1966-10-05

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE EARL AND COUNTESS OF AVON

Mr. Speaker:: May I crave the indulgence of the house in order to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. the Earl of Avon, and of the gracious Lady Avon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRESENCE AT TABLE OF CLERK AT TABLE AT WESTMINSTER

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the house to the presence at the table of Mr. Charles Gordon, a Clerk at the table at Westminster. Mr. Gordon's presence here today is the first step in an exchange of Clerks between our parliament and the United Kingdom house.
[DOT] (2:40 pjn.)



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer the election certificate of Mr. Florian Cote for the electoral constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska.



INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Florian Cotd, member for the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska, introduced by Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and Hon. Lucien Cardin.


Mr. Speaker:: As a result of the rearrangement of ministerial designations certain changes will be required with respect to the listing of government orders on today's order paper. Where required, the titles of ministers listed as sponsors of several bills will be altered to reflect the new ministerial designations.



TABLING OF REPORT OF SPENCE ROYAL COMMISSION

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy in English and in French of the report of the commission of inquiry into matters relating to one Gerda Munsinger.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fairweather: What grants, expenditures or contributions have been made by the Canada Council for bursaries, scholarships, fellowships and for encouragement of the arts and other cultural activities for 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 in each province of Canada and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: The Canada Council has provided the following answer: As these statistics had not been developed in the past, the council had a special review made of its existing records and files. The survey has established that the various expenditures of the council cannot be summarized in the form requested, for the following main reasons:
(1)	Although the exact fraction cannot be determined, as much as one third of the council's grants to organizations (such as for interprovincial touring, national conferences, projects or services, etc.) cannot be said to have been spent in any one province in particular;
(2)	In the case of some two thirds of the awards made to individuals, the province of application and award (not to speak of the province of domicile) differs from the place where the applicant wishes to spend the award;
(3)	While records have been kept of all awards made, it is not possible to retrace all the requests which have been made and have determined the council's response, so that essential information on the ratio of approvals to applications is not available.
Following the survey just completed, the council is taking steps to develop various forms of statistical information and analysis which would provide meaningful additions to future annual reports.

October 5, 1966
Questions
AWARD OF CANADA COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS Question No. 1,206


Mr. Schreyer:: 1.	What are the names of all personnel involved in the various committees constituted to receive applications for Canada Council fellowships and the awarding of same at the pre-doctoral and postdoctoral levels?
2.	What are the criteria by which these awards committees are guided in the determining of eligibility of candidates for Canada Council fellowships at the pre-doctoral and post-doctoral levels?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canada Council has provided the following answer: 1. The Canada Council has appointed an academic panel, consisting of 15 members, who represent the major disciplines of the humanities and the social sciences. It acts as a final review committee for the adjudication of competitions. The members are as follows: Prof. John F. Graham, Head, Department of Economics, Dalhousie University (Chairman); M. Albert Faucher, Faculte des Sciences sociales, Universite Laval; Prof. T. A. Goudge, Chairman, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto; Prof H. B. Hawthorn, Head, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia; Prof. J. E. Hodgetts, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto; Dr. W. C. Hood, Adviser, Bank of Canada; M. Maurice L'Abbe, Directeur, Departement de Mathe-matiques, Universite de Montreal; Rev. Frere Clement Lockquell, Faculte des Lettres, Universite Laval; Rev. Pere Bernard Mailhiot, Centre de Recherches en Relations humaines, Universite de Montreal; Prof. J. R. Mallory, Chairman, Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University; Prof. W. L. Morton, Department of History, University of Manitoba; Prof. John A. Porter, Faculty of Arts, Carleton University; Prof. Malcolm M. Ross, Department of English, Trinity College, University of Toronto; Prof. Clarence Tracy, Department of English, University of Saskatchewan; M. Marcel Trudel, Department of History, Carleton University.
The membership of the various screening committees changes from year to year but is always drawn from the more senior ranks of the academic community. The names of members (approximately 50) have been kept confidential in order to ensure that any applications and representations are directed in an orderly fashion to the council's secretariat.
2.	There are two types of criteria which guide the screening committees in determining the eligibility of candidates. These are

(a)	Prerequisites established by the Canada Council concerning:	(i) specific disciplines
for which the council must assume responsibility; (ii) citizenship, domicile, and residence; (iii) level of scholarship (graduate, post-doctoral, etc.); (iv) value of awards to be made; (v) number of awards available; (vi) terms of renewal and extension.
(b)	The professional norms applied by the expert assessors: The council asks the screening committees to apply the same canons of scholarly assessment which inform their judgment in the regular exercise of their academic duties.


SAWMILL CONSTRUCTION, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Did the government have a sawmill built at Lake Mistassini, Chapleau county and, il so (a) to what contractor was the work given (b) what was the cost of construction (c) on what date did the work begin (d) when was the work completed (e) how many people are employed in that sawmill?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes;
(a)	as the sawmill was built by Indian labour under the direction of a non-Indian foreman, a construction contract was not awarded; (b) cost of construction and installation was $16,991.62; (c) April, 1962; (d) September, 1962; (e) employment varies with seasonal factors and demand for product. At capacity, 13 persons work in the mill, and 25 others in directly associated forestry operations.


C.N.R. CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Ricard: Has the Canadian National Railways entered into a contract in Quebec city for the cleaning and maintenance of its freight cars and, if so (a) was this contract entered into between the C.N.R. and one of its own employees and, if so, what is this employee's name (b) was the contract given out after tenders were called for (c) does the new contracting party supply his own equipment (truck, ice crushing machine, conveyor, etc.) (d) who is the owner of the said equipment (e) is the policy followed by the C.N.R. in this case its regular one (f) has the C.N.R. been required to pay anything in addition to the price of the contract (g) for what price was the contract given out?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management
October 5, 1966

of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Yes. (a) A contract was entered into with Juco Cleaning Reg'd. of Quebec. The registered owner of that firm is listed as Gaston Judd. Mr. Judd is regularly employed by the railway as a carman, (b) Yes.
(c)	The truck and ice crushing machine are owned by the railway and used by the contractor in accordance with the conditions advertised in the call for tender. This arrangement was made in order to encourage competition in bidding for the work since few contractors possess the equipment necessary for the icing of railway cars. Equipment other than the truck and ice crusher is supplied by the contractor, (d) The railway company does not know the ownership of the equipment supplied by the contractor, (e) The procedure was consistent with company policy in that the contract was awarded, after public tender, to the lowest competent bidder. The responsible officers were satisfied in this instance that the contractual arrangement was to the best advantage of the company and that the company's interests were in no way prejudiced by the fact that the contracting party was regularly employed in another capacity, (f) No. (g) It is not the practice of the company to disclose contract prices. The price was based on the lowest bid out of 17 tenders received.


NATIONAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN
Mr. Mongrain: Has the government received representations regarding a campaign of beautification and clean-up across Canada on the occasion of Expo '67, and especially regarding the elimination of slums along railway lines, the elimination of heaps of refuse, and the encouragement of repair and painting of railway stations and beautification of their approaches?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. The centennial commission has had inquiries from the provinces, from municipalities and from professional and service organizations about a nationally supported program for community improvement and beautification. The inquiries have shown widespread concern for community improvement together with requests for guidance and assistance in the implementation of community improvement projects.
The centennial commission is developing a national community improvement program which represents the call to action for Canadians to improve the appearance of their
Questions
urban and rural environment. This program was actively initiated by the centennial commission in mid-1965 with the first national seminar ever held in Canada on the subject of community improvement and beautification, when guide lines were established for the community improvement program. The second seminar held in Ottawa on April 22, 1966 had as its theme the "Call to Action" for Canadians to embark on a campaign of clean up, paint up, landscaping, beautification and over-all improvement of our surroundings.
The role of the centennial commission is to co-ordinate and direct a community improvement program through the provinces to every municipality or rural area in Canada. The centennial commission is preparing information and guidance material on community improvement for widespread distribution and will give professional assistance wherever possible as a means toward encouraging the implementation of local projects for 1967 and beyond.
This national program has been initiated by the centennial commission on the occasion of the centennial of the confederation and not specially on the occasion of Expo '67.


CANADIAN JAVELIN LTD.-PRESS STATEMENT RESPECTING ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Brand: 1.	Did any departments of government have delivered to them the press statement of Canadian Javelin Limited last August advertising that the federal government was providing $35 million for the construction of a highway connecting Goose Bay, Lake Melville and the gulf of St. Lawrence which will permit winter shipments from the proposed mills for the operation of the Doyle interests?
2.	Did the Prime Minister or any member of the government agree with Premier Smallwood or John Doyle that federal assistance would be given for such projected road?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by all departments as follows: 1 and 2. No.


FUNDY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Kennedy: Is the Atlantic Development Board giving consideration to the development of a scenic tourist highway from St. Stephen, New Brunswick, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, commonly referred to as the "Fundy trail"?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows: The board is not
8324	COMMONS
Questions
giving any specific consideration to the development of the "Fundy trail". However, the planning division of the board has commissioned a tourist and recreation survey, which is designed to investigate the feasa-bility of all means of developing the tourist and recreation industry of the Atlantic provinces.


RELOCATION OF RAILWAY STATION. OTTAWA-LOSS OF JOBS
Mr. Isabelle: As a result of the relocation of the Ottawa Union Station to Alta Vista, will any C.N.R. employees lose their jobs and, if so (a) how many (b) how many will become pensioners and what are their names?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As a result of the opening of the new passenger terminal at Ottawa and the consequent transfer of facilities from the former Union Station, there was a reduction of 23 positions. However, all employees have been absorbed in other positions and there has been no lay-off except in one instance where the employee requested lay-off status rather than accept alternative employment. During the latter months of 1966 and in early 1967, a further 18 positions may be affected.
The company is using every means at its disposal to find some type of work within or outside the railway for the employees concerned. Collective and personal interviews have been held, counselling service provided and assistance from federal agencies sought.


EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has an office or secretariat of education been established in the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	If so (a) what precisely is its nature or terms of reference (b) when was it established (c) by what authority has it been established (d) what persons have been appointed to the office or secretariat (e) what position does each such person occupy (f) what specifically are his responsibilities?
3.	If not (a) what precisely is the nature of the action in respect of education which has been taken in the Department of the Secretary of State (b) what persons are responsible for such work in the department (c) what position does each such person occupy (d) what specifically are his responsibilities?
4.	Have any competitions been held for appointments to any positions in the Department of the Secretary of State related to education?
5.	If so (a) when (b) for what position or positions (c) with what result?
6.	Have any officers been transferred from the Department of Finance to the Department of the Secretary of State to direct or supervise (a) university grants (b) other educational matters?
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
DEBATES	October 5, 1966
7.	If so (a) when (b) for what positions (c) for what specific responsibilities of each transferee?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	A branch has been established in my department to deal with questions arising out of the federal government's assistance to higher education.
2.	(a) The task of this branch will be to assist the department in its new responsibility of bringing together within the federal government the views of the several departments and agencies which are concerned with financial aid for higher education. In addition, the branch will administer the present federal program of per capita grants to universities, and my expectation is that it will also administer the Canada student loans program.
(b)	The branch was established on Sept. 1, 1966.
(c)	It was established by Treasury Board authority 658772.
(d)	(i) Mr. C. L. Gill, an administrative officer in my department, has been working full time on the financing of higher education since February 1966.
(ii) Mr. R. Ross, the registrar and director of student services, University of Toronto was seconded in September 1966 to my department by his university to work for a year as a consultant on questions relating to the federal government's financing of higher education. During his period of secondment, Mr. Ross will direct the new branch in my department.
(e)	and (f) answered by (d).
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Competition 66-4431-A was conducted during the spring and summer of 1966.
(b)	The competition advertised the position of a senior officer 1, whose responsibilities included the co-ordinating of federal activities in the financing of higher education, and the administration of the new branch in my department.
(c)	No permanent appointment has as yet been made. Mr. Ross was a successful candidate in competition No. 66-4431-A, but after further discussion with the University of Toronto and Mr. Ross it was agreed that he be seconded by the university to my department until July 1967.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by 6.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SERVING ON COMMISSIONS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What present members of the House of Commons have formerly served, In any capacity, on royal commissions or other commissions set up under the Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1952 chapter 154?
2.	On what commissions or inquiries did each of them serve and in what capacity?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1 and 2. From the information available concerning commissions of inquiry appointed under the Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1952 chapter 154, it has been established that the following present members of the House of Commons have formerly served on royal commissions or other commissions: Mr. J. Davis, Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, Research Director; Hon. G. Favreau, The Patent, Industrial Design and Copyright Acts Commission of Inquiry, Commissioner; Hon. W. L. Gordon, Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, Chairman and Commissioner; Hon. M. Lamontagne, Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, Research Staff; Hon. J. Marchand, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Commissioner; Hon. M. Sauve, Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, Assistant Secretary.


C.B.C. CONTRACT WITH TOM CONNOCHIE
Mr. Ormislon: 1.	During what period was Wing Commander Tom Connochie employed by the C.B.C., and in what capacity?
2.	What were the terms of his contract (s) ?
3.	What are the names of all films which have been produced and/or directed and/or written by Mr. Connochie?
4.	Have any of these films been used internationally and, if so, which ones were they, and where and when were they used?
5.	Have any films produced by Mr. Connochie for the C.B.C. won national or international awards and, if so, what were these awards?
6.	What was the name of the documentary chosen for a special project 1967 colour T.V. film?
7.	Who is the author of the manuscript upon which the film script is based?
8.	Who was the producer of this film?
9.	Who was the director of this film?
10.	Was there a centennial grant for this film?
11.	Was the black and white film aired before the end of the 1965 budget year and, if so, what was the reason?
12.	Will this film be shown, in colour, to members of parliament and, if so, when?
Questions
13.	Were any atempts made by C.B.C. management to relieve the producer of this film of his assignment prior to completion of the film and, if so, under what authority of regulation, contract, or other legal right and for what reasons?
14.	For what reason did the C.B.C. choose not to renew the normal one year contract with the producer, and was he so advised?
15.	At what time was he involved in and responsible for any documentary film production?
16.	Was a C.B.C. administrator responsible for the decision not to renew the contract of this producer and, if so, what is this person's name?
17.	What is C.B.C. management policy in terminating contracts of persons in their employ for many years?
18.	Does C.B.C. management provide for a thorough review of a case of this nature?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Mr. Connochie was employed as a T.V. film director from March 7, 1957 to January 14, 1958, and as a T.V. producer from January 15, 1958 to May 14, 1966.
2.	The terms were those of the standard C.B.C. contract for producers.
3.	"Quiet Frontiers"; "No Other Highway"; "No More Strangers"; "Ride of Last Stage Coach"; "Cariboo Venture"; "Diary of Simon Fraser"; "Meet Lorraine"; "B.C. Centennial Show" (3 episodes); "Woodwards' Oakridge Opening"; "Lonesome Lake"; "Web of Life" series (39 episodes); "Patterns of Living" (adaptations from "Web of Life"); "Peace Power and the Trench"; "Bridge River Power Project"; "Portrait of Prince Rupert"; "Ghost of Wallachine"; "Big Game Hunt"; "Rodgers Pass"; "Wild Game Rescue"; "Survival"; "Victoria Nile"; "Bush Pilot" (3 episodes); "Portage Mountain Dam"; "Golden Fleece" (second version-Connochie's first completed version unacceptable); "Columbia River".
4.	Yes. "Web of Life" 26 episodes by Granada TV, England, 1960; "Web of Life" 17 episodes by Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1963; "Web of Life" 13 episodes by Television Malaysia, 1964; "Web of Life" 39 episodes by New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, 1964; "Web of Life" 26 episodes by Cyprus through Global TV, England, 1965; "Web of Life" 13 episodes by Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, 1965; "Diary of Simon Fraser" by United Arab Republic TV, 1964; "No More Strangers" by United Arab Republic TV, 1964; "Quiet Frontier" by United Arab Republic TV, 1964; "Peace Power and the Trench" by United Arab Republic TV, 1964.

Questions
5.	Yes. "No More Strangers", Ohio State University, 1959 (Honourable mention). "Web of Life", "Queen Charlotte Islands", Vancouver International Festival, Merit Certificate, 1961. "Web of Life", "Locomotion": Vancouver International Festival, Merit Certificate 1961. Ohio State University 1962, First Award. 2nd International TV Festival at Alexandria, Egypt, 1963, Educational Film Award. "Patterns of Living", Ohio State University, First Award, 1962.
6.	"Columbia River".
7.	D'Arcy Marsh.
8.	Tom Connochie.
9.	Tom Connochie.
10.	Yes.
11.	Yes. To fulfil program plans for the year.
12.	Since the colour version is incomplete, an on-air date has not yet been decided and therefore no undertaking to screen it for Members of Parliament can be considered at this time. The black and white version has already been screened for a number of interested members.
13.	No.
14.	It has not been customary to require Crown Corporations to disclose information of this kind and the C.B.C. believes that deviation from this policy could only prove detrimental to the corporation and its employees.
15.	Mr. Connochie was involved in documentary film production during the period referred to in (1).
16.	See (14) above.
17.	Each case is examined carefully on its merits.
18.	Yes.


CLAUDE GIROUX-GRANT FOR FEATURE FILM
Mr. Forreslall: Was any promise or undertaking given since July 1, 1964, by the Prime Minister and/or any other minister, to one Claude Giroux in Montreal that the said Giroux or his company, a subsidiary of Allied Artists Incorporated, would receive a $3 million grant when legislation was passed to subsidize the production of special feature films in Canada and, if so, has the Secretary of State recently been made aware of this undertaking, and has she or anyone on her behalf been in communication with the said Claude Giroux in this regard?


Albert Béchard: The answer to this question is no.


DIRECT SHIPMENTS UNDER CANADA-WEST INDIES AGREEMENT
Mr. McCleave: Were any exemptions from article VII of the Canada-West Indies agreement of 1925 with regard
[Miss LaMarsh.l
to direct shipments, requested within the last 10 years and, if so, by whom and with what result?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Article VII of the agreement provided for a direct shipment requirement for West Indian goods coming to Canada and permitted the West Indies to impose a similar requirement on Canadian goods going to the West Indies. None of the West Indian authorities have imposed this requirement on Canadian goods during the last 10 years.
The following exceptions have been made by Canada to the direct shipment requirement imposed under article VII of the Canada-West Indies trade agreement in the last 10 years:
(a)	Order in council P.C. 1960-1044, July 30, 1960, permitted the transshipment at Cristobal in the Panama Canal zone of coffee, pimento, ground and unground ginger, lime juice, rum and tia maria, produced in Jamaica, without being subject to the higher most favoured nation rates of customs duty, provided such goods were shipped on a through bill of lading from Jamaica to a port in British Columbia and entered British Columbia by sea. (Requested by Jamaica).
(b)	Order in council P.C. 1961-1675 of November 23, 1961, permitted transshipment of the goods listed in P.C. 1960-1044 at Cristobal or Curacao in the Dutch West Indies. (Requested by Jamaica).
(c)	Order in council P.C. 1964-1759 of November 13, 1964, extended the privilege of transshipment at Cristobal or Curacao to all Jamaican goods. As provided for in the earlier orders, these goods had to be shipped on a through bill of lading from Jamaica to a port in British Columbia and enter British Columbia by sea. (Requested by Jamaica).
(d)	Order in council P.C. 1963-62 of January 10, 1963, permitted the transshipment at Cristobal or Curacao of rum produced in British Guiana if this product was shipped on a through bill of lading from British Guiana to a port in British Columbia and entered British Columbia by sea. (Requested by British Guiana).
(e)	The protocol to the 1925 trade agreement signed at the Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada conference in July 1966 provided for the waiving of the direct shipment requirements of article VII. This undertaking was implemented by Canada under order in council P.C. 1966-1419 of July 27, 1966, which permits goods grown, produced or manufactured in Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Honduras, Dominica, Gre-

nada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin islands, which are shipped on a through bill of lading to a consignee in a specified port in Canada to be transshipped without becoming subject to the higher most favoured nation rates of customs duty. (Requested by the Commonwealth Caribbean countries as a group).


WAGE RATES, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	With reference to the 40-hour week, have the employees of the Cape Breton Highlands national park been brought under the legislation of the Canada Labour Standards Code and, if so, when did this action take place?
2.	On what date did the employees of the Cape Breton Highlands national park last receive an increase in wages, and what was the amount of increase granted at that time?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to a further increase in wage rates at the aforementioned national park and, if so, how soon will such an increase take place?


Arthur Laing: 1. Not
yet; these employees will be brought under a 40-hour work week when this can be adopted without loss in their total gross weekly earnings.
2.	April 1, 1965, 5-15 cents per hour.
3.	Revised rate approved by TB 65F583, July 7, 1966, effective April 1, 1966. Now being promulgated.


PERMANENT HOMES IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What declarations of policy have been made since the first of May. 196S. by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in connection with the ownership of permanent homes and habitations within national park areas?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to allow any further permanent homes to be built in national parks?
3.	What are the plans regarding homes not located in any or all of the national parks?


Arthur Laing: 1. The
policy on national parks was announced in the house on September 18, 1964 (Hansard pp. 8192-95) and was dealt with on several occasions in the house since that time, particularly on January 31, 1966 (Hansard pp. 481-2). Since May 1, 1966, as requested in
Questions
the question, there has been no departure from the policy on residential leases in national parks, namely that future residential leases will restrict occupancy to those who need to live within a park to provide visitor services; leases will be for fixed terms but will provide for compensation for improvements at fair market value at expiry; in addition, the occupant will not be disturbed on termination of the lease unless the property is required for a definite park purpose; the leaseholder will not be able to assign or pass on his interest to third parties after he has received compensation for improvements; new leases, however, will not be granted for permanent summer cottages within national parks; the long-term objective is to gradually acquire all existing summer cottage sites.
2.	Construction of homes for occupancy only by those who require to live in a national park to provide visitor services is being permitted.
3.	It is not proposed to make any changes in the cases of existing residential leaseholders unless the leasehold property is required for park purposes or unless the lease comes up for assignment or renewal. New leases for previously unalienated lands or leases issued where assignments or renewals are involved will provide for compensation for improvements at fair market value on termination of the leases. The leases will also contain a clause restricting residence to those who have a need to reside in a park to provide visitor services or those who, on retirement, have been in continuous residence for at least five years immediately preceding retirement.
New leases for previously unalienated land will be for 42 years. The length of leases issued where assignments or renewals are involved, will depend upon the terms of the leases which they are replacing but in any case will not exceed 42 years.


PARKING ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Caouette: Has the federal government received a petition from members or employees of the House of Commons with regard to the latest decision about permits for parking on Parliament Hill and, if so, what was the exact purpose of this petition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by all departments as follows: No.

October 5, 1966
Questions


MANUFACTURE OF DRUG LSD 25
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Is LSD 25 legally manufactured in Canada?
2.	If so (a) who are the manufacturing firms (b) to which countries is LSD 25 exported (c) does the food and drug directorate maintain a complete supervision of these exports and in what way?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. LSD-25 is imported into Canada by Sandoz (Canada) Ltd., Dorval, P.Q., and may be legally distributed for clinical research to institutions approved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
2. Not applicable.


MODERNIZATION OF RIDEAU CANAL SYSTEM
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have plans been prepared for the modernization of the Rideau canal system?
2.	If so, what in detail is their nature and to what stage have they proceeded?
3.	When is it anticipated that work in each section of the system will (a) commence (b) be completed?
4.	What action has been taken to preserve the historical and aesthetic aspects of the canal system?
5.	Have consultations been held with the government of Ontario to enlist its co-operation?
6.	H so, of what nature have the consultations been with what result?
7.	Have consultations been held with the municipalities on the canal system to enlist their cooperation?
8.	If so, of what nature have the consultations been, with what municipalities and with what results?
9.	If the answer to part 5 or 7 is negative, will such consultations be considered?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The Department of Transport five year forecast on capital expenditure includes proposals for restoration and improvement of certain locks on the Rideau canal to cover required repairs and increased and better facilities for the boating public. Longer term priorities for restoration of locks have been tentatively established.
2. In planning of lock renovation and restoration, provision may be made for the installation of power actuators for the gates and valves to replace the dangerous open gear type manual equipment. Other facilities relate to water supplies, sanitary services, wharf approaches and tie-ups, etc.

3.	(a) and (b) Work is of a continuing nature and will depend on the amount of funds available from year to year.
4.	Departmental guide lines require consultation with the historic sites division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning structures. New work at single lock stations must harmonize, as much as possible, with the original structure and maintain traditional appearances. Structures having historic value are retained wherever possible and may be subject to restoration.
5.	Yes.
6.	The purpose of the consultations has been to investigate the possibility of co-ordinating the activities of the two governments in the area. The consultations are continuing.
7.	Not yet.
8.	Not applicable.
9.	The Department of Transport proposes to have consultations with representatives of the various municipalities along the canal later this year.


CANADIAN FISH CONSUMPTION
Mr. Mather: 1.	What, in tons, was the weight of fish consumed in Canada in 1965?
2.	Of that amount, what was the weight of fish eaten by human beings and what was the weight of fish consumed by poultry, pets, etc?
3.	What were the comparative figures for 1960?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There are no statistics available on the total consumption of fish in Canada. The latest estimate of fish consumption (edible weight) by human beings is for the year 1963 and amounted to 137,127 tons. The comparable figures for 1960 were 112,711 tons. Fish and fish products used in the manufacture of foods for domestic animals, including pets, amounted to 49,823 tons in 1963 and 38,144 tons in 1960. Many of these foods contain not only fish but also animal and grain products and as substantial quantities are exported, it is not possible to determine what portion of the fish and fish products used is retained for domestic consumption.


STRATEGIC MATERIALS SUPPLIED FOR U.S. USE IN VIET NAM
Mr. Mather: 
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Under the Canada-U.S. defence production sharing arrangements, Canada procures a substantial amount of U.S. military equipment for use by the Canadian armed forces, and Canadian industry is given the opportunity to bid on a wide variety of defence equipment for the U.S. armed forces.
The value of such U.S. defence contracts for Canadian research, development and production including, for example, aircraft, electronics, spare parts and weapon components has amounted to over $1.3 billion since the beginning of the program in 1959. On delivery to the U.S. forces, these items become U.S. government property and their subsequent use is controlled by the U.S. government. No military equipment is delivered by Canadian suppliers to any destination in Viet Nam. It is government policy not to grant export permits for shipment of military equipment to Viet Nam.


SPECIAL CARS, C.N.R.
Mr. Godin: 1.	Do any officials of the Canadian National Railways have the use of a special car?
2.	If so (a) how many (b) what is the cost of such a special car (c) what is the annual cost to the C.N.R. for the maintenance of all such special cars?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. Canadian National Railways operates 69 units of various types of equipment for its business, operational and technical requirements. Included besides business car units, are cars for rule instruction, signal instruction, medical services, dental services, vision testing, track inspection, data processing, first aid. These cars have passenger accommodations and are used by officers and employees in the course of their duties.
Sixteen of these cars were built prior to 1900 and have a total capital book value at at December 31st, 1965, of $291,138; 42 were built between 1900 and 1929 and have a total capital book value as at December 31st, 1965, of $734,798; 11 were built since 1930 and have a total capital book value as at December 31st, 1965, of $1,461,647.
The average cost of repairs per car varies between $4,000 and $18,000 per annum in accordance with the age and use of the equipment.
Questions


SALARIES OF C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: How many employees of the Canadian National Railways earn an annual salary of (a) $4,000 to $6,000 (b) $6,000 to $8,000 (c) $8,000 to $10,000 (d) $10,000 to $15,000 (e) $15,000 to $25,000 (f) over $25,000?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been considered in the best interest of the company to disclose data on employees' earnings in the manner requested. Details on annual earnings for 1965 of various occupational groups of C.N.R. employees, however, are available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' publication "Railway Transport 1965, Part 4, (Employment Statistics)" issued in September, 1966.


WORK HOURS OF RAILWAY STATION AGENTS
Mr. Godin: How many hours a week must the agent in charge of a station doing $50,000 worth of business a year, work to maintain that standard with the (a) C.N.R. (b) C.P.R.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: (a) The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Canadian National station agents work a standard week of 40 hours and are paid on a salary basis.
In so far as the Department of Labour is concerned: (b) Station agents for both the C.N.R. and C.P.R. work a 40-hour week. The federal government does not have statistics on the amount of business they do.


STATUS OF C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: How many employees of the Canadian National Railways are (a) permanent (b) temporary?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Total number of employees: 93,438. There is no immediate breakdown of the categories, permanent and temporary, but those in the temporary category, or classified as probationary, would be in the vicinity of five thousand.

Questions


CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES AND APARTMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many houses were begun In 1966 by builders in urban centres to August 31 of this year and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?
2.	How many houses were begun by builders in the year 1965, and of these how many were begun in each of the cities listed above?
3.	How many apartment units were begun in 1966 by builders in urban centres to August 31 of this year and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver?
4.	How many apartment units were begun by builders in the year 1965, and of these how many were begun in each of the cities listed above?


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


DWELLING STARTS, BY TYPE, IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN AND MAJOR URBAN AREAS
[Stage Direction]
January 1965-July 1966 (Dwelling Units)
1965	1966 (January-July*)
Semi-	Semi-
Area	Single- Detached	Single- DetachedDetached	and Duplex	Row	Apartment	Total	Detached	and Duplex	Row	Apart mentl	TotalMETROPOLITAN AREAS:	Halifax	422	160	3	1,070	1,655	233	46	34	248	561Montreal	6,371	1,383	178	21,250	29,182	2,871	422	35	8,189	11,517Toronto	7,101	1,985	2,289	21,131	32,506	3,816	800	581	7,942	13,139Hamilton	2,056	40	126	2,297	4,519	1,051	70	210	1,242	2,573Winnipeg	1,849	220	69	1,760	3,898	582	64	11	612	1,269Calgary	2,335	366	-	1,477	4,178	933	134	-	745	1,812Edmonton	2,776	88	72	1,645	4,581	817	38	-	849	1,704Vancouver	3,923	172	3	7,586	11,684	2,442	92	-	2,722	5,256MAJOR URBAN AREA:	Regina	1,055	120	27	486	1,688	345	40	185	570CANADA	. 51,006	6,954	4,954	75,865	138,779	23,234	2,935	2,242	28,740	57,151
(Centres 5,000 population and over)
'Data for August 1966 not yet available.
October 5, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	8331
Questions
[Stage Direction]
October 5,196$
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,873
Mr. Mather:: 1.	What was the number of women In the Canadian labour force in 1956 and 1966?
2.	What was the percentage increase in their employment numbers during that period?
3.	What was the number of men in the Canadian labour force in 1956 and 1966?
4.	What was the percentage increase in their employment numbers during that period?
5.	What is the projected increase in the number of women employed during the next 10 years?
6.	What is the projected increase in the number of men employed during the same period?
7.	What is the percentage of women now in the Canadian labour force?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Number of women in the Canadian labour force: 12 month average, Aug. 1955, July 1956, 1,312,000, of whom
1.284.000	were employed. 12 month average, Aug. 1965, July 1966, 2,154,000, of whom
2.101.000	were employed.
2.	Percentage increase 1956,1966 in: Women in labour force, 64.2. Employed women, 63.6.
3.	Number of men in the Canadian labour force: 12 month average, Aug. 1955, July 1956, 4,392,000, of whom 4,212,000 were employed. 12 month average, Aug. 1965, July 1966, 5,138,000, of whom 4,932,000 were employed.
4.	Percentage increase 1956, 1966 in: Men in labour force, 17.0. Employed men, 17.1.
5.	and 6. Information requested is not available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. However, the Economic Council of Canada, staff study Number 1, entitled "Population and Labour Force Projections to 1970" published in December 1964, gives the following projection for the year 1970: Number of civilian women in labour force, 2,528,000. Number of civilian men in labour force, 5,599,000.
7. Percentage of women in the Canadian labour force: 12 month average, Aug. 1965, July 1966, 32.0.


ADVICE TO YUGOSLAV PURCHASING AGENCY
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Did any department or departments of the government advise members of the Yugoslav agricultural purchasing agency in drawing up their itinerary of visits in Canada and, if so, which ones?
2.	What centres in the Atlantic provinces did the group visit?
3.	Did any department of government suggest any Atlantic province centres for such visits?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes. The itinerary, which was based upon

the prior request of the Yugoslav delegation, was developed by the Departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce.
2.	None.
3.	No.


ARDA-CHANGE IN ATLANTIC HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will the Minister of Forestry meet with a delegation from the town of Amherst in connection with the proposed change from Amherst to Moncton of the regional headquarters for the Atlantic region of ARDA?
2.	Will the Minister of Forestry give the assurance that no action will be taken on the proposed move of the ARDA regional headquarters at Amherst until the proposed meeting with officials of the town of Amherst has been held?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The answer to parts 1 and 2 of the question is the following: A meeting was held on September 9, 1966.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES TO MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees will be transferred from Springhill and Amherst, Nova Scotia, to Moncton, New Brunswick, who are presently employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	On what date will these employees be transferred to Moncton and what will be the annual loss of income from salary at both Amherst and Spring-hill as a result of the transfers?
3.	For what reason are employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission being transferred from Springhill and Amherst to Moncton?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am advised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	Two employees will transfer from Springhill to Moncton. No decision has yet been taken concerning the transfer of employees from Amherst.
2.	No definite date has yet been decided for the transfer of the two employees to Moncton. The annual salary of two employees at Springhill transferring to Moncton amounts to $9,539.
3.	These transfers are part of a national reorganization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission following a survey and study of its organization structure by the management analysis division of the Civil Service Commission.
The commission, in line with the recommendations made by the royal commission on
October 5, 1966

government organization, has in recent years reviewed its procedures and methods of operation in order to curtail as much as possible the costs of operation.
One of the objectives of this reorganization is to provide its employees with improved working conditions and greater opportunities for careers within the commission.


CORRIDOR ROAD THROUGH STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Coates: Have discussions been carried out by the Government of Canada, or any of its agencies, with the government of the United States, or any of its agencies, regarding the construction of a corridor road between the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec which would pass through the state of Maine?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: No.
Questions


AVERAGE SALARIES OF C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: What is the average annual salary of an employee of the Canadian National Railways having five years service and who is classified as (a) railway employee (b) engineer (c) conductor (d) inspector?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: A record of annual salaries related to years of service is not maintained by the company. Data on average annual earnings of Canadian National employees in various occupational groups for the year 1965 may be found in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' publication "Railway Transport 1965, Part 4 (Employment Statistics)" issued in September, 1966.


PAYROLL AT MMRA AND ARDA OFFICE, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: What was the annual payroll of the MMRA and ARDA office at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and operations connected with that office for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and for the six-month period from January 1, 1966, to June 30, 1966?


Maurice Sauvé: (a)
Fiscal Year	Annual Payroll
1959-60 		$ 219,930
1960-61 		207,563
1961-62 		179,886
1962-63 		170,342
1963-64 		147,650
1964-65 		152,432
1965-66 		170,754
April 1, 1966 to	
June 30, 1966 ...	63,932
(b) Other operations (Overhead and main-	
tenance, excluding repairs	and upkeep of
works) *.	
Fiscal Year	Amount
1959-60 		$ 146,615
1960-61 		122,889
1961-62 		108,975
1962-63 		74,720
1963-64 		62,652
1964-65 		66,488
1965-66 		74,083
April 1, 1966 to	
June 30, 1966 ...	13,527
*Note: The cost of "other operations" is	
applicable to other locations	; as well as Amherst. The cost records were not kept in	
such a manner that costs applicable to Am-	
herst can be readily obtained.


TRANSSHIPMENT OF SALMON SPAWN TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Tucker: Did the Department of Fisheries transship salmon spawn during the last two years from the Pacific coast to the province of Newfoundland and, if so, was the experiment successful?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes. Results of pink salmon transplant experiments are still inconclusive as to success or failure.


PROVINCIAL BORROWINGS FROM BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Are the provinces allowed to borrow from the Bank of Canada without having to pay interest?
2.	If so (a) under what authority (b) which provinces took advantage of this (c) what amounts did they borrow and on what dates (d) under what terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	No. The sections of the Bank of Canada Act which relate to loans or advances to provinces read as follows:
"18. (1) The Bank may
(i)	make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the government of Canada or the government of any province on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;
(j)	make loans to the government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of such government for its fiscal year, and shall not in the case of any provincial government exceed one-fourth of such government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year;

Questions
and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of such government;
18. (3) The bank shall at all times make public the minimum rate at which it is prepared to make loans or advances."
2.	Not applicable.


REPRESENTATIONS BY SHIP PILOTS, KINGSTON DISTRICT
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport made a commitment to the Kingston district pilots to take the necessary steps so that the latter would no longer be required to pilot ships on Lake Ontario and, if so (a) how (b) when?
2.	What steps were taken by the government to deal with representations made by ship pilots from the district of Kingston?
3.	Was there any exchange of correspondence on this subject between the United States authorities and the Department of Transport since March 30 last?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Indications
given by previous ministers that it would be desirable to achieve a situation in which river pilots would no longer be required to take trips on lake Ontario were confirmed earlier in 1966 by the present Minister of Transport, who agreed that they should not be regularly assigned to such trips.
2.	The number of pilots for lake work was increased.
3.	Yes, resulting in step mentioned in 2 above, so that only in exceptional circumstances is a Canadian river pilot requested to make a translake trip.


EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, NON-UNION C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: Were any non-union employees of the Canadian National Railways granted expense accounts by the company for the year 1965 and, if so, how many?
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Transport): The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: All legitimate out of pocket expenses incurred by any employee in connection with the business of the company are reimbursa-able without regard for the union or nonunion status of the employee.
[Mr. Sharp.)


AMOUNT OF EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, NON-UNION C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: What was the total amount of expenses claimed through the expense accounts granted by the Canadian National Railways to its non-union employees for the year 1965?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The company does not differentiate between expenses claimed by union and nonunion employees. No record is kept of amounts that may have been paid to nonunion employees only.


APPLICATION FOR LOBSTER FISHING LICENCE, THEODORE LEGER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was an application for a lobster fishing licence received by the Department of Fisheries by the customs office of the Department of National Revenue at Moncton, New Brunswick, and/or by the Department of Fisheries office at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and (a) if so, was Mr. Leger granted a licence (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Had Theodore Leger secured a lobster fishing licence for the year 1966?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. An application was received by
the local fishery officer:	(a) Yes. (b) Not
applicable.
2. Yes.


JOB ANALYSIS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Pascoe: Is Canadian Forces headquarters carrying out a program of job analysis throughout the services and. if so, (a) when was the program initiated and what length of time will be required for its completion (b) what is the purpose of the job analysis and how will personnel be affected?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) The program was initiated 31 January, 1966, and is expected to be completed by the end of 1969. (b) The purpose is to validate trade specifications and to ensure that armed forces personnel will receive training consistent with the work to be performed.


COST OF REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Forresiall: Has there been any revision in the projected cost of the half-life overhaul and refit of H.M.C.S. Bon-aventure since July 15, 1966?
October 5, 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To date, there has been no revision in the projected cost of the half-life overhaul and refit of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure since July 15, 1966.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO. EMPLOYEES, TUKTOYAKTUK
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the total number of employees working for the Northern Transportation Company at Tuktoyaktuk?
2.	How many of these were hired locally?
3.	What is the employment policy of Northern Transportation in the north?


Arthur Laing: I am informed by the Northern Transportation Company Limited as follows: 1. 164.
2.	32.
3.	To hire as many local residents as possible.


WAR ON POVERTY
Mr. Choquette: 1.	Does the government intend to publish a white paper on the war on poverty?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to call a federal-provincial conference on the war on poverty?
3.	Are any federal departments directly involved in the war on poverty and if so (a) which ones (b) is there liaison between them?
4.	Is the government considering the creation of a special fund for the war on poverty?
5.	Since the war on poverty plan was launched in April, 1965, what particular objectives, legislative and governmental, are considered to have been reached?
6.	Does the government consult with the government of the United States on the war on poverty?
7.	Is the government involved in any plans with the provinces in the war on poverty?
8.	Does the government intend to seek the formation of a federal-provincial organization to conduct the war on poverty?
9.	Is the government attempting to enlist the support of private industry in the war on poverty and, if so, what efforts have been made in this direction?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The special planning secretariat has published a Profile of Poverty in Canada and numerous other publications related to the war on poverty. A white paper is not envisaged.
2. There is no present intention to call a general federal-provincial conference on antipoverty programs; federal-provincial meetings 23033-527
Questions
frequently take place among federal and provincial officials concerned with specific programs.
3.	Many federal departments and agencies are involved, notably ARDA, CMHC, Fisheries, Health and Welfare, Indian Affairs, Industry, Manpower, Northern Affairs. There is continuing liaison among them directly, and with the Special Planning Secretariat.
4.	Funds for the many anti-poverty programs administered by federal agencies are contained in the departmental appropriations concerned; there is no intention of centralizing either the programs or the funds for them.
5.	Many work and opportunity programs have been initiated or developed since April 1965. Amongst the major ones are the Company of Young Canadians, area development program, labour mobility program, pilot training projects, Canada Assistance Plan, fund for rural economic development, housing for Indians and Eskimos.
6.	The administration receives reports on similar American programs and exchanges views with American officials from time to time.
7.	Federal agencies are in continuing liaison with provincial authorities in the development of work and opportunity programs
8.	No.
9.	Yes. It is providing information to the Canadian public on the nature and problems of poverty, its consequences and anti-poverty measures. Consideration is being given to more direct forms of collaboration with nongovernment interests.


EXPENSES OF RAND COMMISSION INQUIRY
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1. What has been the cost of the enquiry con-conducted by Hon. Ivan C. Rand into the conduct of Mr. Justice Leo A. Landreville?
2.	Of this amount, how much has been paid to (a) the commissioner (b) counsel, naming them?
3.	Is it anticipated that further expenditures will be incurred by this commission?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the royal commission as follows: 1. Total cost as of August 31, 1966, is $51,314.06.
2.	(a) Hon. I. C. Rand, commissioner, was paid an honorarium of $24,100 plus a living allowance of $3,975. (b) W. G. Morrow, commission counsel, was paid an honorarium of $9,647.50 plus a living allowance of $850.
3.	No further expenditures are anticipated.

Questions


* REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON TWO LANGUAGES
Mr. Cowan: 1.	Did the Prime Minister of Canada, on July 17, 1966, addressing the Canadian committee celebrations at Elk Island national park, Alberta, refer to "the two official languages" and go on to say that "they were recognized officially in the act of Confederation itself"?
2.	If so (a) what is the authority for the above statement (b) to what extent by way of judicial decisions has this policy been applied?


John Ross Matheson: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is: (a) Section 133 of the British North America Act, and (b) a search of the constitutional case lists did not reveal any cases in which section 133 of the British North America Act received a judicial interpretation.


ADMISSION OF SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has any action been taken by the government to promulgate revised regulations governing the admission of persons sponsored by relatives in Canada and, if so, what action?
2.	When is it anticipated such revised regulations will become effective?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is, after parliament has considered the white paper explaining the principles proposed for revised regulations.


PERSONS IN PRISONS CONDEMNED TO DEATH
Mr. Godin: 1.	Are there any persons, at the present time, considered by the Department of Justice as "condemned to death" and being held in Canadian prisons?
2.	If so (a) what is the number, by province (b) on what date is each such person expected to be executed?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	As of September 6, 1966 the answers are: (a) Quebec 9. (b) The dates presently set by the Courts for execution are: September 23, 1966 (1 person); September 30, 1966 (3 persons); October 14, 1966 (1 person); December 9, 1966 (1 person); December 16, 1966 (2 persons); January 13, 1967 (1 person);
fMr. Matheson.]
British Columbia 2, October 11, 1966 (2 persons); Ontario 1, October 3, 1966 (1 person).


REBROADCASTING STATIONS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	How many rebroadcasting stations (French and English) have been granted licences in the past four years?
2.	What is the total annual cost involved in operating each station?
3.	Where are these stations located?
4.	What was the installation cost for each station?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. From April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1966, 121 (25 French and 96 English).
2. Information on the financial operation of commercial broadcasting stations has always been treated as confidential by the Department of Transport.
3. Location of stations by province:
British Columbia	52
Saskatchewan	6
Alberta	6
Manitoba	3
Ontario	11
Quebec	30
Nova Scotia	6
New Brunswick	1
Newfoundland	6
4.	Installation costs are part of the information contained in applications proposing the establishment of broadcasting stations. Applications are considered by the Board of Broadcast Governors at public hearings and are made available by the board, for inspection, following its announcement of the agenda for the public hearing concerned.


PRODUCTION OF SCHOOL BUSES
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the number of buses built in Canada in 1964 for the purpose of transporting school children?
2.	Are these buses subject to the 11 per cent federal sales tax and, if so, what amount was collected by the federal government in 1964?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and National Revenue as follows: 1. Information is not available on the number of buses built in Canada for the purpose of transporting school children.
It has been estimated, however, that 3,040 bus bodies (all types) were manufactured in
October 5, 1966

1964, to be attached to chassis purchased from motor vehicle manufacturers, but there is no way of identifying the number intended for use as school buses.
2. Yes. The amount collected in 1964 is not available as separate statistics are not maintained of sales tax collected on individual commodities.


OLD AGE SECURITY FUND
Mr. Winkler: In accordance with the answers of May 16 and June 13, 1966, has the amount of money available in the federal old age security fund changed significantly and, if so, are the moneys in this fund greater than the amounts mentioned on either of the above dates?
Hon, Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):
The balance at the credit of the old age security fund has increased since December 31, 1965, and March 31, 1966. As at August 31, 1966 it amounted to $325,644,875.74.


REPLACEMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the government or its representatives or any of its organizations replaced the returning officers in the 264 electoral ridings in Canada, under the new electoral map?
2.	If so, in which ridings have the returning officers been replaced or will they soon be replaced?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2. As of September 29, 1966
Ontario:	Algoma, Cochrane, Fort William, Glengarry-Prescott, Grenville-Carleton, Halton-Wentworth, Hamilton East, Hamilton Mountain, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hastings, Kitchener, Lambton-Kent, Lincoln, London East, London West, Middlesex, Nickel Belt, Nipissing, Norfolk-Haldimand, Ottawa West, Prince Edward-Hastings, Renfrew North,' Sarnia, St. Catharines, Timiskaming, Welland! Wellington, Windsor West, York-Simcoe, Don Valley, Greenwood, Rosedale, Scarborough East;
Quebec:	Beauce, Bellechasse, Berthier,
Chambly, Champlain, Gaspe, Joliette, Kam-ouraska, Labelle, Lac-Saint-Jean, Langelier, Lapointe, Laprairie, Levis, Longueuil, Lot-biniere, Louis-Hebert, Missisquoi, Montmorency, Portneuf, Quebec East, Richelieu, Richmond, Rimouski, Saint-Jean, Saint-Maurice, Sherbrooke, Terrebonne, Ahuntsic, Bourassa, Dollard, Duvernay, Gamelin, Hochelaga, La-chine, Lafontaine, LaSalle, Laurier, Laval,
Questions
Maisonneuve, Mercier, Saint-Henri, Sainte-Marie, Saint-Michel, Vaudreuil, Westmount;
Nova Scotia:	Annapolis Valley, Cape
Breton, Central Nova, Dartmouth-Halifax East, Halifax East, Hants, South Shore, South Western Nova;
New Brunswick: Fundy-Royal, Gloucester, Madawaska-Victoria, Moncton, Restigouche, Saint John-Laneaster, Westmorland-Kent, York-Sunbury;
Newfoundland: Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion, Gander-Twillingate;
Prince Edward Island: Cardigan, Egmont, Hillsborough, Malpeque;
Manitoba: Brandon-Souris, Churchill, Dauphin, Lisgar, Portage, St. Boniface, Selkirk, Winnipeg North, Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg South;
British Columbia: Vancouver Quadra;
Saskatchewan:	Assiniboia, Battleford,
Meadow Lake, Moose Jaw; Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, Regina-Lake Centre, Saskatoon-Humboldt;
Alberta: Calgary Centre, Calgary North, Edmonton Centre, Edmonton East, Edmonton-Strathcona-Edmonton West, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Wetaskiwin.


REPLACEMENT OF RETURNING OFFICER, SHERBROOKE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Allard: 1.	Was Mr. J. Nestor Boucher replaced as returning officer in the electoral riding of Sherbrooke?
2.	If so (a) for what reason (b) was he replaced by Mr. Denis Proteau?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Upon the passage of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, new appointments were required, (b) Yes.


APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICER. SHERBROOKE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Allard: Was Mr. Denis Proteau appointed as returning officer in the electoral riding of Sherbrooke and, if so, which person or organization recommended his appointment?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, following a canvass of the constituency for a suitably qualified person.

October 5, 1966
Questions


* CLASS 21499, EXPORT COMMODITY CLASSIFICATION
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What commodities are included in class 21499 of the export commodity classification?
2.	What was the total value of exports in this class to each country in 1965?
3.	What figures are available showing, in part or in whole, the value of individual items in this class exported to any or all the countries concerned?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I am advised that the following commodities are included in class 21499 of the Export Commodity Classification: Allibore, not ground or pulverulent; Cascara Sagrada; Juniper berries; Digitalis, seeds or leaves; Ergot; Hellebore, not ground or pulverulent; Medicinal herbs, n.o.p., Lycodium, crude or pulverulent; Lycopodium, crude or pulverulent; Papain, crude; Quassia (chips); Ginseng roots; Hydrastis roots; Gombo seeds; Psyllium (Fleaseed); Senaga-root.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question, the total value of exports in this class to each country is as follows:
Country	Value
United Kingdom	 $	12,700
France	 500
West Germany	 1,840
Hong Kong	 373,317
Chile	 1.039
Equator	 238
Trinidad-Tobago	 139
Cuba	 9,354
El Salvador	 1,803
Mexico	 126
United States	 140,015
for a total of	 $ 541,071
Unfortunately, there are no figures available showing, in part or in whole, the value of individual items in this class exported to any or all the countries concerned.
TEnglish]


PLANS FOR FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1. What Is the name of the firm of architects appointed by the government on December 13, 1965, to produce the plans for a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
[Miss LaMarsh.l
2.	Has the government amended its instructions to this firm of architects with regard to the size of the federal building that is to be constructed?
3.	What are the names of the landowners from whom the government has purchased land to be used as the site for the new federal building, and how much did each receive from the government for the lands in question?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minisier of Public Works):: 1. The firm of architects appointed was C. A. Fowler and Company, now known as C. A. Fowler, Bauld and Mitchell, Halifax, N.S.
2.	No.
3.	The land purchases have not been completed and the final settlement has not yet been determined.


FERRY OPERATION BETWEEN P.E.I. AND N.B.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has the government under active consideration the transfer from the C.N.R. to the Department of Transport of the operation of the ferries running between Borden P.E.I. and Cape Tormen-tine, N.B.?
2.	Have representations been recently received from the government of Prince Edward Island to have this transfer made?
3.	Have any other groups made similar representations?
4.	If representations have been made, how soon may action on these representations be expected?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. A suggestion to this effect has been received from the government of Prince Edward Island and is being given consideration.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes
4.	It is difficult to estimate.


LEGISLATION ON HATE LITERATURE
Mr. Irvine: 1.	As a result of the recent report on hate literature, is it the intention of the government to bring legislation before the house controlling the dissemination of this type of material?
2.	If so, when, and what details are in the planning stage?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1 and 2. The report on hate literature is still under study by the government and government policy will be announced as soon as possible.


FEDERAL CATTLE ON FARM OF GEORGE BROWN, PAKENHAM, ONT.
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Are any cattle on George D. Brown's farm at Pakenham, Ontario, being used for government tests and, if so (a) what is the nature of the experiment (b) for how many years will this program be continued (c) what is the government attempting to accomplish by it?
2.	Was the average cost for wintering these cattle $92 per head and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Is George D. Brown a salaried employee of the federal government and, if not, what remuneration does he receive for this labour in looking after federal government cattle?


John James Greene: 1. Yes. (a) This is an experiment whereby grade Holstein cows are bred to beef bulls. All the calves are either sold as feeders or fed through to market weights. The milk not marketed through the calves is sold for manufacturing purposes, (b) This program was commenced by contract dated January 4, 1965, which covers a three year period, (c) To investigate, under supervision of the Department of Agriculture, the place of a dairy cow-beef calf enterprise in eastern Canada, and to gather factual data on such an operation.
2.	Yes. Due to drought conditions in the Ottawa valley, it was necessary for the operator to use large amounts of purchased hay. In this type of enterprise it takes about 2i tons of hay to carry a cow through the winter.
3.	No. Mr. Brown's contract with the department calls for payment of $18,000 for the first year and $14,000 for each of the second and third years. The contract provides that the contractor assumes responsibility for all costs associated with the feeding, maintenance, accommodation and management of the herd.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Scoff (Danforih): 1.	Has the government or any of its agencies received representations from the automotive manufacturers, or anyone on their behalf, with regard to the question of safety specifications of motor vehicles?
2.	If so (a) how many government departments received representations and what were the names of such departments (b) who made such representations and what, in reasonable detail, were the form and substance either written or verbal of such representations including the identification of the
Orders for Returns
persons making them (c) in reasonable detail, what was the nature of the government's response, if any, to such representations?
Return tabled.


POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caoueife: 1.	In which crown corporations or other government bodies are part or all of the employees not subject to the Civil Service Act?
2.	What is the general policy of each of these crown corporations or bodies concerning the right of their employees to participate in any kind of political activity?
3.	What is the provision of the law or regulations on this subject which applies to these corporations or bodies?
4.	What sanctions are provided in each case for employees who fail to comply with these regulations?
5.	In each case, how many times (a) have these sanctions been applied (b) have cases been tried?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: What amount was spent by various departments and government agencies for the purchase of various supplies, services and equipment firms and individuals in the city of London during each of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, by department and agencies respectively?
Return tabled.


DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD
Mr. Dionne: How many high commissioners, ambassadors and employees are there in the different offices maintained by the Canadian government abroad, and what is the salary of each?
Return tabled.


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY C.B.C.
Mr. Irvine: Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published any books authorized for sale to the general public and, if so, (a) what are the names of each of the books and the respective authors (b) at what price was each of them offered to the public (c) up to June 15, 1966, how many copies of each had been sold (d) what was the cost of publication of each (e) what was the profit and/or loss, if any, in respect of each publication to June 15 1966?
Return tabled.

October 5, 1966
Orders for Returns


FORMER JOURNALISTS NOW ASSISTANTS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many special assistants, executive assistants, assistants, private secretaries or associate private secretaries to cabinet ministers were professional journalists prior to their appointments?
2.	What are the names of such people and in what cabinet ministers' offices are they now working?
3.	How many persons in the above categories were employed in the field of public relations prior to their appointments to their present positions?
4.	What are the names and in which minister's offices are they currently employed?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Caouelle: From January 1 to September 30 of each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, how much has the federal government given to each province under the Unemployment Assistance Act?
Return tabled.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 66-3662, FREDERICTON, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Was civil service competition No. 66-3662 for field officers and field office managers, Department of National Health and Welfare, recently conducted in Fredericton?
2.	If so (a) who were the applicants that were interviewed (b) in what order were the applicants rated by the examining board (c) which applicant was offered the position (d) what were his or her qualifications for the position?
3.	Has a protest been received from Mr. R. C. Rickard, 307 Dayton Court, Fredericton, New Brunswick, in connection with this position and, if so, what answer has been given to Mr. Rickard?
Return tabled.


TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;VIEWPOINT&quot;
Mr. Brand: 1.	What persons have appeared on the program ''Viewpoint'' in the calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966 to date?
2.	How many times has each such person appeared on the program "Viewpoint" in each of the calendar years in question?
Return tabled.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



INDUSTRY


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North, the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the action of the Canadian automobile companies in violating both the spirit and the terms of the Can-ada-U.S. automobile trade agreement, and their action in failing to honour solemn commitments made to parliament on their behalf, resulting in lay-offs and dislocation affecting employees, and excessive car prices to the consumer public.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly address the Chair and the house on the question of urgency of debate?


Reid Scott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the general question of urgency here cannot be denied in any way. Our latest information indicates that over 5,000 Canadians have been laid off as a result of the dislocations taking place under this pact.
Further with regard to the urgency of debate I would point out that this is the first opportunity that anyone has had to raise this important matter before Your Honour. With respect to further debate upon it, we are told we are now going into debate on the Bank Act and medicare, which debates will be prolonged and will not provide an opportunity for important matters such as this to be raised.
The real urgency of debate lies in what appears to me to be a complete flouting by the Canadian automobile companies of the expressed wishes of this parliament. All of us who followed the debate on the automobile pact legislation recall the solemn assurances made by various ministers to the members of the house that very substantial steps would be taken and machinery would be set up to take care of the dislocations and hardships which we all knew were going to come about as a result of the legislation. In actual fact this has not been done. The motor companies have never participated in the particular form of adjustment assistance outlined. In short they have declined to do so and have thumbed their noses at parliament.
October 5, 1966
The urgency further lies in the fact that if outside individuals and companies are going to go their own way, are going to flout their undertakings to parliament, and are going to disregard the expressed wishes of parliament asserted in legislation, then it is important that we discuss important matters of this kind. I further suggest that the failure of the government to make changes mandatory has permitted the motor companies to thumb their noses at us and has caused resultant great hardship to people in the industry. I know there is the other consideration of differences in price as between the United States and Canada. Your Honour may say that matter will be investigated by a particular committee, and I hope the members of that committee will call representatives of the motor companies before them to justify their actions, but in the light of all these circumstances I submit there is urgency of debate on the matter I have raised.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly in regard to the urgency of debate. Debate should be allowed in order that certain facts may be brought before the people of this country. I would point out that some manufacturers of automobiles under this new agreement are now manufacturing models in the United States which heretofore were built in Canada, and these models are being brought into this country and sold at Canadian prices even though in the United States they are sold at American prices. This, coupled with the fact that the dislocation in the industry is causing a tremendous number of layoffs in the Canadian labour force, merits consideration of the matter by the house.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer some suggestions for your consideration when you are deciding whether or not there is urgency of debate respecting the matter raised by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).
First of all, Mr. Speaker, citation 100 in Beauchesne's fourth edition states that adjournment of the house under standing order 26 "must involve the administrative responsibility of the government." I do not suppose it could be argued that a change in the price to purchasers of automobiles, whether it be this year or any other year, directly involves the administrative responsibility of the government, except for the fact that during the past 12 months, and even prior to that the government, or I should say parliament, has allowed
Motion for Adjournment something like $50 million per year to be retained in the hands of the automobile manufacturers by relieving them of some import duty, on the firm understanding that there was to be a closing of the gap between the prices of automobiles in Canada and prices in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the press reports we have had recently are correct regarding the price changes in the United States and the price changes in Canada, there appears to be only a very small amount, something like $17 to $20, in closing the gap between the price in the United States and the price in Canada for a comparable automobile. In line with what has been advanced to the members of this house so far as the agreement is concerned, to the effect that these price differentials would be brought into line by the end of 1968, and the fact that these are the prices for the 1967 models, it seems to me that what the automobile manufacturers are doing in Canada is not in keeping with the spirit and the intent of what was presented to this house. To that extent, Mr. Speaker, in my view it seems that this does involve the administrative responsibility of the government, because we were told this price differential would be eliminated and in exchange $50 million was granted to the automobile manufacturers.
In so far as paragraph 2 of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition is concerned, it says that a matter must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. Well, Mr. Speaker, the increases in price which have been announced may not be a severe hardship when they amount to somewhere between $40 and $55, but the fact is that the public immediately will begin to pay this amount. Therefore it seems to me it is going to affect the public immediately, whether or not it can be said that the public will suffer. Certainly, however, we have the right to expect an explanation and, as the hon. member for Danforth said, this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss it.
In respect of paragraph 3 of citation 100 dealing with the matter of urgency, where it says there must be urgency of debate, so far as I can see there is no way of bringing parliament's opinion to the attention of the automobile manufacturers in Canada other than through some government sponsored amendment or through a debate in this house. To date we have not had any indication that the government intends to take any action to give effect to what we thought was the intent

8342	COMMONS
Motion for Adjournment and the end result of the agreement that was entered into.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer these suggestions for your consideration respecting this whole matter. In summary, it seems to me there has not been the kind of action taken that was promised to close the differential between prices here and in the United States. It seems to me the increase in prices in the model year 1967 is in complete contradiction to what the Minister of Industry said some time ago when explaining certain parts of the agreement. He said that while he could not guarantee there would be an immediate reduction in the prices of Canadian automobiles, it would keep the prices from going up between now and 1968, and that by 1968 the cars in both countries would be at the same price. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a positive indication that the manufacturers have in fact increased the prices between the time of the agreement and 1968, and therefore there does seem to be a justification for some debate on the matter.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: As I appreciate the situation, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be any denial of the fact that there is an urgency to discuss this matter. It seems that in view of the agenda announced by the government there will be no discussion of this agreement which was entered into, but it is of interest to note that its results are exactly those predicted by this party before the agreement took effect.
As a result of this agreement between the two countries the Canadian consumers will have to bear an expense of $50 million without receiving any advantage. The Canadian consumer will have to pay more for his car this year than he paid last year, and the only explanation given is that certain safety features will be standard equipment on this year's cars. Surely this additional cost cannot be justified in those terms. This government, by entering into this agreement, has sold out the rights of Canadians.
As a result of this agreement, cars manufactured in Canada are selling in the United States, in competition with cars manufactured there, at lower prices than Canadian consumers are paying. The Canadian consumer is paying through the nose, and we predicted this before this agreement was finalized. We predicted that this agreement was of such a basic nature it would result in Canadian unemployment.

DEBATES	October 5, 1966
Because of this agreement entered into by this government there are 4,800 Canadians now unemployed who normally would be working for the auto and associated industries. The transfer to the United States of production of cars normally produced in Canada has been another result of this agreement and a cause for the loss to Canadian consumers of $50 million. Canadians are now also paying higher prices without obtaining any benefits as the result of another matter to which reference could be made, the origin of which is clear.
Surely it cannot be said that the government's action in setting up a committee to consider consumer prices will provide a guarantee, and that because of that fact this parliament should not now discuss this matter. We do not know at this stage that this committee will consider this specific situation. It might consider it if the government gave its acceptance to such a suggestion, and I suppose that could happen if members on the other side acted accordingly.
In view of this fact there is no means by which this house can express its condemnation of this burden placed on the Canadian consumer. This discussion must take place now. If we wait for a week, ten days or two weeks the result will be simply a suppliant acceptance in this house of the action of the automobile manufacturers. This action on the part of the government and its failure to act to protect Canadian interests is deserving of our greatest condemnation at this time.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by previous speakers regarding the motion proposed by the hon. member for Danforth, but one point struck me that I should like to outline. Standing order 26, as interpreted by citation 100 of Beauchesne, states that any adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgency must involve an administrative responsibility on the part of the government. I do not think that is necessarily the case here, though I must add that an agreement such as the one arrived at between automobile companies and the Canadian government results in an affront to parliament and Canadians as a whole. I am not suggesting that this subject is urgent or should not be discussed at this time because it should be considered as soon as possible, perhaps at this time if there is no alternative opportunity for debate.
October 5, 1966	COMMONS
This parliament set up a committee to study consumer credit, and its terms of reference have been broadened to consider the increase in consumer prices. This government has not indicated that it will send the subject matter now before the house to that committee for consideration, but it seems to me that might be the most effective way of dealing with this matter in light of the fact that we are trying to study this whole question of consumer price increase across this country. I should like the government to consider this suggestion, because it seems to me that it would be appropriate to refer this specific matter to that committee for thorough study and investigation. If we do not follow that course, then I think we should discuss the matter immediately in this house.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the matter that has been brought to the attention of this house by the hon. member for Danforth is extremely important. The United States-Canada automotive trade agreement must be considered as a direct responsibility of this government, because this government rather than the manufacturers, entered into that agreement with the United States. It was only later that the automobile companies came into the picture.
The stated objective of this agreement was the provision of greater employment in the automotive industry. The exact opposite is actually what has happened, and that was pointed out by various members of this party at an earlier stage.
In attempting to show why this matter should be discussed at this time, let me state-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member wants to direct his remarks to the question of urgency of debate. I have allowed some leniency, but at this time I suggest that hon. members should confine their contributions to the urgency of debate by this house at this time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago General Motors announced the prospective lay-off of some 2,600 employees. I am told that 1,000 employees have received notice to this effect. Shortly after that announcement I understood the figure would be 2,800, and since then I have been informed by authoritative sources that the figure will be more likely in the neighbourhood of 3,500 23033-528
DEBATES	8343
Motion for Adjournment employees of General Motors in the Oshawa area alone.
Surely in view of these facts this is a vital matter which should be considered by this house at this time. The government should give us a clear and concise statement as to the effect of this agreement on the economy of this country.
We cannot allow a discussion of this matter to be delayed in view of the increasing unemployment. We cannot remain disinterested knowing that the axe is going to fall. Many of these automotive industry employees are concerned because of this agreement entered into by this government. Now is the time for the government to come forward and give a clear and concise statement as to what this program is and what it will likely do to the Canadian economy and its people.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to continue this debate on the automotive trade agreement, which was dealt with by the house some months ago. I propose, if I may, to deal with what I believe to be the question before the house at the moment, namely, whether this is a definite matter of urgent public importance for which the business indicated for the house today should be set aside by reason of the urgent necessity for this debate to take place today.
In that connection I should like to refer again to citation 100 of Beauchesne and especially that part of it indicating that the matter of important business must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I would also refer to subparagraph 8, where it is indicated that it must be an occurrence of some sudden emergency either in home or in foreign affairs. The citation goes on to indicate that it was not intended to cover an important matter that may be of great national interest, the subject matter of which may be urgent in the ordinary sense, but rather urgency of debate.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Ontario have indicated that they do not think the legislation and the signing of the agreement was in the interests of the country, and they have developed an argument which is a continuation of the argument made in that earlier debate. It is clear that they are seeking to continue that debate now under the guise of the proceedings provided for under standing order 26.
October 5, 1966

Motion for Adjournment


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


George James McIlraith: That is what is contemplated. The hon. member for Ontario has gone further and indicated that what he wants is a concise statement from the government dealing with the matter he raised in connection with this question, the lay-offs and so on. If that is what he wants I respectfully suggest that the method to obtain this is not by way of a motion under standing order 26, but by a request to the minister for such a statement to be made on motions before the orders of the day.


Michael Starr: We have tried, but have had no statement from him.


George James McIlraith: The other point I wish to make is that in reading the proposed motion it will be noted that it makes several assumptions of fact. I do not want my omission to deal with those assumptions of fact to be taken as concurrence to any extent in them.
One assumption of fact at the very end of the motion is contained in the reference to higher and unjustified car prices to the consumer public.
I should point out that this house set up a committee to deal with price increases. That committee is now at work; and one of the matters coming before it, if I am informed correctly, is this very question of car price increases in order to find out whether or not they are justified. That committee having been set up by the house for that purpose and being in the midst of its work on that very subject, surely the subject matter should not be withdrawn from the committee and dealt with in an emergency debate under standing order 26.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion be not accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether hon. members wish to pursue this point. I have already heard a number of submissions in support of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Danforth and I am prepared at this time to render a decision, if this is the will of the house. I see the hon. member for Lapointe and a number of other hon. members rising. I would prefer, if I were allowed to do so at this point, to make a decision so we may get on with the business of the house, if this is the wish of hon. members.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be permitted at least to reply to the statement which has


been made by the Minister of Public Works, who has argued that the public interest will not suffer. The whole purpose of the motion is predicated on the thesis that the public interest will suffer in two important respects because the commitments which were made by the government with respect to the Canada-United States auto agreement have not been kept.
The first commitment which was made was that as a result of this agreement, which gives to the automobile companies some $50 million a year in tax relief, the employees in the automotive manufacturing industry would not suffer and there would be transitional assistance benefits payable to any of those who were thrown out of work. One of the automobile companies, General Motors, has taken the position that it is not required to pay the transitional assistance benefits unless the worker can show that the lay-off is attributable to the Canada-United States auto agreement. Consequently these men are being denied something which was promised them in this house.
I submit that the matter is pressing and ought to be settled now. Many of these men have been laid off and others have been notified that they will be laid off. Unless this parliament acts, and acts promptly, these men will not have any recourse to the assistance which we were told in this house by the government spokesman they would be entitled to receive.
The other commitment which was made by the government on behalf of the automobile companies was that the spread between the prices of cars to the consumers in the United States and Canada would be progressively reduced. The prices were not reduced for the
1966	cars, and the figures announced for the
1967	cars show that prices will be increased and not decreased.
The minister argues that there is a committee of the house looking into the matter of automobile prices. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the committee has not yet agreed to look into the price of cars in Canada; and second, the Canada-United States agreement is not before that committee. It is this house which must deal with the problem. It was this house which passed a resolution authorizing the government to proceed with an agreement which they had entered into some 15 months previously, and it is this house which must accept the responsibility of bringing the government to account if the commitments made under that agreement are not being lived up to by the companies concerned.
October 5, 1966
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the 1967 cars go on the market at the prices which have been announced, it will be too late six months from now for the government to take some action with respect to the prices of cars. The responsibility for seeing that the automobile companies live up to the commitments which they made and commitments which were made on their behalf in this house by the Minister of Industry lies with the house, and it does not seem to me that leaving it to a committee will absolve us of the responsibility which is ours.
I therefore claim that this is a matter of urgency which must be dealt with now. If it is not dealt with immediately, certainly both the workers concerned and the consumers of cars will be ill treated and will suffer loss as a result of the failure of this parliament to deal with the present situation.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit another argument which, I believe, will prove the urgency of a debate.
It deals, as a matter of fact, with the strike now going on in an automobile plant in Ste-Therese, near Montreal, where the employees are fighting for the recognition of a principle, namely: equal salary for the employees in Quebec and Ontario. That is what people are asking for in the automotive industry.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that a strike was called for a principle which appears most important to the employees of an industry located near Montreal who do exactly the same work as other employees in a similar industry in Ontario and that this principle aims at establishing similarity in salaries, equal salaries for both, that illustrates the urgency of the debate on the dealings of the automotive industry in Canada.
Thanks to a special treatment granted by the government, those industries enjoy lower taxes, lower tariffs.
Such companies should not take unfair advantage of it; rather they should treat all Canadian citizens equally, whether in Quebec or in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I think that you would be totally justified to grant that debate since there is a strike going on now about that and the principle is most important and serious.
23033-528J
Motion for Adjournment [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I call for the co-operation of hon. members in order to make a ruling at this point. Since I requested this co-operation from hon. members two additional contributions have been made, but I regret to say they have not changed the opinion I had already reached. The hon. member for Cariboo may want to add something?


Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):: I should like to add one sentence because I think it does have a bearing on what we are doing here today. Since reference has been made to a committee, I think it is most important and most urgent that we have a debate here, so that in case the committee decided to deal with this question, then it would have the benefit of this debate in carrying out its work.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that it is only on rare occasions and under very extreme circumstances that a motion of this type is allowed by the Chair. There are urgent and important matters coming up all the time, and if a motion under standing order 26 were allowed in all instances, or in most instances, the house business as presented by the government would never be proceeded with.
I have to suggest to hon. members that they again consider the provisions of citation 100, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to the effect that a definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 26 must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. There must be a prima facie case of urgency. "Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of debate.
I am completely satisfied that the matter raised is one of national importance and one of great urgency, but I am doubtful as to whether it is sufficiently urgent that the ordinary business of the house should be set aside in order that hon. members may proceed with consideration of the matter raised by the hon. member for Danforth. I must exercise my judgment in a situation such as this one. I have weighed the arguments brought forth in favour of allowing the motion and the argument brought forward by the Minister of Public Works in opposition thereto. Having taken into account the arguments advanced,



October 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry having looked into the matter as closely as I can and as generously as I can, I feel I cannot allow this motion at this time.

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 154 is acceptable to the government.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 151.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND R. M. WHICHER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Loney:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence dated since November 8, 1965, between the Prime Minister and Ross M. Whicher, M.P.P. Bruce.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. McCleave:
Than an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and memoranda exchanged between the Prime Minister and senior civil servants concerning movement of civil servants to centres outside of Ottawa-Hull, for the purpose of improving or promoting bilingualism.
He said: This can be dropped, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, so that his promise of medicare by July 1, 1967, can be carried out I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether consideration will be given by the government to the convening of a federal-provincial conference, so as to secure basic agreement amongst the provinces, rather than putting this off indefinitely.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity in a day or two to discuss this whole question, when the medicare legislation is introduced.


John George Diefenbaker: The question was not related to a discussion of the whole matter. The question was, has the government given consideration to enabling the Prime Minister to carry out his word given to the Canadian people over and over again, that medicare would begin on July 1, 1967, by the convening of a federal-provincial conference with a view to securing agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we propose to proceed with the legislation and I hope it will be in effect in a few weeks.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread concern of the housewives of Canada about the rise in the cost of living, particularly the increase in the cost of food, is the minister prepared to reconsider his position with regard to asking the house for authority to set up a prices review board that would review these price increases periodically, with a view to determining whether or not price increases are warranted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to bring any such proposal before the House. I am very happy that, on the initiative of this side of the house, a committee of the House and the Senate has been established in which these matters can be reviewed. I think this committee is doing excellent work. As to the future, I would not want to rule out new departures in policy. I think the particular proposal that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition would be a superficial way of dealing with a fundamental problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister intend to delineate any guide lines for policy on wages, consumer prices and profits which would give the economy some guidance in this matter as related to a proper balance among the three factors?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am expecting the Economic Council of Canada will be presenting its report this month. This will give an opportunity for a thorough study of this proposal, which is one I might want to support.
October 5, 1966


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister whether we can take the statement made by the Minister of Industry in Edmonton before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as reported in the Globe and Mail today, as representing government policy, namely that a guide line of 3 per cent on pay and profits should be followed by labour and management?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would appreciate receiving a copy of the full text of the minister's speech, which I have had the opportunity of reading. If he did, perhaps he would revise his opinion of that report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is not an answer to the question I put. Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question, which was whether we should take a guide line of 3 per cent on pay and profits as being government policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There were no guide lines laid down by the minister in his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with the Minister of Industry, his colleague, that the general guide line for non-inflationary wage increases, profit increases, and government services expenditure is the national productivity trend, or about 3 per cent per annum, and if so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears the hon. gentleman is asking a question which was asked a moment ago. The first time, it was asked in the proper way when he inquired of the Prime Minister whether this represented government policy. An answer was given by the Prime Minister and the question cannot be asked a second time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, the Prime Minister said it was not government policy, or that no such statement had been made. I am asking the Minister of Finance if he agrees with the statement made by his colleague and, if so, whether he will take steps to incorporate it in legislation or in recommendations brought before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the minister will have taken note of the suggestion.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



COST OF SALARY INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: In
view of increasing costs, is the Prime Minister prepared now to bring before parliament the question of the 24 per cent increase that was granted Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees, and to tell the Canadian people what it is going to cost the taxpayers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 

AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could he tell the house what progress has been made in the negotiations and discussions held between himself, his department, the railway companies, the truckers and the millers, concerning the transfer of a franchise for the transportation of feed grain from the trucking companies to the railways?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, there have never been any such discussions.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say if, further to a meeting held a few days ago in Drummondville and attended by the Quebec millers and himself, there has been a change in government policy regarding subsidies paid to truckers for feed grain transportation?

October 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Sauvé: There has been no change, Mr. Speaker, and I believe there is some confusion. The C.N.R. and the C.P.R. have proposed certain arrangements to the millers from the province of Quebec for the transportation of feed grain, from Fort William and Port Arthur to eastern Canada and Quebec, and this in no way affects the situation of Quebec truckers.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has indicated several times during recent months that it is its intention to increase old age pensions during this session, would the Prime Minister inform the house when the introduction of the enabling legislation can be expected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government hopes and intends to bring in legislation for this purpose during the current part of this session-that is, before Christmas.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the concern being expressed in the country, may I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to providing for an old age pension increase without imposing any test or limitation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should wait until the resolution is introduced; his understandable curiosity will be satisfied at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I shall have to satisfy my curiosity at ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I explain in advance the objective of my question, which is to ascertain whether the government would give reconsideration to a decision which was made and announced on September 14, whereby the holders of perpetual bonds bearing 3 per cent per annum are being denied the cash value at this time.

The result of the direction which was made by the government that those bonds will be continued, which is contractually within the powers of the government, has meant that a $1,000 bond has fallen to about $500, and that people who invested their earnings 30 years ago, now old in years and needing their money, are being denied a return on their money and are forced to continue to lend money to the government at 3 per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these bonds were issued in 1936 by a government led at the time, I believe, by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, they were issued by the government of Mackenzie King.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I admit that my memory failed me there; Mr. Bennett was defeated the year before.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Badly defeated.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, that has nothing to do with the argument I am going to make.


John George Diefenbaker: Why bring it up, then?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these bonds were issued in the amount of $55 million, and their purchase was really a means of providing a continuing income. They were at that time and still are paying on the original issued price about 3.11 per cent; they have a coupon rate of 3 per cent.
There were times during that period, Mr. Speaker, when these bonds sold at a premium. They have not always sold at a discount. They have only sold at a discount since the increase in interest rates. During most of the period, of course, interest rates have been higher than 3 per cent, certainly in recent years.
In order to redeem those bonds the government would be required to raise a similar amount of cash. If we were to pay current rates of interest, it would add another $1.5 million to national debt charges. The house will understand that there are many securities now being traded on the market, issued by the government of Canada, which are trading at a discount; and to admit the principle that the government has an obligation to redeem all government securities at par at any time would, I am sure, not be an admission that would be supported by the right hon. gentleman.
October 5, 1966

The government considered very carefully whether it should redeem these bonds, but it seemed to us that many of these holders had bought the bonds at discount as well as at par, and even at above par. The bonds were bought at all sorts of prices, and to redeem them now would be to give to some holders a capital gain at the expense of the taxpayers generally.
While I very much regret that there are some holders who are now suffering some loss, there are others who would make an unmerited gain, one that I as Minister of Finance would not feel justified in recommending to this house.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, does he feel that those people, who are all up in years now, are to suffer by reason of his direction on September 14-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -a depreciation in the
value-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -of 50 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second question put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is to my mind clearly argumentative. I should like to remind both the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance of the practice of this house referred to in our rules, which requires that questions should not be asked that are of a nature demanding a lengthy and detailed answer, and also that answers should be as brief as possible. Both question and answer were defective in this regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask an important supplementary question. Would the minister now consider inserting a maturity date in these bonds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to give consideration to that, as I have given consideration to this question since I have been minister. I have received a great deal of correspondence about it. However, I have to bear in mind that not all of the holders are old and not all of them have held these bonds from the beginning. Some of the bonds have been purchased at very substantial discounts, as much as 50 per cent, and I really do not feel that there is any special obligation on the part of the taxpayers to give these people an
Inquiries of the Ministry unmerited capital gain. So that this question is not as simple as it appears from the way it is put by members of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the minister that that question should not have been answered; this is now developing into a debate.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government going to support and vote for the seating of the delegation of the People's Republic of China at the present meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend has not read the statement that I made at the United Nations general assembly, perhaps he would be good enough to do so, because he would see that we share a common concern about this important problem. The government's policy on this question will be decided during the course of this assembly, and in so deciding we will bear in mind a number of circumstances, including the recent developments in China.
There can be no doubt that it would be desirable to seat mainland China in the United Nations; this I said at the United Nations. This depends upon the competition for jurisdiction between the two Chinas as to the same territory. It also involves the seating of two distinct governments at the United Nations. Can this problem be resolved?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will do our
utmost to try to bring about its resolution.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might at this time be allowed to remind-


Michael Starr: I have a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member in a moment, after I have taken the liberty of reminding the minister of the requirement that answers should be as short as possible. The minister's reply amounted to a debate.

October 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think I will address my question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he would take the answer that was given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and send it to the United Nations for clarification?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If members of the opposition, when asking questions of such far reaching significance and importance, would have the courtesy of letting the Secretary of State for External Affairs know about their questions in advance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be able to spend some time thinking about the matter, and he would of course produce a clear and succinctly short answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Skeena.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I might address my question to the Minister of Transport. I am sure he does not need notice, and does not need to think about it. May I ask the minister what action, if any, the government has taken with respect to causing an inquiry to be held into the sinking or capsizing of the Manseau No. 101, a dredge, in the St. Lawrence river above Quebec, which recently resulted in the loss of ten lives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether an actual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member put the question on the order paper.


Frank Howard: May I speak with your permission please, Mr. Speaker. Always in the past, since Your Honour has been in the Chair, questions relating to accidents on the St. Lawrence river or in the St. Lawrence Seaway, and especially those which have resulted in the loss of lives, have been permitted at this stage, and have not been relegated to the position of being placed on the order paper. There is an urgency about this that I think requires an answer now, because another ship may have been involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather, from the Minister of Transport that he has a ready and quick answer. Perhaps he might be allowed to make it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as news was received of this most unhappy and regrettable accident an investigation was started immediately. It is under way and is being pushed as fast as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Kerridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister care to comment on Premier Bennett's recent freeze on overtime work as his contribution toward combating inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development notice of the question I will now put to him.
I have here a copy of a resolution which the Eastern Township Historical Society forwarded to the minister last September 30.
Now, further to that resolution, could the minister tell the house why he ordered Sir Alexander Galt's house in Sherbrooke to be demolished, without giving notice to the said society? Does he propose to honour the memory of Sir Galt, one of the Fathers of Confederation, by restoring the remaining outbuildings?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should either discuss the matter with the minister or put his question on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I intend to discuss the matter at ten o'clock tonight.
October 5, 1966



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the many concessions given to the Canadian car manufacturers under the Canada-United States car treaty, what steps does the minister propose to take so that Canadian car manufacturers will roll back their recent increases on prices of cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the recent price announcements made by the motorcar companies, I think hon. members will have noted that there has been this year a further narrowing of the differential in manufacturers' sale prices, between Canada and the United States, in respect of the different models.
There are I think, as hon. members know, a great many models provided by each manufacturer, and the changing in prices annually takes place, not only over-all, but with one model in relation to another. This is quite a complex matter. I have taken the opportunity of having these figures studied by my officials. I am satisfied that, as anticipated and indeed as hoped for, there has been this year a greater narrowing of the differential in manufacturers' prices, between Canada and the United States, in addition to that of last year.
I also note that, while there had been price increases announced in the United States in relation to last year's models, claimed by motorcar manufacturers to result from making standard this year items which previously were optional, and from introducing some new items of safety interest which last year were not available at all, the price increases in the United States reflecting these additions made standard this year have been introduced in Canada at varying lower figures by each of the three main motorcar manufacturers in Canada, as compared with the United States.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister failed to convince me that Canadian car prices are lower. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance giving any consideration to lowering the tariff of 25 per cent on cars and 17J per
Inquiries of the Ministry cent on car parts, imported by individuals to Canada, in order to force the car manufacturers to lower their prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I had any such intention I would bring it before the house at the appropriate time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. The press on September 23 quoted the minister as having made a very stiff protest to the automobile manufacturers, warning them not to raise their prices for 1967 cars. I want to ask the minister if he feels that the automobile companies have complied with this request?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I did explain that prices, model for model this year, are higher than last year. The motorcar companies have pointed out that the increases in prices reflect additional items this year, made standard equipment, which were either not available or which were optional last year.
The fact that the price of a similar package in the United States has been priced higher by the United States manufacturers than by the Canadian manufacturers is an indication, I suggest, that the Canadian motorcar manufacturers are proceeding in the direction the automotive agreement contemplated, which agreement they are endeavouring to carry out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that the manufacturers have complied with his request.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry and Defence Production if he intends to bring pressure to bear on General Motors so that the salaries paid to their workers at Ste. Therese be identical to those paid for similar work in their Ontario plants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will understand that it is not incumbent upon the Department of Industry to deal with such matters.

Inquiries of the Ministry



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received representations from the Grand River conservation authority asking for federal aid in the program of flood and pollution control involving the construction of major dams?


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



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR HIGHER INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, who answers in parliament for the Canadian Wheat Board. On August 30 I asked the minister whether or not the government intended to authorize an increase in the initial price of wheat for the present crop year. At that time he replied that the matter was under consideration by the government. Is the minister now prepared to give a definite answer? How much consideration has been given to this matter? Can he tell us the amount by which the initial price may be increased or the date upon which an announcement may be expected?


Mitchell William Sharp: No decision has yet been made to increase the initial price.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the pensions of retired railroad men, who are asking for a review of their case so that these pensions might be brought into conformity with the present cost of living. Has the minister received representations from these railroad men, and if so what was the answer to their submission?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not aware that I have received any representations of this kind, but I will have a search made.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: My question was intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Fisheries. In 1964 parliament passed Bill No. S-17, an act respecting the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones of Canada. Would the Minister of Fisheries tell the house whether any progress has been made toward the protection of Canada's fisheries and Canadian fishermen through the establishment of proper base lines for territorial and fishing zones.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering whether this question is not excessively broad in its implications-whether the hon. member is not asking now for a statement on policy. Perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper. It seems to me that this is a type of question which should be answered by ministers through statements on motions rather than at this time.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: On a
point of order with regard to that last observation, no statement of policy was requested. This is a question about legislation which was passed by this house but never enacted.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following several statements made by the minister and by several other members of the government concerning the fight against inflation, could the minister tell the house whether he has considered reducing the taxes paid by the Canadian taxpayers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is again a very general question which should be put on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I should like to know whether the minister could table in this house a list of unemployment insurance offices intended to be closed down as a result of the new policy of his department.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance offices do not come under my department.


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



POTASH-APPROVAL OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR SALES TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but since he has left the chamber I will refer it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that when our Chinese customers wish to buy potash from a certain plant in Saskatchewan, no arrangements can be made in Canada; they have to be made through the plant headquarters in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question might be placed on the order paper. Certainly in the form in which it has been asked it is not acceptable now.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. I wish to ask him whether the government is giving consideration to removing from the R.C.M.P. establishment in Regina the training equipment, forces and personnel needed for the musical ride and other equestrian duties. If so, has a final decision been taken or is the minister giving sympathetic consideration to the many representations that these facilities should remain in Regina for historic and other substantial reasons?
Bank Act


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be placed on the order paper. The question period has now expired.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter is receiving consideration and is under decision at this very moment. There is concern about this proposal and representations have been made with regard to it. I understand that the minister has an answer ready.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels this is an extremely urgent matter it might be considered at ten o'clock tomorrow.



BANK ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-222, respecting Banks and Banking.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this bill was introduced in July, the proposed changes as compared with the present Bank Act were, in my opinion, of such importance that I gave a somewhat fuller and more detailed explanation of the major features than is usually given at the resolution stage. Because of this I do not propose to speak at great length on this bill at the present time. I will of course be pleased to offer any further explanations hon. members may ask for.
As I mentioned in my speech to the house in July, the main proposals contained in this bill to revise the Bank Act are intended to increase the degree of competition and flexibility in our banking system so that it will best serve the changing requirements of the Canadian economy and the interests of all Canadians. This objective was the central theme of the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, and I believe that the present bill is a very substantial step along the general lines of that commission's recommendations.
These main proposals can be briefly summarized as follows:
(1)	A new formula, effective January 1, 1967, to fix the maximum rate of interest that banks may charge on loans in Canada and eventually to remove the ceiling altogether. The maximum rate for each six months period beginning January 1 and July 1 would be 1J per cent plus the average yield on short term government bonds (i.e. those maturing within three years) during the three months

October 5. 1966
Bank Act
period ending one month before the effective dates. When the average yield on these bonds for any three month period after January 1, 1967, falls below 4J per cent there will no longer be any statutory maximum rate of interest on bank loans in Canada.
(2)	Agreements between banks on interest rates both on loans and deposits will be prohibited.
(3)	Each bank will be required to disclose in its financial statements, details of revenues and expenses and the amount of its so-called inner reserves.
(4)	The present cash reserve requirement of 8 per cent of total Canadian deposits will be gradually replaced by a cash requirement of 12 per cent against demand deposits and 4 per cent against term and notice deposits (including personal savings deposits). On present figures this formula would result in an over-all cash requirement of 6.6 per cent. The Bank of Canada will have stand-by power to impose a secondary reserve, initially of not more than 6 per cent, which may be increased monthly in steps to a maximum of 12 per cent and which the bank may reduce or remove at any time.
(5)	Banks will be permitted to make mortgage loans (N.H.A. and conventional), and the maximum rate of interest provisions will not apply to such loans.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The amount of a conventional mortgage loan will be limited to 75 per cent of the value of the property. The total amount of conventional mortgage loans on residential property that a bank may have will be limited to 3 per cent of its deposit liabilities and debentures in the first year, and 1 additional per cent per annum thereafter, with a maximum of 10 per cent in total.
(6)	The banks are to be given authority to issue debentures ranking in priority after their deposit liabilities. The amount of debentures that a bank may have outstanding will be limited by restricting the increase per annum to 10 per cent of paid-up capital and rest fund, and by an upper limit of one half of a bank's paid-up capital and rest fund.
(7)	The shareholding that a bank may have in any other Canadian corporation is limited to 10 per cent of the voting shares of the other corporation, and no more than one fifth of the directors of any company may become directors of a bank.
(8)	Two years after the statutory interest rate ceiling on bank loans has been removed,
[Mr. Sharp.!
a director of a trust or loan company that accepts deposits from the public may not be appointed or elected a director of a bank.
(9)	Except for any existing situations, and in the case of resident shareholders of a new bank if the government gives specific approval, ownership by any one shareholder and associates will be limited to 10 per cent of a bank's shares, and total ownership by non-residents will be limited to 25 per cent. Pension and similar funds of a province will be permitted to own up to 10 per cent of a bank's shares for all such funds of any province, on a non-voting basis. The size of a bank in which one shareholder has more than a 25 per cent interest will be limited by reference to the amount of its authorized capital and this, as the house knows, applies to the Mercantile Bank, and to another bank which I shall mention shortly.
In that connection I should mention that the special act of parliament incorporating the Bank of Western Canada included limitations similar to those proposed in the bill to revise the Bank Act. The Bank of Western Canada has asked the government for permission to have a group of associated Canadian shareholders hold more than 10 per cent of the bank's initial capital, and that permission has been given by the government. This action, of course, was provided for in the bank's act of incorporation. So long as one shareholder has more than a 25 per cent interest, the Bank of Western Canada will of course be limited as to the size of its operations by reference to the amount of its authorized capital, just as the Mercantile Bank is today.
As I announced in July, legislation to establish a system of deposit insurance for banks, and federally incorporated trust and loan companies, which would be made available to provincially incorporated institutions which accept deposits from the public and carry on business within the meaning of the Trust Companies Act or the Loan Companies Act, is being prepared.
The government will discuss the position of provincially incorporated institutions in relation to deposit insurance with the provincial governments. The intention of the government is to introduce this legislation into parliament as soon as possible in the present session. It would be premature to forecast details at this stage, but I can say that it is the intention that the government will provide the initial capital resources of the insurance corporation, with further resources to be
October 5, 1966

provided by premiums payable by the member institutions. It is the intention to keep these premiums as low as is consistent with establishing an adequate reserve fund against possible losses.
When the resolution for the bill to revise the Bank Act was introduced in July there were some who expressed the view that the government should have defined the business of banking and forced so-called "near banks" either to accept such federal control or give up their banking activities.
My predecessor, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), made clear last year that the determination of what constituted the field of banking within our jurisdiction was a matter for the courts, and it did not appear that the royal commission proposal for treating all institutions accepting deposits payable within a hundred days as banks fitted into the pattern of judicial decisions in this field. We do not think it necessary or desirable at this time to endeavour to force provincial institutions under this somewhat doubtful boundary of our jurisdiction. We think it more sensible to make it possible for the deposit institutions under federal law to be competitive and flexible in meeting the banking requirements of the Canadian people. We believe this will bring about a situation where those who wish to engage in the business of banking will find it to their advantage to come under federal legislation.
I make these comments because this point was urged quite strongly, particularly by members of the official opposition, and I have no doubt urged in good faith, and I am giving the reply in as precise terms as I can as to why we did not at this time proceed to follow the recommendation of the royal commission in this respect. But I would add one word-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a question at this point? Could the minister give us an idea of the extent of the consideration given to the question of a definition of banking that would be acceptable in accordance with the B.N.A. Act? I know it is a difficult problem, but was it considered and rejected as being impractical, or what considerations were involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Advice was sought from the government advisers, from the Department of Justice, and there was a good deal of doubt expressed as to what was or would be an acceptable definition of banking. I believe that it would be desirable, if possible, to establish more clearly the jurisdiction of parliament in this field. On the other hand I
Bank Act
share with my predecessor in office the conviction that it would be rather imprudent on the part of the government to rest its legislation, namely this Bank Act, upon a definition that had to be tested in the courts.
We therefore felt it would make for greater progress in improving the rules for banking business generally, whether one includes the charter banks or "near banks," by establishing a deposit insurance institution.
Until the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) interrupted me I was going to go on to make one other point that was made by the royal commission, because I examined its report after listening to my hon. friends' comments when the resolution stage was under consideration. The royal commission said that there was no particular relationship between removing the interest rate, which they advocated, and the extension of the jurisdiction of parliament over the "near banks." Indeed, as I recall the words of the royal commission, they were to the effect that whatever else is done the interest rate ceiling should be removed.
There has been some criticism made to me by Canadians of the omission from the bill of any provision to permit the establishment of agencies in Canada for foreign banks, as recommended by the royal commission. We have omitted it on the ground that it would weaken in some degree the control exercised over credit conditions in Canada by the monetary authorities. Canada already has a very free and open capital and money market, and Canadians are quite prepared to conduct a large part of their business in other currencies.
On the other hand it has been represented to me that by permitting agencies we would be furthering still more our objective of more competition in lending in Canada, while it would not be necessary to permit the agencies to accept deposits from Canadians, just as the agencies of Canadian banks in, for example, New York, are not permitted to accept deposits from residents of that state. I hope that the committee will go into this subject thoroughly, and I can assure the house that the government will give most serious consideration to its recommendations.
In the weeks since this bill to revise the Bank Act was made public there has been an opportunity for comment and technical criticism, and for consultation, as a result there will be a number of technical points on which the government will propose amendments in committee. When the bill receives second

October 5, 1966
Bank Act
reading I shall propose that it be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for detailed study.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the debate on resolution stage, because of the time element. The time element is now very critical since the bill must receive consideration by the house on second reading and then must go to a committee where representations will be heard, and time must be allowed to various witnesses, who undoubtedly will wish to appear, to prepare and file their briefs. Then, after consideration by the committee, the bill must come back into this house for clause by clause study in committee of the whole. It must then go to the other place for equal consideration. There is a deadline of November 30 for proclamation. Unless the government brings in a further bill extending the life not. only of the Bank Act but also of the Quebec Savings Bank Act, then our banking operations in this country will cease. I am not very sanguine about any rapid progress. Therefore, I should like to see this bill go through the committee as soon as possible. This is the wish of the official opposition. We made our points at the time of the resolution and, after having seen the bill, I can assure the minister and the government that the views of the opposition have not changed one iota in respect of this bill.
This bill is probably one of the most momentous we have had to study. In so far as Canada and its economic life is concerned, it is even more important than any of the wide ranging proposals for social welfare that the government has considered in the past. It is much more important, in my mind, than the very complex and very important transportation legislation which is before this house at the present time. This bill, and the banking system which must follow upon the implementation of the bill, if passed by parliament, will affect the whole lifeblood of our country. It goes to the absolute root of our economic strength and one can cry or proclaim from the rooftops, or boast about our welfare measures and all sorts of legislation which we may have on our books, but if we have sapped the economic strength of our country, those social welfare measures of our country are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, of primary importance to this country is a strong effective banking system, and this is what we must aim for-a strong and effective banking system that not
(Mr. Sharp.]
only sees to the protection of the depositors and the creditors of the banks, but which also is very flexible.
Some may say there is a paradox, there is a conflict of interest at some point; but surely as a result of the studies by the Porter royal commission and the experience of the banking system as a whole, we know at about what point we can reconcile the degrees of flexibility with the appropriate safeguards for the depositors and creditors of our banking institutions. The minister has repeated at the resolution stage, and my colleagues in July indicated a general agreement, that the central theme of the Porter commission report is to allow our financial institutions, especially the chartered banks, to have much broader investment powers and opportunities, coupled with correspondingly broader borrowing powers than existed in 1964. In a nutshell, Canada's banking system must be made more flexible, albeit at the same time maintaining the sound characteristics which have been the hallmark of Canadian banking in the past.
At the resolution stage the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) as well as my colleagues from Perth (Mr. Monteith), Northumberland (Mr. Hees), and Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) emphasized that the recommendations of the Porter commission dealing with this theme were not divisible; they were part of a package which was meant to be all-embracing to cover the bank and "near banks". It is a very poor thing to tinker with the status and powers of banks and leave untended, uncontrolled or unsupervised the activities of the "near banks" which have introduced, if I may use the term, many loose ends in the banking and monetary system of Canada today.
It is singular that we have not heard from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who was the godfather and sponsor of the government bill last year, to see what his views would be in respect of the Bank Act, in the light of the debacle of the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation and those companies which went down with it. At that time he held certain airy views, and I thought they were rather casual, with regard to some of the responsibilities under our banking system.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) uses the words "the events of the past year have caused us to revise our thinking". I should hope so; but unfortunately he has gone but an inch when he should have gone a mile. I and my colleagues have stated that we think this is a poor job of tinkering, because
October 5, 1966

the "near banks" who have taken such a large share in the monetary operations in this country are frankly under little or no supervision. I had the opportunity recently to discuss this with a number of the supervisory officers of provincial authorities. Frankly, outside of filing annual returns of a very nominal nature and outside of certain superintendents of insurance adopting an absolute and firm attitude of no expansion into other provinces by provincially incorporated trust companies, there is no control.
It is my thought that there should have been some very positive effort. The deposit insurance scheme advanced by the minister under this act is a form of negative action. I do not see how it will achieve the result we want, which is the protection of the depositors and creditors of these trust companies. Those are the people who have to be protected. Any well-operated trust company would have nothing to fear in operating under the umbrella of the Bank Act. As a matter of fact the officers of a number of these companies have told me they would welcome such control, because it would establish their companies as being well operated and sound companies. I think the banks themselves would not object to it; they would all be on the same footing. I would think that the officers of any chartered bank would tell you they are prepared to compete with anybody, on equal terms.
This is what we must have, but we do not get it in this Bank Act. We know there are some operations which would have difficulty standing up to the light of day. In the last week I have seen in the windows of a trust company a new advertisement announcing 1i per cent deposit certificates.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There is an interest spread between 7J per cent and 6J per cent, because the standard interest rate on this type of investment on the part of provincial and trust companies is about 61 per cent or 6J per cent, although some limit the rate to 6} per cent. I should like the Minister of Finance to tell this house what he thinks the rate on the return of investment in these trust companies must be in order to enable them to pay this 1\ per cent. I quite frankly believe that, by comparison, Shylock must be deemed to have been a kindly old gentleman.
The minister suggests that we cannot place these companies under the general definition of banks, but I suggest that is a point that is
Bank Act
arguable. In spite of that fact, we are asked to adopt the negative measure called deposit insurance under the name of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I should like to know why legislation regarding this Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is not before us at this time, because the rules and regulations of that deposit insurance corporation are part and parcel of the supervision to which the minister referred in his statement at the resolution stage.
Let me use the minister's words. He said that this whole situation must be subject to effective inspection and adequate regulation in order to safeguard depositors, primarily. Let me add these words, there must also be some safeguard for shareholders and creditors. What are those safeguards? Will the superintendent of banking under the federal government have authority to go into the operations and investment portfolios of these trust companies? What is to be the effective inspection? Does this so-called deposit insurance feature of the Bank Act merely involve the payment of a fee? If that is the case, it is meaningless and will only result in an additional cost to banks under federal charter, as well trust companies, which are already subject to federal inspection and safeguard.
So far as the general public is concerned, why should we ask the banks and trust companies incorporated under federal charter to announce that they have deposit insurance? The reaction of such announcement on the part of the average depositor will be negligible. The average depositor will ask: So what is new? Under any deposit insurance scheme it is the depositor who is the consumer, not the bank or the corporation or the trust company, and he is the one who will have to pay the fraction of 1 per cent, perhaps, for the insurance. A great number of Canadians are depositors in chartered banks and trust companies, and they will have to foot this bill because they are being asked to assume an additional cost, presumably to protect those individuals who are taking their money out of chartered banks and putting it in provincially incorporated trust companies.
Another feature of this insurance is that these trust companies must apply for an insurance certificate after obtaining the consent of the government of the province in which they are incorporated. This raises the speculation that a provincial government might decide that it is going to institute its own deposit insurance scheme. In that event trust companies may prefer to carry their

Bank Act
insurance with the federal deposit insurance scheme for the purposes of the liability, or as a selling point as far as the public is concerned. Surely this cannot add to the efficient function of deposit insurance if there is a provincial government veto.
Much can be said about the suggested interest formula.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member moves to another subject perhaps I could say that it is my intention to have the resolution preceding the Deposit Insurance Corporation bill before this house, so that it will be before us at the committee stage when we are dealing with the detailed recommendations in respect of the Bank Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank the minister for that interjection and I trust that he has not been deemed to close this debate as a result. Perhaps a detailed discussion of this interest rate should take place in the committee, at which time we can obtain expert testimony from outsiders, and officials of the minister's department.
The government in pursuing this course has created an atmosphere which is, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, pale, pallid and fearful. A very interesting debate took place in this regard at the resolution stage. The government has now disclosed its hand and has indicated that there will be a so-called omnibus formula by which we will be able to make sure there is no unnecessary limit placed on interest. As I have said, these details should be better discussed by the finance committee.
Earlier I indicated that we should get on with our consideration of the measure now before us in order that it can be considered by the committee. A number of people have indicated to me and to other members of this house a desire for the early implementation of this act, but they suggest that in order to relieve a degree of uncertainty the rules under which the banks will operate should be made clear.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There are many people who want to obtain money. There are provisions in this bill with regard to conventional mortgages on residential properties. There is a great shortage of money in this respect; there is tight money. Certainly the banks and related major trust companies may be able to alleviate this problem. But the point is that they must have the power; and until this bill is considered and implemented no action can be taken, either

by prospective builders in planning what they are going to do or by the banks in entering into commitments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate what has been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues the hon. member for Perth, the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Kamloops, that this bill is just tinkering with the central theme of the Porter commission report. It does only a partial job. It fails to do the job that is far more important than raising the interest ceiling: It fails to take control of the monetary system of this country. For these reasons I would oppose the bill.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the
Official Opposition, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have changed some of our views and have modified some of the views we expressed at the resolution stage. I have no apologies to offer for stating this position. I would, on the other hand, feel that I had a great many apologies to offer if, after almost three months of very intensive study and wide ranging discussions with economists, we had not found it necessary to perhaps modify at least the emphasis that we place on certain aspects of government policy.
Partly as a result of the debate we had on inflation and partly due to the current consumer price hearings, we have found ourselves driven to consider the Bank Act and its revision in a much wider context than that in which we had formerly considered it. The inadequacy of banking legislation alone as an efficient instrument of monetary policy has become more and more clear, and the need to link it with other government policies and activities has become clearer still.
It is true enough, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says, that this bill must go before the committee, where it will be examined in detail and witnesses will be cross-examined, and it must then come back to the committee of the whole of this house for clause by clause discussion. There are, however, a number of definite principles involved in the bill which I think merit discussion, indeed require discussion, on second reading. I would say they were the following: the control of interest rates, the question of reserves, the matter of the control of "near banks", the question of deposit insurance, and the question of who is to operate the clearinghouse facilities in the financial system of the country. To these I would add something else which I think is very closely
October 5, 1966

related with banking policy on the part of the government, and that is what I would term their credit policies.
The more one studies the use of monetary policy, and in particular the use of interest rates, as a means of allocating resources in this country, the more he becomes convinced of its inadequacy, of its incapability to really make those sorts of allocations that most of us, I think, would wish to see. Of course, there is a very simple reason for this. There are many areas in our economy-and I have only to mention such things as housing, education, area development and those types of things-which are in the main largely unprofitable, or at least of very low and deferred profitability. As a consequence we feel that the Bank Act should be considered in the light of other government measures to be taken to offset the tendency of market forces to distort the allocation of resources, in contradiction of what would be desirable social objectives.
In dealing with the question of interest rates I think we must go far beyond the question of whether we are going to lift the 6 per cent ceiling, whether we are going to do it at once, in stages or by the particular formula that has been suggested by the minister. There are compelling arguments for the removal of the 6 per cent limit. There is no question about it, it has been a clumsy and unselective tool of control and one, moreover, that has been repeatedly evaded by the banks. To be fair to the banks, I think they have been driven to this evasion by recent developments in the financial community of Canada, the rise of the so-called "near banks." Nevertheless, it has meant in essence that the 6 per cent limit has been ineffective; that in essence, anyway, it has been incapable of doing the sort of job that requires to be done.
While, as I say, there are compelling reasons for its removal-and 1 have not found an economist who would dispute that statement-I have, on the other hand, found many economists who feel that in conjunction with the removal of the statutory limit the government should undertake a much wider responsibility in regard to interest rates than they have done hitherto. During the resolution stage I made somewhat the same suggestion, At that time I suggested there should be a regulatory body established to review interest rates, somewhat on the lines of other government regulatory bodies. But one result of the intensive discussions, thought and
Bank Act
study we have had for nearly three months was that we came to the conclusion that the regulatory body idea was too clumsy and too slow of operation, and that the Bank of Canada is the logical and obvious vehicle by which this government policy can be implemented.
You may ask: Just what would be the mechanism by which the Bank of Canada would exercise these new responsibilities? There are various ways in which it could be done. One might perhaps follow the example of the United States which has quite recently, within the last week or so, established controls at the other end of the interest ladder. They have established controls over the amount of interest that lending institutions might pay to attract depositors, with the idea-and I imagine it may very well be a successful idea-of thus limiting the amount they would be capable of charging for the loans they make to customers. However, I have no doubt whatever that there are a number of mechanisms that could be devised whereby the central bank could exercise the function of controlling interest rates throughout the economy.
We take this position because there seems no doubt whatever that if we are simply going to remove the interest rate from the banks we are inviting a sort of jungle warfare of interest rates to the great detriment of the Canadian economy. It seems to me to be far too simple a solution to a very complex and difficult situation, because there has grown up alongside the chartered banks a whole bevy of new banking institutions-I think that is the correct way in which to describe them-which are outside government regulations. The government take the position that to solve this problem, or at least to promote the idea of equity of treatment, it will remove the controls over the chartered banks so they will be, on that score at any rate, on an even footing with the "near banks". This to us seems to be a counsel of irresponsibility and that, rather than do that, the government should remove the present statutory lending limits and make the banks and all other lending institutions in the country subject to central bank control in respect of interest rates.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I want to come back again, Mr. Speaker, to the necessity of the government at the same time taking some other steps to control the marked distortion of credit which has been such a prominent feature in recent months of the Canadian economy. We had a witness

October 5, 1968
Bank Act
before the committee the other day who took the position that any rectification of wealth distribution or allocation of resources in this country should be effected, not by means of controlling selective controls, such as interest rates, but rather by more positive action on the part of the government, such as the use of agencies it now has. I suggest there should be perhaps one or more new agencies established for the funnelling of credit and funds into those areas which the government in its wisdom, and parliament in its wisdom, consider require special treatment. I have suggested some of them such as housing, education and area development.
I would add to that the possibility of establishing an agency to deal with some of the needs of provinces and municipalities, various local government bodies, in the provision of funds to them at interest rates that would be far below anything the market would provide, far below anything that would be reasonable for the Bank of Canada to establish as a general interest rate. These, I think, are equally important to the problem of controlling the interest rates of the chartered banks.
Now, with regard to the control of the "near banks", we feel it is essential that they should be brought under federal control. We feel that in conjunction with the federal control of interest rates, the minister's suggestion of deposit insurance is probably the best way of bringing them under federal control. I think we should not delude ourselves that because these institutions are not called banks, they are not actually banks. I take it that most people would agree that a suitable definition of a bank would be an institution which accepted deposits and which granted to its depositors chequing privileges.
In connection with this, I would suggest another means by which the "near banks" could be brought under federal control. I think the Porter commission recommended it in toto, but if not I would suggest that the operation of the clearinghouse should be removed from the control of the Bankers' Association and again placed in the hands of the central bank or an agency of the central bank. In that way, we can be sure that each financial institution which desires to offer chequing privileges, each financial institution that desires to receive the benefit of deposit insurance, will be obliged to submit itself to government inspection and to government regulation.
The hon. member for Edmonton West doubted the capacity of the inspector general

of banks to undertake the sort of inspection the minister has suggested. I, myself, cannot see any particular difficulty involved in this. I do not have the idea that the inspector general of banks goes around inspectnig every bank himself. He has a staff. I presume it is not beyond the capacity of Canada or this government to increase that staff to the necessary size for the sort of inspection of which the minister spoke.
I would go further on this question of insurance, and this has always been a favourite thought of mine with regard to our economy. If the government is going to establish a corporation that would provide insurance on deposits in lending institutions, then I see no reason why its powers should be necessarily severely and for all time limited to that field of insurance. Here, it seems to me perhaps the government might find itself making the first, timid step toward the development of a government insurance system in this country. This might very well solve some of the problems we face with regard to the allocation of resources in our economy.
Now, with regard to reserves, I imagine few people would quarrel with the statement that so far as the original purpose of establishing bank reserves is concerned, which was presumably to protect depositors, that role for reserves is pretty well gone. No one, I think, seriously imagines that a chartered bank in Canada is going to collapse. It is many years now since one did collapse. The reason, of course, that they are safe from collapse is that they automatically come to the rescue of each other when it is necessary to do so. This is quite right, and should be done.
There is a role, however, for reserves, and that is in regard to the regulation of the total money supply. It has not been used, within my knowledge, to any great extent within recent memory, but it is always a weapon in the hands of the central banks if other methods of controlling total money supply should fail or falter. We feel the Bank of Canada should have much wider powers with regard to the control of reserves than is suggested in the minister's bill. It should be entirely at the discretion of the central bank to decide what reserves should be at any one particular point. If it is going to be used as an instrument of monetary policy, and that really is its only function now to help control money supply, then the central bank needs to be able to act much more quickly than is envisaged in the minister's bill.
October 5, 1966

Bank Act
I would agree with the minister on one thing. If we are retaining the reserves, then there should be complete public disclosure of their volume and nature. No longer should we allow these things to be hidden behind some veil of secrecy, in the so-called public interest. The public has a right to know how much the banks are making and what it is costing the people of Canada to maintain their very efficient banking system. These things should not be left in the midst of speculation.
Now, I want to return, Mr. Speaker, to the suggestions I made in connection with the elimination of the 6 per cent interest rate. I make this quite clear to the house. While the members of the New Democratic Party feel that in all intelligence and logic the removal of the 6 per cent blanket interest ceiling on the chartered banks should be removed, and there is no rational economic argument for retaining it, nevertheless we are not prepared to support that removal unless the government is prepared to take these ancillary actions; unless it is prepared to enter much more widely and much more effectively into the whole region of interest control than it has done in the past, to take responsibility for levels of interest in this country; unless it is at the same time prepared to make these changes in the fiscal and taxation structure that will require a greatly increased incursion of government into the field of funnelling credit into those areas of the economy which are now starved by market conditions.
We feel that such agencies as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Industrial Development Bank, the Farm Credit Corporation, to name but a few of them, must be strengthened financially and their scope very greatly enlarged. We realize, of course, that to do this effectively the government must get into its hands sufficient funds in order to carry out such a program. This, in turn will require very careful scrutiny of our taxation structure, such as has been made by the Carter commission. We hope that commission's report will be available to us before too long. Unless the government is prepared to take these other steps for the control of interest rates, this party does not feel it can support the mere blanket removal of the ceiling of 6 per cent on bank loans.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would hope that at some time or other before the conclusion of this debate, and prior to our voting on the matter, the minister might indicate whether the government
was prepared to undertake this control of interest rates throughout the economy. Otherwise, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have to take steps to make perfectly clear our opposition to the mere removal of the 6 per cent rate, and then let the jungle warfare start. Because that, of course, is what is going to happen. No one can convince me, and I am sure nobody would be able to convince any of the economists to whom I have spoken, that the removal of the 6 per cent ceiling, without some compensating action on the part of the government, will have any effect whatever except that of letting loose a battle of interest rates that may well be disastrous for our economy.
I would hope that when the bill comes before the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs we might get an answer to many of the questions that I and others have raised; that we might have a rather clearer idea of just how the central bank intends to operate; that we might have witnesses from the chartered banks whom we can question on some of the aspects of their operations.
I have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that the revision of the Bank Act provides an opportunity once every ten years to give a quick educational seminar course to members of the House of Commons, which is much required. In fact, I think there might be some ground for suggesting that for this purpose we should have one every year. Anything that will expand our knowledge of this extremely complex and intricate subject is to be desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is almost 13 years this time.


Colin Cameron: As my colleague from Winnipeg
North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, it is almost 13 years this time. The banks will be getting used to running with worn-out charters, if we do not look out.
I think that is all I have to say at the present time, Mr. Speaker, except to reiterate our conviction in this party that the Bank Act must not be considered in isolation; that if we do so, then we may very well go down some blind alleys. More and more in the modern world we are finding that each of the economic factors in our society is linked to all the others, and that the banking system in particular is linked to each one of them. We cannot move in the banking area without affecting every other area of the economy.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to and read over the statement given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). I have also listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and just before rising to take the floor on this subject I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), who today I found very interesting. He specifically stipulated at the beginning of his remarks that during the past three or four months he had reconsidered and reappraised the situation and had modified some of the former positions he had taken, something I am very glad to hear. He was the major speaker on this bill when it was brought before the house for first reading.
I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Edmonton West is still on the old bandwagon. It has very faded colours now and has lost some of its tires, and in a few years time it will probably still be working with the same broken spokes. The reason we never arrive at any solutions to some of the problems facing us today is that we have never dared do anything new in this field. Progress has been made and the Canadian people have been developing the country, but in the financial

field this progress in science, and these developments have preserved their status quo. This, Mr. Speaker, can only be a handicap and prevent our economic advancement in the over-all picture.
I told the minister, Mr. Speaker, when I took part in the debate on inflation, and also when the bill came before the house for first reading, that I would take the opportunity to speak only briefly on second reading, but that in the committee stage I, and also some of my colleagues and other members, intended to discuss thoroughly each clause of the bill, and all the connotations. I can say today that a great many questions will be asked in crossexamination.
When we were discussing inflation and the rise in the cost of living, about which the house is very worried, I distinctly remember saying to the Minister of Finance that if we were to take measures to halt the rising cost of living we would have to apply them across the board, not only at the production and salary levels but also at the interest level.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the government airport concession operations regulations to provide, by virtue of its power to regulate the performance of any service for persons on the airport, that no licence be granted by Her Majesty in Right of Canada for the operation of insurance vending machines.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, in short, calls on the Government of Canada to give consideration to amending the airport concession operations regulations to prohibit in air terminals, all of which are run by the Government of Canada through the Department of Transport, what we see in every air terminal, namely air flight insurance vending machines.
This resolution is introduced by myself on behalf of the air line pilots, engineers, cabin attendants, and stewardesses who must board their aircraft knowing that the danger of
October 5, 1966

take as much as 60 per cent. These rentals amounted in Canada to $158,000 in 1965. That does not even cover the cost of one crash investigation, according to the civil aviation director of the Department of Transport.
I am not against travel insurance itself. I have no objection to a man, anxious about travelling, obtaining travel insurance through his regular insurance agent. The agent either knows him or can have an investigation made concerning him.
The potential saboteur knows that if he buys a policy beyond his means, or if death occurs soon after he has taken one out, questions will be raised. It is true that other insurance policies allow a would-be murderer, or someone bent on self-destruction to fake a car accident or something similar; but only flight insurance is tailored to mass murder.
Airport trip insurance, because of its nature, offers temptation to unstable people. It has been described as an invitation to maniacs, because of the incentive it affords. There are several reasons for its inherent danger. It is easily accessible to anyone, regardless of his mental or emotional condition; its acquisition requires only a handful of loose change, making it an attractive gamble; it can be purchased on the spur of the moment; it can be purchased in virtual anonymity; it lacks the screening safeguards normally associated with the sale of other types of insurance.
The problems associated with the sale of insurance at airports do not arise with regard to other forms of travel insurance. A bomb placed aboard a train or ship is not likely to kill everyone on board, as a bomb which explodes in a plane is likely to do. The fact that policies are uncollectable if it is the purchaser who is responsible for death is not a deterrent. Anyone who plans to destroy a plane does so in the hope that his crime will go undetected, because of the very nature of air travel. That is, the murderer must rely on a complete destruction of the aircraft along with the death of everyone on board to prevent his crime being discovered.
A former United States federal aviatior. agency administrator has called flight insurance a "gyp". The odds against being killed in an air crash in Canada are 276,000 to one. Flight insurance pays off at 30,000 to one, or only a tenth of the true odds.
Accidental death and double indemnitj policies, which are more normal, pay off at about half the true odds. True they are more
October 5, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
expensive-$35 a year for $30,000 coveragi
but they are payable for any accidental death, the chances of which are one in 1,755 per year, compared to one in 276,000 for a plane trip.
Economics professor Dr. Robert Easnir of Northwestern University claims that the purchaser of air accident insurance has tended on the average to pay four to five dollars in premiums for every one dollar paid out. Flight insurance therefore has a loss ratio, that is, a percentage of premiums paid out in benefits, amounting to only 25 per cent compared with the average in the industry of 70 per cent.
Of the 403 people killed in Canada in the last 20 years, only 40 held flight insurance. Twenty two people were needlessly killed in the Guay case alone. In other words, 22 died so that the estates of 40 others might be fattened by flight insurance.
It has been proven that air travel is the safest way to travel. The danger to passengers is greater on a train, in a bus or in the family car. But insurance is not sold at railway or bus terminals or at wayside gas stations. Why, then, should insurance be sold at airports? There is no reason for it. Flight insurance is unnecessary and merely pampers the fear some people have about flying.
The danger of flight insurance has been examined on many occasions. In 1962 a United States committee of aviation officials, air line representatives and insurance executives noted that in five accident cases which they studied the desire to profit from flight insurance was the predominant motive. Many of the air line staff associations have passed resolutions on the subject, including the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association meeting in March, 1965 in the United States. Bills have been introduced in the United States Senate having the same purpose as the resolution which I have brought before the house this afternoon.
The whole subject is being studied by the Canadian Bar Association's air law sub-committee; it is being studied by the Canadian Coroners Association, which is equally concerned about the connection between trip insurance and sabotage. I suggest that the parliament of Canada should also be concerned. I hope this resolution will be passed today, so that there can be consideration in Canada of the vital safety issue involved in the machine vending of flight insurance.
Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask a question? Did the hon. member say that railway companies do not offer trip insurance?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I believe they do, but the display of insurance counters and vending machines in railway stations is certainly not as obvious as it is in air terminals.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: It is available.


Barry Mather: My
main point in rising today is to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on having brought this important matter to the attention of the house and therefore, we hope, to that of the country. I think his observations are most timely, and they may become even more timely as these tragic accidents continue to occur.
To me, the present "punch board" method of selling flight insurance at airports is something which calls for a hard second look. Apart altogether from the method of selling this insurance, I think we might well consider the type of insurance which is marketed. It is now possible for a person to purchase a large amount of insurance on the life of a person who is not even related to him. I think it would be a safety factor if there were a provison that persons outside the immediate family of the purchaser could not be insured.
I suggest, also, that instead of the fantastic sums of money for which purchasers can insure other people's lives, a reasonable amount should be made available to the survivors-the family-together with something by way of a monthly income to replace the lost breadwinner's earnings.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This whole subject is one of very real public interest, and rather than see the notice of motion talked out I shall conclude by urging hon. members to refer the matter to a committee, such as the committee on justice and legal affairs, where a study in depth can be made of it.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of this notice of motion for bringing to public attention a matter which certainly should be of concern to parliament, and which is of real concern to pilots and others who work on our air lines. Too often matters such as this are buried by being talked out, but I hope this will not meet that fate but will be referred to a committee where the subject can be fully explored.

Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance
As is often the case, this motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) in itself does not adequately cover the problem. The purpose of notices of motions is to bring matters to public attention and encourage discussion of them. That is what I hope this notice of motion will do.
Much of what the hon. member said applies to air trip insurance. Although I understand that there may be a certain extra attraction offered by slot machine insurance to a deranged mind, I believe consideration of the problem should include air trip insurance generally.
Although the hon. member referred to studies being conducted elsewhere, and to bills which have been introduced in the United States Congress, I believe remarkably little consideration has been given to the problem. The Canadian Bar Association discussed it at some length at its annual meeting in 1965, but reached no conclusions. I understand the consensus was that a full study should be made by the association's air law provincial subcommittees, but so far as I am aware no report has been produced leading to any specific recommendation from the association.
The bills which have been presented in the United States Congress seem to be pretty much in a deep freeze. I understand three identical bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. I believe they would void all contracts of insurance covering loss of life or personal injury which purport to limit coverage to a specific trip. One bill would reduce the amount of flight insurance which passengers could purchase at airports, and limit the liability of insurance vendors to a maximum of $50,000 for the death of each passenger. However, none of these bills is likely to be discussed in detail in the near future. All have been referred to the house committee on commerce, but no hearings have been scheduled on any of them.
One reason may be that the federal aviation agency of the United States government conducted a detailed study of air line sabotage about a year ago, and reached the conclusion that air line saboteurs are beyond the reach of any reasonable approach and the removal of airport insurance vending machines would not achieve the purpose intended. It also concluded that the profit motive is universally recognized as one of the causative factors in sabotage, as it is in homicide generally. Air trip insurance has been a factor in some of
[Mr. Stanbury.l
the air line sabotage cases which have occurred in the United States.
Another conclusion was that normal insurance coverage should not be suspended during air line flights. This would be unreasonable because insurance is a definite benefit to survivors of air crash victims, whose interests would not be served by a flat exclusion rule.
A third conclusion was that air trip insurance should not be eliminated, nor should the sale of insurance at airports be limited. The agency noted that sabotage usually required prior planning, and the sale of insurance at airports would not be a major factor in such prior planning. It concluded that there was no evidence that past sabotage would not have occurred but for insurance, or that future sabotage would be eliminated or diminished by the abolition or curtailment of insurance. It reasoned that the insurance benefits outweighed the speculation that sabotage might be curtailed or lessened by restrictions on, or the abolition of, insurance.
It also decided that the amount of trip insurance available to each individual should not be limited, and that the ready availability of other types of insurance made the value of such limitation highly speculative.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the latest advice given to the United States government is that the suspension of air trip insurance is not to be recommended. However, I do not think we should rely on that. I believe the Canadian parliament should receive the advice of responsible authorities in this country, including the advice of the coroners, of the Canadian Bar Association, and of all groups who have indicated a concern with this matter. The most appropriate way of getting this advice would be through the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
I hope the subject matter of this notice of motion will be referred to that committee. I also hope that committee will go into the matter thoroughly, dealing not only with the question of the sale of insurance through vending machines at airports, but with all air trip insurance and its effect on air line sabotage. I support the intent of the motion to stimulate the most far-reaching discussion and consideration of the problem and I hope it will receive that kind of study in committee.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the hon.
October 5, 1966

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford) on introducing this notice of motion. Like other hon. members I hope it sparks a certain amount of public discussion of a serious problem, but I for one remain to be convinced that it is as serious a problem as has been suggested by some speakers to day. I think it would be a great injustice to a great many people who travel by air if this type of insurance were removed from easy access.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Members of parliament, for example, do a great deal of travelling, particularly those on the west coast, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), no doubt is aware, and if we were not able to buy this type of insurance it would then be necessary for us to go to an agent to obtain it. The rates of these agents would be very high, simply because the insurance rates would be based upon the number of miles flown and on the number of trips we take in areas where the incidence of accident is high. I think it would be an imposition if this method of buying insurance were removed from the airports. By this method people who make occasional trips and who feel queasy, who are not familiar with flying, who are not convinced it is the best way, but find themselves in the position of having to fly, are in a position to protect their families in case of accident.
The accident rate for air lines is very low. I am told that flying is the safest way to travel. We are entering into a new era of subsonic and supersonic transportation. We hear that the jumbo jets will be with us in 1971, and we understand that supersonic jet travel will be available shortly thereafter. So, these new methods of flying, combined with the phenomenal increase in air line passenger and freight traffic create a certain difficulty with respect to our airports, overcrowding of the skys and overcrowding of terminal facilities. Even though the air lines so far have maintained an excellent record of safety, I think we also have to be aware that with the projected increases and the overcrowding that is taking place in the skies today, the incidence of legitimate accidents quite possibly will rise and that this ability to buy insurance over the counter at airports is convenient and is something the removal of which I think we should consider very carefully. Whether or not this opportunity for benefit should be removed because of fears, legitimate or otherwise, of the possibility of
8367
Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance someone killing his wife with a bomb in an airplane, I am not prepared to say at this time; I have not made up my mind.
But there are arguments on the other side. Certainly the danger of this sort of thing happening in the supersonic pressurized aircraft we have today is of a different order than when we were flying in the DC-4's and 6's which were not pressurized. A small bul-lethole in a pressurized cabin at 45,000 feet has a strong possibility of being fatal, but the same accident in the old aircraft was not quite as dangerous. The hon. member who introduced this gave us the example of the fellow who blew out the wall in the washroom. He stated that in a DC-8 or 9 there would have been a fatality; the whole plane would have cracked up simply because of the type of aircraft construction being used.
The other point to which I would offer a certain amount of objection is that of motive. I do not think all crimes are committed as a result of a greed for money. There are other motives. You may want to get rid of your wife or she may want to get rid of you, and this would be an opportunity. You might want to get rid of somebody else on the aircraft. Money is not the only motive. I think human nature is much more complex than is suggested by those who put forth the example of the economic man.
The second point is that in the description given by the hon. member these are the people who do these things. I think his argument fails when one recognizes the fact that their motive is not necessarily money. My feeling is that money is only incidental. Like most people who take a flight and feel queasy, who find the sky not as quiet as they would have like it, and who, before they step into the aircraft, invest a half a dollar in insurance, the person who plants a bomb in the aircraft also walks up and puts 50 cents in the machine. But I do not think that is the main motive.
As I said before, the air lines have a very good record of safety and efficiency. In the annual report of Air Canada for 1965 percentage statistics are given. I should like to read some of these into the record, because they indicate in one sector the improvement in service as well as the great number of passengers carried. In the last year, 1965, Air Canada carried 4,753,395 passengers on scheduled and charter services. This is an increase of 13 per cent in 1965 over 1964. As a matter of fact the actual increase in the
October 5, 1966
8368	COMMONS
Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance number of passengers carried exceeded Air Canada's expectations rather substantially. They were caught in many cases and are being caught today at peak periods, as I am sure hon. members who have tried to get out of Ottawa have found.
The Air Canada report goes on to suggest the situation was general throughout the industry and that all major air carriers faced this problem. Total seat miles for Air Canada were 5,458 million, an increase of 18 per cent, while revenue passenger miles flown exceeded 3,542 million, an increase of 21 per cent. The interesting statistic is that the passenger load rose from 63 per cent in 1964 to 65 per cent in 1965. Then, a few pages later appears a rather interesting statement:
The air line completed 98 per cent of Its scheduled mileage, maintaining its world-wide reputation for operating reliability. The credit is shared by the aircraft and the highly qualified employees who maintained, serviced and operated them.
1 gather that the 2 per cent difference between perfection and the actual showing was due to cancellations because of bad weather and not because of accidents or sabotage.
The argument in the motion as put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is that the type of person who indulges in this sabotage has a monetary motive. I think the reaction of the committees which have looked into this situation has been that money is not the prime motive and that the removal of these things would not provide a deterrent to potential saboteurs.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The second point, obviously, is that this is not the only source of insurance. It seems to me that if anybody is going to blow up an aircraft with dynamite or some other explosive, there is a good deal of planning which has to go into it; it is not something which is done on the spur of the moment. This requires a certain amount of initiative, planning and foresight, and perhaps a certain amount of nerve. We probably are not aware of the number of times that such an act of sabotage has been planned, and abandoned at the last moment because of a lack of courage.
By removing these machines from airports I do not think it will logically follow that such attempts will cease; but I feel that if we do that, other types of air transportation insurance should also be banned, whether the


aircraft is transporting passengers or goods. Such a step I believe would be unreasonable, because by banning the issuing of insurance for transportation you cannot prevent such acts from taking place.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. gentleman differentiate between airport counter flight insurance sales and insurance dispensed by machine? Does he not agree that there is a great difference? After all, what is really being expressed by this bill is a request that we consider the desirability of banning insurance vending machines for the reasons suggested.


John Mercer Reid: I do not think there is an appreciable difference between going to a counter where there is a young lady, often very pretty, selling insurance, and buying insurance from a vending machine. I can obtain the same insurance from a girl at a counter as I can obtain from a machine. It is actually what is being sold and the circumstances of the sale to which I object. There is a warm, human and personal touch when one buys insurance at a counter as opposed to the impersonal efficiency of the machine. My point is that if you ban the sale of air transport insurance by a girl at a counter or by a machine at an airport, then you should go to the logical extreme of banning entirely this type of insurance in order that people will not resort to the type of sabotage under discussion.
It is my opinion that a great deal of planning and ingenuity must take place before anyone plans the destruction of an aircraft in order to obtain insurance, and that denying travellers the right to purchase insurance against accidents will not change the mind of an individual who intends to cause one.
I am in full agreement with the thought which has been expressed, that this subject should be referred to a committee of this house for deeper consideration and study. Most of the arguments that were presented in this regard were one-sidedly in favour of this suggestion, and I am trying to present the other side, so to speak.
It is my hope that it will be possible for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) or the
October 5, 1966
Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) to consider seriously the subject matter of this bill, particularly with regard to possible amendments, before it is sent to a committee, so that the subject can quite properly be investigated by the experts.
One of our problems in the House of Commons in discussing certain matters, keeping in mind our duties as members, is that we never have time to research these matters to the depth they deserve. A great many Canadians are travelling more and more by air, and for this reason this subject needs a great deal of investigation.
In recent days we observed the adoption by the United States authorities of greater safety features in automobiles. I believe this is long overdue, and that it will result in a substantial improvement in our automobiles in the next few years. The same situation in the matter of safety features does not exist in respect of the manufacture of aircraft. I cannot think of any aircraft accident in recent years due to a mechanical failure, and this is a very happy and satisfactory situation.
My belief is that a committee set up by the government or a government department should make an investigation into this whole matter relating to the growing risks of air travel. The proposed narrowing of air lanes from 120 miles to 90 miles recently received publicity. This has been referred to by experts, and particularly by pilots who fly these aircraft, as something that should be investigated. I am not sure that any government department is looking into this situation with any thoroughness. The supersonic age will be upon us in full force within the next six years and I am wondering whether or not a government department in Canada should look into this matter of urgency.
In conclusion I should like to make a plea to the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, or the authority under whose jurisdiction this subject should fall, to give serious consideration to sending this whole matter to an appropriate committee in order that we can make a complete investigation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all I should like to congratulate the sponsor of this resolution for the obvious interest and study that he has given to this problem that faces the travelling public at this time. I refer to the purchase of insurance at airports as opposed to the purchase of insurance on a slot machine basis.
23033-529J
Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance
There is great merit in the suggestion contained in this resolution. I am not personally acquainted with all the ramifications of this subject, but I feel it would be a good idea to send it to an appropriate committee for consideration. Surely there are arguments for an against this motion, but it envisages something which should be considered further.
I heard many individuals discuss this whole question before the bill was placed on the order paper, many of whom had purchased transportation insurance on the slot machine basis. The hon. member who spoke before me suggested, in respect of other methods of selling transportation insurance, that there was no investigation made as to the character or reputation of the purchaser. It may be that as a result of a thorough study of this subject some method of investigation could be devised whereby a person seeking insurance could be checked as to character and reputation.
I know an M.P. who quite recently went overseas. All he was required to do to purchase insurance on this basis was sign a form. I am sure the vendors of this type of insurance would consider a member of parliament to be a reasonably responsible person, although on occasion I have doubts about that. But surely there should be some kind of investigation, regardless of who is applying for insurance.
I congratulate the sponsor of this resolution for bringing its subject matter to the attention of the house, and I trust it will be considered by an appropriate committee. The result of such a study might be a recommendation to the house requiring the sale of this type of insurance to be made under circumstances which could prevent the occurrence of those things mentioned in the motion.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those resolutions that could not possibly be adequately discussed, with all its ramifications, in the one hour allotted by the rules of the House of Commons. It is an extremely important resolution and should be given further study by members of the house.
As a traveller who has flown many, many, thousands of miles on our air lines since the end of the last war, I find myself deeply concerned about the problem of sabotage on aircraft. I have never, on entering an airplane, had any real concern about the ability

8370	COMMONS
Suggested Removal of Flight Insurance of the man in charge, the pilot, at the front end of the aircraft. As a matter of fact, I think it would be safe to say that I have flown many thousands of miles in the mountains of British Columbia when the pilot has found it safer, if you can conceive of this prospect, to stay down, even with a two-engined or four-engined plane in the mountain regions-that is to say, down in the river gorges-rather than up through a cloud bank and over the peaks of the mountains, because of the difficulty of returning to that height and the scheduled air route.
The pilot is the man in charge, and I have had no concern when this has happened because I have known that quite often he was a younger man than I and perhaps had more to live for than I had. But it now becomes a matter of great concern to the air line pilots themselves. When the Canadian Pacific Airlines plane went down in northern British Columbia-and I would say here, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian Pacific Airlines have an excellent record in flying the mountain regions and have not had any serious accident as a result of pilot error-investigations showed that there was some evidence of explosives having been placed on the plane. Immediately upon the report of that investigation the air line pilots issued a statement suggesting that there should be a law in Canada, and of course elsewhere, to provide that trip insurance should not be sold at airports. I do not recall that they singled out vending machines. I believe the concern of the air fine pilot is the fact that trip insurance is available; that is, that anyone may determine to purchase insurance that gives an extreme rate of return for a very small investment. This is their chief concern.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this resolution really does not go far enough. It may be regrettable that some of the pretty girls referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would no longer be employed at our airports. But I am sure that with their ability and recognized good looks they would have no difficulty in obtaining employment with the car rental companies, and so on. We should have no real concern in this respect. The air line pilots are really concerned about this problem and I believe the public should become concerned about it. I think that people who are not adequately insured should not attempt to drive on the Queensway in Ottawa this afternoon between four o'clock and six o'clock. I

DEBATES	October 5,1966
feel that one needs to pay a higher rate of insurance on that pilgrimage than he does when travelling on the air lines of Canada today.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if I could obtain the unanimous consent of the house I would move, seconded by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport:
That the subject matter of the proposed resolution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Has the minister the unanimous consent of the house to move this motion?


Michael Starr: We have not heard all the motion, Mr. Speaker. I think we should hear the motion and then concur in it or otherwise.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The motion, Mr. Speaker, would be:
That the subject matter of the proposed resolution now being considered by the house be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs for consideration thereof.


Michael Starr: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: If I have the unanimous consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would so move, seconded by the parliamentary secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has already spoken.
Should not somebody else second the motion? I will.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Then the motion is seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the house to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I so move, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader whether there are any changes in the program to be dealt with
October 5, 1966
tomorrow, or are we to go on with the Bank Act? If we are, and that item of business is completed, what will we undertake next?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat embarrassed and surprised by the hon. member's question. It was my understanding earlier this afternoon that the government house leader would be conferring with the other
Business of the House house leaders with regard to arranging the business for the next two or three days. I have no further information.


Michael Starr: That was my understanding, but I was wondering whether in the meantime the government had changed its mind.


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


Thursday, October 6, 1966