1966-11-16

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of members of the House of Commons the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a most distinguished visitor to Canada, His Royal Highness Prince Bertil of Sweden.
His Royal Highness has joined an important delegation of Swedish business and industrial leaders who are visiting Canada to encourage increased trade and cultural exchanges between our two countries.

On behalf of my colleagues, I wish His Royal Highness Prince Bertil of Sweden a pleasant and fruitful stay in Canada.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table an order in council establishing a royal commission to make a full and confidential inquiry into the operation of Canadian security methods and procedures. The members of the royal commission will be M. W. Mackenzie C.M.G., Chairman of the commission, formerly Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce; Hon. M. J. Cold well and Mr. Yves Pratte, Quebec City.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
November 10-the Minister of Public Works
That from Monday, November 14, 1966, or the day of the adoption of this order the house shall continue to sit continuously and without interruption and without regard to the hours of adjournment specified in standing order 6 (1) until all stages of the interim supply measure now before the house have been disposed of and the appropriation bill founded thereon has received royal assent.
That the operation of proceedings under standing order 39-A be suspended during the effective period of this order.
Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Stand.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: No, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order; I think the Minister of Public Works should remove this motion. It is an insult to the House of Commons to have it standing over our heads as a club day after day. The minister should either go ahead with it or take it off.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot understand how a motion which provides more opportunity for hon. members to deal with matters can be an insult, but I am very happy to withdraw the motion-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go ahead with it.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: -if the hon. member feels that it is in any way offensive to him. I must repeat, however, as I have said several times, that I cannot understand the assertion that it is an insult.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should become involved in a debate on this. Either the motion is to stand or it should be withdrawn. Is the minister asking that it stand?

November 16, 1966
Questions


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I had asked that it stand; but now, in view of the question raised and the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I would be very happy to ask the permission of the house to withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
^
Mrs. MacXnnis (Vancou-ver-Kingsway): 1 What is the total number of members to be appointed to the planning committee for the Canadian conference on human rights to be held in labs;
2.	How many of these have been appointed to date?
3.	How many of these are women?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	The government has not appointed any planning committee for a Canadian conference on human rights to be held in 1968, nor has it been decided that there should be a national conference as part of the Canadian observance of the international year for human rights. The Secretary of State did invite the Canadian Citizenship Council to hold a national consultation on the participation of the voluntary sector in the Canadian observance in 1968. The consultation was held on September 12, 13 and 14, and a provisional committee, composed of six women and nine men, was appointed to submit program proposals to a founding conference which is to be held in early February.
2.	N.A.
3.	N.A.


* ARDA-REGIONAL OFFICES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,875
Mr. Coates:: 1.	On what date was Amherst, Nova Scotia, selected as the regional office of ARDA for the Atlantic area by the Minister of Forestry?
2.	On what date was Moncton, New Brunswick, selected as the regional office of ARDA for the Atlantic area by the Minister of Forestry?
3.	Where will the regional offices of ARDA be located in the city of Moncton and on what date will these offices be available?
4.	Was it the original intention of the Minister of Forestry when selecting Amherst as the site of the ARDA regional headquarters to have their offices located in the federal building planned for construction in 1967?
[Mr. Speaker.!
5.	Did the Department of Public Works agree to the establishment of temporary offices for use by employees of the ARDA regional office staff at Amherst and, if so, what has been the cost of preparing the offices in question, what has been the estimated expenditure by the government to obtain such space both with regard to alteration and lease, and what was the term of the lease?
6.	What specific improvements will be available to the rural citizens of Atlantic Canada through the location of the ARDA regional headquarters at Moncton, New Brunswick, and what transportation facilities will be available to the office at Moncton that were not available at Amherst?
7 How many employees presently associated with the ARDA and MMRA offices at Amherst, Nova Scotia, will be transferred to Moncton, New Brunswick?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The answer to question No. 1 is November, 1965. The answer to question No. 2 is August 22, 1966. The answer to question No. 3 is that office space has not yet been leased. The answer to question No. 4 is yes.
The answer to question No. 5 is that the Department of Public Works, at the request of the Department of Forestry, has leased space at Amherst for the two year period beginning on July 1, 1966, at $4,880 per annum with an option to the Crown to renew for a further period of one year at the same rate. Certain alterations costing $8,967 have been made. This space is to be used by the ARDA administration for engineering and technical services until space in the new federal building becomes available. The construction period for that building is expected to be about two years.
The answer to question No. 6 is the proximity of the headquarters of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the headquarters of the rural development branch of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development will facilitate ease of communication and greater co-operation between agencies working with the people of rural Canada. Airline facilities will be more convenient and train connections better in Moncton.
The answer to question No. 7 is 14. Twenty nine employees will remain in Amherst.


APPLICATIONS FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1. Since the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on July 8, 1966, how many persons who were on that date, in Canada as visitors, have applied for landed immigrant status?
November 16, 1966

2.	Of these, how many applications have been processed and how many persons have been (a) granted landed immigrant status (b) refused such status (c) deported?
3.	How many persons does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration now estimate are present in Canada who entered as visitors, overstayed their entitlement and have not yet applied for landed immigrant status?
4.	Has the department established the new documentation system forecast by the minister on July 8, 1966?
5.	If so, what, in detail, is its nature?
6.	If not, when may action be anticipated?
7.	Have the other improvements been made "in the internal methods of the department" forecast then by the minister been achieved?
8.	If so, what, in detail, is the nature of such improvements ?
9.	If not, when may action be anticipated?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	4,531 applied between the date of the minister's announcement on July 8, 1966, and the cut off date of August 15, 1966. A further 21,085 had applied before the minister's announcement, bringing to 25,616 the total number of applicants for landed immigrant status.
2.	The department is proceeding with these applications as rapidly as possible and all are in various stages of processing. As of October 31, 1966, 962 persons have been landed; statistics have not been maintained on the numbers refused admission except in the case of those persons who have been deported and there have been 31 of these.
3.	No accurate estimate is possible. However, it is thought that most of the visitors who were in Canada before July 8, and who wished to remain permanently, took advantage of the opportunities offered in the statement made by the minister.
4-6. The new documentation system has been designed and transportation companies and other agencies concerned are being consulted with a view to ensuring maximum control with minimum inconvenience to the travelling public. The department will implement the new system as soon as the necessary consultations and arrangements are complete.
7-9. Some of the improvements already are in effect. Development of others is progressing. Basically, they relate to the establishment and staffing of new enforcement and intelligence units in the Immigration Division, thereby providing the department with greater capability in the detection and apprehension of illegal entrants.
Questions


ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CHINESE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	How many adjustment statements by persons of Chinese origin have been (a) filed (b) processed, In each of the years 1962 to date?
2.	Of such adjustment statements so processed, have any been found subsequently to be inaccurate and, if so, how many for each year?
3.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have any estimates of the number of persons of Chinese origin now in Canada whose status is not adjusted in accordance with the simplified procedure announced on November 16, 1962, and, if so, what is that estimate?
4.	What action is proposed by the department to adjust the status of such persons at the earliest possible date?


John Carr Munro: 1962	1963	1964	1965	1966517	1144	3194	3661	118290	1875	2397	4132	1439
Note: A further 635 statements were filed and 29 were processed in 1960 and 1961.
2.	Yes. No statistics on the number involved have been maintained but it is estimated that a fairly significant proportion of all original statements contained inaccuracies which required subsequent clarification.
3.	It is not possible to estimate the number of persons now in Canada whose status should be adjusted but who have not as yet applied for an adjustment.
4.	Each case must be considered individually when an adjustment statement is filed. Qualified interpreters and experienced immigration officers at the major centres across Canada are able to process about 150 adjustment statements a month. The remaining small backlog of applications should be disposed of by next spring. Persons who come within the terms of this program and who wish to file a statement should not, therefore, be deterred by the expectation of a long delay in the adjustment of their status.


TAX RECEIPTS CREDITED TO OLD AGE SECURITY FUND
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What is the total amount collected by way of personal income tax for old age security, sales tax for old age security and corporation income tax for old age security, and credited to the Old Age Security Fund, during the period from April 1, 1963, to August 31, 1966?
2.	What is the total amount paid out in pensions under the Old Age Security Act during the period from April 1, 1963, to August 31, 1966?

November 16. 1966
Questions


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question involves a very great number of figures and I would ask leave to put it on the record. For the information of
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I can give the total of those figures; for the first part of the question, the amount is $3,407,344,696.00 and, for the second part, the total is $3,040,020,753.48.
1 TAX RECEIPTS CREDITED TO THE OLD AGE SECURITY FUND FROM APRIL 1, 1963	 TO AUGUST 31, 1966
				1966-67	Total
1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	to August 31	$	$	$	$	$Personal Income Tax. 302,600,000.00 Sales Tax	331,760,067.05	431,900,000.00 383,151,253.74	494,900,000.00 522,085,843.68	240,000,000.00 224,197,531.53	1,469,400,000.00 1,461,194,696.00Corporation Income Tax	.115,750,000.00	145,250,000.00	152,250,000.00	63,500,000.00	476,750,000.00TOTAL	.750,110,067.05	960,301,253.74	1,169,235,843.68	527,697,531.53	3,407,344,696.00


PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE OLD AGE SECURITY ACT FROM APRIL 1,1963 TO AUGUST 31,1966
[Stage Direction]
1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67 to August 31	Total$	$	$	$	$808,391,300.31	885,294,468.11	927,299,487.33	419,035,497.73	3,040,020,753.48

Mr. Coates: 1.	What position does John Kerr hold In the C.B.C.?
2.	When was his appointment made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Supervisor, current affairs program.
2. August 9, 1966.


CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Godin: X. what are (a) the names (b) the qualifications of the nine members of the Canada Labour Relations Board?
2. What are (a) the names (b) the qualifications of the members of the ad hoc committee chaired by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and set up in early April, 1966, to hear the labour unions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the departments of Labour and Trade and Commerce as follows:

1. (a) and (b) The Canada Labour Relations Board on October 31, 1966 comprised the following:
Chairman:	Mr. A. H. Brown, former
Deputy Minister of Labour and Director, Canada Branch, International Labour Office.
Vice Chairman: Mr. J. J. Quinlan, Q.C., Deputy Director of Investigation and Research, Department of the Registrar General. Formerly associated with the Wartime Prices and Trade Board in the Toronto area.
Employee representatives:	Mr. J. A.
D'Aoust, appointed on nomination of C.L.C. Retired. Was formerly Vice-President of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers. Mr. Gerard Picard, appointed on nomination of C.N.T.U. Is president of National Metal Trades Federation (CNTU). Mr. A. H. Balch, appointed on nomination of the National Legislative Committee-International Railway Brotherhoods. Retired. Was formerly National Legislative Representative in Canada and Chief Agent for the Brotherhood
November 16, 1966

of Railroad Trainmen. Mr. Donald MacDonald, appointed on nomination of C.L.C. is Secretary Treasurer of that organization.
Employer Representatives:	Mr. Harry
Taylor, appointed on nomination of Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Vice President, Industrial Relations, Union Carbide Canada Limited. (Retired, October 31, 1966). Mr. A. J. Hills, appointed on nomination of Railway Association of Canada. Retired. Formerly an executive with C.N.R. Mr. E. R. Complin, appointed on nomination of Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Formerly with Canadian Industries Ltd. Presently member of the firm of Edward N. Hay and Assoc, of Canada Ltd. Mr. Jacques Guibault, appointed on nomination of C.M.A. Is presently Industrial Relations Manager, Canadian British Aluminum Co. Ltd.
2. The arrangements made by the cabinet in respect of this matter involve the discharge of business for which it is collectively responsible and are not customarily disclosed.


SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.-OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Is the office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, to be closed?
2.	If so (a) on what date and for what reasons (b) how many employees will be affected by this action (c) are they to be dismissed (d) has any preparation been made for their transfer?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I have been advised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) It is expected that the Summerside local office will be closed around August, 1967 and its closure is in accordance with commission policy of consolidating and centralizing its operations; (b) Eight; (c) and (d) Seven of the employees have expressed a willingness to transfer and the commission is making preparations for their transfer. One employee does not wish to leave the area and the commission is endeavouring to place her with another government department in Summerside.


OXFORD, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coates: Is It the intention of the government to construct a new federal building at Oxford, Nova Scotia, and if so, what action has been taken to date regarding the acquisition of a site and a location for this federal building?
Motions for Papers


George James McIlraith: At the present time there is no plan for such construction.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many practising physicians are there in Canada in proportion to the population?
2.	How many physicians are there in Canada?
3.	What universities in Canada have a school of medicine?
4.	What is the percentage of failures among first-and second-year medical students at Canadian universities?
5.	How many students are enrolled in the medical schools of Canada?
6.	Since 1960, has the number of students Increased or decreased at the schools of medicine of Canadian universities?
7.	If there has been an increase, what is the percentage of such increase; or if there has been a decrease, what is the percentage of such decrease?
8.	How many students has each school of medicine refused at the first-year level in 1963, 1964 and 1965?
Return tabled, tTranslation]


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motion Nos. 180 and 182 are acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 175 is acceptable to the government subject to the reservations respecting all correspondence marked personal and confidential.
Notice of motion No. 176 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations respecting all correspondence marked personal and confidential and the authorization of all other governments and organizations involved since April 8, 1963.
Would Your Honour call notices of motion Nos. 8 and 184?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motion stand.

FORT ST. JAMES, B.C.-FEDERAL BUILDING Motion No. 180-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any

November 16. 1966
Motions for Papers
agency, branch, or department thereof and any other person, group or association since June 18, 1962, relating to a federal building at Fort St. James, British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 182-Mr. McCleave:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all pamphlets, brochures, leaflets, circulars of information, and other printed material issued by the Post Office Department for public consumption since May 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-Mr. Lewis:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communication, correspondence, exchanged between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and the federal government, any minister, department or agency thereof since April 8, 1963.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions Nos. 175 and 176 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 176-Mr. Marlin (Timmins):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to he laid before this house a copy of all letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and any other governments, firms, associations or individuals in the matter of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. proposal to build a natural gas pipe line from Manitoba to Ontario.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a return showing all information relating to financial transactions, assets (including investment portfolio details), liabilities, etc., of Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, filed or deposited with the companies and corporation branch of the Department of the Secretary of State during the last five years.
Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there is some question as to the

normal practice of tabling the documents asked for by this motion. I understand the hon. member has already received copies of other documents which he requested by way of a motion on the order paper and that those documents have given him substantially the information he sought under this motion. For that reason I understand he is prepared to withdraw motion No. 8.


Mr. Knowles:: I will withdraw the motion and try in another way.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


VOLKSWAGEN-STUDEBAKER TRANSACTION COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 184-Mr. Hales:
That an order of the house od issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between any department of the government of Canada and the Studebaker Company of Canada and the Volkswagen Company of Canada concerning the importation of cars, save and except any which may be subject to statutory privileges pursuant to the customs or other acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the minister advised me that all the documents which fall within the request as outlined in my notice of motion have been filed.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion shall be dropped?


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


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not he has received a report from the private mediator in the Air Canada dispute and, if so, whether a decision has been reached by the government to appoint a federal mediator to bring about a solution?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the house yesterday in answer to a question, I received a copy of a letter not a report from the chairman of the mediating group. I have now had an opportunity to consider it and discuss it with my staff. We do not intend to intervene at this time by appointing a mediator.
November 16. 1966


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question. What method is being employed by the parties to the dispute to bring about a settlement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The best method to be used would be true collective bargaining between the parties.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister how long he intends to allow this matter to carry on before he comes to the conclusion there is a national emergency similar to that created by the railway strike? How long is he prepared to let this matter drag on?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider the situation in respect of this strike as being the same as that which faced us in the case of the national railway strike.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that both parties to the Air Canada dispute have separately declared their resistance to a meeting and have refused to take the initiative, in these circumstances he would not think it desirable for the Department of Labour to take the initiative to bring these two parties together?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the public statement that I made on Monday it is my hope that one or both of the parties will approach my department, if they feel we could be of assistance.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister not answer me the other day in the house that he was prepared to bring the parties to Ottawa to discuss this matter?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have no recollection of any such question or answer.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, you did.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of what he said in answer to my question, that he believes in the process of free collective bargaining, how does he define "free collective bargaining" when the parties are not meeting now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable. I suggest it is argumentative.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would make this very clear because there seems to be some misunderstanding on the question. Are the parties still meeting? Is mediation going on? If the answer is in the negative it should be made clear in the House of Commons.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such mediation going on at the present time. I believe the atmosphere is somewhat tense, and is likely to be at least for the next day or two. It is not an atmosphere into which the government should be injected at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister says he has no knowledge of any such proceedings going on at the present time, does he not feel that he has some responsibility to determine the situation and let us have this information as soon as he can?


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer my question of yesterday concerning protests made to him with respect to the action of the Air Transport Board in granting permission to other air lines to service Air Canada routes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was out of my office this morning, and when I returned no such communication had reached me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a further supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister consider-he may have done so already-issuing landing permits to other companies giving them the same rights as Air Canada so that Canadians will have an air passenger and express service? I should think the Prime Minister, in view of the emergency, would like to answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 16. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


CARRIAGE OF MAIL DURING AIR CANADA STRIKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Postmaster General could say whether any new contracts have been negotiated with other than the regular mail carrying service of Air Canada to carry the air mail during this strike.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Press reports indicate that the government intends to make representations to the government of the United States to cease the bombing in Viet Nam as a necessary prelude to negotiations and a peace settlement. Might I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is intending to make such representations; and if so, how soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been continuously in touch with the government of the United States with regard to this and other aspects of the unhappy situation in Viet Nam. I cannot say that there is any likelihood of any particular form of representation being made to the United States at this time on the subject; but we have been discussing it with them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the government favourable to making such representations, and is it likely to make representations fairly soon, in view of the very serious military escalation that is developing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the bombing of North Viet Nam stopped. We would also like to see stopped the intervention of North Viet Nam in the war in South Viet Nam through their regular forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General or Minister of National Revenue, who according to the Ottawa Citizen were in a very jubilant mood yesterday. I would ask them whether all the workers in the union of postal workers and the letter carriers union will receive a flat 25 cents per hour increase, or are there some variations involved in the agreement that was signed?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer this question. It will take a little longer than is normally the case when answering questions, but it is a very important matter.
Last night representatives of the postal workers including their bargaining committee, Mr. Morris of the Canadian Labour Congress, representatives of the Canadian union of postal workers and representatives of the letter carriers union of Canada signed an agreement with the government. I would read the agreement to the house, if hon. members will give me permission to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: This arises out of the very wonderful work that was done by Judge Montpetit in mediating this particular dispute.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue could summarize in a few words what he intends to read, because the extract which he has in his hand seems to be a very long one.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is not very long and I would really like to put it on the record, instead of my own summarization of it so as to avoid being accused, of producing incorrect figures.
The document reads as follows:
I, Andrd Montpetit, as mediator in the discussions between representatives of the Government of Canada and representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, recommend to the parties the following terms of settlement:
(1)	That a joint committee composed of representatives of both unions and of the Post Office Department be formed immediately to study the recommendations contained in the recent report of
November 16, 1966

the royal commission of inquiry into working conditions in the Post Office Department;
(2)	That this committee, in a spirit of true cooperation, endeavour to find the ways and means to implement as soon as possible all recommendations in the report which they jointly feel are acceptable and liable of implementation;
(3)	That an across-the-board increase of twenty five cents per hour be paid, effective October 1, 1966, to all employees in the following classes,
letter carriers supervisory letter carriers postal clerks 1 and 2 mail despatchers mail handlers and postal chauffeurs,
and that the resulting rates of pay remain in effect until July 31, 1967;
(4)	That, as soon as possible after the collective bargaining legislation is passed, the parties meet to determine within the framework of the legislation, the date on which formal collective bargaining under the legislation will commence for the negotiation of the first collective agreement;
(5)	That it be understood that the settlement covering the ten-month period be made without prejudice to the government's position with respect to the length of future agreements under the collective bargaining legislation;
(6)	That this be considered as a written undertaking by the unions' representatives that no strike will take place and that an instruction to this effect will be issued immediately to the unions' members and assurances given of continuation of normal postal services without interruption during the period for which this settlement applies;
(7)	That it be understood that the unions reserve their position with respect to the rates of pay of maintenance helpers, maintenance craftsmen 1, 2 and 3, postal helpers and part-time postal clerks;
(8)	That the terms of settlement be presented in written form by the mediator and be signed by each member of the respective negotiating committees.
(Proper signatures attached)
Once again I would like to say that I believe we are all grateful to Judge Montpetit.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister read some portions of the document very quickly I should like to ascertain from him whether the workers in the postal service, other than those who belong to the unions which he mentioned, will also get the 25 cents an hour increase?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course this agreement applies to group D which is presently under consideration. The position of the other employees of the Post Office Department who are not in group D will be considered separately, as they are not covered by this settlement.
I should also like to point out to the house that we have not yet reached a settlement with respect to the other employees in group D who are represented by the Public Service
Inquiries of the Ministry Alliance. Judge Montpetit has indicated that his mediation services will be available for further negotiations with this group, which numbers some 28,000 workers.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, before doing so I would like to congratulate him for his appointment as minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I should like to ask the minister whether he would not consider having a discussion with the wheat board to ask them whether they would increase the initial payment on wheat. The increase in the cost of farm machinery and in the cost of living has soared so high that an increase in the initial payment on wheat is of great necessity to the farmers?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words of commendation and I hope he included his best wishes.
When I was in Winnipeg last Monday I spent a day with the wheat board discussing the matter mentioned by the hon. member, as well as a considerable number of related problems. I asked the wheat board to present to me a report on the feasibility of increasing the initial payments in respect of the current crop year, and I will have something more to say on that in a short time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now in a position to say whether or not special quotas will be granted for the movement of tough grain to the Lakehead and to the Vancouver drying ports so that the grain can be dried?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, a considerable
amount of attention has been given to this matter of tough grain. I am told that the problem is manageable, but I will take the question as notice and provide more specific information at a later date. But as I say, I am told it is in hand at the present time.

November 16, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Robert Simpson: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. During the discussions was the subject of filling the grain elevators at Churchill taken into consideration? Could the minister tell the house anything about that?


Robert Henry Winters: That matter was raised too, Mr. Speaker, in the course of a full day's discussion. My answer to that question must be along the lines of the answer previously given to the house by the Minister of Finance at the time when he was still responsible for the operations of the wheat board. The decision was made to concentrate all available transportation facilities on the movement of grain to the elevators on the coast. Under the circumstances it has been agreed that these transportation facilities will not be diverted at this time to fill the Churchill elevators with grain. At the same time I can give the hon. member the assurance that the elevator will be filled in time to meet the shipping requirements next summer.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lelhbridge):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now be in a position to tell the house what will be the approximate date of the final payment by the wheat board?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the books will be closed as of November 30, and then the accounting procedures, which are rather onerous, will commence. The wheat board now anticipates that some time during the month of January the final payment will be made, probably toward the end of the month.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not the government is now giving any consideration to setting up a transport controller or committee to co-ordinate the efforts of the railways, the grain terminal and elevator companies, and so on, so that there can be the highest level of

co-operation and co-ordination between all these grain handling facilities? I believe such a body was established for the movement of last year's grain.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the program
worked out last year did bring very good results. The wheat and other grains are moving very well now. As to the matter of coordinating transportation facilities, I would refer this question to my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Transport.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether the government has set up a transport co-ordinating committee composed of representatives of the Canadian wheat board, the railways, the terminal companies and the elevator companies to secure maximum efficiency in the transport of grain to export positions for the current crop year.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Up till now it has not been thought necessary to go beyond the relatively informal arrangements which have been in existence over the last few years and which have resulted in the greatest carriage of grain by our railways in the whole history of this country. However, should it appear that there are shortcomings with the present arrangements for liaison and co-operation the government would undoubtedly do everything it could to see that they were corrected at once. In addition to this, the government is having the whole problem of the handling of bulk cargoes through the port of Vancouver and the other ports on the lower mainland of British Columbia looked at urgently.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We were informed last year that there was an informal committee set up to consider transportation matters. I should like to ask the minister whether this committee is still in existence, whether it is the same kind of co-ordinating committee as functioned formerly or whether it has been disbanded.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the arrangements which are in existence at the present time are less formal than they were last year. As a result of what was done last year and the year before, certain difficulties have been overcome and certain practices have been undertaken whose effect has been to speed the movement of wheat very greatly.
November 16, 1966


Robert Simpson: In view of the minister's statement that a record volume of wheat was carried and exported in the last year, can he tell us why there was a decrease of some three milhon bushels in the amount shipped out of Churchill this year?


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


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question related to the studies and investigations which are taking place with respect to the port of Vancouver. Would the minister mind casting his eyes northward to what is probably the most important seaport in British Columbia, namely, Prince Rupert?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister of Indian affairs and I have been devoting all our spare time to the consideration of the improvement of Prince Rupert which, we believe, has the kind of future that Sir Wilfrid Laurier envisaged for it in 1903 but which, up to now, it has not enjoyed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the diminishing supplies of butter in Canada, has the minister made arrangements through the stabilization board to import butter to Canada either from New Zealand or Australia?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under continuous review by the board. In keeping with their traditional policy in this regard, if required sufficient butter will be imported at the most economical price in order to protect both the price to the consumers and the constancy of supply, which in the long run will help the producers.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question.
When the minister makes this proposed importation will this butter be labelled in such a way that the Canadian consumers will know from which country it was imported?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, I assume they will be eating butter. I take it the hon. member means labelled so that the consumers know from which country it originated. That matter has not yet been considered but I will be pleased to take note of the hon. member's suggestion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether he intends to present soon a piece of legislation to promote the production of Canadian butter instead of reducing its consumption through a price increase, as we experienced recently?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the current policy and the improved price situation has given some encouragement in this regard. If further encouragement is required we will, of course, consider this in formulating next year's policy.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question relates to a publication produced by his department called "Indian News" which is printed in both English and French. Would the minister explore the possibility of at least having a portion of this publication and the articles therein produced in one of the Indian languages?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minisier of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I will take the matter under advisement.



ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY IN CAPE BRETON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the cabinet arrived at a decision which will fulfil the commitment made by the minister in Halifax in respect to aid to the Cape Breton coal industry, which was followed up by further reviews of the matter by a committee in Ottawa prior to the expected visit by the minister to Sydney on November 3, which really in fact did not take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that this question should be answered by the minister who has administrative responsibility for the matter raised by the hon. member.

November 16. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a question of privilege, which is this. On numerous occasions a question, such as the one now directed to the minister who made the original statement, has been ruled out of order because it did not come within the responsibility of the minister concerned. I have been told that I am permitted to ask questions only of the minister responsible. We have had in this house today an example of a question being put to the minister in charge of the Post Office Department and being answered by the Minister of National Revenue.
I may have a good understanding, Mr. Speaker, as to why the Postmaster General does not answer questions: He is not capable. But if one minister is going to be allowed to answer for another ministers' responsibility, I demand from the Minister of National Health and Welfare a commitment to carry out the promise he made, a promise which was backed up by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance and others. As far as I am concerned the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who originated this statement, is the minister responsible to the miners of Cape Breton, and I ask him to carry out his promise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should have a debate on this. The Chair has ruled on the point of order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has made an argument which he has made before, one which I appreciate, but unfortunately for him and for other members who may be placed in the same position as he is, there are precedents which support the ruling that I have made.
I do not think we can embark upon a long discussion of this point, particularly in view of the fact that we have a bare half hour to consider questions today and we are running short of time at this point.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider removing the Postmaster General's portfolio and allow the Minister of National Revenue to carry it on for him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower

and Immigration. Is the minister now in a position to tell the house the result of the investigation made by his department into the entry of Mexican Mennonite workers into Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to this question tomorrow. I think I have a report on the matter but I will mention it to the house tomorrow.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In connection with the application by radio station CHUM to take over radio station CFRA, will the minister check, if she has not already done so, the multiplicity of ownership standards which in to the house tomorrow.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the Board of Broadcast Governors has already made a declaration with respect to this matter. As the hon. member knows, the B.B.G., unfettered, makes its decision following the hearing of an application.


Thomas Miller Bell: While I am not certain about the terms of the minister's reply, because it was complicated by answers to other questions, may I ask whether the hon. lady would satisfy herself in connection with this decision, and if this multiplicity of ownership standard was well considered, and also the promises that were made to CFRA employees at the time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have no indication at all that the Board of Broadcast Governors does not take into consideration everything which it is appropriate to consider.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister check into it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not think it is my responsibility to check with the board and ask them if they have done their job. If the hon. member has evidence that they have not, I will undertake to look into it. But I think it is improper to ask the board in a general way whether they have performed their functions properly.
November 16, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon, Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):
May I take this opportunity to reply to a question put to me a few days ago by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) who asked me whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had an advertising code of ethics and, if so, how this code was applied.
On checking with the corporation, I am informed that the C.B.C. has what is known as its commercial acceptance policy designed to ensure that C.B.C. stations do not carry commercial messages which might be considered in bad taste, misleading, deceptive or unfair in their competitive claims. Advertisers seeking to purchase time on C.B.C. affiliates are aware of the corporation's policy and it is also enforced through the C.B.C.'s own commercial sales department.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I could take this opportunity to reply to a question raised several days ago by the Leader of the Opposition who asked me if I would get a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in regard to changes which the C.B.C. proposes to make in its national T.V. news.
I now am informed by the corporation that the replacement of Mr. Earl Cameron as announcer on the national news should not be regarded as a demotion for Mr. Cameron, who is being reassigned to new duties. Nor does it represent any change in the basic C.B.C. policy to present the news factually and without bias or distortion.
The corporation made these changes on grounds that its news service must keep pace with the times, and should at this juncture adopt the T.V. news system of employing an experienced professional journalist rather than announcer to present the news, as is done on most other major networks.



&quot;COLUMBIA RIVER&quot;-CORRECTION IN NAME OF AUTHOR OF DOCUMENTARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, I would like to make a correction in an answer tabled October 5 last in reply to
Inquiries of the Ministry question number 1,793 by the hon. member for Melville.
As appears at pages 8325 and 8326 of Hansard, the answer given to part 7 of the hon. member's question was to the effect that Mr. D'Arcy Marsh was the author of the manuscript on which the film script for the documentary "Columbia River" was based.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now informs me that, on further investigation, they find this answer is in error and that the original manuscript was written by Mr. Tom Connachie. Mr. Marsh subsequently was engaged to develop this outline into a shooting script and Mr. Connachie then wrote the final script narration.
I should like to set the record straight, and apologize to the house and to the individuals concerned.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of the presence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to ask him an urgent question.
Since the C.N.T.U. is making a move to officially withdraw from federal organizations and since the minister is chairman of a special ministerial committee which has been studying for several months the C.N.T.U.'s protests with regard to decisions made by the Canada Labour Relations Board, would the hon. minister assure this house that the ministerial committee will shortly make its decision known on that subject?


Robert Henry Winters: Subject to correction, I do not believe it has been the policy to report to this house on the work of cabinet committees. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be so informed.



PRIVILEGE


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I deem it necessary to rise on a question of privilege at this particular time. I did not want to take up time on orders of the day to raise this matter, but an

November 16. 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 accusation has been made that I have been accepting the responsibilities of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) in answering questions.
First of all, I would like to indicate that the question was directed to me and, second, that matters concerning the salaries of civil servants are the responsibility of Treasury Board. Questions of this kind should be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board rather than to other ministers. The Postmaster General was in no way shirking any responsibility and he is doing a good job in his department and in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of bill No. C-245 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1967.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Some weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) told us in this house that, generally speaking, he felt that in our relationship as a nation with the United States we should place more emphasis on selectivity and specialization in the field of our economic activities.
I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman. While we in Canada do enjoy a high standard of living, the United States, to the south, with its powerful economy, has for long enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. The facts of life being what they are, we are often tempted to "keep up with the Jones's" and embark upon social and economic programs in areas we have no business to occupy. [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
While I might not agree with every detail of the thesis which the minister put forward, generally speaking I think that Canadians should emphasize specialization and selectivity in our economic and social endeavours, especially in our relations with the United States. In this regard I feel that the National Research Council, which we are discussing today, has a very special role to play in our national activity. I join forces with the minister in hoping that the new endeavours in scientific research which are being spurred on by the federal government will bear fruit.
Up until we started making changes this year, unfortunately Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the house is under a misapprehension. I have an indication from some hon. members that they wish to take part in the debate on national research. This, of course, will be done when we reach that item in the estimates. What is now before the house is second reading of Bill No. C-245, and I think the hon. member might prefer to continue his speech later on this afternoon when the house is in committee.


William Heward Grafftey: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I misread the order of business and I am completely out of order. I will continue this debate later.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Benson, seconded by Mr. Drury, moves that I do now leave the chair-


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I had risen before you said second reading was carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; in view of the fact that it has been carried, the hon. member might raise whatever matter he has in mind after the motion is carried that I do leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the said bill. Mr. Benson, seconded by Mr. Drury, moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-$371,999,867.43 granted for 1966-67.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, would the President of the Treasury Board give the usual assurance that the bill is in the standard form and contains nothing which is not usual in such a bill?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to give this undertaking. As a matter of fact, the form of the bill follows the form of the resolution which was previously presented. Generally speaking, one twelfth of the amounts for the various departments is called for, with some exceptions which are listed in the schedules at the end of the bill where more than one twelfth was deemed to be necessary for particular votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 2(h) makes a reference to Schedule F, and Schedule F is made
November 16, 1966

up of two items, one of them being vote 15(a) for the Department of Finance, covering contingencies. We are being asked under supplementary estimates A to increase the amount for contingencies under the Department of Finance by $45 million. The main estimates ask for only $15 million for contingencies.
During the last few days we have become interested in contingencies. This seems to be a place where you find money that you did not know was there. Is the minister now asking that the $15 million vote for the year be raised to $60 million? What are these contingencies, these unforeseen items that have to be covered in this way?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that the contingencies vote is burdened with all salary increases during the year, so that the salary increases for civil servants from the time of the original estimates of last year up to the present time and through to March 31 next are put into the contingencies vote. As a matter of fact, next year we are hoping to cut down the necessity of dealing with these contingencies by providing for some anticipated salary increases in the individual votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister has referred to items in another year, would it not also be a good idea to take a look at the wording of this contingency item? I do not find anything in the wording that would provide for it to be used as a catch-all. It provides for "unforeseen expenses," and after the experience we have had in the last week or so I suggest the wording and the purpose of the contingency item should be looked at, and perhaps the wording should be redrafted.


Edgar John Benson: I can assure my hon. friend that the wording of this vote has been carefully scrutinized.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I suggested that second reading of the bill be deferred until today, and that produced a very interesting headline in today's Montreal Gazette, which is probably in keeping with some of the debate that preceded this stage of the bill. The headline reads "Crisis Supply Debate Peters Out in House." I asked for the debate to take place today because some of the problems, in which we, in northern Ontario, are interested have not been mentioned during the interim supply debate. Among them is the crisis concerning the export of gas and the method by which gas is being exported.
Appropriation Act No. 8
The situation is very fluid and keeps changing. The government has a responsibility to bring to the attention of the Canadian people the whole story behind the recent change in its decision with respect to the second trans-Canada pipe line, particularly in view of requests being made by Mr. White, chairman of the United States Federal Power Commission.
A report in yesterday's Globe and Mail read in part as follows:
Noting mounting U.S. concern about increasing Canadian gas exports, Federal Power Commission Chairman Lee C. White yesterday suggested greater efforts at long-range planning should be made between Canada and the United States.
Mr. White, writing in the Journal of Commerce of New York, said the United States has to face unresolved policy questions raised by rising imports of Canadian gas.
Further on the article quotes Mr. White as follows:
"The National Energy Board in Canada and the Federal Power Commission in this country must acknowledge the various interests involved in the sale of Canadian gas to United States markets and must seek to assure that the public interest is served, on both sides of the border.
This may involve greater efforts and long-range planning between the two governments. But the entire history of the economic relationships between the two nations promises that the results will be to the benefits of each."
9 (3:30 p.m.)
The article continues:
He noted also that the proposal by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. to build a link south of the Great Lakes to carry gas for export to the United States-
I should like to pause here in the quotation to say that is not what Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has informed the Canadian government concerning its intention. It is not what the National Energy Board has told the people of Canada. It is not what this government has said Trans-Canada Pipe Lines wanted to do. They have said that the reason for the development of the great lakes part of the trans-Canada pipe line system is to bring gas into southern Ontario at a more economic price to the consumers than is otherwise possible. The head of the Federal Power Commission in the United States, however, states that the purpose in routing the line south of the great lakes is to carry gas for export to the United States and to provide for a further eastern Canadian market. This proposal is being hotly contested before the commission. The article continues:
Imports of gas from Canada In recent years have increased as substantial new reserves have developed relatively close to the United States

I should like to quote from a telegram I received from a representative in Kapus

kasing. I had asked what the situation was. This telegram is dated November 7:
Impossible to compute percentage of gas cutbacks at Spruce Falls due to varying loads mill requires 500 m.c.f. per hour. Cutbacks range down to 71 m.c.f. per hour. Summer supply fairly constant from Oct. 5 to Nov. 5. Fourteen days with *cutbacks. Situation will get worse as winter sets in. Gas cost 43 per thousand much cheaper to operate than coal at this price. During cutbacks gas and coal are burnt simultaneously to achieve boiler *output.
Mr. Chairman, there is not enough gas to meet the needs of northern Ontario; this is a fallacy. If we are going to use the cheapest source of energy in northern Ontario, we must have a huge surplus of gas. Then, they will either burn it because it is in most cases cheaper, or they will sell it to a new industry which will develop because it will learn that commodity is cheap and in surplus supply. I think this is important to Canada when we are putting millions and millions of dollars into the area development program, which in most cases is not working.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We were asked to build the northern section of the trans-Canada pipe line and we did so. We offered to return it to the company after ten years, and they damn well took it back. They were happy to do so. I suggest that the money we put into the development of that line across northern Ontario was well spent.
I am not concerned whether this line goes along the existing northern route or whether it is a secondary route to Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. If we put money into it, we will save millions and millions of dollars over a long period of time and create a great incentive for the development of new industries in that area. This will create a great many more industries than the minister has been able to create so far. He has not been responsible for any new industries in that part of the country, yet I can name eight or nine new plywood factories and two iron developments which have been established. The development of the Timmins hydro proposition will depend to a great extent on whether there is a sufficient quantity of interruptible gas in that area.
Is it only the N.D.P. that is interested in this problem in Canada? Certainly, the Social Credit members have looked at this in a narrow sense. Once we have met the current and potential demands for natural gas in this country any surplus should be sold, and I
Appropriation Act No. 8 have absolutely no objection to that gas being exported. In this way we could serve the markets in Toronto, Sarnia, Montreal and other areas including Niagara Falls, after we have met our total demand. My only concern is that we do not export it before we meet the current and potential demand for this natural resource. No one in this party would object to the exportation of surplus gas on a short term contract basis, after we have provided for the expected build-up in industry in those areas of Canada which will be served by this cheap source of energy. It would not be fair to build up a huge industrial complex in Canada dependent upon Canadian gas and then cut off that supply.
This government does not plan anything. I have been informed that one senator made an arrangement with the Prime Minister and got it in writing. He then had it notarized to have some legal control over the promise of the head of this government. He must have done so for some good reason. We could not possibly allow this government to make a commitment to export a large part of the gas being carried to eastern Canada because we have no reason to expect that it would be sent back.
Once we turn on power for the United States we have a moral obligation to continue the supply. We were in this position in respect to hydro at a time when we were involved in a war. The need for hydro at that time was even greater, but we could not turn off the supply to the United States at Niagara Falls. The United States had built up industries on the basis of that power supply. They, in effect, took the attitude; to hell with Canada, they are only fighting a war. United States industries were more important, and we could not turn off that power to utilize it for our war effort.
Let me suggest to the members from western Canada that we do not have a difference of opinion with them in respect of the sale of gas. I did not squawk about the 200 million cubic feet of gas being exported from the Trans-Canada line, and this was three or four times the amount involved at this time. If this gas is surplus, it should be exported and sold. The western members have not made it plain that there are only certain fields which produce natural gas and that the remainder is a by-product. They have not told us that if the surplus is not sold it has to be burned. It would be stupid for us to burn a product that is saleable south of the border or elsewhere.

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8
The only difference of opinion occurs in respect of whether we believe in continental-ism or whether we should keep a sufficient quantity of gas to meet the needs of Canadian industries. Let the Liberal members from northern Ontario make no mistake. Our needs are not filled by the amount of gas now made available in northern Ontario, and I refer particularly to potential demand. This demand can only be met if we have surplus gas. With that surplus, more industries will develop in that area because they will be closer to the supply of this natural energy.
The late C. D. Howe had a great deal of foresight, but he did many stupid things in his lifetime. In spite of that, he had a plan into which everything fitted properly. His plan was to bring gas to northern Ontario to serve a need. The prediction of the Trans-Canada people, as presented to the National Energy Board, to the effect that the needs for 20 years would be 10 per cent of the gas transported through that line was wrong. Almost 25 per cent of the gas travelling through that line is being used in Ontario

it is actually 18 to 22 per cent.
Are the Quebec members, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not aware of the fact that we are transporting gas through northern Ontario into Quebec and that the smelters at Noranda are not getting enough gas to fill their requirements? This line is only an eight inch line, but it should be extended into many more communities in northern Quebec. We are not being selfish with this gas, but we believe it should be used for the development of our own industries.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not agree that if the pipe line is put through the United States with a spur to Sarnia the consequence will be a greater flow of gas into Canada at Sarnia, making gas available to a greater extent to communities in northern Ontario? I refer, of course, to interruptible gas. I think the hon. member's argument is fallacious.


William Arnold Peters: what the reeve of the township of Teck said in a telegram sent to the Prime Minister:
Your decision to permit Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to construct transmission line through United States is detrimental to present and future industrial development of northern Ontario. Present gas supply insufficient to adequately serve existing industries. Your policy should be Canada first. Your decision means loss of millions of dollars in employment supplies and taxes to Canada and Canadian municipalities. This municipality violently opposed to your decision and request immediate reconsideration and reversal.
The telegram is signed by Frank B. Rain-ford, reeve of the township of Teck. We had a meeting in Timmins recently, and the reeves and mayors of most of the communities of northeastern Ontario were on the platform. I can honestly say that to my knowledge none of them support my party. Five members of parliament from the New Democratic Party were at this meeting. Each and every one of them, regardless of his political affiliation, agreed that we were taking away the greatest potential for the development of this area.
I have never really been conscious of the latitude in which we live, although I knew it was cold. When we were in Timmins there were two feet of snow in some of the communities, and my colleagues were laughing about the fact that we were on the 47th parallel and were very near the United States border. I think that we in northern Ontario sometimes forget our nearness to the important markets. We know that our climate is not in keeping with our geographical location, but climate is not a factor when shipping goods and developing your economic potential. We are only 400 miles from the largest market in Ontario, the city of Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe. The potential is there; we have the resources and many of the basic materials.
If this government has been stupid enough to be browbeaten and bribed-and I think they were bribed in a number of ways-into making this kind of agreement, they will rue the day. We cannot defeat the government. Everyone here knows that if the opposition were to unite, the government could be defeated. But the government can count on enough votes to obtain a majority on any issue. We cannot defeat them; we can only appeal to them. How can we appeal to them? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has for some time been regular in his attendance in the house. He is not in the chamber today, but you cannot really blame him for that. I always deplore the fact that our Prime Minister is in the house only for the question
Appropriation Act No. 8 period. I can remember that when the Liberals were in opposition they deserted this field; but for God's sake, if they want to be the government let them at least accept the responsibility of government and not make superficial examinations of this kind.
I am sure that in the Prime Minister's riding the people in Espanola know that if they had a surplus of gas which could be supplied to a pulp and paper mill they would be in no different position from any other area with regard to the development that could take place. I have travelled over this area and know that it has the potential for plywood mills, gypboard mills and secondary industries in the mining field. These industries could be developed in the area if cheap energy were available. In my opinion cheap energy could be available to the area through the development of this pipe line.
I never thought we would have to depend on the United States for our autonomy; but that is what will happen, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Power Commission of the United States is not stupid. We appointed a bunch of political hacks to our National Energy Board. You should have seen the shocked look on the face of the chairman of the board when we decided to ask him questions. He had never been asked questions before. I do not know how he dealt with the problems that were put before him.
With the construction of the butane plant in western Canada the quality of the gas in northern Ontario was reduced by 8 per cent or 10 per cent. This has meant that everybody in Kirkland Lake who uses gas for heating finds their bills increased by $4, $5 or $6 each month. Why did the board do this? Let us be fair to Northern Gas; they had signed a contract setting out the number of b.t.u's that would be in the gas. All Trans-Canada did by putting in the butane plant in western Canada was to drop this figure down to 100 b.t.u's and make sure it did not go above that. But the gas company sold stoves all over northern Ontario on the strength of gas that would be as high as 116 b.t.u's.


The Chairman:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Did the hon.
member for Timiskaming rise to ask for extended time?

November 16. 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Timis-kaming are fallacious in many respects. The kind Of argument that he is advancing, that the building of a gas pipe line south of lake Superior will hinder the development or the potential development of northern Ontario, is to my mind completely ridiculous. I say this for a number of reasons. First of all, the supply of gas in the province of Alberta, and even in Saskatchewan, is sufficient. The proven reserves as of 1966 are sufficient to supply all the export commitments to British Columbia, the California market, the central United States market, the eastern Canada market, the potential market within the Chicago-Cleveland area and to take care of all the requirements of northern Ontario for 30 years in the future.
I believe it is a requirement of the Canadian law that the National Energy Board satisfy themselves that there is sufficient gas in Canada to meet Canada's present and future requirements before they allow any gas to be exported.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Will the hon. member permit a question?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I just started my statement, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps by the time I finish it the answer will be apparent to the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the question has to do with the point the hon. member is making at the present time. Is the hon. member aware that the National Energy Board has been telling Trans-Canada for the last four years, as reported by the minister in the house, that we are short of gas in northern and eastern Ontario?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right, and I am happy to note that the only reason for the shortage of gas is insufficient transport facilities at the present time. There is no shortage of gas in Alberta and British Columbia. The only problem is the capacity of the line which now delivers gas to eastern Canada.
To follow that argument through, if the 36 inch line, called the Great Lakes System, is built and part of the southern Ontario market is supplied through that gas line, this will release nearly 50 per cent of the total volume
[The Chairman.]
carried through the 30 inch line going through northern Ontario to potential customers in that area.
I have no notes before me but am relying on the figures which have been given us by the hon. member for Timiskaming. He said that around 350 million cubic feet of gas per day will be delivered through that line. If 50 per cent of that volume is released for use in northern Ontario-because the Toronto and Sarnia area is partly supplied by the southern line-this would make another 175 million cubic feet of gas per day available for the potential expansion of the industrial establishments in that area. What the hon. member fails to recognize is that if the line is not built south of lake Superior or from somewhere east of Winnipeg into the Milwaukee-Chicago-Cleveland area, then the producers of gas in Alberta will have no market available to them. It seems to me a rather selfish attitude to deprive the producers of gas in Alberta of a market simply because it is planned to run a second pipe line around the north of lake Superior. I say it is selfish because it is certainly the intention of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, of the government and of the producers of gas in Alberta, to supply northern Ontario with all the gas it can possibly use now and in the next 30 years.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced in the house that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has made a commitment that starting in 1970 they will commence building a 30 inch loop of the present line around the north shore of lake Superior. If 175 million cubic feet per day-and again I rely on the figures of the hon. member for Timiskaming-become available to northern Ontario through this line because of a reduction in the requirements of the Toronto and Sarnia area, surely the hon. member cannot argue that this volume would not be sufficient to provide for the potential expansion of requirements between now and 1970. In addition to that, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have made a commitment that they will loop the line. Furthermore, if there is an unexpected expansion of the requirement for gas between now and 1970 I am as absolutely certain that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will be willing to advance the date of the initial construction of the line in that area. They are not stupid, they are businessmen. If there is gas available in Alberta and there is a market for it anywhere in northern Ontario, in the United States, in Montreal or anywhere else, they will start
November 16, 1966

building the line as soon as they are convinced that those facilities are required.
I think some of the statements that the hon. member for Timiskaming made do not support his argument. He said that the surplus capacity of the present pipe line is not sufficient to supply some towns and industries, and he quoted some mayors and local councillors in the area. That is all the more reason we should get on with the building of the Great Lakes System as quickly as possible, so that the amount of gas which is now going around the north shore of lake Superior into Toronto and the industrial area is released for use in northern Ontario.
There is another point which I should like to make. It seems to me that it is not in keeping with the interests of the whole of Canada to advocate in the house the construction of certain uneconomic facilities in a certain area simply because that would give the area an unnatural economic advantage. I say that because, white it is physically possible to build another 30 or 36 inch pipe line around the north shore of lake Superior and refrain from building it around the south shore of the lake, that would increase the cost of transportation of gas from western Canada to Toronto, Montreal and the whole of this area.
Furthermore, the failure to build a line south of the lake will deprive producers of gas in Alberta-and therefore the people of Alberta who own gas in that province-of, this market for their utility. I think that first of all we should look after Canada's needs, and this has been done. Second, we should ensure that producers of gas, just as producers of steel or lumber, are given an opportunity to exploit any possible markets that may be available to them. The argument which has been advanced that under this agreement the main pipe line will be transferred from the northern to the southern loop is completely ridiculous. If one were to follow that argument through, a 24 or 28 inch line could be built south of the border to re-enter Canada at Sarnia, while another 24 inch line would be built alongside it to supply the available markets in the United States. This would not make much sense because all the requirements could be supplied through one 36 inch line. The volume of gas for Canadian consumption going through the southern line will be smaller than the volume of gas going through the 30 inch line around the north shore of lake Superior. This has been clearly stated by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, by the National Energy Board and also by the minister.
Appropriation Act No. 8
It has been clearly agreed that the main line carrying the greatest volume of gas will go through Canada, and this agreement will be respected and maintained. The members from northern Ontario know perfectly well that a 36 inch line carries far more gas than two 18 inch lines. In fact, it carries more gas than two 24 inch lines, but it is much more expensive to construct two lines of smaller diameter to carry the same amount of gas as a 36 inch line. This is a simple economic fact.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am making this point in order that the remarks of the hon. members from Ontario will not be left unanswered. We want northern Ontario to have all the gas they can possibly use now and as far into the future as they can project their requirements. I can assure them that those requirements will be met from the reserves that are already available in Alberta. At the same time, I think we have the right to use other markets for additional sales of gas which would not be available if a pipe line were built around the north end of lake Superior.
You cannot ship gas to Chicago around the north side of lake Superior. Neither can you ship gas to Cleveland or Detroit and into the whole distribution system via the northern route. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, this is what they are asking us to do. The line at Emerson has sufficient carrier capacity to supply the additional 100 million cubic feet which is requested, and this could go into the area around the great lakes. There is also an expanding requirement for gas in the area immediately adjacent to the line which enters the United States at Emerson, Manitoba. In all matters dealing with the transmission of power and gas or any of these other fuel requirements, it is only prudent to have sufficient overcapacity of delivery facilities to take care of expected expansion in the required volume for at least a few years into the future.
We in Alberta at the present time do not have the economic impetus to encourage the exploration and development of additional gas fields. We have the right to this in the economic climate of today. We would not deny Canadians anywhere anything if we got into these markets. As has already been pointed out, we have enough gas reserves to last us for 30 years. There are the oil rigs, the crews and all the other requirements necessary to carry out more exploration and development. There is now sufficient gas to supply all of the

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 available markets today, and in the foreseeable future.
I think the hon. member should also take into account the fact that Albertans are Canadians too. We have the right to expect the kind of action by this government and this parliament that will be conducive to the expansion of industries in Alberta, in this case the natural gas industry. This is not an unreasonable request to make. Therefore, I think the hon. members of this house should take some of these other factors into account when listening to the ridiculous and fallacious arguments advanced by at least two members from northern Ontario.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to make some comments with regard to the method of paying civil service salaries and wages on Thursday of last week, and to express regret that a subterfuge was used to make these payments.
I am very proud of the fact that I was elected to this parliament in 1962 when the Liberal party was in opposition, because I believe that from our position in opposition we were able to show the country that actions which were being taken by the government at that time were illegal, actions which we have mostly corrected since we came to power in April 1963.
The first matter which engaged the attention of the Liberal opposition in 1962, as we who were elected at that time and are still in the house very vividly recall, concerned the Customs Tariff Act and the Financial Administration Act which the then government of the day had invoked in order to raise and lower tariffs at the will of the executive without any reference to parliament itself.
I have been reading and rereading the discussion which took place in this house in October and November of 1962, and the amount of similarities which exist between the actions which we were criticizing in 1962 and the actions that were taken in this month of 1966 is unfortunate. I regret exceedingly that the high principles we enunciated in opposition in 1962 have been bent in 1966.
Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, the way the cabinet announces that the government is going to do this, that or the other thing makes hon. members on this side wonder whether they are members of the government. Private members have to read about the actions taken by the cabinet in the press so as to find out what the government of the Liberal party is going to do. However, Mr. Chairman, as a private member and as a Liberal I call myself

one member of the government, whether the cabinet admits it or not, and in so doing I regret that our high principles of 1962 are not being practised in 1966.
With regard to the matter of interim supply, the motion for interim supply could have been introduced somewhat earlier than it was. It was bandied about in the halls here for a week before it was introduced, and of course, Mr. Chairman, when you introduce it late you can then accuse the opposition of holding up supply because you state that there is a deadline which must be met.
In reading and rereading the arguments of 1962 to which I have referred, it is quite interesting to find the hon. Mr. Benidickson, now a member of the other place, criticizing the government of the day unmercifully for having taken action which was not approved by parliament. We were told times without number that the government had an opinion from the Deputy Attorney General which authorized the action.
I believe it has now been made public knowledge-so I am only repeating public knowledge when I say this-that we found when we came to power in April 1963 that no such opinion had been expressed by the Deputy Attorney General, but that now seems to be water over the dam or under the bridge.
Having pounded away on the basis that the government of the day-that is, 1962-should produce the opinion expressed by the then Deputy Attorney General, when we were challenged on this very score in 1966 we had to produce, of course, an opinion from the Department of Justice, reference having been made in this house to this fact. We have now all received a copy of the opinion given by the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman, because it is now an appendix to Hansard. I have before me an exact copy of the opinion as tabled in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon.
I might point out that in 1962 Senator Benidickson referred to the fact that the government of the day had stated we must never question the authority of the Deputy Attorney General. Senator Benidickson and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre both questioned at that time the statement that you must not question an opinion given by the Deputy Attorney General. I know of no rule in the Canadian parliament, Mr. Chairman, that states you cannot question the opinion of anybody, including the Deputy Attorney General, if you so wish. At one time we used to question rulings of the Chair, but this right
November 16, 1966

has been abrogated and today we cannot challenge rulings made by the Speaker. But we can still question rulings of the Deputy Attorney General or, as in this case, the Acting Deputy Attorney General.
I would point out that commenting upon this statement by the Acting Deputy Attorney General causes me no embarrassment. I am not a lawyer and this gentleman is. I regret the fact that, his letter having been tabled in the House of Commons, it is possible for us to comment upon it without his being given the same opportunity to reply. I believe it would be better if these opinions were not tabled in the House of Commons; but we forced the issue in 1962, and this week we had to go through with what we were scrapping about in 1962, so this letter is now before us.
May I say that deputy attorneys general do not bother me in the slightest. I have had one in my family for over 20 years. They are fallible men, like you and I, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing infallible about deputy attorneys general, whether they be concerned with Canada as a whole or merely with one of the provinces. We do not have to accept the opinions of deputy attorneys general or acting deputy attorneys general without question, even if some people refer to them as though they were enunciating the law of the Medes and Persians and must never be questioned.
I should just like to refer to the first section of this letter which was written by Mr. D. Maxwell to Dr. Davidson, secretary of treasury board:
I refer to your discussion with Mr. Driedger today with respect to certain questions which you raised relating to the issue of mid-month salary cheques, and wish to confirm the opinions expressed to you by him.
That is, Mr. Driedger. As I say, the letter is written by Mr. D. Maxwell, Acting Deputy Attorney General. I continue:
I understand that your first question concerns the issue of cheques to persons employed in departments to which Parliament has granted full supply.
I have never heard of anyone questioning the authority to issue cheques to those employees of departments to which full supply had been granted by this parliament, but evidently someone thought it necessary to raise the question.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The view expressed to you was that, having regard to the Appropriation Act No. 6,	1966,
wherein full supply was granted in respect of certain estimates items including the administration votes of a number of departments, there is no legal impediment to payment out of the votes
Appropriation Act No. 8
thereby approved to which salaries may be charged to employees in the departments concerned.
Nobody was questioning that. It is nice to know the deputy attorney general did not question the payment of the salaries to people in departments for which the full appropriation had been authorized.
But there is a very interesting last sentence in that second paragraph. It makes one wonder what is going on in the administration of the departments. Mr. Maxwell has as his last sentence:
This opinion, of course, assumes a sufficient balance in such votes to cover the payments.
Is Mr. Maxwell intimating that full supply having been granted to these departments all the money has been spent by the end of October and there may not be any money to pay for November, December, January, February and March? Maybe Mr. Maxwell knows more about the administration of these departments than members of parliament do. Some people will call that an impertinent thing for the acting deputy attorney general to write. "This opinion assumes a sufficient balance in such votes to cover the payments."
He is talking about eight months in the fiscal year for which full supply has been granted. Personally, I will not say it is impertinent. I will say it is pertinent to the question in view of what happened in the last few days in this house. My angle is that future events cast their shadows before.
We heard the Prime Minister make a statement in this house on Thursday-I was here; I had been in Toronto all week on a pair; I received a telephone call telling me it was likely closure would be introduced on Thursday and asking if I would come up to Ottawa. I thought: this is terrific; we are going to act like a government; we shall apply closure and get interim supply through. I phoned my pair. My pair was willing to come back. I got here at about ten minutes to six on Thursday after driving through the rain, and I heard the speeches made in this house. I was in the house, on and off, from six to eight, but continuously from eight until the house adjourned.
In discussing the unification measure the Prime Minister commented on demands by the opposition that the unification bill should be referred to a committee before second reading. He made the observation:
What is proposed here is a radical alteration of our normal parliamentary procedure. I, for one, would be quite willing to consider such a course. We need not worry about radical alteration to parliamentary procedure when necessary.

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8
Two pages later, we find the comment:
I instructed that all money votes be examined in order to determine whether or not it would be possible for the government to meet its present commitments. The commitments in this regard do not cover the estimates which have been passed, and I think that includes about 50 per cent of the commitments.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker clause 3 which you will find in the three supply bills which have already been passed. Bill No. C-157, known as Appropriation Act No. 3, relates to the months of April and May and provides for two-twelfths of the total of the items in the main estimates. The bill carries the usual paragraph 3 regarding the purposes for which an item may be paid or applied.
The amount authorized by this act to be paid or applied in respect of an item may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item, and the payment or application of any amount pursuant to the item has such operation and effect as may be stated or described therein.
I also have here Bill No. C-189 known as Appropriation Act No. 5 covering the month of June. It contains the same provisions in clause 3.
The amount authorized by this act to be paid or applied in respect of an item may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item, and the payment or application of any amount pursuant to the item has such operation and effect as may be stated or described therein.
Then we have Bill No. C-226, Appropriation Act No. 7, providing for four-twelfths of the total of the items in the main estimates. The same clause 3 appears. I am quite certain that once moneys have been voted by parliament they cannot be diverted to uses other than those approved by parliament itself. And I maintain that clause 3 does not give authority to divert moneys for the payment of any salaries.
Look at the bill before us, Appropriation Act No. 8, being for one-twelfth of the year. Hon. members will find clause 3 there, again:
The amount authorized by this act to be paid or applied in respect of an item may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item, and the payment or application of any amount pursuant to the item has such operation and effect as may be stated or described therein.
Then why are we asking officials of the civil service to determine whether or not it would be possible for the government to meet its present commitments from unexpended estimates which have been passed when clause 3
tMr. Cowan.]
definitely limits the use to which money can be put once it has been passed by parliament?
I regret exceedingly that this subterfuge should have been used and that recourse was had to vote 15 of the estimates of the Department of Finance. Vote 15 reads as follows:
Contingencies-To supplement other votes and to provide for miscellaneous, minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, and authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.
If the payroll of the federal government is a minor item, that is news to me. If it is unforeseen, I think we need sharper officials looking into the appropriations of this house because, to me, payrolls are not unforeseen expenses.
The vote reads: "Contingencies-To supplement other votes and to provide for miscellaneous, minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for-" and the total, in the year 1966-67, is $15 million. I do not believe for one moment that this vote should have been used for the payment of salaries in various departments for which supply had not been granted. I should like to quote the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) who spoke, in opposition, on October 5, 1962 when he was commenting on the action of the then government in bending the Customs Tariff and the Financial Administration Act to their needs in order to raise and lower tariffs, an act which was distinctly illegal inasmuch as they kept no records of the $1,000 rebates granted to importers.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As I stated before, Mr. Chairman, when we moved to the right of the Speaker in this chamber, we found there was no written opinion from the Deputy Attorney General justifying the action, although we were told it existed in the department.
As recorded at page 264 of Hansard for October 5, 1962, during the throne speech debate the present Minister of National Health and Welfare said this:
The government was faced with this exchange crisis and it took action. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in a statement to the people of Canada stated that action was necessary to save the dollar. Action was taken and embodied in an order in council which the Prime Minister said was within limits approved by parliament; that he was acting with authority given to him by parliament. The order in council that put into effect sweeping emergency measures rests on two statutes: the Customs Tariff and the Financial Administration Act. One part of the order in council removes the application of the British preferential and intermediate tariffs and accordingly raises the level of
November 16, 1966

tariffs to the general tariff. The second part of the order in council utilizes the Financial Administration Act to relieve individuals in the country from the operation of the first part of the order in council.
Does anybody, Mr. Speaker, in his right mind believe that the statutes on which this order in council is founded were intended to allow a government to take extraordinary and sweeping action to avert a further depletion of Canada's reserves? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) vep' properly questioned yesterday the legality of this order in council. I am not a lawyer and I certainly do not intend to argue the legality or the illegality of the order in council. But I will say that the government was certainly straining very hard when it chose these two statutes upon which to base this particular sweeping measure. We have had very impressive legal advice suggesting that this order in council is indeed illegal, and that all the regulations and activities carried on under the order in council are consequently illegal.
We proved our point in the subsequent election, Mr. Chairman, because in 1963 we defeated the then sitting government.
I now wish to refer to the hon. member for Essex East in connection with the debate on this matter, a man I hold in highest regard, a man alongside whom it was a pleasure to discuss the legality of the government's action at that time because for some months he had a motion on the order paper asking for the production of papers with respect to that action.
On October 9, 1962, as recorded at page 322 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member for Essex East had this to say:
I say that section 4(1) of the Customs Tariff and section 22 of the Financial Administration Act do not contain authority from parliament to the governor in council enabling the governor in council to make the two orders which make up the surcharge on imports order. The Minister of Justice did not even allow for the possibility of difference of opinion in this regard. In that modest, humane way of his he simply said, "There is no doubt about the legality of what the government has done, take it from me". The minister of finance of another day, the present Minister of Justice, said, "Accept my word that there is no doubt about the legal basis of the action the government has taken.
Further on he said:
I ask the Minister of Justice to produce, as indeed his leader asked the minister of finance of the day in 1947, the opinion of the law officers of the crown which states that section 4(1) gives this government the authority to impose surcharges as it did when parliament was not in session and when indeed as the government of this country it occupied an extremely tenuous position with only a minority support in this house.
With regard to section 22 of the other act, namely the Financial Administration Act, on which the minister and the government base their case, may I observe that the statute was enacted by parliament in order to give authority to the governor in council to deal with a comparatively few special 23033-631
Appropriation Act No. 8 cases involving a comparatively few individual importers and a comparatively small range of imported goods for a comparatively few special purposes, as stated in the act. If parliament had intended to delegate broad powers of extensive application to customs duties on imported goods, it would have done so in the Customs Tariff and the Customs Act. However, that was not done.
So I say that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, on which the government relies as one of the two supporting measures, was not intended by parliament to delegate to the governor in council authority over a large portion of the customs tariff involving a large range of goods and all importers of those goods in a single case, which is not essentially one of the customs tariff itself but is a case of balance of payments.
Now I make the same statement with regard to the use of this vote 15 in the estimates of the Department of Finance, to be found on page 119 in the blue book which we all have before us. I say that those contingencies were not passed or granted by this parliament in order to meet salaries and wages in departments for which supply had not yet been voted.
But leaving that aside for a moment, Mr. Maxwell continues in his letter:
Your second question concerns the payment of amounts in respect of departments which have received only a certain amount by way of interim supply. As I understand it, these departments have sufficient unencumbered balances as a result of the enactment of the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966 in appropriate estimates items out of which salaries may be paid to cover payment to the employees therein of their mid-month salaries. I see no legal impediment to payment in this case, subject to any applicable provision of the Financial Administration Act being complied with.
I wonder if Mr. Maxwell has read clause 3 of these interim supply bills which says "may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item, and the payment or application of any amount pursuant to the item has such operation and effect as may be stated or described therein."
Then Mr. Maxwell continues:
Your third question concerns the remaining departments wherein the items, out of which salaries may be paid and for which Parliament has provided interim but not full supply by the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966, do not now contain sufficient remaining moneys from such interim supply to meet the mid-month salary payments. It would be proper, in my view-
Mr. Maxwell hedges. This is the view of one man, the opinion of Mr. Maxwell. He says "in my view." We do not have to accept a single

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 view, and I for one do not accept his view. He says:
-in my view, to supplement the moneys already voted by parliament for the purpose of paying salaries to employees of these departments in this fiscal year by the moneys provided by the Appropriation Acts referred to for item 15 of the main estimates of the Department of Finance relating to contingencies and providing authority, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other votes. This item permits the supplementing of votes or items in respect of which funds have been appropriated, in whole or in part.
I could not disagree with any man's opinion more than I disagree with this opinion of the acting deputy attorney general, and he is not the first deputy attorney general with whom I have disagreed. Not in every case was I wrong, in my disagreements and I am not wrong in my disagreement now.
These moneys on interim supply have been voted for stated and specific purposes, as clause 3 of the bills shows, and should be devoted to those purposes. If there are unexpended balances then we have been asked in parliament to pass more interim supply than was necessary because interim supply is passed month by month, or two months at a time, or three months at a time in order that the government may have funds to carry on the work it has to do and pay the salaries and wages of the civil servants during the stated period of time.
Interim supply is not supposed to cover periods in the future that will cause unexpended balances to accumulate in the government's accounts or in the operating expense account books. Therefore, unexpended balances that are available do indicate that parliament was asked to vote more interim supply than was required for the period of time mentioned in the supply bills that we have passed.
There are two interesting comments on this situation which I wish to quote, although I wish to speak for only half an hour. There is an intriguing comment by the minister of national revenue, as recorded at page 9861 of Hansard for Monday, November 14, where he was reported as saying:
No money was spent that was not voted by parliament.
That, in my opinion, is not enough. It was voted by parliament all right, but for what purpose? Were we asked to vote money for this, and then the cabinet spent the money on that? True enough, the whole money has been
[Mr. Cowan.1
appropriated by parliament, but direction was given as to how it should be spent.
Now in Time magazine-


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -for November 18-


The Deputy Chairman:: Would the hon. member permit a question from the minister of national revenue?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Is this a question of privilege?


Edgar John Benson: No, just a question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Well, wait until my time is up, sir. The current issue of Time magazine deals with this. That is a great Canadian publication. We have an act of parliament to prove it, but I have been in the business for 40 years and I do not accept that, either. On the opening page of its Canadian section it refers to an examination of the $8 billion accounts to see how much "previously authorized money remained unspent". Time magazine states that "at 3 p.m. on Thursday a computer gave the surprising answer: $50 million was left."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That $50 million was covered by clause 3 in each of those interim supply bills that this parliament had passed. The interim supply debate should either have been continued on a 24 hour basis or we should have had closure, but we should never have taken moneys out of the contingency fund of the Department of Finance to pay salaries of any of the departments which had not yet had their supply granted by this parliament. In December of 1962 we were discussing interim supply as we have discussed interim supply now. I should like to read you the opinion of the hon. member for Algoma East. I never was prouder of a leader in my life than I was of him at that time in opposition. He said, as reported in Hansard, page 2834, for December 19, 1962:
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward its destruction. No matter how wide a circulation we give and no matter in what form, to the bill of rights, and no matter how much we may talk about Magna Carta and the bill of rights, no matter how emotionally we may wrap ourselves up in parliamentary or national flags, both these rights I have mentioned are being deliberately and systematically violated by the present government.
November 16, 1966

He was referring to the Diefenbaker government. Gentlemen, I maintain that parliament still has the right to approve of expenditures before they are made. I resent being asked to vote full supply for the Post Office Department-say, for the purchase of mail bags and later on find that it is being used to pay the salaries of people in other departments of government. I am voting for interim supply. I would have voted for it last week, but I cannot sit by idly and have it said that I was willing to see the rights of parliament trampled upon. In 1962 Mr. Benidickson referred to this as a fundamental right of parliament. The hon. member for Leeds in 1962 referred to it as a vital constitutional question. It is still in 1966, and I resent the manner in wh:ch the salaries were paid prior to the holiday. I am voting for interim supply; I will vote for it in the committee stage, and on third reading, but I do not want it said that I sat idly by when the rights of parliament were being trampled on and money voted for one purpose was being converted to another.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any further part in this debate. However, I was forced to my feet by the spirited defence of the government by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. This is not a new occurrence. Often we have seen the hon. member rise in defence of the government. In fact I do not know why he does not go over and take a cabinet post. He might be a big improvement on some of the others. His arguments do not make any more sense, but he makes them much more forcefully. He referred to the fact that we have-and this has been the government's line throughout the whole story-this urgent need for gas in southern Ontario. The reason this application was made was the short route across the United States which would allow the demand to be met before the gas was frittered away to United States interests. It also is said that the southern route will be of great assistance to the north, but the fact is completely ignored that this is a doubtful statement. The minute you start the northern loop, you will immediately release more gas to the south. In fact, the minute there is a loop from Emerson to the lakehead some of the gas presently being used can go straight through the pipe for the southern needs. But when you make the next loop from the lakehead to the Porcupine area, all the gas that is being used there can be shot off through the southern markets. Therefore, the improvement would be immediate if the northern line were looped.
Appropriation Act No. 8 Just how the southern line will assist the north is rather vague, because if the demand is as great as is stated-great enough that they request the immediate building of a line through the south-then this means that the demand in the south is going to use up all the gas that can be shoved through that line. By virtue of the agreement which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines signed they must at all times supply over 50 per cent of the Canadian needs through the northern line. So, I can see that this would eliminate completely any extra gas being shoved through the northern line. They are in a rush to supply this gas to southern Ontario, but they do not suggest the method which they could follow right now. We cannot start building this line until we have the permission of the United States, and there is a good chance the United States Federal Power Commission will not grant that permission. So, why are we frittering away all this time when we have an urgent need? There is nothing to prevent a start being made in Canada now, and there has been nothing in the last ten years which prevented us from building another line across Canada.
The hon. member for Bow River and others have attempted to make out that we are opposed to the export of gas. Nothing could be more silly. If you want to export gas to the United States, then we say build a line from Vancouver, one from Calgary, one from Regina, one from Emerson, one from the lake-head, one from Sault Ste. Marie and one from Sarnia. These centres are all well within 100 miles of the United States border and some are right on the border. Why use the subterfuge of supplying Canadian customers to build a line into the United States? What is the reason for this? We are not opposed to the exportation of gas in any shape or form. What we are opposed to is the shipment of gas to Canadian consumers through a foreign country and placing those Canadian customers in a position where they are subject to the whims, rules and regulations laid down by a foreign country. It is this to which we object. The hon. member for Timiskaming and myself are completely incensed by the idea that this government is going to deliberately set out to hamstring industrial development in this country for the next four or five years as a minimum. The only hope we have right now is that the Federal Power Commission in the United States still may save us from our own folly.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention to take part in this discussion until I

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 listened to the very forceful argument presented by the hon. member for Timiskaming. His remarks were commented upon but not answered in any degree by the "Liberal member from Medicine Hat. What struck me in all of this was that the hon. member for Medicine Hat makes his best speeches when he is defending Liberal policy, his most, forceful and dramatic speeches. As the former whip on the government side points out, he is a very intelligent member. He is prejudiced, however. The interesting aspect of this is that during the time the hon. member for Timmins was presenting the arguments surrounding the necessity to keep our resources in Canada for the use of Canada so that they would contribute to the development of northern Ontario, I noticed there was only one member from northern Ontario in the house. I noticed also that of the cabinet ministers who were here when the hon. member for Timiskaming was speaking none paid any attention. The Minister of National Revenue was in and out of the house during that time and he, at least on the surface, appeared not to be paying any attention at all to what the hon. member for Timiskaming was saying.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I noticed that when the member for Medicine Hat was speaking the Minister of National Revenue was all ears, smiles and applause, although the applause was of the silent variety. His colleague in the cabinet, the man affectionately referred to now as "the Cote of arms" also adopted a like position and ignored the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming when he made reference to the value of this line to the province of Quebec because of an extension into that province. The associate minister of defence, who was also here, was likewise silent and uninterested in the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming when he referred to the need for enhancing the potential development of northern Ontario. The Minister without Portfolio, who is attached to the Department of Transport in one way or another, was here for a short time but he paid practically no attention to what was being said.
It seems to me to be significant that not only did the cabinet ministers who were in the house pay little or no attention to the solid arguments of the hon. member for Timiskaming, but only one of the many Liberals from northern Ontario was in the house at the time that hon. gentleman made his remarks. At that time I asked myself who these members were from northern Ontario who have such a stake in the development of that part
CMr. Howard.]
of the country. I checked the diagram which gives the seating arrangement of this house to find out who these members were and where they sat. Some of them I have never heard of before.
I came across the name of the hon. member for Algoma East and asked myself why he was not here. I, of course, discovered that he was the Prime Minister, yet neither he nor the hon. member for Algoma West were present to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming. Neither of those hon. gentlemen said one word about the Trans-Canada pipe line during the debate on interim supply or during the debate on the bill now before us.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made a speech the other day on interim supply but he sat here silent while the hon. member for Timiskaming made his speech about the needs of northern Ontario. He is not here now, and presumably was not interested in staying to answer any of the cogent arguments of the hon. member for Timiskaming. Perhaps he felt that his colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, did a sufficient job.
The hon. member for Cochrane is likewise absent and was absent when the hon. member for Timiskaming spoke. That member has not said a single, solitary word in this house about the Trans-Canada pipe line during the course of the debate on interim supply or on this bill. That fact in itself is a silent expression of non-interest.
We all know that the hon. member for Sudbury is in ill health, so I make no comment except to express my sympathy because of his physical condition. I hope that he fairs better in the future.
The hon. member for Nipissing, another area directly affected by this proposal, was likewise not here and made no comment about the Trans-Canada pipe line. The member for Fort William, another prominent individual in the Liberal party, was also absent and said nothmg during the course of the interim supply debate about the Trans-Canada pipe line. He expressed no interest or concern in this regard because of his absence. I understand the member for Port Arthur did make a speech during the course of the interim supply debate about this matter, but he was not present today to make any comment.
j rj my opinion, this is a matter of vital concern to that part of this province which relies upon natural resources for its basic economy. This is an area which could advance tremendously in the next two years as a result
November 16, 1966

of the development of another line through northern Ontario. I do not understand how this area, so greatly dependent upon the development of its natural resousces, could be so completely disregarded by the Liberal party and various Liberal members from northern Ontario.
It is a shocking disgrace that a matter of this importance should be so blandly tossed aside because this government feels that the economic development of the northern United States is more important than the development of northern Ontario. The Prime Minister is the leader of this government and the first spokesman of this nation, and as such he should protect our rights before the rights of anyone else. His attitude in regard to this whole subject is even more shocking when one considers that he represents a riding in northern Ontario.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a brief comment this afternoon in connection with Bill C-245. I notice that we are dealing with what we might term "supply" because this bill is entitled "An Act for Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Financial Year ending the 31st March, 1967". It is further stated that this act may be cited as the Appropriation Act.
I took the trouble to look up the precise meaning of "appropriation". According to that meaning, clause 1 of this bill represents a contradiction when compared to the actions of this government last week during our debate on interim supply. The meaning of the word "appropriation" is: to devote to special purposes. I submit that means that the money voted by this parliament for certain purposes cannot be spent for other purposes.
While we are discussing the clauses of this bill I wish to point out that we are being asked to agree to the purpose stated in clause 3 as follows:
The amount authorized by this act to be paid or applied in respect of an item may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item-
In view of this provision, having in mind the very careless attitude adopted by the government last week in respect of the payment of salaries, the government should only have paid those salaries covered by the specific items. I bring this matter to your attention, Mr. Chairman, because of the widespread condemnation of the action of the government in using these various residuail
Appropriation Act No. 8 funds for an improper and unauthorized purpose.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When I am finished I will be pleased to answer your question.
It is a basic rule of all Canadian civil administration that councils or governments should not levy taxes to a greater extent than is essential, and that money voted for certain purposes should not be spent for other purposes. It is also a rule that all unspent funds should be returned to the consolidated revenue fund.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The people of Canada are asking questions and on weekends when I visit my constituency I am continually asked what the government is doing with the tax money. People want to know what is happening here. They ask: Is is true that they allow millions of dollars to lie around, pigeonholed in the oblivion of the sections and subsections of various departments of government? Yes, it is true. They also ask how it is that in spite of the insatiable capacity of this government to siphon money from the people, and the exactitude practised by the Department of National Revenue in keeping track of the current amounts of income tax and other taxes owed to the government by individual citizens, when it comes to the care of these funds the government shows itself to be most careless, reprehensible and culpably inconsistent. The people point out that the careless financial practices of this government are, in their minds, contributing to a deep-rooted disdain and contempt for government administration.
The actions of this government and its financing record have reaped a harvest of cynicism, in the opinion of our citizen taxpayers. The profligate waste in the spending of money by this administration is bad enough, but the fact that they do not know how much money they have gathered, nor exactly where it is at all times, is far worse. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to assure the house that any subsequent unspent portions of the sums of money enumerated in Bill No. C-245 during the remainder of the financial year will be promptly returned and deposited in the consolidated revenue fund. Then, none of the taxpayers' moneys will be carelessly left in abeyance or classed as residual funds and consigned to departmental obscurity or doubtful use and purpose.

November 18, 1968
Appropriation Act No. 8


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the assurances for which he has asked and to once again assure him that no funds were used for purposes other than those for which they were voted. The only transfers were from financial vote 15. I had already tabled in the House of Commons, and they have been printed in Hansard, the transfers that were made and the legal opinion on which such transfers were made. I would also assure the hon. member that any funds which are accumulated in accounts at the end of the year are returned to the consolidated revenue fund. They are not spent, and are therefore not disposed of. It is not a matter of looking for cash; it is a matter of obtaining authority to spend. Authority to spend is granted for a month or months. It is not granted in the way of an appropriation that is needed in respect of each account for each month, but the allocation is one twelfth or more of the year's appropriation. During the year moneys accumulate because the one twelfth that is provided may not be spent; and there is a balance authorized for expenditure in that account. When you approve an interim supply bill, you do not approve moneys to be spent only in respect of that account. You approve one twelfth, two twelfths, or three twelfths of the total amount required for the year, which then becomes available to the government to spend.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, the minister has attempted to answer some of the questions that I have put on the record. I submit to you, sir, that Bill No. C-245 provides, especially in clause 3, a complete contradiction of the statements made by the minister. They did not have the authority to spend money voted other than for specific purposes, under the authority of clause 3, for example. Is this not the standard bill that is put before the house every year?


Edgar John Benson: Of course it is.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Is there a clause in every appropriation bill similar to clause 3? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there certainly is; there must be. Clause 3 lays down a definite purpose, authorization limitation and end use of the funds that we are debating today. Will whatever government happens to be in power next year go around trying to pick up a great many loose ends, and spend money for some unauthorized purpose? I would hope not, Mr. Chairman.


Edgar John Benson: This was not done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words on this subject. The minister has once again given us the assurance that everything was done properly and was in order. We are not questioning his word at all. But if the minister is so certain that in this regard everything was absolutely above board, why will he not take the steps necessary to have this entire financial transaction studied by the standing committee on public accounts, with the Auditor General in attendance, and then report back to the house? Then, we would know whether this is the type of procedure that should be followed or whether a change should be made.
The Auditor General is the person who could give that advice. The Auditor General is responsible to parliament as a whole. He is an independent person, not just a government employee, and parliament as a whole is the body to which the Auditor General should make his report.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Peace River, who chaired the standing committee on public accounts for two or three years and can speak with authority concerning its activities, indicated how things have changed over the last several years with regard to some of the accounts as they are set out in the blue book. He raised some grave doubts about the transactions that were carried out recently. The minister should respond to the reasonable request that has been put forward from this side of the house, He should take account of the doubts raised by the hon. member for Peace River, who has had the experience that I mentioned, and should want to make sure that the assurance given to us in the house is reinforced at the earliest opportunity by a study carried out by committee and a report from the Auditor General.
We are not questioning the word of the minister in this respect; but if there is nothing to hide, if this is a proper procedure, let us have the Auditor General's report to parliament on it. The minister must admit that this is a most unusual procedure. I know of no instance when this has happened before. We are quite prepared to admit that there can be the transfer of funds from the contingency fund, in view of the wording in the estimates right now, and perhaps that wording should be altered. However, as the hon. member for Peace River pointed out yesterday, once the government starts using the contingency fund for purposes that originally were not intended, it is open to the government to pour
November 16, 1966

money into the contingency fund from which they can meet all their commitments, whether they be emergency commitments, unforeseen commitments or anything else. This would destroy our system of the granting of supply.
Is now not the time for this question to be investigated? Is not this the time for the Auditor General to give an early report to parliament? Then, for the next fiscal year, which is not too far away, any correction that is required can be made by the House of Commons. What is wrong with a request of this sort? I am not accusing the minister of anything, but he must admit that the procedure followed a few days ago was unusual. The government was breaking new ground and we are not at all certain that this new ground should be broken.
May I direct the attention of the committee to just one other matter. On page 9948 of Hansard for November 15 there is printed the legal opinion respecting supply allocations. I am not questioning the legal opinion which was put forward by the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I simply wish to draw attention to two statements which he made in that opinion. In paragraph 2, speaking of the departments which have been granted full supply earlier in the year, he said:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Having regard to the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, wherein full supply was granted in respect of certain estimates items including the administration votes of a number of departments, there is no legal impediment to payment out of the votes thereby approved to which salaries may be charged to employees in the departments concerned.
In the next paragraph dealing with departments which have not been granted full supply and which get it by stages through the interim grant, he makes the following statement:
-these departments have sufficient unencumbered balances as a result of the enactment of the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966 in appropriate estimates items out of which salaries may be paid to cover payment to the employees therein of their mid-month salaries.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw attention to the fact that in paragraph 2 the Acting Deputy Attorney General speaks about including the administration votes of a number of departments, but in paragraph 3, he refers to "appropriate estimates items".
I ask myself what is the difference. Why does he refer in one case to appropriate estimates items from which salaries can be drawn and in another case to administration votes for ten departments for which supply has been granted? The administration votes very
Appropriation Act No. 8 largely cover the salaries of the employees of that department. I wish to draw this to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will give it some consideration. I ask him to take the necessary steps to refer this matter to the appropriate committee. I hope that the Auditor General will be present at the meetings of the committee so that a review will be made of the transactions and a report presented to parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. In this way the minister will rest assured that everything is above board.
In clause 4 of Bill C-245 it is stated that the Comptroller of the Treasury has to certify that the amount of the commitment proposed to be entered into does not exceed the total amount authorized by parliament. In view of the fact that the Comptroller General must make this certification, such a commitment should be reviewed by the Auditor General and by the appropriate committee to ensure that what the minister says is correct.
After obtaining proper assurances that the procedure is correct, parliament will have to determine its policy with regard to supply, recognizing that unusual circumstances prevailed at this particular time and recognizing that the method which has been followed in dealing with those unusual circumstances may lead parliament into a by-pass which will destroy the method of controlling the voting of money for the government's expenses.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a long question. I find that this jumping from one subject to another is very confusing, but I am particularly interested in the government's plans with regard to pipe lines. If the Federal Power Commission should decide to support the entry of the pipe line through the United States and to assume the responsibilities for such a hostage line for the re-importation of gas into Canada, what would be the government's position if the Federal Power Commission should postpone such a decision for a couple of years? They have already considered this matter for six months and they may do so for a while longer until they receive further clarification of the agreement made between the Canadian government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. What will be the government's position if they are asked by Trans-Canada for immediate permission to construct a pipe line through northern Ontario? It seems to me that a decision must have been reached that this line was not feasible, not necessarily from Trans-Canada's point of view although they have pointed out that the raising of money in

November 16. 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 excess of $200 million is not easy. Of course, this argument is not particularly valid as far as the government is concerned because as long as this remains an independent monopoly outside of government control the government does not have much interest in it apart from the inflationary effect raising such a sum of money.
The Canadian government must make its decision known in view of the statement made by Trans-Canada that they have reached the conclusion predicted four years ago by the National Energy Board that they cannot supply the markets in Canada. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said a few days ago, the loss of these markets might be irretrievable because the requirements would have to be met from other sources. It seems to me the government is responsible for having created the situation in the first place, and it will therefore have to provide alternative markets in the near future if the requirements are to be met.
I see from the report of the Federal Power Commission that they are not sure whether or not they will reconsider this matter. They have not agreed to reconsider Trans-Canada's application to waive the inquiry at this time. As most hon. members know, Trans-Canada asked for the hearing to be resumed without presenting additional evidence, but apparently their request was turned down. One of the reasons for turning it down was Trans-Canada's inability to state frankly what the government's commitments were.
There is no question that the government made commitments to Trans-Canada. The commitment which interested the hon. member for Medicine Hat is not the one that interested Trans-Canada but it is one which concerns the Federal Power Commission, namely whether the National Energy Board agreed to limit for a specific period of time the sale of 87 million cubic feet of gas required by Trans-Canada in conjunction with the Great Lakes Pipe Line, which in turn is partly owned by Trans-Canada. If this 87 million cubic feet is involved, then I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat will agree that this is no inducement to Alberta but a very significant inducement to run the pipe line through the United States. Certainly, if this were true and the government gave an indication that was all they had done, the Federal Power Commission would, I am sure, be in agreement with it. However, I have read the terms tabled by the minister and there is no limit imposed. The initial export is put at something like 87 million cubic feet per day.
[Mr. Peters.1
But if this does not amount to two or three million cubic feet per day, then there is no point in this United States company joining forces with the Great Lakes Company.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
With a minority government in office, Mr. Chairman, you would expect members of parliament to be able to receive clarification of matters which bother them. I think that the commitments made to the Federal Power Commission should be made available to members of parliament; this is only reasonable. The information which was tabled is a summary of two other letters dated September 15 and 19 and of various conversations. It is easy for a minister to deal with a private company and to make all kinds of commitments, as long as the company believes that the minister will be in a position to do something about implementing them.
There are ministers of the crown who are aware of the advantage which has been given to various parts of Canada as a result of Trans-Canada Pipe Line's decision to route the line through Canada. There is also some advantage to parts of Canada as a result of the decision that the line should be Canadian-owned, though this is perhaps debatable. I am not an expert on finance and do not like reading the financial page in the press. However, but I was interested yesterday to note that, although we always talk of Trans-Canada as, being 92 per cent Canadian-owned, it has obviously been taken over in part by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has a doubtful parentage at best. However, no one will argue that it is a Canadian company. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to take over the directorship of Trans-Canada.
I think the fact that this has taken place at this time is an indication that the government has made commitments other than those about which we have been informed. They have made commitments other than those made to the Federal Power Commission, and have probably made more commitments than were made to the National Energy Board.
I suggest that the needs of the Canadian public could be met in a lot better fashion, as could even the interests of such divergent groups as those in Alberta and northern Ontario. I think that there are diverging points of view which would be better served if the whole matter were dealt with by the government along the lines of a white paper which would clarify our national policy on gas, and would bring up to date and make
November 16, 1966

more realistic our oil policy which the government stated not long ago.
I could keep talking, Mr. Chairman, until the government started to look for next month's supply of money and I still would not be satisfied. But I have an obligation, as have other members from northern Ontario, to try and find out exactly what the application made by Trans-Canada means to the economy of all parts of Canada. If it is possible to derive some benefit for northern Ontario, then this is part of my responsbility, but I find this extremely difficult with this government. I cannot really find anybody in the government, including the Prime Minister, who can speak for the interests of the people around me.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to F inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-short title.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before clause 1 carries, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee but would the minister make a kindly reply to the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Peace River and myself concerning reference to the appropriate committee and the Auditor General?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, not only have I made all the documents available to the Auditor General, including the legal opinion which I tabled in the house yesterday, but in addition to this I have undertaken to table a list of every account indicating the amount of funds which are in the accounts, the amount used for the payroll and the amount supplemented from vote 15. I anticipate that I will table this tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this illustrates the grave difficulty we face in this house. The minister has now said that he is making available all the information. No one is suggesting he is hiding information from us, but as I pointed out the other day the Auditor General normally will not report to parliament on the present financial transactions for over a year. This is the normal procedure. He starts at the beginning of the next fiscal year to review the expenditures of the last fiscal year, and his report would be completed and perhaps ready at the end of December 1967. If the house were not sitting it would not come before us until 15 days after the commencement of the next sitting. So, it could well be not until the spring of 1968 that we would find out the opinion of the Auditor General about
Appropriation Act No. 8 whether what happened was in accordance with the laws of the land and should be followed or whether it should be changed.
This is what we are asking of the minister. In view of the delay in the report of the Auditor General,-which is according to custom; I am finding no fault there-we are asking that an early reference to the Auditor General be made through the means of the committee on public accounts and that a report be returned to this house at the earliest opportunity.
The only reply I get from the minister is that he has disclosed everything. I am not saying that he is holding anything back, but we do not have the opinion of the one man who has the staff and the competence to give us that opinion.
Under arrangements which have been made within the last year or two the Auditor General has independent legal advice to assist him. He also has an enlarged staff. In order to put aside the duties with which he is presently engaged he would require, I would think, a reference from this house to the committee on public accounts and then an instruction to that committee to consult with and get from the Auditor General an opinion concerning the recent transactions.
Why does the government refuse what I am sure everybody will consider a reasonable request? No accusations are being made here at all.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have not refused anything. What is the hon. member putting forward? Does he want me to tell the public accounts committee to refer this matter to the Auditor General? Does he want me to tell the public accounts committee how to run its affairs? This is a committee composed of members of parliament who are quite capable of running then-own affairs and of deciding whether or not they want to ask that this matter be referred immediately to the Auditor General for report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is now getting a little excited-


Edgar John Benson: Not at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I was attempting to be very objective about this. I am not asking the minister to give instructions to any committee whatever. I am asking the minister to take the appropriate steps to refer this matter to the committee. A government motion on the order

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 paper referring the matter to the public accounts committee, with advice to that committee to consult with the Auditor General and get his opinion, I think is the way in which it should be done.
I think the minister can, surely, do that.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: I said I would look into this matter. I have not considered the proposition that a special motion should be placed on the order paper because no one suggested it until the hon. gentleman did just this minute. Certainly, I will consider it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are making headway. I thought I suggested this the other day, but perhaps it escaped the minister's attention. My understanding is that committees can consider only those matters which are referred to them. If the minister will do that-


Edgar John Benson: I will look into it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has agreed to give serious consideration to having a motion of that type placed on the order paper. My hon. friend from Ontario, who is more precise in these matters, asks whether the minister would agree to do exactly that.


Edgar John Benson: Oh.


Michael Starr: That is a different story.


Edgar John Benson: Now, the hon. gentleman is indicating that he wants me to tell the Auditor General what to do by means of a motion placed on the order paper. The Auditor General has to be consulted if he is to consider this question as one of priority. I have to look into these things before I even consider putting such a motion on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We try very ''ard here, sometimes without much success, but 1 will go over the ground again, briefly. I am asking the minister to have drafted the necessary motion referring to the public accounts committee the question of the financial transaction recently carried out by the hon. gentleman and involving about $60 million used to pay salaries of government employees before interim supply had been passed through the house, and adding to that motion instructions to the committee to employ the good services of the Auditor General; and, further, that the committee should make its report to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. It is just a matter of drafting a motion. If the minister would like me to draft

it or would permit me to put such a motion on the order paper, I would do it.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. gentleman can always put a motion down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I could put one at the bottom of the list and we would reach it in 1969. That is just nonsense. Let the minister consult with the leaders of the house or with the Minister of Finance, who so seldom appears to be here, and see whether this could not be done. If there is something unreasonable in my request, let him say so.


Edgar John Benson: I did not say there was anything unreasonable in that request whatsoever. I assured the hon. gentleman I would look into the matter. I am not even sure that a motion is necessary in order that the public accounts committee might look into this matter. I am not sure that the public accounts committee could not proceed to investigate this without any motion being placed on the order paper. A motion might not be needed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is it not clear that committees can consider only such matters as are referred to them, and that so far all that has been referred to the public accounts committee are the public accounts and the Auditor General's report of a former year? The minister and I are carrying on an exchange in connection with another matter, namely the pensions of superannuated civil servants. I should like to have the subject discussed by the special joint committee on public service, but we have agreed that this cannot be done unless the terms of reference are broadened.
The motion which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is trying to draft could, I believe, be simplified a little. Committees, including the public accounts committee, already have authority to send for persons, papers and records. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to give the committee authority to send for the Auditor General. But I believe it is necessary to give the committee authority to consider a matter which has not yet been referred to it.
The parliamentary secretary is shaking his head. All that has been referred to the public accounts committee so far are the public accounts and the Auditor General's report for a year that has gone by. The committee has nothing for the current fiscal year before it, and it is necessary to have a motion enlarging, the terms of reference to include authority to consider those special transactions about
November 16. 1966

which we are concerned. Such a motion having been placed on the order paper and passed, the committee could make its own decision about calling the Auditor General. This is something the minister might consider.


Edgar John Benson: I will certainly consider it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for clarifying this matter. The minister now says he will consider the proposition which has been made to him. But can he not say, in view of the authority of his office, and in view of the seriousness of the situation, that he will undertake to do it, not just consider it? I am sure the house would pass such a motion without debate. In fact, I will make a commitment to that effect right now on behalf of this party.
Surely, the minister could go a little further and say he will do what we ask? If he would put down a motion referring the subject matter to the committee, we would pass it without debate. Remember, it would be 1968 before we would have the opinion of the Auditor General on the validity of this transaction in the ordinary course of events. I am casting no aspersions upon what the minister had done. The Auditor General reports to parliament with regard to financial transactions in this country, and what we are asking him to do is to deal with this particular transaction as soon as possible in case we should alter the method of dealing with estimates and supply in parliament in the fiscal year 1967-68.
I plead with the minister-and when I plead with members of this government it is a red letter day-to make this concession and to make this commitment. I am supported, I am sure, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has a considerable knowledge of transactions here. In fact, I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whether he does not think that the Auditor General could give us a report at the earliest opportunity rather than in 1968. Again, I ask the minister to give us an assurance, not just to consider the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suppose the news media would say I am holding up the business of the house, filibustering and so on. But this is a matter of serious importance in relation to the finances of our country. It is not just a silly notion that I am putting forward. I have made a reasonable request to this minister, and I
Appropriation Act No. 8 cannot understand why he cannot make a commitment to this house.


Edgar John Benson: I have given everything to the hon. member that he has requested of me. I have said I would look into this matter and consider seriously what should be done.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
That is the only commitment I can give because no one has put forward a proposition that I have had the opportunity of examining, other than the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few minutes ago.


Michael Starr: The minister says he wants an opportunity to give serious consideration to what should be done. I think he means how it could be done.


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


Michael Starr: In view of that, we are not going to quibble about how it is going to be done. Could the minister not say, "I will look into the situation to find out how it can be done and I will do it"? The request put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and others is a reasonable one. The minister has already given all the facts and laid the particulars on the table. We appreciate that very much, and what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asks is that these be referred to the committee in whatever form the minister finds it necessary to do so.
All the minister has to do is say, "I will give consideration to what method can be employed to have it referred to the committee, to be dealt with by the Auditor General, who will bring in his report as soon as possible, and this I will do as soon as I find the best method."


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister's attitude is perfectly correct. He has tabled a legal opinion indicating that the procedure followed was completely correct and in accordance with the law. No one here can say with absolute certainty that in these circumstances it would be appropriate to refer this particular matter to the Auditor General. The Auditor General has a great deal to do investigating accounts of previous years, and he is following well established practices and procedures.
Nevertheless, the minister has said he will consider the suggestion made by hon. members opposite. Surely, in view of the legal opinion that has been obtained, and the length of time taken on this general subject, that is

November 16, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 as far as hon. members could reasonably ask the minister to go at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not going to press the matter any further except to say that if there is nothing to hide and nothing to conceal, I cannot understand why the government will not refer this matter to the committee on public accounts. If it is not going to do so we will be asking, what are you hiding? What are you concealing? What are you afraid of? The Auditor General is the only person who can assure us that everything was all right.
I am expecting that everything is all right, but I am concerned for the future, and the method by which we shall deal with these things. Yesterday, the hon. member for Peace River pointed out that if this is taken to be a precedent for the future the contingency vote in the finance estimates could be enlarged to $100 million, $150 million or $300 million, and there would be no check on it whatever, except a year and a half later, with respect to how the government was using that money.
The practice in the past was to vote money for a specific purpose. Now, we have drifted into error with the contingency fund. As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out yesterday, a few years ago that fund totalled just 1 million or a little more. It rose to $29 million a year ago. It stands at $15 million now, and supplementary estimates could raise it to $30 million or $50 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Doesn't the hon. member know it has already been raised to $60 million by Supplementary Estimates A?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There we are. Where is the limit? Surely, the Auditor General should tell parliament whether this is a practice that should be followed in the future or whether it should cease immediately. I also suggest that when the estimates book is published for 1967-68 the small print under that contingency vote should be altered, and possibly made to read the way it used to read some years ago. This is all we are seeking. Surely, parliament as a whole has a right to ask for this.
The government does not control everything in this country, but if it pursues this present method as a precedent for the future, we will have lost all control over the way in which money is used after we pass the estimates. Anyone who considers the financial situation in this country, and has time to look at this matter, would accept the point of view I am putting forward.
CMr. Wahn.l
The government house leader, who is familiar with motions to refer subjects to committees, is present. Can he not persuade the Minister of National Revenue to accede to our reasonable request to put a motion on the order paper, which we will not debate, referring the recent financial transactions to the committee on public accounts for investigation? As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, that committee has the right to call witnesses and would likely call the Auditor General.


George James McIlraith: Why would you refer something to that committee which it is its duty to deal with in due course when it comes to it through the proper channels? Under legislation, it is the duty of the Auditor General to check on these transactions, which I am sure he will.
When he does that and he makes any report which warrants the public accounts committee dealing with it, then the committee will deal with it. But if there is nothing in his report which warrants that, then the committee will not deal with it. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is putting a most hypothetical proposition forward, one that is really not based on any logic that I can discover.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You should not have ended your comment with that remark, because I would have to protest that I am very logical in my reasoning. However, I will not enter a debate on that subject. The minister has said that all this will reach the Auditor General in due course. I have already said that three or four times, but in due course means sometime in 1967, and that report will not reach the house until spring 1968.
I am saying that this is a different procedure, a new procedure, an unexpected procedure that we should investigate and have a report on during 1966. Then if the Auditor General says this is a wrong procedure to follow, we should modify it for the next financial year.


George James McIlraith: Does the hon. member not realize that the Auditor General's duties are set out by statute, and his duty to report is clearly set out in that act? If the hon. member wants to modify that statute, then there is a certain procedure to be followed and that is to introduce an amendment to the legislation covering the Auditor General. Surely, that is the only logical way to deal with it.


Michael Starr: But this is a special case.
November IB, 1966


Mr, Mcllraiih:: The hon. member for Ontario says this is a special case. The Auditor General is dealing with special cases every day. He has all the files. He does this audit job on a continuing and continuous basis. Surely, this request is based on nothing logical. In any event the wrong method is being used.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the request is not to refer the matter to the Auditor General but to refer it to the public accounts committee.


George James McIlraith: But the duty of the public accounts committee is to deal with the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Monteilh:: In 1968?


George James McIlraith: Surely, it is not our function, on some hypothetical proposition of an hon. member, to ask the committee to go off on another task quite inconsistent with their duties?


Michael Starr: Don't tell us about our duties in parliament.


Mr. Bigg:: As a member of the public accounts committee, I can tell the minister that at present we are seized with the 1964 report. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quite correct, that if we wait for the usual wheels to grind we will be considering this matter some time in 1968 or 1969, and it is urgent that we look at it now.
I think the public accounts committee could ask for information on this matter now, but we would like to be sure it will not be prevented by some procedural hassle from doing that.


George James McIlraith: The purely legal question has already been determined in the constitutional way by the government getting the legal opinion of the law officers of the crown.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this matter, I might say that it really does not matter to me who looks at the transactions. As a matter of fact, I have tabled in the house all the documents which the Auditor General would look at, except the individual salaries and the amounts being used, but I am having these typed out now. If anyone wishes to verify these amounts he may do so. The Auditor General will be doing that in any event. The whole situation is there. If there is anything else anyone wishes to have produced, I am willing to do so.
Appropriation Act No. 8


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised at the argument the house leader has advanced. In the first place, he suggested that the public accounts committee could deal only with public accounts. It seems axiomatic that a committee of this house deals with any matter which the house deems advisable to refer to it. If this matter is to be referred to a committee, then it seems that the public accounts committee is the logical committee.
In respect of the points just made by the Minister of National Revenue, I should like to say that as I have listened to the recent discussion it did not seem that anyone was expressing dissatisfaction with what the minister has done in the way of tabling information. It does seem obvious, however-and this I feel is the point the house leader is missing at the moment-that what is in the minds of some of us is we would like to have some orderly way set out in which we could give proper consideration to the information which the minister has placed before parliament. If for no other reason than to avoid protracted arguments back and forth across the house, I think it would be a sensible decision to have these documents which the minister has tabled and the whole question of this unusual approach in providing moneys to pay government accounts, considered in the standing committee. I think this is the point. It seems to me that basically this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has been suggesting. I would suggest, even if for no other reason than to give an opportunity to have an orderly and perhaps a more quiet examination of the questions which are raised and which are quite serious in the minds of many members of the house, that the proposed referral of this matter to the public accounts committee would be the responsible way to handle the situation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. I made a grave mistake in getting the Minister of Public Works into this question.He has just added confusion to the issue. I promise I will not do that again, because I wish to get this matter straightened out by clear minds. I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue is holding up the proceedings of this house by the attitude he is taking.


Edgar John Benson: I take exception to that. I have spoken only a very few words. I am not holding up anything. I have produced every document which has been requested. Tomorrow I am going to table the latest list

November 16, 1966
Business of the House
which the hon. member asked for. The whole story will be in Hansard. What does he want to do beyond this?


Michael Starr: He wants the opinion of the Auditor General now.


Edgar John Benson: Why do you wish that? You have an opinion from the law officers of the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, let us have one thing clear. The law officers of the crown are servants of the crown. They give their opinions to the crown. The Auditor General is a servant of parliament, and I think that it is right that we should have the opinion of a servant of parliament. In respect of the legal opinions the government receives, the hon. member for York-Humber referred to an earlier matter in respect of which the law officers of the crown gave one opinion to the Conservative government in 1962 and the very opposite opinion to the Liberal government in 1963. I do not wish to re-open that argument, but surely parliament has the right to ask one of its committees to seek the opinion of a servant of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Revenue. Perhaps this will soften him up. I congratulate him for being so quick to disclose all the information which is available to him with regard to these transactions. In this regard, his action is materially different from that of the Minister of National Defence. I congratulate the minister for being very prompt with us today. Having gone that far, I cannot agree with his obstruction at the present time. I suspect that because the government has found a neat little method by which it can avoid trouble on interim supply in the future, it is going to hang on to this. The hon. member for Peace River suggested this in a speech he made yesterday.
This amazing little contingency fund, item 15a under the Department of Finance, is just a gold mine recently discovered. Now, it is going to be mined right to the hilt and there will be shafts sunk. They will dredge up all the money they want now under item 15a to use for any purpose they like. This is a blank cheque to the government. I stand here as a protector of the rights of parliament and the taxpayers of this country. I have not heard any
argument advanced which carries any weight contrary to my view that the servant of parliament, the Auditor General, should be consulted with regard to this practice. If this is not done, then we will have to raise this issue again, again and again. It may be years before it is solved. It could be solved by the Auditor General between now and Christmas if the minister would accept our reasonable proposition that this matter be referred to the public accounts committee. In that event, I would hope that the members of the committee, as a result of the discussion here in the House of Commons, would feel that the Auditor General should be called to give an opinion.
I note that it is now six o'clock, Mr Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Michael Starr: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, last night this house gave second reading to Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act. We then considered the bill clause by clause in committee and it was reported, but third reading was held over until today. It is my hope that this house is now agreeable to giving the bill third reading, because there is a time factor involved.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think the normal practice after second reading and the completion of the committee stage, is to hold over third reading until the following day. I suggest third reading of this bill be the first item of business for tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.