1967-06-28

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1967-68

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates A for the financial year ending March 31, 1968, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the house the third report of the standing committee on trade, finance and economic affairs. In this report we are returning to the house the estimates of the Department of National Revenue.
I am also presenting to the house the fourth report of the standing committee on trade and economic affairs, which will return to the house Bill No. C-114, a private bill concerning United Investment Life Assurance Company.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know we are to be honoured by a visit from our Queen during which, on Saturday next, she will address members of both houses of our parliament. It is most fitting that she should be present in our capital city as we commemorate the day one hundred years ago when, because of the vision and determination of some great men, our confederation passed from dream to reality.
The crown, Mr. Speaker, through Queen Elizabeth, who in her own life represents so much that is fine and good in our society, is
an integral and valued part of our constitutional structure. The monarchy symbolizes with grace and dignity the continuity of our institutions and the depth of our roots. It is a force for stability and ordered progress in our life, standing above controversy without any trace of partisanship yet adapting itself to the democratic and changing requirements and opportunities of modern life and society.
The Queen and her consort, Prince Philip, and their family have made themselves greatly admired, respected and loved by all Canadians. Their unselfish dedication and sense of duty have become a model for us all.
I am sure all hon. members would wish the Commons of Canada to extend to Her Majesty through the Speaker an expression of our loyalty and appreciation of Her Majesty's presence among us on our centennial birthday. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen on Saturday next, July 1, in the following words:
That an humble address be engrossed and presented to Her Majesty the Queen by the Honourable the Speaker on the occasion of the celebration of the centenary of confederation, 1st July, 1967 in the following words:



TO HER MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY ELIZABETH THE SECOND,

[Stage Direction]
By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN:
We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the	 Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, wish humbly to convey to Your Majesty this expression of our deepest loyalty, affection and respect, and of our appreciation of the presence in Canada of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip at the celebration of the Centenary of Confederation.
We pray that Your Majesty may continue to reign for many years as our gracious and beloved Sovereign.
And:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that the House of Commons had passed the said address and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the address by inserting therein the words "Senate and".
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Gregoire:: On a point of order-
June 28. 1967

Address to Her Majesty the Queen


John George Diefenbaker: In 1957-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe is rising on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to know if such a motion does not require a 48-hour notice before being discussed and, in such a case, Mr. Speaker, has the unanimous consent of the house been asked?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to introduce a motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) ?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite frankly that I am willing to come to an arrangement with all the members of this house. I am ready to grant the unanimous consent but on one condition. Usually, when a motion like this is brought forth, the Prime Minister is permitted to speak as well as a representative from each of the parties. Now, if I want to state that it is carried on division, then, according to standing orders, I would not be entitled to speak, since only one representative of each party is allowed to speak on motions.
When this motion is moved, if I am not allowed to speak I ask then that a 48-hour notice be given. On the other hand, if I am entitled to give my opinion on this motion and say why, if it is passed, it should be passed on division, then, so as not to frustrate all members of the house, I am ready to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member does not understand the present situation. There is no ministerial statement involved at this time on which only one representative of the other parties has the right to reply, but a motion duly introduced by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, to which all members, including the member for Lapointe, have given their consent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I well recall that on October 14, 1957, when Her Majesty opened parliament she referred to the words of Elizabeth I:
Though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my crown, that I have reigned with your loves.


Then Her Majesty said:
-here in the new world I say to you that it is my wish that in the years before me I may so reign in Canada and be so remembered.
Ten years have passed. The Prime Minister stated objectively some of the things the monarchy means and some of the things it has achieved under the present Queen, the Queen of Canada. The expression "Queen of Canada" was first used by Sir John Macdonald more than 85 years ago. Some argue in favour of ending the monarchy. Sir, our freedoms, the rights of Canadians and in particular those of our compatriots who are French Canadian, were achieved by and under the British crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was before there was any question of Canada's independence.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is an interesting fact of history that throughout the entire gamut of the years there has always been, in Canada, a sovereign. This was so during the days of French rule. It has been so ever since. Those who argue that the day of the monarchy is over have been answered in words which I now adopt, words of Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the first Canadian to be Governor General, when he wrote:
The monarchy Is so essential to us that without it as a bastion of Canadian nationality, of Canadian purpose and Canadian independence, we could not, in my view, remain a sovereign state.
That is the opinion of one who through the years served this nation both nationally and internationally and who occupied the position of representative of the crown.
I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming to Canada Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. The overwhelming sentiment of Canadians will be deep respect and affection; affection for a person who is well loved in her own right, and respect for the fact that she represents in terms of freedom and human dignity that something which is above political partisanship.
She is the head of our political system. As a symbol of the state she commands a loyalty which transcends any other possible symbol. Finally, as the Prime Minister stated, with her husband Prince Philip and her children she represents to all the beauty and fullness of a family in the highest degree. As Queen or as mother, in majesty or simplicity, the Queen of Canada has devoted herself to the
June 28, 1967

primary duty of the monarchy, that is service to the people. I recall the words of the first Elizabeth in 1601 when she said:
There will never queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects, and that will sooner with willingness yield and venture her life for your good and safety than myself.
Those words, spoken 400 years ago by the Queen of England, sum up the credo of service of the present Elizabeth, and I am honoured to be given the privilege of seconding this motion of loyalty to one who in her person epitomizes all that is good in the human family, one whose life has been of devotion to the service of the state.
My only hope is that from time to time in the years ahead she will again follow the course of opening the Canadian parliament and other parliaments in the Commonwealth.
I second the motion with approval and with deep sentiment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I wish to join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming Her Majesty and Prince Philip to Canada in this important year of the centenary of our confederation.
It occurred to me as a student of political science when the Prime Minister rose to pay his tribute and to move the resolution, that our democratic system in Britain, as in Canada, has in large measure been a development arising out of the original powers of the monarchy and the democratic institutions which later followed. I think the great achievement of our system has been its ability to retain the qualities of dignity, leadership and service attached to the monarchy while developing democratic rule by our people, through our parliament and the members of parliament.
For this and other reasons I am happy to associate our party with the expression of loyalty from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to Her Majesty, to express our admiration for the dignity with which she has performed her onerous duties, and to join with other members of the house in expressing to Her Majesty and Prince Philip our deepest affection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, as a French Canadian, I want to join the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the

Address to Her Majesty the Queen preceding speakers to welcome Her Majesty the Queen of England to Canada.
I do not believe that our present government, as suggested by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is 100 per cent monarchic. I always believed that we had a democratic government, and I believe it more and more strongly. As a matter of fact, I cannot reconcile monarchy and democracy. It is one or the other, and not both together.
As French Canadians, we must be grateful to the British crown which was, I believe, at the origin of the present constitution, the basis of confederation, the centennial of which we are celebrating in 1967.
We believe that if there were certain breaches of the constitution, as initially thought out by the British crown, it was certainly not by the British crown but by some English-speaking people who even believed at the time, 100 years ago, that the British crown was favourable to French Canadians and had, as a matter of fact, established that constitution for the benefit of the French-Canadian element in Canada.
That is why we owe a debt of gratitude to the British crown which, in my opinion, acted in a spirit of justice at that time. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty will see for herself, when she comes to Canada, whether we have benefited from the advice she gave us the last time she was in Quebec city when she said this:
A dynamic state must not be afraid to review its political philosophy. It is not surprising that an agreement drafted a hundred years ago does not necessarily meet all the requirements of this day.
Thus, Her Majesty invited us to become adults and to leave the cradle and grow in our country. I wonder what she will think when she comes soon, and I hope that she will repeat her previous advice, so that some hon. members in the House of Commons will become adults as soon as possible and welcome as adults, independent men and great Canadians, every royal guest who will visit us.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, there have been other occasions when we have been honoured by the presence of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, but we are looking forward with particular pleasure to welcoming them on this occasion, the 100th anniversary of confederation.
June 28. 1967

Address to Her Majesty the Queen
Addressing the Canadian Club of Toronto several years ago the first native born Governor General of Canada stated four reasons for the value and importance of the crown; the crown at the head of the political system; the crown as the head of the intangible thing we call the nation; the Queen as the head of state, and the Queen with her husband and family the first family of her realm, showing us the essential unit of human society at its best.
It is with a profound feeling of pleasure and satisfaction that we in the Social Credit party support the motion just proposed by the Prime Minister and seconded by the right hon. leader of the official opposition, welcoming Her Majesty to Canada and assuring her of our affection, loyalty and respect.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is a saying in British politics which goes like this: The king or the queen reigns but does not rule. This gives rise to another saying: The king or the queen can do no wrong. That is obvious, Mr. Speaker, when we speak of Her Majesty the Queen of England. This concerns, to my mind, the system and the institutions themselves rather than the person of Her Majesty the Queen of England.
We have no personal reproach to address Her Majesty, far from it. She has always been an example by her personal and public behaviour, but what I find objectionable in that motion, Mr. Speaker, is the very system represented by the British monarchy in Canada.
We can read at the beginning of this address:
By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:
Mr. Speaker "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories", this means queen of numerous independent and self-governing countries, and I feel the time has come for the North American people to assume their responsibilities as adults, as stated earlier by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), and to make or, at least, bring about in our country the political changes necessary to have our independence definitely recognized.
For instance, when in 1963-64, I was a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations as parliamentary observer, the
[Mr. Patterson.!
present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was invited or, at least, was also a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, and he was not treated as a Canadian head of state, indeed not, because that role belongs exclusively to the Queen of England. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, at that point, I felt ill at ease for the Prime Minister, the man appointed by all Canadian citizens, and who democratically represents the authority in Canada. He was not treated as head of state by the other peoples of the world. Indeed, he had to leave his seat at the back of the hall of the United Nations general assembly and cross the full length of the hall to address the other countries, while the other heads of state of the world, whether heads of small, middlesized or large countries, got what is known as the blue chair treatment; they sat in front on the platform, and only had to go from there to address the other nations of the world.
But our Prime Minister, the head of our country elected democratically by the Canadian people, the only one elected democratically by the Canadian people, could not be treated as head of state, because that is reserved solely for the Queen of England.
Well, Mr. Speaker, being a Canadian embarrassed me on that day. And, I told myself: a fundamental change must be made in our political institutions.
Our Prime Minister was not the head of state recognized by the United Nations, the Queen of England was. Mr. Speaker, if only to prove to the other nations of the world that Canada is truly independent, is not a colony, for the sake of self-respecting Canadians, a change is imperative.
Another reason, Mr. Speaker, why a change is necessary is that each time the Queen's representative attends some public event, well, England's national anthem is played before ours.
That is another situation in which Canadian citizens worthy of that name must be embarrassed, because I have been on several occasions when the national anthem of a foreign country was played instead of ours.
Why all this? Because our political institutions force us to accept that state of affairs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I protest against the use of words such as:
By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, etc.
I could agree to the title of "Head of the Commonwealth". "Queen of England, of the
June 28. 1967

United Kingdom, Head of the Commonwealth", I am ready to accept and recognize that. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe the constitution must be changed in Canada.
We pray that Queen Elizabeth may continue to reign for many years, I am ready to accept that. "Queen of Canada", I agree less with that, and I am not the only one in this house. There is even a Liberal member who once had the courage and boldness to confess to this, to shout it out in this house. I agree with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who once claimed that Canada should become a republic instead of remaining a constitutional monarchy.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing, and I conclude with this, against the person of Her Majesty the Queen of England. On the contrary, I think that she fulfils her role magnificently as Queen of England, that she had always given a good example to all the heads of states across the world. But, I believe that it is time, in this land of America, for a people such as ours, to become adult even in spite of very strong feelings, and I quite understand that some hon. members who spoke before me may have such deep feelings. However, feelings are not enough and reason must prevail.
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I understand, without accepting it, however, the thinking of many others in this house, that I did not refuse unanimous consent.
This motion could have been moved on Friday and even after forty eight hours, it would have been the same. However, I want to register my disapproval with regard to that motion. If it is agreed to, I would like the words "on division" mentioned, and in the last paragraph where it says:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that the House of Commons had passed the said address-
I should like the words "on division" to appear.
However, when the motion is presented and the words "on division" are mentioned, I pray Her Majesty the Queen of England to believe that I have nothing against her personally; on the contrary. I wish her a pleasant stay in Canada.
Many heads of state will be visiting us this year and they are all welcome. Whether it is the President of India, the President of the United States, the Queen of England, the President of the French Republic or the President of Italy, they are all welcome and I wish them a pleasant stay in our country. As
Geneva Trade Agreements lor the Queen of England, in addition to wishing her a pleasant stay in Canada, I hope that she will enjoy her visit to Expo '67. But as far as this motion is concerned, Mr. Speaker, if it is carried, I ask that it be on division.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Grégoire: On division.



STATEMENT ON GENEVA AGREEMENTS TO BE MADE ON JUNE 29

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that the final act of the Kennedy round agreements is being signed in Geneva on Friday morning. In view of the time difference it has been decided that the announcement of the results will be made in Canada on the preceding evening. On behalf of the Minister of Finance and myself I will be tabling in the house at 8 p.m. on Thursday, June 29, detailed information about the trade and tariff agreements concluded in the Kennedy round.
This information will also be made available to the press for release at the same time, and will be sent without delay to trade associations for distribution to individual firms across the country. I will also be mailing the material to some 150 firms which have approached us directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will detail the detrimental effects on various industries of the adoption of a pronounced reduction in tariffs. We have a right to know before this session ends what industries will be opened to competition from abroad, what assistance is contemplated by the government for industries affected, and also what will be done in respect of workers and employees.
Competition for the domestic market will be intensified. Under this plan Canada's foreign trade will prosper only if her prices are comparable in relation to the international market-place. What will the Canadian government do to improve productivity and competitiveness? We have not had a word from this government except in speeches outside parliament. We want to know here and now before this session is adjourned what are the facts and the programs. Does the government know, or is it facing a mirage in the future,

June 28, 1967
Capital Punishment
the effects of which are not known? The Minister of Transport is a postgraduate in the course of indifference about these matters. He can laugh. He can ridicule now, but Canadians know this government has bought an agreement the effects of which are not at all known to them. What are the government's proposals to deal with the serious situation which will arise?


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is not really possible to comment on the Kennedy round until we have the details, but I would hope that one of the results of the implementation of the tariff changes will be that the government will devise a different policy from the one they have had to date which has put an undue emphasis on the export of raw and semi-manufactured materials, and will direct their policies to the development of secondary industry in Canada to compete with the goods which, as the Leader of the Opposition said, will tend to come here in greater volume than they do now.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-141, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of capital punishment) and the Parole Act (persons convicted of murder or treason).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) today I was tempted to withdraw the bill. On the other hand I have concluded that he is already dead politically.
This bill proposes to follow the British precedent in suspending capital punishment for the trial period of three years during which it would be replaced by a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with parole possible only on approval by both the National Parole Board and the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-142, to amend the Criminal Code (firearms).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, last year, on June 28, 1966-which is an anniversary-I had the honour to introduce Bill No. C-214, concerning firearms problems. For lack of time, however, the bill was not debated. Nevertheless, on October 12, 1966, I had the pleasure to discuss that question, when my notice of motion concerning the same problem was called.
The bill being introduced today emphasizes the education of the people of Canada as to the use of firearms.
I hope this legislation will contribute not only to the restriction of crime but also to the prevention of the numerous accidents which are due to an excessive use of firearms. [English]
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REQUIREMENT THAT INJURIES TO CHILDREN BE REPORTED

Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-143, to amend the Criminal Code (maltreatment of a child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the previous session I introduced a bill which I am now replacing with this one because several changes were necessary. In the first place this bill makes it obligatory on everyone to report maltreatment of children. Legislation has been passed in some of the provinces but I maintain there are no teeth in it because no penalties are attached. I suggest that separate penalties be imposed on the medical profession and somewhat lesser penalties on all other individuals, thus making it necessary for everyone to report any instances of maltreatment of a child of which they have knowledge.
However, there is a further provision which I think should be contained in the legislation, namely that a person who reports information should be free of libel if it were proved later that there were no grounds for the accusation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
June 28, 1967

Mr. Brand: 1.	What was the total cost to the government of the submission to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of Steven Murray Truscott?
2.	What are the names of the following and the amounts paid to them (a) defence counsel (b) crown counsel (c) witnesses?
3.	What other costs have been paid?
4.	Have all bills been rendered and. if not, who has not as yet submitted an account?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this answer contains a long list of figures, fees, disbursements and totals, and I am wondering if I could just read the totals and perhaps the other details could be taken into Hansard.
Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, is this not the type of answer that might be made an order for return if copies could be made immediately available to members? I do not think it should be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the question be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is objection, so it will appear in Hansard.
[Editor's note: The answer to the question is as follows:]
1. $95,955.43 in direct expenditure.
2. (a)	Fees	Disbursements	TotalG. A. Martin, Q.C	
26,940.00	7,095.67	34,041.67E. B. Jolliffe, Q.C	
14,115.00	1,379.02	15,494.02R. J. Carter	
Nil	Nil	Nil49,535.69(b)	Fees	Disbursements	TotalW. C. Bowman, Q.C	
Nil	629.34	629.34D. H. Scott, Q.C	
Nil	421.53	421.53D. H. Christie, Q.C	
Nil	105.00	105.001,155.87(c)	Defence Witnesses	Fees	Disbursements	TotalProf. F. E. Camps	
2,835.23	2,799.07	5,634.30Dr. Chas. Petty	
1,900.00	498.96	2,398.96Prof. V. L. Henderson	
700.00	59.50	759.50Dr. J. Rich	
1,198.90	149.16	1,348.06Dr. R. C. A. Hunter	
800.00	103.71	903.71Dr. F. Joffe	
1,000.00	190.14	1,190.14Dr. Robson	
100.00	65.59	165.59Dr. R. J. McCaldon	
200.00	23.65	223.65Dr. R. F. Briggs	
200.00	38.10	238.10Dr. Tillman	
25.00	25.00Dr. C. W. Danby	
1,100.00	173.39	1,273.39Mr. J. A. Churchman	
250.00	5.00	255.00Dr. Gray	
50.00	50.00Dr. N. Wrong	
300.00	58.00	358.00Dr. E. L. Marcinkovskv	98.70	98.7014,922.10Crown Witnesses	Fees	Disbursements	TotalDr. M. Helpern	
1,291,45	360.15	1,651.00Dr. M. Sharpe	
1,400.00	75.75	1,475.75Dr. S. R. Gerber	
2,367.55	207.62	2,575.17Dr. J. M. Hunt	
237.04	237.04Dr. E. Trow	
600.00	600.00Prof. K. Simpson	
1,490.37	861.71	2,352.08Dr. Penistan	
850.00	850.00Dr. J. J. Hartford	
875.00	24.50	899.5010,641.14
Questions

June 28, 1967
3. Court reporting, Factums and cases Other crown employees travel etc...
18,048.29
1,652.34
Total
19,700.63
4. Yes.


EXPORTS OF NAPALM TO U.S.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Was any napalm exported from Canada to the United States in 1966 (a) by any government agency (b) by any other agency, person or company?
2.	If so, what quantity?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	(a) No. (b) not applicable.
2.	Not applicable.


COST OF TRUSCOTT SUBMISSION TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Cowan: 1.	What amount of remuneration was paid to the legal authorities engaged by the cabinet for the special Truscott hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada?
2.	Taking account of the number of days occupied by the hearing and the number of days the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada needed to reach their decision, what was the value of the time consumed by the Supreme Court in holding this hearing?
3.	What was the total amount of incidental expenses attached to the Truscott hearing?
4.	What amount of compensation has been given by Canada to the family of Lynn Harper, who was the innocent victim of this murder?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: So
far as the Department of Justice is concerned:
1.	Fees
G. A. Martin,	Q.C	
$26,946E. B. Jolliffe,	Q.C	
$14,115Total	
$41,0612.	Not capable of determination.3.	For the purpose of this reply incidental expenses includes all expenses except fees paid to defence counsel. Defence disbursements, $8,474,69; Disbursements of crown counsel, $1,155.87; Other crown employees' disbursements, $1,652.34; Witnesses' fees and disbursements, $25,563.24; Court reporting, printing of factums and cases, $18,048.29; Total, $54,894.43.4.	None.


ARMOUR STONE MATERIALS, FERRY TERMINI, P.E.I.-N.B.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What materials were used for armour stone when ferry termini were constructed at Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden, Prince Edward Island?
2.	What materials were used for armour stone when breakwaters were constructed at Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Borden, P.E.I., in conjunction with the ferry termini?
3.	What has been the performance of the materials used at Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Borden, P.E.I., and over what period of time have these materials withstood the elements?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. Mostly sandstone from Wallace, N.S., and Point du Chene, N.B.
3.	The performance has been satisfactory and the materials have withstood the elements for approximately 50 years.


PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 150, 150A AND 150B OF CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peters: 1.	Since the adoption in 1959 of section 150, 150a and 150b of the criminal code of Canada, what is the breakdown by year of (a) the number of prosecutions under this section (b) the number of convictions (c) the number of jail sentences (d) the number of appeals to (i) provincial courts of appeal (ii) to supreme courts or superior courts of the provinces (iii) to the Supreme Court of Canada (e) the number of reversals?
2.	Has the government under consideration any amendments to this section of the criminal code?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the reply to part 1 of this starred question involves a great many figures, I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to have the table, giving the information available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, be taken as read and allow it to be printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]


OFFENCES TENDING TO CORRUPT MORALS-150, 150A, 150B
[Stage Direction]
Appeals*	
Indictable	Summary	Total	(by Provincial Courts)	Indictable	Summary(a) Charges**	(b) Convic- tions	(b) Convic- tions	(b) Convic- tions	(c) Indict- able	(c) Sum- mary	(c) Total	(d) and (e)	1965	23	19	417	436	2	32	34	1 from conviction (dismissed)	1 from conviction (acquitted)1964	29	20	425	445	1	38	39	None	6 from conviction (5 dismissed- 1 acquitted)196.1	14	13	381	394	2	38	40	2 from conviction (dismissed) 1 from sentence (dismissed)	12 from conviction (dismissed)1962	30	28	268	291	3	34	37	3 from conviction (2 dismissed- 1 acquitted) 1 from sentence (varied)	8 from conviction (7 dismissed- 1 acquitted)1961	19	19	78	97	2	11	13	1 from conviction (dismissed) 1 from sentence (dismissed)	2 from conviction (dismissed)1960	10	8	101	109	2	10	12	1 from conviction (dismissed) 1 from sentence (dismissed)	2 from sentence (dismissed) 1 from conviction (dismissed)1959	24	19	121	130	2	8	10	1 from conviction (dismissed) 3 from sentence (dismissed)	4 from conviction (dismissed)
*Disposition of appeals does not indicate which court was involved.
Charges are recorded for indictable proceedings only.
Statistics relate to the workload of the courts in a particular year, e.g. a 1964 appeal could have been from a 1963 conviction.
June 28. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1967
Questions
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 2 of the question is as follows: The government has under consideration the amendment to section 150 of the Criminal Code recommended by the standing committee on health and welfare in relation to contraception.


EFFECT OF EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES ON WILDLIFE
Mr. Orange: 1.	Has the Canadian wildlife service or any of the government departments or agencies of the government undertaken any studies to determine the effect of mining or oil exploration activities on the natural habitat of fur-bearing animals and on the normal fish runs together with their effect on wildlife migration in the Northwest Territories and, if so, what are the results of these studies?
2.	Have the results of these studies, if any, been published and, if not, will they be, and when?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned:
1.	Department of Fisheries personnel have made observations during oil, seismic, exploration surveys. Exploration companies take precautions to avoid fish kills as stipulated by the department. No serious fish kills have been observed in the Northwest Territories.
2.	No. No.
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
1.	This issue has arisen many times before and in the past has resulted in minor investigations reported by a memorandum from or to initiating agencies. We have been made aware of the following occurrences which may be construed as damage to wildlife habitat: (a) The destruction of lichen tundra by tracked vehicles-Recovery may take many years and tracked vehicles except those with very low ground pressure appear to be the biggest offenders. Most exploration companies are aware of this problem and there have been few complaints, (b) Councillor Robert Porritt of the Northwest Territories council has registered concern over the effect of staking in the Pine Point area on trapping and wildlife habitat. The amount of line cutting between Hay River and the Wood Buffalo national park boundary is quite extensive, but the detrimental effects on wildlife have not been assessed. The area is almost uniformly wet and boggy and openings effected

by line cutting would dry some of the area and probably increase the amount of browse for ungulates. On the other hand, slash left by line cutting crews on ponds and streams reduces their suitability as muskrat and beaver habitat. This type of damage was investigated in Wood Buffalo national park by the Canadian Wildlife Service and commercial logging opertors were instructed to desist, (c) The Canadian Wildlife Service has alerted water carriers on the Athabasca river to report any pollution of the Athabasca and Slave rivers by effluent from the oil extraction plant at Bitumont, Alberta. Any oil travelling downstream could seriously affect waterfowl populations in Wood Buffalo national park and elsewhere and could also be detrimental to fish populations. At present, there is no evidence of pollution from this source, (d) The numbers of forest fires attributed to mining exploration crews have not been determined. It was felt that although the numbers may have been significant in the past, such crews are now obligated to carry fire fighting equipment of their own to reduce the incidence.
2.	Present studies have not been intensive enough to warrant publication at present. It is expected that in the near future, a more systematic survey of this problem will be done and the material published.


CHANGE IN COINAGE METAL
Mr. Reid: 1.	Will the metal in Canadian coinage be changed from silver to nickel and, if so, will industry be given sufficient warning to enable them to make the necessary conversions to coin-operated machines?
2.	Will the government provide help financially, or otherwise, during such conversion?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the answer is as follows:
1.	As announced in the House of Commons on June 5, 1967, it is the intention of the government to change the composition of our present 10 cent and 25 cent coins to pure nickel and to relate the introduction of these nickel coins to the requirements of the vending industry in respect of the installation of new coin selector devices.
2.	Assistance has been requested by the Canadian Automatic Merchandising Association and the association has been asked to support its request with further information and argument.
June 28, 1967


CONTROL OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many persons were known to have been slain in Canada in 1964, 1965, and 1966?
Questions
2.	Of these numbers, how many persons died from a bullet?
3.	What are the views of the government with respect to present controls of firearms ownership?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	(a) The total number of persons slain, i.e. dying or killed accidentally or by other violent means were:
Death classified as:
Total Accident Suicide Homicide Other
1964	
12,396	10,564	1,586	241	51965	
12,957	10,978	1,715	259	51966	
not available
(b) of the above the following number of deaths were due to firearms or explosives:
1965
Death classified as:
Total Accidental Suicidal Homicidal
847	180	560	107868	138	622	108
not available
2.	Of the numbers shown in 1(b), the following number of deaths were due to wounds caused by bullet or other firearms ammunition:
Death classified as:
Total	Accident Suicide Homicide
1964		 not available
1965		 857	127	622	108
1966		 not available
3.	The Minister of Justice is presently reviewing the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to firearms and considering many representations on the subject received from interested organizations and individuals and the Government will reach a decision on this question in light of the study that has been mentioned.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Godin: 1. Which of the following terms is the actual official name, in French, of the printing bureau (a) National Printing Bureau (b) Canadian Government Printing Bureau (c) Queen's Printing Bureau?
2.	Does the Canadian Government Printing Bureau occupy the entire building located on Boulevard du Sacre-Coeur in Hull, or are some sections rented to other agencies of the federal government and, if so, what are these agencies?
3. Does the printing bureau have any of the following divisions in the city of Ottawa (a) printing shops (b) sales offices (c) storehouses and, if so, where are they located?
4.	How many employees are listed directly on the payroll of the printing bureau?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	The answer is (b) Canadian Government Printing Bureau.- (Imprimerie du gouverne-ment canadien.)

June 28, 1967
Questions
2.	No-Public Printing and Stationery; Department of National Defence (two branches); Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division; Unemployment Insurance Commission; Department of Defence Production- Canadian Government Supply Service; Royal Canadian Mint.
3.	(a) Printing shops (Outside Printing Units); Bourque Building; Brooke-Claxton Building; Cartier Square; Centennial Towers; National Revenue (Taxation); Rockcliffe; Wellington Street (Trade & Commerce and Department of Veterans Affairs); Confederation Heights; Tunney's Pasture (Dominion Bureau of Statistics); MacKenzie Avenue (National Revenue, Customs & Excise); Laurier Avenue; Sir John Carling Building, (b) No.
(c)	No.
4.	1,444 employees (April 30, 1967.)


DISPOSITION OF ADCOM NETWORK
Mr. Laprise: 1.	On what date was the parent section of the ADCOM network sold, who purchased it, and at what price?
2.	Did the Department of National Defence and the government of the United States reserve or rent channels on the parent ADCOM network?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows:
In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:
1.	The complete ADCOM network, including the parent section, was sold on April 1, 1967 to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, Limited for $1,900,000 and free rental circuits for a one year period at an estimated value of $1,800,000.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
2.	As part of the agreement of sales, all the channels in the ADCOM system, required by the defence departments of Canada and the United States are reserved for the first year and are to be leased thereafter. Parent is one of the stations in the system.
3.	As of December 31, 1966, what was the balance in the unemployment insurance fund?
4.	Does the government intend to implement the recommendations of the Gill report which was tabled in the house on December 20, 1962?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	The amounts of unemployment insurance paid in each of the provinces in 1966 are as follows:
Newfoundland	$17,568,320
Prince Edward Island	2,953,187
Nova Scotia	16,375,631
New Brunswick	16,201,369
Quebec	94,493,200
Ontario	82,291,107
Manitoba	11,481,347
Saskatchewan	8,631,205
Alberta	11,770,795
British Columbia	33,535,352
2. The following is a summary of social assistance payments by provinces in the year 1966. These amounts were paid as social assistance with federal sharing under the Unemployment Assistance Act of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Such payments are in respect to persons who were unemployed and in need including the employable,	the unemployable	and their dependants.	Federal Share	TotalNfld.	$ 8,338,884.00	$ 16,677,768.00P.E.I.	571,321.00	1,142,642.00N.S.	3,387,242.00	6,774,484.00N.B.	2,298,077.00	4,596,154.00Que.	60,594,425.00*	121,188,850.00Ont.	38,664,812.00	77,329,624.00Man.	6,906,401.00	13,812,802.00Sask.	6,913,948.00	13,827,896.00Alb.	13,178,445.00	26,356,890.00B.C.	21,681,658.00	43,363,316.00N.W.T.	71,574.00	143,148.00Y.T.	85,106.00	170,212.00$162,691,893.00	$325,383,786.00


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND ASSISTANCE
Mr. Allard: 1.	What amounts were paid as unemployment insurance in each of the provinces in 1966?
2.	What amounts were paid as unemployment assistance in each of the provinces in 1966?
*Includes $26,475,797.00 paid to Quebec through the provisions of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
3.	$287,012,486.
4.	The policy of the Government will be announced in due course.

June 28. 1967


FEDERAL DEBT
Mr. Allard: What was the amount, ini dollars, of the federal debt in 1966?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: As at March 31, 1966, the gross public debt was:
($ million)
Unmatured debt	19,109.8
Other liabilities	8,373.1
Total	$27,482.9


REPRESENTATIONS ON SLOWDOWN OF U.S. INVESTMENT IN CANADA
Mr. Ormislon: Has the government of Canada made any formal or informal representation or expression to the government of the United States of America since June 23, 1963, regarding the slowdown of U.S. investment in Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: There have been frequent discussions on matters relating to the United States balance of payments program including the United States interest eequalization tax and investment guide lines since July 1963 at both official and ministerial level. The Canada-United States balance of payments committee and the Canada-United States ministerial committee for trade and economic affairs, which have met on several occasions since that time, have generally provided the forums for these discussions. There has been no formal representation, as such, from the Canadian to the United States government.


ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO WHEAT BOARD AND P.F.R.A.
Mr. Ormislon: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the advisory committee to the Canadian wheat board?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the advisory committee to the P.F.R.A.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. Mr. G. L. Harrold, President, Alberta Wheat Pool, 505 2nd street S.W., Calgary, Alberta; Mr. A. M. Runciman, President, United Grain Growers Limited, Hamilton building, Winnipeg 2, Manitoba; Mr. J. I.
Questions
Stevens, Morinville, Alberta; Mr. C. W. Gib-bings, President, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Wheat Pool building, Regina, Saskatchewan; Dr. W. J. Parker, President, Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited, Wheat Pool building, Winnipeg 2, Manitoba; Mr. R. R. Atkinson, President, National Farmers Union, 333 Fourth avenue north, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
2.	Mr. Norman Roebuck, 63 Haultain street, Yorkton, Saskatchewan; Mr. Roy Clark, 11720th street, Brandon, Manitoba; Mr. Fred Croy, Stonewall, Manitoba; Mr. Harry Shearer, Elm Creek, Manitoba; Mr. Arnold F. Christie, Grand Prairie, Alberta; Mr. Boyd Anderson, Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan; Mr. W. H. Hollier, 1618-100th street, North Bat-tleford, Saskatchewan; Mr. Ed. Wright, East-end, Saskatchewan; Mr. H. J. Collison, Star city, Saskatchewan.


ORDER OF CANADA MEDALS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the order of Canada medal gone into production yet?
2.	Where are they to be struck and produced, and what firm or firms will carry out their production?
3.	What material will be used in their production?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Secretary General of the Order of Canada as follows: 1. That an initial order of the Badge of the Order of Canada, the Medal of Courage, and the Medal of Service has gone into production.
2.	They are being produced by Garrard's, Crown Jewellers in London, England.
3.	The Badge of the Companion of the Order of Canada is being made of enamel and gold, the Medal of Courage in silver gilt, and the Medal of Service in silver.



VOTING PRIVILEGES OF FOREIGN CITIZENS

Mr. Stanbury: 1.	Have citizens of any foreign countries the privilege of voting and seeking election in Canadian federal elections after one year's residence here?
2.	If so, which countries, and in any of these is this privilege (a) extended to Canadian citizens (b) not extended to Canadian citizens?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. British subjects other

June 28, 1967
Questions
than Canadian citizens who have been ordinarily resident in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding polling day at a federal election have the privilege of voting and seeking election providing they are otherwise qualified.
2. This question is a complex one which will require inquiries from each of the Commonwealth countries as well as British colonies.
The Department of External Affairs will attempt to gather this information. It will be appreciated that obtaining full and complete results will take some time.



PILFERAGE IN EASTERN PORTS

Mr. Forreslall: During each of the past five years, what has been (a) the dollar value of cargo losses from pilferage at the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Saint John and Halifax (b) the relative value of such losses in terms of total (general) tonnage (c) the number of convictions resulting from investigation of such losses and the dollar value of recovered goods?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Information not available.



CARGO LOSSES FROM ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE, EASTERN PORTS

Mr. Forreslall: During each of the past five years, what has been the dollar value of cargo losses brought about by accidental damage at each of the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Saint John and Halifax?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Information not available.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MARINA IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What assistance is available for financing improvements to marina facilities in Canada?
2.	To whom should requests for aid be directed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: 1. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the government may guarantee loans made by chartered banks to small business enterprises for a wide range of business improvement and expansion projects. Operators of marinas are included in the categories of businesses that are eligible to borrow under the act.
If financing is not otherwise available on reasonable terms and conditions, the Industrial Development Bank can consider creditworthy applications for the improvement of marina facilities in Canada.
2. As loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act are made by the chartered banks, prospective borrowers should apply to their local bank manager.
Applications for financing by the Industrial Development Bank should be directed to the nearest local office of the I.D.B. The regional and branch offices are listed in the annual report of the Industrial Development Bank.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: The Department of Public Works does not provide assistance for financing improvements to marina facilities. It provides for the development and maintenance of mooring basins and harbours for pleasure craft, principally through the construction of breakwaters, and through dredging.
Projects will be undertaken only where there is a commitment by private, municipal or other local interests to develop shore facilities within the harbours so created.
2. Requests for aid by the Department of Public Works as described in 1 above should be directed to the Department of Public Works.



SELECTION OF DESIGNATED AREAS

Mr. Mongrain: What are the standards governing the selection of designated areas in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The criteria for designating areas of high unemployment, slow growth and low income for purposes of the area development program are:	(a) A Canada manpower centre
area in which for the most recent five years (i) the unemployment rate is at least 200 per cent of the national average; or (ii) the unemployment rate is at least 150 per cent of the national average and the rate of employment growth is less than two-thirds the national average rate.
(b)	A Canada manpower centre area in which for the most recent five years there has been a decline in the level of employment.
(c)	(i) A Canada manpower centre area in which the average annual non-farm family income is below $4,250; (ii) A Canada manpower centre area in which 40 per cent or

June 28, 1967



more of all non-farm families have an average annual income below $3,000;
(d)	A county or census division in which the average annual non-farm family income is below $4,250, provided it is contiguous to areas that are designated by the foregoing criteria and which together with these areas form economic regions or districts;
(e)	A group of Canada manpower centre areas traditionally recognized as a distinct geographic and economic region which, considered as a whole, meets one or more of the foregoing criteria;
(f)	A Canada manpower centre area which was designated under order-in-council P.C. 1965-1394 of 4th August, 1965 and which had an average unemployment ratio in the area, relative to the national average, which was not lower in the most recent 12 months than the average unemployment ratio in the period for which the area originally qualified for designation.
Areas designated in accordance with the foregoing criteria shall exclude the sparsely populated northern parts of the country and the northern boundaries of designated areas shall be drawn along county or census division or subdivision lines which correspond to the boundaries of recognized economic districts.



SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICE FOR PRIVATE AIRCRAFT

Mr. Ballard: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966, what was the cost annually to the Canadian taxpayers for the conduct of search and rescue services for privately owned aircraft?
2.	How much of this cost was borne by the provincial governments and the federal government?
3.	Are owners of private aircraft required to carry liability insurance?
4.	If insurance is carried, does this cover any portion of the cost of search and rescue operations?
5.	Is any charge made by the federal or provincial governments to the owners of private aircraft in order to recover the cost of search and rescue operations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Transport as follows:
1. As order in council P.C. 1962-13/653, dated 2 May 1962, stipulates that no fee will be charged for humanitarian assistance, specifically search and rescue, no record of costs for individual searches are maintained.
Questions
2.	The entire cost of search and rescue conducted by the Department of National Defence is borne by the federal government.
3.	No.
4.	As indicated in the answer to part 3 the owners of private aircraft are not required to carry liability insurance and the coverage of any insurance policy taken out by the owner is a matter for his own discretion.
5.	No.



P.F.R.A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Slefanson: 1.	When was the P.F.R.A. advisory committee established?
2.	Who are the present members of this committee?
3.	How often did this committee meet during 1966 and 1967, and where did the meetings take place?
4.	What meetings, if any, are now planned?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. October 13, 1951.
2.	Mr. Norman Roebuck, 63 Haultain street, Yorkton, Saskatchewan; Mr. Roy Clark, 117- 20th street, Brandon, Manitoba; Mr. Fred Croy, Stonewall, Manitoba; Mr. Harry Shearer, Elm Creek, Manitoba; Mr. Arnold F. Christie, Grand Prairie, Alberta; Mr. Boyd Anderson, Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan; Mr. W. H. Hollier, 1618-100 th street, North Battleford, Saskatchewan; Mr. Ed. Wright, Eastend, Saskatchewan; Mr. H. J. Collison, Star city, Saskatchewan.
3.	No meetings were held in 1966-67.
4.	No meetings are planned at present.



JUDGES, QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT

Mr. Caouelte: 1.	How many judges are there for the Superior Court of Quebec?
2.	Does the minister concerned plan to appoint a larger number of judges to the Superior Court of Quebec?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1. The chief justice, the associate chief justice and 73 puisne judges.
2. The constitution of the Superior Court, including the number of judicial offices, is the responsibility of the province. If a larger number of judges is required, the Minister of Justice will consider introducing in this house an act to amend the Judges Act to provide

June 28, 1967
Questions
salaries for such additional judges as are required when the relevant provincial legislation is passed.



BANQUET AT RITZ CARLTON HOTEL, MONTREAL

Mr. Rapp: 1.	Was a banquet held by or on behalf of the Department of External Affairs at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Montreal on May 25, 1967?
2.	If so (a) what was the purpose of the dinner, and in whose honour was it given (b) how many people attended (c) has the bill been paid and, if not, are arrangements being made to do so?


Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was host at a dinner at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Montreal. This was held on May 22, 1967 rather than on May 25.
The dinner was given in order to honour the delegates attending the international congress of the Comite France-Amerique then being held in Montreal. The Comite plays an important role in promoting cultural, technical and economic ties between France, North America and South America. Four hundred guests, including three hundred delegates to the congress and their wives, attended the dinner. The remaining guests were the relevant heads of diplomatic missions in Canada. Members of the Senate and the House of Commons from the Montreal area, provincial and municipal representatives, and representatives of the news media. The bill is being processed and will be paid shortly.



FEDERAL LEASE OF HOTEL SUITES IN MONTREAL

Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the federal government leased suites for the prime minister and members of his cabinet in Montreal for the period of Expo '67 and, if so, how many such suites have been leased and what is the rental of each of the suites in question?
2.	From whom were the suites rented or leased?
3.	What cabinet ministers have used the suites in question and are they available to all members of the cabinet and, if not, what members have the right to use them?
4.	How many cabinet ministers have used the suites in question and on what occasions and were they used by these cabinet ministers in a personal capacity or as part of government, and on each occasion what individuals were entertained by the minister in question?
[Mr. Trudeau.l
5.	Are these suites available to anyone not a member of the federal cabinet and, if so, what are the names of these persons and on what basis are the suites made available to them?
6.	Has entertainment been provided to the cabinet ministers and their guests at these suites and, if so, has the federal government assumed responsibility for this entertainment and what has been the cost of such entertainment to date?


Robert Henry Winters: Three apartments have been rented by the Department of Trade and Commerce from the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition at monthly rentals of $645; $575 and $560 respectively.
These apartments are for the use of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and senior departmental officials as required. For example, the members of the United States and Canadian delegations to the eleventh joint ministerial meeting were received there last week.
Cabinet ministers who have to date used the apartments are the Prime Minister, Messrs. Benson, Gordon, Greene, MacEachen, Marchand, Mcllraith, Robichaud,	Sauve,
Winters and Hon. Judy LaMarsh.
In respect of part 6, the federal government has assumed no responsibility for entertainment costs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about No. 5? I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce failed to deal with paragraph 5 in the answer he gave.


Robert Henry Winters: The first part of my answer was intended to deal with questions 1 to 5, and I dealt with section 6 separately.



REVENUE FROM SPIRITS, BEER AND WINE

Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the federal revenue from spirits, beer and wine in 1966?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: The statistics are not available which would enable us to determine that portion of the general sales tax revenue which is derived from the sale of any particular product or group of products.
Federal revenues collected on domestic spirits, beer and wine in the fiscal year 196667, not including sales tax, is as follows: excise duty, spirits matured, $158,157,420.64; beer, $113,254,288.10; excise tax, wine, $4,751,632.92.
June 28. 1967



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEMPERANCE PROMOTION

Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the amount of federal contributions to anti-alcoholism or temperance in 1966?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There have been no contributions by the Department of National Health and Welfare to anti-alcoholism or temperance programs. Grants are provided under the national health grants program to provinces to assist alcoholism research units and medical research scientists in studying the causes, treatment and prevention of alcoholism.



DRIVER EDUCATION FILMS ON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION

Mr. Malher: Is consideration being given to encouraging the inclusion of driver-education films in ETV programs?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The subject matter of ETV programs is within provincial jurisdiction.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: When making capital investments, do the crown corporations known as "Proprietary Corporations" take into account any non-economic factors, for example, promotion of regional development and industrial decentralization?
Return tabled.


RECRUITMENT OF BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Do the crown corporations known as "Proprietary Corporations", as defined in the Financial Administration Act, promote the recruitment of bilingual employees?
2.	If so, what is the exact nature of this policy for preferential recruitment of bilingual employees?
Return tabled.


OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
Mr. Isabelle: 1. What was the total production of crude oil and natural gas in Canada, in dollars, during 1965 and 1966?
Orders for Returns
2.	What percentage of all such products was exported and to what countries?
3.	How many barrels of oil were produced in Canada in 1965 and 1966?
4.	What was the ratio between domestic consumption and export and to what countries did we export our oil?
5.	To the government's knowledge, are some provinces providing subsidies for oil drilling and, if so (a) what provinces (b) what is the amount of the subsidies?
Return tabled.


David Lewis: I thought I heard the parliamentary secretary suggest that Your Honour should call either question 67 or 68, or both.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe both questions 267 and 268 were called.


David Lewis: I am talking about 67 or 68. 1 believe you did call one of them, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Starred question 67?


Albert Béchard: 1 have already answered starred question 67, but No. 68 was not answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Starred question 68? Question stands.


John George Diefenbaker: I raised this question the other day, and I find it difficult to understand why six weeks should elapse before we receive an answer to question No. 81. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs is very busy, but six weeks is a long time to wait in respect of a very simple question to which the answer should be equally simple.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the question my right hon. friend has asked involved a considerable amount of research by the Department of National Defence, and this is now almost complete. I am sure my right hon. friend will recall that he had to deal with many aspects of this question when he was prime minister because some of the improprieties, which have nothing to do with espionage or anything like that, occurred during the period when his government was in office. However, it will be clear from the reply, which I hope will be tabled soon or not later than early next week, that no Canadians connected with the international commissions in Indochina have ever been removed from North Viet Nam for alleged clandestine activities.

June 28, 1967
Orders for Returns
However, Mr. Speaker, question 81, very ingeniously framed by my right hon. friend, refers to what are called-and I use quotation marks-"other improprieties", which is a vague formulation which can include a whole range of disciplinary problems. The question thereby made necessary very extensive research in the Department of National Defence. The reply is just about ready. I saw it today, and knowing my right hon. friend's precise interest in this kind of situation and his carefulness, I decided to emulate his technique and make sure that the reply fully complied with the interrogations so ingeniously put.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the reply given by the hon. gentleman indicates an ingenious intricacy of mind to find some reason for the delay, and he is now trying to obscure the facts by verbiage.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, it would of course be wrong for the right hon. gentleman to be allowed to say I am obscuring the facts; that would be contrary to the rules. I will give my right hon. friend an answer that is exact in every respect, but one which will not warrant the suggestions that have been made about the loyal service of members of the Department of External Affairs and those who serve on the international commissions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister pointed out that some of these improprieties took place while I was prime minister. I knew that when the question was asked, but the minister is now trying to conceal facts.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, it is contrary to the rules of the house for the right hon. gentleman to make such an assertion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have both taken part in a debate, I am not sure whether on a question of privilege or a point of order. I suggest that we might go on to another matter.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, any member who suggests that another is trying to conceal the facts is making a statement which is contrary to the rules. I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not mean that suggestion to stand. It has not been my habit since I have been a member of this house to conceal anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand? Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 15 is acceptable to the government.
Would Your Honour kindly call notice of motion No. 8?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notice of motion be allowed to stand.



DAMASCUS STEEL PRODUCTS LTD., WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Schreyer:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents and correspondence between the federal government or any of its agencies and the government of Manitoba and any of its agencies, relative to Damascus Steel Products Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is willing to clarify his motion by referring just to documents dated subsequent to January 1, 1965. Subject to that, to the usual reservation about privileged and confidential documents, and to the usual courtesy of obtaining the consent of the government of Manitoba, we would be willing to accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that motion No. 8 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Nugeni:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a letter dated June 20, 1967, to the Prime Minister from Lieutenant Colonel J. J. P. de Salaberry, rtd., 4850 de Courtrai, apartment # 11, Montreal, P.Q., and the reply thereto.
Motion agreed to.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, might we revert to question No. 68?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to revert to the previous item of business, questions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 28, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement of the house to revert to the previous item of business.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government is in agreement with the views expressed by the President of the United States concerning the quick annexation of the old city of Jerusalem. Would the Prime Minister say what is the attitude of Canada on this question, and does he believe that consultation with religious leaders will be sufficient to meet the situation and permit Israel to have the entire city of Jerusalem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to obscure anything but I do not think I can comment on a statement reported to have been made by the President of the United States in respect of this policy, especially as I have not studied that statement. As far as Canadian policy is concerned, I have already indicated in the house that we think there should be international supervision of the holy places in Jerusalem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about international supervision. What is the attitude of the Canadian government to annexation or the taking over or absorption of old Jerusalem by the Israelis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is an aspect of the whole question which is now under consideration by governments and at the United Nations assembly which already has before it resolutions dealing, among other things, with this particular matter.



MIDDLE EAST-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS LEADING TO SETTLEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was going to address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I am sure that the Prime Minister can deal with it. Recent reports indicate that the present debate on the Middle East crisis in the United Nations is nearing an end and that the assembly is in the same impasse in which it began its debate. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman can inform the
DEBATES	2075
Inquiries of the Ministry house what, if any, continuing diplomatic discussions are taking place in search of an appropriate resolution to promote peace negotiations as well as a just settlement of the refugee problem and the entire question of the withdrawal of forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very active discussions are going on at the moment, Mr. Speaker, with a view to finding agreement on a resolution which is likely to receive the support of two-thirds of the members of the assembly, a resolution which will deal not only with a particular aspect of this situation but with related aspects including withdrawal, the question of belligerence and also political settlement.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the Canadian representative is taking an active part in these discussions, as I surmise he is, and whether these discussions are taking place among only one group of representatives or several discussions going on simultaneously?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are discussions going on, I believe, in more than one group. I am familiar with the discussions taking place in one group in which our own ambassador is playing a very active part. I believe discussions on this matter are also going on in what is called the non-committed group. There is contact, I think, between the two.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. To correct the impression caused by reports that divorce reform legislation is now before the house, will the Prime Minister say when he expects legislation on this subject to be introduced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, careful study, of course, will have to be given to the committee report which has now been made public. After that study is completed the government will be in a position to introduce legislation at the resumed session in the autumn.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's intention to have a free vote
2076	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry on the subject or will it be treated as a government measure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of that question. I know that this subject is of direct and immediate concern to every member's individual conscience. I think this would have to be taken into consideration in any procedure in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered my question.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice is based on the position the minister took on constitutional reform outside the house within the last couple of days. Does this statement of government policy indicate that the government is satisfied that the present British North America Act, as it is now drafted, is flexible enough for current needs and aspirations? I ask this question because I think it is tremendously important that the matter be clarified. The minister mentioned three points; that there would be no government white paper on constitutional reform; that no member or supporter of the government would meet with the estates general; and that there would be no attempt to examine the B.N.A. Act with the provinces in a spirit of co-operative federalism. I think it is important that this question be answered in the house and for the minister to make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is suggesting that a statement be made to the house, I suggest that this type of general statement cannot be made during the question period.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: On a question of privilege, I wish to correct an impression which the hon. member has erroneously entertained.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Trudeau:: I am rising on a question of
[Mr. Woolliams.)
DEBATES	June 28, 1967
privilege to correct an erroneous impression. The statements I am alleged to have made outside the house were not made outside the house but before a committee of the house; they were also made in an answer on the late show.


Mr. Starr:: One of those instances was outside the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was not accepted and therefore the hon. member may not ask a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will ask a separate question of the Minister of Justice. How does the Minister of Justice reconcile his position on this subject with the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday?


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



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF MEANS TEST On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a speech made in Jasper by the premier of Manitoba, has the federal government yet received a formal request from the province of Manitoba that a means test be applied to the federal family allowance program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have received no representation for this kind of test with respect to family allowances.


John George Diefenbaker: They brought it in for old
age pensions.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continuance of rabies infection across Canada, has the government considered issuing warnings to those travelling with children, or to those at their summer places?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker.
June 28, 1967	COMMONS



TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR LIMITATION OF IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Has the minister received the report of the investigation carried out by the Canadian Textile Institute, and is the government about to protest to Japan and to insist on the application of section 22 of GATT in order to limit textile imports?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had that question under consideration and talks are now underway with the Japanese government to find a solution.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister assured the house that the Minister of Transport would have further and important words on the possible increase in car ferry rates to Prince Edward Island.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke to me about the question which had been asked by the hon. gentleman and which I heard in the house. We had some little discussion about it. It does not appear to the government, considering that this is a very modest increase and considering that all persons using this service regularly for business purposes will be exempt therefrom, that there would be any real reason for making any change.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has received a formal protest against this action from the government of Prince Edward Island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not unless it has come in within the last two or three hours.
DEBATES	2077
Inquiries of the Ministry REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF FERRY SERVICE EETWEEN SAINT JOHN, N.B. AND DIGBY, N.S.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inquire about the Digby-Saint John ferry in regard to which a meeting was held this morning. Can the minister say whether he gave any commitment when this ferry service may be ready, or is it simply a case of more promises?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, sir, I am not accustomed to making promises, and no promises were made. I saw the very distinguished delegation which came from Saint John and the Annapolis valley. The matter depended largely on a further meeting, which took place only yesterday, between the government and the Canadian Pacific, and I said that we were very much encouraged about the prospects of improving this service.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received a complaint from the Churchill chamber of commerce about the threatened closing of the vocational school? Has he received a telegram pointing out the detrimental effect on Churchill and that it would cost $20 million, according to the estimate of those in that area, to remove that school and establish it elsewhere? If he has received that complaint, will he reconsider the matter? Removing the vocational school will certainly be a serious blow to Churchill.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norihern Development):: Mr. Speaker, replying to the right hon. gentleman may I say that so far a copy of that telegram has not come before me. I would prefer to leave the answer to this question until tomorrow when I might be able to make some comment.
June 28, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
In view of the introduction of a bill in the Quebec legislature yesterday with regard to deposit insurance, can the minister tell us whether that piece of legislation has been introduced after full consultation with the Canadian government and whether the latter is in agreement with the Quebec bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this bill with the Quebec government and this answer is too complicated to be given in French.

I should like to add, to make more lucid my response in French, that the officials of the two governments discussed the matter at length. I have exchanged correspondence with the prime minister of Quebec and I believe that we have found a way of coordinating activities in Quebec and under the federal bill that will avoid conflict and duplication.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance referred to some exchange of correspondence. Would he agree to table that correspondence after, of course, obtaining the consent of the prime minister of Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I will be glad to do so. I do not think there will be any difficulty about tabling this correspondence.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Will post office employees have the day off on July 3 next?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question I indicated it was the intention of
[Mr. Laing.)

the government that employees should have Saturday and Monday as a holiday. Under the civil service regulations, those who do not work on Saturday would normally automatically have Monday off. It is not the intention that people shall have more time off than the Saturday and the Monday; we want them to have a long week end. However, employees who must work on Saturday or on Monday because of the nature of their employment in the government service will be entitled to either time and a half for time worked, as is normal on holidays, or to an equivalent amount of time off.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the refusal of the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, to take part in the estates general of Quebec and French Canada, can the minister tell us whether the government will also refuse to provide the necessary documentation and statistics required by the estates general to prepare a worthwhile document on the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The question could be put on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he would be ready to discuss this matter at ten o'clock?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INVITATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will table tomorrow the invitations to the provinces for the July 5 meeting. The Prime Minister stated that this gathering will provide an opportunity to raise constitutional matters and be a substitute for a federal-provincial conference on confederation. He was asked to table the correspondence on two occasions, as I recall, and he said he would. I know it is an oversight. Would he table that correspondence now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I have neglected to do something I promised to do. I will look into it right away.
June 23, 1967



PROVISION TO MEMBERS OF DETAILS OF GENEVA AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce pertaining to the announcement he made this afternoon in connection with tariff changes under the Kennedy round. He announced he would be giving us the information tomorrow evening and that the press would simultaneously be given a report. Will the printed report and list of the industries affected and tariff rates be supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce for the immediate use of hon. members tomorrow night?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, a list of tariff items and the changes will be tabled with the material.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Ont.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Has the government authorized further increases in freight assistance on western feed grains moving into the eastern provinces, and is the government now giving active consideration to providing freight assistance in connection with Ontario feed grains reaching the same markets?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes, for certain destinations in Nova Scotia. As to the second part of the question, this matter is under consideration by the feed board administration.



UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport; perhaps he would like to take it as notice. Has he received any formal report containing the rather strange information that approximately 20 sightings have been made in a period of six weeks or less of unidentified flying objects in a relatively
2079
Inquiries of the Ministry limited area of eastern Manitoba, including sightings by R.C.M.P. constables? Can the minister say whether the special investigation branch of the United States air force has been invited to come to Canada to make an investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this question should be placed on the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Sfefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the Department of Transport carrying out an inquiry or investigation into the tragic sinking in lake Winnipeg of the tugboat Teddy in which the captain lost his life?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking investigations are conducted into all these tragic accidents. I have no information about this particular case, and I will have to inquire.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Having heard that the Minister of Labour once again contacted the Maine authorities recently about unemployment insurance, can the minister tell the house whether any progress is being made in the negotiations to have those Canadians working in the state of Maine get unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question and the statement he is asking the minister to make are of a rather general nature and should be made normally on motions.


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase my question in the hope that, this time, it will be in order, and ask the Minister of Labour if he has recently met with high officials of the state of Maine to discuss unemployment insurance for Canadian workers employed in the United States?
2080	COMMONS
Inquiries o} the Ministry


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right,
I told the house some weeks ago that I had had a meeting with the governor of the state of Maine, and that we had discussed this problem which has been one of serious concern for some years. As a result of our meeting, a task force has been set up, and it met on June 20. It has established certain ground rules for a study in which it wishes to obtain additional information. It is now engaged in that study and the governor and I .are awaiting the results of the study.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFF-SHORE DRILLING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that preparations for drilling for oil on the continental shelf off Vancouver island are now well advanced, can the hon. gentleman tell the house where the question of constitutional jurisdiction in respect of these resources stands at the present time?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the case is now before the Supreme Court, and I have received no communication from the court as to when a decision will be made.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the government any plans for the establishment of a new national park in the province of Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that this question is one of immediate urgency. I think it ought to be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the .Secretary of State of Canada. ifMr. Racine.]
DEBATES	June 28, 1967
In a folder recently distributed to Canadian school children, outlining Canadian history and listing some Canadian achievements, the centennial medal is also mentioned; the folder suggests that this medal be carefully kept and states that all Canadian school children will receive a medal, whether they live in Canada or abroad.
Consequently, I should like to ask the minister to tell the house what measures the Secretary of State Department or the centennial commission intend to take so that all Quebec school children will receive that medal in the next few days, that is before July 1st, in view of the fact that those school children are now on holidays and the medals have not been distributed in a large part of the province of Quebec?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter right away.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of any effort being made under international auspices to investigate allegations that Israel is expatriating Arab nationals from areas recently conquered? I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this before and he said he would take the question as notice, but that was some time ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been inquiries made into various allegations by the International Red Cross, but I do not know of any official investigation being carried out. No doubt inquiries are being made by the Department of External Affairs to find out whether these allegations are being investigated officially by the United Nations or anyone else. I will check on what is being done.


POSSIBLE EARLY ADJOURNMENT JUNE 29 TO MEET THE QUEEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, since all hon. members have been invited to be present on Thursday afternoon
June 28, 1967
2081'

at Uplands airport when the Queen of Canada is due to arrive; and since I believe most hon. members, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Lapointe, have signified their intention to attend, I wonder whether steps have been taken to adjourn the house early on Thursday afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any special steps which may have been taken but I shall be glad to make inquiries.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to advise the Queen of Canada to proclaim "O Canada" as our national anthem in time for July 1?


MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE PAYMENT OF PENSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did he or his department make any deal with Mr. Justice Lan-dreville that if he resigned instead of the matter of his continuing to hold his post being placed before the two houses of parliament, he would get his whole pension or any part thereof?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the question asked by the hon. member is a repetition of one that was asked previously.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I understand the answer given at that time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said he would give further information in reference to the matter and I am merely following that up because it is an important question.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: With respect to the question by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I did not say I would disclose or say anything further. The answer to the question was no, and it is still no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then do I take it from the Minister of Justice that no pension will be paid to Mr. Justice Landreville?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the hon. member is fallacious. I would, on the other hand, be interested in knowing from him reasons why no pension should be paid in any case like this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister used the word logic. I would say that is the most illogical answer I have heard.

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


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan and $500,000 for health grants and welfare grants, under terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, for research and demonstration activities in the field of mental retardation, $4,127,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 338 of the blue book and the details on page 341. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr.   Johnsion@: Mr. Chairman, the other day I listened to the minister's statement in introducing his estimates. Like so many of his statements it was full of assurance, reassurance and statistics. From it we could assume that the nation was in an excellent state so far as health and welfare are concerned. But one recalls previous statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also-full of hope but not matched by performance after they were made. I am afraid that when we examine these estimates we see several areas where concern must be expressed about the performance in implementing previous announcements by the minister.
I mention in particular the old age security supplement, of which the minister spoke with considerable pride, as well he might, because it was his idea to establish a guaranteed annual income supplement and at the time it was a major change of policy. But as one examines how the income supplement is being administered across the country it becomes more and more clear it was the government's intention to have the Canada Assistance Plan take care of the increase in old age security pension payments. However, when it became obvious that this intention was impossible to carry out, and indeed was
June 28, 1967

Supply-Health and Welfare extremely unwise, politically, the guaranteed annual income supplement was introduced.
In the minister's statement we were given the statistics respecting some 700,000 old age security pensioners who were receiving payments and some 430,000 who were receiving payment in full. It would be interesting to know how many in all applied for the guaranteed annual income supplement, how many were refused, and how many of those who had been receiving some supplement in the form of a veterans allowance payment were rejected. This kind of detail would be very meaningful in examining the success of the guaranteed annual income plan. I am afraid that for many pensionable Canadians it was not much of a guarantee. There was a real contradiction between what they were told in the green instruction booklet sent to them and what happened when they applied for the supplement. Further, there was a real difference between what we were told in this chamber during debate on the supplement and what subsequently happened in relation to the veterans allowance supplement and to provincial supplements being paid by some of the provinces.
We had a pretty solemn assurance from the minister last December on how the supplement plan was to be implemented. He used words like these, Mr. Chairman, and I quote from Hansard of December 8, 1966, page 10896:
They will not suffer any indignity, if this can be called an indignity, and I do not think it is. They will not be asked to do anything that a corporation president is not asked to do, or any other person in the country, in the way of providing information with respect to income or having the accuracy of that return checked.
Further, as recorded on page 10898 he said:
We are doing this without the application of the much dreaded and odious means test. There is no possible comparison between the simple declaration which must be filled out merely asking applicants to list items of income under the Income Tax Act, and a means test. If the program embodied a means test in the way in which it has been administered in the provinces I would not be recommending it to the House of Commons. This is not a means test. It merely asks the old age pensioners to fill out a simple form listing the items of income which they would normally list if they were filling an income tax return. I see no indignity or loss of self-respect in the process.
At the time, Mr. Chairman, I did not see any indignity or loss of self-respect in the process but now I do see a great deal of indignity resulting from the actions of the Department of National Health and Welfare in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. People who have applied for


the guaranteed income supplement have discovered that the veterans affairs means test is applied rigidly and that the veterans allowance they are being paid is taken out of the guaranteed annual supplement. Putting it the other way around, the supplement is not a guaranteed annual one and their veterans allowance is cut. Either way you look at it, this is what happens, e (4:10 p.m.)
The old age security pensioners were told not to list that item. If they go ahead and list it they end up with monthly payments which are less than they were before. When this is taken into account they suddenly find they do not receive the monthly amount they were receiving before. I realize that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has come around to seeing some good lately in a guaranteed annual income and I trust that he and the minister are looking into this concept jointly for the future. This may mean the easier passage through the house of future proposals along the line of a guaranteed annual income.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The new cohesion.


Mr. Johnston:: I think it will take a bit of persuasion to soften the minister in this regard. The assumption is made over and over again in both the veterans allowances branch and the Department of National Health and Welfare that somehow the sums that are going out to the old age security pensioners are so magnificent that these people are able to save some of it. This seems to be the underlying assumption.
I can assure the minister that there is no saving possible for those who are on the minimum, whether it be the old $75 a month minimum, the now $105 a month minimum or the minimum that was in existence with the provincial supplement. There is no saving; there is only a falling behind as they go along from month to month. If a lump payment arrives at any time, it cannot be regarded as the regular monthly payment to be carefully husbanded over the next nine months of the fiscal year. It can only be used immediately to help the old age security pensioner catch up in some of the areas in which he has fallen behind. He will have to spend this money all at once. Therefore it is quite possible that such a person will suffer considerably if he finds, during the next nine months when the word comes to him from the Department of Veterans Affairs, that the allowance has been eliminated or has been reduced sharply. In
June 28, 1967


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Did we get ahead of Bennett for once?

DEBATES	June 28, 1967


Howard Earl Johnston: The announcement was
made in such a way as to gain the maximum political advantage, and this was done carefully and deliberately. Let me suggest seriously to the minister that if he really would like to obtain the greatest amount of political advantage from hospital grants he should reexamine the structure of the grants and revise them in accordance with the increase in the cost of hospital construction. This increase in the cost can be laid at the feet of this same government which chose to impose an exhorbitant and inflationary tax on construction materials, thereby showing absolutely no restraint in taxing construction. This has caused a greater spiralling of construction costs, including the construction of hospitals, than anything else.
An examination of these grants should have been made long ago. With the implementation of full medicare and the resulting demands that will be made on the hospitals of this country, it is scandalous that no changes have been made in the schedule of these grants. When the people read the statements of the minister regarding his promises for medicare they will be lulled into the false assurance that their medical needs will be taken care of after 1968. However, when they go or attempt to be admitted to hospital after 1968 they will learn that space is simply not available. Whether or not doctors will be available is doubtful, but the space will not be available and medicare will be meaningless for them because the groundwork has not been laid. They will be victims of the same illusion that some of the old age security pensioners laboured under when they accepted the promises that some of their problems would be alleviated by this government but later learned to their sorrow that promises and the implementation of them are not always the same.
Finally I should like to refer to what is perhaps a minor part of the spending of the department, that on grants for fitness and amateur sport. We in this country are proud of our contribution to amateur sport and our efforts in a great many fields, some of which we consider particularly Canadian. We have been particularly proud of our efforts in the field of hockey and extremely proud of our recent ski teams. However, compared to what happens in many nations of the world, our approach to these things on the governmental level cannot even be considered amateurish, but only rather infantile.
In this respect, although we had a sharp increase from 1964 to 1967 in the estimates
June 28, 1967

there has been no increase this year. We know there are any number of governments in the world which set out deliberately as national policy to have the finest teams of athletes to take part in various competitions in the world that they can possibly send. This is done as government policy. We in Canada apparently feel that the system we used 30 or 40 years ago can still work. We send our teams and, with rare exception, we are disappointed with the results. Our hopes are raised in respect of world championships, but we invariably lament the fact that we no longer can maintain our standard.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We should remember that this grant of $5 million must be sliced many ways. It could well be increased because this is an area very worthy of support. No amateur can get to the top in world competition without a tremendous sacrifice in time, effort and money. We are not asking here for an out and out subsidy but for a grant which would be large enough to allow the fitness council to do some of the things they would like to do and should be able to do.
For example, let us consider a sport that is of importance to my constituents, namely skiing. They would like to know in advance what grants could be allocated to meet the many demands over a period of three years, because it is very difficult to get the team together and to keep it together when the committee organizing the meet applies for the grant and does not know until very late in the game whether or not it will receive it. I believe that grants should be allocated on a more definite basis so that plans for the future can be made more adequately. It is more and more difficult to find people willing to risk the enormous sums that are now necessary for teams competing internationally, and no grants are made at present for international tournaments. Yet if a tournament is to be meaningful it obtains much of that meaning from international competition. So again there is need for help and assistance in that field.
I hope the government will consider very carefully the sum involved, which is a small one, and will also consider the fact that this year of 1967 is our centennial year during which there has been a great increase in contributions in the sports area through the centennial commission. This has not been administered through the Department of National Health and Welfare. These contributions have been of great help and assistance 27053-133
Supply-Health and Welfare but they will disappear next year. So in the whole area of amateur sports across the country there will be a great drop-off next year. I am not suggesting we can maintain the centennial enthusiasm through every one of the next 100 years, but it seems to me some thought should be given to the rather devastating effect of the fluctuations in the total sums of the grants at a time when governmental taxation policies have reduced the number of "angels" in amateur sports and will continue to do so. Goodness knows, if the Carter report is ever fully implemented by the government then the government subsidies for national sports will have to be increased many times if we are to maintain our standard in sports because we can be sure there will be a greater drop-off in the contributions from private sources.


Mr.   Palierson@: There will be no angels at all.


Howard Earl Johnston: I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley is correct, there will be no angels. The government is set on a policy toward industry which can only lead to that result. So what used to be provided through private sources must increasingly be provided through governmental sources.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare to say a few words about some of the committee reports which are so seldom debated in the House of Commons. First of all, I want to say a few words about the health and welfare committee and its hearings last year on birth control. As I am sure all hon. members of the house are aware, the committee recommended that the words "preventing conception or" be removed from the Criminal Code, the effect of which would be to make the dissemination of knowledge and the sale of contraceptives legal in Canada. I must say that during its hearings the committee was greatly concerned about the fact that if these words were taken out of the Criminal Code there might be some trouble with the advertising of contraceptives which would be considered to be in bad taste and the indiscriminate sale of contraceptives in various stores which again would be in very bad taste. The committee made some very sensible recommendations regarding a few amendments of a simple nature to the Food and
June 28, 1967

Supply-Health and Welfare Drugs Act which would cover the sale and advertisement of contraceptives.
I should like to say as a member of that committee which adopted the report almost unanimously, a report which in my view reflects the feelings not only of members of this House of Commons but of the people of Canada, that I would be quite shocked and surprised if the government did not carry out the recommendations which that committee made. I certainly expect it will do so in the fall when amendments to the Criminal Code, about which we have been told, will be brought about.
In that connection I should like to say a few words about a subject which has not been discussed in the committee to date, namely, the matter of abortion. When the committee met on the question of birth control it was understood by the committee that they would be dealing solely and specifically with the question of birth control and not the question of abortion. The two matters are completely separate and should not be considered together or confused.
As the house is aware, yesterday several private members' bills dealing with abortion were sent to the committee on health and welfare which now has that reference before it. It is hoped the committee will meet soon in view of the fact that representations have already been made to various members of the committee, and hearings should be held in the fall. It is hoped that during the summer recess the people who are interested in the subject of abortion will have two or three months in which to prepare briefs and get ready for an appearance before the committee which should sit early in the fall. I believe that full and detailed hearings will be necessary. I think most people in Canada agree that some changes with regard to abortion are necessary in the Criminal Code, but there are a great many different opinions as to how far these changes should go and how they should be brought about.
I should like to devote most of my remarks to the special committee on drug costs and prices which reported to this house on April 3 of this year. However, before I get into that subject to any great extent I should like to say a few words about the 12 per cent federal sales tax on drugs which, as the Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget, would be taken off the price of drugs as of September 1 of this year. Hon. members will note that the report of the committee did not recommend that the sales tax should come off all drugs

but that it should come off prescription drugs only. It is my understanding that the government removed the sales tax from all drugs because it was administratively very difficult to take if off one form of drugs only and it would also create great difficulties for a doctor to whom a patient might say "I know I can buy such and such a drug over the counter without a prescription, but if you give me a prescription for it I can buy it without having to pay the federal sales tax." This would mean a great deal of paper work for the doctor. I thought the government made a wise decision in removing the tax from all drugs.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The reason, of course, that the effective date is September 1 is to allow the drugs now on the druggists' shelves, and on which tax has been paid, to be used up. A druggist always has to keep a large stock of drugs on hand to meet any demand, and these stocks will not be used up by the time the change is made on September 1. Unless a druggist is willing to absorb the loss on these stocks, prices will not automatically fall on September 1, 1967. As is mentioned many times in the report of the committee on drug prices, the prices of drugs will not fall 12 per cent when the 12 per cent federal sales tax is removed.
I should like to put on the record two paragraphs from the report of the joint committee on drug costs and prices, starting at page 30:
From these figures one might be inclined to conclude that elimination of sales tax could result in an average reduction of 5 to 10 per cent in the price of drugs to the consumer, depending upon the particular pricing method in use. However, reduction in prices is not ensured simply by the elimination of the sales tax. This point was emphasized by many who made representations to the committee. It was pointed out that the elimination of the federal sales tax should be taken as part of a program to reduce drug prices and that this can be better assured by introducing competition into the drug market. Evidence, for example, has been shown that tariff reductions have not always been accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the price of drugs although the cost to the manufacturer was lower.
Both the drug manufacturers and retail pharmacists offered the opinion before the committee that the benefits of a reduction in sales tax would be passed along to the consumer. However, the committee concludes that, without more effective operation of competitive forces than presently exists in the drug industry in Canada, the only certain result from removal of the tax would be a reduction in costs to the manufacturers. The consumer must also understand that the removal of the 12 per cent federal sales tax on drugs will not, (however much drug manufacturers and retail
June 28, 1967

pharmacists honestly co-operate), lower the price of drugs 12 per cent for the reasons already discussed in this section.
_ Since the publication of this report, Mr. Chairman, we have heard rumours that drug prices either have gone up or will go up prior to September 1 so that there will be no effect from the removal of the sales tax. I personally, along with many other members of the committee, have had a great deal of interest in this subject. I have taken pains to make as many detailed inquiries as I could concerning this rumour. I must say I have found no evidence at all other than the case of one drug by the name of demerol, which is a narcotic that is not prescribed very widely nor it is very expensive. I feel it is only fair to the drug manufacturers and pharmacists to point out these facts. I have found no evidence that drug prices have gone up or will go up. As a matter of fact, I am told no increase in drug prices will take place now after all the adverse publicity. I should point out that one of the companies brought about a reduction in the price of a fairly expensive antibiotic during the hearings of the drug committee.
As I know all members are aware, the special committee made 23 recommendations, which we refer to as a package deal, to bring down the cost of drugs. Generally speaking, the recommendations contained in the report can be divided into two sections, each of which emphasizes a basic idea. The first section of these recommendations to lower drug prices would make cheaper drugs available in Canada or make drugs manufactured in Canada less expensive. Fifteen of these recommendations were designed for that purpose.
The second group contains six recommendations, and these are designed to make sure that if available drugs are cheaper or if cheaper drugs are available-I am sure hon. members will see the distinction-they meet the requirements for safety established by the food and drug directorate. There were three other recommendations made in the report which probably have no effect on the first two groups but which the committee felt might be useful.
I should point out that while lower drug prices are important, they are of no use if the drugs are not prescribed. I should point out too that the report itself is not worth the paper it is written on if we cannot convince the medical profession that they can safely prescribe the drugs that are available in Canada. Less expensive drugs must not be 27053-133J

Supply-Health and Welfare less safe. We must do what we can to bring down prices but we cannot do that by sacrificing the safety or the quality of our drugs. There is no question but that less expensive drugs are available in Canada now. If one has any doubt about this, one has only to look at the practice of the government of Canada and most of the provinces in tendering. I am pleased to say that there was no evidence before the committee that any significant problem dealing with the safety of drugs had been introduced since the government began issuing the requirements for drug firms tendering on a particular drug.
These requirements come under the Canadian government specification board and are called standards for manufacture, control and distribution of drugs. Certainly the drugs purchased by the government are cheaper because no federal sales tax is paid on them, but the saving as a result of tendering on drugs goes far beyond that. The inspection of drugs intended for government use or public use comes under the food and drug directorate.
It seems to me that cheaper drugs can be made available because the inspection services are the same. I feel that to ask doctors to change their prescribing habits would be a very serious responsibility, but the committee undertook it and eventually the government will have to take that responsibility. When the doctor prescribes drugs he wants to be sure they are safe. I should point out, and I am sure every member of the committee is aware, that any drug can kill if it is taken in large enough doses. Some drugs can kill even if they are taken in the prescribed manner because the person may develop an idiosyncrasy or allergic reaction. As a result of my experience I can say that no drug is ever prescribed or taken lightly by the medical profession.
In order to ensure knowledge of drugs and their safety, the committee also recommended that a bulletin be published and that copies of it be given free to the doctors. It should be published by the federal government and sent to the doctors monthly. Here I would include the following information which is found in the report on page 17, and this information should be contained in the publication:
(i)	Generic name of the drug
(ii)	Names of all manufacturers of the drug, and brand names of the above drug
(iii)	Comparative costs and clinical equivalency of the above drugs
(iv)	Therapeutic action of drug
(v)	Side effects of drug, contra-indications and toxicity
June 28, 1967

Supply-Health and Welfare
(vi)	Last assay for each company's product, of content and availability of active ingredient, solubility and disintegration
(vii)	Any problems with any company's product toxicity, impurity, seizures, court actions, failure to meet standards, etc.
4f this bulletin were published it would provide the doctor with knowledge of all the products which were available on the Canadian market, how safe they were and how much they would cost in each case. I am convinced that cheaper drugs, or perhaps a better expression is less expensive drugs, can be made available in Canada, first of all, by importing cheaper drugs. The committee made many recommendations concerning trade mark and patent changes. If these were carried out as recommended by the committee the importing of cheaper drugs would be possible.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I know that the drug manufacturing industry in Canada is afraid that if these recommendations were carried out the industry would suffer a great deal and perhaps disappear. I do not agree with that view at all. I think it is a very live industry and that it would drop its prices and be forced to compete. Bringing in cheaper drugs from outside Canada, provided they were safe-and the committee report took that into account -would inject competition into a relatively non-competitive market as it exists at the present time.
The second way that less expensive drugs could be made available in Canada is by lowering the cost of the drugs that are actually manufactured in Canada. One of the startling things to committee members, I think, was when it was revealed that approximately one third of the manufacturers' dollar in Canada actually goes on marketing and promotional expenses.
Reference was made in this debate earlier and also in the committee hearings to a recommendation in the Hall report concerning marketing expenses, and I should like to put it on the record. I read from page 22 of the committee report on drug costs and prices:
The Hall commission likewise came to the conclusion that marketing expenses in the drug industry were too high, and recommended a compulsory method whereby this expense might be lowered, namely, "that in the application of the provisions of the corporation Income Tax Act to the manufacturers, importers and distributors of drugs, consideration should be given to establishing a maximum of 15 per cent of total sales as the allowable deductible expense for advertising, sales promotion, 'detail men', and other similar items",

The committee did not agree with the Hall commission on this point, and in explanation of that disagreement I want to put on the record a sentence in our report. If I may again quote the committee report, in the next paragraph there appears this passage:
Yet again, regardless of the savings hopefully expected as a result of the recommendation, it might well be that the drug companies would, regardless of increased taxes, press their promotional activity to meet the continued competition of their rivals-which might easily result in higher costs at the manufacturers' level, and then higher drug costs to the consumer.
So the committee felt that the recommendation of the Hall commission would actually tend to increase the price of drugs rather than lower it.
We often hear a great deal about the question of quality control or safety of drugs. Evidence put before the committee showed that this is not a feature of great cost; therefore the question of safety is not a debatable one. There is nothing in this report that would jeopardize the safety or quality of any drug. To use safety as an argument for the high cost of drugs is just not acceptable.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, what the report really says is that price competition is the answer in the Canadian drug market, not product competition between companies as now exists, with the accompanying high marketing and promotional costs. As I mentioned earlier, this is a package deal. The recommendations made in the report would mean changes to the Food and Drugs Act, the Customs Act, the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and, as I have already said, there have been changes made in the budget.
The federal government actually has no power to carry out many of the recommendations which have been made, but we certainly hope that those who have jurisdiction in these areas will carry out their own investigation based on our recommendations. Personally I am convinced-and I think the members of the committee are too; the report was adopted unanimously-that less expensive but safe drugs are possible in Canada. I ask the government, and in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Registrar General who are responsible for implementing many of these recommendations, to bring in the necessary legislation early this fall.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin my remarks by referring to the conclusion of the minister's remarks in the committee the
June 28, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we sent two bills to the committee on national health and welfare so that it might deal with their subject matters. A third bill should have been sent to the committee. May I have unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to the third bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lincoln have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: I move:
That the Order for the second reading of Bill C-13S, an act concerning the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners, being order No. 121 under the heading "Public Bills" on today's order paper, be discharged and that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee on health and welfare.


Mr. Herridge:: I am glad that this bill is being sent to the committee as I am getting a great deal of support for its principle and purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion.


TRANSPORT
Eric Stefanson: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton, via the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan River.

DEBATES	June 28, 1967
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had this same motion on the order paper last year and it came up for discussion on June 1, 1966. As the government has not taken any action on it, I felt duty bound to place it on the order paper again.
I am happy that there is an opportunity again to discuss the merits of this motion. All I am requesting is that the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing an inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton via the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan River. This is not an unreasonable request. I hope that the Minister of Transport particularly, as a former Manitoban, will lend his support to this motion and not let another year go by without initiating a feasibility study of this proposed waterway.
When speaking on this resolution last year the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said he would have been happier if I had specified that one end of the system be Rocky Mountain House. I would have no objection to this. In fact the Voyageurs, one of Canada's centennial projects, started from Rocky Mountain House in the foothills of the Rockies on the North Saskatchewan River and will finish at Expo in Montreal. The Voyageurs will arrive in Selkirk, Manitoba, on Sunday, July 2. Besides being greeted by the residents of Selkirk, many other people will be there to greet them, including Lord and Lady Selkirk. Those participating in the centennial canoe pageant will be familiar with the terrain along this proposed waterway and they will be a valuable source of information for compiling the merits and feasibility of this system.
I pointed out last year that the first promoter of this proposed waterway to whom I listened was the late Mr. J. F.-Fergie- Cunningham, who had personally carried out research and study of this system. He firmly believed that it would be practical. Subsequently the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce took up the promotion of this proposed inland waterway and did an excellent promotional job. So far, however, there has been no government action. If one firmly believes in a project and does not immediately meet with success, one should not give up but should continue to promote the project and request the government to take action.


Mr. Knowles:: Hear, hear.


Eric Stefanson: My experience in regard to other matters and other projects has been that if one believes strongly in them and
June 28, 1967

perseveres long enough, one generally meets with success in the end.
The purpose of this proposed waterway is to provide another means of transportation. It is only natural that some of those engaged in other modes of transportation will oppose this proposition and even ridicule it. I personally believe that this proposed western inland waterway will reduce freight costs in the prairie provinces, will accelerate development in northern areas and will encourage production of minerals as well as agricultural and forest products. It will open new frontiers to recreation and will encourage tourists to come to these areas. It will help to bring in much needed United States dollars and thus help to rectify the imbalance of trade with our neighbour to the south. In addition, it will shorten the distance for building roads to resources and will create substantial additional employment.
Many have said to me that this idea of a western inland waterway is a very good one but that before it will be practical or feasible we need a much larger population and much more industrial development. I do not dispute the fact that this is probably correct. The population of Canada from now on will increase at a much faster pace than in the past and the same applies to industry. With an increasing population, industrial development will take place at a far greater place than in the past. In view of this I feel it is imperative that the government start now with studies and not wait until we require this additional transportation system.
It is a foregone conclusion that extensive population growth and extensive industrial growth will take place in the three prairie provinces in the years ahead. The prairies have wheat, oil, potash, minerals, agricultural products, pulp and forest products, fish, and so on. For these reasons this is a natural area for industry to establish and a western inland waterway will help to bring industry there.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In the period from 1870 to 1917 many boats travelled the Saskatchewan River system. There was no expenditure made for river improvement. Some of these boats were of a good size, as long as 200 feet. We have today a fleet of tugs and barges operating on Lake Winnipeg. I am told that this is the most up-to-date equipment of its kind on the North American continent. During the construction of the hydro development at Grand Rapids this fleet moved a lot of material and equipment to that power site. These crafts
Establishment of Inland Waterway will be ideal for operating on an inland waterway such as I visualize.
An extensive detailed investigation to ascertain the feasibility and cost of providing a navigable waterway for vessels and barges to operate between Edmonton and Lake Winnipeg was carried out between June, 1910 and October, 1915. The complete report of this investigation was submitted in November, 1917 by the chief engineer of the Dominion Public Works Department. This report, based upon a minimum of six feet of water at mean low water levels from Lake Winnipeg to Edmonton, estimated the cost as follows: Dredging and channel improvement, $6,200,000; seven locks and dams, $14,565,591; total, $20,765,591. When this report was received the first world war was in progress. Then came the post-war years, the depression and the second world war. No action was taken on the report.
Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that it is over 40 years since the last study of the proposed inland waterway was made I would urge the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works, or both of them, to initiate a study at this time in order that up-to-date figures may be available. At the time of the previous study the economy of western Canada was centred on wheat and other grains. Now, western Canada is becoming industrialized and, as I have pointed out, industrial development will from now on expand at a much more rapid pace. It is essential to have competitive transportation systems which will be able to provide low-cost transportation service. I believe that in the future a multi-transportation service which will include highway, rail, air and waterways will be needed to serve the needs of the people.
Following the second world war, tremendous developments of waterways have taken place in the United States, in Europe and in other parts of the world. The St. Lawrence seaway was built after the second world war and now permits ocean liners to sail to the lakehead.
In the June issue of Ship-Shore News there is an article under the following headings, "Canal Traffic And City Will Benefit From $350 Million Dig". It reads in part as follows:
A $110 million excavation project began this month on the Welland section of the seaway, where a new eight-mile channel will replace a narrow and winding part of the waterway that now bisects a city of 38,000. Minister of Transport J. W. Pickersgill officiated at ceremonies marking the start of excavation near the south end of the
June 28, 1967

Establishment of Inland Waterway channel, mid-way between the cities of Welland and Port Colborne .. .
The Welland bypass is the first stage to bring the 35 year old 27-mile waterway up to date and to meet the projected needs of the next decade's shipping traffic.
The second plan, which still requires government approval, is relocation of the canal at the northern end, with a new lock running from Lake Ontario- east of the existing canal-to Thorold, above lock 7.
Another heading appeared in the same paper, namely, "Experts Will Discuss Potential Of Waterways At Niagara Falls Meet." I now quote from this article:
The Great Lakes Commission will hold its semiannual meeting this year in the Parkway Inn, Niagara Falls, N.Y., June 27, 28 and 29. The program of activities includes a tour of the Canadian and American falls area. The Commission's executive director, Colonel Leonard J. Goodsell, says: "The theme of our meeting is Multipurpose and International Use of Great Lakes Waters:	(1)
Water Resources Programs; (2) Navigation, Power, Recreation and Scenic Beauty, and (3) U.S.-Canadian Activities.
Our objective is to demonstrate the very wonderful things that can be done to develop our water resources, while assuring their wise use and conservation for the benefit of all who use and are interested in the water resources. We are especially fortunate in having Niagara Falls of the U.S. and Canada available to us. Here we can very quickly and conveniently view outstanding developments in the multipurpose and international use of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin ...
The agenda for June 27 includes committee meetings to discuss the St. Lawrence Seaway, navigation and commerce.
In the United States several waterways have been developed since the second world war. Some of the major navigation inland waterways in the United States are the Mississippi River system, the Missouri River system and the Ohio River navigation system. All these inland waterways have brought tremendous benefits to the communities along the way. Travel on inland waterways in the following European countries, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and the U.S.S.R., has greatly increased in the last 25 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member's time has expired, unless there is agreement for him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the consent of the house to continue. Order. There was a joint mistake made between the table and the chair. The hon. member has additional time available to him.


Eric Stefanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was allowed 20 minutes.

The Moselle Waterway, a 170-mile link between the steel producers of Lorraine and the Rhine, was officially opened in 1963. The construction of this waterway was an engineering feat of some note and the cost was shared by three countries, France, West Germany and Luxembourg. This inland waterway enabled the French steelmakers to ship steel to prospective customers in southern Germany more cheaply than before. It also enabled them to bring in coal by barge from the Ruhr area and from Holland and this means lower freight rates. This inland waterway is helping the economies of the three participating countries.
The proposed inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton is approximately 1,200 miles long. The type of waterway I have in mind, suitable for tugs and barges to use, would not require any great depth of water and would therefore not require any great amount of digging. Every power development creates a lake; I am thinking of the power developments at Grand Rapids and at Squaw Rapids. The formation of these lakes should make navigation easier. There will be locks needed at the dam. From an engineering point of view there should be no problem about making this inland waterway a reality.
During the past year, construction of a pulp and paper mill at Prince Albert has been started and another pulp and paper mill and a forest products plant are under construction at The Pas, Manitoba. Some time in the future, another pulp and paper mill may be established at Grand Rapids.
At the present time Marine Transport hauls pulpwood by tug and barge to the pulp and paper mill at Pine Falls. Some of the pulp-wood is hauled in from north of Norway House on the Nelson River. The Selkirk Silica Sand Company hauls silica sand from Black Island in Lake Winnipeg to Selkirk where the sand is processed. It is logical to suppose that eventually there will be a glass factory established alongside the sand processing plant. Under the ARDA-FRED agreement, there will be an industrial park established in Selkirk. In considering the future development of Selkirk, one must not discount the possibility that some day Selkirk may be situated on a great inland waterway. At the present time most of the lake traffic on Lake Winnipeg funnels out from Selkirk. In the future water traffic may greatly increase and become far more important than it has been in the past. No doubt an inland waterway could be established from Lake Winnipeg to
June 28, 1967

the Great Lakes. This is the route which the explorers travelled.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I can also visualize a waterway from Lake Winnipeg to Hudson Bay. With power development now taking place on the Nelson River, consideration should be given to the possibility of making the Nelson River into a navigable waterway. If these waterways become a reality then Selkirk will become a busy inland seaport.
Recently I had the privilege of attending the official opening of the new melt facilities at the Manitoba rolling mills in Selkirk. These new, modern facilities cost the company over $9 million. The modernization of this plant is an indication that this company has faith in Manitoba and in the town of Selkirk. Also recently I attended sod-turning ceremonies for the distillery which the House of Seagram is building at Gimli, Manitoba. The establishing of this distillery at Gimli involves an expenditure of $10 million. This is an indication that the House of Seagram has faith in Manitoba and in the town of Gimli.
Lake Winnipeg is by far the largest producer of fresh water fish in western Canada. The fish are brought in by boat to the fishery plants at Gimli, Selkirk and Winnipeg. Canadian forces base Gimli is a very active base where jet pilot training is carried out. Indications are that this base will be active for many years to come. The Pan-American sailing races are being held at Gimli this summer. I merely point these things out, Mr. Speaker, to show that business has confidence in this area of Manitoba and that exciting things are already taking place.
I urge the government to take steps to ascertain the transportation needs of western Canada for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. I am personally convinced that the time will come when inland waterways will become an important part of our transportation needs. Perhaps the government will prefer to conduct a study of the whole water system in western Canada, including source and supply, conservation, power development and inland waterways. If the government is prepared to do this I will be satisfied provided such a survey or study is initiated at an early date.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to assure my good friend that I do not intend to ridicule his idea. On the contrary, the hon. member is to be commended for his perseverance in bringing up again the subject of the motion under
Establishment of Inland Waterway discussion which was debated in the house, as he stated, on June 1, 1966.
This motion, which requests the government to give consideration to the advisability of establishing an inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton via the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan River was first placed on the order paper in March, 1962. Even older than the hon. member's motion of 1962 is an engineering survey of this project which was first made by the Department of Public Works more than half a century ago, in the years 1910 to 1914. Then, of course, the first great war broke out and the scheme was abandoned for the duration of the war. Afterwards other things happened to curb the enthusiasm of those who favoured the idea at that time. It is quite conceivable that if the first world war had not intervened the scheme envisaged by those involved in that study might have had a chance of receiving serious consideration by the government of the day.
The report of the 1910-1914 engineering survey, based upon a minimum of six feet of water at mean low water levels from Lake Winnipeg to Edmonton, estimated that the cost would be in the order of $6,200,000 for dredging and channel improvement, and for other improvements $14,565,591, making a total of $20,765,591.
I believe I mentioned in my previous speech on this motion the plan of Mr. John R. MacNichol, former M.P. His plan was to make the old fur trade route navigable for coal and oil transport, something which the hon. member for Selkirk seems to be advocating also or, in other words, that this particular plan be revived. Another interesting scheme suggested by a Professor Hind of the University of Toronto in the 1870's was to pipe water across the prairies to the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina, which would have meant the construction of a dam and a diversion of the Elbow River, with the possibility in mind of travelling by boat all the way from Winnipeg to Calgary.
However, none of these schemes materialized, and in 1961 the premier of Manitoba requested a review of the information obtained in the survey which was made before 1914. At this time the review concerned the engineering and economic problems associated with the canalization of the Saskatchewan River to determine the justification for a detailed engineering survey, including field investigation, preliminary design and, of course, cost estimates.
June 28. 1967

Establishment of Inland Waterway
The 1961 survey concluded that there would not be a sufficient volume of traffic to provide significant transportation savings to set against the heavy capital and operational costs which would be involved for the federal government in the construction of such a waterway. I venture to say that the 1961 survey holds true today. The road and rail transportation systems now in existence would appear to be capable of meeting foreseeable future requirements.
When this transportation system was first suggested the prairie provinces did not have the facilities which exist today. At that time the railway and the waterways were the main transportation systems. The trans-Canada highway now provides a direct first class route for interprovincial truck and passenger traffic, and our air lines offer excellent passenger, freight and air express service between all major points.
Although the 1910-1914 engineering survey was confined to the route from Edmonton to Winnipeg and did not investigate the potential of the South Saskatchewan for navigation, it is still considered adequate for determining the order of magnitude of the costs involved in developing either or both the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan River for navigation purposes.
The engineering survey of 1914, as I stated before, estimated the cost of providing navigation facilities from Edmonton to Lake Winnipeg at approximately $20 million. In 1961 the revised costs, based on the original plan, had sky-rocketed to an estimated $100 million. I shall leave it to my hon. friend to imagine the cost six years later.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is extremely doubtful that present circumstances would result in a substantial downward revision of these costs. It was stated that the 1961 estimated cost of $100 million could possibly be $250 million if the project was completed today. It might be noted that one estimate is in respect of a navigation route using the North Saskatchewan River and that the other is in respect of a navigation route using the South Saskatchewan River. However, the review carried out in 1961 for the previous minister of northern affairs and national resources found that it was reasonable to assume that a minimum cost to develop a navigation route originating either on the North or South Saskatchewan river and ending at Lake Winnipeg would be in the neighbourhood of
[Mr. Badanal.l
$100 million and could possibly be $250 million. It naturally follows that if the expenditure of the estimated $100 million cannot be justified on the basis of potential transportation savings, any further studies conducted at the present time are not warranted.
In 1961 the estimated cost was $100 million to $250 million, and if the lower figure is amortized on a 50-year basis, having in mind the economic factors which are involved, the equivalent annual costs, including interest and amortization, would be some $5,500,000. On the higher figure of $250 million the annual costs would be $13,750,000. Neither of these amounts includes maintenance or operating expenses.
The estimated physical capacity of the locks in the proposed system would possibly be nine million tons of freight annually. This assumption is made on the basis of equal traffic in both directions, which is highly improbable. It appears that by far the greatest volume of traffic that would move on such a waterway would be bulk cargoes such as coal, petroleum products and grain. These would be the main cargoes on the waterway during the estimated seven-month season and, as I said before, these main cargoes would probably move from west to east with little apparent backhaul traffic in sight.
With the estimated physical capacity of the locks set at nine million tons of freight annually, and the greater portion of the freight moving eastward, it would be possible to handle only 4.5 million tons one way. This figure is based on continual operation of the locks during the seven-month season. Therefore a more realistic figure on the capacity of the system would be approximately three million tons a year.
The future estimated requirements of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Power Board for coal during the next 10 to 20 years are approximately one million tons annually. This is based on the assumption that natural gas would not provide a cheaper B.T.U. base. In view of the recent announcement in this house that a second natural gas line will commence construction shortly, a move which could eliminate the Hydro-Electric Power Board's need for coal to a bare minimum, the expected revenue from the transportation of coal could be eliminated.
I wonder whether the hon. member has heard of the study and research being conducted in respect of the movement of wheat and other commodities from western Canada
June 28, 1967	COMMONS
by pipe line. I regret that I do not have the figures showing the amount involved in this research but it is substantial. I venture to say that eventually pipe line transportation will be a major factor in covering the costs of moving merchandise over the long distances which we have in Canada.
Incidentally, according to figures the cost of transporting coal by rail compared with barge movement is as follows: For barge movement the cost per ton of coal is $3.65. In addition to the hauling of the barges there would be the cost of taking the coal from the mine to the water terminal, loading at the terminal, and carrying the five-month inventory at the power station for use in the winter months. While there are no definite figures on the cost of these operations they would probably total as much as the cost of the barge movement itself for an over-all total in the order of $6 to $7 per ton.
The present rail cost for a corresponding haul from pithead to power plant is estimated at $6 to $7 per ton. As hon. members can see there is little if any margin in favour of transporting coal by water rather than by rail in so far as Manitoba Hydro is concerned. Therefore the movement of coal by water might not occur at all, and even if it did coal would make no appreciable contribution in terms of transportation savings. The result would be that the savings which are necessary to justify the large capital outlay would need to be found in other traffic.
In so far as grain and petroleum products are concerned, there is nothing at present which indicates that the proposed water system would be competitive with present rail rates for grain and petroleum products moving eastward.
In summing up I might say that on the basis of these preliminary studies there would appear to be little justification for expenditures on works in the order of $100 million to $250 million in the interests of navigation on the Saskatchewan River. Hence it would seem doubtful that there is any reason to quarrel with the 1961 finding which was that a large outlay on engineering investigations is probably not warranted at this time. If it should be considered desirable some day to pursue the matter further, it is believed that studies should be made first of all on the economic side which would involve a more detailed analysis of traffic potential.
It may seem unpleasant to have to be realistic and dash cold water on such a romantic suggestion as a waterway through the heart of our great prairies. It would be much
DEBATES	2095
Establishment of Inland Waterway more pleasant to be able to agree with Professor Edward Kuiper of the University of Manitoba who, in a paper prepared for the 1961 Resources for Tomorrow Conference, said that a similar development would turn Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta into "The Garden of Eden of North America."
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Dr. Kuiper was of course referring not only to a waterway but to a full irrigation system that could be developed with it. Such a system, he said, would mean the end of drought for all time in the prairie provinces.
Dr. Kuiper's proposals were more ambitious than those of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). He also suggested the canalization of the Nelson River in northern Manitoba. Such a development, he said, would make it possible some day for Winnipeg residents to travel by boat deep into the heart of Alberta and for a change come back by a different route, through the Saskatchewan wheat fields to Hudson Bay. He said it would be a simple matter from a technical viewpoint to build ship locks in conjunction with future dams on the Saskatchewan and Nelson Rivers.
However, the results of the preliminary investigations I have described indicate, I believe, that although it may be simple from a technical viewpoint the capital expenditures involved would be very considerable, while the economic justification has not been firmly established in any of the investigations that have been carried out to date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Hubert Badanai: I have only one sentence to complete my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member suggests he has only one sentence left. Is it agreed that he be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, for allowing me to finish this brief dissertation on this very romantic project brought forward by my very good and genial friend, the hon. member for Selkirk. As I was saying, while the economic justification has not been firmly established by any of the investigations that have been carried out to date, this waterway is not beyond the realm of possibility. There is little evidence
June 28, 1967

Establishment of Inland Waterway to indicate that the results of the review carried out by the previous government in 1961 do not still apply. Nevertheless, great changes have taken place in the prairie provinces in recent years in industrial and natural resources development, as well as in transportation. In view of this growth and development I would not want to suggest that the Winnipeg-Edmonton waterway will not be built some day, nor for that matter that even Dr. Kuiper's more extensive proposals will not be adopted or prove to be impossible in the light of future developments of the west. I visualize this great project as a very romantic one which should not be considered as one that will never come to fruition.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us simply calls upon the government to give consideration to the possibility of establishing a great new inland waterway, and it was well described by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stef-anson). I simply rise to say, as I did about this time last year, that I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal. It might be thought, as it might have been thought about the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that as I come from an area concerned with waterways I would not be the first one to get up and support a proposal to establish another waterway. I come from the western maritimes, the city of New Westminster on the lower mainland of British Columbia, but I think we should rise above regional considerations in this matter, particularly during centennial year. In the hope that the motion will come to a vote I shall take my seat, but I support the proposition that has been so well put before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I join the other speakers on this subject this afternoon who have said that it is one of great interest, particularly because in this centennial year the feat of the voyageurs who travelled over the route under discussion in opening up this country is being re-enacted. To anyone who was born on the prairies and lived in the west and absorbed some of its history, that was an era of wonderful adventure for Canadians and marked the greatest era of discovery in our history. It was an era of discovery which involved a water system longer, I believe, than the St. Lawrence, certainly stretching over a greater area.

It is probably not well known in eastern Canada that the Saskatchewan river system stretches literally over all the prairie lands to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. It was on this great waterway that Alexander Mackenzie travelled in his voyages to discover a route to the Pacific. He arrived at Bella Coola and he painted on the side of a rock at that site the words "Alexander Mackenzie from Canada. By land. July 22, 1793."
It is interesting to consider his voyage from Montreal and the meaning of this waterway and its development in the terms which have been outlined by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). We can follow this waterway again today with Mackenzie in order to gain some comprehension as to what its development could mean to the west and commercial traffic throughout that area. Alexander Mackenzie travelled from Montreal to the prairies. As I understand the history of his voyage it began above Lachine Rapids. His party moved in canoes up the Ottawa River. These canoes were approximately 30 to 35 feet in length. They were manned by six to eight men and carried freight loads weighing two, three or four tons. These canoes were known in the eastern section of this nation as "canot maitre," or master canoe, e (5:50 p.m.)
Alexander Mackenzie travelled the Ottawa River route rather than the St. Lawrence because of the difficulties with rapids he would have encountered. He negotiated the Chaudiere Falls and travelled above them on the Ottawa River to the Mattawa River. He then followed the Mattawa River to Lake Nipissing. He crossed Lake Nipissing and after portaging coasted down the French River to Georgian Bay. He went along the north shore of Georgian Bay following the canoe route to the north of Manitoulin Island and working his way westward he passed through the Straits of Mackinac and crossed lake Superior to the head of the lakes and what was known in those days as Grand Portage. This was the route that Radisson and Gro-seilliers had travelled in 1650. It was the route along which Marquette and Joliet had travelled on their original voyage of discovery to the headwaters of the Mississippi in 1673 and the same route over which LaSalle had gone when he made his voyage in 1682 across to the headwaters of the Mississippi and down that great river to its mouth.
June 28, 1967	COMMONS
Having reached Grand Rapids let us pause tor a moment to think of the feats of these voyageurs as they opened up the country. They made this trip involving approximately 36 portages from Montreal to the head of the lakes, some of them up to two miles in length, carrying canoes and loads on their backs of 200 pounds. One traveller who went with them tells of voyageurs who were loaded down with 200 pounds of freight on their backs, jigging along portages which caused these people to drop. These travellers wrote in their diaries that they could hardly keep up with the pace. They made these voyages in 35 to 40 days. There is an incident of a letter being taken from Montreal on May 6, 1817 and arriving at Grand Portage on June 3 in a canoe which was really an express canoe, not loaded with freight as the others were. This shows the speed at which mail and light freight could be portaged by these voyageurs as they moved westward.
From Grand Portage they moved through the maze of lakes, which was a very complicated process, through the wilderness leading to the prairies, and then took the route along Rainy River into Rainy Lake and thence into Lake of the Woods. Then they came to the mouth of the Winnipeg River leading into Lake Winnipeg. This was the historic route which La Verendrye and his sons had taken in 1731 when they moved across that country and out into the prairies for the first time. I might say they were not the first white people on the prairies because Henry Kelsey of the Hudson's Bay Company had gone there before coming down the northern route in 1690. At that time he went to the north end of Lake Winnipeg and into the mouth of the Saskatchewan River.
It is interesting to consider the long history of that river and its importance in the development of early Canada. In the early part of the eighteenth century these voyageurs were moving in considerable numbers west of Grand Portage or west of the head of the lakes, trans-shipping at this point into somewhat smaller canoes, the "canots du nord", or northern canoes. These were light canoes which could carry one or two tons of freight and were operated by a smaller crew. They
DEBATES	2097
Establishment of Inland Waterway were manned by the elite of the voyageurs who at that time, in the middle of the eighteenth century, were moving far across the Canadian west. They followed a course up Lake Winnipeg, across Cedar Lake into the mouth of the Saskatchewan River and along the Saskatchewan River to the forks. They took the line of the North Saskatchewan from the forks and moved on to where the city of Edmonton now is and beyond. Then there were a series of portages and they made their way over into the Athabasca and coasted down the Athabasca to Slave lake where Fort Chippewa was established.
It was at Fort Chippewa that Alexander Mackenzie wintered during his historic voyage to the west. He tells in his diaries how imperative it was to the voyageur of that day in making the trip between the opening up of the rivers in the springtime and freeze-up in the fall to meet the rugged schedule from Montreal to the Great Lakes, thence across to the prairies and across the prairies to Fort Chippewa. There was little time to waste and little time to do anything else except bend to the paddle if they were to make it in time to winter at Fort Chippewa. To those who were left on the prairies during those harsh winters it was indeed a rough experience and often one which resulted in the death of these brave and intrepid men. Mackenzie broke camp in the spring and began his journey up the Peace River, taking the fork southward along the Parsnip River and made his way into the headwaters of the Fraser. Then he went down the Fraser river past where the cities of Prince George and Quesnel now stand and made his way across country to Bella Coola where he chalked his name on the rocks.


Mr. Rapp:: Don't talk it out.


Grant Deachman: This was the historic route which he and the great voyageurs of that day travelled. Looking at this river system one sees no reason why, as time evolves and the need for prairie transportation develops, it should not be used for this purpose.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 29, 1967