1966-07-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to do the house and the Minister of Trade and Commerce the courtesy of identifying the source of the information which was the basis of my remarks in the house yesterday respecting the Cuban flour milling situation. My source of information was the associate editor of the Winnipeg Tribune, Mr. Val Wenier, and a front page article in that newspaper of last Saturday, July 9.



AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development- Mr. Whelan.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-228, to amend the Criminal Code (harassing telephone communications).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide penalties for persons convicted of abusing the telephone service to harass or torment other persons. This represents a serious and growing problem, and in Ontario and Quebec the Bell Telephone Company estimates that some 2,000 complaints are received monthly from the victims of such action. Similar legislation is now before the United States congress.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What is the estimate of the number of people in each of the provinces who would be within reach of coloured television within one year of inauguration?
2.	What is the estimate of the number of people in each of the provinces who would be within reach of coloured television within five years of inauguration?
3.	What is the estimate of the expenditure necessary to provide coloured television transmission within its first year of operation?
4.	What is the estimate of the cost of maintaining and expanding coloured television facilities for the next five years thereafter?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	Estimated population expected to be within reach of color television from C.B.C.-owned facilities: Newfoundland, 213,000; Prince Edward Island, 25,000; Nova Scotia, 385,000; New Brunswick, 153,000; Quebec, 4,068,000; Ontario, 3,936,000; Manitoba, 693,000; Saskatchewan, -; Alberta, 549,000; British Columbia, 1,368,000; total, 11,390,000.
2.	The C.B.C.'s second phase of color development is only in the preliminary planning stage.
3.	By March, 1967, C.B.C. capital expenditures for color are expected to amount to some $14 million. It is estimated that due to color, operating costs will have increased by approximately $2 million.
4.	The corporation has not been authorized to proceed with color development to the extent of expending or committing funds over the five year period from April, 1967 to March, 1972.


EXTENSION OF TELEVISION SERVICE, CAPE BRETON ISLAND
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria: Supplementary
1.	Does the government plan to provide adequate television service to the communities of Pleasant Bay, Red River, Capstick, Bay St. Lawrence, St. Margaret's Village, Dingwall, North Harbour, South Harbour, Sunrise, Big Intervale, Cape North, Aspy Bay, Sugar Loaf, White Point, Smelt Brook and Bay Road Valley in northern Cape Breton Island, N.S.?

July 13, 1966
Questions
2.	Has the government, through any oi its ministers, received representation in this regard and, if so (a) what reply was given (b) what action, if any, is contemplated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned:
2.	Yes, (a) letter acknowledged stating that representation being passed on to Secretary of State, (b) to be answered elsewhere.
In so far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
2.	(a) Representations were received from several citizens in the areas concerned. As cabinet minister for Nova Scotia the Minister of National Health and Welfare assured his correspondents that every possible consideration was being given to this very important matter. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made continuous representations to the authorities concerned, (b) to be answered elsewhere.


INTEREST RATE ON MONEY FOR FOREIGN LOANS
Mr. Godin: 1.	When the government grants a loan to a foreign country at a certain rate, does it obtain this money at this same rate?
2.	If so, what is the rate most frequently applicable?
3.	If not. on what basis are the standards of such a transaction established?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable. See answer to 1.
3.	In the case of commercial transactions, the rate of interest is determined by commercial considerations and is comparable to the rates normally charged for such transactions by other lenders; in the case of aid transactions, on the current and prospective economic and balance of payments situation of the country to which the loan is made.


U.S. TAX ON TOURISTS
Mr. Allard: Does the government have any knowledge of an alleged $100 tourist tax to be imposed by the government of the United States on American citizens going abroad and, if so, has the government made or does it intend to make representations to the government of the United States to the effect that this tax should not apply to American citizens visiting Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: There has been some comment recently in the

press speculating that the U.S. government was planning a head tax on U.S. tourists going abroad. The U.S. administration quite naturally has under continuous review all aspects of the U.S. balance of payments situation, including what steps they might take if further action should become necessary. There is, as a matter of practice now, close discussion of balance of payments matters between the U.S. and Canada. Canadian representatives have informally reminded the U.S. authorities of Canada's great interest in any policy change affecting U.S. tourists.


WINDSOR, ONT.-PROVISION OF FRENCH RADIO BROADCASTS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the government received petitions from the city council of Windsor, Ontario, and from several citizens in the Ontario counties of Essex and Kent with regard to the installation of French language radio in that region?
2.	If so, what answers has the government given on this subject to the city council of Windsor or to any other person or body?
3.	Has the government conveyed any such petitions to the directors of the C.B.C.?
4.	If so, when will the directors of the C.B.C. study such petitions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Office of the Secretary of State has generally replied to those concerned after consultations with representatives of the C.B.C. The replies stated that the C.B.C. is at present studying the possibility of setting up a frequency modulation station in this region because of the present lack of good AM frequency bands. The office also stressed the urgent need for the extension of the C.B.C. French network and the priority which the government is giving to this.
3.	Individual members of parliament have received letters and sent them to the C.B.C. and the corporation itself has received letters and petitions from individuals and groups.
4.	The C.B.C. has considered numerous requests, over the past few years, for the establishment of a French language radio station in Windsor. Due to the absence of a good AM frequency, the C.B.C. is presently thinking in terms of an FM station for Windsor. The proposed station is on the C.B.C. current five-year capital plan.
July 13, 1966


ENLARGEMENT OF BAIE D'ESPOIR POWER DEVELOPMENT
Mr, Coates: Has a request been received by the federal government, or the Atlantic Development Board, from the government of the province of Newfoundland for additional assistance in the doubling of the size of the Baie d'Espoir power development and, if so, has a decision been rendered in this request?


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


PAYMENTS INTO FEDERAL SUPERANNUATION FUND
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How much money has been paid by (a) the federal government (b) federal government employees into the superannuation fund since its inception?
2.	How much money has been paid out of the superannuation fund since its inception?


Mitchell William Sharp: Estimated amounts as of March 31, 1966-
1.	(a) $1,781,863,132, including interest but excluding other sums for which the government has assumed the liability consisting of $93,620,600 in the form of a deferred charge which is being amortized and $396,217,000 which was written off to net debt, (b) $754,480,146.
2.	$684,999,062.


COST OF WITHDRAWING AND RE-ESTABLISHING NATO PERSONNEL
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the estimated cost to Canada of the political and military withdrawal of our NATO personnel from France?
2.	What is the estimated cost of re-establishing these forces in other countries?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned:
With regard to civilian personnel employed by NATO, any costs which might be incurred would arise from a decision to transfer the NATO civilian headquarters out of Paris. No such decision has been taken to date.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: The withdrawal of our military units from bases in France is a matter of negotiation with France and until certain decisions have been taken no estimate of costs can be given.
Questions


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question 1,653-Mr. Irvine:
1.	Are any former civil servants of Canada now retired receiving pensions of less than $50 per month and, if so, how many?
2.	Are any in receipt of pensions of $50 to $75 per month and, if so, how many?
3.	Are any in receipt of pensions of $75 to $100 per month and, if so, how many?
Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3. The total of the pensions received by retired civil servants from all sources is not known. In so far as the pensions paid under employee pension plans of the government of Canada are concerned, the following information is available in answer to this question: pensioners receiving less than $50 per month, 5,203. Pensioners receiving $50 and less than $75 per month, 4,411. Pensioners receiving $75 to $100 per month, 3,660.


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,676
Mr. Irvine:: 1.	What was the total number of persons illegally resident in Canada as of January 1, 1966?
2.	Of these, how many are on extended visitors' permits?
3.	How many remain on minister's permit?
4.	How many have been ordered deported?
5.	How many were deported during each of the years 1955 to 1965?
6.	How many such people are in Canada awaiting various decisions and/or impending regulation or legislation?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to declare a large portion of them "landed immigrants" and, if so, when?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. There are many categories of illegal residents e.g. ship deserters, stowaways, persons who gained entry by eluding examination or by giving fraudulent information and persons who came forward legally as visitors but overstayed the period of their authorized entry. No accurate estimate is possible as to how many of these people may have been in Canada at any given time. However, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced in the house on July 8, 1966, the department has received approximately 20,000 applications from visitors in Canada seeking landed immigrant status.
2. and 3. The 20,000 visitors referred to in part 1 have not been issued with formal visitor's or minister's permits but rather they
7612	COMMONS
Questions
have been allowed to remain in Canada without official immigration status pending decisions on their immigrant applications.
4.	and 5. There is no way of distinguishing in departmental statistics all of those persons who may have been in Canada illegally and who were ordered deported or deported. However, the attached statistical table reflects the total number of persons ordered deported or
DEBATES	July 13, 1966
deported from within Canada during each of the years 1955 to 1965 indicating the general category in which they came.
6.	See answer to part 1.
7.	Government policy in dealing with such applications was announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on July 8, 1966.


DEPORTATIONS ORDERED OR EPFECTED FROM WITHIN CANADA 1955 TO 1965
[Stage Direction]
Non- Immigrants Refused Deportation Ordered Permanent or Effected Admission	Immigrants Landed later found Deportable	Ship Deserters	Stowaways	Others	Total1955-Ordered	
253	681	262	179	1,375Effected	
159	314	239	-	150	8621956-Ordered	
166	453	242	3	135	999Effected	
73	215	204	0	112	6041957-Ordered	
151	293	190	29	122	785Effected	
51	137	176	24	118	5061958-Ordered	
206	535	174	44	156	1,115Effected	
121	209	160	40	125	6551959-Ordered	
282	503	194	34	222	1,235Effected	
145	245	146	25	183	7441960-Ordered	
43	380	203	28	200	854Effected	
41	201	145	29	155	5711961-Ordered	
140	387	211	20	243	1 001Effected	
41	178	154	17	202	'5921962-Ordered	
109	261	434	18	185	1 007Effected	
57	122	279	17	155	6301963-Ordered	
150	122	278	24	209	783Effected	
72	89	181	23	182	5471964-Ordered	
241	113	413	29	228	1 024Effected	
146	75	288	27	186	7221965-Ordered	
134	78	547	24	304	1,087Effected	
90	55	416	21	259	841Totals-Ordered	
Effected	
1,875 	
996	3,806 1,840	3,148 2,388	253 223	2,183 1,827	11,265 7,274Note:	There is not necessarily any relationship between the figures for deportations "ordered" and "effected"
in any one given year. The ordered ' figures represent all deportations ordered in a particular year while the effected figures represent those orders which were executed in a given year regardless of the year in which the order may have been issued.

Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the number of C.B.C. employees?
2.	How many such employees are (a) writers (b) performers (c) producers (d) news personnel (e) technical personnel (f) clerical personnel (g) in the various levels of management?
[Mr. Munro.l


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. 8,304 as at March 31, 1966.
2. (a) 51 (b) not on staff (c) 2,041 production staff, of whom 462 are producers (d) 221 (e) 1,871 (f) 1,658 (g) 1,174. The remaining 1,288 employees include those engaged in a variety of other activities not specified in the question.
July 13, 1966	COMMONS


P.E.I. APPLICATIONS FOR FISHING VESSEL SUBSIDIES
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many applications from the province of Prince Edward Island for the payment of subsidies under the fishing vessel regulations 1964 have been approved for payment since February 21, 1966?
2.	Of those approved since the above date, how many have actually been paid?
3.	How many applications were rejected, what were the names and addresses of the applicants rejected, and what was the reason for the rejection?
4.	How soon may payments be expected by those whose applications have been approved but not yet paid?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	None. Inspection of boats of the 35 foot to 45 foot class to determine eligibility, as
DEBATES	7613
Questions
referred to in reply to question No. 1,094, is still under way.
4.	Up to the present there have been no approvals based on above inspection procedure.


NATIONAL, DEBT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the total outstanding national debt of Canada as of the end of each fiscal year 1950 to 1965-66?
2.	What was the national debt per capita in each of these years?
3.	What was the total cost and the per capita cost of servicing this debt in each of the aforementioned years?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3. See table.
Cost of servicing gross national debt Cost of servicing	less return on
Gross national debt Net national debt gross national debt	investments____
Population	March 31	Amount	Per capita	Amount Per capita	Amount Per capita	Amount Per capita	($ Mill.)	$	($ Mill.)	$	($ Mill.)	$	($ Mill.)	$13,712	1950	16,751	1,222	11,645	849	451	33	359	2614,009	1951	16,923	1,208	11,433	816	439	31	349	2514,459	1952	17,257	1,194	11,185	774	531	37	413	2914,845	1953	17,919	1,207	11,162	752	465	31	348	2315'287	1954	17,923	1,172	11,116	727	496	33	344	2315', 698	1955	17,952	1,144	11,263	717	502	32	368	2316,081	1956	19,124	1,189	11,280	701	514	32	365	2316,610	1957	18,336	1,104	11,008	663	534	32	327	2017,080	1958	18,419	1,078	11,046	647	567	33	398	2317,483	1959	20,250	1,158	11,678	668	648	37	427	2417,870	1960	20,986	1,174	12,089	676	784	44	544	3018,238	1961	21,603	1,185	12,437	682	798	44	514	2818,570	1962	22,908	1,234	13,228	712	839	45	531	2918,896	1963	24,799	1,312	13,920	737	918	49	606	3219,235	1964	25,923	1,348	15,070	783	994	52	628	3319,571	1965	26,573	1,358	15,504	792	4,051	54	628	3219i783	1966	27,617	1,396	15,538	785	1,085	55	649	33
4 00
(Estimated)
Source: Public Accounts 1950-1965
Budget White Papers 1965-1966


KRIEGHOFF PAINTINGS IN NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Are there any Krieghoff paintings at the National Gallery?
2.	If so (a) how much has been paid for them (b) from whom were they bought (c) what are the titles of these paintings?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2. While in this instance the prices of the Krieghoff are generally known to the dealers, information can be provided, but this precedent could prove to be embarrassing in other

July 13, 1966
Questions
questions of a similar nature where the Na- It could possibly result in making negotia-tional Gallery may feel that it would not be tions more difficult with dealers and indiin its best interests to reveal the prices paid, viduals.
	(a)	(b)
$	350	Not known$	875	R. A. Davies$	875	R. A. Davies$ 7,500	Laing GalleriesGift	Miss Edith WilsonGift	Sen. Edwards Estate$15,000	Dominion GalleryGift	Miss Geneva Jackson$	350	Not known$	500	Not known$ 8,000	W. M. ConnorGift	Edward F. Murphy$	125	W. Scott & Sons$	700	Not knownGift	Edward F. MurphyGift	Miss Edith Wilson$ 2,000	Cameron Rougvie


DORCHESTER, N.B.-HOUSING FOR PENITENTIARY STAFF
Mr. Coales: 1.	Is the government removing the homes used by personnel of the Canadian penitentiary service at Dorchester, New Brunswick, and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What action is the government taking to ensure that a substantial number of the employees of the Canadian penitentiary service will reside in close proximity to the penal institutions at Dorchester, N.B., for emergency situations?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to carry out any new housing developments in the Dorchester area as a result of the elimination of the present housing?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. The penitentiary service removed eight frame units at Dorchester, as these units became vacant, in keeping with the penitentiary service policy to phase out of housing operations. In 1963 several units were declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (CADC) and in 1964 CADC authorized the penitentiary service to dispose of these buildings, but no bids were received when public tenders were called. Subsequently the CADC authorized the penitentiary service to proceed with the disposition of the other houses that

(C)
Autumn Scenery Portrait of John Bicknell Portrait of Mrs. John Bicknell The Blizzard The Chaudiere The Habitant Farm
The Horse Fraser Ridden by Mr. Miller The Ice Bridge at Longueuil The Indians Running a Rapid Lord Monk
The Passing Storm, St. Fereol
The River Road
Self Portrait
The Studio
The Toll Gate
Winter Landscape
Winter Landscape, Laval
have been removed. The frame units are approximately 80 years old. As a result of certain representations, the phasing out operation is under review.
2.	A substantial number of the staff of the penitentiary live within reasonably close proximity by car of the institution.
3.	The penitentiary service has no plans for carrying out any new housing developments in the Dorchester area.


CENTENNIAL FISHERIES MUSEUM, LUNENBURG, N.S.
Mr. Sfanbury: Will the proposed centennial fisheries museum in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, contain some suitable commemoration of the schooner Bluenose to ensure recognition of the town's greatest historical asset?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.
The centennial commission has been informed that the centennial fisheries museum of the town of Lunenburg will take the form of a typical fishing village with up to 12 buildings included.
They will be built on piling to resemble the fishing buildings at a wharf. There will
July 13. 1966

be several arms to the wharfs to which will be tied small fishing boats such as dories.
The tools of the trade will be exhibited at various places through the fishing village, different types of fishing gear will be on display from the earliest time of fishing in the Maritimes up to the present modernized methods. It is also expected that there will be a building which will be displaying the log books of old boats which sailed out of Lunenburg.


DEMOLITION OF HOUSES, DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Is the demolition of houses at Dorchester penitentiary, New Brunswick, undertaken with the approval of the government of Canada?
2.	Have the houses been condemned as being unsuitable for human habitation?
3.	If so, what is the name of the official who made such report?
4.	Has any attempt been made to sell the houses to tenants presently occupying same?
5.	Has any attempt been made to secure bids by public tender?
6.	What is the present appraised value of the houses to be destroyed?
7.	Will employees of the Department of Justice occupying these houses at present be obliged to secure housing accommodation elsewhere and, if so, will allowance for travelling be on a mileage basis?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The demolition of houses at Dorchester was undertaken pursuant to a penitentiary service policy to phase out of government housing except in isolated localities. In October, 1963 two frame units were declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (CADC). As no offers to purchase these units were received CADC authorized the penitentiary service to dispose of these units, and in view of this experience CADC subsequently authorized the penitentiary service to proceed with the disposal of other frame units.
The units disposed of while not officially condemned were approximately eighty (80) years old, and the cost of maintenance of some of these units amounted to over $1,200 in a two year period. This cost of maintenance did not include any charge for labour, which was provided by the medium and minimum security inmates. However, this labour service will not be available in the future with the transfer of the minimum security inmates to the existing Springhill minimum security institution, and the transfer of medium security inmates to the new young offenders (medium
Questions
security) institution which will be opened at Springhill late in 1966.
In the opinion of experienced personnel within the penitentiary service, bearing in mind the age of the frame units, the state of disrepair, the monthly rentals, and the fact that they were situated on crown lands and would have to be removed in the event of sale, and the policy of the penitentiary service to phase out of housing, the cost of continued maintenance would not be justified.
Fixtures and other material salvaged in the disposal of these frame units is at present in storage and will be utilized by the penitentiary service as the occasion arises. In the circumstances no appraisals were obtained.
7. The employees of the department who occupied the demolished houses have secured housing accommodation elsewhere and, where otherwise qualified are entitled to an allowance for travelling under Treasury Board minute 608561, dated June 28, 1963.


TELEVISION TRANSMITTERS FOR NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation developing a plan whereby small television transmitters will be provided to northern communities which would otherwise be denied C.B.C. television coverage?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the development which the C.B.C. has in contemplation and when may it be expected that the program will be put into operation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2. The development would consist of small, self contained television transmitters to provide service by means of video tape recordings to small isolated communities. The tape recordings would be delivered to the community by the most convenient transport available and broadcast on the station in 4 hour units. The transmitters and tape units are still in the developmental stage but, if technically and financially feasible, a start on putting them into operation could be made within the next two or three years and the program completed over the following two or three years.


GEAR ASSISTANCE TO LOBSTER FISHERMEN, VICTORIA COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the Department of Fisheries to provide gear assistance to the lobster fishermen

July 13, 1966
Questions
of Victoria county, Nova Scotia, who suffered substantial trap losses through storms in early June and, if so, what form will the assistance in question take?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: No, but provision is available through the fishermen's indemnity plan for the insuring of lobster traps.


RETIREMENT OF ARMY LIEUTENANTS AND CAPTAINS
Mr. Bower: Have any army officers between the ranks of lieutenant and captain inclusive retired prematurely at their own request during the past eighteen months and, if so, how many?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes, 178 army officers in the ranks of lieutenant and captain retired at own request between 1 December, 1964, and 31 May, 1966.


LAND USE STUDY, JERICHO BEACH, B.C.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	What firm did the government hire to make a land use study of Jericho Beach national defence lands in Vancouver?
2.	How much will the study cost?
3.	What are the town planning qualifications possessed by the consultant?
4.	With what real estate and development company is the consultant associated?
5.	Are the studies continuing in view of the recent request of the city of Vancouver for a discontinuance of the studies and for the conveyance of the lands to the city for park and recreational purposes and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No firm as such has been hired but Mr. Gilbert J. Hardman, Vancouver, B.C. is carrying out a study.
2. $15,000.
3 and 4. He is an associate of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and is in charge of estate planning and development for Grosvenor-Laing (B.C.) Ltd., Annacis Industrial Estate, New Westminster, B.C.
5.	No request has been received from the mayor of Vancouver for a discontinuance of the study.


DESIGN OF COMMEMORATIVE DOLLAR BILL
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Who designed the special dollar bill commemorating confederation year?
2.	What is the purpose of having chosen the picture of parliament being destroyed by fire in 1916?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The special dollar bill commemorating confederation year was designed by a security printing organization which supplies the Bank of Canada with bank notes.
2. The scene on the back of the special dollar bill will depict the original centre block of the parliament buildings which was erected in 1860-65 as it appeared in 1867. It will not depict the parliament buildings being destroyed by fire. It was felt that since this historic edifice housed Canada's first parliament it was an appropriate subject for engraving on the centennial note.


DENIAL OF PENSIONS TO ARMED FORCES WIDOWS
Mr. Enns: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence a list of cases where the widows of members of the armed forces were considered eligible for pensions by the Department of National Defence, but were not granted service pensions by the pension board?
2.	If so (a) in what areas do such cases arise (b) has any action been taken by the Department of National Defence to resolve such difficulties in favour of widows of members of the armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


TRAFFIC CONTROL, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the annual cost to the Canadian government for maintaining order, directing traffic and supervising parking facilities, by the R.C.M.P., on parliament hill?
2.	Does the city of Ottawa obtain the proceeds of tickets issued by the R.C.M.P. for illegal parking on parliament hill and, if so, under what conditions?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.

2. Yes, under the provisions of section 626 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


* EXCHANGES OF CIVIL SERVANTS TO PROMOTE BILINGUALISM
Mr. McCleave: Regarding the answers to starred questions 1,799 and 1,816, as given to this house by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister on July 11, how will the duties carried out now by such senior officials be carried on?


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, during the
July 13, 1966

absence of these senior officials, temporary arrangements will be made for the performance of their normal duties. The nature of the arrangements will depend upon the particular case. In general it is anticipated that temporary replacements will be provided, but in some instances a temporary redivision or redistribution of duties will be made. It will be understood that an officer going on one of these courses will return to his original position unless a different posting has been arranged by mutual consent.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ricard: 1.	How many United States citizens are there in the employ of the government of Canada?
2.	Have any of the said United States citizens been requested to obtain Canadian citizenship and, if so (a) how many (b) how many have refused in order to retain their United States citizenship and, in what federal government departments are they employed?
Return tabled.



TEXTILE IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Question 1,640-Mr. Allard:
1.	What countries export textile products to Canada?
2.	What was the nature and total value of the textile products imported from each of these countries in 1964 and 1965?
3.	Was there either an increase or a decrease in imports of the different groups of textile products from each of these countries in 1963, 1964 and 1965 and, if so, by what percentage?
4.	Is the government trying to extend the system of voluntary quotas, in effect between Canada on the one side and Japan and Hong Kong on the other, to include the United States, Communist China and other countries?
5.	Does the government contemplate extending the limits of the present quotas to include products which are not covered and to defining each category?
6.	Is the government giving consideration to demanding sub-quotas designed to prevent oversaturation through concentration?
7.	Is the government preparing to bring prices of imported textile products nearer to those of Canadian products by valuing them for customs purposes?
Return tabled.
Motions for Paper [Translation]

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for documents Nos. 139 and 152 are acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 150 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations respecting confidential documents and subject also to the consent of the provincial authorities of British Columbia.
Would Your Honour call notice of motion No. 137. I would ask that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.



INQUIRY RESPECTING WINTER WORKS, ST. EPHREM DE BEAUCE, QUE.

Mr. Langlois (Megantic): That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the inquiry made by Mr. Georges Denoncourt, a national employment service employee in St. Georges de Beauce, in relation to an inquiry made in St. Ephrem de Beauce with regard to winter works between January 1, 1960, and January 1, 1966, inclusively.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the document asked for in this motion is a privileged document. I would ask the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) whether he would agree to do for this motion what he did in respect of motion No. 138, that is to withdraw it, because of the privileged nature of the document.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).



CORRESPONDENCE WITH FORMER MEMBER, ST. EPHREM DE BEAUCE WINTER WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, or documents exchanged between the Minister of National Revenue or his department, the Minister of Labour or his department, and Mr. Gerard Perron, former member of parliament for Beauce, from June 18, 1962, until November 8, 1965, in relation to winter works in St. Ephrem de Beauce, between January 1, 1960, and January 1, 1966, inclusively.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 13, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry LOG DRIVE ON STELLAKO RIVER, B.C.
Motion No. 150-Mr. Deachman:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any communication exchanged between the Minister of Fisheries of the government of Canada and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Waters or any other minister of the government of British Columbia with respect to the driving or towing of logs on the Stellako river, B.C., for the period January 1, 1966, to date.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 150 be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 152-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, dated since January 1, 1964, between any railway unions and the Minister of Labour regarding legislation respecting health and safety in employment under federal labour jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the business he announced for today can he tell the house now what legislation the government intends to complete before the summer recess?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I wish to make in connection with this question relates to the medical care insurance bill. Last evening this item was listed as one of the items of business for today. I have noted the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre following that announcement. Since that time I have had an opportunity of considering the discussions that have taken place with the house leaders. There has also been a

conversation with the government house leader, who is unfortunately absent in Charlottetown on government business. It appears that at one point the government house leader undertook not to proceed with second reading of the medical care bill if a terminal date for a summer adjournment had been reached. That undertaking may have been felt by some hon. members as an absolute undertaking not to proceed beyond the resolution stage. It appears there is some misunderstanding, and that hon. members opposite feel that was the undertaking.
As the minister directly involved with this bill I would much prefer to see the house deal with it in all its stages, but at least to the second reading stage. However, taking into account what may be a deep feeling in regard to an undertaking, the government will not insist on proceeding beyond the resolution stage.
Let me say that the government is dedicated to the principles embodied in this bill because they represent the firm policy of the government. I wish it were possible by agreement of all parties to deal at least with the second reading stage before adjourning for the summer vacation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the remarks of the minister that he is not going to proceed with second reading before the summer vacation. That being so, and in accordance with the business he outlined yesterday, we will be dealing only with the income tax amendments, the bill in respect of the national arts centre, the bill sponsored by the Minister of Trade and Commerce having to do with amendments to the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act and Bill C-215 in respect of the dock workers. That being the case I suggest that if the government can obtain the agreement of other groups in the house we should sit this evening until ten o'clock and again tomorrow with the objective of finishing this business by tomorrow night.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Irrespective of what private commitments may have been made to the official opposition, the commitments made publicly by the Prime Minister, the house leader for the government and again yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare were to the effect that legislation regarding medicare would be considered. May I also say that no commitment was made by a representative
July 13, 1966

of this party at the house leaders' meeting, agreeing not to proceed with the medicare legislation.
In view of these facts I should like to ask the minister whether he does not feel just as bound by the public commitments which he and other ministers of the government have made, as he apparently feels bound by the private commitment that was made by the Minister of Public Works.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in reply to a question posed I think by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I stated it would be my preference to complete at least second reading of the medical care bill. I also added that it was not a commitment. If my hon. friend will look at the record he will see this is so. It is still my preference to proceed with the second reading of the bill at least, but I will not insist upon it in the absence of common agreement in the house because of what appears to have been an understanding, or a misunderstanding, between the house leader-


Mr. Churchill:: It was a clear understanding. Quit waffling.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the members of the official opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the Minister of Public Works did not make a formal commitment in this house on June 6, and whether the Prime Minister has not also stated both in the house and outside the house, his latest quotation being last Sunday on radio, that the medicare legislation would be proceeded with before the summer recess?


An hon. Member:: No

the resolution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The medical care legislation will be proceeded with in this session; there is no doubt about that. The government is firmly committed to the policies in the medical care bill, and if it cannot be dealt with by agreement before the summer recess, then it will be one of the first items of business in the fall.
I have examined carefully all my own statements on this point, and I have examined the statements of the Prime Minister. In all cases we have expressed the hope that we could deal fully with the legislation, but there has been no firm commitment in the house by the Prime Minister or myself that we would pass all the stages of the bill. I have not 23033-482
Inquiries of the Ministry examined statements made by the house leader, but as the minister involved in the medical care bill I am dedicated to getting it through and wish all parties would agree to give it second reading before the summer adjournment.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he make it clear, in light of the inquiries he must have made today, that if there was any commitment made by the Minister of Public Works not to proceed, it must have been made privately to one or two house leaders and not to all of us? In other words, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, no such commitment was made to this house leader. I made it clear that we wanted to go all the way and that we expected the government to stand by its commitment to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the house. I would point out that commitments have been made with respect to proceeding with medicare prior to the summer adjournment. The first commitment was made by the Minister of Public Works on June 6, as reported at page 5979 of Hansard. He said:
Mr. Speaker, recently In the house and In meetings with other house leaders the government has been asked to indicate the business which it proposes to bring forward in this part of the present session. I should like to indicate that the major items which the government proposes for consideration, in addition to those already before parliament, are the medicare bill; the Bank Act revisions; a bill to amend the crop insurance legislation-
-and so on. This was a definite commitment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which page is that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This was on June 6. May I point out that on July 7 the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, said as reported at page 7305 of Hansard:
It is our intention to introduce, I hope within a very few hours, the resolution dealing with medicare, and it is still our hope to get the legislation through all its stages with the least possible delay.
I would again point out that yesterday, while it is true that earlier in the day the minister of health in that capacity said it was

July 13, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry his hope that second reading would be proceeded with after the passage of the resolution, he did say in his capacity as acting house leader in outlining the business for today, as reported at page 7606:
Mr. Speaker, the order of business for tomorrow is the income tax amendments; the national arts centre; Bill C-215, which is the dock workers bill; second reading of the medical care insurance bill-
Hon. members had every right to assume that this legislation would be proceeded with; and if the government thinks that compulsory arbitration for dock workers is important, surely medicare legislation is equally important in view of the commitments the government has made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since, as the minister has frequently stated, the Canadian representative on the international commission in Viet Nam has easy and welcome access to the government of North Viet Nam, will Canada use her good offices as a member of the international control commission to do everything possible to persuade the government of North Viet Nam not to execute the United States airmen who are prisoners of war in that country? The obvious consequences of such a barbarous act would be disastrous for everyone.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I will take notice of my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether the government of North Viet Nam is a signatory of the Geneva convention of 1949 regarding the treatment of prisoners of war?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: This question is now being examined.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not acceptable.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister know of any more serious situation with regard to the war in Viet Nam than the reported statements that United States airmen may be tried publicly and executed

publicly by the North Vietnamese; and does he not agree that this surely would have no other effect than an escalation of the war?
Mr. Martin (Essex East: I quite agree.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask whether his attention has been drawn to a statement which appears in the press, attributed to the manager of the Quaker Oats Company at Peterborough, to the effect that his company has been ordered by their parent company in the United States not to mill flour for Cuba.
I want to ask the minister whether he has verified the accuracy of this report, and if so, what action the minister proposes to take in the light of his research.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This morning I spoke to the president of Quaker Oats and he denied categorically that any such instruction had been received from the parent company in the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has been in touch with the other milling companies mentioned, subsidiaries of United States companies, and whether he got a similar reply from them?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, we have been in touch with the other milling companies and they have received no such instructions.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: On a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address my question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Finance. Can either of them tell me whether tenders have been called for the gristing of the flour portion of our first year's contract with the U.S.S.R.; and if so, have any of these United States subsidiary firms placed bids?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I will also say that I have never known of any instances of United States mills having turned down any business with the U.S.S.R.
July 13. 1966	COMMONS



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.
Following the many telegrams sent yesterday by the Catholic Farmers Union requesting the passage of Bill C-218 before the summer recess, can the minister make a statement to the house and to the Catholic Farmers Union in that connection?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the order of business for today was given yesterday and if the session is extended, I suppose we will probably be able to discuss this bill later.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has undoubtedly met the presilent of the Catholic Farmers Union concern-ng Bill C-218 but has he not promised the Catholic Farmers Union that that bill would ie considered before the summer recess?


Maurice Sauvé: No, immediately after first [DOT]eading, Mr. Speaker, we sent a copy of the >ill to all concerned. Most of them had an :xtemely interesting reaction, favourable to he bill, and I made no commitment concern-ng the business of the house, which is not vithin my control.
English]



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
DEBATES	7621
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Fulton:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from what the minister has said that there is no arrangement to meet or that no date has been set? Can the minister say whether or not a meeting is planned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No meeting is planned at present, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does he intend during the recess to meet with the provincial health ministers to discuss with them the federal medicare program.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member for Kamloops, I had invited the ministers of health to come to Ottawa last week to discuss medical care proposals. Because most of the ministers had other commitments the meeting was not held, and since that time I have made no plans to convene another meeting.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. I want to know whether it is the intention of the minister to make another effort to ascertain the views of the provincial ministers with regard to the federal plan. That is the question to which I should like an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not my
intention at the moment to convene another meeting.



MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER

[Stage Direction]
dominion-provincial conference On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to sk the Minister of National Health and /elfare whether he intends to meet shortly nth the provincial ministers of health to iscuss medicare and, if so, whether a date as been set for such a meeting.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I said last riday, Mr. Speaker, that I expected to have a leeting with the ministers of health. Most E them have wired me that it would be tconvenient for them to meet at that par-cular time. I think only one of them ex-ressed an interest in a meeting at any future me.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CUT-OFF DATE On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration following the question asked him yesterday. In view of the telegram received by the minister from Hon. John Yaremko, Ontario provincial secretary and minister of citizenship, in which he urged that the July 25 deadline in the minister's immigration policy be extended to October, and in which he also pointed out that the qualifications required for immigrant status in the fields of education and employment are too stringent, will the minister give consideration to this matter, and will he tell us whether he has arrived at any conclusion?
July 13, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is certain that the date which has been set must not result in cancelling, for all practical purposes, the policy I announced in the house. Up to now, there is no indication that the July 25 deadline will prevent the great majority, if not all, of immigrant visitors from submitting their applications.
If it is established that this date is actually an obstacle to the application of the new regulations, I shall be ready to reconsider the matter.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Could the minister tell us whether he intends to launch a more intensive publicity campaign, in order to get in touch with the greatest possible number of non-immigrants who might not understand enough English or French and who might be interested in his statement of Friday, July 8 last?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as early as next week, advertisements will be published in all foreign language papers of Canada to announce the new policy. We hope, in this way, to get in touch with the greatest number of people concerned.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister determined that the criteria to be applied to immigrants seeking permanent status in Canada should be at least eight months' employment and the equivalent of ten years of schooling in Canada?


Jean Marchand: No, the conditions enumerated in my statement to the house are not to be added, that is to say if someone has held a job for eight months it will not be necessary for him to have say, the ten year study qualification. Then-

You do not add the conditions. You may fulfil one condition and that is enough. Does that answer your question?


Michael Starr: No. My question is this. In many instances there are elderly people, perhaps the parents of Canadians who have been brought over to this country, who do not have the necessary qualifications under either of these criteria. Will they be deported, or will they be allowed to stay?


Jean Marchand: You mean those who can be
classified as sponsored immigrants, for example?


Michael Starr: They came here under visitors' visas and wish to remain.


Jean Marchand: They might be the mothers or fathers of Canadian citizens who were landed immigrants, and they will be dealt with in that way.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: am not quite clear on the answer the minister gave to the last question asked by the hon. member for Ontario. It seems to me that when a foreign visitor here has worked for four months, for instance, he should be entitled to the same consideration as one who has worked for eight months. It seems to me there could be some discrimination. I should like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to review this criterion of eight months of employment with a view to modifying it if he finds it may work some injustice.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the condition of having worked or having held a job in Canada for eight months is one of the requisites. There may be an immigrant or a visitoi who, not having worked for eight months will nevertheless meet the other qualifications called for, that is having the required education or falling into one of the categories mentioned. Then, he would not be required t( have worked eight months; but, for thos< who will lack the other qualifications, th< sole qualification of having worked for eigh months will enable them to remain ii Canada.

This does not mean that everyone will havi to work eight months. I do not know if have made myself clear.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-FINE LEVIED BY U.i AUTHORITY AGAINST CANADIAN TOWING COMPANY
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should lik to direct a question to the Secretary of Stat for External Affairs of which I sent hir notice. I ask the minister whether his atter tion has been drawn to the fact that a Unite States governmental authority has levied fine of some $380,000 against McAlliste
July 13, 1966

Towing Limited of Montreal for the reason that McAllister Towing, upon request, assisted a United States tug in making a tow from the St. Catherine lock on the St. Lawrence seaway to Port Colborne, all in Canadian waters. Will the minister look into this matter and make whatever representations are necessary to preserve Canada's sovereignty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend gave me notice of this question. I have had no direct communication from any of the parties concerned, but I am informed that the solicitors for McAllister Towing Company Limited have brought this matter to the attention of the Canadian Maritime Commission, and they have the question under review. This being the case, I think it would be undesirable for me to add anything except to make clear that according to our information the tow occurred between Montreal and Port Colborne, hence partly in United States waters. I should also like to inform the hon. gentleman that according to our information the amount of the fine involved has been considerably reduced by the United States authorities. This, of course, does not affect the principle to which my hon. friend directs my attention. With these facts and others I will elicit, I will certainly look into the matter further.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is the hon. lady now in a position to advise the house as to the present status of the centennial youth parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I regret that as a result of the pressure of business in the last few days, consideration at cabinet level has not yet been concluded. As I undertook previously, if a decision is not made before the house rises I undertake to write and advise hon. members at once. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I may have unanimous consent to revert to motions to make what I think is a very short announcement respecting colour television.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed? Perhaps it would facilitate matters if the minister were allowed to revert to motions after we have concluded the question period, which is limited to 30 minutes today.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



DEBATE ON PROTOCOL TO CARIBBEAN CONFERENCE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who acted as chairman of the trade meeting with the Caribbean countries. In view of the apparent disagreement over the method of ratification of the protocol, can the minister say if there was any understanding at the meeting as to whether this matter would be going back to the various countries for approval?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I am not aware of any such disagreement. I thought it was clearly understood what was set forth in the protocol and the method of processing it. I would be happy to talk to the hon. member about any disagreement of which I am not aware.


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the disagreement in the maritime provinces as well as the widespread worry in commonwealth countries about these important changes, does the minister feel we should be given a chance to express our opinion on this matter?


Robert Henry Winters: I will have to take that as notice. I am not aware of this disagreement.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the walkout of 190 stevedores at Hamilton, members of the International Longshoremen's Association, which is connected with the Montreal wage base agreement, I am wondering if the minister's attention has been drawn to a request made by the international longshoremen to the Department of Labour for assistance in settling this matter?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. It was brought to my attention late the day before yesterday. One of our senior officers was assigned to the work immediately.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: May I ask a supplementary question. When will that meeting occur?
July 13, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Exploratory meetings have taken place. It is my understanding that officials of the unions of the longshoremen's association in eastern Canada are meeting in Montreal today.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: word my question in the following way and ask it of the Minister of Finance. Has the government studied the serious and urgent implications involved in the publication at the end of last week of the D.B.S. figures relating to the cost of living? While I do not ask him for specific details of measures, I ask if specific measures are being considered at this time in view of the announcement.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is doing everything within its constitutional jurisdiction to restrain inflationary tendencies. I hope I have the full support of all hon. members in that direction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Poland is a member of the international commission on Viet Nam, has Canada protested or does Canada intend to protest to Poland about the stated intention of Warsaw pact countries, including Poland, to send troops if requested to North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be seeing the Polish ambassador soon and I will be discussing a number of general problems with him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. In view of Poland's stated intention, does the government of Canada now feel free to render aid to South Viet Nam should this be considered desirable? ,


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has never felt that it was restricted in granting aid to South Viet Nam, and it has so indicated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. In view
[Mr. Macaluso.I
of the last statement of the minister may I point out that the minister has relied on the fact that Canada was a member of the international control commission for refusing anything in the way of military assistance, or even the sending of medical personnel, to help the people who are fighting in South Viet Nam. Would the minister care to correct the answer he made just a minute ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any occasion to correct my answer. I would simply repeat what both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and myself announced jointly last week, that under the external aid program, the government has agreed to send medical equipment, beds, supplies, medicines and so on to assist the people in South Viet Nam.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. Can the secretary of state assure the house that whatever the attitude may be of the Polish government, this government has no intention of extending military aid to South Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: I made that quite clear last Friday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to say to the hon. member for York South in answer to his question that it has now been learned that a group of 21 Canadian teachers now in Hong Kong who had made arrangements to tour Communist China have been granted visas, and will be leaving Hong Kong for China in approximately four hours' time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I have given her verbal notice. When will the members of this house receive the report of the chief electoral officer pertaining to the twenty seventh general election on November 8 last, pursuant to subsection 6 of section 56 of the Canada Elections Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
July 13, 1966

giving my office notice of this question. I have checked with Mr. Hamel, and the chief electoral officer advises me that this report is many thousands of pages in length. Normally in the past it has taken eight to ten months to prepare and print it after each election. He informs me that members may expect to have it some time during the month of September.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has had any discussions with the Ayerst-McKenna Company in Montreal, which I am informed has a monopoly on the production of the drug estrogen, in connection with ensuring that no inhumane practices are involved in the treatment of animals which are required for the production of this drug.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I myself have had no discussions. I will inquire whether my officials have had any discussions on this matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he tell the house how much progress has been made by the ministerial committee in the conflict which involves, on the one hand, the C.N.T.U. and the employees of the C.B.C. French network and, on the other hand, the National Industrial Relations Board about the definition of the negotiating unit?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, for some reason that I have not been able to understand the transcript of the proceedings of the meeting of the cabinet committee with the Canadian Labour Congress and the railway brotherhoods when they made their submissions is not yet available. Whether this is because of a shortage of
Television
translators or whatever the reason, the committee has not received the copies of the transcript. We are anxiously awaiting it, and will give the matter prompt attention when the transcript is received.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I deal with a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Ontario during the question period a few days ago.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. gentleman with regard to Bill S-35, may I say this. He asked whether an opportunity would be given to interested organizations to present their views to a committee of this house. I stated that such an opportunity had been afforded in the other place to appear before that committee, and some organizations had taken advantage of it. However, since now there are others who want to be heard they will be afforded the opportunity to so appear. It is the intention of the government to refer this matter to the committee of this house on labour and employment as one of its first items of business after the recess.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



TELEVISION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
Secretary of State wishes to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the house may recall that last September the government announced its decision to implement the introduction of colour television in Canada by a three-stage process.
By this decision, stations prepared to undertake colour casting were permitted to commence test transmissions during the night-time period starting July I; to begin regular colour transmissions on a shakedown basis on October 1; and to have all colour transmissions up to full technical requirements by next January 1.

July 13. 1966
Television
This timetable was worked out in consultation with all interested parties and was accepted by them at that time. The primary consideration in setting the various dates was the need to allow sufficient time for the necessary technical installations and staff training.
In recent months, however, it has become apparent that technical preparations for colour casting are advancing within the industry on a much quicker basis than had been anticipated. In view of these developments, representations have been made to the government, particularly by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, to amend the colour timetable accordingly and especially to move up the October 1 date for full colour transmissions to coincide better with the start of fall program schedules.
The government has given consideration to these representations and, in view of the declared readiness of the various elements of the broadcasting industry to meet an earlier date, we are now prepared to authorize full colour transmissions as of September 1. The remaining four months of this year will continue to be treated as a shakedown period during which minor equipment and operating adjustments can be made in order that all technical requirements may be met as of January 1.
The decision to permit full colour transmissions is open to both the public and private sectors of the broadcasting industry. In the case of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, however there is a caveat. Any alteration in its plans will have to be carried out within the limits of operating and capital funds already approved for the current fiscal year. This is in keeping with the government's view on this subject as outlined in the white paper on broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the advance of one month in the introductory date for full colour transmissions will be of value both to the broadcasters and to the viewing public in permitting both to enjoy the benefits of colour from the outset of the fall program season.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Members of this party heartily welcome the announcement which the hon. lady has just made with respect to colour telecasting in this country. We are delighted that technical developments as outlined by the minister have been proceeding faster than anticipated, and that the colour schedule can be up-dated as a consequence. We certainly think the

news will be welcomed by all Canadians, at least by those of them within range of television outlets.
Colour telecasts on an east-west basis can, in the opinion of hon. members of this party, make a great contribution to Canadian unity and will be particularly valuable in centennial year. Hopefully, the new medium will provide a great opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast to experience in living colour, as the phrase goes, the beauties of this land in all its provinces and all its various regions. In addition, the colour telecasting of many of the great centennial pageants and programs which are planned should serve to inspire all of us with the love for Canada which we all hold, but all too seldom express.
However, colour production is not the be all and the end all of television programming, and we would urge that the government proceed with all possible haste in extending television service to the north and to those other regions which are currently under-serviced. This, we believe, is a primary priority. As I say, while welcoming the announcement with respect to colour broadcasting we hope the government will proceed with all possible dispatch to cover those regions which desire to be included within the broadcasting net.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg South and I had some disagreement with regard to one field of broadcasting. I rise on behalf of this party today to express full agreement with him in his emphasis on the need, first, of extending the opportunity for television reception to areas which do not presently have it. This must be given first priority in our plans, and I do not need to take the time of the house by emphasizing it.
As to colour television itself, I should like to express my fear that the financial limitations which have been placed upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may result in private broadcasting stations securing a really important advance in this field over the corporation. I hope the Secretary of State and her advisors will keep a careful eye on developments so as to avoid the C.B.C. falling behind private broadcasting in this field.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the statement made by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and we are happy to learn that we will have colour television in a not too distant future.
July 13, 1966

As far as I am concerned, I would have much preferred that the Secretary of State announce that more remote areas, such as the Chibougamau-Chapais area, where people must deposit $200 and must pay a $100 surtax per annum to watch black and white television, would get free black and white television service, like all other regions of Canada.
In any event, I hope that work will continue in the C.B.C. toward providing television service as soon as possible to all northern regions so as to give them the same services as enjoyed everywhere else in Canada.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for the second reading of Bill No. C-216 to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that my title is a great trial to you.


An hon. Member:: It is to you, too.


Colin Cameron: It is to me, too, I may say.
I had not intended earlier to speak on second reading of the income tax bill on the ground that most of what could be said had already been said during the budget debate. However, since that time the minister has introduced other legislation in this field which reveals rather clearly, in conjunction with the income tax bill, the economic philosophy of the minister and of the government. In the bank bill it became obvious that the minister's policy was to control inflationary pressures by a certain method. He had two courses open to him; one was that of a monetary course and the other was that of a fiscal course. He has chosen the monetary course.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I was interested to hear him tell us a few moments ago that the government had done everything in its power to control inflationary pressures. I presume he had reference to the pleas which the government made to subordinate governments and private industry to 23033-483
Income Tax Act
curtail expansion in their investment programs. I think this clearly underlines the fact that the choice of the monetary method of controlling inflationary pressures is not the most suitable means by which to achieve this end. I would suggest to the minister that had he been prepared to deal with this problem as a fiscal one, he might well be likely to achieve some success. It is pretty well recognized that the principal stimulus to economic expansion, and thereby to inflationary pressures in certain periods, lies not so much in the field of consumer spending power as it does in the level and direction of investment.
I should have liked to see the government tackle this problem, and the other problems in our society, in a fiscal manner. I suggest if the minister and the government are seriously concerned about the dangers of inflationary pressures, then there should have been a review of the level of the corporation profits tax, and a review of the present rather generous depreciation and depletion allowances in order that the drive toward growth and greater investment would have been to some extent curtailed.
After all, a classic method of preventing inflation getting out of hand is to impose taxes on the large corporations which, from their internally generated savings, are able to add to inflationary pressures by an expanded investment program. I would suggest at the same time that had this been done it would also have been advisable to have considered a revision of the personal income tax structure in the interests of equity in our society, and also I would suggest in the interests of some control of the inflationary pressures, because it is fairly well generally accepted now that additions to the purchasing power of certain economic groups, the lower economic groups in our society, do not necessarily lead to inflationary pressures.
Certainly there can be no argument about the necessity for a revision from the point of view of equity. We in this party have urged for a long time that the category of those who are exempt from personal income tax should be enlarged.
I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not advocating a revision of the income tax exemptions because I am well aware that if one merely moves up the limit of income tax exemptions, he profits those in the higher income brackets more than those in the lower income brackets. But I do suggest that means should be found whereby married couples, with an income of $3,000 and less, should be exempt from paying

July 13, 1966
Income Tax Act
personal income tax, and a single person with an income of $1,500 or less should be exempt from the payment of income tax.
There are a number of devices that can be used to achieve this without running into the difficulty of lifting the tax exemption levels for those in the higher income brackets. I had hoped the minister would have considered this before he brought in this income tax bill, particularly during the time which elapsed between the presentation of his budget and the presentation of this bill.
I want to underline again that if the minister is seriously concerned about inflationary pressures he will have to adopt some other measure than merely causing a rise in interest rates throughout the economy, because I would think it is a moot point as to whether this is really going to tackle the problem of inflationary pressure. It will have almost no effect on the investment programs of the large investing corporations of this country, and will likely add to the troubles of those whom he has not relieved in the lower income brackets.
So, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at some point the minister would have revealed that the government is, in the first place, really concerned with inflationary pressure, that it is also concerned with an equitable distribution of income in our society, and concerned with the problem of evening out some of the present injustices that are inflicted, not merely by the income tax structure but by the whole structure of our economy, injustices that the government could do something to alleviate.
I find the bill very unsatisfactory from that point of view but, as I say, I said most of this in the. budget debate. This bill, coming after the bank bill, reveals perfectly clearly that the government is concerned more with certain sections of the community than with others, that it hesitates-and the minister is hesitating now in this bill and in the bank bill-to impose any burden on those powerful interests in our society who hold in their control the power of inflicting inflation on the country, and economic injustice on a large group of our population. They are the power-fur members of our society, the more fortunate segments of the population, and it is very obvious that they are going to be protected by the government even at the expense of the ordinary citizen.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at length at this stage because the items in the income tax bill

have been dealt with both in the budget debate and at the time we considered the budget resolutions. We shall be considering the individual clauses of the bill presently, and shall have some questions to ask at that time.
However, I wish to comment on the statement made by the previous speaker, who doubted whether an increase in the interest rates would contain inflation. I think it can be said that an increase in interest rates comes down to an increase in the cost of living. If an industry has to pay more for its borrowings it will pass the cost on, and the cost of living will suffer.
But I do not propose to get into a dissertation on taxing theory at this time. I know the minister has some amendments to offer once we get into committee, and I propose to make my further remarks at that stage.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks about clause 4 of Bill No. C-216 which deals with charitable donations and reads as follows:
(a) the aggregate of gifts made by the taxpayer in the year (and in the immediately preceding year, to the extent of the amount thereof that was not deductible under this act in computing the taxable income of the taxpayer for that immediately preceding year) to
(i) registered Canadian charitable organizations.
It seems to me that the minister has not yet cleared up the matter of charitable donations, because again this year the employees of the Income Tax Division took pleasure in reducing the amounts claimed, in slashing the receipts, in questioning the official receipts duly signed by the religious authorities concerned in our province.
For two or three years now we have been asking the minister to come to a decision. If he feels that 10 per cent of the income is too much, he should set a rate of 5.5, 6 or 7 per cent, but let it be for all the people. Let us stop sending government inspectors or income tax inspectors to our rectories, our religious institutions, to annoy everybody, to look into the books to find out if the parish priest or the parish concerned truly received the amount claimed by the taxpayer.
It seems to me that such annoyance could be completely avoided if the minister took the trouble to study the situation seriously. But only half-hearted consideration is given to that matter, it is left in abeyance; of
July 13. 1966

course, our complaints are listened to in this chamber, but the act continues to be administered rather strangely in that respect. No one is above suspicion, the parish priest who gives a receipt or the charitable organization or the taxpayer, and the Income Tax employees are those who decide it a man gave $125 instead of $225, or $75 instead of $150. It seems to me that, when an income tax return is accompanied by authentic receipts, such receipts should be respected and the government employees, its bureaucrats, should stop poking into those charitable receipts.
I am calling the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to that matter, I am urging the government to study the advisability of setting a uniform rate for everyone, to put a stop to those annoying investigations about charitable receipts.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the few comments I wanted to make and which I have been repeating year after year since 1962. The minister listens, hears, smiles, thinks that it might be a good thing; but nothing is ever done about it in the legislation. I am urging the minister to study the situation seriously and And a solution to that problem, which is a source of annoyance to all our charitable organizations throughout Canada.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only one minute of the time of the house to support what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has just said.
I am not always in agreement with what he says in the house and I sometimes think that he makes very impetuous statements but, in this case, I think he could have been more fiery in his speech. I shall spare the house the reading of a rather heavy file of complaints I am getting from my electors, well-founded and well proven complaints with proof attached, from members of the clergy, including some with a certain standing.
I am ready to admit, Mr. Speaker, that abuses have occurred. That is true but I think this is not sufficient reason to justify the treatment now being handed out to people who behave correctly. I support the proposition of the hon. member for Villeneuve to the effect that, if the Departments of Finance and National Revenue were to seek and find a formula to set an acceptable percentage of income as charitable donations, this would be more equitable for all concerned.
23033-483J
Income Tax Act
The present system is meddlesome and unjust, and I have a lot of proof that officials of the department have been forced to correct their first assessment, following a long correspondence which wasted everybody's time and which was costly and left a very bad impression on the parties involved. So, I support the motion of the hon. member for Villeneuve and I believe that I am not the only one with this opinion, because I have heard the comments of several members who also feel that the present system is unacceptable. As a result, we suggest that the government should find the means to correct the situation at the earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Previous reserve for quadrennial survey, etc.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, on second reading I said I would propose amendments in this bill to remove from the bill all references to the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. At that time I said it had been the belief of the government that it would be more efficient to include in the income tax bill the substantive provisions of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. However, after the bill was published many hon. members, including myself, received representations from the industry asking to have an opportunity for consultation. Accordingly I said in the house that in order to provide for that consultation I would, when I had an opportunity, move for the deletion of the relevant clauses so that they could be brought forward again for consideration after we had had consultation with the industry.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague the Minister of Industry to move that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act, be amended as follows:
Page 1
(a)	strike out the title and substitute the following: "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.";
(b)	strike out clause 1 and the heading preceding clause 1 and subclause (1) of clause 2.
Page 2
Renumber subclause (2) of clause 2 as subclause (1) of clause 1.
Page 3
(a) renumber subclause (3) of clause 2 as subClause (2) of clause 1;

July 13, 1966
Income Tax Act
(b) strike out subclauses (1), (3) and (4) of clause 3 and renumber subclause (2) of clause 3 as clause 2.
Pages 4 to 23
Strike out subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 3 and renumber clauses 4 to 19 as clauses 3 to 18.
Page 24
Strike out clause 20 and the heading preceding clause 20.


Mr. Drury:: I so move.


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 regret that these are so complicated I have prepared for the Chairman an annotated version of the bill. Briefly, the amendments remove from this bill all reference to the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act; that is all they do. I shall have copies of the amendments distributed to some hon. members.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, may I say that this bill seems to be most noteworthy because of what is struck out from it and that what is not contained in it. The hon. gentleman has now sought, at the solicitation of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, to drop all those references to the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act so that there may be an opportunity to consult those persons who are most affected. The hon. gentleman for Saint John-Albert raised this on a number of occasions and I am glad that his solicitations have been listened to by the Minister of Finance. But in addition to that, sir, the bill is especially noteworthy because of the fact that it contains no mention whatever of resolutions 11, 12 and 13 of the budget resolutions, and I think that is extraordinary.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not know of any occasion when the income tax legislation has been left so long before being considered by the house and I do not see any reason why resolutions which have stood on the order paper for a period of months should not have been incorporated in the legislation. I think this has caused a considerable degree of upset among these persons who are interested in deferred profit sharing and in matters which are covered by resolutions 12 and 13. It was finally drawn from the minister within the last week that he planned to introduce a further bill later in the session. He should let us know now, before we go further, just what is the problem. Is the minister now seeking to change the principle he outlined in resolutions 11, 12 and 13? Surely with the skill of members of the Department of Justice, there is no problem in drafting the legislation based on these

resolutions. They have been on the order paper for many months. Surely the minister could have brought the legislation forward before now. He owes it to this committee and those who are interested to set forth in detail what he plans to do in respect of section 79(C) which has to do with deferred profit sharing plans. Why has he delayed and why does he not bring this forward now? Under what circumstances does he intend to bring forward legislation implementing these resolutions at a later date of the session?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the reason we have not brought forward legislation to implement all of the income tax resolutions is that the circumstances surrounding deferred profit sharing plans are very complex. I can assure the hon. member that the government adheres to the general principles laid down in the resolution. It may be we will find, after examining the great variety of circumstances which exist, that we will have to ask for an amendment to the resolution. I do not think that will be necessary; but we do want to be sure the legislation we bring forward does in fact deal fairly and equitably with the tremendous variety of plans which have been brought into existence in recent years.
Let me add this. At one stage we thought it might be sufficient to bring forward for consideration immediately only one clause of this bill, but then we felt it desirable to obtain as much certainty as possible in the tax legislation. We decided the alternative of bringing forward all these sections was the better move.
The principal change we felt had to be enacted immediately is that part dealing with withholding tax on the sale of securities of provinces and municipalities. In this regard there was some uncertainty in financial markets as to whether or not we were going to apply the withholding tax. The financial institutions outside this country were not as confident as we might be in this house that these resolutions would be accepted, and we felt it desirable to proceed at least with that part of the act.
It is our intention to proceed with the remainder of the resolutions when the house resumes in the fall, and I do not think the delay will be anything except useful to taxpayers in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.	,
July 13, 1966
[Stage Direction]
On clause 2-"Conversion" and "Conversion Cost''.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not thoroughly examined clause 2 which has to do with Canadian vessel construction assistance. Is this being deleted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the substantive clause which we are now on is to be found in the middle of page 3. It appears as subclause (2) of clause 3. It is now renumbered as clause 2.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with foreclosure. Does it deal with the proceedings of foreclosure of a mortgage?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. Perhaps I should give a short explanation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That would be appreciated.


Mitchell William Sharp: This amendment is necessary because the present law does not make clear what should be regarded as the proceeds of disposition when a taxpayer's property has been disposed of by reason of foreclosure, and the amount of the taxpayer's liability under the agreement has been reduced. It is necessary to determine the amount of the proceeds of disposition and to determine the amount of terminable losses allowed to the taxpayer, or possibly to determine the amount of recaptured terminable losses.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Charitable donations.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on clause 4, I said something a while ago and I should like to get an answer from the minister.
Has the government currently under consideration giving the taxpayer a uniform rate, a set rate-and that this rate be made applicable to everybody-regarding charitable donations? Is the minister in a position to tell us what he intends to do in this matter?


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, if one were to accept the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Villeneuve, allowing everyone to claim a certain percentage of their income as a deduction for charitable donations, we would be in effect wiping out deductions for charitable donations and merely increasing the basic exemption. The government has no intention of doing that at this time.
Income Tax Act


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, everyone now has the right to deduct $100 for charitable donations from his taxable income. Let us take the case of an ordinary Canadian, a Catholic, who goes to mass every Sunday; he gives to all kinds of charitable organizations during the year; he easily gives more than the $100 allowable.
Now, when National Revenue officials reduce by $150 the total amount of charitable donations they say that the taxpayer concerned did not give more than $100. The amount is always brought down to the sum allowed everyone. I think that this causes a serious injustice. It seems to me that when receipts in proper form are submitted to the department, the officials should accept them, because they are not given by idiots, in the province or elsewhere in the country, but by responsible persons.
Now, the act stipulates that we have the right to deduct an amount up to 10 per cent of our income, supported by receipts, of course; but if the 10 per cent is too high for the whole population, would 5 per cent or 6 per cent be acceptable by the department, so that officials may stop inquiring in rectories or of charitable organizations as they are doing now? Could the minister give us additional information?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much involved in this problem regarding charitable donations and the issuing of receipts. In some instances these receipts exceed the actual amount donated by an individual to a particular charity. The provisions of this bill, which will come into effect in 1967, will wipe out entirely the necessity of looking beyond the receipts as such, because the charitable organization will have to show to the government of Canada the total amount it receives. Presumably in order to determine the amount, the charitable organization will be in a position to issue receipts for this amount of money. The two will balance, one with the other, and the government of Canada will not have to look beyond the receipts as such.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue.
Can the minister tell us whether, at the present time, inspectors of his department go-

July 13. 1966
Income Tax Act
into rectories and ask to look at the parish records in order to determine if such an amount has actually been collected or donated and whether or not the amounts of receipts filed with the department exceed those declared or listed in the records? Are inspectors still visiting rectories or organizations in order to check the books of a parish, for instance?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the department does not try to verify the books of charitable organizations, be they parishes or otherwise. What the department tries to do is determine that the amount of the receipts issued by a particular charitable organization is equivalent to the amount of money the charitable organization has taken in. When we find that receipts from a particular organization appear to be very high, we may go to the charitable organization and say, "Did you actually receive this amount of money?" If the charitable organization says, "No, we did not. We simply issued the receipts", then we reduce the amount claimed by the individual. In every case where we reduce the amount claimed we give the particular taxpayer the opportunity of substantiating that he really did give this amount of money claimed, or we give the person in charge of the charitable organization the opportunity to say that this amount of money was given to it.
I believe that the problem has been dealt with fairly by my department under the existing law. However, I believe that the new section of the act which will be coming into effect in 1967 will take away from my department the necessity of trying to find out whether the amount of money was actually received by a charitable organization, because they will be filing a financial statement saying that they received so much money and issued receipts for that amount.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell me under what criteria those officers deal in all fairness, as he has just said. If the minister believes that, I do not. But what criteria are applied in the Department of National Revenue to enable them to tell a Canadian citizen: "Your receipt in the amount of $125 is not correct, we bring it down to the $100 now allowed to any Canadian citizen." On what basis can they cut into a $125 receipt and bring it down to the $100 already allowed everybody? Then,

you would simply have to say to all Canadians: "Listen, deduct $100, and nothing else." But what basis do they use? Surely this is unfair, for there is not a single Canadian who does not donate more than $100 per year to charitable organizations across Canada.
One hundred dollars per year, that is mockery. And then they cut into small receipts of $200, $225 claimed by ordinary workers, while big shots have the privilege of playing with large amounts, to use detours. The small worker, the farmer, cannot cheat the Income Tax Division, because tax is deducted at the source, and when he claims a deduction for charitable donations, it is brought down to $100 from $200.
I would like the minister to tell me on what basis his departmental officials can establish this $100 amount, to which everybody is entitled?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that we do not cut everybody down to $100. Our department tries to allow every individual in Canada who has given an amount of money to a charitable organization the full amount of the gift he made. I said previously that in some instances there may be misrepresentation, albeit entirely unintentional, and explained the method we use for checking into the matter.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, a question comes to my mind as a result of the answers given by the minister to the questions just asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve. The minister dealt specifically with donations of money which could be deductible. I should like to ask him this question: How do the departmental officials assess a contribution in kind, such as a donation of time? I give this example: If a house painter decided to paint a church and worked at it for a period of three weeks or a month, and received from the priest or the minister a receipt for, we will say $300, is this receipt acceptable for income tax purposes? In this case the man would have contributed, not cash but his services in time, and paint.


Edgar John Benson: No, that is not deductible. It would be deductible if in fact the church, for example, paid the fellow $300, which he took into income and then turned around and made a donation to the church of $300. But since he has taken nothing into income, nothing is deductible.
July 13, 1966


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this clause comes into force on January 1, 1967. I am wondering whether there will be any method by which a person making a gift to a charitable organization will know whether his donation will be deductible for income tax purposes.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The main reason for allowing almost a full year before this provision comes into effect is to give all organizations the opportunity to register, as is required by this particular clause. They will then be notified that they are registered and will simply notify their donors, in 1967, of the fact that they are registered. In the vast majority of cases there will be no problem in regard to registration.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, in looking over this clause of the bill recently I was trying to find some place where "charitable organization" was defined. I know it is not defined in this bill, and wonder whether there is a definition of it in some other statute.


Edgar John Benson: It is not defined in this particular clause because it is an amending clause, of course. Section 62 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Act defines a charitable organization as follows:
A charitable organization, whether or not incorporated, all the resources of which were devoted to charitable activities carried on by the organization itself and no part of the income of which was payable to, or was otherwise available for the personal benefit of, any proprietor, member or shareholder thereof;
In using "charitable" in this sense we take the common dictionary meaning of that word.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I notice that in
clause 3 (2) of the bill provision is made for donations to various organizations organized under the law of the United States that would be allowed as deductions under the United States Internal Revenue Code.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
A question that comes to my mind is that in subclause 1 there is a provision for charitable organizations outside Canada to which Her Majesty in right of Canada has made a gift by making them eligible. I wonder why this distinction is made.


Edgar John Benson: This comes under the existing law, section 27 (3). It was inserted to deal with commuters because there are a great many people who work in the United States
Income Tax Act
and live in Canada or work in Canada and live in the United States. An agreement was made between the governments of Canada and the United States that in these particular circumstances deductions would be allowed on each side. Since they now have to become a registered charitable organization, we simply say so in this clause.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the definition of charitable organization is not so clear. Are social clubs, for instance, such as the Richelieu Clubs, the Kiwanis, the Rotary, helping unfortunate children throughout the country, are those considered as charitable organizations in this country? The young Scouts, for instance, who sell apples once a year, or any similar organization. It seems to me-and I have proof-that deductions claimed by some Canadians in certain returns are denied.


Edgar John Benson: In the case of fraternal organizations or clubs to which my hon. friend referred, ordinarily the fees paid to a Kiwanis club or a Rotary club are not deductible as they would be in the case of charitable organizations because these clubs have other purposes than that of charity. However, if a charitable trust is set up by an organization, the total amount of the funds of which are used for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the members, then donations to such a trust would be deductible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-tax deduction.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, am I right in assuming that what the previous minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport, has allowed as a deduction in taxes for six months, has now been reduced? My main complaint about this, outside the fact that nobody wishes to pay extra taxes, is that the Income Tax Act sets out the specific rate according to which we arrive at the payable income tax. According to the amendment brought in by the former minister, there was a reduction in the over-all tax which, I believe, in certain cases amounted to $600. This reduction will now be reduced. I am wondering what is the purpose in doing so? Would it not be better to revise the act so that we actually know what rates are applicable, or does the minister intend, at some future date, to allow a greater reduction? Will the present confusion continue?

July 13. 1966
Income Tax Act


Mitchell William Sharp: The principal reason for treating the matter in this way was to avoid any effect upon the revenues of the provinces. After we have had our meetings with the tax structure committee, at which I hope we will arrive at some settlement of tax sharing, and after we have done this in the light of the Carter commission report, I hope we shall arrive at the most logical tax structure in the world.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-amounts receivable.
Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister
explain the clause please?


Mitchell William Sharp: Clause 6, now renumbered clause 5, is a relieving amendment. Section 64 being amended provides that where a taxpayer who has died had certain amounts due to him that would have been included in his income, his legal representative may choose between several alternatives for calculating the tax on these amounts. This amendment will extend the time for making his choice.
The amendment provided in clause 5(2) will let him change the election within a certain time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it extended to one year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6.
Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry to move an amendment to line 39 on page 10 by substituting the following therefor:
(2) is applicable to taxation years ending after that day but for the purpose of determining whether the principal business of a corporation for the whole of the taxation year of the corporation that includes March 30, 1966 was trading or dealing in bonds, shares or debentures or any interest therein, the whole of such taxation year shall be deemed to be that portion of the taxation year that is after March 29, 1966.
This amendment is necessary because subclause 3 of clause 6 as renumbered, which provides for the coming into effect of a new rule that a company may not qualify as a non-resident owned company if its principal business includes trading or dealing in bonds, shares or debentures, has retroactive effect and therefore this amendment that I am now asking to be moved is to remove the retroactive effect, which was quite inadvertent.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it completely relieving in effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, completely relieving.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-"Mine".
Thomas Miller Bell: This section should probably be entitled "An act to appease Ross Thatcher", but apart from that I think all of us agree that it is wholly overdue and should have been brought forward at a much earlier date. We are glad that the present Minister of Finance has overruled the former adamant attitude taken so often by the hon. gentleman for Davenport and that some influence has been exercised in this matter within the Liberal party. At least the minister has taken this opportunity to act.


An hon. Member:: That is what I like. It is really non-partisan.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-
Jay Waldo Monteith: I would just like to make a very brief comment. I think this legislation will cause great hardship to certain companies, as far as getting staff is concerned, and to certain individuals who have in the past been hired under a plan whereby they were expecting to receive stock options in the future. I do not wish to belabour the point, but I want to reiterate what was said previously, that personally I do not feel this has been fair to all concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Jay Waldo Monteith: May I just inquire, Mr. Chairman, does this clause mean that if, for instance, the chairman or assistant chairman or any other member of the Tax Appeal Board were to finish his term, for the sake of argument at 73 years of age, he might be reappointed for a full term?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, he would be reappointed until the age of 75.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
July 13. 1966
[Stage Direction]
On clause 11-Definitions, "corporation."
Jay Waldo Monteith: I simply want to reiterate what I have said on previous occasions with regard to this special tax. I feel that it penalizes firms who have had construction under way and who will now have to pay a special tax to the government. They are going to receive 5 per cent on this tax. Under the revisions of the Bank Act after January 1, 1967, however, if these firms had to borrow, as undoubtedly so many of them will, to finance their construction projects they are going to have to pay 7 per cent on that money. As I said earlier, the result will be an increase in the cost of living because this increased interest rate is going to be passed on to the consumer.
I do not wish to belabour the point, but as I said earlier I do not think it is sound to take this money from these firms. During the Budget debate the minister mentioned there would be a limited number of them, and I can understand that. However, I do not believe it is sensible to take from these firms the funds they are going to require and to which they were possibly committed two or three years in advance, to complete this construction. This construction, when completed, can do only one thing and that is help supply the demand that is needed in Canada to reduce inflation. I cannot see anything good in this clause at all.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I just say a word on this point, really in reply to some comments made earlier by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In fact, in the budget which I brought down some months ago and which is now being partially implemented by this bill, various fiscal measures were taken. The hon. member mentioned what he thought was the absence of fiscal measures. I am very glad to learn that the hon. member for Perth does recognize that some fairly stringent fiscal measures were included in that budget.
First of all, there was the restoration of the amount of the cuts that had been made in the previous year in income tax, because of the changed economic situation in the country. There was the application of the 5 per cent refundable tax on corporations. There was a reduction in capital cost allowance for undertakings which were proceeded with in the next 18 months. There was the progressive reduction in the sales tax. All of these were designed to exert pressure on the economy and to cope with the inflationary problem by fiscal measures.
Income Tax Act
There is also, and I have no hesitation in defending it, an appropriate monetary policy, just as there is in all parts of the world today. If my hon. friend looks at the United States, Germany, France or England, he will see this is a fact. The government of the United Kingdom, which is apparently of the same persuasion as that of my hon. friend, is employing the whole gamut of fiscal and monetary policy in order to restrain inflationary pressures. I think those inflationary pressures remain very strong. I believe we must employ all those measures we can reasonably employ without doing damage to the economy itself. Our purpose is not to stop anything, it is to contain our activity within our physical resources.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not going to ask the
minister to explain how the refundable portion of this tax is worked out because I believe it would take until tomorrow to do so. I am not an official of the income tax department, but before I came here I practised chartered accountancy. I believe it is going to be a big problem for anyone to read this section and come up with an answer as to how you are going to arrive at the refundable tax.


Colin Cameron: I was very interested, Mr. Chairman, in the minister's outline of his fiscal policy. Unlike the hon. member for Perth I do not find this refundable tax such a devastating weapon for the government. In fact, when I spoke about it at the time it was introduced in the budget debate, I pointed out it could have only a very minor effect upon the economy. After all, $70 million out of $1,400 million, which is the aggregate of corporation profits, does not seem to me to be of sufficient magnitude to have any great effect.
However, I have another criticism of this provision to which I hope the minister will give us some answers. I refer to the inflexibility of it. If, in the opinion of the minister, it should become necessary to retain this 5 per cent longer than the period of 18 months or 36 months set out in the bill, he does not have the power to do so. If, on the other hand, he believes it should be repaid earlier-well, possibly he could do that because I think the time set out is the maximum time. I suggest the fact he has tied himself to a time limit will negate any effect this tax may have in certain economic circumstances. In order to console the hon. member for Perth, may I

July 13, 1966
Income Tax Act
reiterate that I cannot believe the retention of $70 million out of $1,400 million is going to have any significant effect in curbing the inflationary pressures or in doing anything else except giving headaches to the profession to which the hon. member for Perth belonged before he came here.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17-Taxable obligation and nontaxable obligation defined.
Richard Albert Bell: Would the minister say how much further this particular clause goes than the present one?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that this clause gives statutory authority to the existing practice.


Thomas Miller Bell: How is the existing practice different from the present statute?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might read, if I have the permission of the committee, from a letter from the Minister of National Revenue to me. This is unusual procedure, and I would not want it taken as a precedent, but the letter explains perhaps as well as I could the reasons for this.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The proposal would give statutory authority to the existing practice whereby, except in criminal cases, officials do not give testimony in judicial proceedings. Because the present section does not clearly so state, it is necessary in each case for me as minister to make a sworn declaration that it is against public policy to make disclosures. An outside lawyer has to be engaged to represent the department. Since a witness has no right to be represented by a lawyer, a senior practitioner has to be chosen who can persuade the judge to hear him. Very frequently a subpoena is served on short notice and it may be impossible to follow this procedure. If an employee of the department refuses to answer questions he can be sent to jail for contempt of court. This actually happened a number of years ago. The proposed amendment will prevent having to follow this cumbersome procedure. It can be said that the section will simply clearly state what has been the invariable rule. The section will also permit copies to be given to the taxpayer himself and, under the rules of evidence, copies can be used where the original cannot be produced. The proposed section goes further than the existing provision in that it forbids former employees and other authorized persons from disclosing information which is a deficiency in the existing section. This will also clarify the department's right to make disclosures to lawyers, accountants and valuators engaged by the department in specific cases and places these persons in the same position as government employees.


Richard Albert Bell: Will the principle be identical with the principle under the Estate Tax Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed that it is based on the corresponding provision in the Estate Tax Act.


Richard Albert Bell: Has there been any experience with the Estate Tax Act? If there has, has that experience proved to be satisfactory?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I do not have officials before me who are expert in the Estate Tax Act. Perhaps at some other time I can give the hon. gentleman the answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps the minister would make inquiry and let me know.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be pleased to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the house would consent, notwithstanding these extensive amendments, to third reading so that the bill may proceed to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should also like to thank the committee members for their co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of the bin.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre-Miss La-Marsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Tuesday, June 28, the title, clause 1 and
July 13, 1966

clause 4 with an amendment, and with an amendment to the amendment, had been allowed to stand.
On clause 4 the hon. member for Levis had moved an amendment as follows:
That clause 4 of Bill C-194 be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph (5):
In the appointment of members and officers of the corporation, due account will be taken of the linguistic duality of Canada and its cultural plurality.
The hon. member for Lapointe had moved an amendment to the said amendment as follows:
That all the words after the word "Canada" be deleted.
On clause 4-Appointment of chairman and vice chairman.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, we resume the debate on the amendment moved to clause 4 of Bill No. C-194, on the establishment of the National Arts Centre. The amendment proposes that, in the appointment of the board of trustees of this centre, due consideration be given the linguistic duality and cultural plurality of Canada.
In this type of debate, several points of view are expressed which reflect the particular experience and concern of the person voicing them. In each case, with the best intentions in the world, one speaks according to experience and personal interests; that is why no one person has any claim to absolute truth, just as no one errs completely. It therefore remains for each one of us to analyse the various points submitted and to adopt the attitude which seems most well-rounded, most realistic, most consistent with the concept or the ideal sought.
In the last few days, since the adjournment of this debate, I have had the opportunity and the time to analyse the opinions expressed to date, and if you will allow me, I should like to make known my personal views on the matter.
Let us say, first of all, that much more is involved here than a mere provision in a piece of legislation designed to set up a National Arts Centre. The very fact that this same discussion was held on second reading of Bill No. S-2 shows us in a dramatic manner that what is actually involved is the whole, essentially Canadian context of bilingualism, of national duality or co-existence, in short, of cultural policy, which our best Canadian
National Arts Centre
minds have been trying so hard to define for a century, but with new vigour and intensity, especially in the last ten years: an attempt at a definition which gave birth to the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which has led others to look forward to a constitutional conference, which has inspired the supporters of separatism, which has brought about the discovery of new stock phrases such as "associate states", "co-operative federalism", etc. Those are as many considerations which show a very keen awareness of this situation, of this experience Canada has gone through in the last century. It is essential that we should endeavour to define it, not so much to explain the last hundred years, but mainly to give direction to the next hundred years, because the peace, security and serenity of future generations depend to a great extent on the clarity of our definition.
In the present discussion on the amendment moved by the member for Levis (Mr. Guay), we have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and, among others, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), the member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). Previously, we heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who, in his intervention of June 10 last supported the amendment when he said substantially that he understood the prime concern contained in this amendment, since that particular bill dealt with the National Arts Centre, an essentially cultural organization, where it was particularly advisable to emphasize the existence of French Canadians or, better still, the French fact in Canada.
It must be borne in mind that the minister said he would have preferred it if the amendment had not been moved. I entirely agree on this last point, but on the previous one I do not agree at all, because it shows a negative attitude which is harmful to the French Canadian fact, because it puts it in a defensive position from the start; it is forced to revert to a defence mechanism while the present generation, today's generation and the generation of tomorrow, whether French or English speaking, has a right to expect that we set the stage to promote its growth.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration put it quite well during the debate on the incorporation of the Ottawa Railway Terminal Company. It will be recalled that

July 13, 1966
National Arts Centre
there again, the discussion was on the advisability of ensuring French Canadian representation on the board of that company. I am quoting from page 2827 of Hansard, left-hand column:
The first thing that strikes me and to which I should like to draw the hon. members' attention is that whenever you insert in some legislation or constitution a clause such as this to protect a certain group, it is because you are assuming from the start that this group is incapable of looking after its own protection and of defending itself by other means. In other words, a form of discrimination is thus created to which I am completely opposed.
And later, he adds:
Otherwise it means, that to be represented in Canada as we should be, a provision will have to be included in every piece of legislation to ensure that such representation will be granted to us.
To complete this thinking, if I may be permitted, he should have added that, as far as existing legislation is concerned, past legislation, that is, where such representation is not provided for, there would no longer be any legal obligation, not even a moral obligation, since this apparently no longer is sufficient, to recognize the French fact in a practical manner. Is that not the true significance of the intervention of the Prime Minister when he asked the mover to withdraw his motion, and of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he asked the hon. member for Lapointe to give his assent to the withdrawal of the amendment?
May I be permitted to suggest, as an aside, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were officially to withdraw his support of the amendment to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Prime Minister, I feel that, in view of the judgement and the understanding he has shown several times in this field of national unity and of Canadian motivation, we would soon achieve the unanimous consent needed for the withdrawal of the subamendment and of the amendment now before us.
Generally speaking, I should like to note in passing that the wording of the present amendment is so vague and so watered down that it no longer means anything; the amendment recommends that "due account will be taken of the linguistic duality and the cultural plurality of Canada".
"Due account will be taken": This commits no one to anything and, for that reason alone, we should all agree to withdraw the amendment, since nothing can accrue therefrom, save confusion, misunderstanding and division. The Prime Minister first and then the Leader of the Opposition expressed their

concern that such a provision in a bill would divide our national groups, rather than contribute to the unity in equality which we are all seeking. I share that view and, in turn, I am asking the hon. members to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the amendment and subamendment.
In fact, in spite of the care taken by the writer of the amendment to hide under vague words the principle to be established, it is obvious, particularly in the light of the remarks made by the hon. members for Verdun, Lapointe, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), that the purpose thereof is again to ensure by legislation that the French shall be represented on the board of directors of the National Arts Centre or any other government agency. Therefore, it is the whole question of the nation's bilingual character or, more precisely, the whole question of the French fact that comes up, and I think there is every advantage for us to consider this debate in this light, because we are putting a finger on and squarely tackling the problem which concerns all Canadians at this time.

In all honesty and objectivity I cannot see what this amendment, or any insistance on establishing a percentage of French speaking or bilingual representation on boards, can accomplish besides attempting to reduce this whole problem of national unity to a mathematical formula, which is no solution at all. Because it is restrictive and selective, it is essentially a negative approach.
I now speak as one who has spent more than half of his life as a member of the French speaking minority in Ontario, where I believe a more positive approach, through many years of sacrifice, effort and stubbornness as well as patience, perseverance and self-determination has resulted in the French speaking element penetrating more and more into every phase of economic, social, cultural and academic life, and in the English speaking element re-examining its whole conception of Canadianism and learning to seek out the differences in characteristics which explain our reactions and attitudes.
Mind you, I do not mean to suggest that life has always been a bed of roses, nor do I suggest that this battle has been won. We have had to scale some almost insurmountable difficulties, in education particularly, and circumstances still come up when strong stands have to be taken by an alert French speaking group, stands that can be and are debated at their full face value without
July 13, 1966

awakening all kinds of emotional stresses and strains. Personally, I have never felt that anyone was out to get me, so to speak, and I am sure that in those 25 odd years which I spent in Ontario never at any time did we, as a group or as individuals, take a step backward. French minorities outside of Quebec have been alert and alive, but throughout the tough moments of their experience they conscientiously exercised the same kind of patience which they expected of others, practised the same kind of understanding which they continually demanded of others, and requested the same kind of respect which they offered to others. They have thus proven to others and to themselves that they belonged to Canada, and that their contribution was an essential asset to Canada in every phase of Canadian life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roger E. Régimbal: They were respected not so much for what they could claim, but by what they could do. In business we have the good example of the Robert Campeaus; in finance, the Paul Desmarais; in performing arts, the Leopold Simoneaus; in law, the Leon La-landes; in politics, many outstanding men, the least of whom is surely not the present Speaker of this house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roger E. Régimbal: -and the list could go on and on by the hundreds-in labour, in science, in commerce, in industry, in education, in every field of endeavour, to such a point that at this very moment there is serious talk of establishing a provincially sponsored French culture centre in northern Ontario, and this has been accomplished without a single piece of legislation guaranteeing them a percentage of representation anywhere.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
By following this steady, often slow but always definite process of improvement, Ontario is creating the kind of atmosphere in which the French speaking Canadian can develop best and contribute best. Mind you, I am sure that Ontario's proximity to Quebec has helped that province to be more awake to the French speaking reality, which only proves that exposure is still the shortest road to understanding. I speak of Ontario because I know it better than I know other provinces, except Quebec, but I understand that New Brunswick has taken great and imaginative steps toward full participation by French speaking Canadians in their way of life. It is
National Arts Centre
to be hoped that all provinces will match these strides as they become more and more aware of the French fact.
I must take my hat off to the province of Quebec for showing the way in thorough recognition of minority rights and privileges. In all cases the degree of understanding, the degree of progress toward understanding has been measured, not by legislation, but by full, intelligent knowledge of minority rights, and full confidence in that minority's potential and talents.
What is the basic ingredient in this recognition? What are we all striving to establish; what is typical of our Canadian context? I believe it is equality, not only equality before the law, not only equality before the courts, not only equality of services, but especially and almost exclusively equality of opportunity, whereby no matter which of the founding peoples we belong to, or which of the official languages we adopt, our talents, our character, our mentality will have the greatest possible opportunity to develop, because this is our wealth and our heritage. This is our new Canada which young Canadians will want to conquer.
This is the Canada where bilingualism becomes a challenge rather than a duty, an asset to acquire rather than a cross to bear, in which the presence of different cultural backgrounds and expressions becomes an element of healthy competition and an incentive to greatness-a unique country where more sources of inspiration, of learning, of expression are available to make us more complete and efficient human beings, richer because we have learned to share and to exchange our differences.
I suggest, sir, that none of this can be obtained through narrow legislation such as this, but all of it can be obtained through understanding and knowledge, and through the development of definite cultural policies.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this debate which quite fortunately revolves around the establishment of a National Arts Centre provides us with an excellent opportunity for making a concrete gesture of unity, but getting the most complete unanimity, as indicated by our party leaders. Again, I ask all hon. members to agree to the withdrawal of the amendment and subamendment, and should this prove impossible by mischance, I will have set out my reasons for voting against the amendment.

July 13. 1366
National Arts Centre
Before I conclude my remarks, I invite all young Canadians, both French and English speaking, to meet the challenge of our duality of expression, to make it an objective of culture and greatness of soul, thus creating a climate of sound competition, to allow the full development of our Canadian potential, deriving from our cultural differences the inspiration of a more complete education a more universal mentality, where the success of the individual will be dependent on the competence acquired by taking the best out of our two cultures.


Mr. Klein:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to intervene for just a moment for the reasons which were enunciated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If we were voting on the amendment itself I would find it very difficult to vote against it because of the treatment which is accorded by the province of Quebec to the Jewish community of Montreal in recognizing the rights of the minority within that province.
I want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the manner in which the French speaking majority in Quebec has treated the minorities in that province. I refer particularly to the Quebec statute, Chapter 87,	13-14 Elizabeth II, entitled
"Protestant Schools of Montreal", and as a tribute to the French Canadians of Quebec I want to read into the record section 4(c):
The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint for a term of five years the remaining five members who shall be persons of the Jewish faith, or professing the Protestant religion, so that the Greater Montreal Board shall be constituted at any one time of five Jewish members and 20 Protestant members.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I again wish to pay tribute to the French Canadian majority in the province of Quebec.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, some days ago when this measure was before the committee I rose to speak and indicated that I was neither of Anglo-Saxon nor of French origin, but I felt I could speak as a new Canadian, having come to this country when I was 12 years old. I want to make some brief remarks on the subject raised by the amendment and the subamendment and to indicate why, in my opinion, the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes is right, as were other speakers, that we cannot in conscience support this kind of proposal for legislation in Canada, and that indeed those who insist on it are doing the cause which they want to advance a great deal of harm.


Mr. Mongrain:: Does not the hon. member feel that those who do not share this opinion also have a conscience and like to follow the directives-


David Lewis: If it were not for the fact that I am anxious to conduct myself in this debate in that spirit of good will in which debates are often held in this chamber, I would resent that kind of suggestion. I speak in accordance with my conscience, my belief and my opinion, and I repeat that no one in this chamber is more concerned than I am with establishing the idea and the fact of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. I say bilingualism and biculturalism despite the fact that I had another language for the first 12 years of my life and did not know a word of English or French, and despite the fact that I have a close and earnest attachment to a culture which is thousands of years old and which is neither English nor French.
Despite that, I believe Canada is a bilingual country and has two major cultures, but that within Canada other languages, including my first language, and other cultures, including the culture of my ancestors, have the right to expand and to live. This is a democracy and we have the right to speak the languages of our ancestors even though they are not English or French. We have the right to expand our cultures and practise our traditions. That is the mark of a democracy, and that is why I am proud to be a citizen of Canada despite the fact that I spent my boyhood in another country.
During this debate reference was made to a committee which has been set up by men and women of origins other than English and French. I forget the exact name of it, something like the committee of citizen action, to which the hon. member for East York is a party. As a member of a family that came to Canada in 1921 I disagree vehemently with the purposes of that kind of committee and that kind of association.
What those people are really saying is not that Canada is a multilingual country, but that Canada is unilingual, that Canada's language is English only, and that if French is to be placed in more prominence, then they want their languages to have the same rights.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I say that that kind of statement represents a misreading of Canadian history; it represents a misunderstanding of Canada's past; it
July 13, 1966

National Arts Centre
represents a failure to appreciate Canada's present. There are in this country, and we all ought to recognize it and make it part, if I may say so, of our life and existence and total understanding of our country, two languages equally part of Canada; there are in this country two major cultures equally part of Canada; there are in this country tens of thousands of people who are welcome to speak in any language they like and to practise any culture they like or any tradition they like, because this is a free democratic country where that kind of multi-lingual and multicultural activity is welcomed and encouraged rather than prohibited or limited.
The United States of America is a unilingual country-English,-despite the fact that there are there just as many groups and backgrounds or more than there are in Canada. You ask any American, whether his background is Dutch, Irish, French or whatever, what the language of the United States of America is and he will say English, just as is the case in the United Kingdom, even though when you walk along the streets of London you may frequently hear, as I did, any number of languages spoken. It is the same in France where the language is French; even though many other tongues may be heard on the streets of Paris.
I urge upon all my fellow Canadians whose origins are neither English nor French to recognize-just as those countries which are unilingual have one language, just as a country like Belgium which is bilingual, has two languages, and just as Switzerland is trilingual or quadralingual and has three or four languages-that Canada in essence is a bilingual country. That does not say that every Canadian must speak English or French. Nor does it mean that whenever there are two or three English speaking families living in a little village in Quebec where everybody else speaks French they must be given at state expense the opportunity of English schooling and so on; or that when a few French speaking families live in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Manitoba or Ontario where the surrounding language is English, these two or three French families should be given at state expense a French language school. It does not mean that at all, because that is bringing bilingualism to an absurdity or practical impossibility.
It does mean, however, that every Canadian from coast to coast should respect the fact that Canada is bilingual; it does mean that wherever there is a substantial
French community or a substantial English speaking community, both should be given the right to educate their children in their own language and their own culture. It is also reasonable, Mr. Chairman, that in all of our institutions, federal institutions in particular and the civil service above all, we should recognize the fact of bilingualism in this country.
Now, what are the amendment and the subamendment doing? I agree entirely with the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes that the amendment and subamendment are limiting rather than expanding. I would suggest that unless you have that kind of provision in every statute you would have many exceptions and it would be an absurd act by this parliament; you would run the risk of suggesting that only in those cases where the statute contains a reference to the fact of bilingualism in Canada, that fact would be observed.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to those who support this amendment and subamendment that the time has come in this country in which all of us have worked through our adult lives that the fact of Canada should be taken-not for granted-but should be taken as a fact which no longer needs defensiveness and which no longer needs negative provisions in legislation. I suggest that if we are still at the point where the goverment cannot be relied upon to recognize and act upon the fact without this kind of provision in the legislation, then the provision in the legislation is not going to do any good. If we have reached the point in this country, as I believe we have, where the dialogue is being carried on on an intelligent basis with an understanding of one another, then I am sure this government will carry through. Let us leave it where we place upon the government of this country the responsibility to do the right thing. I am not of the government's political persuasion. The government frequently is wrong, but it is not often stupid. They would have to be not only wrong but stupid to refuse to recognize the fact of Canada at the present time. Let us leave to them the responsibility for doing it. Any administration of this country which from now on fails to act in accordance with the fact of Canada will have to face not only parliament but the people of Canada, not only French speaking but English speaking as well.

July 13. 1966
Business of the House
Furthermore, I suggest that the amendment contains an error of logic and the subamendment contains an error of omission. The error of logic in the amendment is that it is wrong to say, in my opinion, that our cultures are in some diiferent category from the languages. To the extent that Canada is bilingual because there are two founding languages, two major languages, to the same extent Canada is not multicultural but bicultural, two major cultures; to the extent that it is multicultural, to the extent that we recognize there are cultures in Canada other than English and French, to the same extent must you recognize that Canada is multilingual because there are languages other than English and French spoken. So, the amendment is confusing and I suggest erroneous.
The subamendment, of course, is at fault in omission. The fault is that it concentrates merely on the bilingualism of Canada and pays no attention at all to the fact that there are other groups in this country which speak other languages and that there are other groups in this country which have a cultural background which is different from English or French. In a discussion the other day my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said something which has a great deal of validity. He said we would not have this problem in this country if we had an identifiable Canadian culture which one could point to with pride.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I have allowed him to proceed and I must now call it five o'clock.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Let him continue. The hon. gentlemen is making a very interesting speech.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there is any disposition on the part of the members of the committee to continue, and dispense with private members hour, I think that decision should be taken while the Speaker is in the chair.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 6, subsection (2), I move:
That the house continue to sit until 10 p.m. this evening unless a motion to adjourn is adopted earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, I object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must refer the house to standing order No. 6, subsection (2), which reads in part as follows:
If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.
May I ask those hon. members who object to stand so the Clerk may count them.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question on the motion will not be put by the Chair.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if it meets with the indulgence of the house I should like to ask for unanimous consent to forgo private members hour and continue the matter before the house when the business was interrupted at five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to private members hour being deferred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will proceed to the consideration of the business interrupted a few moments ago.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 4-Appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman.
Herman Maxwell Batten: We are now considering the amendment and subamendment.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take too much more of the committee's time. When five o'clock was called I was stating that we would not likely be in the difficulty we are in, had we managed during the last 99 years to develop an identifiable Canadian culture in all its various aspects. I think we
July 13, 1966

would have gone a long way toward developing that had we spent less time arguing about negative measures such as are suggested by hon. members in the amendment and subamendment.
Let me support with all the force I can the proposition of hon. members who have preceded me, to the effect that the time has come to look at this whole question in a positive way in order to organize and build in Canada agencies, instruments and attitudes which will constantly improve the dialogue of a united Canada and bring an end to the needling and provocation which necessarily results from negative requirements, and the enshrinement of this kind of thing in legislation.
As one who knows a little about both English and French speaking Canada, let me say to those members who support the amendment and subamendment, that these are precisely the kind of amendments, embodying a spirit of distrust, which make it a great deal more difficult to get English speaking Canadians to appreciate not only verbally and cerebrally, but with their hearts and their souls, the legitimate demands and aspirations of French Canadians in this country.
The sooner we cease this kind of dialogue and permit ourselves to carry on with a dialogue that is as positive and constructive as human beings can make it, the sooner we will start on the road to building an identifiable Canadian culture in English speaking Canada, as in my opinion the French speaking people of this country have built in French speaking Canada, in all its aspects, particularly in the province of Quebec.
One can neither solve the problem facing Canada by this kind of legislation nor solve even the immediate question of appointments, particularly when we are faced with this kind of vague amendment and subamendment. Indeed, let me say that the idea embodied in the amendment and subamendment might have had a great deal more sense and appeal if it were related to the activities of the centre itself and demanded that it mirror the French, English and other cultures that make up Canada's cultural mosaic. I suggest that it would be more logical and sensible for hon. members to withdraw the amendment and subamendment so that we can build an arts centre for the cultural development of this country, instead of arguing about the composition of the board.
National Arts Centre
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very long, but since I previously moved a similar amendment to Bill No. S-2, an act to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company, I feel that I have something to say.
A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) asked the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) to withdraw his amendment, saying that people would understand the need and that, from now on, the ministers would give the French Canadian people of Canada a fair representation.
The Prime Minister's intentions are remarkable and I know that if we were to have a Lester Pearson for years and years to come, we could accept that view; but we are not sure of that, because there is also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who asked the other day that there be only one race in Canada, saying that he did not want second class citizens. That is precisely the false notion which is spreading throughout the country. Some people talk of only one race-and those people do not think at all that there can be two races in Canada. In fact, there are two: the French race and the French Canadians.
As stated a little earlier by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), there are several cultures in Canada and I am happy about it. Canadian culture is on a par with that of other people.
There people can learn English and French which is what the hon. member for York South as well as the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) did; they both speak French and English. But do you find many English Canadians who speak both languages? They are the exception and that exception does not suit me. I submit that if they really wanted to develop a double culture in Canada, they would have gone to the trouble of learning a little French. But they do not do it. In Canada, at the present time, the only bilingual people, or practically the only ones, are the few citizens who come from the other remote provinces and most French Canadians or English Canadians are not bilingual because they do not want to be bilingual.
I think that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong when he said that we do not need a second culture in Canada, because I know that at the present time our representation

July 13. 1966
National Arts Centre
within the commissions does not exceed 12 per cent, whereas we make up over 25 per cent of the population. That fact has always been overlooked and is still overlooked today; it is overlooked with regard to the railways, it is overlooked in this case. No one remembers to mention that the French Canadians have rights, in short, we are forgotten everywhere. The reason is that no one thinks about French Canadians.
That is why I say that we must include in our laws the principle which we are advocating, even if that may displease some people. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) said a little earlier: I congratulate the province of Quebec for its broadmindedness.
The province of Quebec is broadminded because it has to be. Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier had faith in the English majority and he wanted the province of Quebec to be bilingual; it has remained the only bilingual province.
The other provinces are not bilingual; they are unilingual and they are above all English. And when the Leader of the Opposition spoke about that majority which exists in our English circles, well, if we divided the ethnic groups in Canada, we would find that there are more French Canadians. There are more than six million of us and there are only five odd million English people. There are even fewer Scots and Irish even, so that if we divided that by ethnic groups instead of according to the language spoken, we would see that the French Canadians are more numerous. In spite of all that, only 12 per cent of French Canadians sit on commissions; there is something wrong.
That is why I would like to see that provision in our laws, so that those who will come after the present Prime Minister will be reminded that we are entitled to it. I suggested the same thing about the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company and I think that the same fate is in store for my proposal.
I have no illusions, Mr. Chairman; when we are asked to vote on that matter, I am convinced that we will be defeated, but I want to point out that I will vote for the amendment even if, as stated by the hon. member for York South, there is something lacking with regard to that multiple culture which we have today in Canada.
I admit something is lacking. I prefer the amendment moved by the member for Levis because while it mentions bilingualism, it also speaks of biculturalism and a plurality of cultures.

That is why I say 1 prefer the amendment; on the other hand, I shall vote for the subamendment, and then for the amendment because I maintain that it must be incorporated in our statutes; we must tell our legislators that we are entitled to this protection and I trust the government will finally give it to us.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak for a few moments only, to express my opinions following the remarks of the hon. members today and at previous sittings, and more specifically on June 28 last when this amendment and the subamendment were brought before the house.
I heard the members who spoke before me, Mr. Chairman, and some of the speeches were beautiful. They certainly held some truth, but somehow I feel that lacked realism. One is usually content with a beautiful display of roses, sometimes forgetting that roses always hide thorns. When the rose withers and its petals fall, thorns alone remain and with the passing of time they grow sharp and stiff and prickly; it is precisely of those thorns I am wary.
I see everyone is full of good will; when the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) spoke a moment ago, he said that if the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) holds his position for years and years to come-which, frankly, I do not believe-it could then be hoped that the spirit of section 133 of the B.N.A. Act would be constantly upheld. I am sure the Prime Minister will leave some day. Who will then replace him?
Confederation is barely 100 years old. When time came to unite Lower and Upper Canada, the problem at hand was that of joining a French people and an English people to form a Canadian people. When confederation was signed in 1867, time was taken to include section 133. I see, therefore that the fathers of confederation had the courage to write down on paper what they preached. They wrote it down, most fortunately, for were section 133 not in the constitution, decades ago the French fact would have been completely forgotten, and even as well perhaps the fact that the country had ever had two cultures.
A while ago some hon. members referred to the question of plurality of cultures. I do not quite understand. It seems that there are various interpretations or, at any rate, I give it another meaning. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) talked about it on June 28. He said that one cannot have five,
July 13, 1966

six or seven cultures. One's culture is based on one's knowledge; the greater the knowledge, the greater the culture. It is a matter of degree. The man who has a thorough knowledge of English with all the advantages this entails-and heaven knows that there are many-has a certain degree of culture. Another man, similarly endowed and having besides a good knowledge of the French traditions, knows twice as much and his culture is wider. But it is not a matter of three, four or five cultures. It is a matter of knowledge, period. And the sum total of this knowledge makes a culture. In Canada, there is something we apparently always want to interpret; that is the state of mind that prevailed here today.
Mr. Chairman, I am not in favour either of including figures in the act, because that would be absolutely wrong and against the spirit of section 133 of the constitution.
Section 133 gives neither figures nor percentage. As soon as you mention a figure or a percentage, you create a minority, or you start using a slide-rule to work out what you are entitled to keep and that is not very commendable.
This is a state of mind that must be developed here-we are not necessarily of French origin, or of Anglo Saxon origin, but first and foremost Canadians. That is the main point.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment specifying that he should be of French Canadian descent. There is nothing specifying that he should be of English Canadian descent. All the amendment specifies is that he should speak both languages. Whether he be of French Canadian or English Canadian descent has nothing to do with the matter; the main point of the amendment is that he should speak both languages.
I think the amendment is following the spirit of section 133 of the British North America Act, the Canadian constitution, which specified in black and white that there are two official languages in Canada. For this reason I support the amendment. I do not support it because it is detrimental to either race. In my opinion it does not limit anything; it just reinstates in the law what we have in mind and what we are talking about.
We should be running the country properly, instead of trying to get the popular vote by saying, "This is a bilingual conutry. We will do this for the French speaking Canadian and we will do that for the English speaking
National Arts Centre
Canadian"-because this is a mistake. We are talking about national unity today. We have had in this house two types of government which have succeeded each other over the years, namely the Conservatives and Liberals. No other party is responsible for bringing the situation to this point, where the extremists of both nationalities in this country are "going at" each other. This situation has come about because members on both sides of the house have not faced up to reality. The situation has developed because we have ignored reality.
We have had in this country almost 100 years of this type of administration and should have learned from experience. If the administration of the past 100 years has led us into the complete fiasco which exists at the present time, I think it is time we put into practice what we preach, and changed some of the methods we have employed in order to make sure that the situation is not aggravated.
a (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, you can speak of good will; everybody has it. Words go by, and so will the Prime Minister. Speeches go by, and good intentions go by. I might also mention that there is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is a fact, but it is too late to have good intentions in hell. I like to hear people say "We are in favour"; but it means a lot more when it is written down. Spoken words can be forgotten but written words stay. All I ask of hon. members who sit in this house and speak about biculturalism, about bilingualism, about this that and the other, is that they should get up and vote on this question and that they should practise exactly what they preach.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, up to a certain point, I am the one who started all this since I moved the first amendment.
I also listened very carefully to everything that was said, as one who seeks the truth, who does not claim to be right at the outset.
I have especially been impressed by the statement just made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis); in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if the debate that has been going on for a few days had the only effect of giving the opportunity to as many members of this House of commons as possible to profess their belief in the character of both nations here, in Canada, that would be a lot.

July 13, 1966
National Arts Centre The beliefs expressed by the hon. member for York South have certainly impressed us, and the evidence of lack of fanaticism in Quebec, given by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), must also have impressed our English speaking friends.
I hope not to be thought a zealot myself; I have definite opinions about Canadianism, and it has been confirmed by my several trips in the ten provinces. I have many friends in the ten provinces, and I must say that in my own riding my English constituents gave me their vote precisely because they knew that I defended their rights in several instances.
But, where I am surprised at the hon. member for York South-and he surprises me becauses I am ordinarily impressed by his very sound logic-is when he concludes his argument by saying: "Well, you seek this should not be put into the statute books." He probably says that because he did not go through what we went through. He has been in Canada for a number of years. Being a new Canadian, he is happy to have been well-treated, and I am proud to hear him say so. But what the hon. member for York South does not know is that my own ancestors came here in 1629; 1760 is a momentous date and he knows why; the Confederation is 99 years old, he is aware of that, and for the last 99 years the people of my own province have nurtured serious grievances.
Neither do I like an amendment like the one being moved; I too would much prefer that such an amendment never needed to be moved. Only, like many people in my province, I find that we have been waiting for a fair treatment for 99 years. But we are not getting it. And I do not need to go back 50 years, because a bill to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company was brought before us. Some thought was given appointing English speaking persons to the Company, but no French speaking ones. That is not ancient history, it happened recently. Now, we have a right to say: Well, the same thing may happen again, and if we all agree on the reality of bilingualism and bicultural-ism, we want the existence of the two founding nations of the country to be recognized and that appropriate action be taken accordingly.
I pointed out the other day that I had conducted a survey in a number of departments and crown corporations and out of 1850 names or so that I noted, I found approximately 325, but I may have missed a few, which sounded French, and I am not

even sure that all those people are from Quebec. There again, the member for York South reaches a conclusion that I do not find logical. He does not seem to realize that if we are driven to ask such things, it is because we have 99 years of grievances behind us and that we really believe in confederation.
It is because, next year, we would like the contract between the two nations to be renewed for another century. Only, we realize that in the province of Quebec, our young people, our young businessmen, are dissatisfied. They are probably more realistic than we were. Being dissatisfied, they must assert loudly their feeling of not having been treated as they should have been. Because a few of them take extremist positions, we want to prevent a divorce from taking place in the years to come.
Mr. Chairman, some responsible people in my province worry about the manner in which confederation will be celebrated next year. They are worried for the very reason that in many areas young people are found to be dissatisfied with the treatment they get.
As I said earlier, even though it is obvious the result of the vote will probably go against us, just the same, even if the only result will have been to force some of our members to make a profession of faith, which was done with some eloquence, and sincerity, by the way, by most of them, I think, it will at least have served to promote the cause of goodwill and national unity. I want it to be known that it is in that spirit that we are dealing with this matter.
I realize it is an extremely dangerous subject, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to contain myself, because it is so easy to become excited and get carried away over such matters, thereby complicating instead of straightening out the situation. But what I should like to emphasize, for the information of my English speaking friends, is that when we of Quebec raise this question, it should be understood that we are not separatists; we are Canadians who believe in confederation and think it will not last if Quebec is not treated as it should be.
Those who take this for racism should take it rather as an instinct of self-preservation, a warning to all Canadians of good will that it is time this conviction which everyone proclaims so eloquently found its expression in action if not in legislation.
I would not object, for example, to voting against the amendment if the government were to tell us: Well, here are the names
July 13, 1966

proposed for this corporation. If I see three or four French names, I shall be satisfied.
Therefore, let us have proof that this principle will be respected and we will yield. We will then realize that we Canadians can accept understanding and national unity.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up too much time but I have some remarks to make further to the speech we have heard from the hon. member for Ar-genteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), from the hon. member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) and from the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who has just spoken. I was particularly impressed by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) of Montreal. He is of Jewish origin and he has clearly laid down here in the house, before all the members, the treatment the minorities, whether English or others, are getting in the province of Quebec.
Now, regarding the amendment on which we will be voting shortly, I see nothing discriminatory about it. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is to amend Section 4 of the bill by inserting the following paragraph:
In the appointment of members and officers of the corporation, due account will be taken of the linguistic duality of Canada.
We have been hearing about duality and bilingualism etc. for 30, 40, 50 years. We have heard plenty of words but we have seen little action. When the hon. member for York-South said, a while ago, that French Canadians, as a majority or as an important group in any part of Canada-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

-should be given the right to educate their own children in their own language and culture.

The member for York South is right on that score. But I would ask him a question. He is a member of a political party which has been in power close to 20 years in Saskatchewan and his present leader, who is here in Ottawa, was premier of Saskatchewan.
I have relatives in Saskatchewan, French Canadians like myself, who have never enjoyed the school freedom which we grant the Anglo-Saxons in our province of Quebec. And the member for Cartier was pointing it out a while ago. How is it that in 20, or 17 years of power, a government in such a province as
National Arts Centre
Saskatchewan, could not give to the French Canadian minority the same privileges which we give-mark this: "in accordance with the law"-to the minorities living in our province of Quebec? And these are not empty words; we act along these lines. This is the law in the province of Quebec but it is not the law in the province of Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member if he is aware that in the province of Saskatchewan between 1944 and 1964 we more than trebled the number of schools in which French was taught, from something in the neighbourhood of 70 to over 210?


David Réal Caouette: Were those schools fully paid for by the government of Saskatchewan, without any increase in taxes? Did the French speaking people pay for public schools and then have to pay for their own schools?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, my hon. friend should know there are separate schools which are paid for by the ratepayers. The government supplies an equalization grant which applies equally, whether it is a French school or an English school. In some cases, the separate school is an English speaking school and the public school is a French school. In both cases this equalization grant applies.


David Réal Caouette: There are not too many of them. In my opinion there is quite a difference between the schools in Saskatchewan and the way the school question is treated in the province of Quebec. I have relatives in the southern part of Saskatchewan and they have to pay double taxation because they have to pay for public schools, and then they have to pay for separate schools.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend is wrong about that.


David Réal Caouette: But the way our compatriots are treated in the province of Saskatchewan bears no resemblance to the way we treat minorities in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, in our province the rights of the minorities are guaranteed by law. Not by words only but by law.
We are now asking here in Ottawa to get as much. It is not so difficult if, in fact, there is no discrimination. When the hon. member for York South says that there is a cultural

July 13. 1966
National Arts Centre
plurality in Canada, we agree. Of course, if I went to live in China, I would have to comply with that country's customs, while keeping my French language if I could. The hon. member comes from another country; he arrived in Canada in 1921 or 1922 and followed the customs of Canada. But a fact remains; Canada is a bilingual country; he recognized it. Canada is a country made up of two great ethnic groups; the Anglo-Saxon and the French.
Therefore, if that fact is recognized in the legislation, it seems to me that no one should complain, no one should be shocked, because the cultural and bilingual duality in Canada is recognized in the legislation. That is why we will vote, we want to vote and we are asking all Canadians, whatever the ethnic group to which they may belong, to vote so that the cultural and bilingual duality can be recognized in Canada.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the comments I wanted to make on the matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Gre-goire) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 71.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the subamendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Guay) negatived: Yeas, 10; Nays, 67.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be
read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may we have Bill S-42 called? This is the bill to amend the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CORPORATION FOR WORLD EXHIBITION


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-42, to amend the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give a brief explanation of the bill, just for the record?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to the house that I am quite speechless. I understand that the bill is quite important. If I could just have a minute to read it I would be glad to explain it. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) could save me the trouble, because he seems to have read it already.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, to find the minister speechless is an event which should be recorded, and we ought not to extend the debate on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, is the minister now better briefed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Richard Albert Bell: Then would he like to explain this clause?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would prefer not to, but I
will if the committee insists.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the protection afforded to marks of the corporation and the official symbol of the exhibition in their application to goods or wares. In other words, the purpose is to increase the revenues to the crown, an objective with which I am sure all hon. members will agree.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
July 13. 1966	COMMONS
Mr. Depuly Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) had, I thought, a few moments ago not done his homework sufficiently to give some explanation of the bill, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) would give some explanation, for the record, of the purposes of the bill. I think all hon. members have read the bill and thoroughly approve of it. It seems to me somewhat unwise to have the bill go through the house without there being some statement on the record as to what the bill is all about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) speaks now it will have to be by unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, my explanation will be short because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has already explained it very fully on second reading. Therefore I need say little by way of amplification at this stage.
The bill, as I heard the Minister of Transport, say, is to protect the symbols, copyright and trade mark position of Expo. Expo officials are now in the position of having to undertake the licensing of a great many products, and we want to ensure through this amendment to the statute that they are in a position to protect copyright and the like, and that fraudulent material is not circulated to the public and sold under the symbol or mark of Expo. The general purpose therefore is to protect our copyright and our trade mark so that we can achieve the necessary control and realize a proper and orderly licensing program for those people who wish to sell goods under licence related to Expo, thus enhancing the revenues which we hope will flow to Expo, and through Expo to the people of Canada, from this great Canadian undertaking.
DEBATES	7649
Canada Corporation for World Exhibition


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question before he sits down. I take it that the act will not prevent amateur photographers from taking pictures on site, but they cannot reproduce them and sell them. Is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: That is quite correct.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to ask the minister whether this includes the copyright of the initials "Expo"? Is that a copyrighted feature, as well as the symbols?


Robert Henry Winters: "Expo '67" is copyrighted and will also be protected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the acting house leader could tell us what is the business for tomorrow?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with that I would again make an appeal to the house. There were two notices of motions put on Votes and Proceedings last Tuesday. They are to approve the activities of the standing committee on northern affairs and national resources and the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration during the adjournment. I understand the committees may be visiting certain Indian reservations while the house is not sitting, and the passage of the two motions would authorize the committees to carry on during the recess.
If it meets with the approval of the house, I would appeal to the house to approve these two motions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are they in Votes and Proceedings?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes, in Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, then.

July 13. 1966
Committee of the House COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES-INDIAN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP-PERMISSION TO SIT DURING ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern
Affairs and National Resources) moved:
That the standing committee on northern affairs and national resources be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purposes of obtaining further information relating to matters and projects dealing with northern development;
That for this purpose, the said committee be authorized to sit while the house is sitting or during adjournment of the house;
That the Clerk of the said committee and the necessary supporting staff do accompany the said committee.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Laing moved:: That the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purpose of obtaining further information relating to matters affecting Indains and Indian communities; and
That, for this purpose, the said committee be authorized to sit while the house is sitting or during adjournments of the house; and
That the Clerk of the said committee and necessary supporting staff do accompany the said committee.


William Arnold Peters: Before this item goes through I should like to ask whether any consideration has been given to the nature and composition of the supporting staff. One of the other committees tried an experiment in this direction and encountered a certain amount of difficulty in reporting its proceedings because of the necessity of carrying recording equipment. Has any consideration been given to the size of the staff covered by the motion, or to what is really desirable in this direction? I have no objection to meetings being held and reported. I am merely curious to know what kind of supporting staff is envisaged in the motion and how extensive it is likely to be.


Arthur Laing: I would hope that the supporting staff sent along would be adequate, but at the same time, having regard to the type of work this committee will be undertaking I believe the greatest value of these visits to Indian reserves and Indian people will come
out of the acquaintance with the problems which is granted to each individual committee member. So I think the hon. member may agree with me that we should not be criticized too strongly if we endeavour to keep the supporting staff to a minimum.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lawrence T. Pennell: Tomorrow we shall be dealing with Bill No. C-215, the dock workers bill-in that order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: When this is disposed of there may be a short waiting period while the measure is brought to the other place, and it may be that the leaders may wish to confer with a view to dealing with some business in the interim. But I do not press this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Medicare?


An hon. Member:: Estimates?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the government definitely set its face against proceeding with the medicare legislation or would it be prepared to consider this between now and tomorrow?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I can add nothing to what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare today. He said there was no unanimous agreement and that the government would not insist upon proceeding with the medicare legislation.


Frank Howard: You do not have unanimous agreement to proceed with the legislation on the dock workers, either.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is only one bill left-we could perhaps get on with it and finish it up tonight. Would the acting house leader not appeal to the house once more?


Frank Howard: We would gladly agree to that, if the government would agree to putting off the dock workers bill, as well, until some time in the indefinite future.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 14, 1966