1966-02-09

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may remember that the last meeting of the joint United States-Canadian ministerial committee for trade and economic affairs was held in Ottawa on April 29 and 30, 1964. The committee normally meets alternately in Ottawa and Washington, and the next meeting is scheduled for Washington on March 4 and 5.
Canada will be represented at this meeting by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Ministers of Finance, Trade and Commerce, Industry, Agriculture, and Mines and Technical Surveys and by the governor of the Bank of Canada and Canada's chief negotiator to the GATT. The United States delegation will be led by Mr. Rusk, and will include the Secretaries of the Treasury, Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, the President's special representative for trade negotiations, the under secretary of state for economic affairs and the chairman of the council of economic advisers.



SAINT JOHN RIVER-TABLING OF NOTES AND SURVEY

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I wish to table the exchange of notes on the development of the Saint John river and the survey "Canada", of the organization for economic co-operation and development.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege respecting an alteration that has been made in the report of Hansard debates in this house. I will be very brief about it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs used this sentence-


An hon. Member:: Page?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will read the sentence as it was spoken in the house by the minister, because I copied it down. I quote:
I can tell my hon. friend that it has not in any way denied us an opportunity of making an assessment on the elucidation of further facts.
On page 895 that incomprehensible sentence reads:
I can tell my hon. friend that it has not in any way denied us an opportunity of making an accurate assessment of the situation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that type of correction by the minister is not within the rules of this house. It makes my statement on page 916, to which he did not object at the time, completely inaccurate. It reverses the case, because my statement was accurate. I quoted the minister's words, and he has without authorization made an alteration in Hansard to clarify one of his normally incomprehensible statements.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
CTranslation1



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117 to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot paper).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, this bill requests that the political affiliation of the candidates in federal elections be indicated on the ballot paper; this has become necessary due to the appearance of third parties. It would surely help the voters on election day.
Moreover, indicating the political affiliation of the candidates would foil one of the tricks of certain organizers: that of presenting in a riding an opponent bearing the same name as the previously elected member, in order to confuse the voters.
Motion 'agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-118 to amend the Criminal Code (negligence in operation of motor vehicles).

February 9, 1966
Proposed Legislation


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code respecting the numerous cases where a motor vehicle driver flees from the scene of an accident he caused to escape civil or criminal responsibility and cannot be identified. Then, it would be presumed under the act that the registered owner of the said vehicle was also the driver.
Of course, this supposition could be denied by the owner of the vehicle if he was not driving it. I believe this amendment has become a necessity because of the ever-increasing number of this kind of public misdeed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of capital punishment).
He said: This is identical, Mr. Speaker, to the two bills already on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: Why?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING TRIAL AND CONFINEMENT OF MINORS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code in reference to sections
12	and 13.
The amendment will raise the age from 7 to 10 years in reference to the legal right to charge and convict a minor, with a proviso that no person shall be convicted of any offence under the code between the ages of 10 and 16 years of age, unless he is competent to know the nature and consequence of his conduct and, above all, to appreciate that his conduct was wrong.
In order to put an end to incarcerating children in penitentiaries as young as 12 and
13	years of age, clause 13(A) was added, which will set out that no person under the age of 16 years, if convicted of an offence, can be placed in a penitentiary and, if an

offence was such that under the circumstances a person who was under 16 years of age would be sentenced to a penitentiary, then such person would be confined to an industrial school for the purpose of rehabilitation.
In brief, the amendment will prevent children between the ages of 7 and 10 years from being convicted of any offence, and children of 16 years and under from being placed in penitentiaries.
As late as December 31, 1963 there were 45 children in penitentiaries, 16 years of age and under, and 386 under the age of 18 years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA DAY


Yves Forest: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-119, concerning the Canada Day Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to amend the act under which July 1 was designated "Dominion Day" and to change this designation to "Canada Day" in order to better reflect the present status of our country.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon the problems of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to inquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That twenty four members of the House of Commons to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical
February 9, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Questions
personnel as may be deemed necessary, that the minutes of proceedings of and evidence given before the joint committee during the twenty sixth parliament be referred to the said committee and be made part of the records thereof; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the house.



ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a special committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon costs of drugs, begun by special committees during the twenty sixth parliament;
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated later by the house; and be empowered to sit while the house is sitting;
That the committee be empowered to consider and recommend, as it may deem expedient, respecting a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the price of drugs;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and to engage the services of counsel, accountants, and such other technical and clerical personnel as may be deemed necessary;
That the minutes of proceedings of and evidence given before the special committees at the 26th parliament be referred to the said committee and be made part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of standing orders 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation to such committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Translation1

Mr. Allard: 1.	In 1964-65, how much did it cost in dollars to Canada to keep nuclear warheads including expenses for storage, men and dogs, whether the storehouses were located in Canada or elsewhere?
2.	Since 1963, what steps were taken by the Canadian government toward denuclearizing the Canadian troops stationed in Europe?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. About $3,820,000.
2.	Since 1963, Canada has taken the necessary action to fulfil its previous commitments. As indicated in the White Paper on defence published in March 1964, the contribution of Canada to nuclear attacking forces in Europe will decrease, as aircraft are withdrawn from service.


CONTRIBUTION TO CONSTRUCTION OF QUEBEC HIGHWAY NO. 6
Mr. Keays: Has money been paid for the construction of a provincial highway, namely highway No. 6 in the Province of Quebec, from les Boules 15 miles west of Matane continuing eastward, in lieu of the construction of a railway between Matane-Ste Anne des Monts authorized by chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada 1962 and, if so, under what authority?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: No. The claims for payment have not been submitted as yet. Authority for such payments would derive from item 40 of the Department of Public Works estimates 196566.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Allard: 1.	What was the consumer price index level around December 15, 1965?
2.	Was this level exceeded in the past, and, if so, when?
3.	What was the consumer price index number at the following periods (a) mid-December 1964 (b) mid-December 1963 (c) mid-December 1962?
4.	Had the government been warned by economists, economic forecast specialists and other government specialists that new increases in the cost of living were to be expected during the next twelve months and, if so, does the government intend to adopt measures to stabilize the cost of living and what measures does it plan to take?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	The consumer price index stood at 140.8 at the beginning of December 1965. Prices are obtained for the items in the consumer price index in the two week period centred around the first of the month.
2.	No.
3.	The consumer price index numbers for the specified periods were: December 1962, 131.9; December 1963, 134.2; December 1964, 136.8.
4.	The government maintains a continued and close analysis of developments within the Canadian economy, including prospective

February 9, 1966
Questions
movements of prices. The objective of the government is to ensure relative stability of the general level of prices, along with other important economic and social objectives. To this end, government economic and financial policies are continually being developed, adapted and carried out in the light of emerging circumstances.


CAUSES OF DEATHS OF AIR FORCE OFFICERS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	In the last ten years, what have been the three leading causes of death of active air force officers?
2.	In the last ten years, what have been the three leading causes of death of pensioned air force officers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Aircraft accidents, motor vehicle accidents, and degenerative heart disease leading to fatal heart attack.
2.	This information is not available.


C.B.C. PER CAPITA COST
Mr. Mather: What is the daily per capita cost of (a) C.B.C. radio, and (b) C.B.C. television services?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that in the year 1964-65 the daily per capita cost to the public treasury was .3 cents for C.B.C. radio and .9 cents for C.B.C. television.


PARTICIPATION OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL CHAIRMAN ON GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES
Mr. Ormiston: Does the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada or any of his staff participate in any manner on departmental committees, interdepartmental committees and ad hoc committees of government?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada as follows: The chairman of the Economic Council and its staff do not participate on departmental committees, interdepartmental committees and ad hoc committees of government which have as their object the determination of government policy. However, representatives of the council are invited and do attend, from time to time, government committees which have as their object the gathering of information and the development of research in areas which are within the terms of reference of the Economic Council of Canada.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF JAMAICA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What was the nature of the discussions between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Acting Prime Minister of Jamaica held in December 1965?
2.	What agreements or understandings were achieved?
3.	Did the Prime Minister of Canada promise a revision of Canadian immigration policy as it affects the West Indies?
4.	If so, in what particulars is it proposed to revise the policy and when?
5.	Was any specific agreement reached regarding immigration quotas and, if so, what was the substance of such agreement?
6.	Do any of the agreements or understandings achieved apply to other islands in the Caribbean?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The communique issued at the close of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister of Jamaica, November 29, 1965, was as follows:
The Prime Minister of Canada, Right Hon. Lester Pearson, and the Acting Prime Minister of Jamaica, Hon. Donald Sangster, yesterday discussed a wide range of subjects of interest to their two countries. They also discussed the world political situation, paying special attention to the critical situation in Rhodesia.
Assisting Mr. Sangster in the discussion were other members of the Jamaica cabinet as well as government officials. Mr. Pearson was assisted by his advisers and the Canadian High Commissioner in Jamaica, Mr. R. Harry Jay.
On Rhodesia Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sangster shared a deep concern over the situation resulting from the unilateral declaration of independence by the Smith regime. Mr. Pearson described the various trade and financial measures being taken by Canada, following consultation within the Commonwealth and the deliberations of the U.N., including the recent ban on all importation into Canada of sugar of Rhodesian origin. Mr. Sangster expressed his concern that economic measures might not prove fully effective. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sangster agreed on the importance of keeping in close touch over developments in this deplorable and dangerous situation.
The Prime Ministers also discussed various other international questions including issues currently confronting the United Nations and developments in the O.A.S.
The Prime Minister of Canada expressed the support of his government for Jamaica's peacekeeping initiative in the United Nations.
On the question of aid, the Acting Prime Minister reaffirmed the gratitude of the Jamaican government to Canada for the generous terms of Canadian aid. Different aspects of the loans and technical assistance programs were discussed and a number of proposals examined.
Much of today's discussion related to trade and economic topics. The progress being made in the current tariff negotiations in Geneva was reviewed and arrangements were made to consult closely on aspects of these negotiations of special interest to the two countries. The importance to Jamaica of
February 9, 1966

sugar exports to Canada was stressed and the interest of the two governments in the achievement of an effective international sugar agreement was recognized.
Other specific trade problems were examined, such as the current negotiations regarding codfish purchases and the sale of rum to Canada.
Proposals which had been made earlier for a Canada-West Indies conference were also discussed. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sangster agreed that further exploratory and preparatory discussions should take place in the very near future between representatives of all governments concerned.
The Prime Ministers examined the question of migration of Jamaican domestic and other labour to Canada as well as the general question of Jamaican immigration to Canada.
They reaffirmed their desire to find solutions to the problems discussed in such a way that the very close relationship between their countries would be maintained and strengthened.
The discussions took place in a most cordial atmosphere with both Prime Ministers appreciating each other's point of view.
The communique issued at the end of the Prime Minister's subsequent visit to Trinidad and Tobago, December 14-16, was as follows:
The Prime Minister of Canada, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, arrived in Trinidad on December 14 on a two day official visit.
Today, December 15, the Prime Minister of Canada conferred with the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago on a number of subjects of mutual interest to both countries. The Prime Minister of Canada was accompanied by Mr. A. E. Ritchie, deputy under-secretary of state for external affairs, and Mr. Eric Gilmour, High Commissioner for Canada. With the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago were Senator the Hon. W. J. Alexander, Minister without Portfolio and special adviser to the Prime Minister; Hon. G. Montano, Minister of Home Affairs; Hon. J. O'Halloran, Minister of Petroleum and Mines and Minister of Industry and Commerce; Senator the Hon. Donald Pierre, Minister of Education and Culture. Also present were Mr. William Demas, head, economic planning division, and Mr. K. F. Sealey, permanent secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.
The Prime Ministers discussed the international situation and paid special attention to the serious situation which has arisen as a consequence of the illegal seizure of power by the regime in Southern Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago paid tribute to the government of Canada for their liberal attitude in their policy of grants and loans offered to Trinidad and Tobago and expressed his appreciation of the work now being done in Trinidad and Tobago by technical advisers and more particularly the work of teachers in the secondary schools and other educational institutions.
The Prime Minister of Canada expressed the willingness of his government to extend the assistance in the field of education during the coming year.
The discussions also included a reference to some aspects of the terms of economic aid. The Prime Minister also discussed the tariff negotiations now going on in Geneva and the trade of developing countries. They also discussed especially trade between Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, particularly in respect of sugar and rum.
Questions
The Prime Ministers agreed that steps should be taken to prepare for a conference of the heads of governments of Canada and commonwealth Caribbean countries to consider the future relations in economic and other fields. With this in view it was proposed that a meeting of officials be held early next year to suggest the subjects for discussion.
The Prime Ministers also discussed the activities of international organizations such as the U.N. and the Organization of American States. The Prime Ministers also agreed that the closest consultation should continue between them and that they should work toward strengthening the close relationship which exists between their two countries.
Following their discussions, the Prime Ministers of Trinidad and Tobago and Canada signed two development loan agreements, one for $650,000 for rural electrification program and the other for $400,000 for lumber for low-cost housing scheme.
2.	The discussions took the form of a frank exchange of views on matters of mutual interest, as is customary in discussions between Commonwealth leaders, and were not intended to result in specific agreements or understandings.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	No.
6.	Not applicable.


DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Which areas in Canada are considered and designated as depressed areas under the Department of Industry?
2.	Which areas were designated depressed areas during the past three years and are not now so designated?
3.	By what means are areas determined to be depressed areas?
4.	By what means are areas determined not to be depressed areas once having been so designated?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.
The following national employment service office areas, counties and census divisions are designated under the area development program of the Department of Industry:
National Employment Service Office Areas: Newfoundland: Corner Brook, Grand Falls, St. John's (Labrador*). Prince Edward Island:	Charlottetown, Summerside. Nova
Scotia:	Amherst, Bridgewater, Inverness,
Kentville, Liverpool, New Glasgow, Spring-hill, Sydney, Sydney Mines, Truro, Yarmouth. British Columbia:	Kelowna, Penticton,
Vernon. Alberta: Blairmore. New Brunswick: Bathurst, Campbellton, Edmundston, Minto, Moncton, Newcastle, St. Stephen, Sussex, Woodstock. Quebec:	Alma, Causapscal,
Chandler, Chicoutimi, Dolbeau, Gaspe, Jon-quiere, La Malbaie, La Tuque, Louiseville, Maniwaki, Matane, Megantic, Mont Laurier,

February 9, 1966
Questions
Montmagny, New Richmond, Port Allred, Roberval, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup, Shawinigan, Ville St. Georges. Ontario: Bracebridge, Elliot Lake, Parry Sound, Sturgeon Falls, Owen Sound, Collingwood, Midland. Manitoba: Brandon, Dauphin, The Pas. Saskatchewan:	Lloydminster, North
Battleford, Prince Albert, Yorkton.
*To include Lake Melville district and coastal settlements south of the 55th parallel.
Counties and Census Divisions: Queen's, N.B., Beauce, P.Q., Labelle, P.Q., Pontiac, P.Q., Haliburton, Ont., Parry Sound, Ont., Manitoulin Island, Ont., Census Division 10 Man., Census Division 12, Man., Census Division 18, Man., Census Division 19, Man., Census Division 5, Sask., Census Division 10, Sask., Census Division 13, Sask., Census Division 12, Alta., Census Division 13, Alta.
2.	Ten of the 35 NES areas which were designated originally on September 6, 1963, have been removed from the list as a result of periodic reviews of the program. The St. Jean, Pembroke and Brantford NES areas were removed effective January 23, 1965; the NES areas of Chatham, Cornwall, Rouyn, Timmins, Val d'Or, Wallaceburg and Windsor were removed effective September 4, 1965.
3.	Areas which are considered as designated for benefits under the Area Development Program are those NES office areas, Counties and Census Divisions which meet the criteria as set out in order in council, P.C. 1965-1394 of August 4, 1965.
4.	An area is no longer designated when it is determined, as a result of a review, that the area no longer meets the criteria as laid down in the order in council referred to in Question 3.


'OATHS TAKEN BY LETTER CARRIERS
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Are postal employees required to take an "oath of loyalty'' and an "oath of secrecy" as set out in the letter carriers' manual before being appointed?
2.	How many letter carriers have been appointed in each province during the last year, and to how many of those appointed have the oaths been administered?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. All postal employees, including letter carriers, are required to take the oath of allegiance and the oath of office and secrecy as called for by the Civil Service Act.
2.	New positions of letter carrier established in each province during the last fiscal year are as follows: Newfoundland, 9; Nova Scotia, 12; Prince Edward Island, nil; New

Brunswick, 8; Quebec, 190; Ontario, 211; Manitoba, 14; Saskatchewan, 17; Alberta, 34; British Columbia, 53.
In addition, appointments were made to fill vacancies created by resignations, retirements, etc. In each case of appointment, the employee takes and subscribes to the oaths as a regular part of his induction.



HARTLEY BAY, B.C.-WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

['Mr. Speaker, I believe those words are in the letter. If so, that will be clear when we table it.']
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Year	Expenditures $
1954-55	Nil
1955-56	Nil
1956-57	Nil
1957-58	Nil
1958-59	4,296.38
1959-60	990.59
1960-61	4,873,46
1961-62	1,277.71
1962-63	1,596.82
1963-64	Nil
1964-65	3,000.00
1965-66 (as at Jan. 26/66) 4,000.00	
Total	19,974.96



Mr. Keays: 1.	Has a decision been taken concerning the construction of a deep water harbour at Matane and, if so, has the money been voted and what is the amount?
2.	Was any work authorized to begin this project?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes. The money has not been voted because none of the 1965-66 estimates have yet been approved.
2.	Final decision as to some of the details of the work has not yet been made.


R.C.M.P. CONTRACTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government completed its discussions with the attorneys general of each of the provinces which have contracts for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, is the government now prepared to renew and extend municipal contracts to make this service available to all towns and villages that so desire?
February 9, 1966


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: No
new contracts have been signed and discussions are continuing with the attorneys general of each of the provinces which have contracts for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


RIDEAU CANAL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Hopkins: Has the government entered into any arrangements with the province of Ontario relating to the development of lands adjacent to the Rideau canal for recreational purposes?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: While no formal arrangement has been made with the government of the province of Ontario, a series of discussions have taken place looking to a joint arrangement or understanding regarding future development of lands adjacent to the Rideau canal for recreational purposes, and these discussions are expected to continue with a view to adoption of a joint plan.


RIDEAU CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Hopkins: 1.	Has consideration been given to the preservation of the historical features of the Rideau system in any electrification and/or reconstruction program?
2.	What considerations prompted the electrification of the Newboro locks?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. It is the policy of the Department of Transport to preserve, wherever possible and feasible, the historical features of the Rideau canal system; to restore and maintain the structures involved as close to their original form as possible; and in its plans for new construction or modernization, to provide structures which are consistent with the historical appearance of the original works. In this connection, the department from time to time seeks the advice of the historic sites branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
2.	The rapidly increasing volume of marine traffic required electrification of the lock at Newboro in order to cope with the volume of traffic requiring passage through the locks. In this connection, to the greatest extent possible, the external historical aspects of the lock structure and approaches are being maintained and preserved.
Questions


PRESERVATION OF RIDEAU CANAL AREA
Mr. Hopkins: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to preserve the unoccupied lands adjacent to the Rideau system and to prevent pollution of the waters and despoliation of the area by indiscriminate land speculation?
2.	Has the government purchased any Rideau properties in order to preserve the area?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. For several years the Department of Transport has withheld action on disposal of any substantial parcels of federal lands owned by that department adjacent to the Rideau system which might be suitable for general public recreational development pending emergence, as a result of joint consultations with the government of the province of Ontario, of future plans for development of the system as a whole.
The problem of pollution referred to would appear to be a matter within the jurisdiction of the provincial government and it is understood that provincial authorities have been concerning themselves actively with this problem.
2.	No.


INCREASE IN POST OFFICE FLOOR SPACE, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to expand the floor space now available in the post office at Amherst, N.S.?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Yes.


NEW FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	When will tenders be called for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, N.S.?
2.	What government offices at present in rented quarters will be housed in the new federal building?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the new federal building?


George James McIlraith: 1. Assuming that the departmental estimates will be approved by parliament, tenders will be called in 1967.
2.	Forestry, Indian Affairs, National Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance Commission.
3.	It is not usual to give the estimated cost of a proposed new building before tenders are called.

February 9, 1966
Questions


SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS- REPRESENTATIONS BY MR. WINTERS
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Did the Minister of Finance or his predecessor in office or any officer of the Department of Finance receive any representations from Hon. Robert H. Winters, prior to the 8th of November, 1965, regarding the repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery?
2.	If so, on what date or dates were such representations made and what precisely was their nature?


Mr. Jean Chrelien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. No such representations were received requesting repeal of the sales tax on building materials and production machinery. On October 21, 1963, Mr. Winters, as chairman of British Newfoundland Corporation Limited, wrote to Hon. Walter Gordon to ask if the government would be prepared to consider sales tax relief for the hydroelectric power project planned for Hamilton Falls having regard to the fact that this was a very large resource project. The government refused this request.


* SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS- OPINION OF TRADE MINISTER
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce at any time express the opinion or conviction that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery should be repealed?
2.	If so, is he still of that opinion or conviction?
3.	If he is not of that opinion, what has happened to change that opinion or conviction?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Any opinions expressed by Hon. Robert Winters as a private citizen are not within the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since assuming his present office, he has not publicly expressed any opinions or convictions on this subject.
2 and 3. Answered by the foregoing.


CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL IN GERMANY-LIVING QUARTERS AND FOOD
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Are some houses occupied by Canadian servicemen and their families in Germany rented from British persons who themselves rent them from German owners and sublet them at a profit to these Canadian servicemen?
2.	Must Canadian forces personnel stationed in Germany buy food and household effects from British merchants in the military camps which they occupy?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The units of CBUE and
1 Air Division operate housing offices to assist Canadian servicemen in finding accommodation of a suitable standard and to their knowledge there are no Canadian servicemen renting accommodation from British persons who themselves are renting from German owners and subletting at a profit.
2. No. In addition to the services provided by the Canadian forces, servicemen and their dependants have the choice of shopping at British and American installations as well as the civilian retail outlets of the host country.


FORT CHURCHILL RECREATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brand: 1.	What Is the purpose of the group known as the Fort Churchill Recreation Association?
2.	Who are the members of the executive of this organization?
3.	Do any of these executive members hold positions in the public service of Canada?
4.	Does the Fort Churchill Recreation Association collect any moneys on behalf of the Department of Public Works or the Department of National Defence, and, if so (a) what are these moneys for, and (b) what were the amounts paid in 1964 and in 1965?


George James McIlraith: 1. The purpose of the Fort Churchill Recreation Association is to promote and manage recreation, social activities and welfare throughout Fort Churchill.
2.	The members of the executive are: Chairman: R. B. Angus, Department of Public Works; Directors: Dr. J. H. Brandy, National Research Council; Lt.-Cmdr. D. W. Walker, Royal Canadian Navy; P. Nicholas, Department of Transport; A. N. Millican, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; Secretary: D. B. Norwood, Department of Public Works.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, (a) For food and lodging of transients; (b) 1964-1965, $76,256.84; 1965-1966 (to Dec. 31, 1965), $87,688.36.


DELIVERIES OF GRAIN TO VANCOUVER
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Was the Canadian Pacific Railway behind in its scheduled delivery of grain to Vancouver as at January 20, 1966?
2.	If so, by how many box cars?
3.	Was the Canadian National Railway behind in its scheduled delivery of grain to Vancouver as at January 20, 1966?
4.	If so, by how many box cars?
February 9, 1966


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Prior to entering into the sales contract for Canadian wheat and flour with the U.S.S.R. last August, a meeting was held between the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the presidents of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, and the Canadian Wheat Board to assess rail transportation requirements for the massive grain movement envisaged. At that time the Canadian Wheat Board estimated total wheat and flour exports for the crop year at 600 million bushels, just slightly in excess of the record movement of 596 million bushels achieved in 1963-64. A movement of this magnitude would make possible the achievement of the proposed contract with the U.S.S.R. as well as all commitments under long term agreements and purchases by traditional customers.
With some qualifications about the rapid turn around of their equipment, high moisture content of the grain which could slow down the movement, and the necessity of their operations not being unduly restricted by wheat board quota policies, both railways indicated that the commitments envisaged by the wheat board could be met.
Cars loaded Aug. 1 to Jan. 20/66 CWB targets Aug. 1 to Jan. 20/66 Difference
Cars loaded Aug. 1 to Jan. 20/66 Cars loaded Aug. 1/63 to Jan. 20/64 Difference between 1965-66 and 1963-64 crop years
* Northern Alberta Railway cars included, handled by Canadian Pacific Railway 50 per cent.
Questions
Subsequent to this meeting the Canadian Wheat Board assessed box car requirements in relation to export and domestic shipping programs and in relation to the individual port areas for specific periods. For the guidance of the railways they provided suggested loading targets to maintain a continuous flow of grain to meet contractual obligations. In preparing its target the Canadian Wheat Board took into account that the full scope of the transportation requirement was known at the beginning of the crop year and the movement could start immediately, whereas in 1963-64 the large scale movement did not get underway until late October.
There was no specific commitment by the railways with respect to the board's loading target. Their commitment was only in terms of the over-all movement for the crop year as a whole.
With specific reference to the above questions, the following is the record of performance for the Vancouver area basis the Canadian Wheat Board's loading records and the transportation targets for the period
August 1, 1965, to	January 20, 1966.	
C.P.R.	C.N.R.	Total*25,218	22,284	47,50233,706	28,987	62,693-8,488	-6,703	-15,19125,218	22,284	47,50223,748	22,893	46,641+ 1,470	- 609	+ 861
For 1963-64 crop year division of such cars cent, by Canadian National Railway 50 per


POSTAL SERVICES, WENTWORTH AND GREENVILLE STATION, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What action is planned regarding the post offices at Wentworth and Greenville Station, N.S.?
2.	If any action is contemplated, will it result in the closure of any of the post offices?
3.	Will any new rural routes be established in this area, or extensions to existing rural routes be made?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. No change is contemplated at the Wentworth post office.
As regards the Greenville Station post office, the Postmaster has reached the age of retirement and an inquiry is now being made into the possibility of closing the post office and serving the residents in the area by a rural route emanating from either Westchester Station or Wentworth Centre.
2.	Should a rural route be established from either Westchester Station or Wentworth Centre, the Greenville Station post office would be closed.
3.	At the present time, there is no proposal to establish new rural routes in the area other than the one mentioned in part 2.
Similarly, there is no proposal to extend the existing rural routes in the area.

February 9, 1966
Questions


CANADA-U.S. AGREEMENT ON SAINT JOHN RIVER
Mr. Herridge: 1.	On what day did the governments of Canada and the United States agree to negotiate on the co-operative development of the Saint John river in Maine and New Brunswick?
2.	Was this agreement reached in an exchange of notes between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the United States ambassador to Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. December 18, 1965.
2. Yes.


MONTREAL-RECOMMENDATION AS TO PORT AUTONOMY
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is the government aware of a recommendation of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce advocating giving the same autonomy to the port of Montreal as enjoyed by the port of Toronto?
2.	If so, is the government considering the advisability of giving effect to such recommendation?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The Junior Chamber of Commerce of the district of Montreal has recommended that a harbour commission be established for the port of Montreal and that the National Harbours Board co-ordinate the activities of some 300 Canadian ports.
2. The representations made by the Junior Chamber of Commerce will be given the most thorough consideration, with due regard for the fact that the port of Montreal serves the whole of Canada.


SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS UNDER WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Allard: Does the government contemplate exempting from the 11 per cent tax, building materials purchased under the Winter Works Incentive program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Representations on this matter, as well as on a wide range of other tax subjects, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.


SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES, GREAT LAKES
Mr. Nesbitt: 1. In the event of a sudden accident or emergency on any of the great lakes, such as a small boat capsizing, collision, drowning, or boats or persons overdue and presumed missing, with whom or with what organization should an interested party get in touch at the following places: Long Point Beach, Turkey Point, Port Rowan, Normandale, Port Dover, Grand Bend, Ipperwash Beach, Parry Sound, Midland, Port Bruce, Port Burwell, Port Stanley, Rondeau Park, Wah-Wah-Taysee Post Office, Kincardine?

2.	What are the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons or organizations referred to in (1) above?
3.	Is some person always available at the above referred to telephone numbers, locations or addresses?
4.	What sort of assistance would be rendered in the emergencies described in (1) above?
5.	How long would it take for such assistance to arrive?
6.	What level of government is responsible for providing this assistance?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. In the event of a marine accident occurring anywhere in the Canadian waters of the great lakes, interested parties should at once contact the R.C.A.F. search and rescue co-ordination centre at Trenton, Ontario, telephone Trenton 392-3511, local 211, or the nearest office of the R.C.M.P.,
O.P.P. or municipal police.
2.	See (1) above.
3.	A continuous watch is always maintained at the rescue co-ordination centre and at most police offices.
4.	Where possible to do so immediate local action may be taken by the police, using resources immediately available. In other cases the rescue co-ordination centre makes the details of the incident known to any other vessels in the vicinity, which may then be requisitioned for search and assistance purposes. The rescue co-ordinating centre may direct any Canadian registered vessel or any Canadian government vessel to provide the desired assistance, as well as any available government owned aircraft. Four Canadian coastguard cutters are stationed throughout the great lakes area specifically for search and rescue purposes. Six other Canadian coastguard vessels employed in the area are also available.
5.	The promptness of the arrival of assistance depends upon the accuracy of the initial reports and the location of the accident relative to the available assistance. It is normal for vessels to be alerted to a marine accident within minutes of receipt of its report.
6.	The R.C.A.F. has the over-all responsibility for co-ordinating search and rescue activities in Canadian waters.


REVENUE FROM SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What amount has been raised by the federal treasury from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery since the introduction of such tax in the twenty sixth parliament?
2.	What was the estimated cost of the collection of such tax?
February 9, 1966


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Sales tax applicable to building materials and production machinery is not segregated but is included in the total sales tax collected.
Total sales tax collected in the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1963, was $1,147,115,849; in the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1964, $1,322,714,056; and in the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1965, $1,638,426,301.
2. The estimated average cost of collection of all federal sales and excise taxes, including sales tax on building materials and production machinery, during the above period was .40 per cent.


EXPENDITURES ON PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	What has been the expenditure, month by month, on the Prince Edward Island Causeway since the first of August last?
2.	What is the estimated expenditure for the current calendar year?


George James McIlraith: 1. August, $79,465.99; September,
$75,967.06; October, $78,939.46; November, $64,268.14; December, $87,067.69.
2. It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of expenditure for the current calendar year as this will depend on the time of completion of some of the detailed engineering studies.


AID TO INDIA
Mr. Enns: 1.	What is the value of aid sent to India up to January 30, 1966, to alleviate the current severe threat of famine?
2.	What form of aid (wheat, flour, dried peas, other) is included in this plan and what amount of each product has already been tendered?
3.	Have tenders been called for each of the products listed in the answer to part 2 of this ouestion?
4.	What is the full amount of aid pledged to India and how much of this aid will be in the form of wheat, flour, dried peas, and other?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. The government will shortly be seeking parliamentary approval for a supplementary food vote amounting to 15 million to purchase emergency food aid to alleviate the present severe threat of famine in India. Twenty eight thousand tons of the wheat purchased had been shipped by January 30, 1966, and the balance of the foodstuffs ordered has been phased for shipment between then and 31 March 1966.
Questions
2.	The form of aid to be provided under this emergency plan would be as follows: wheat, $9.8 million; dried peas, $.4 million; whole milk powder, $.7 million; skim milk powder, $.45 million; whole wheat flour, $2.3 million.
The total amount of each of these commodities has already been ordered, except for the flour for which tendering procedures are not yet complete. The balance of the $15 million, amounting to $1.35 million, is being decided upon in the light of Indian needs and Canadian capabilities to fulfil them.
3.	Tenders have been called for each of the products listed in the answer to question 2 except for both forms of milk powder which are being purchased through the Department of Agriculture.
4.	See 2 above.


ATTENDANCE OF PRINCE CHARLES AT CANADIAN SCHOOL
Mr. McCleave: Has the Prime Minister considered the advisability of suggesting that a part of the education of His Royal Highness Prince Charles be undertaken in this country and, if so, would the Prime Minister comment on any such suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 326 is as follows: On their visits to this country, the Queen and Prince Philip have seen a number of our schools and universities. They are clearly well aware of the excellent educational facilities which exist here, and they have already taken advantage of our bilingual heritage in the appointment some years ago of a French tutor from Canada to His Royal Highness Prince Charles.
At the same time, it is well known that both Her Majesty and His Royal Highness regard the education of their children as a highly personal matter. The government of Canada sympathizes with this very understandable and proper attitude, and would not wish to interfere in any way with what is to the royal family a strictly private matter.


AIR CANADA YOUTH FARES
Mr. Groos: Is Air Canada contemplating the introduction of air transportation at half-fare for persons between the ages of 12 and 22, on a "space available" basis, at all but peak holiday traffic periods, that is, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas and the New Year, as is now being done by the U.S. scheduled air lines?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:

February 9, 1966
Questions
Air Canada is not planning to introduce Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):
youth fares at the present time. However, the Representations on this matter, as well as on situation as applicable within the United a wide range of other tax subjects, are being States is being watched very closely.	studied during the preparation of the budget.


EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOUR CODE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What government branches, Crown Corporations, or other groups involved in activities related to government departments have been exempted from the minimum wage level of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?
2.	What is the reason for these exemptions?
3.	Are employees of Indian Residential Schools covered by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1 and 2. No
deferments under section 52 have been granted by the minister.
3.	This question is under review at the present time.


POSTAL SERVICE BETWEEN SEVEN ISLANDS AND BLANC-SABLON, P.Q.
Mr. Blouin: 1.	Has a contract been awarded, since August 1965, by the Post Office Department for the transport, by boat, of second, third and fourth class mail from Seven Islands to Blanc-Sablon, P.Q.?
2.	If so, to whom has this contract been awarded, on what date was it entered into, for what amount, for how many trips, and for what length of time?
3.	Were public tenders advertised and on what date?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. Yes.
2.	The contract was awarded to La Com-pagnie de Transport du Bas St-Laurent Ltee, a subsidiary of Clarke Steamship Company Limited, on September 30th, 1965 for an amount of $67,000.00 per season. The contract provides for two trips each week during the season of navigation, approximately April 1 to November 30, for a period of four years commencing April 1, 1966.
3.	No. The company to which the contract was awarded was adjudged to be the only one in the area that had the necessary vessels to provide a reliable service on the required frequency of two trips per week.


SALES TAX ON SNOWPLOWS
Mr. Pascoe: Will the government consider removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on snowplows jointly purchased by farm neighbours in expense-sharing efforts to keep roads open in winter for food and fuel supplies, and for school attendance of farm children?


APPOINTMENT OF PORT ADMINISTRATOR, THREE RIVERS, QUE.
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Was a Mr. Lauzon recently appointed administrator of the port of Three Rivers by the National Harbours Board?
2.	Is Mr. Lauzon bilingual?
3.	How many years of service has Mr. Lauzon had with the National Harbours Board?
4.	Did Mr. Lauzon pass a civil service examination before obtaining this promotion?
5.	What is Mr. Lauzon's salary?
6.	Was a competition advertised for filling this vacancy?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National
Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	5 years.
4.	No.
5.	$9,000 per annum.
6.	No.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the total number of federal government employees covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the numbers of such employees during the 1964-65 period?
3.	What was the number of accidents reported among such employees?
4.	What was the percentage increase in such accidents over the previous 12 months period?
5.	What, in days, was the time loss due to such accidents in 1964-65?
6.	What, in dollars, was the total accident bill?
7.	What steps are being taken to reduce the accident rate?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. Approximately 232,000 in 1964-65.
2.	1.8 per cent.
3.	19,467.
4.	8.4 per cent.
5.	Actual time loss, 156,951 days; time loss calculated for permanent disabilities and fatal accidents, 211,669 days; total days charged, 368,620 days.
6.	$4,013,959 (direct costs for the year 1964-65).
7.	The Department of Labour carries on a continuing program aimed at promoting employee safety and safe work practices within
February 9, 19G6

government departments and agencies. This is done through consultation, general educational and publicity work and the provision of a limited amount of inspection and technical advisory services. Accident prevention programs have also been organized in several departments and crown corporations, including the appointment of persons to take charge of and promote employment safety.


INVITATIONS TO CANADA DURING CENTENNIAL YEAR
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to inviting the national leaders of our neighbouring powers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., to visit Canada during our centennial of confederation year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question of invitations to national leaders of other countries to visit Canada in 1967 is at present under active consideration.


RECLASSIFICATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were any members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission reclassified during 1964, 1965 and 1966 to date because of a study of their duties and performance review reports?
2.	If so, how many in the insurance, technical services, personnel and administrative services, and employment branches?
3.	Was this reclassification discontinued in favour of an appraisal board interview and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	In insurance 284; technical services 5; personnel and administrative services 51. Employment: Information not available in the unemployment Insurance Commission, (all personnel files were transferred with the National Employment Service).
3.	No.


DRAFT COPIES OF TAXATION COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Who requested the Carter royal commission on taxation to make draft chapters of its report available to officials of the Department of Finance prior to the presentation of the report to the governor in council?
2.	Who granted the request, and by what authority was it granted?
Questions
3.	On what dates were such draft chapters made available to the department?
4.	How many persons in the Department of Finance have seen the draft chapters?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Some chapters were sent by the staff of the commission to the department in accordance with a request by the chairman that officers of the department discuss with the commission and its staff the feasibility of some of the alternatives under consideration by the commission. In view of the length of time it was taking to complete the report, the deputy minister of finance, after consultation with the minister, requested orally that draft chapters generally continue to be made available to some of the officials of the department to enable them to study various alternatives being considered by the commission so that the department would be better prepared for consideration of the report and the preparation of any legislation the government may decide to introduce after such consideration. No chapter of the report in its final version has yet been sent to the department.
2.	The chapters were made available by the chairman of the commission and the officers of the commission staff. It was done in accordance with the authority given the commission under the order in council establishing it, P.C. 1962-1334 of 25th September, 1962.
3.	Draft chapters were made available, in accordance with both the arrangements noted in 1. above, on various dates from May 12, 1965 up to the present. A number of them have been made available in successive drafts as the staff of the commission and the commissioners decided how they should be revised.
4.	About 20 officers of the department, including the tax analysis unit, have seen various chapters or parts thereof, and of course some of their secretaries have seen them as well.


ARMED SERVICES STRENGTH
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of December 31, 1965, what was the strength of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	What were the strengths as at December 31, 1961 to 1964, inclusive?
3.	What were the losses in each of the armed services during the calendar year 1965?
4.	What was the intake for each of the armed services during the calendar year 1965?
5.	What was the intake for each of the armed services during the calendar years 1961 to 1964 inclusive?
COMMONS DEBATES	February 9, 19G6
Questions


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2.
31 Dec. 61	31 Dec. 62	31 Dec. 63	31 Dec. 64	31 Dec. 65Navy	21,114	21,497	21,432	20,133	18,878Army	49,923	51,053	49,253	47,142	44,418Air Force	52,729	52,268	51,832	48,973	45,671Navy	3,546	Army	7,633	Air Force	6,517	5.	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965Navy	2,977	3,532	3,388	2,333	2,291Army	7,804	7,522	4,192	4,876	4,909Air Force	5,745	4,021	4,739	3,726	3,215


WEARING OF NAVAL UNIFORMS ASHORE
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Are officers of Her Majesty's ships of the Royal Navy requested or required to wear civilian clothes while proceeding ashore in Canadian ports or other Canadian cities?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Does this rule apply to naval officers from ships of (a) the United States (b) France (c) any other foreign countries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1, 2 and 3. The wearing of civilian clothes or uniforms while proceeding ashore in Canadian ports, or other cities, is governed by the military regulations of the naval forces of the countries concerned.


* EASTERN FEED GRAIN AGENCY
Mr. Fairweather: When is an eastern feed grain agency to be established?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that during the present session, as stated in the Speech from the Throne of January 18, 1966, "You will be asked to approve legislation to improve the movement and marketing of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia by creating a livestock feed agency".


'REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
Prior to the recent tender call for repair and refit to the H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, were any orders, directions, or other information given to the crew indicating the ship would be proceeding to the St. Lawrence?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer

to question No. 504 is as follows: No. It is common knowledge throughout the fleet that only three shipbuilding yards are capable of fitting out H.M.C.S. Bonaventure-Montreal, Lauzon and Saint John.
Because of this, surveys were carried out in each of the three areas to provide data which would determine the problems, particularly in regard to housing, schooling and transportation, to be encountered if any of the areas were required to receive naval personnel with or without their families, who may be standing by the ship during refit.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the following motions for papers are acceptable to the government: 19, 20, 43, 78, 80, 81 and 85.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notices for the production of papers numbered 19, 20, 43, 78, 80, 81 and 85 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the following notices of motion are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations regarding classified documents and subject also to the approval of the Indian organizations concerned: 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Notices of motion 50 and 79 are acceptable subject to the usual reservations as to the consent of the provincial authorities concerned.
February 9, 196G


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. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Also notices of motions Nos. 50 and 79 are deemed to have been adopted, subject to the conditions set out by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Translation1


Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notices of motion 3, 7, 82, 84 and 87? I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motion stand.


DISPOSITION OF KLEMTU INDIAN RESERVE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, government or organization relating to the sale, lease, rent or surrender of any part of the Indian reserve or reserves of the Klemtu (Kitasoo) band of Indians and for a copy of all minutes of the said band relating to all such sales, leases, rentals or surrenders.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the agenda of each meeting or conference of the national Indian advisory board.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the agenda of each meeting or conference of the B.C.-Yukon Indian advisory council.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all briefs, submissions and formal statements presented to any meetings or conferences of the B.C.-Yukon Indian advisory council.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any minutes or transcript of proceedings of any meetings or conferences of the national Indian advisory board.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any minutes or transcript of proceedings of any meetings or conferences of the B.C.-Yukon Indian advisory council.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all briefs, submissions and formal statements, presented to any meetings or conferences of the national Indian advisory board.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-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 agency or department thereof and any other person, organization or government since June 11, 1964, relating to the fishing vessel assistance regulations, 1964. and any amendments thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Davis:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency, praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters and documents since the middle of April, 1963, exchanged between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ministers of the province of British Columbia in connection with federal participation in the development of Garibaldi Park in British Columbia and all relevant official press statements of the federal government during this period.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for (1) a list showing the names of all the delegates attending the conference held to discuss the war on poverty programs and the organizations they represented, and (2) a copy of all working papers presented to the conference.
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Part I

February 9, 1966
Motions for Papers
of the first part of the motion, there is no objection.
On the second part, these are interdepartmental papers. Others are provincial; I believe these are confidential documents we should not produce. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) does not wish to withdraw his motion, I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to make this request, but I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware that sets of these documents were provided to people other than members of parliament, namely those participating in the conference. Therefore I would ask why members of parliament should be denied this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not agreement on the withdrawal of this motion. Therefore the motion will be transferred for debate pursuant to standing order 47.


SASKATCHEWAN CREDIT UNIONS- STUDENT LOAN PLAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Southam:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence or documents exchanged between the Minister of Finance or any of his officials and the Saskatchewan credit unions with respect to their request to become lenders under the federal government's student loan plan.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence requested includes confidential information relating to the affairs of the particular credit unions involved. It would be contrary to the normal practice to make public such information without consent. I would be prepared to accept the motion on condition that confidential information relating to particular credit unions would not be tabled without their consent.


Mr. Southam:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is accepted, subject to the condition specified by the hon. Minister of Finance?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the speech made by the chairman of the Civil
[Mr. Marchand.l
Service Commission on or about the 1st day of February, 1966 to the Federal Institute of Management.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the information requested by the hon. member for Carleton is not in the hands of the government as such, since it is a speech made by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. I would therefore ask my hon. friend to withdraw his motion and with the consent of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission I have for tabling in the house, in English and in French, copies of the speech. But I would ask that the motion be withdrawn because it is not within our competence to comply with it.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, while not conceding the validity of the minister's objection, the graciousness of her request induces me to accede to it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
MILK PROCESSING PLANTS Motion No. 84-Mr. Vincent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the list of processing plants, indicating for each, the type of operation, to be used by the agricultural stabilization board to set the average national price for deliveries of milk in Canada, per cwt., during the dairy year 1965-66 together with the list, indicating type of operation, of other factories, prices of which the board will not take into account.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to accept the motion subject to the reservation that, to preserve the anonymity of voluntary correspondents who are submitting information on a confidential basis, the list provided will show all plants, together with the products they manufacture, from which the agricultural stabilization board selects its sample on a statistical basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this motion adopted, subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
February 9, 1966
[Stage Direction]
LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS Motion No. 87-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing a list of all employers who have applied for deferment in respect to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, showing (a) those which have been approved (b) those which have been rejected (c) those to which consideration is still being given, and (d) the number of workers employed by each of these employers.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this motion falls into five parts. The main request is for a list of all employers, who have applied for deferment under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. That part of the motion is accepted. Subclauses (a) (b) and (c) are also accepted. With regard to subclause (d), which calls for information as to the number of workers employed by each of these employers, to the extent that this information has been given by the firms we can make it available, otherwise we cannot. The remainder of the motion is accepted.


David Orlikow: I accept that reservation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is adopted, subject to the reservation specified by the Minister of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?
Some hon Members: Agreed.


LABOUR GAZETTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the cover of the Labour Gazette has carried the Canadian coat of arms for the past 65 years, since its inception and the coat of arms being dropped commencing with the next issue, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would use his authority as Prime Minister to retain the coat of arms on this government publication; and would he issue orders to put a stop to this seemingly planned erosion of the use of the Canadian coat of arms?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Labour can deal with this question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the source of the hon. member's information, but I have a photostat here of the front page and the coat of arms is right in the upper left hand corner.


Michael Starr: Then I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In this morning's Globe and Mail-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: -it states definitely that the coat of arms will be dropped from the Labour Gazette publication from now on.


An hon. Member:: Get another paper.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it true that in the next issue of this publication the coat of arms is going to be removed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is no truth whatever in that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of newspaper reports that he has received a letter from President Ho Chi Minh of the North Vietnamese government, I would first like to ask the Prime Minister when such a letter was received; and second, in view of the fact that parts of the letter have been quoted in the press, would the Prime Minister be prepared to table it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the letter I received, and to which I have already made reference in the house-and the only letter I have received- dated January 24 came by cable, and some parts of it were difficult to understand. Therefore we tried to get those parts cleared up. I would be very glad indeed to table a copy of the letter.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell the house whether the government of India have received the same or a similar letter, or whether our government is inquiring as to the Indian government's reception of such a letter.
g62	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand that the head of the Indian government received a different letter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Prime Minister's willingness to table the letter. Will the copy of that letter which is tabled include the clarification which was necessary?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I shall table the whole letter as far as we have now had it clarified.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be proper for that letter to be tabled, in view of the fact that various portions of it were revealed in the United Nations? If not, would the Prime Minister say whether in that letter these words appear, as was reported yesterday from the United Nations: "I hope that your government will fulfil its obligations under the Geneva agreements"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe those words are in the letter. If so, that will be clear when we table it.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the minister tell us whether the hon. member for Yukon has communicated with the Department of Justice or with the R.C.M.P. to provide information and co-operate with the department in uncovering certain fraudulent bankruptcy rackets in Alberta, British Columbia or eastern Canada?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way responsible for the activities of the hon. member for Yukon and I have no idea as to whether or not he has communicated with the Department of Justice or the R.C.M.P.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General tell the house whether it is true that the government prevented the R.C.M.P. from investigating certain cases of fraudulent bankruptcy?
[Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	February 9, 1966


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I would have to
know precisely what the hon. member is making reference to. Hon. members know that in the case of an offence against the criminal code, the investigation must be carried out by the provincial authorities. The federal government is responsible for the administration of the trustees in cases of bankruptcy.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Will the minister look into the statement reportedly made by the hon. member for Yukon in Victoria, B.C., on Monday with regard to information he allegedly has concerning fraudulent bankruptcies in British Columbia and Alberta, and make sure that all the information on bankruptcies in these areas as well as the Yukon Territory is brought to light at the same time as he brings forth the information on a similar situation in other parts of the country, so that they can all be fully and properly investigated?



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is twofold and it relates to the area of broadcasting. It is directed therefore to the Secretary of State. In view of the continuing controversy over the ownership of C.T.V. and over the removal of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto, would the minister consider postponing any decision on these problems until a parliamentary standing committee can consider the Fowler report? Second, will the minister convene the parliamentary committee in the near future so that this important study can begin?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member will appreciate that both these matters, which are already under discussion in public, are of great concern to the government and the bodies appointed under legislation passed by parliament to deal with them. I think the hon. member will realize also that the other day the Prime Minister announced that a committee on broadcasting would be set up. It is not known whether it will begin to operate at once.
There are some other bills to go before that committee, and it is more than likely it will not begin to deal with broadcasting until a white paper has been placed before it on the government's intentions in this regard.
February 9, 1966


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: May I ask a
supplementary question of the minister. Has she had any discussion with Ken Soble or anyone on his behalf about his letter of intention to apply to the Board of Broadcast Governors to take up the private television network? If so, when and where did these conversations take place?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was so advised by Mr. Soble, I believe on the day on which he filed the letter of intent. I have not seen the letter of intent nor do I know its specific content, but I was advised by Mr. Soble such a letter had been filed that day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the minister's reply to me on Monday that some 27,000 personnel in the armed services had been retired in the last 18 months, will the minister agree that there is a manpower and morale problem in the armed services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is not the place, on orders of the day, to debate that problem. The estimates will be coming up within a couple of days and that is the time to consider it.
I should like to repeat what I said the other day, that in an economy where there is a shortage of manpower there are many attractions for people with the high skills, training and professionalism of the men and women of the armed forces. The armed forces are just going to have to compete by setting standards which will not only keep in the armed forces those people who are there, but also attract the large numbers needed to replace post world war II personnel who will be going out in the next few years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister did not say anything about morale and this is the point in which I am interested.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I suggest that question should be put on the order paper.



WINNIPEG-LECTURE BY COMMANDING OFFICER OF GERMAN TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: tvish the pleasure or otherwise of addressing
Inquiries of the Ministry a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, based on information I received from Winnipeg this morning.
Does the minister know that a public lecture is being held in the Auditorium in Winnipeg on February 15 and that the speaker at this meeting will be the commanding officer of the German troops, Lieutenant Colonel Wilhelm Mundt, who participated in the invasion of the eastern European countries in the second world war. The subject of the lecture is the German army.
My questions are (1) Does the agreement with the West German government for the training of troops in Canada make provision for public lectures on the achievements of the German army? (2) Have these lectures received the approval of the Department of External Affairs or the Department of National Defence? (3) Has the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Well, perhaps I should not have interrupted the hon. member; I should allow him to pose the third question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I might say these people got in touch with me early this morning. My third question is, has the minister been informed of any mass protests against this meeting being organized by veterans and other groups in Winnipeg?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend was kind enough to give me notice, which I received about 1.15 this afternoon. I will take this question as notice, but I should say I am rather surprised that my hon. friend does not recognize that in this country we try not to deny the privilege of free speech to anyone.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: I should like to direct an urgent question to the Minister of Finance under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board comes. Is the minister in a position now to inform the house if the Canadian Wheat Board is ready to make payments to western farmers, for which there is great need at the present time because of the slow movement of grain on the prairies?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not accept the last part of the statement
g64	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry by the hon. member concerning the movement of grain. In fact, the movement of grain throughout Canada at this time is at a record pace.
May I answer the first question by saying I was in consultation with the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board today and I believe he will be able to close the accounts of the board and determine the final payment in the last half of this month.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: May I ask a supplementary question. If the minister does not accept the contention that there has been a slow movement of grain out of western Canada, I wonder if he can give the house at least some explanation as to why the quotas for wheat deliveries throughout western Canada are so low this year as compared with this date last year, according to a statement issued yesterday by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not in proper form. He asks the minister to give an explanation for a situation that has been pending. I suggest a question framed in this manner should not be submitted at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister says there is no slow movement of grain out of western Canada. However, according to the Canadian Wheat Board the quotas have not increased as rapidly this year as last year, and therefore there must be some other reasonable explanation for this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be some explanation, but it is not for the Chair to decide. It seems to me that the hon. member is submitting an argument and would like the minister to enter into this argument. This is not the purpose of the question period.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he now in agreement with the Minister of Finance that there has been no slowdown in the movement of grain from western Canada?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, I made inquiry of the Minister of Justice with regard to Victor

DEBATES	February 9, 19G6
Spencer. I asked if a visa had been issued and the minister said he had no information but that Spencer, as required, was now under surveillance. I ask him now whether, in the last few days, Spencer has been seen at any time by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
I repeat the question as to whether there was a visa. The minister must have information regarding a person who, in his opinion, is so dangerous to the state.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I have no information concerning a visa being asked for by Mr. Spencer. I have never said Mr. Spencer was dangerous to the state.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, if he is not dangerous to the state, why do you keep him under perpetual surveillance? Will the minister answer that?



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has now made a decision to end all activities under the municipal loans fund, and has decided to make the announcement next week. Has he decided to wait until next week because he intends to consult with provincial premiers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I answered an identical question yesterday.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that negotiations in connection with the Ontario truckers strike have failed, will the minister now make an effort to bring about a settlement through the use of the officers of his department?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question yesterday. I said then that the representatives of the unions and of the employers concerned had been meeting over the week end, Friday, Saturday and Sunday last, and that a further meeting is to be held later this week at which officials of my department and the provincial
February 9, 1966	COMMONS
Department of Labour will be present. Until these negotiations have been concluded I do not think there is any necessity for personal intervention by the minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. With the consumer price index rising at the marked rate of 5 per cent per annum, and with housing substantially contributing to that increase, does the minister anticipate taking any measures to correct the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question posed by the hon. member is not really a question; he is advancing facts or alleged facts and opinions. I suggest that this question should not be received by the Chair.
ETranslation1



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether, in anticipation of a constitutional reform, or a constitutional interpretation, or an eventual formula for amending our constitution, consideration has been given to convening provincial attorneys general to set up a Canadian constitutional court?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this very broad question, is not so urgent that it could not be put on the order paper, and I would therefore suggest that the hon. member do so.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss this matter at ten o'clock at the next sitting.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State concerning broadcasting and matters
DEBATES	965
Inquiries of the Ministry having to do with the tenure of the chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors. Can the minister tell the house whether the chairman of the B.B.G. is on an annual salary or on a per diem basis?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. This is not a question that should be asked on the orders of the day. The hon. member is asking for statistics which he can obtain otherwise. Unless I misunderstood the question, my understanding was that the hon. member was asking for certain specific information relating to the position held by a certain employee in the government. That type of information can be obtained another way.


Robert William Prittie: I submit to Your Honour that the question of the tenure of the chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors is a very important matter these days, and is something the minister should know without having to refer further to her department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that the Canadian banks recently imposed a cutback in secondary financing which affects small business? The cut-back I am speaking of is 5 per cent per month for six months, and then 10 per cent per month till the 100 per cent is used up. There will be no secondary financing after that period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister whether he is aware of a certain situation. I do not think this question is urgent in the form asked the minister.


William Skoreyko: A supplementary question, if I may. If the minister is not aware of this, would he look into this question? What I am trying to determine is whether the minister himself is responsible for this policy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. I thank the hon. gentleman for the information. I will see whether it is accurate.
986	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM RESALE AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry based on a news report of Premier Shaw's expression of grave concern over the new emphasis in the ARDA program which offers funds to transplant farm families and to make the abandoned land available for the enlargement of other farms. Will the minister advise whether his department has already implemented the farm resale and redevelopment program forecast in the Speech from the Throne; and does the government plan any early reference to parliament of such a far reaching program?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, programs and projects are initiated by the provinces. If the province of Prince Edward Island does not want to implement any part of the ARDA agreement, they do not have to take any initiative in this field.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the government's intention this session to bring forward a measure proposing the purchase, resale and redevelopment of farms that are not viable economic units?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather critical problem. We have already made reference to it; therefore we shall be glad to proceed with that kind of agricultural legislation this session.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister in charge of agricultural redevelopment be involved in any way in this matter?



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK ORGANIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I believe he has received written notice. Has the minister in recent days received a delegation of livestock producers connected with that organization known as F.A.M.E., or Farmers Allied Meat Enterprises; if he has, was he able to give to that organization any firm undertaking of federal assistance to help them salvage their equity in that co-operative venture.

DEBATES	February 9, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question may be important and urgent to some extent, but it seems to me that it is not perhaps of national importance and national urgency, of the type and character required at this time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due deference I submit that the question does not ask for specific and detailed information. It merely asks of the minister whether he has met with members of that co-operative at all, and if he was in a position to give them any undertaking. Several million dollars are involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows his recourse, by which the matter may be reopened and receive early attention. In addition to having this matter placed on the order paper, he can call for the question to be considered on the adjournment debate.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Ten o'clock.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue?
Would the minister inform the house whether it is true that pensioners must complete income tax forms three or four times a year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend refers to the T 1 general or the T 1 short, the answer is no.



NELSON RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the current climate of urgent concern in Manitoba, can he say whether the billion dollar Nelson river hydro project has received the financial blessing of the federal government, and whether it will receive the same consideration as the Hamilton falls requirement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the two developments are, of course, different, but I can tell my hon. friend that there was a conference held last Friday
February 9, 1966	COMMONS
and Saturday morning on this matter with the premier of Manitoba. It was a very helpful conference, and a statement will be made about it very shortly by both governments.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement made by Mr. Woodcock, the vice president of the United Automobile Workers, that he is seeking parity of wages between Canada and the United States, has the minister raised any objection or is this government in accord with this policy?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, not having seen the statement I am not in a position to comment on it. I will read it, and if it merits further discussion I will either reply in the house or speak with my hon. friend.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his parliamentary secretary. My question is based on a report that an analysis of agricultural pesticide residue in the tissues of marine animals taken off the west coast of the United States has prompted scientists to express concern about using the ocean as a major food source. My question is, is the minister considering the advisability of making a similar investigation off Canada's west coast to ascertain whether or not the same condition exists?


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



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question of national urgency to put to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he would de-escalate the need for guide lines spelling out the limits of effrontery by giving urgent and sympathetic consideration to the appointment of George Bain to the other place, thus assuring the continuation of whimsical moonlighting plus unselfish public service.
DEBATES	967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give to that question all the attention that it deserves.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries in his capacity as associate secretary of state for external affairs. I would ask the minister whether in light of reports that Soviet trawlers have been reported in Dixon entrance on the west coast of British Columbia, whether he is in a position to tell us that the government will declare straight base lines enclosing this area within our territorial waters, and also whether in view of these and other recent fishing developments in this area, an invitation has been extended by Canada to any other countries asking them to take into consideration joining a north Pacific fisheries treaty?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: With respect to the first part of the hon. member's question, I wish to state that no recent report, has reached me to the effect that the Soviet trawler fleet was again in the Dixon entrance. With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, there is no change in the policy of the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is that answer, in view of the information of the officials of his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the new co-ordinating committee has been able to locate the bottlenecks in the movement of grain to the west coast and, if so, what if any effective action are they taking to correct this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for raising this question, because I wanted to have an opportunity of saying that at least since the Minister of Agriculture took such a great interest in this affair the movement of grain
February 9, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry at Vancouver has increased very substantially and is now at an average rate of 600 cars a day. I do not know that I can give all the credit to my hon. friend, but I think he deserves a little of it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Supplementary to that, can the minister say whether the movement of grain is going to be reflected in the quotas at shipping points on the prairies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I would be very happy to discuss this matter with the hon. member when my estimates are before the house.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in light of the answer we have had from the Minister of Finance concerning the speed of moving box cars in recent days to Vancouver. Would he now consider putting the wheat board under the Department of Agriculture where it belongs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the wheat board is under very good control at the present time, and would be under equally good control if it were transferred to the Department of Agriculture.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he yet received from Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft the report on matters relating to main line domestic air services in Canada which he commissioned him to make last summer?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I wonder if Your Honour would permit me to make a comment, and ask if something could not be done about the amplification system in this house. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked his question today the only word in the whole question that I heard was "Wheatcroft". If the question refers to the Wheatcroft report, the answer is that it has not yet been received.


An hon. Member:: All the minister needed to say was "no".
(Mr. Sharp.]



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Last March he announced in the house that he had referred the whole problem of price control to the Economic Council for a special report. In view of the fact that the report is still not available, would the Prime Minister investigate to ascertain the reasons for the delay, and see if he cannot speed up production of this very important document.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that matter.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
The Chairman:: We proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, vote No. 1, to be found at page 450 of the blue book on estimates. Shall item 1 carry?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, at my first opportunity I should like to congratulate you, sir, on your recent election to your very important position in this place and, if I am in order, may I extend the same to Mr. Speaker and to your other associates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman would permit me to interrupt him for a moment to ask whether we can have a little order in the chamber so that we can hear what is being said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I wonder whether the conversations taking place behind the curtains could be carried on in the lobbies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Chiefly on the Liberal side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not care which side it is on.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I thank the minister, too, because I feel that what I have to say this afternoon is most important, not only to the area which I represent but to the country as a whole. I wish this afternoon to call the attention of the minister to one or two problems and, if
February 9, 1966

time does not run out, to suggest solutions to some of these problems. I should like the minister to consider what I have to say very seriously.
Having said this, may I go on immediately to the main point I wish to discuss this afternoon, that is, the slow movement of grain in the western provinces. Only a few moments ago I heard a minister say there was no slow movement of grain. But I want to say this: No one in this chamber knows better than I do about this slow movement of grain, because in my own home town there is now a two bushel quota which represents the slowest movement of grain, six months after harvest, in history. In days of diesel locomotives, jet planes, messages from the moon and so on, this is simply not good enough. The minister who spoke earlier does not seem to realize that such a situation exists. Actually in six months one could have moved that quantity of grain by pack train or covered wagon train.
What is the situation today? The Minister of Transport knows about it. He has been trying to do something about it, and I give him credit for it. The real situation today in western Canada is simply this: There are half empty grain terminals; there are empty boats waiting; there are ships leaving for United States ports. This is a fact. On the other hand, the railroads say they have thousands of loaded box cars with grain and that these are waiting to be emptied at the terminal and loaded on the boats.
Today we must face the fact that this has been the slowest movement of grain in history. I ask the minister, in all sincerity: what is the answer? Someone is to blame. We-and I use this word broadly, speaking from the viewpoint of western farmers-have blamed the railways, the elevator companies, even the unions. We follow the proceedings in this house. One minister says one thing and another minister says another. I am trying to get the answer. I am not trying to be unduly critical. There is precedent. Later I intend to put forward a solution, or back up a possible solution which has been suggested by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle.
This is a situation we have to face. There are three ministries involved. The railways and the elevator companies are involved, together with the harbour authorities and about fifteen other agencies. What does it take to solve a problem of this kind? Again I refer to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle. There is precedent, as I mentioned earlier.
Supply-Transport
We had an indication of this sort of thing during the time when my hon. friend was the responsible minister in another government. He acted very quickly.
I would make this suggestion to the minister: Perhaps it is the railways; perhaps the holdup is in his department. Perhaps it is the grain companies under another ministry; perhaps it is an agricultural problem for which the Minister of Agriculture has responsibility. I would make a real and sincere plea to the minister this afternoon and ask him whether he does not think that it takes someone with the integrity and the prestige of a minister of the government of Canada to determine where the fault lies and what should be done to correct it.
Alternatively we might think of something else. I do not like this very well, but we have reached a deplorable state of affairs, with everyone running around and saying: It is not my fault, the facts are not as they are reported to be. But they are. It is such a deplorable situation that if it were not so serious it would be funny. How could we get into such a position in this day and age?
This is a grave matter for the western provinces. It is most serious in my own area of southern Alberta. Sales have been lost to the tune of at least $100 million. Hon. members can imagine what this means by the time this wealth has spread through the community. Actually the loss to the economy is about twice the sum I have mentioned-and $200 million isn't hay. I have read that someone asked in this house: "What's a million?" Believe me, a million dollars is a lot of money, and $200 million is just 200 times as much.
We come back to the suggested solution that I want to support. I do not think it will be necessary, because I believe the minister now sitting opposite me may well be the one with the stature to put an end to this sort of thing immediately. Thousands of box cars of grain have been moved, many thousands the C.P.R. says. I do not wish to criticize the C.P.R. too harshly because I know they are an efficient railway and I know they can move grain when they want to. The fact is that the grain is not moving from my area, in spite of what an hon. gentleman opposite said a few moments ago.
It is a fact that the grain companies have half empty terminals. In any event, boats are waiting empty and leaving for other ports. This is where we are losing sales. The Minister of Finance should be well aware of what

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
external trade means. He must be well aware of the losses accruing to us as a result oi this kind of management. Imagine, the largest business in the country getting into a position like this.
I know I am accused very often of oversimplifying things, but I remember one particular instance back on the farm when we were irrigating and the pump stopped. I almost lost my temper. Someone working with me brought me back to myself in a hurry by telling me: "If you kick the pump you will only get a sore toe; you had better kick the man who is running it." In other words, it comes down to a problem of management.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I plead with the minister to alleviate this situation. Frankly I have enough faith in him to know he is a person who can take care of this matter. As I said before, $100 million or $200 million is not hay, and someone is to blame. It may be the railways but I know the wheat is not being moved from my area.
On top of that the banks have tightened their money supply and the old tight money policy has returned. Surely there must be enough experience of it to know it does nothing for the economy of the country. In my estimation the farmers of western Canada are being denied an opportunity to sell their product, and this at a time when their expenses are so high, and when the cost-price squeeze differential is getting harder to bear.
I implore the minister to think of this matter very carefully. Someone will simply have to pick up a phone and say, "Come on boys, let's get going." If the cabinet cannot do it, if the minister cannot do it, if the grain handlers won't do it, if the grain elevator managers won't do it, and if the harbour authorities won't do it then the answer is obvious. There is no use denying the situation exists, and passing the buck around to Joe and Bill and everyone else. There must be, shall we say, a controller of activity, or of transport in the harbour area, with authority extending back 100 miles.
This authority might even go so far as to control taxicabs, ferries, grain cars, refrigerator cars, pulp and paper and all that sort of thing. We have come to a disgraceful position and someone will have to be given authority, and I mean proper authority, so that when he says, "This moves here", it does move. I am only supporting a suggestion that was made many years ago in this house, but certainly when we get into this kind of position there

must be an answer. There must be a quick answer because people are suffering, areas suffering and the whole national economy is suffering.
I know personally about this situation because I was down in the state of Washington at Pasco, which is 400 miles by barge from Portland. There were grain salesmen running all over that country, with a fleet of trucks ready to transport wheat to Pasco. There were empty boats coming down from Vancouver to take on grain at Portland. At one time there were 17 of them at one time which left the port of Vancouver because they could not be filled. This is a deplorable situation. Certainly we must have better salesmen than that in Canada. We cannot allow the situation to continue, with half empty terminals and empty ships.
The C.P.R. say they are moving the grain, but in my area they are not moving it. They have thousands of cars backed up on sidings. I ask the minister, is it not time that he consider appointing someone with the proper authority, proper honour and dignity to put an end to this kind of thing?


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, as you may remember from an episode last evening, I was informed I could discuss the question of water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River under the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport almost as well as under the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and I am rising to do so because of that understanding between the two ministers.
It was my desire to speak on this matter under the estimates of the Department of External Affairs so that I could express my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the quiet efficiency with which he has operated during the past 12 months to make certain that solutions were provided for the terrific problem of low water levels on Lake Ontario.
I make no apology for discussing this matter under the estimates of the Department of Transport because surely lake shipping and riverboat shipping, to say nothing of the salties that come in from the ocean and go out, can properly be considered during debate on the estimates of this department.
During the months of February, March, April and May of last year I and several other members rose to draw the government's attention to the alarming situation that existed whereby the Montreal Gazette was able to
February 9, 1966

state that the water level in Montreal harbour was at the lowest point in the records of Montreal harbour statistics. I pointed out that the water level in the harbour at Toronto in February of 1965 was within one quarter inch of the all-time low.
Now, there was an awful lot of yacking and yelping going on with regard to water levels on the Great Lakes, and I am sorry to say that the most solid solution offered to us by one of the cabinet ministers, whom I will not name at this time, was that we should engage in prayer. I am a strong believer in prayer, but the minister probably overlooked the fact that the biblical verse says that the prayers of the righteous man availeth much. I do not know how many righteous men were within sound of his voice when he spoke, but quite a few people are aware of the fact that there are two control dams on the river at Iroquois and Cornwall, Ontario and they could not figure out why the water level of Lake Ontario was dropping, dropping, dropping when, for the first time in history, there were dams across the St. Lawrence River that could maintain the water at any predetermined level if the operation of the dams was so conducted that the level of Lake Ontario would be held steady. I like this word "steady".
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I went to Newfoundland for the first time three years ago on a moose hunt and went up to the old Noel River area which, as mentioned recently by one of the Newfoundland members, is the wilderness of the wilderness. We were looking for moose and we had a couple of very capable French speaking guides, born on the French shore of St. George's Bay, and who maintained a hunting cabin on the Noel. We had knocked over a moose one morning and that evening the guides were talking to their father and they asked him, "Where should we take the hunters tomorrow"? The father remarked, "Take them up on the first steady, then over the ridge, go along the ridge and come down on the third steady." This was a new expression to us, "Come up on the first steady, walk along the ridge and come down on the third steady". Being inquisitive we asked the old gentleman what he meant. He informed us that in Newfoundland where the water flow is small on many streams it is their practice to build small log dams every three or four miles on these small streams. They retain the water throughout the summer months and in the fall, so that when they are floating pulp togs down to the mills they will have enough
23033-62J
Supply-Transport
water to carry them. The pulp logs are put into the upper steady, as they call it; the dam is breached, the water goes into the lower steady and the pulp logs float downstream to the mills. He said the word "steady" was used because the water remains calm and level as long as the dams are not breached to let the pulp logs go through.
I was fascinated by this Newfoundland term "steady" which, by the way, you will not find in any books on Newfoundland dialect-although I spoke to the Newfoundland members of this house and they told me it was well known and frequently used. I like the word "steady" because I believe that the Great Lakes system should be a system of steadies in the same manner the Newfoundland people use them to retain the water on their streams. If we had dams at the mouth of every one of the Great Lakes we could hold them steady and we would not hear complaints about low water levels at any time. We could restrain the water and maintain the level at any depth we wanted.
On thinking about this expression "steady" I wondered why in February of last year the level of Lake Ontario was at the lowest point, but for one quarter of an inch, in our recorded history, and I made some investigation of the matter. Unfortunately I can tell you that what I discovered was not at all pleasing or satisfactory.
I do believe that the uproar created by people interested in maintaining a satisfactory water level in Lake Ontario reached the receptive ears on the head of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because I am able to stand before you today and tell you that the water level in the harbour at Toronto as at February 3 was 244.02 feet, according to international Great Lakes data, compared to 241.32 feet, international Great Lakes data as at February 3 a year ago. This is an increase of 2.7 feet in one year.
Without doubt someone is going to say that the prayers of the minister must have been very effective. No doubt those people living on the shores of the Great Lakes, and particularly those people on the shores of Lake Ontario, were praying and working to improve the water level of a year ago; but, to find how effective the prayers of the public might have been, this morning I obtained by long distance telephone from the headquarters of the meteorological services of the dominion government the rainfall figure for the Great Lakes basin for the last three years. I took the rainfall figures for the Great

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
Lakes basin because Lake Ontario is the last receptacle for all the water going through the Great Lakes.
I obtained these figures not two hours ago, as the calculations made by the United States army corps of engineers and the meteorological services of the dominion government, and they indicate the following rainfalls: The rainfall in the Great Lakes basin in 1963 was 26.01 inches. In 1964 the rainfall was 31.27 inches, and in 1965 it was 35.57 inches. You will immediately ejaculate: Heavens above, the heavy rainfall in 1965 solved our problems, because 9.56 inches more fell in 1965 than in 1963. I want to draw your attention to this fact: The average rainfall on the Great Lakes basin from 1900 to 1964, a period of 64 years, was 31.30 inches, but the average rainfall for the three years 1963, 1964 and 1965, including the year when the minister was praying so hard, only averaged 30.95 inches, which is even less than the average rainfall for the 64 year period from 1900 to 1964.
I found that without any qualification the low water level of Lake Ontario is due to a combination of two factors. The first is that the people interested in maintaining a 35 foot level of water in the Montreal harbour were continually screaming that they must have that 35 foot level in that harbour and that the power interests at Cornwall must not be allowed to interfere with the downflow of water from Lake Ontario to Montreal. On checking into the operation of the Cornwall dams-and I went through these power houses and talked about the operations, from one side to the other-I found that the Ontario Hydro and the New York State Power Authority, which acts for private interests, were quite willing to run all the water they could get through their generator systems with the plea that they were doing so to help maintain this 35 foot water depth in Montreal harbour.
Since I was born in Ontario, raised in Ontario and represent a riding on the shores of Lake Ontario I cannot say that my interest in maintaining the 35 foot level in the Montreal harbour is the prime interest or object of my life; but this is a national problem and I belong to this national house of representatives, so I should give this some thought. But I do believe that I am entitled to give first thought to the people who live in the Lake Ontario basin.
I went down to Montreal where my father was born and where my grandparents are buried-this is a city I know well-and made

inquiries as to why they did not restrain, or retain the water that flows past Montreal in order to maintain the 35 feet of harbour depth. The answers I received are really terrific. It seems there was a 35 foot depth of water in the harbour when Jacques Cartier went by, and therefore there should be 35 feet of water there for the rest of time: Champlain said there should be a 35 foot depth of water in Montreal harbour, therefore it is necessary. One can talk about nebulous answers, but there are some.
I made a study of this question of harbour depths and I am indebted to the gentleman who first drew my attention to the great harbours of London, England, and Rotterdam. In Great Britain the main trade of that city was built up first and foremost by fleets of small sailing boats that were built to come up the estuary of the Thames to London where docks were built for them. About 1850 steam was developed as a source of power and they began to put steam engines into boats. Of course these were little steam engines for little boats; but within a very short space of time, as the steam engines in the boats, were more highly developed, the boats became larger and their draughts increased. It was found that as the boats increased in size they carried bigger loads from further away by steam, compared to wind blown sailing vessels, and that these boats could not go up the estuary of the Thames to London, particularly during low tide. As a result, the bigger the boats became, the more often they had to stand off London harbour to be lightered into the harbour.
After some years of this the businessmen of Great Britain decided it was ridiculous to have so much money invested in the harbour and docks at London and ocean going vessels not be able to use them. So the idea was developed that they should dig tremendous pools in the Thames right at London, in those marshes with which many of you are familiar, and put lock gates on these pools. They put gates on several deep pools and could then maintain the water levels as deep as they wanted, starting at 20 feet, and going up to 28 feet, 35 feet, 40 feet and so on. The big boats came in at high tide, moved into these lock harbours, the gates were shut behind them and when the tide went out from London the big boats were still floating in 40 or 45 feet of water, and were able to use the docks that had been built over many, many years at great expense and effort. Today you have in London the largest area of impounded water in the world.
February 9, 1966

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Dutch are a brilliant people and particularly good businessmen. In order to make Rotterdam a great harbour-and it is inland from the North Sea-they copied the British system and excavated down to the point where they get 45 feet of water in Rotterdam harbour. But it is behind lock gates, and when high tide comes into Rotterdam harbour the big boats float in; they go into the harbour and the lock gates shut behind them when the tide goes out. The water level is low but boats are floating level and can load and unload. Then when the big boats go out the lock gates are opened and the water level is maintained.
I made the suggestion in Montreal, "Why in the world do you let the water run loose and free down the St. Lawrence?" The answer was, "Well, it always will and it always should". Last June a meeting was held in Montreal by the Montreal harbour authority to discuss the water levels of Montreal harbour. In Montreal harbour this is the prime question.
The Montreal Gazette said this question was of national importance and something should be done about it immediately. I have in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, May 28. This article refers to the fact that the water level in the harbour of Montreal had reached its lowest recorded point in history.
At the water levels conference held in June a year ago because of such facts, I was given the opportunity of speaking. I was glad to have that opportunity because the proper place to make a suggestion was in the City of Montreal. I went to speak in Montreal before 300 or 400 businessmen of the first water, if I may be pardoned a pun. I said that the only way they could maintain 35 feet of water in Montreal harbour, or 40 feet or 50 feet if they wanted it, was to build a dam, preferably at Boucherville. I said Boucherville because it is away at the eastern end of Montreal Island and if they had a dam there it could restrain the water of the St. Lawrence River rushing heedlessly and needlessly by the City of Montreal, and they could have as great a depth of water as they wanted, the same as they have in London, Rotterdam or Antwerp.
The reaction to my remarks was most interesting. One gentleman introduced himself as the mayor of Montreal East, I believe. He came up to me after I sat down and was terrifically upset. He informed me that the
Supply-Transport
City of Montreal could not adopt my suggestion with regard to a dam at Boucherville because, he said, "If you build a dam at Boucherville the city of Montreal East-and it has 40,000 inhabitants-would be drowned in a sea of sewage". I said two things. I said, "What did you say, my friend?" He again informed me that if there was a dam across the St. Lawrence River at Boucherville the city of Montreal East would be drowned in a sea of sewage. I could not comprehend this because I thought Montreal treated sewage like every other civilized country and city in the world, and I began to make inquiries.
Referring back to the editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, May 28, you find these words:
It has been suggested that Montreal should conserve its water supply to a greater extent by delaying its flow below the port . . .
But suggestions that the flow of water should be delayed even by the erection of locks below Montreal are not realistic. The problems of pollution involved in delaying the outflow to that extent, and the very fact that Montreal would cease to be an ocean port, open to the sea, and would become an inland water port, behind locks, makes the proposal futile.
This is the reaction of the Montreal Gazette. Then we have the Montreal Star of Wednesday, June 16. You will notice that the Montreal Gazette just refers to the problem of pollution. It does not say whether that is because people are emptying their fountain pens in the river, are spitting in the river, or are going for a swim there in the months of July and August; it just says that the problems of pollution take first priority. The Montreal Star of Wednesday, June 16, contained an editorial headed "Narrow Outlook", and says:
The solution proposed by R. B. Cowan, Liberal M.P. for York-Humber, for Montreal harbour's low water-levels-"Dam it"-undoubtedly has some sense, and, in effect, weirs downstream near Sorel, are meant to do just that.
But the idea is completely unacceptable because, to judge from his statements at the one-day symposium on water-levels sponsored by the Montreal Port Council, it seems to stem from a notion that much water is pouring uselessly past Montreal to the sea and that this water really belongs to the people around the headwaters of the St. Lawrence River.
People around the lakes too often think that the only problem to be solved relates to water levels, both in the Lakes and in Montreal Harbour,-
Please note this:
-and that flow-past has nothing to do with Montreal. The fact of the matter is that Montreal has a right not only to enough water to maintain shipping levels in the port, but also to maintain normal flow-past.

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
You will notice there is reference to "normal flow-past". This editorial continues:
The fact that both harbour levels and flow-past must be maintained are indications of the complexity of the country's growing water problem. Simple solutions such as this are evidence of an all-too narrow outlook.
I thought I made a very useful suggestion, because at Boucherville the St. Lawrence River is rather narrow and could be dammed quite easily. However the Montreal Star refers to flow-past. This is a new feature in international diplomacy, evidently. Looking into the question a little, further because of my curiosity being piqued by the mayor of Montreal East, I came up with a discovery that I did not believe possible: There is not a sewage disposal plant of any kind in the entire area of Montreal, Montreal City, La-chine, Laprairie, St. Hubert or any other city in the area except a town of 5,000 population by the name of Saraguay, and they have such a small sewage treatment plant that the engineer of the City of Montreal told me last Saturday afternoon that it does not amount to much.
I spent last Saturday afternoon walking around Montreal harbour. You will be happy to know that in Montreal, this great metropolis that is putting on a great exposition in 1966 and 1967 to show the rest of the world how to live, they just dump their sewage, raw and untreated, into the St. Lawrence River. But they take some pride in the fact that the great bulk of it is dumped in the waters known as the back river on the north side of the island, so the passengers coming in on the big passenger boats from Europe will not notice anything floating in the harbour of Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: However, it appears that the load is too great to go into the back river and there are two sewers emptying into the St. Lawrence River on the south shore of Montreal Island.
I was at the Papineau Avenue sewer on Saturday afternoon for about an hour. These sewers empty into the St. Lawrence River through pipes with a diameter of about eight feet, and they hit the St. Mary's current in the St. Lawrence River and are whipped downstream in a hurry. I will never forget the taxi cab operator driving me along the shore in the harbour as I was checking these two sewers, which I could not believe existed in a modern city the size of Montreal and which has been settled since 1642.

I was standing on the cement embankment looking down there just above the Papineau outlet, and the taxi driver looked down there two or three times where the water became gray as the Papineau sewer entered it. He turned and looked at me and said, "Mister, do you see the papers?" And I said, "Buddy, I am looking, too; I am looking, too".
I make no apology for discussing the sewage treatment of the City of Montreal although I come from the City of Toronto, because it is absolutely ridiculous to demand that a flow-past be maintained in Montreal by using the waters of Lake Ontario. This cannot be justified on any basis whatsoever in 1966.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In the Globe and Mail magazine of February 20, 1965, about a year ago now, there appeared an article headed, "Spirits sink over port water shortage", written by Robert Rice. I made inquiries last year and I found that Mr. Rice had been in Montreal for six or eight weeks, so he was a recognized authority on Montreal. In the course of his article, he makes this flat statement:
Lake Ontario, which holds Montreal's water, got the least of all.
He had ascertained that the rainfall was not uniform over Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, so this statement comes out:
Lake Ontario, which holds Montreal's water, got the least of all.
This was the first time that notice had been served on those of us who are residents of the Lake Ontario area that the water we were looking at belonged to the City of Montreal, and did not belong to the people who had decided to establish their families and homes on its shores.
The writer goes on to point out:
Nor are harbour officials and shipping men happy when an Ontario Member of Parliament, Ralph Cowan, a Liberal representing York-Humber, accuses Montreal shipping firms and Quebec power interests of draining Lake Ontario to suit their needs.
I do not accuse them: I just make the flat statement. If they want to consider it an accusation, well and good. I say to you that the water level of Lake Ontario should never go below 244.78 feet, international Great Lakes depth, because that is the water level average for the 94 years from 1860 to 1954. We have a dam at Cornwall and we have a dam at Iroquois. Why should we have to take water levels lower than the 94 year average of 244.78 feet? This was the average level for
February 9, 1966

that period of time when mother nature ruled the water level of Lake Ontario.
We have a situation now where an organization called the St. Lawrence River Control, which operates under the International Joint Commission, which operates in turn under the Department of External Affairs, is endeavouring to maintain the water level of Lake Ontario between 242.8 feet and 246.8 feet, that is a four foot up and down motion at this time. I maintain that they have no right to allow the water level of Lake Ontario to go below the 94 year average of 244.78 feet. If they want to use Lake Ontario for storage purposes, they can take the basis of 244.78 feet and they can use the high water mark of something around 247 feet, which was established in years gone by. To allow the level of Lake Ontario to go below 244.78 feet while relying on the prayers of cabinet ministers and the laws of heaven to refill the basin is a shocking basis on which to operate.
Now, the power people are going to scream that they are entitled to develop power at Cornwall because the demand is there and must be met. The demand may be there, but it does not have to be met. We have a treaty entitled The International Boundary Waters Act, which was signed in 1909. I have a copy of it in my hands. This treaty which is between Great Britain on behalf of Canada and the United States government contains a table of priorities for the use of water. In this table the priorities are spelled out. No. 1 is use for domestic and sanitary purposes, that is for drinking water or pleasure or health or washing or bathing. No. 2 is use for navigation, including the servicing of canals for the purpose of navigation. No. 3 is use for power and irrigation purposes. Please note that power is at the bottom of the list, and at the top of the list is use for domestic and sanitary purposes.
The people of Toronto want the level of Lake Ontario maintained at least at the average for 94 years, 244.78 feet. I am advised by an hon. member near me that Hamilton needs water, too. It is a dirty steel town. I have been over there with the Argo football team many times, and I know that Hamilton needs water.


An hon. Member:: You need a football team.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Of course, the Tigers wash us from top to bottom when we go over there.
The water level of Lake Ontario should not go below 244.78 feet. The City of Montreal
Supply-Transport
should instal a modern sewage system instead of just dumping the sewage in the St. Lawrence River, as it does now. We are told by the Montreal Star that nothing must interfere with the flow past Montreal harbour. This is about the same thing as a kid refusing to put the stopper in the bath tub when his mother is giving him a bath. She says, "Put the stopper in the bath tub", and he says "No, turn on the tap because I need a greater flow past". Well, you simply swat the little kid and tell him to put the stopper in the bath tub. Not so for Montreal, that great metropolitan centre which in 1967 is going to show us how to live in this modern world.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put the stopper in.


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Maurice Rinfret: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Reid Scott: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for York-Humber.


Reid Scott: No, Mr. Chairman, there is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Reid Scott: My reason for objecting is not that I do not want the hon. member to complete his speech, but during the discussion of estimates there are limitless opportunities to speak. He will have ample opportunity to amplify the very interesting remarks he was making. My purpose in rising in this debate, Mr. Chairman, is to discuss an issue which has come to the fore in recent weeks, and which I think is of extreme importance, so that it should be laid before the committee. There are many other important issues affecting the Department of Transport, such as the problems of the Canadian Pacific, box cars and other important matters; but my colleagues, who are more knowledgeable, will be dealing with those issues.
I want to discuss the circumstances surrounding the application for transfer of television channel 3 in Barrie to Toronto. I want to examine how this has evolved. The whole thing is surrounded by an air of

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
political intrigue, as I think, and has all the marks of a piece of Liberal patronage. In my opinion, it raises very disturbing questions that the minister should answer in the house. It raises the whole problem of the new politics the Liberal party was going to practice.
The minister, I am sure, would be dismayed if he were to consult his Ontario colleagues. I would not disclose their identities, but numerous members have spoken to us and are extremely disturbed about the whole aura of secrecy that surrounds this application and the questions it raises in everybody's mind about a political deal. I want to deal with the subject under four headings: first, the move itself and how it came about; second, the interesting gentlemen behind this move and their connections; third, the whole political connotation that surrounds this particular application; and finally, the connection of Ken Soble and his application to take over CTV. In my opinion this also has an aura of political influence surrounding it. I do not believe the two things can be separated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman launches into his argument, I wonder if he would permit a question? He used the word "move". I am totally unaware of any move of any kind and I wonder if he would define what he means by the term "move"?


Reid Scott: My interpretation is that an application will be made or has been made to transfer or make portable the licence in Barrie so that it can be relocated in the immediate vicinity of Toronto. This is nothing but a back door method of opening up another Toronto station.


John George Diefenbaker: And of making $3 million or $4 million.


Reid Scott: As the Leader of the Opposition says, they will probably treble their investment. This move will probably be made without bothering to hold a public hearing so that all the groups who want to take advantage of this licence would have an opportunity of making their own representations before the board.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman, who made a very eloquent plea for justice the other day, would not wish to suggest that any Canadian citizen, who wants to make an application that any Canadian citizen is entitled to make to the Department of Transport, should be denied the right to

make it. Surely he realizes that the making of an application does not at all equate with the granting of one.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I can see that already the Minister of Transport is getting uncomfortable at his surroundings here. Let us take a look at how this matter came about.
Mr. Snelgrove, one of the owners of the television station in Barrie, discovered what he thought was a very neat loophole. He discovered that it was possible to make his licence portable by applying to transfer it to Toronto. An application was made to the appropriate authorities here to investigate what they call the technical problems involved. After that was done the period for filing of applications closed as of January 11. So that no one even knew that this was being done. No one even knew that there was a possibility of another television station opening up in Toronto.
Everyone in the industry had been, and they still were, relying on the words of the chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors that there would be no new channels opened up in Toronto until after the Fowler report had had the opportunity of being considered and appropriate government policy devised. In the background, under the table, behind the door, or whatever you want to call it, this neat little scheme was proposed and is presently under consideration. No consideration was given to all the other people who want to apply.
There are widespread stories that this particular station, if it is transferred, will blot out two of the major United States networks broadcasting into Toronto and southern Ontario. There is a difference of opinion about this. When Mr. Snelgrove was asked about it he said that Canada could not care less about the Buffalo stations. Well, maybe Mr. Snelgrove does not care about them, but everyone here knows there are about one and a half million Canadians who do watch these stations and surely they have some rights in matters of this kind. Surely it is not just a matter of sneaking this in by the back door without due regard for the viewing rights of the public.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Who is Snelgrove?


Reid Scott: I am asked who he is. He is Ralph Snelgrove, a former Liberal candidate and one of the three owners of the television station in the City of Barrie.
February 9, 1966



As I say, this was all going to be done nice and quietly. No one knew anything about it, and no one would know anything about it. When it was all over we would have been confronted with a fait accompli, with a new station worth millions of dollars.
I would ask the minister to explain, when the opportunity comes, how a T.V. licence is made portable. How can a television station licence to operate in the geographical area of Barrie be permitted to come into one of the great lucrative markets in North America, the area surrounding metropolitan Toronto?
This is the way in which it was done. Mr. Dennis Braithwaite, one of the reporters who smoked out this deal, had this to say about it in the Globe and Mail for February 8:
The essence of their plan-
That is the plan of the Snelgrove group.
-it is becoming obvious, is speed, that and confusion-the latter being the special contribution of Ralph Snelgrove.
At the end of his article he puts the real issue in this way:
But the real issue is this: can a third station be granted in Toronto through the back door as a simple political reward from a government to three of its good friends?
I am not saying that that charge is true, but it is being bandied about. All through the press of the country allegations are being made that this is nothing but a political deal to reward certain friends of the government.
The very least that should be done is that if a new station is to be opened up in the area of metropolitan Toronto-and I do not pretend to be technically qualified to judge whether this is so-completely open hearings should be held. The whole matter should be opened to the public. Anybody who wants to make an application for a licence, and lots are now appearing, should have full right to make all the representations necessary. The whole matter should be exposed to the light of day, instead of being kept behind closed doors,' creating an aura of suspicion which is not only disturbing us here but is being widely circulated in the press. It also has 90 per cent of the Liberal members from Ontario very worried. Therefore it is important that this whole matter be examined very carefully.
Who are these gentlemen behind this scheme? First of all there is Mr. Waters.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Reid Scott: I will tell you who he
is in a moment, but he is one of the coowners of the Barrie station and began oper-
Supply-Transport
ation in the eastern part of Canada. He built the CHUM radio station in Toronto, a very powerful station which plays nothing but rock 'n roll. He has a 50 per cent interest in Famous Players, Muzak in Ontario, and a substantial interest in St. Lawrence Broadcasting Ltd., which operates CKLC in Kingston. He has a 50 per cent interest in CJCH in Halifax. He also has a station in Peterborough. In fact, he has a very wide empire of ownership. It is also significant that he has proved to be and is well known as a Liberal supporter. The second applicant, Mr. Snelgrove, is one of the owners of the Barrie station and also has widespread broadcasting interests in Owen Sound and Peterborough.
The third person involved is Mr. Stirling, who began his career in Newfoundland with the Sunday Herald. He founded CJON radio and has two stations in Newfoundland. He founded CKGM in Montreal and launched CKWW in Windsor with Royce Frith, and shortly after Mr. Frith got his application he sold out and Mr. Stirling is now owner. He also owns CKPM in Ottawa.
What is happening here, Mr. Chairman, is that a concerted effort is being made by these people to build an empire of television ownership in Canada. This would appear to contravene subsection 4(d) of section 118 of the regulations under the Radio Act, which reads as follows:
Except with the permission of the minister given upon the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors, no person shall be licensed to operate more than one station and no licence shall be issued or held by a company owned or controlled by a company holding a licence-


David Orlikow: Unless they are Liberals.


Reid Scott: In that event it should be amended to read "unless they are Liberal supporters". I think we need an explanation of this.
The minister asked about the political implications of this question. A very interesting article appeared last night, I believe, in the Toronto Star written by Peter Newman, in which he talks about the politics of channel 3. He names the three gentlemen involved. All three are well known supporters of the Liberal party. Snelgrove even ran as a Liberal candidate in the 1953 and 1963 elections. Peter Newman discusses the type of proposal that these three gentlemen are making in order to justify their application. He says, first of all, that nine ministers in the cabinet are opposed to the application on the basis that it smells of the very same kind of

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
patronage for which they so violently attacked the Conservatives when television licences were originally granted. He says the nature of the application is that it will not even likely go before cabinet and that they will not have a chance to register their disapproval.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What intrigues me, Mr. Chairman, is the reasoning that these gentlemen are alleged to be putting forward for this change. The political aroma is strong when you consider that CKVR-TV would be the only non-CBC outlet in Toronto, and we pay to support the CBC.
The argument is that the CKVR station is the only non-CBC outlet in Toronto now owned by an avowed Conservative, the Telegram's publisher, John Bassett, who may also require dominance in the CTV network if the current application to the BBG for a takeover by the networks affiliates is approved. To offset this Tory influence, the argument goes, the Liberals should protect their interests by establishing a Liberal outlet in the Toronto market. That is, not a television station to serve the public, but a Liberal outlet. Surely that is the strangest reason of all.
Then he goes on to make some representations that many of us have been making for competitive bidding, for the right to serve the community, and he says in closing:
What's at stake is apparently only a television license, but the reform elements inside the Liberal party view it as a much broader issue: A testing of the 'new politics' which their leader advocated in the brave beginnings of his stewardship.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman that, wheth-or these press reports are true or not, they raise very serious and fundamental questions. They are making allegations here that all you need to have is a friend in the cabinet, or to be influential within the Liberal party, and it does not matter about the validity of your case, because you can get your licence anyway.
If we go to the CTV takeover, that question is surrounded with the same type of sleazy aroma, worked up by the press after investigation. On February 8, last night, in the Telegram, one of our former colleagues, Douglas Fisher, who has now joined the press gallery, wrote a column called "The CTV Takeover: A Liberal Test Pattern". In it he discusses, from his great knowledge or his

years in the house, several things, and he
says:
It isn't an accident that the majority of owners and executives in private broadcasting have been close to the Liberal Party. There was never anything as crass as the rule that one had to be a Liberal supporter to get a licence for a station or to buy into a station. But there was a general attitude that a party relationship helped.
Then he goes on to discuss the whole method of Mr. Soble's application, and how he was brought into the picture. Then he says:
This appeal-
That is Mr. Soble's appeal.
-is given additional savor by Soble's proven record as a Grit. He headed the Liberal party's broadcasting committee in the last election and he has on his channel given Liberal M.P.'s, especially the hon. Judy LaMarsh, continuing promotion.
Again, this important takeover is being enshrouded in the whole cloak of political patronage and political intrigue. I think it is important that we raise this issue. I think it is important that we lay these things before the committee, and that we get some answers back from the minister. I would appeal to the members of the Liberal party who are so disturbed about this, that they rise up and themselves initiate a thorough discussion and thorough investigation of what is taking place here, because too little is known. Everything is done in secret. The public is not being informed. The rights of viewers are totally disregarded, and the attitude is: We do not care whether this ruins the channels coming in from the United States.
The minister is quoted as having said that if Canada did not move into channel 3, Buffalo would steal it. Yet, investigations do not prove that to be true. There is no technical way in which BufEalo can do this. That argument is not valid under the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also it was never made by the minister.


Reid Scott: If the minister says he never made it, then I accept that, although it was attributed to him in the newspapers. It was never denied up till now. Of course, we expected the minister's denial.
All I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that this is more than just the business of television licences, because we want to know all the facts surrounding this application. We want to know how it got started, and why nobody was informed; why it was kept secret, and so on. We want some sort of assurance
February 9, 1966

from the government that this type of deal will be stopped, and that the awarding of these types of licences, and this type of application will be kept in the public purview.
We want an assurance from the minister that if this goes ahead that (a) the rights of the million and a half members of the viewing public will be adequately protected, that (b) every possible investigation will be made to see that their rights are not going to be interfered with and that Cc) we shall require an assurance in view of the very serious allegations which have been made that this whole business will be taken out from the back room and will be brought into the light of the public, so that anybody who wants to take a part in this application will have the right and will be able to do so. I say that to ensure that the bringing in of a station of the magnitude and importance of the one under discussion, and the CTV application too, can be removed from the whole aroma of partisan party patronage that now surrounds it. This, so far as I am concerned, is the real test of the integrity and desire of the Liberal party to really bring about in this country what it calls the new politics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since there were one or two observations of the hon. gentleman that might conceivably have been regarded as a reflection on me, personally, I am sure the committee would wish me to reply at once. I will try as succinctly as I can merely to deal with the factual situation and to make no insinuation about anyone or about anything in this matter.
I think I should first point out that it is my responsibility as Minister of Transport to receive applications, or perhaps I should say it is the responsibility of my department. In most cases I am never informed about applications that are received, unless there seems to be some special reason for it. We receive applications to evaluate them technically, to see whether or not they would be technically feasible, so that the time of the Board of Broadcast Governors will not be wasted with hearing arguments about applications that could not in fact be carried out, even if they were considered. That is the responsibility that is placed on the Minister of Transport.
The Board of Broadcast Governors acts under legislation enacted when I sat on the other side of the house. The Board has the responsibility of hearing all these applications
Supply-Transport
and making recommendations to the government, and it is then the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not those recommendations will be given effect to by an order in council. Normally that is done. There have been a few exceptions, but normally that is done.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there any exceptions when we were in office?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman with his usual desire to promote an effectual exposition is bringing in a red herring that I am not interested in.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure his party is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to clear up first a factual situation with respect to channel 3. I want to say that I do not blame anybody for this, except my own sloppy expression. I was asked a question by a newspaperman about the availability of channel 3, and I said that I had been informed that channel 3 was technically available to Canada, for metropolitan Toronto, and we had a request to find out whether that was the case.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We-when I say "we", I mean my department; I had nothing to do with it-got in touch with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington to see whether it was their view that the use of this channel in the Toronto area would interfere with United States stations protected under the terms of the bilateral agreement. We received an answer that it would not. But I had also been informed that if the transmitter of one of the Buffalo stations was moved about 25 miles-in the United States, not in Canada-in another direction which would have been perfectly legal, if Canada had not already used the channel, there would have been interference within the terms of the bilateral arrangement.
For this reason it did seem to me as a Canadian-and it still seems to me as a Canadian-that we should do anything we reasonably can in order to protect that channel for Canada.
I am not much impressed by the argument about protecting United States channels in Canada. Surely we, as Canadians, are concerned about protecting the maximum number of channels for Canada. If the United States government is not worried about this it is odd, I think, to find Canadians weeping crocodile tears about interference in Canada with United States stations, and it comes with

February 9, 1966
Supply-Transport
peculiarly ill grace from a member of the Mr. Smith: Is that an assurance that this hon. gentleman's party, if I may say so.	will take place that way?


Reid Scott: Would the minister permit a question? He says it is not for us to try to protect American stations. Do I take it from that remark that he is not prepared to respect the viewing wishes of one and a half million Canadians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the viewing wishes of the people of metropolitan Toronto are important, but I do not pretend to be an expert on them, and I would be very surprised if the hon. member is much more of an expert on them than I am.


Reid Scott: Almost an insult.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, since Mr. Bennett first introduced public broadcasting in this country it has been the view of every successive Canadian government that we should protect the maximum number of channels for Canadians, and as long as I have any responsibility in this matter I intend to do the best I can in this direction.


Mr. Smith:: But, Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member wait until I have concluded? I am very short of time. The second point is that an application was made by three citizens of Canada. The hon. gentleman says they are Liberals. I do not think that is any reason they should not be allowed to apply, nor do I think the hon. member was making that argument. They made an application, as many others have done, to the Department of Transport, to find out whether a certain proposition would be technically feasible. It is not customary for such applications to be advertised. I have never heard of their being advertised.


An hon. Member:: Just a coincidence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first time I was ever asked a question about this matter I answered perfectly frankly and straightforwardly, without any hesitation whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: The first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that anyone like the hon. gentleman, who is a member of the bar, would have examined the act and quickly discovered that there could be nothing secret about this matter because any application of this kind has to go before the Board of Broadcast Governors; there has to be a hearing and the hearing has to be in public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the law. There is nothing the government could do about this which would be lawful without first getting a recommendation from the Board of Broadcast Governors. So all this talk about secrecy, most of it seeming to emanate from people, such as a former member of this house who is very closely associated with another defeated candidate, this time a defeated Tory candidate, who in turn is closely associated with a television station in Toronto and who is probably, therefore, not a totally unprejudiced witness-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most of this propaganda seems to come from him either directly or indirectly. He ought to know what the law is, because he was in parliament when the law was made. It is not a reflection on the government but it is a reflection on the Board of Broadcast Governors to suggest that they would not listen to all the arguments raised in connection with this matter and that they would not treat this application perfectly fairly as being a matter within the public domain. It does not seem to me that any public interest whatever has been prejudged in any way.
As to the question whether or not these people are to be licensed, this is a matter which should first be considered by the Board of Broadcast Governors. As far as I am concerned I hope that if it is possible and if it is considered desirable to have a third television channel in Toronto-and I hope it will be, because I think it would provide employment for a good number of Canadians; it would provide for a lot of advertising being carried on a Canadian station instead of on the Buffalo stations and I think this would be in accord with what most Canadians think desirable in this country-


Sydney John Smith: A point of order. The minister has asked us to confine our remarks to the technical aspect and has told us that this duty concerns only the technical problems.


Maurice Rinfret: There is no point of order arising at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the honourable and excitable member for Simcoe North, who succeeded in defeating Mr. Snelgrove, wishes to go on to defeat him in another arena he should appear before the Board of Broadcast Governors and make his objections there.
February 9, 1966	COMMONS


Sydney John Smith: Has any application been made by channel 5, which we hear from sources here and there is going to be the new broadcasting channel in Barrie. If it has been received, when was it received and has an application been made to locate the television transmitter in the hamlet of Warminster about 10 miles northwest of Orillia? When were these applications made, if they were made; and when did the minister send his representatives to Washington to appear before the Federal Communications Commission. Would he answer these questions as soon as possible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am really not as interested in this matter as the hon. member obviously is. I will have to consult the files.


Sydney John Smith: Would the hon. gentleman do that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to do that and give the hon. member what information I have available on the matter when my estimates come up for consideration tomorrow.
The hon. member interrupted one statement I wished to make. As Minister of Transport, as a member of the government and as a Canadian I feel that if channel 3 is, as I am given to understand, the only channel which could be available to provide a third television station in Toronto-I may be wrong about this; I am not an engineer; this is the best advice I have-if this channel can be available to metropolitan Toronto, and equally good service be given to Barrie-and this is essential-


Sydney John Smith: By interference with channel six.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish the hon. member would not interrupt me.


Sydney John Smith: I like interrupting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I remember a certain occasion-


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A point of order.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has risen on a point of order.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Mr. chairman, on a point of order, the minister has been getting rather nasty in the last few minutes, and I would call your attention, and the attention of the house to the fact that he
DEBATES	981
Administration of Justice has been out of order for the last 15 minutes he has been speaking because, whether through an ambition on his part or not, he has been using this place as if he were the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


Maurice Rinfret: I think, gentlemen, we will come back to this discussion tomorrow. So, to permit the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the opposition-


Maurice Rinfret: Order please.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Give him a tranquillizer.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code so that an accused person who is eventually found not guilty may be paid his costs and expenses and such compensation as a judge, in his discretion, may decide to be fit and proper in the circumstances; also, so as to provide that a person who has been unjustly kept in custody for the reason that such person was unable to raise bail and who has been afterwards acquitted, may be paid damages and compensation for time lost from gainful employment and such other damages as are fair and just.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am bringing this motion before the house because I believe it deals with a problem that should have been recognized by the government of Canada long before this.
Although I am not a lawyer I am very fully aware that amending the Criminal Code to make this possible is going to take a certain amount of time and effort. However I say that, whatever time and effort may be required to embrace the concept of my motion and make it part of our Criminal Code, these must be taken, and must become law in a democratic country such as ours.
It is absolutely unbelievable and deplorable that our laws permit innocent people-let me reiterate, innocent people-to be held, convicted and later proven innocent, and then
February 9, 1966

Administration of Justice released with no compensation of any kind provided for them. Innocent people have been kept in jail for a matter of weeks, yes, months and even years; later they have been proven completely innocent of the crimes of which they were accused. An accused person would then be told by the courts of Canada, "We are sorry for our mistake. You are now free to return to your old job, provided it is there for you, or to your former employer, provided he is willing to have you. You will have to work much harder, of course, to endeavour to make up lost finances, lost prestige, lost health, mental and otherwise, and all because of our mistake-not your mistake, our mistake."
Do the laws that allow this to happen sound as if they belonged to Canada? I am sure we all realize that regardless of precautions taken by the authorities, innocent individuals may unavoidably become the objects of criminal prosecutions. The very fact that this risk exists makes it imperative that the public treasury bear the loss suffered by the unfortunate victim, and which has been imposed on him by the machinery of the law.
Today, with our country attempting to safeguard its citizens against losses caused by disease, disability, unemployment, old age and other misfortunes, it goes without saying that the state should be objectively liable for damages consequent upon wrongful accusation of a crime. It certainly would be manifest inconsistency in the system of law if the state, which guarantees the individual against losses in so many circumstances, should be excused from repairing the damage done by its own servants in the prosecution of wrongly accused persons.
It is certainly most unfair that a wrongly accused person should himself bear his loss. The prosecution should be at the public risk and not at that of an innocent party. It certainly seems far more reasonable that the loss should be borne by society rather than by the innocent accused.
Apart from financial recompense, an award of compensation might do much toward moral rehabilitation of the accused, freeing him from any suspicion which might otherwise rest upon him, despite an acquittal or dropping of charges. Also it might help in the preventing of prosecution of innocent persons, as it is argued that provision for such compensation liability should lead to increased caution and, in the long run, a decrease in total damages.


Right here in Canada day after day one can pick up the newspapers and read such headlines, as, "Wrong John McKenzie serves 30 day Jail Term-Does not get Word of Thanks," "Served Most of Sentence: Then Conviction Quashed," "Could not Raise Bail. In Custody Four Months; Freed After Testimony." In the last case it was really rubbed in because the presiding judge, Magistrate Joseph Addison said:
The most unfortunate thing is if you had had $500 you could have walked out free.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems we have two laws in Canada, one for those who have, and one for those who have nothing. Surely this cannot be continued in a democratic country such as ours.
I should now like to deal briefly with the famous case of the kidnapping of John Labatt III, president of the Labatt Brewing Company.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I would like to read you part of an address given to the annual meeting of the County Court Judges Association on April 23, 1964 by Judge G. A. P. Brickenden, of Simcoe, Ontario, covering his thoughts on compensation for wrongly imprisoned persons. In part Judge Brickenden said:
About 30 years ago, John Labatt III, President of the Labatt Brewing Company, was kidnapped. John Labatt was regarded as a very honest, straightforward man. When the trial came, Mr. Labatt said, in giving evidence, that the accused who had been before the Court, 'Kidnapped me'. He pointed to him, and any normal jury, knowing the fine reputation of John Labatt, would convict on that type of evidence.
During the trial, the accused was given 15 years, and he wasn't the kidnapper. At the end of two years the man who actually did kidnap John Labatt gave himself up and was tried for that offence. He was found guilty and given twelve years. The original accused was allowed out of the penitentiary and went on his way.
He went on his way to gain back what he had lost from society without any recompense from the government.
Judge Brickenden then said:
In other words, an innocent man, through an honest mistake of identification, served two years in the penitentiary without compensation from the government. I cannot, in a democratic country, see how this can be justified by any stretch of the imagination.
My contention is, that everyone who is wrongfully imprisoned, or who cannot get bail and is afterwards acquitted, should not only have compensation given to him, but also receive costs. This, as you know, can only be done on summary convictions; on an appeal from the Magistrate, the Judge has similar power. But, I think, the compensation and the costs should be allowed by the Presiding Judge within his authority, and make it
February 9, 196G

Administration of Justice from the Justice Minister... down to the last magistrate sitting on a bench in Canada, and every .iustice of the peace. It should also be required reading for the special committee on corrections-
The former minister of justice set up this committee to study the treatment of lawbreakers through all the stages of their arrest to final release. The editorial then continues:
The committee is to be advised by 25 experts of whom, curiously, Prof. Friedland is not one.
Last summer I intended to suggest, as I will do now, that it would be of great benefit to add Professor Friedland to that committee, or make it possible in some way for that individual to appear before the committee to give his advice on this subject, because I think this is essential.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have made inquiries as to when the report will be received from the committee. There has not yet been any report from the committee, and from what I am able to ascertain from the Department of Justice there will be no report for at least another year; it may even be longer. I fully realize that the department concerned, the Department of Justice, may wish to wait for the report of the Committee on Corrections before doing anything about this problem. I think that is reasonable. However, should this be the case it is my hope that legislation which will fully protect innocent people will be introduced into this house as quickly as possible after the committee presents its report.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the Criminal Code is strictly a federal statute and a matter of federal concern. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the excuse will not be put forward that some matters fall within provincial jurisdiction and others within federal jurisdiction, because this is a strictly federal matter.
I feel very strongly on this question of compensation being paid to innocent people, and stress again that legislation to take care of this problem is absolutely necessary. I sincerely hope that all hon. members will agree with me in this respect. Should the Department of Justice for any reason not introduce legislation to deal with this problem, all I can say is that they will be hearing from me in the fututre-and it will not be in private members' hour.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I am so much in favour of what he has said that I do not want

to trespass on the time remaining, and hope this motion will be passed unanimously before six o'clock. However, as a confirmed supporter of the abolition of capital punishment I should like to "get in" on this subject and ask the hon. member whether he would agree to amend his resolution in due course so that it would cover not only an accused person but the estate of an accused person who had been wrongly executed? In this way the legislation would be fair and would cover all accused persons.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I can understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I honestly believe these are two separate questions and we have to take each one separately, because one measure could have something to do with the other not being passed-and we all know that the question of capital punishment is soon coming before the house. I am for the abolition of capital punishment myself-I do not mind saying so-but I believe we should keep these two questions separate.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. He referred to some foreign laws, particularly those in Norway and the United States. I would ask the hon. member whether those laws provide compensation in every single case where an accused is acquitted after trial or whether the compensation paid in those jurisdictions is confined to those cases in which an accused person was subsequently pardoned.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I cannot answer that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams).


An hon. Member:: Make it short.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well now, you know better than that. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) for bringing this resolution before us. I am going along with him on many points but I wish to point out a few things. I can understand his concern for this problem, particularly as he is from the constituency of Norfolk which I understand is the great tobacco county of Ontario and that at one time an honourable lady minister was paying $600,000 of the taxpayers money to get people not to use his product.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think the important part of this motion should be considered. If the judge, for example, was able to determine the innocence of a person, and
February 9, 1986	COMMONS
this proposal did not refer to all acquittals, then the motion of the hon. member would have greater merit. I believe that this question should be examined very carefully, because we do not want to bonus members of the Mafia or people who are acquitted on purely technical points of law.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would tell this little story to the house so that hon. members may better understand my point. As I understand it, there was a certain lawyer in Calgary years ago, long before my time, who when acting in the capacity of defence counsel was successful in having his clients acquitted in 20 or 25 murder cases. When he was appointed Crown prosecutor, or the agent of the Attorney General, he immediately obtained six or seven convictions in murder cases. So hon. members can see that at times people can be acquitted when they are not really innocent, because of our practice of British jurisprudence.
A guilty person may in fact be acquitted of a crime, because of the burden of proof required under our law and the question of reasonable doubt. Law is not an exact science; it is not something you can decide in a test tube and be absolutely certain about. I have always believed that an accused person is fairly well protected because under our system of justice he has certain rights and remedies. An accused person tried before a magistrate's court or the high court with a jury has the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal of a province, and in certain circumstances the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There are cases where the question of guilt or innocence is not cut and dried. I am thinking of the burden of proof required under our law and the fact that a case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In nearly all cases it is a question of the credibility of witnesses, sometimes it is a question of identity, and the judge or jury must decide who to believe and who not to believe. Ten witnesses may say one thing and one witness may say another. The judge or jury, depending upon who is determining the facts, may believe the one witness and disbelieve the ten. Therefore the situation is not quite as clearcut as it may appear.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when considering this motion we must consider the question of whether an accused is innocent of the crime with which he is charged, rather than being merely acquitted
DEBATES	985
Administration of Justice of the charge. There is the question of discretion and the burden of proof required to determine innocence, which would certainly be a different kind of burden of proof than that required in determining whether an accused is found guilty or is acquitted.
What am I driving at? Basically this is what the resolution says, that-
-the government should consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code so that an accused person who is eventually found not guilty may be paid his costs and expenses and such compensation as a judge, in his discretion, may decide to be fit and proper in the circumstances;-
The motion refers to "a judge, in his discretion", and this is the important phrase. I am glad the hon. member for Norfolk included "in his discretion" in the resolution. If this refers to the kind of legal discretion that would be used by a court considering the case of someone who had been convicted and had been unjustly kept in custody for a considerable period of time, or had suffered some other adversity because he had been kept in custody, and it was determined that the man was innocent, then I would agree with the proposal of the hon. member. But we must consider the question of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof in a criminal case, and if every person who had appeared before the bar of justice and had been acquitted was compensated or paid damages because of being convicted and held in jail for a period of time, it would indeed be a very dangerous practice.
It will be very difficult to decide these questions, and I was pleased to hear the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for-I should know his riding but I have forgotten-*


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Rosedale.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I was very glad that he asked that question with regard to the law applied in other countries with reference to compensation and damages, because I would again emphasize the fact that if it is the kind of discretion that a judge may use, the kind of legal discretion whereby he can determine whether there was a real miscarriage of justice in the sense that some really innocent person had been held in custody improperly, I would give my sympathy as well as my support to the hon. member for Norfolk. Otherwise I would oppose his resolution.
In this context I am thinking of such men as Hal Banks, who was acquitted of two or
February 9, 1966

Administration of Justice three charges. Should he have been compensated? I am also thinking of a lawyer in Saskatchewan who was charged and finally acquitted. I am referring to Dr. Shumiatcher. His case went on for years. It is true that he was allowed out on bail, but during that period of time he could not practise law or carry on his profession. He was acquitted and I assume he was acquitted on the ground that there was a reasonable doubt in law. I do not want to get into that field, Mr. Speaker, because I had not read the depositions. I am not saying he was not innocent, but I am saying that he was probably acquitted on the ground that there was reasonable doubt in law. That is the kind of doubt that you use in weighing the facts of a case, the kind of doubt that an ordinary businessman applies with reference to any business matter. It is a real, reasonable doubt and not some flimsy doubt. It is a real, reasonable doubt which should be weighed carefully.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I know, of course, many cases are determined on that point. There are other cases I might mention such as that of Dr. Shumiatcher. These are cases along the same lines. Circumstances may change. A person may get a new trial or a witness may pass out of the picture. On these grounds someone may be acquitted because the evidence would not be there.
Many cases are very difficult to prove. One of the most difficult cases to prove and also one of the most difficult cases to defend is that of rape. Many times in these cases juries give a wide interpretation of the idea of reasonable doubt. They take into consideration circumstances that are not really spelled out in law. I know that, as a member of the bar, if I am defending an indictable offence of theft, a judge or jury will weigh the evidence in that kind of case and give an entirely different interpretation of reasonable doubt from that which a jury will use with regard to murder.
This is where you must differentiate. As 1 say, I would go along with the hon. member's suggestion, but there must be a legal discretion under which the judge has weighed the facts and come to the conclusion there has been an absolute miscarriage of justice, that somebody has been wrongly held. Otherwise we are going to have gangsters, members of the Mafia, hiring top counsel and being acquitted because they are able to get admissions out of certain witnesses or have a case dismissed on some technical point of law,
[Mr. Woolliams.l
suing for compensation. This is dangerous. I am not saying that the hon. member is one of these "do gooders", but I have always felt that we must take a strong look at motions put forward by people of this type.
The hon. member goes on in his motion to say,
.-such compensation as a judge, in his discretion, may decide to be fit and proper in the circumstances; also, so as to provide that a person who has been unjustly kept in custody for the reason that such person was unable to raise bail and who has been afterwards acquitted,-
In so far as the question of bail is concerned, bail should be set only at an amount sufficient to assure the person will appear for his trial. I agree with the hon. member in that regard. Too often bail is used by magistrates in the cities of this country to keep a person in custody in the hope that further evidence will be obtained. This is an abuse of the law, but the practice is followed in our cities in Canada every day. While we are on this point, another abuse occurs when a crime occurs and the police suspect someone with a record for committing crimes of that type. In such cases the police often lay a charge of vagrancy. The man is unable to get bail and is held on this charge in the hope other evidence will turn up.
In the meantime this man loses his job. I support the hon. member in that regard. Under these circumstances, I am sympathetic and I believe the man should be awarded damages. However, again I believe the award should be based on the question of a very real miscarriage of justice such as the example the hon. member gave where someone was held in jail for 19 years and it was found he was not guilty of the charge. I suppose if someone were charged, tried and incarcerated for a number of years, then later someone else came forward and said that they were guilty, that person would have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. This person certainly should receive compensation. However it must be a strict miscarriage of justice in the sense of the person really being innocent, rather than a person escaping from the charge by being given the benefit of a reasonable doubt. Then I would go along with the hon. member in that regard.
We have other cases. You take the high court judge of the province of Ontario who was charged, and on his preliminary hearing was acquitted. This question is before the house now in a different way. I did not read the disposition of the case, but he may have been acquitted because of a reasonable doubt,
February 9, 1966	COMMONS
and perhaps a wide interpretation was given to "reasonable doubt". Certainly people of this type, Mr. Banks and the judge, as well as the other people mentioned, should not be compensated because they were incarcerated or charged and not proven guilty. They should not be compensated because they lost some income as a result of going through the discomfort of a trial. I am sure that is not what the hon. member had in mind in drafting this motion.
I should like to see how such a law was drafted before I would give blanket approval to the hon. member's motion, which is one that should receive the support of members. I will be brief, as suggested by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), and resume my seat.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My colleagues and I are in favour of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). However, I should like to make a few comments on it. One of the things that concerns me is the appearance of the word "judge" in the resolution. I sincerely hope the word "judge" includes in its definition the word "magistrate". Of all the criminal cases that come before our courts, about 90 per cent are disposed of by the magistrates. If the word "judge" does not include a magistrate, then the full impact of this resolution is lost.
The resolution appears to be a quick remedy for people who are unlawfully arrested or unlawfully charged with an offence. At the moment when this happens, the law does give a certain amount of protection. A person can bring a civil action. In some circumstances he brings a civil action against the arresting officer, against Crown counsel, against the magistrate and others. This places them in an awkward position. This resolution affords a quick remedy and also gives the magistrate the discretion to determine whether or not damages should be given.
In so far as this word "costs" is concerned,
I notice that a man who is found not guilty may be paid his costs and expenses. I assume my hon. friend includes legal costs because that is where the heavy part of the costs occur. One does not acquire too many expenses with regard to witnesses, but it is the heavy costs of legal counsel that have to be included. I quite appreciate the thoughts of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams) with regard to compensating people who have been charged, but who have been acquitted because of the inability of the
DEBATES	987
Administration of Justice Crown to bring forth evidence to prove guilt or because the law under which we operate gives the accused a benefit of doubt. I have faith in the magistrates and in the judges, and feel they would be able to arrive at a just decision.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the resolution, provided the definition of "judge" includes a magistrate, because of the great number of cases that come before him. I am in favour of it, too, because it affords a quick remedy for people who are charged unlawfully.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak as briefly as possible so that my friend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), who undoubtedly has some interesting remarks to make about the resolution under consideration, may be able to take the floor.
That resolution makes for interesting reading because it shows the mover's generous intentions.
It is really terrible to think that some people can be the victims of a great injustice and to find with disgust, once the law has been proven to be wrong, that they cannot even get damages.
However, the same thing worries me about the resolution as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). It could mean compensating a criminal with a record who, at one time or another, could be acquitted by the court.
In such circumstances, since we are dealing with hardened criminals who could be acquitted through some sort of hazard, would it be advisable to allow the courts and those who are responsible for law enforcement to give such people damages?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, may I clear up one point. This resolution has directly to do with innocent people who are jailed and then proven innocent. I am not referring to borderline cases but to innocent people who have been jailed and then found to be innocent. It is they who should receive compensation.


Auguste Choquette: I wish to thank the hon. member for what he has just said, but the way the resolution is worded might explain why I am a little worried. It reads as follows: That... the government should consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code so that an accused person who is eventually found not
February 9, 1966

Administration of Justice guilty may be paid his costs and expenses and such compensation as a Judge, in his discretion, may decide to be fit and proper-
And so on.

In other words, no distinction is made concerning previously convicted persons. The resolution merely speaks of people who are found not guilty at a trial
Therefore, that somewhat justifies the concern one might have in that connection. There is always the possibility-and this could happen-that a police force or some of its members who are corrupt would be only too glad to oblige mobsters by arresting some of their members, drag them into court, have them acquitted, and then compensate them.
I admit it is not likely to happen, but it could. As the saying goes, you can find black sheep anywhere.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is brought before the house, it is perhaps because of a rightful concern about the appropriateness of certain charges and convictions. As a matter of fact, the criminal code is supposed to remove all those apprehensions, because it provides that any peace officer or any person with reasonable motives-a person might possibly have committed an offence -has the right to lodge a complaint.
The following fact must also be taken into account. The peace officer has to swear a complaint. I am glad then that this resolution is brought before the house, because it enables me to speak my mind. Even though I have been practising law for a relatively short time, it is easy to see that too many police officers, probably because they are quite familiar with the court, do not realize the importance of their action and of their testimony under oath.
I do not mean to say that many policemen take the oath far too lightly, but surely one often notices that too many policemen, being too familiar with court ritual and proceedings, do not look upon their oath with all the respect and the importance it requires. That may explain why innocent people are brought before the courts. The person who swears a complaint should give it much thought for it must be done under oath.
What happens, because of court routine, is that policemen or peace officers are ready to sign any charge lightly, without a second thought, to bring any individual before the courts; when they are called as witnesses, they often have no scruples about saying Arhat they think.

This could explain why many innocent persons are brought before the courts.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make. I congratulate very warmly the hon. member for the noble intention which inspired him in introducing this resolution.
I thought, while first considering the contents of this resolution, that it could perhaps be an interesting case to refer to that famous ombudsman we hear so much about, if the resolution did not carry.
On the other hand, I find that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has introduced a bill providing for the establishment of the position of parliamentary commissioner. One of the duties entrusted to the parliamentary commissioner by the law would be precisely those which the hon. member mentioned earlier. In other words, innocent victims who are dragged before the courts or innocent people who are unjustly condemned could be referred to the ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner if the bill proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer were passed.
Anyway, I congratulate the hon. member and I wish him success in his representations.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: 
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that members generally would not hesitate to concur in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in introducing this particular motion. Or, to put it more accurately, in expressing sympathy with the sentiments of the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) in his legislative aim. I would point out to him, however, that what he intended to do in proposing this resolution he has not done. He has not, as was observed a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Bow River, confined himself to those people who, as I suggested to him in my question, have subsequently been pardoned for not having been properly convicted under law. In the terms of his resolution he has referred to every person who wins an acquittal, which includes those who win an acquittal by a technicality on the indictment, or those who avoid conviction sometimes due to the nonavailability of crown witnesses or by other means which fall somewhat short of proving moral innocence.
The real question raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and it is for this reason I think that it is important to note the exact terms of my question, is whether or not compensation should be awarded where malfunction of law has occurred and where some person has beyond any reasonable doubt been wrongly convicted.
The hon. member has observed that he will have a great deal of impatience if one should refer to the division of jurisdiction in these matters between the federal government
February 9, 1966

Administration of Justice which enacts the criminal law and the provincial governments which except, in a minority of cases actually enforce it.
What the hon. member is referring to is a malfunction of the administration of justice. It is this area, with respect to the investigation of a complaint, which may involve criminal responsibility, with respect to the laying of the charge, with respect to the drawing of the indictment and the prosecution of that charge at trial, and upon any appeal, and in particular with respect to the withholding of bail, which concerns the hon. member and which the provincial authorities in this country are responsible for. What the hon. member is seeking to do is to impose a responsibility on the federal government for a malfunction of the provincial government.
I would suggest, if you look into it, that that is a subject which ought to be investigated by the provinces, just as the question of legal aid has been investigated in Ontario. In that regard the provincial government has unquestioned responsibility. I would suggest that it is not reasonable that the federal government which actually has no control over these prosecutions should have to bear the financial costs of the malfunction of law. This, after all, is a question of administration of justice and that, under our constitution, falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The hon. member made several references to the United Kingdom. He was unable to indicate what the provisions were over there. Perhaps I can assist the house by observing,

in this regard, that it is not the provision of the United Kingdom law, as the hon. member wishes to provide here, that there shall be a payment of costs in all circumstances. Rather, in the United Kingdom they have only provided for compensation basically in that type of case in which there has been a free pardon.
In respect of the remarks made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) there has been a reference to the effect that under the resolution, a discretion is conferred upon the judge. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the house that as the motion reads the discretion is only as to the amount of compensation and not as to the making of the award itself.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Prime Minister stated that he would be pleased to table copy of a letter dated January 24, 1966 from President Ho Chi Minh. I am now asking for unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling the letter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I now table the letter, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 10, 1966