government should do now, I strongly suggest, is to bring in this legislation, put it on the statute books and make it available to the provinces as they are prepared to come in, even if there are only two or three provinces at first. That is the only way in which hospital insurance got going and I suggest it is the only way in which medicare will get going. I am glad to get the minister's attention at this point. I urge him to take action on these lines. I hope he will not take the position that with the hon. member for Simcoe East urging him to go in one direction and the member for Winnipeg North Centre urging him to go in another, he can try to go down the middle. There is no middle way between a means test and universality; there is no middle way between a partial plan and full coverage. We suggest that if the government is worth its salt this is the area in which it must act during this session. I know that the minister and the former parliamentary secretary to the department, the hon. member for Hamilton East-the present parliamentary secretary has not been there long enough-do not like being reminded of the years, the decades, the eons of time it has taken to get action out of this government. We are talking about things which were started before those three, the see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil trio over there, were even born. This is a fact we have had to live with, the myth that the Liberals would move in the direction of social progress.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The Canadian people have had to assume that because the Liberals were in power they were getting things that they were not getting at all. We think the time has gone for the Canadian people to be asked to live under that myth and that the time has come for action in this terribly important field of medicare.
The minister does not need to worry about the unfinished business he left behind in the Department of Labour. A new minister can take that on, but he has some pretty important items in this department upon which I hope he will act. I urge him to do so without delay.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while we are considering the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, I wish for a few minutes to call the minister's attention on the statements we made and reiterated over and over again in the course of every
March 7, 1966

session, in particular since 1962, on the importance of increasing family allowances in accordance with the cost of living index.
We did the same thing or, rather, we took a different stand when the increase of parliamentary idemnities came to a vote.


Mr. Boulanger:: This is demagogy.


David Réal Caouette: In spite of assertions that this is demagogy-and the hon. member for Mercier may go and say in his constituency that we are acting as demagogues-it still remains that parliamentary idemnities were raised from $10,000 to $18,000. On the other hand, family allowances have remained at the same level as in 1945, that is 21 years ago.
Today, the Quebec Minister of Health says that the province must get back family allowances, but nothing is being done.
The minister keeps mum about his plans and about a possible linking of family allowances to the cost-of-living index; indeed, the federal members of Parliament asked for an increase in the parliamentary indemnity because they said that the cost of living is not the same today, or was not the same last year, as it was in 1945 or 1950. Everybody knows that.
But, we, as legislators, must recognize that the cost of living, for our Canadian families, is not the same thing in 1966 as it was in 1950 or in 1945 either.
We voted for the motions for an increase for our aged people in Canada. We want family allowances to be related to the cost-of-living index.
In other areas, we frequently have to call on the Department of National Health and Welfare for subsidies to cultural centres in our section of the province. In this connection, the minister is not too much in a hurry. I understand that he has switched to another department. He did a wonderful job in the Department of Labour and I hope he will do the same in his new department.
Cultural centres exist not only in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver. Other parts of the province and of the country require the same attention from the federal authorities. And the hon. minister is surely conscious of those needs or, at least, we are bringing them to his attention.
Then, he must give us answers or try to do the impossible so that our constituencies may get a fair treatment.
Another point to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just called the minister's attention is the
Supply-Health and Welfare famous medicare plan that for many years members of the New Democratic Party have been clamouring for and which was set up in Saskatchewan with great difficulty because of the manifold and real obstacles brought about by common sense and then, they had to change their mind.
What we suggest as a Canadian medical plan is called the health dividend. Instead of the government setting up a government insurance company which would employ doctors and tell them how to treat sick and disabled persons in Canada, or persons in need of a medical plan, we suggest that the government should issue a national health voucher to every Canadian family.
It could be $150 per family and from $90 to $100 per bachelor in the country. With this voucher, the Canadian citizen, family head or bachelor, could select his insurance company, the medical plans or plan already in existence. It can already be secured through private industry, from any insurance company, the Artisans canadiens frangais, The Canada Life, The Crown Life, The Mutual Life, The Sun Life, it doesn't matter which; all these companies are organized to assure people and provide them with medical insurance. It is available in group insurance.


David Lewis: For profit motives.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for York South say: "for profit motives". When the hon. member for York South needs a doctor, he is not concerned with the doctors' profits, because when he wants a doctor, it is the doctor he is interested in and not the doctor's profits. He is concerned with the care the doctor can give him.
It is natural for companies to make profits. When enthusiasm and initiative are taken away in a society, we retrogress instead of progressing. That is exactly what the member for York South wants to do; that is exactly what is happening in Russia, which we visited last year.
Mr. Chairman, that is not what we want. I think that the citizen should have freedom of choice with regard to medical insurance. He chooses the plan he wants; he chooses his doctor. That is what is important in a democracy: to give citizens freedom of choice.
The plan which we suggest, the health dividend, would mean insurance jor all citizens. It would cost the government about 35 to 40 per cent less than medicare or a national health insurance plan in Canada.

March 7, 1966
Business of the House
And that is what the people from the New Democratic Party and the social democratic party, or the socialist parties of Canada, cannot understand. What matters to them is that the government controls the individual in his home, in society, everywhere. This is not what we want. We want the individual to remain independent, people to be respected, and in order to give them that respect and security, they must have the financial means which to choose what they want, because it is the human being himself who has to determine what must be done and what is good for him. It does not rest with the government to do that for him. Let us respect that freedom.


An hon. Member:: It is ten o'clock.
Another hon. Member: Ten o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am told that it is ten o'clock; I want to call your attention to this fact.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?
Carried.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to call it ten o'clock.

Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, when we finish the estimates tomorrow I should like to call item No. 16, the motion to set up the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider penitentiary matters; item No. 18, the motion for the joint committee on consumer credit; item No. 21, the motion for the joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant, and item No. 11, second reading of the bill to extend the Bank Act, not necessarily in that order. This is a short bill which merely extends the time to permit consideration of the amending bank legislation.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what consideration has been given to the establishment of a joint committee on divorce?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration now. The suggestion has come from the other place that, instead of having the private members' bills considered

by the standing committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Legal Affairs, we should withdraw them from that committee and have them considered by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. It is a matter of having the necessary resolution put on the order paper and if there is general agreement in the house, or appears to be, having them withdrawn from the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be referred to the new joint committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, last week, in terms which are quite in fashion these days, I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene):
As the new dairy year is starting in a few days, is the minister in a position to tell us where we stand in the count-down before the launching or the placing into orbit of the new dairy policy which is intended to guarantee Canadian milk producers a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight for industrial milk?
Mr. Speaker, you know that the dairy industry in eastern Canada is of vital significance to the farm economy of this country, and particularly to our farmers and dairy producers. We also know that dairy producers in the eastern section of this country are most anxious to hear about this new policy which was supposed to be announced very soon.
Tonight, I shall try to give the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) the dates on which the dairy policies were announced since 1958-59.
During those years the dairy year began on May 1, but we all know that last year, the former Minister of Agriculture anticipated by one month the start of the dairy year 1965-66.
For the year 1958-59, the new dairy policy was announced on April 7. For the year starting May 1, for the period 1959-60, the policy was announced on April 23; for the year 1960-61, which started on May 1, the policy was announced on April 13.
In 1961, the policy was announced on April 20, for the year 1961-62 starting on May 1.
March 7. 19SG	COMMONS
In 1962, the policy was announced on March 22. It was revised on April 9, 1962, and on April 27, the policy for the dairy year 1962-63 was again revised.
In 1963, the policy for the dairy year starting May 1 was announced on April 29, and it will be remembered that, on that occasion, hon. members representing rural counties had received numerous petitions and protests from dairy producers who had been informed of the new dairy policy only a few hours before the new dairy year.
In 1963, we could expect a late date, because a general election had been held on April 8 and the minister had just then been appointed. But in 1964, the policy was announced on April 29, a few hours before the new dairy year, that is on May 1.
Last year the policy was announced on March 26, and this was an improvement, although it was announced a month and a few days before the beginning of the new dairy year. In spite of that, last year protests were raised against the policy and we could read in the Canadian press, more especially in the Terre de Chez Nous, some editorials of this kind:
After enticing but vague promises will there be disappointing and harsh facts?
Mr. Speaker, I am interested tonight, as are all hon. members and especially the dairy producers, in knowing-and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to give us an idea-when the dairy policy for the new year will be announced in the house, so that we may discuss it and make our proposals before it is brought into force.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for directing his question concerning the dairy policy of the government to me at this particular time. He mentioned that he was patiently awaiting the introduction of the new dairy policy of the government. I can readily understand why he would be patiently awaiting the new dairy policy of this government and permit me to review briefly the dairy policy which has been in effect.
The government has had four main objectives for its dairy policy: First, to balance production and consumption; second, to remove the surplus of butter which existed when this government took office, a surplus of some 239 million pounds; third, to increase the production of cheese for which there was
DEBATES	2345
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a very strong export demand. I know the hon. member will be gratified at having learned in the last year or so that production and consumption have been brought in line and we have been able to increase our production and export of cheese by some 20 per cent. The fourth objective is to improve the price that farmers receive for their milk.
The hon. member will be gratified of course to reflect on the fact that prior to this government taking office the average price farmers received for milk was in the neighbourhood of $3 or a little less and last year farmers in Canada received an average of $3.50. It will be the objective of this government to see that farmers receive a maximum price for their milk at the farm of something about the $3.50 level. This is our aim. I can only tell the hon. member at this particular time that the policy will be announced by the minister in due course. I am sure he awaits it with anticipation and will greet it with great satisfaction.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF GRAVE OF D'ARCY McGEE

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am grand marshal of the Irishmen's parade this year and that tonight I am speaking about D'Arcy McGee is no coincidence. In this day of communication I think the average youngster is more familiar with the exploits of Davey Crockett than he is with La Verendrye, Radisson, LaSalle and other men whose careers were much more exciting than Davey Crockett's. I think it is safe to say that most high school students are more familiar with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln than they are with the assassination of one of the Fathers of Confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee. He was assassinated by a Fenian known as Whelan.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee was first elected to parliament in 1858 as an independent, sponsored at that time by the St. Patrick Society. In a moment of weakness he became a Conservative and it has taken the Irish almost 98 years to forget that blemish on his character.
On the day that Thomas D'Arcy McGee was buried in Montreal one of the largest funerals in Canadian history took place, which is a tribute to the fine relationship that existed between the Irish and French speaking Montrealers. The funeral took place first at St. Patrick's Cathedral and then proceeded
March 7, 1966
2346	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to Notre Dame Cathedral to be repeated. Since then his body has rested at the Cote des Neiges cemetery in Montreal. The tombstone that marks his resting place was, to the best of the knowledge of the historians of the Montreal area, paid for by a family named Wilson and has been maintained through the years by the St. Patrick Society of Montreal. That society has informed me that his tombstone, because of the type of stone used almost 100 years ago, has reached the point where it should be replaced in a fitting manner.
I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in the chamber. Although I am a great supporter of Expo '67, I think in the final analysis our centennial celebration will be of more lasting benefit to Canada than Expo '67. I would therefore urge the Secretary of State that as one of our centennial achievements the federal government should absorb the cost of providing a suitable tombstone for the grave of Thomas D'Arcy McGee. I realize that the Parliamentary Secretary will probably tell me that the proper procedure is for the city of Montreal to sponsor this, with the federal government paying a portion of the cost. I immediately must state that the memory of Thomas D'Arcy McGee does not belong to Montreal and does not belong to the St. Patrick Society. That memory is not the exclusive property of the Irish Canadians of this country but belongs to all Canadians. He was a Father of Confederation and as such I think the federal government has a duty and, in many ways, a privilege to provide a tombstone for the grave of Thomas D'Arcy McGee as a part of our centennial celebrations next year.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mac-kasey) certainly deserves our congratulations and our admiration for having recalled, on the eve of the centennial of the Confederation, and carried away by his patriotism, the memory of one of the most brilliant speakers of our Parliamentary history, a polished writer and a fine poet, a great administrator, one of the Fathers of Confederation:	Thomas
D'Arcy McGee, born in the green Erin. My hon. friend's plea comes very appropriately just in time to support a recent request made by the Saint Patrick's Society of Montreal.
The hon. member may be pleased to learn that under a federal-provincial program of

per capita grants sponsored by the centennial commission, funds are available for carrying out the type of project he proposes. However, under this program, all requests must first be approved by the provinces and then obtain the approval of the centennial commission.
In the present case, it is not presumptuous to state that the commission would look with favour upon such a request. In fact, the centennial commission recently received a similar project from the Prince Edward Island authorities and it is about to grant its approval.
In closing, may I remind my hon. colleague that a project exists which was announced in 1964 by the Boy Scouts of Canada, with the financial assistance of the centennial commission. Under this project, the boy scouts are responsible for inspecting the tombs of all the Fathers of Confederation, for reporting in what condition they are and for undertaking to restore them if need be.
Once that work is finished, the boy scouts will lay wreaths during the year 1967 and organize ceremonies to which will be invited all the descendants of the Fathers of Confederation, to whom we owe our constitution.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.
lb. Administration-to extend Justice Vote 1 of the main estimates, 1965-66 for the purposes set out in the sub-vote title relating to a committee on corrections and in the sub-vote title relating to the "statute revision commission", to include grants as detailed in the estimates and to provide a further amount of, $224,100.
Id. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $15,424.
5. Combines Investigation Act-Administration, $837,500.
Correctional services-
10. Administration, operation and maintenance including compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries. $28,207,400.
March 7, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. $25,622,000.
15d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,800,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,257,800.
lb. Departmental administration, $99,600.
Citizenship-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, and grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $2,044,500.
5b. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, $25,000.
Immigration-
10. Administration, operation and maintenance including trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the Governor in Council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants and $20,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $13,898,000.
lOd. Administration, operation and maintenance including trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the Governor in Council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $700,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1966


[Stage Direction]
The Tenth Meeting of the Joint United States-Canadian Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs was held in Washington, D.C., March 4-5, 1966.
As background to the discussions on trade and economic matters, the United States Secretary of State and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs reviewed, major recent international developments.
The Committee exchanged views on current developments in the closely related economies of the two countries, noting with satisfaction that both had achieved a record of sustained economic expansion unparalleled in their histories and they looked forward to another year of strong growth. They recognized, however, that maintaining price and cost stability will require close and continuing attention.
The Committee discussed the balance of payments of both countries. They recognized that decisive progress had been made toward reducing the United States balance of payments deficit and reviewed the measures being taken to bring the United States external accounts into balance. In this connection, the Committee noted the measures that have been taken to maintain access to the United States capital market for an unlimited amount of new Canadian securities free of the Interest Equalization Tax. The United States members reaffirmed that, in buying such issues, U.S. investors were completely free to be guided by market considerations.
Canadian Ministers expressed their concern over the possible implications for Canada of the United States voluntary program on direct investment and the relation of this program to the position of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. The United States members made clear that the U.S. Government was not requesting U.S. corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any ways that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies, or their other financial and commercial activities. United States members re-emphasized the view that United States subsidiaries abroad should behave as good citizens of the country
where they are located. Where U.S. companies were in doubt as to these views, the U.S. Government would ensure that any misunderstandings would be dispelled.
The Canadian Ministers expressed serious concern that proposed Securities and Exchange Commission regulations would subject to United States law Canadian companies not deliberately seeking to sell securities in the United States if their shares had happened to be purchased by United States residents. These regulations, moreover, would discriminate against Canadian companies by imposing more severe requirements relative to other foreign companies. Canadian Ministers referred to plans under way in Canada to improve the disclosure of information regarding Canadian enterprises and the regulation of the issue of securities. They strongly urged that the United States authorities refrain from applying these SEC regulations to Canadian companies which do not seek to sell their securities in the United States. The United States members appreciated the concern of the Government of Canada and assured the Canadian members that the most careful consideration would be given to Canadian views in an effort to work out at an early date mutually satisfactory arrangements.
The Committee discussed United States foreign assets controls as they may affect the exports of companies in Canada. The United States members reaffirmed their readiness to consult promptly on any transactions of importance to Canada which are affected by United States foreign assets control. They also stated that regulations over exports of technical data are being revised and that, in light of the Committee's discussions, further consideration will be given to the possibilities of additional modifications of the regulations.
The Committee discussed a number of specific bilateral trade and financial matters on both sides, including Canadian Cheddar cheese and Canadian oil exports to the United States, and agreed to keep them under review. The Committee agreed that a joint examination should be made of trade in agricultural implements, tractors, and aircraft for which tariff liberalization would be most important.
March 7. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	2349
They agreed that the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the free flow of goods and services across the border would contribute importantly to the continued prosperity of both countries. The Committee recognized that the Automotive Agreement represents a long stride toward free trade in a basic industry of major importance to the two countries and had resulted in a substantial increase in two-way trade to the benefit of production and employment both in Canada and the United States. Greater benefits are to be expected as industry in both countries adjust their operations to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Agreement.
In the area of international economic relations, the Committee agreed that the Kennedy Round negotiations in Geneva provided an unparalleled opportunity for the substantial liberalization of world trade, which would benefit all participating countries -developing as well as developed. The Committee, therefore, concluded that the highest priority must be given to the timely completion of these negotiations which are now entering their critical phase. They agreed that the Canadian and U.S. delegations would continue to work closely together in the interest of a successful conclusion of the Kennedy Round negotiations, including the negotiation of a world cereals agreement in which the two North American exporting countries have a strong common interest.
The Committee reviewed the trade and development problems of the developing countries particularly in food and agriculture. They noted the food needs in India and the steps being taken by the Indian Government to deal with the problem. Although both countries were providing assistance to India and other developing countries, they noted that more would be needed during the period ahead from other countries. The Canadian members informed the Committee of Canada's recent decision to make available to India a substantially larger amount of food aid.
The Committee discussed the consultative arrangements between the two Governments in the light of the Heeney-Merchant report and agreed on the importance of close and
effective working relationships between the two Governments.
The Committee took note of the importance of the work on improving the international monetary system being undertaken by the International Monetary Fund and the Deputies of the Group of Ten. They expressed the hope that the Deputies will be able to reach agreement on a constructive report to the Ministers, which would permit further negotiations on a broader basis.
The Ministers noted with concern the serious problem of pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River, as described in the recent Interim Report to the Canadian and the United States Governments by the International Joint Commission. They recorded their support for the recommendations in the report and agreed that efforts in both countries should be coordinated to deal with this problem as a matter of urgency.
[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Delegation was led by the Honourable Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and included the Honourable
[Stage Direction]
Robert Winters,
[Stage Direction]
Minister
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce; the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance; the Honourable Charles M. Drury, Minister of Industry; the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; the Honourable
[Stage Direction]
John
[Stage Direction]
J. Greene,
[Stage Direction]
Minister
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture;
[Stage Direction]
Louis
[Stage Direction]
Rasminsky,
[Stage Direction]
Governor
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
the Bank of Canada; Sydney D. Pierce, Chief Canadian Trade Negotiator; the Honourable C.S.A. Ritchie, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, and advisers.
The United States Delegation was headed by the Honourable Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, and included the Honourable Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury, the Honourable	John	T. Connor,	Secretary	of
Commerce; the Honourable Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture; John A. Carver, Jr., Under Secretary of the Department of Interior; Thomas C. Mann, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs; the Honourable Christian A. Herter, the President's Special Representative for Trade Negotiations; the Honourable Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Honourable W. Walton Butterworth, American Ambassador to Canada, and advisers.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 8, 1966