1967-02-27

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the holding of Statehood day ceremonies beginning today on the islands of Antigua and St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, to be followed by similar ceremonies on the island of St. Lucia on March 1 and Grenada on March 3. Statehood day ceremonies will also be observed on the islands of St. Vincent and Dominica on dates to be announced later.
These Statehood day ceremonies mark the assumption of a new constitutional status of association with Britain based on agreements negotiated by the six commonwealth Caribbean islands and the British government. The new constitutions provide for full internal self government while Britain remains responsible for defence and external relations, apart from trade, aid and migration.
The new constitutions of the West Indian Associated States will enable them to play a full role in the development of the new and closer relationship between Canada and all the Commonwealth Caribbean countries.
I know hon. members will join me in extending sincere good wishes for the future to the West Indies Associated States as they assume their new status.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion when we all can join in complete agreement with what has taken place among the states in the Caribbean, and in paying tribute not only to the residents of the various areas and islands but also to the beneficent efforts of Great Britain in providing these people with a form of government by which they are ensured a civil service system to maintain and carry out the democratic principle.
I certainly join with the right hon. Prime Minister in offering congratulations not only to these several countries and their leaders
but also to a commonwealth which makes possible the development and expansion of those countries which come under its sway, so that when the days of colonialism are over these countries may take their place as part and parcel, either directly or indirectly, of the commonwealth as a whole.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party wish to join with the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in extending our congratulations to the West Indies Associated States on this very historic occasion. I am certain that when the history of our era is written one of the great triumphs of the United Kingdom will be recorded as the manner in which during the past 25 years it has divested itself of an empire and created a commonwealth of free nations freely associated together. This is a transition which has come about peacefully and with a very high degree of statesmanship.
Now that the constitutions of the West Indies Associated States are set up, these states will have many economic and political problems. I should like to make the appeal I have made before in this house, and express the hope that Canada will take a much greater interest in the Caribbean area. The people there are close to us; many of them speak either English or French. We are admirably suited, both by language and common association in the commonwealth, to play an important role in their economic, cultural and social development. I hope that Canadians will take this responsibility seriously and play an ever more important role in the development of that particular area of the world.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, the members of our group join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the spokesmen of the various parties in the house to say how happy we are to see that the West Indies Associated States had the courage to direct their own affairs. In this age of progress, colonialism is gradually disappearing. We are happy to see also that while moving ahead those people are keeping alive the democratic spirit of the free world.
February 27, 1967

West Indies Associated States Mr. Speaker, since the importance and influence of those associated states throughout the world are unquestionably growing, it is desirable that Canada should maintain relations with those states to be able, if need be, to give them help or ask them for help. I think that Canada must take an interest in those new nations: they need help and we can help them. We can also assure them of our friendship particularly in view of the present conditions in the world. The bond of friendship and understanding between democratic countries must be strengthened and I think that Canada must assure the West Indies of her co-operation and help.
It is with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I add the wishes of our group to those of the Prime Minister. I hope that the present government and all those which will come after it will always be inspired by that spirit of friendship and mutual help so vital to the survival of the free world.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr.  A. B. Patlerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit party wish to associate themselves with the Prime Minister and other speakers in extending greetings and best wishes to the West Indian Associated States. I am sure it was a matter of concern and regret that the West Indies federation failed to measure up to the expectations and hopes of the member states. We do trust that in this new association these countries will find a vehicle by which they will be able to move forward socially and culturally in the development of their respective economies.
Those of us who had the opportunity of attending the commonwealth conference in Jamaica two years ago were impressed by the fact that many of the representatives of the West Indies group spoke so highly of Canada and its endeavours to be of assistance throughout the years. They were looking forward to closer co-operation, and believed that Canada occupied a wonderful position to assist them in achieving their true destinies. Therefore we look forward to working for and with them in the achievement of this objective.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
EGGS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to support the price of eggs by a 
deficiency program for the 12 month period ending September 30, 1967. The support level is at a national average price of 34 cents per dozen for grade A large eggs to the producer. This level is approximately 98 per cent of the national base price or ten year average.
The eligibility per producer for assistance will be to a maximum of 10,000 dozen, as compared with last year when the support level of 34 cents per dozen was limited to 4,000 dozen, with a support level of 31 cents per dozen for the next 6,000 dozen grade A extra large, large and medium eggs.
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this announcement, but I must say that as far as the western provinces are concerned the deficiency payments are unjust because they are not to be made on a regional basis. Had that been the case the three western provinces would also have been eligible. I am glad, however, that these deficiency payments are now to be paid on 10,000 dozen eggs rather than on 4,000 dozen as has been the case in the past.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly refer to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture. I want to read it over carefully because I am not too sure that I understood it completely. I am of the opinion that the price is too low, but I should like to confer with the poultry producers in western Canada before saying anything definite on the question.


Mr. Kindt:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no supplementary question at this time. A ministerial statement has been made by the minister and comments have been made by representatives of the parties in opposition. The rules do not provide for supplementary questions to be asked at this time. I will recognize the hon. member on questions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, many amendments
have been made to Bills C-222 and C-223, amending the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, by the standing committee to which they were referred. That committee has passed a motion to the effect that the bills as amended be reprinted. I would
February 27, 1967

ask the house for consent to have that done. I am told that the consent of the house is necessary before this can be done. From the number of amendments it is obvious that this reprinting will be of great convenience to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-272, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (duration of House of Commons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a personal centennial project designed to provoke discussion in depth of the state of parliamentary and responsible government in 1967. To achieve its aim of restoring the independence of private members of parliament, the bill has four features. It would abolish the royal power of dissolution and substitute fixed dates of elections, subject to the right of the House of Commons itself and not the Prime Minister to determine a different and earlier date.
Second, defeat of a government proposal would lead to an election only if the house itself so determined by resolution.
A third and concomitant provision of the bill is that the House of Commons would have continuous legal existence, and in case of international or national crises parliament could be called into session even during an election campaign.
Finally, parliament would be required to make financial provision for the administration during an election period, and governor general's warrants would be abolished. The bill would apply to the twenty eighth and suDsequent parliaments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-273, respecting the right of privacy.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce this bill entitled "An act respecting the right of privacy". Mr. Justice Brandeis has referred to the right of privacy as the right most valued by civilized men. Several outstanding jurists in Canada share the same opinion. It is advisable to protect that right adequately and to stop the various forms of invasion of privacy. Recent unfortunate events in British Columbia have focussed public attention on this question.
I am introducing this bill at the request of certain members of our party in British Columbia and certain trade union members in that province. After reading of the consideration that is being given to this question in other countries I have spent a good deal of my spare time studying this subject.
The purpose of this bill is to provide that wire tapping and eavesdropping be prohibited except in cases of the administration of justice and the security of the state.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	Is any government department or agency making a study of synthetic detergent residuals in Canadian lakes and rivers and, if so, what agency or department?
2.	Is any department giving consideration to the need for developing standards of bio-degradability for synthetic detergents offered for sale in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Yes. Synthetic detergent residuals are of two types: an organic surface-active agent and inorganic phosphates. The water quality and engineering group, water research branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources occasionally check certain waters for surface-active substances. In their country-wide quality network and in other survey studies, determinations of phosphate contents are routine practice. Analyses of water for both these constituents of detergents are being extended, especially

February 27, 1967
Questions
with regard to surface-active agents. The chemical analytical programs of energy, mines and resources in support of the International Joint Commission reference on pollution in lakes Ontario and Erie, 1966 and 1967 summers, include tests for nutrients which may, in part, have been introduced to the lakes from synthetic detergent residuals.
2.	No. No work has been done to date relative to developing standards of bio-dedegradability. When facilities and staff are available, it is planned to study methods of removing phosphates and it may be that biological methods will be studied. Research in these fields will be primarily of an applied nature.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO SAINT-HYACINTHE, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: From July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1963, what were the amounts of grants made to (a) the poultry co-operative of Saint-Damase, county of Saint-Hyacinthe (b) Saint Charles hospital, in Saint-Hyacinthe (c) l'lnstitut des textiles, of Saint-Hyacinthe?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, National Health and Welfare and Industry and Defence Production as follows:
(a)	$54,292.03.
(b)	Saint Charles hospital, Saint-Hyacin-the:
Under the general health grants and hospital construction grants program of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the following federal assistance was provided during the period July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1963 on the basis of projects submitted by the province:
A hospital construction grant of $16,896.95 was approved and expended in the fiscal year
1960-61 toward renovations to provide an enlarged radiology department.
In fiscal years 1959-61 an amount of $32,982.70 was provided for the purchase of radiological and laboratory equipment to assist in the expansion of diagnostic services.
Payments in the amount of $77,923.53 were made under the cancer control grant for the maintenance of an outpatient cancer clinic at this general hospital.
(c)	None.


REGIONAL DIRECTORS, INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many regional directors are there in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What are their names?

3.	What are their academic qualifications?
4.	How long have they held these positions?
5.	What was their previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
6.	What are their duties and responsibilities and to whom do they report?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norihern Development):: 1. 8.
2.	Name	Region
Francis B. McKinnon Maritime
Romeo Boulanger John G. McGilp Robert M. Connelly Frederick A. Clark Ralph D. Ragan Jefferay V. Boys
Norman K. Ogden
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory District of Mackenzie
3.	F. B. McKinnon: Academic qualifications: (a) Senior Matriculation (4 years), Nova Scotia; (b) Normal College, Truro, N.S., teaching certificate. R. Boulanger: (a) Levis College, B.A., (b) Laval University, B.S.A. J. G. McGilp: (a) High School graduation; (b) Lancaster Teaching College, England, permanent teacher's certificate, England, teacher's certificate, Alberta; (c) University, economics and economic history (1 year). R. M. Connelly:
(a)	Gr. XII, Manitoba; (b) University of Ottawa, B.A.; (c) Normal School, Winnipeg, 1st class teacher's certificate; (d) University of Manitoba, B. Ed. F. A. Clark: (a) Gr. XIII, province of Ontario. R. D. Ragan: (a) Grade XIII, Nebraska, U.S.A. J. V. Boys: (a) London University, matriculation, equivalent to 2nd year university. N. K. Ogden: (a) Grade XI, Ontario.
4.
Name
Francis B. McKinnon Romeo Boulanger John G. McGilp Robert M. Connelly Frederick A. Clark Ralph D. Ragan Jefferay V. Boys Norman K. Ogden
Date of Appointment Since April 2, 1949 Since May 16, 1955 Since January 1, 1966 Since August 24, 1964 Since April 4, 1966 Since August 5, 1964 Since August 1, 1961 Since Dec. 26, 1962
5.	F. B. McKinnon: (a) Two and one half years clerical experience at Shubenacadie Indian agency, N.S.; (b) Three and one half years, superintendent, Indian agency, Eska-soni agency, N.S. R. Boulanger: (a) Approximately eight years as settlement officer (D.V.A.) on field duties working out of Quebec, P.Q. J. G. McGilp: (a) Three years teacher and principal at Peigan and St. Paul's Indian schools, Alberta.; (b) One and one half
February 27, 1967

years, superintendent, Indian agency at Yellowknife and Fort Smith, N.W.T.; (c) Five and one half years regional director, Indian affairs for the Mackenzie district and the Saskatchewan region. R. M. Connelly: (a) Seven years as teacher and principal at Sandy Bay Indian day and residential schools;
(b)	Three years as inspector of Indian schools in Saskatchewan; (c) Three years as regional superintendent of Indian schools in Saskatchewan. F. A. Clark: (a) Two years clerical experience, Stikine Indian agency, B.C.; (b) Twelve years as superintendent, Indian agency at the Stikine, Kamloops and Cowichan agencies, B.C.; (c) Three years regional supervisor
I,	Indian agencies, Vancouver; (d) One and one half years assistant chief of social programs, Ottawa. R. D. Ragan: (a) Nine years clerical experience at the Blackfoot agency, Alberta; (b) Eight years superintendent, Indian agencies, at Blood and Stoney-Sarcee agencies, Alberta; (c) Three years assistant regional supervisor and regional supervisor, Manitoba region; (d) Two years administrative officer, welfare division, Ottawa; (e) Four years assistant chief, welfare division, Ottawa.
J.	V. Boys: (a) Thirteen years, superintendent, Indian agency at the Kootenay, Babine, Kamloops and Cowichan Indian agencies, British Columbia; (b) Two years assistant director of inspection services, Ottawa. N. K. Ogden:
(a)	Six years clerical experience, reserves and trusts division, Indian affairs branch, Ottawa;
(b)	Eleven and one half years junior administrative and administrative duties in connection with reserves administration, Indian affairs, Ottawa; (c) One and one half years, superintendent, Indian agency, Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan.
6.	The duties and responsibilities for the regional directors in the Maritime, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Yukon Regions are as follows: (1) Directs the administration in the region of Indian affairs branch programs which encompass all aspects of social, economic and community development of Indians. (2) Meets with Indians, individually and in groups and associations to discuss problems and develop programs and policy relating to social, community and resource development at various stages of development to ensure that branch objectives of integration and development are promoted in accordance with the desires of the Indians. (3) Reviews programs and regional conditions in order to report progress of programs, determine the need for specialist assistance and initiate new
Questions
or changed programs or policies. (4) Develops and maintains effective working relationships with officials of other departments, provincial and municipal governments and the general public and organizations by explaining departmental programs and objectives.
In the Mackenzie district the duties and responsibilities of the regional director are as follows: To have administrative responsibility for band membership, Indian estates, Indian treaties, enfranchisement, revolving fund loans, the cultural affairs program, the community development program, the Indian aflairs scholarship program and the Thomas Longboat awards in the Mackenzie District; to act in an advisory, consultative and liaison role with the northern administration branch in the Mackenzie District; to work with the Indian advisory council; to have financial responsibility for the operations of the regional office. All regional directors report to the director of Indian affairs branch.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO ROADS, ETC., IN PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Davis: What has been the total cost to the federal treasury, since 1960, of roads, highways and bridges built within the confines of the port of Montreal and charged either to the National Harbours Board or to Expo '67?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows: The cost of roads, highways and bridges within the exhibition grounds is $23,248,580, of which $19,027,070 will be permanent and $4,221,510 temporary. The total asset value of the permanent bridges and roads is $15,221,650, leaving a balance of $3,805,420.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: $37,635,131 in so far as the National Harbours Board is concerned.


ASSISTANCE TO GERALDTON, ONT.
Mr. Andras: 1.	In view of the announced cessation of operations of the MacLeod-Cockshutt and Consolidated Mosher Gold Mines at Geraldton, Ontario, specifically (a) what federal government assistance can and will be given to the displaced employees and their families (b) what federal government assistance can and will be given to the remainder of the townspeople whose economic livelihood, property values and businesses will be jeopardized?
2.	Has the government of Canada full jurisdiction and responsibility in this matter, or does it share this jurisdiction and responsibility with the government of the province of Ontario and, if so, what is the division of such jurisdiction and responsibility?

February 27, 1967
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced on 2 February 1967 that he had designated Geraldton under the manpower mobility regulations for a period of 12 months. Under this designation, (a) ex-employees of MacLeod-Cockshutt and Consolidated Mosher Gold Mines can obtain grants to move with their families to other areas where employment is available for them; (b) any unemployed worker in Geraldton can obtain a grant to move with his family to another area where there is employment for him.
Except in the case of a worker without dependants who is eligible to receive a grant for his transportation only, the grants include the cost of transportation for a worker and his dependants, the cost of moving the family's household effects and a resettlement allowance.
2.	The manpower mobility program is a federal government program.


THQS. J. CASEY-ENTRY INTO CANADA
Mr. Ormiston: 1.	In what year did Thomas Joseph Casey, also known as Patrick Edward O'Neale, enter Canada?
2.	Did he enter Canada legally and, if not, how long did he remain in Canada illegally?
3.	In what year did he approach the immigration authorities requesting permission to remain in Canada?
4.	Did Thomas Joseph Casey, also known as Patrick Edward O'Neale, inform the department that he was secretary of the British Columbia Federation of Labour?
5.	What was the decision of the department and on what date was he granted landed immigrant status?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	Immigration records indicate that one Thomas Joseph Casey entered Canada in 1947.
2.	He entered as a ship deserter and remained in Canada illegally for 16 years.
3.	1963.
4.	Yes.
5.	The decision was to allow Mr. Casey to remain in Canada and he was granted landed immigrant status on December 23, 1963.


'GRANTS FOR BUILDING OF CORN CRIBS
Mr. Ricard: Does the federal government make grants for the building of corn-cribs?
IMr. Andras.l


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: As far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, there is no government financial assistance program for building corn-cribs for producers.
As for the Department of Industry, under the Area Development Incentives Act, grants are available for the construction of natural corn-cribs that are part of new or expanding manufacturing or processing facilities, in a specified location, such as a feedmill, for instance.


ICEBREAKING ON ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many icebreakers have operated on the St. Lawrence river, between Montreal and Quebec city during the winter months, by month, during the past nine winters and the current winter and what are the names of such icebreakers?
2.	How many miles of icebreaking operations were carried out by Canadian icebreakers operating between Montreal and Quebec city on the St. Lawrence river during each of the past nine winters and to the end of January of this winter?
3.	Are special charges to defray the costs of such icebreaking operations imposed upon vessels which operate over channels opened by icebreakers in the above-mentioned area?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Winter 1966-67: Four icebreakers are engaged in flood control duties in the St. Lawrence River this current winter. These ships are the full icebreakers N.B. McLean, Saurel, Wolfe and Ernest Lapointe.
Winter 1965-66: The icebreakers N.B. McLean, Saurel, Wolfe and Ernest Lapointe were used and in addition the icebreaker Montcalm provided extra support for a period of seven days during January 1966.
Winter 1964-65: The icebreakers N.B. McLean, Ernest Lapointe, Saurel, Montcalm and Wolfe were deployed at various times, the Montcalm relieving the Wolfe in mid February.
Winter 1963-64: The icebreakers N.B. McLean, Saurel, Wolfe and Ernest Lapointe were used and added assistance was provided for short periods by the d'Iberville and Montcalm. The latter assisted for two days in January and the former for 26 days over December and January.
Winter 1962-63: The icebreakers N.B. McLean, Ernest Lapointe, Saurel and Montcalm were used.
February 27, 1967

Winter 1961-62: The icebreakers N.B. McLean, Ernest Lapointe, Saurel and Montcalm were used.
Winter 1960-61: The d'Iberville, Saurel and Ernest Lapointe were used and in addition Montcalm and the light icebreaker Tupper gave added assistance for short periods. Montcalm assisted for 22 days in January and Tupper for four days in April.
Winter 1959-60: d'Iberville, Ernest Lapointe, N.B. McLean, Saurel and Wolfe were used and the Montcalm gave added assistance for seven days in April.
Winter 1958-59: d'Iberville, Ernest Lapointe, Saurel, N.B. McLean and Montcalm were used.
Winter 1955-58:	d'Iberville, Ernest Lapointe, N.B. McLean were used.
Unless otherwise stipulated, icebreakers mentioned were deployed throughout the season, i.e. mid December to mid April.
No month by month breakdown can be given due to the fact that ship movements are continuously changed to suit operational requirements.
2. Winter 1966-67 Ship
N.B. McLean Saurel
Ernest Lapointe Wolfe
(to January 31, 1967) Distance steamed 284 miles 758	"
497	"
Nil (this ship arrived 3rd February)
Questions
Winter 1963-64:		
Ship	Distance steamed	
N.B. McLean	6283	milesErnest Lapointe	4025	iiSaurel	7261	iiWolfe	4657	ifMontcalm	336	itd'Iberville	1032	ifTotal distance steamed	23,594	milesWinter 1962-63:	Ship	Distance steamed	N.B. McLean	12226	milesErnest Lapointe	4975	tiSaurel	5273	ifMontcalm	2273	itTotal distance steamed	24,747 miles	
Due to the fact that some ships records have been destroyed, no accurate account of distance steamed can be collated for periods listed:
Winters:
1960-61
1958-59
3.	At present the Canadian government levies no charge for icebreaker assistance and no special charges are imposed upon vessels which operate over channels opened by icebreakers engaged in flood control duties.
Total distance steamed 1539 miles
Winter 1965-66:
Ship	Distance steamed
N.B. McLean	7256	milesSaurel	6403	ifErnest Lapointe	3189	iiWolfe	4379	ifMontcalm	874	tiTotal distance steamed	22,101	milesWinter 1964-65:	Ship	Distance steamed	N.B. McLean	3500	milesErnest Lapointe	4039	itSaurel	6512	iiMontcalm	2785	itWolfe	4424	iiTotal distance steamed	21,260	miles


TRANSPORT OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY TANKERS
Mr. Barnell: 1.	Are bulk petroleum products transported by tanker vessels within the great lakes-St. Lawrence river system above the port of Montreal (a) between ports or places within Canadian waters (b) between ports or places within United States waters
(c)	between Canadian ports and United States ports
(d)	between Canadian and/or United States ports within the great lakes and ports or places beyond and below the port of Montreal?
2. If so (a) what is the number of vessels regularly engaged in such transport between each of the above categories of places (b) what, by tonnage or gallonage, is the current annual volume of such petroleum products transported between each of the above categories of places?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. Information available on transportation of bulk petroleum products, gasoline, fuel oil and lubricating oil by tankers, 1965, is as follows: 45 vessels were engaged in this operation-29 in the great lakes

February 27, 1967
Questions
area and 16 in the Atlantic area with some intercrossing of areas; movements in the great lakes area between Canadian ports, 2,793,575 tons; movements in the great lakes area between Canadian and American ports, 18,550 tons; movements between the Canadian great lakes and Montreal and beyond, 1,488,102 tons; movements between United States great lakes and Montreal and beyond, 82,401 tons; movements in the Atlantic area between Canadian ports, 5,558,123 tons.


PETITCODIAC, N.B.-COST OF SEWER CONNECTION OF R.C.M.P. QUARTERS
Mr. Fairweather: What amount of money was paid to MacPherson & Stewart Limited, Petitcodiac, New Brunswick, for work done to connect the building occupied by the Petitcodiac detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the village sewerage system, the work having been completed October 31, 1966?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 


$445. ACTIVITIES OF COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What are the names and home addresses of the 69 people who attended the general meeting of the Company of Young Canadians in Orillia from October 29, 1966 to November 5, 1966, as indicated in the answer to question No. 2,451, (a) what are the names and offices held by the staff attending the above meeting (b) what are the names of the consultants to the above meeting?
2.	Has the governor in council appointed an auditor for the C.Y.C. as set out in the C.Y.C. act and, if so, what is his name and his rate of pay?
3.	Does the C.Y.C. subsidize a school called Ever-dale in Wellington county and, if so (a) to what amount (b) how many teachers are employed in the school (c) what is the salary paid to each teacher (d) how many students are in attendance
(e)	do students pay tuition and room and board and, if so, how much for each (f) has a contract or lease been signed with the owners of the house in which the school is housed?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	The names of participants at internal meetings of the Company of Young Canadians are a matter of internal operations of the company. (a) answered above; (b) Dr. N. Murphy; Mr. A. Borovoy; Mr. J. Fleming; Mr. P. Ringer; Mr. T. Wakayama.
2.	No. The Auditor General of Canada audits the books of the Company of Young Canadians until March 31, 1967.
[Mr. Cantin.)
3.	Yes. (a) $5,000 volunteer support grant, (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) Questions relating to this private organization may be addressed to The Everdale Place, R.R. No. 1, Hillsburg, Ontario.


BILINGUAL PROGRAM FOR SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	In regard to the proposed bilingual program of the government, what level of civil servant or commissioner is entitled to participate in this program?
2.	What is the maximum period of time that can be taken away from their official Ottawa duties to participate in this program?
3.	What degree of bilingualism must be attained by those participating?
4.	Does the program entail cost of moving household effects?
5.	What is the total estimated cost per individual and for the whole program?
6.	In what particular areas of Canada have the participants been directed to locate in order to carry out this program?


John Ross Matheson: 1. The officials participating in this program with their families are drawn from the most senior categories.
2.	Twelve months.
3.	An adequate capacity to use the second language as required in discharging assigned departmental responsibilities.
4.	Yes.
5.	Normal operating costs are expected to amount to $31,800 or $3,500 per family for the first year.
6.	The English speaking participants are being moved to Quebec city, and the French speaking participants to Toronto.


EXPROPRIATION OF HOMES, LOUISBOURG NATIONAL PARK
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings way): 1.	How many homes are involved in the expropriation of properties within the area known as West Louisbourg which falls into the present or proposed boundaries of the Fortress of Louisbourg national historic park?
2.	How many properties have been expropriated to the present?
3.	For how many of these properties have the owners been compensated?
4.	If some owners have not yet been compensated for their properties, by what date will these owners be reimbursed?
5.	How many properties remain to be expropriated?
February 27, 1967



6.	By what dates will these properties be expropriated?
7.	Why was the expropriation of homes and properties necessary along the extension of highway 22 in West Louisbourg between Stella Maris church and the causeway approaches to the fortress proper, known as the Barachois?


Arthur Laing: 1 to 6
inclusive: The expropriation of properties for the Fortress of Louisbourg national historic park is the responsibility of the government of the province of Nova Scotia.
7.	This area is considered intimately related to the sieges of 1745 and 1758 and therefore essential to the proper historical interpretation of the fortress of Louisbourg.


EARNSCLIFFE-RETURN TO CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Mr. Dinsdale: Since Earnscliffe, the Ottawa residence of Canada's first prime minister, was declared a national historic site, what steps have been taken to ensure that it will return to Canadian ownership?


Arthur Laing: The recommendation by the historic sites and monuments board that Earnscliffe be designated a national historic site was made in 1960 and plaques concerning the history of the house were unveiled by the then prime minister on June 6th, 1961. No action was taken by the government of the day with regard to any change of ownership and none is now contemplated as the present ownership and use of Earnscliffe ensures its protection and preservation in accordance with the standards desired for a building of national importance.


JOB TRAINING PROJECTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many pilot training projects have been established by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and (a) where have they been located (b) what are the major skills emphasized in the projects (c) what is the estimated unit cost for each person trained (d) how many persons have been trained to date?
2.	What other areas are ear-marked for projects?
3.	What is the estimated enrolment figure when the program is in full swing?
4.	Is this program modelled after the United States job corps program?


John Carr Munro: 1
and 2. Pilot projects will be established jointly by the provinces and the department. It is
Questions
expected that most provinces will have one project. Preparation work is at various stages but no project has started yet.
(a)	Locations are not fully decided.
(b)	The emphasis will vary in different provinces, according to needs.
(c)	The purpose of the projects is to experiment to develop more effective and efficient training methods. Each project will submit a budget before starting.
(d)	None.
3.	A tentative estimate is that the enrolment at any one time might reach a total of 5,000.
4.	No. These projects are directed to the training needs of adults in their home areas and irrespective of age. The job corps is for youths and is a residential program.


RETURNING OFFICER, LEVIS CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouetfe: 1.	Has Mr. Evan Atkinson been appointed as returning officer for the electoral district of L6vis and, if so, for what reason was Mr. Julien Dumont not maintained in this position?
2.	By whom was the new officer recommended?
3.	What is the remuneration, income, or salary attached to this position?
[Translation\


Albert Béchard: 1. Yes. Mr. Julien Dumont is still the returning officer in the present electoral district of Levis.
2.	By the hon. Secretary of State.
3.	There is no fixed salary attached to this position, but returning officers are paid in accordance with a scale of rates established by the governor in council.


LEASE ON CHENOR BUILDING, QUEBEC
Mr. Ricard: 1.	Do one or more federal departments have a lease on the Chenor building, corner of rue St-Joseph and boulevard Langelier, in Quebec city?
2.	If so (a) with whom or with what company was this lease signed (b) what is the amount and duration of this lease (c) were tenders called before this lease was signed and what are the names of the tenderers and the amounts of their tenders?
3.	If tenders were not called, what were the reasons?

Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The Department of Public Works had a lease which became ineffective when

February 27, 1967
Questions
the building was destroyed by fire on January 7, 1967.
2.	(a) Chester Investment Corporation, 683- 83 St. Joseph Street East, Quebec, Que. (b) Two years at $17,000 per year, (c) Tenders were not called.
3.	The department does not normally call tenders for rented space where the local real estate market offers existing vacant space of satisfactory quality at acceptable rental rates.


LUMP SUM FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,635
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Has the government at any time given consideration to the proposition that family allowances payments be made in a lump sum to parents of three or more children with a view to its being used either to make a down payment on, or to afford necessary alterations to, a home providing adequate accommodation for the family?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No.


C.M.H.C. LOANS ON EXISTING HOMES
Mr. Hales: How many loans has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made since the inception of the plan to make loans of up to $10,000 available on the purchase of existing homes?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Since the inception of the plan to make loans of up to $10,000 available on the purchase of existing homes, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has received 304 applications and has approved 71 loans for $692,000 to February 20, 1967.


CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Johnston: Has a date been set for commencing construction of the proposed National Museum?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): No.


INVENTION BY CANADIAN OF CIGARETTE FILTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of the invention by Mr. Marcel Beaudoin of Lucerne, Quebec, of a cigarette filter that is alleged to be most effective in removing various allegedly deleterious substances in cigarettes?
2.	Has the government had a scientific examination made of the Beaudoin filter by scientists of the Department of National Health and Welfare or of the National Research Council and, if so, what was the nature of their report?
3.	If the said filter has not yet been examined, will the government turn it over to research scientists of the Department of National Health and Welfare and of the National Research Council for a report on its merits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No. It is a well known fact that filtration can reduce the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke.


SHARED COST HIGHWAY PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Jamieson: 1.	What shared cost highway projects under the
trans-Canada highway agreement with Nova Scotia were active in 1966 in each of the following counties:	(a) Cumberland (b) Colchester (c) Pictou
(d) Antigonish (e) Inverness (f) Victoria (g) Cape Breton?
2.	In the case of each project (a) how many miles of highway was or is under construction (b) what work was or is involved (c) to whom was the contract awarded (d) what was the amount of the contract (e) what is the total federal commitment?


George James McIlraith: 1. and 2. See following pages:
[Mr. Mcllraith.)
Location
Project description
gj Cumberland county	. Amherst By Pass-Sta 9.3+00 to 210+00. Grading. Pre-Engineering, Design and Supervisor of Construction at Amherst	
Thompson Road to C.N.R. near Oxford. Grading Mahoney's Corner to west of Thompson's Road. Grading	
West of Grunk 4C Oxford to Black River Road. Grading	
Black River Rd. to west of Saltsprings. Grading. Employment of Consultants for Design	
C. N. R. at Oxford to west of Trunk No. 4. Grading and Structure	
MacDonald Road to Little Forks Road. Grading Little Forks Rd. to west of Saltsprings Sta. Grading	
Amherst By Pass-Sta. 210+00 to 311+15. Grading	Colchester county	Black River Culvert, Glenville Brook Culvert. Structures	
Mahoney's Corner to C.N.R. near Oxford. Stabilization 	
Overpass of C.N.R. at Trunk No. 2. Structure... N.B. Border to Sta. 73+00. Grading & Structure. , McElmon Road Interchange, Masstown and Bel- mont Road. Paving	
Employment of Consultants for Design	
Truro By Pass-C.N.R. to Brookside Road. Grading	
Interchange at McElmon Road. Grading & Structure	
Underpass at Belmont Road. Structure	
Underpass at Higgin's Hill Rd. Structure	
Underpass at Masstown Road. Structure	
Debut River Bridge to Higgins' Hill Road. Stabilization	Colchester and Pictou counties	Cove Road to Kemptown Diversion. Grading...Pictou county	Broadway Overpass to Brown Mt. Road. Bituminous Stabilization	
Junction Trunk 6 to Caribou Ferry Wharf. Grading Design West River Station Road	
Saltsprings to Kemptown. Stabilization	
Brown Mt. Road to James River Bridge. Stabilization	Mileage	Contractor	Contract bid price	Federal commitment$	$2.2	Merrithew Const. Ltd	596,975	602,5503.8	Welton Construction Ltd	490,200	423,000 514,8008.4	Welton Construction Ltd	917,675	942,3004.4 3.7	Minas Basin Construction Ltd	
Welton Construction Ltd	528,670 426,500	563,400 463,500 5,6701.3 6.2	Latimer Construction Ltd	
R. K. Chappell Const. Ltd	476,746 845,110	492,300 904,5004.5	Modem Const. Ltd	656,975	685,8001.9	Tidewater Const. Ltd	582,270	537,066Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd...	99,745	112,50012.1 1.5	Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd... Tidewater Const. Ltd	
Tidewater Const. Ltd	292,435 1,068,747.50 331,025	341,424 1,071,000 207,000Warren Maritimes Ltd	75,024	63,450 18,0003.2	Latimer Construction Ltd	458,655	484,200Latimer Construction Ltd	
Latimer Construction Ltd	
Tidewater Const. Ltd	
Latimer Construction Ltd	218,715 109,320 117,570 121,530	182,250 119,700 126,900 136,8006.8	Eastern Coronet Paving Ltd	214,525	252,0005.3	R. K. Chappell Const. Ltd	807,620	867,6008.7 4.2	Tidewater Const. Ltd	
Martell's Const. Ltd	267,270 543,500	328.500 562.50010.4	Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd..	371,016	4,950 432,0005.2	Tidewater Const. Ltd	174,540	216,000February 27. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13491
Questions
Mcllraith.l
Location
Project description

Pictou county (cont'd)..
Antigonish county
Inverness county
Thorburn Road to Sutherlands River. Paving.. Saltsprings to C.N.R. underpass at Alma. Paving
Foord St. to Thornburn Road. Paving	
Underpass at West River Station Road. Structure	
Mount William Road to C.N.R. Spur Line.
Grading	
Engineering-Alma to New Glasgow	
Sutherlands River Bridge to Pictou-Antigonish
Co. line. Paving	
Alma to New Glasgow. Grading and Structure..
Employment of Consultants for Design	
Pictou Harbour Crossing and Dam. Grading and
Structure	
Junction Trunk 6 to Caribou Ferry Wharf. Stabilization	
Employment of Consultants at North Sydney...
East Tracadie Road to Frankville Road. Grading
Design by Consultants	
Havre Boucher Brook Culvert. Structure	
Pellerin Road to C.N.R. Overpass at Auld's Cove.
Grading	
C.N.R. Overpass at Auld's Cove. Grading and
Stabilization	
Employment of Consultants for Design	
Heatherton to Gorman Road. Grading	
Underpass at Beaver Road. Structure	
Gorman Road to west of Old Antigonish Road.
Grading	_[DOT]
Antigonish west town line to Heatherton. Stabilization and Paving	
Gorman Road Overpass. Structure	
Overpass of Railway at Linwood. Structure	
Antigonish-Pictou Co. line to Antigonish town line.
Paving	
Employment of Consultants for Design in Tracadie area	
Port Hastings to Orangedale Road. Stabilization and Paving	
Mileage	Contractor	Contract bid price	Federal commitment
		$	$
5.2 9.2 2.3	Warren Matitimes Ltd	
Tidewater Const. Ltd	
Warren Maritimes Ltd	
228,525 	
346,150 	
148,346	279,900 411,300 189,000Scott Wheaton Ltd	
111,690	125,1003.3	Ronald St. John Chisholm	
492,010	522,000 58,50016.9 6.3	Warren Maritimes Ltd	
Tidewater Const. Ltd	
402,682.50 	
1,640,422	548,100 1,720,800 375,5552.0	Tidewater Constr. Ltd	
4,945,900	3,443,6464.2	Tidewater Constr. Ltd	
135,800	153,900 117,0005.0	R. K. Chappell Const. Ltd	
Pioneer Constr. Ltd	
880,750 	
72,690	960,300 4,140 80,1003.7	Nova Construction Ltd	
687,725	757,8001.3 3.5	Nova Construction Ltd	
Latimer Const. Ltd	
323,530 	
479,990	365,400 4,950 516,240Bernard Chisholm	
112,440	129,2983.8	R. K. Chappell Const. Ltd	
556,820	607,50011.8	Tidewater Const. Ltd	
Latimer Const. Ltd	
Bernard Chisholm	
394,450 	
109,603 	
116,295	482,400 119,700 124,2009.5	Warren Maritimes Ltd	
259,799	342,90014,74225.7	Nova Construction Ltd	
1,056,100	1,278,00013492	COMMONS DEBATES	February 27. 1967
Questions
23033-853*
Victoria county	 CO o CO r CO Ul CO	.. Swamp Corner to Baddeck, West Boundary. Grading	 9.2 Orangedale Road to Baddeck. Stabilization and Paving	 24.9 Swamp Corner to Great Bras d'Or Bridge. Stabilization and Paving	 13.0 Millville to Junction of Gannon Road. Stabilization and Paving	 4.2
Antigonish, Pictou, Inverness, and Victoria counties		. Seeding of Slopes-various	
Cape Breton county		. Nortli Sydney Town line to Sta 31+90. Grading and Structure	 0.6 Sta. 31+90 to Purvis Street, North Sydney. Stabilization and Paving	 0.4
All counties		. Seeding of Slopes-various locations	
* Includes commitment for engineering and materials as well as contract items.
McNamara Const. Co. Ltd	 1,136,300
Standard Paving Maritime Ltd	 987,175
McNamara Const. Co. Ltd	 715,825
Municipal Ready Mix	 201,440
.Day Labour	 13,053.04
Martell's Const. Ltd	 869,815
Martell's Const. Ltd	 506,135.20
Day labour	 33,597.27
1,242,675
1,202,400
866,700
275.400
11,748
878.400 539,100
30,237.54
February 27. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13493
Questions

February 27, 1967
St. Lawrence Shipping


ASIAN COUNTRIES VISITED BY MEMBER FOR LEEDS
Mr. Webb: 1.	What countries has the hon. member for Leeds, representing the Prime Minister, visited in Asia, and what was the respective length of his stay in each of these countries?
2.	When is it expected that he will be returning to Canada?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. The hon. member for Leeds, Mr. J. R. Matheson, visited the following countries with length of stay in each as listed below: Japan, 3i days; Republic of China, 53.- days; Hong Kong, 4J days; Indonesia, 2 days; Singapore, 2 days; Malaysia, 3 days.
2. He returned to Canada on February 27, 1967.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Gregoire: Do the crown corporations referred to as ''proprietary" in the Financial Administration Act promote the recruitment of veterans, and (a) if so, of what does this policy consist (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


SHIPPING
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I beg for leave, under standing order 26, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the situation now prevailing on the St. Lawrence river. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to argue that the matter is of urgent public importance, and that it should be discussed today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe may make his comments on the urgency of discussing this question today.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for the urgency of the debate. First, you have the safety of many sailors now on board ice-bound ships; I feel we must take immediate action, for tomorrow may be too late.

I simply wish to quote a representative of the Danish shipping company, owner of three of the ships at present ice-bound near Montreal. He said:

[DOT]-he was more concerned with the question of safety to his ships than with the money lost digging the vessels out-[DOT]
The spokesman said the men aboard the Danish freighters are starting to worry about their predicament.

Mr. Speaker, the matter is urgent precisely because of the security of the people on board the ships that are trapped by the ice since Thursday, people who at this very moment wonder what lies in store for them in the next few hours.
The same spokesman added, and I quote:

"There's no telling what hundreds of tons of ice can do. Ships stuck in a moving jam helplessly smash into whatever stands in the way."

Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the immediate security of these men who are trapped on the ships.
Another point may help to prove the urgency of discussing this problem today: if no decision is made immediately, the whole economic activity of a Canadian region, namely that of Montreal, will be seriously affected. In this connection I should like to point out what a Montreal spokesman for the National Harbours Board said, and I quote:

"It only stands to reason that If ships can't get in and out of here in the winter, they're going to stop coming," he said.

Mr. Speaker, that spokesman is not now referring only to the three ice-bound Danish ships but also to the three ice-bound Russian ships.
And this Montreal spokesman of the National Harbours Board further stated:

"Many shipping lines have already hinted that their ocean going vessels won't go further than Halifax or Saint John, New Brunswick. Thousands of dollars are lost each day their ships are immobilized."

In addition, the spokesman of the Danish shipping company, one of the companies
February 27, 1967



which most contributed to promote winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, stated:

He added that ship owners who have spent millions of dollars building steel reinforced hulls to trade here during the winter expect co-operation in keeping the St. Lawrence navigable.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, shipping companies are now beginning to talk about not sending their ships and ocean-going vessels as far as Montreal harbour, because the Department of Transport is not doing anything to assist those ships, as indicated by the statements of the authorities I have just quoted.
Therefore, there are two reasons which militate for an emergency debate today. The first consideration is the safety of the many sailors confined on board their ship in extremely dangerous circumstances, according to the spokesman for the shippers.
Second, no announcement has been made, nor has any decision been taken in this regard; shippers may well decide not to use the St. Lawrence river any more, which would cause the economic areas of Montreal, Sorel, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec to suffer serious losses.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the safety of the men and the economy of the above-mentioned areas are reason enough to consider this a matter of great urgency. We have no right to endanger the lives of these men courageously trying to get through in order to develop the economy of the St. Lawrence area, year after year, without the co-operation of the government. I feel the matter is urgent, because human lives are at stake.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with the political opinions of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) but I do agree with him that when ships are caught in the ice we should get them out. I am aware of the fact that he has raised this subject in the past, but I would like to point out that not only is the question of security involved but also winter trade between Canada and other countries whose ships are now trapped in the ice of the St. Lawrence.
The ship owners have indicated that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take some action. If the federal government does not want to assume this responsibility it should so inform the harbours board,
St. Lawrence Shipping which would then have to act accordingly. Under present circumstances there is a security problem involving these three ships which are trapped in the ice and cannot budge, and a very dangerous situation might arise depending which way thousands and thousands of tons of ice might move.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has permitted its icebreaker to move down the St. Lawrence river, leaving these three ships in this critical situation. We are not very happy at the fact that the government or someone has issued the order instructing the icebreakers to move downriver, because it does leave the crews of these vessels exposed to a hazardous situation. We have had enough incidents to date on the waterways in and around Canada, and if we take the precaution of preventing another then this will be one less for the record.
I for one agree on this occasion with the hon. member for Lapointe, and I think we should do something, if possible, to free these ships from the ice.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without
Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this motion on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), and I address my remarks to the urgency of debate. I concede that conditions in the St. Lawrence river channel have been extremely difficult for some weeks, with repeated jams both in Montreal harbour and lower down the channel. It is true that today the jam does extend from Sorel down to the bridge at Trois-Rivieres. Montreal harbour has also been jammed. However, I might say that the ice control structure is in operation and working effectively, and the water level in the port of Montreal has dropped to a point where I am now advised there is no danger to the Expo site.
With regard to the three vessels referred to by both the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), may I say that a few minutes ago I was in communication with the president of the shipping agency referred to by the hon. member for Lapointe, and he tells me that there has been a misquotation of his port captain's statement. He assures me that the three Danish ships have now been freed from the ice jam they were in and are trying to get into the upper harbour at Montreal, so the immediate problem of the jam has been minimized.

February 27, 1967
St. Lawrence Shipping
There are 11 icebreakers working in the gulf of St. Lawrence, in the part of the river around Quebec city and in the Sorel region. There are four icebreakers currently in operation between Trois-Rivieres and Montreal, and we have provided an additional icebreaker which is proceeding upriver from Quebec to the Montreal region.
I might point out that it is an engineering fact that unless the ice is broken and the river kept fluid in the Lac St. Pierre area it would be relatively useless to open the river up at Montreal. Therefore there is constant need all the way down the river to keep the ice moving, otherwise there will be a bottleneck. I have asked the department to maintain full icebreaking service and to anticipate and prevent all danger to shipping. I can assure the house that all suitable and available icebreaking forces are now in action.
On the question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, I need not recall to Your Honour that urgency within the rule does not relate to the matter of debate itself, urgent though that might be-and I have tried to argue to Your Honour that the immediate urgency is under control -but applies to the urgency of debate. I would also draw Your Honour's attention to citation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but so far as the urgency of the matter is concerned I can assure him that my mind is made up and I am quite prepared at this moment to make a decision on the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe. If hon. members think the debate should continue further I will allow the minister to continue his argument.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but lest silence on the part of maritime members be taken as consent I should like to point out that there is one way in which this whole difficulty could have been avoided in the first place. This is by telling the captains of these ships in no uncertain terms that if they had gone to the ice free ports of Halifax and Saint John there would have been no difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. gentleman were allowed to continue his remarks-though I understand he has completed them

we might get into a discussion of the substance.


The only point now before the house is whether discussion is urgent. It is not whether the subject matter of the complaint as expressed in the request of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and seconded by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) is urgent, but whether discussion is urgent. I hardly feel that allowing discussion this afternoon would settle the problem. The hon. Minister without Portfolio, in his comments, replied to the main problem mentioned by the hon. member for Lapointe to the effect that it was a question of immediate security. Since this problem is settled, I consider that the request made by the hon. member for Lapointe should not be entertained.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Labour which has to do with the unemployment which has arisen in consequence of the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement and the fact that people have been laid off in large numbers without having received any consideration.
Would the minister now give consideration to the establishment of a committee composed of representatives of labour, management and government for the purpose of giving protection to workers who are dislocated, either by transferring them to other jobs or by supplying additional work in the industry at the same geographical location? This is something that has been asked for on a number of occasions. In view of the seriousness of the situation, too often denied, and the numbers of unemployed as a result of this auto agreement, I suggest to the minister that such a committee would go a long way toward allaying fear and would give some hope to those who are being laid off.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion put forward by the right hon. gentleman has been put forward previously, as he intimated. I have discussed it with representatives of the unions and with perhaps not all but certainly most of the employers concerned, as well as with some of my cabinet colleagues. At the present time I would not be disposed to take action along the lines suggested by the right hon.
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
gentleman, but I will certainly give the matter further consideration after consultation with my colleagues.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider having an investigation made by a royal commission, to report very soon, into why it is that under this automobile agreement automobiles which are produced in Canada are being sold in the United States at a price a great deal lower than the price of the same automobiles manufactured in Canada?
Second, why is it that Canadians have to pay more for United States made cars than United States consumers have to pay, though the tariff has been eliminated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought up in the house more than once and has been dealt with by the Minister of Industry. I will be glad to refer my right hon. friend's additional observations to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would not consider a commission to look into this matter. The answers given by the Minister of Industry have been simply pushovers, removing the question from serious consideration. Canadians pay through the nose, and United States consumers obtain Canadian cars at cheaper rates than Canadians pay.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does he intend fairly soon to make a statement to the house about the recommendations of the Carter commission on taxation, particularly with a view to setting forth any order of priority the government has established for implementation of the commission's recommendations?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am filled with wonder, on reading the newspapers this morning, that members of the House of Commons have been able to absorb that monumental document and reach opinions so quickly. I must be, shall I say, rather dull.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it will take several months with my inferior intellectual capacity and with the help of my officials before I can reach decisions on this matter or before I would want to make any recommendations to my colleagues.
As I said when I tabled the report on Friday, I intend to let several months pass to allow members of the public who would like to take a serious look at this report, rather than the sort of cursory look which has been taken by members opposite, to do so before I would feel justified in bringing down recommendations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has made one statement with which there seems to be almost unanimous agreement. May I ask the minister if it is his intention to refer the recommendations of this commission to the House of Commons committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, that it may have an opportunity of examining those recommendations in depth and making some report to the house with respect to this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am glad the hon. gentleman now recognizes the need for a much more serious discussion of this matter before opinions are expressed. I think it would be a better procedure, however, for the public to have some opportunity of studying the report, making its recommendations known, and then for the government to put forward its recommendations which could be discussed in the committee. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to do that.
I have said earlier in a number of public addresses and I think in the house that perhaps the best way of proceeding would be for the government, after there has been a reasonable opportunity for discussion, to bring in a bill and have that bill referred, before it is approved on second reading, to a committee for discussion when representations could be made.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like
to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In light of the admission of the Minister of Finance with respect to his inferior intellect, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been able to digest the Gill commission report on unemployment insurance and what the government proposes to do about that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a supplementary question.
February 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can tell the house when he will be inviting the provinces to discuss the contents of the Carter commission report with officials of his department.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not made up our minds yet. I can assure the house that before we reach any tentative decisions on these matters we shall be having a full discussion with the provinces whose interests are very much involved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether he is sure that each provincial treasurer has received a copy of the report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, special preparations were taken at the time of the publication of the report to inform officials of the provincial governments, who were invited to Ottawa for that purpose.


INQUIRY AS TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I was going to say I thought I might have to wait until tomorrow to ask my question, but I think I shall be able to ask it today. Can the minister advise the house what progress he is making with the authorities concerned in the respective provinces regarding discussions leading to the possible adoption of Canadian securities and exchange commission legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That particular question I think should be referred to my colleague the Minister without Portfolio, who has been Acting Registrar General. I can say that in connection with other financial institutions we have written to the provinces asking them when it would be convenient to have a meeting. The matter of securities legislation I think ought to be referred to my colleague the Acting Registrar General.


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, answering the question, we are now preparing for a meeting at the official level and eventually at the ministerial level to implement the answers sought by my hon. friend.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I see the congenial member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) is back from his Asian trip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Leeds are planning to issue a joint press release on the political situation in Asia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I propose to ask the advice of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FAILURE TO MENTION LAKEHEAD CITIES IN ADVERTISING BROCHURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I shall address it to the acting minister. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the elegant and presumably expensive brochure on Canada for distribution to the United States? If so, did he note that the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur were completely ignored? In fact, as far as this publication is concerned the Canadian lake-head does not exist.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that question is so important that I shall take note of it myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he may have a question of privilege to be raised at the appropriate time. This is not a question for orders of the day.


Hubert Badanai: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. POWER


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LOAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
Minister of Finance. My question is based on my capacity for premonition and prevision, and the penchant for publicity of the premier of British Columbia. Has the minister received any communication from the premier of British Columbia asking the federal government for an unconditional $100 million loan for hydro development, guaranteed as to principal and interest by that province? If so, what is the response of the federal government to the premier's appeal for financial assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I received a telegram asking whether the federal government would be prepared to lend the British Columbia hydro and power authority $100 million, subject to the guarantee of the British Columbia government, at the federal government's own borrowing rate of interest. I should add that the request was accompanied neither by an explanation nor by a justification. It will be difficult for the government to seriously consider such a request, without explanation and justification, in what appears to be a remarkable change in the financial position of the government of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question just to clinch the argument, Mr. Speaker, was the 11 per cent federal sales tax in effect when the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia was signed with respect to the Columbia river treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he should ascertain this under circumstances different from the present, that is, not on orders of the day.


AIR POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement outside the house last week to the effect that we could expect immediate action on air pollution, and in view of the assurance given to the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare a number of days ago that the government was studying recent United States federal regulations requiring clean air packages and anti-air pollution features in automobiles, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether these studies have been completed, and has
Inquiries of the Ministry the government arrived at a conclusion that the same clean air features will be required in automobiles in Canada in the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, consideration has proceeded within the department with respect to the use of this particular package, and the tentative conclusion is that at the moment the alleged benefits are not clear enough to warrant action of this kind in Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question, will the government be making an announcement as to why it is not going to require this feature to be made a requisite, and why there will be this difference in Canada as opposed to the regulations which will be applied in the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first point to be borne in mind is that the conference on resources made a recommendation that no action be taken in Canada until there had been an opportunity to observe the results in the United States, and we are not satisfied that the benefits are great enough. Further, it is a very expensive operation, and there is some suggestion that this device acts as a pollutant itself.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Berl Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. It arises out of the advertising of a certain book on the C.B.C. network. Can the parliamentary secretary find out whether it is now going to be the policy of the C.B.C. to go into the publishing business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, if it is urgent and acceptable, should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning his forthcoming journey to the West Indies. While he is in the West Indies would he ask one of those islands to join Canada so we could establish a legislative capital in a more civilized climate? Or, failing that, I have another suggestion.
February 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


SKIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance and urgency of winter shipping on the St. Lawrence, could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government intends to do something to increase the efficiency of winter shipping on the St. Lawrence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been raised and dealt with in the House of Commons, and I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport said about it some time ago.


INQUIRY AS TO ADOPTION OF ELECTRONIC VOTING METHOD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is prompted by my reading of a portion of his excellent interview by the editor of the Ottawa Journal recently. Can he advise the house of his plans for electrifying the voting procedures in this chamber?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I hope our committee dealing with rules and procedure will take up, and I trust that committee will meet today or tomorrow. I have often thought, as have other hon. members, that we could save a lot of time in this way, and I hope we will be able to take some action in electrifying our procedures.


Mr. Brewin:: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to suggest that there should be a supplementary. I doubt whether the first question was of such an urgent nature that it should have been allowed and I suggest, if supplementaries are in order, that they be placed on the order paper.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps I can ask a question later, Mr. Speaker.


COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF HOUSE RULES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the 
Prime Minister which is related to but I think broader and a little more urgent than the question put by the hon. member for Queens. The Prime Minister is reported as having said that the tremendous amount of legislation facing the house made it necessary to reform the rules and procedures in the house by a complete overhaul rather than by mere tinkering. I want to ask the Prime Minister, will the government be putting proposals for such a complete overhaul of the rules of the house before the special committee on procedure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference of the committee in question are wide enough to encompass any proposal under this general subject, however far reaching its results may be on our procedures. I would think the members of the committee are quite able to put such proposals forward, but in the fight of the work of the committee as we go on we might be able to discuss whether the government as such-and I might say this would be very unusual-would put forward proposals.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries of which I have given notice, and I understand he is very anxious to answer it. Will regulations soon be approved to afford some measure of protection to those lobster fishermen who operate in that portion of district 7B other than the north shore of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I wish to confirm that lobster fishing regulations will be amended so that licences to engage in the lobster fishery in the southern Prince Edward Island portion of district 7B, extending from East Point to Victoria Harbour, will be limited this year to persons who held such licences in 1966. Exceptions may be made where there are extenuating circumstances, and each case will be examined in co-operation with representatives of the fishermen.
I wish to add, Mr. Speaker, that no interchange of operations between the two areas will be permitted. Operators licensed for the northern P.E.I. portion of district 7B will not be permitted to fish lobsters in the southern portion, and vice versa.
February 27, 1967	COMMONS


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the poultry market report, and I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Farmers have been writing me, saying that eggs at 21 cents per dozen are not worth the wear and tear on the rooster-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I ask the minister, is he aware-


An hon. Member:: Of the wear and tear?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -of the fact that the statistical average which he announced this morning has no particular benefit beyond what is already provided under the stabilization act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative.


EXPO '67 PROPOSED IMPORTATION OF VESSEL FOR USE AS FLOATING HOTEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct a question to the Acting Registrar General, who I believe is also Acting Minister of Transport. Has he knowledge of the proposal to use the ship called the Florida about which I asked the other day, and is it the intention of the Department of Transport to permit the use of this ship in Montreal for the purposes outlined?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to take this question as notice.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he report any progress in the negotiations to take over the Dominion Coal Company?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been progress, Mr. Speaker, but the negotiations are very complicated indeed. It 23033-8541
Inquiries of the Ministry will be some time before we will be able to make an announcement in the house, but we want to make that announcement as quickly as possible.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a
supplementary question, if progress is being made why is it necessary for the shareholders of DOSCO to establish a purchase price, something for which they are looking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The second question is argumentative in nature.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, further to the question addressed to the Prime Minister regarding the crown company being established in Cape Breton, has any person been chosen to head this company?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The corporation has not been set up yet. When it is we will be in a position to announce the name of the president.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the hon. Minister of Transport or, in his absence, for his parliamentary secretary.
Does the minister know that the officials of the C.N.R. have ordered discontinuation of express shipments to the Saguenay, Lake St. John and Alma, in particular?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be put on the order paper.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister indicate when the new Northwest Territories commissioner will be named?


Arthur Laing: Very
shortly, Mr. Speaker.
February 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL CO-ORDINATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he now have a better appreciation of when he can begin establishing the straight base line coordinates under the fishing zone bill, which he said on February 9 he expected to have within a few days?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With that very definite assurance from the minister, will he let the rest of us know when he will begin establishing these base line co-ordinates?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the government is now giving consideration to sending Mr. Ronning to Hanoi again? I ask this question in view of the interpretation placed on some rather less than lucid remarks made by the minister in the past couple of days in this connection. By what he said or left unsaid did he mean that Mr. Ronning is about to leave for Hanoi?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that. I said previously, however, in this house that if the government felt that any situation not now known to us warranted the use of these services they would again be used unhesitatingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the latter part of the minister's statement mean that no circumstances at the moment are known to the minister which in any way cause the government to feel that to send Mr. Ronning there would be helpful?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easf):: I think my answer is complete.
[Mr. Laing.)



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Last Monday I asked the minister whether the government would consider postponing third reading of the bill to increase the sales tax because of the fact that the Carter report was coming down that week. The minister said "No", but third reading was delayed anyway. Now that the government has the report and in view of its comments in respect of the sales tax, will the government consider postponing indefinitely the third reading of the bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer again is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does "no" today mean the same thing it meant last week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and for the same reason.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Thursday, February 23, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-Short title.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, having been a member of the standing committee on immigration and having had the privilege to serve as parliamentary secretary to two ministers of citizenship and immigration, naturally I am interested in this important and absorbing subject. For years I have given attention to problems and questions in respect of the admission to Canada of prospective immigrants.
In the nine-year period during which I have had the honour to represent the constituency of Fort William, I have consistently maintained that Canada's immigration policies were out of date. In 1962 barely 72,000 immigrants were admitted and we lost nearly as many persons to the United States. That was approximately the situation when in
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
April, 1963 the present government took office. At that time a start was immediately made to give substance to the statement in the speech from the throne which promised that the government would give attention to the need to encourage immigration.
Subsequently, under the energetic direction of dedicated ministers, the mists which obscured the operations of the immigration services in the past began to clear away. Now, under the dynamic leadership of the present minister, we are assured of an immigration policy worthy of this great nation which has the greatest open spaces to be found anywhere in the world. I am sure every hon. member will agree that positive factors have replaced negative motivations with regard to Canadian immigration.
The white paper, which took two years of intensive study involving many changes, has been the subject of scrutiny by the press and the public in general. It has been before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on immigration. This committee has recently heard views expressed by many interested individuals and organizations both in Ottawa and Toronto, and spent three days last week in Montreal. It is about the meetings held in Montreal that I wish to speak briefly. Excellent briefs were presented to the committee. During the time that the committee was discussing a brief submitted by the United Council for Human Rights, dealing with the immigration appeal board, the hon. member for Parkdale moved that the house leader be asked to hold clause 1 of the bill to enable members to express their views at the Montreal hearings. This is precisely the reason I wish to participate in the final stage of debate on this important bill.
First of all, I should like to join those who have preceded me in extending sincere congratulations to the minister for introducing this legislation which can be likened to the appointment of an ombudsman who cuts through red tape to fight the ordinary citizen's battle when he gets embroiled in difficulties with government departments. During the past four years many cases have come to light in which immigrants have had trouble with the law and have been confined to jail for long periods without knowing their rights. Most immigrants do not know the laws of this country and if they run into trouble with the immigration department they are almost helpless. The immigration appeal board should be the answer to any unreasonable conditions or demands made by officers of
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the immigration department in cases of detentions, refusals to grant extensions of temporary permits, and requests for change from one non-immigrant status to another nonimmigrant status.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The brief of the United Council for Human Rights stressed the particular concern about the exclusion from the board's jurisdiction of the power to examine into and determine the justification for decisions, based on criminal intelligence reports which are undisclosed, to refuse stay of deportation. An important point of their submission was to the effect that the powers of the appeal board with respect to appeals from refusals to approve sponsorship applications made by Canadian citizens were altogether too restrictive. I agree with their contention and I also urge the minister that appeals from the rejection of sponsorship applications made by any landed immigrant be allowed.
The Catholic immigrant services of Canada made a powerful appeal to the committee on behalf of sponsorship under the auspices of accepted voluntary organizations. The history of immigration to Canada to date has proven the contribution to Canada and to the immigrant that this organization has made in the past. Their submission made it clear that this organization is prepared to continue to work on a partnership basis with the department. Their feeling is that there should be some provision for continued co-sponsorship arrangements with such organizations.
The general feeling expressed by several witnesses was that the white paper proposes an increase of unsponsored immigrants and a decrease of sponsored immigrants. It suggests that sponsored immigrants generally are unskilled and their educational level is not according to the desired standard. The fact is that the sponsored immigrant adapts very easily under the guidance of his sponsor who, in the great majority of cases, becomes his benevolent protector. As everyone knows, the family ties of most European people are very close and a nephew or even a cousin and certainly adult children or brothers and sisters are considered as being part of the family, even if they are married. This is an important consideration.
With regard to educational standards required for admission, this is considered by nearly everyone to be the most decisive deterrent to attracting the number of people we should be looking for to populate our vast country. Regardless of the number of years
13504	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board an immigrant may have spent at school, the advent of automation makes it necessary to train and retrain several times in a lifetime, and that applies equally to the Canadian born as well as to newcomers.
In this regard I wish to refer to the excellent presentation made on behalf of the government of Manitoba by Hon. Sydney Spivac, Minister of Industry and Commerce, in which he pointed out that the requirements of that province are in the order of 3,500 unskilled immigrants yearly up to a maximum of 10,000 in the next few years. He contended, and I agree, that certain aspects of the policy outlined in the white paper, while claiming to be non-discriminatory in terms of geography and race, do in fact discriminate against the kind of people his province needs today to enable its economy to expand and grow. Rigid admission standards based primarily on education are unrealistic and do not meet the needs of the economy. They are discriminatory rather than expan-sionistic.
The Mining Association of Canada, in a brief presented to the committee, described the difficulties which many mining companies have experienced during the past two years in recruiting in Canada a labour force adequate to maintain their productive capacity, and suggested that the mining industry will continue to suffer from shortages of suitable manpower unless greater recourse is made to immigration and the educational requirements for unsponsored immigrants are modified.
I have a letter from the chief engineer of Canadian National Railways addressed to Mr. R. F. Welch, president of R. F. Welch Limited of Port Arthur, Ontario, the firm charged with the responsibility of recruiting manpower for building and maintenance of tracks, which I wish to put on record. It reads as follows:
Canadian National Railways has experienced serious difficulty during 1966 in securing the necessary labour for major track maintenance programs and new track construction.
There is every indication that the shortage of track labour will become even more serious for the 1967 working season. Next summer, in addition to the major track programs to be carried out on existing lines, track laying will be required on five new branch lines. I understand you have had some preliminary conversations and exchange of correspondence, with the regional engineers on the great lakes, prairie and mountain regions, regarding manpower supply.
You are hereby authorized to recruit eight hundred (800) men for work on track maintenance and construction gangs on these regions of C.N.

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
lines during the 1967 working season. Three hundred (300) of these men can be guaranteed twelve months' employment, but the balance of five hundred (500) will be required for the six months' working season only-May to October.
Please keep me advised of your progress in securing these men.
The letter is signed by A. V. Johnston, chief engineer of the engineering department of Canadian National Railways, Montreal.
I do not wish to take the time to refer to a dozen other briefs and submissions made by responsible individuals and organizations, nearly all of them pointing to the fact that the number of years in school or I.Q. tests or academic degrees do not always spell brilliance or even brightness in assessing the desirability of prospective immigrants. It is not even ability that determines performance. I venture to say that dedication, perseverance or just plain good habits and determination are other dimensions to be considered in gauging a person's effectiveness in any job.
I should also like to say a word in favour of establishing some ways and means to enable immigrants from the Ukraine to join their relatives and friends in Canada. I realize that it is not the government's fault we are not getting immigrants from eastern Europe. Nevertheless, I believe that an approach should be made to the U.S.S.R. for a review of their attitude toward a humane immigration policy which would go a long way to establishing greater and more effective friendly relations between our two countries.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate let me first of all deal with a problem created last week when the committee on immigration held a meeting in the city of Montreal at the same time the House of Commons was dealing with the bill now before us. I think that the circumstances which prevailed point up more clearly than anything else the lack of planning on the government benches with regard to the preparation of the work of the House of Commons. We have heard the Prime Minister and other cabinet members pay lip service to the role committees can play in the preparation of legislation and in helping to make the work of the House of Commons proceed in a more orderly and effective manner. Not only in the immigration committee but in other committees of the house we have seen the spectacle of the House of Commons dealing with legislation at the same time as the appropriate committee was sitting in some part of the parliament buildings or outside the
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
capital of our nation. To my mind this points us the real need of hon. members opposite, particularly those charged with the order of business that is brought before the house, to take another look at the way in which they have discharged their responsibilities in this regard. Indeed, I cannot help but feel that this was an affront to the members of the committee and parliament itself and as such should be noted in the record at this time.
Every member of the committee had to make a choice whether to stay here or go to Montreal. Many of us went to Montreal because we thought we should hear from the people who had representations to make before we came back to the House of Commons to consider the legislation that was before the house. Now we are presented with an accomplished fact; everything in the bill has been dealt with except clause 1. The hon. member for Fort William indicated that the hon. member for Parkdale had moved that only clause 1 be held in abeyance. I do not think this is quite correct. I think the hon. member for Parkdale indicated that consideration of this bill should be delayed until we had heard the representations to be made to us. I wanted to set the record straight in that regard.
The situation thus created resulted in our committee sitting in Montreal almost without any representation from the New Democratic Party. Apparently they thought it was more important to be here in the House of Commons. This points up the whole question of which is more important and where the duty of a member lies. This confused situation exists when there is inadequate planning in respect of the business of the house.
I know that Bill C-220 does not deal with the whole sphere of immigration matters but the hon. member for Fort William said something about the white paper and perhaps at this time, Mr. Chairman, you would allow me to say a word or two about it. I do not wish to deal with this question at any length. The hon. member for Fort William referred to the fact that there had been a two-year study of immigration. In view of the fact that for two years the minister considered this question, when I look at the shortcomings of the white paper, which has failed to recognize the need for unskilled and semi-skilled people in this country and has created a number of other discriminations in regard to families and so on, I cannot help but wonder what consideration was given to this matter during those two years.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
I should like to make one suggestion to the minister with regard to some of the hearings that have so far been held. I urge the minister to consider the urgent need of an immigration officer and office in Beirut, Lebanon. There is a real need for opening an office there. I should like the minister to give this matter his careful and considerate attention.
In considering the legislation before us I am very glad that the hon. members who were here were able to bring forward the amendment which has made it possible for a person making an appeal to have laid before him the information forming the basis upon which deportation was decided. This will give him an opportunity to prepare his defence and lay out his case in a more orderly manner than has been the case in the past. Without saying anything further in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude my remarks.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, in beginning my remarks on clause 1 of Bill C-220 I hasten to thank the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for reopening this clause. This gives the members of the special committee on immigration, who were doing their duty in Montreal hearing briefs from important regional and national organizations on Canadian immigration policies as outlined in the white paper, an opportunity to express their views on this question. It was just and courageous of the minister to grant the members of our committee the opportunity to exercise our right, state our views today and make them known to the committee of the whole. We are glad to have this opportunity to place before the committee of the whole the representations put before us when hearing briefs in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
May I say at the outset that I was the one responsible for the action taken by the minister, having moved in Montreal a motion to inform the house leader that the members of the Committee who were in Montreal should be able to make known to the committee of the whole the views of these important national organizations, especially the views of the United Council for Human Rights which represents no less than 24 very important organizations in the greatest city of Canada.
The United Council for Human Rights is composed of the Quebec Federation of Labour, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the United Nations Association in Canada, the Office des Oeuvres de L'Archeveche de
13506	COMMONS DEBATES	February 27, 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board Montreal, and many other important organizations. I was shocked, and so were the members of the committee, I believe, to hear some of the grievances that were expressed. These grievances are outlined in the brief presented to us. I do not want to take the time of the committee of the whole to read them but they are grievances which merit the attention of the house and especially of the minister. They cry out for the recognition of human rights, because in dealing with matters of immigration we are concerned with the dignity of the human person.
I also wish to answer some of the remarks that were made last Thursday in the committee of the whole. It was said on that occasion that the members of the immigration committee had no right to express the views that we did in Montreal. One of the reasons given was that Bill C-220 has nothing to do with the white paper. May I draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that the new immigration appeal board is mentioned specifically in the white paper in sections 88, 90 and 92. The new immigration appeal board and matters connected with it are also mentioned in the second Sedgwick report on immigration at pages 6 to 10. I believe this is proof enough that the immigration appeal board was a matter for study and consideration by our committee. This has been accepted by the chairman. I believe that these remarks negate what was said last Thursday night, namely, that we had no right to ask the committee of the whole to hear our views about the immigration appeal board.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The briefs which were presented in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal pointed out the necessity of extending the classes of relatives that can be sponsored by Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. This point is dealt with under clause 17 of the bill and I understand that several amendments were proposed to change it and the related clauses.
I understand the difficulty of the minister in trying to satisfy every point of view. However, I believe it is my duty, representing as I do the constituency of Parkdale almost 50 per cent of which is composed of people of ethnic origins other than French and Anglo-Saxon, to express the views of my constituents. I hear from them about many cases dealing with immigration problems which call for humanitarian, moral and compassionate action. I also receive representations on the same subject from all across Canada and they

are also based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, owing to the way in which the department has been run so far, it has been very difficult to obtain a favourable decision in most of these cases in which appeals have been made on compassionate and moral grounds. For this reason I appreciate the fact that amendments have been made to certain clauses allowing for compassionate grounds to be taken into account in the review of appeals.
However, there are other recommendations which have been made in the briefs from important national organizations. One of them is that the classes of relatives which can be sponsored should be extended. According to the white paper on Canadian immigration policy, a Canadian citizen can only sponsor up to an unmarried niece or nephew under 21 years of age. Most of the representations made to me, and I believe to other members of the house, have asked for an extension of the class of relatives that can be sponsored to include first and second cousins. In some cases, requests have been made to extend the class of sponsorable relatives to next of kin.
The reason for these requests is that many Canadian citizens do not have close relatives in the old country but wish to bring their next of kin who might be their fourth or fifth cousin. I believe that the Canadian government should grant Canadian citizens the right to appeal to the board asking for an extension of the classes of relatives specified in the regulations designated by the governor in council.
I make these remarks in the presence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration because I feel it is my duty as a member of parliament to voice the wishes of the people whom I represent in this house. I believe in government of the people, for the people and by the people. We are here to legislate for the people. The people want these changes for which they have been asking for the past four years. If we turn a deaf ear to their demands we will be acting in a rather contemptuous manner. I wish to stress how important it is to listen to the requests of Canadian citizens. I am happy to have been granted the opportunity this afternoon to make these representations in the committee of the whole.
May I also express words of appreciation for the arduous task which the minister is performing. I realize that he has made more progress in immigration matters than any other immigration minister in Canadian history and I want to pay him a tribute for his efforts. I also wish to urge him to continue his
February 27, 1967

work and to take our remarks into consideration.


Mr. Klein:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to intervene in the debate to indicate to the house some of the highlights of the brief presented by the United Council for Human Rights and to indicate that in my view the amendments which were brought forward by the . Minister of Manpower and Immigration during the course of the debate have largely taken care of some of the recommendations contained in that brief. Perhaps some that are not covered will be considered by the committee set up to study the white paper on immigration policy and will be implemented in their recommendations.
I should like to say in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Parkdale that I think it is only fair to point out the fact that of all the briefs this particular brief dealt more exclusively and to a larger extent with the immigration appeal board. Most of the briefs dealt generally with the white paper and did not concentrate in depth on the immigration appeal board to the same extent as did the brief of the United Council for Human Rights.
I should like to quote from the brief to indicate the extent to which the amendments put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration have covered its main recommendations. It reads in part as follows:
We welcome the proposed reconstitution of the board of immigration appeals as an independent court of record with appeals on questions of law to the Supreme Court of Canada and with authority to deal conclusively in all respects with appeals against orders of deportation; and
We welcome the power given to the board of immigration appeals to stay the execution of deportation orders on the ground of unusual hardship and the possibility that the person concerned may be punished for activities of a political nature should he be deported; but we object to restricting its powers regarding appeals from refusals to approve sponsorship applications to those made by Canadian citizens and recommend that there shall also be an appeal from the rejection of sponsorship applications made by any landed immigrant; and we view with concern the exclusion from the board's jurisdiction of the power to examine into and determine the justification for decisions, based on criminal intelligence reports which are undisclosed, to refuse stay of deportation; and we also recommend that the board of immigration appeals be given the power to consider and pass upon appeals in connection with
(a)	refusal of special inquiry officers to grant conditional release;
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
(b)	unreasonable conditions for release and demands for exorbitant amount for release bonds;
(c)	denials to grant voluntary departure;
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
(d)	refusals to grant extensions of temporary permits and requests for change from one non-immigrant status to another non-immigrant status ...
We recommend that change of status from that of non-immigrant to that of immigrant, while in this country, be liberalized to afford relief not only in all cases of bona fide marriage to a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant but also in all cases where undue hardship may be caused by deportation.
We view with concern the minister's acceptance of the vicious principle of "guilt by association" and the granting of extraordinary powers to immigrant officers to make subjective decisions and believe that, unless proper safeguards for review, both administrative and judicial, are afforded and clear and precise definitions are set forth in the act or published regulations, the following proposed categories should not be included in the list of prohibited classes, to wit, "persons suspected of associating with criminals, so-called professional gamblers, confidence men and fugitives from justice who have not been declared to be such by the regular courts of law"; we also recommend that the existing provisions of the Immigration Act which give immigration officers the power to determine whether a person is "likely" to commit an offence or "likely" to become a public charge and which recognize "guilt by association" be reviewed and carefully redrafted to avoid abuse.
We also view with concern the intention to include in the prohibited classes those "attempting to circumvent immigration procedures" unless these ''procedures" are clearly set forth in the act or in published regulations available to the public; and we also view with concern the proposed inclusion in the prohibited classes of those who give "false and misleading information about themselves or their intentions" unless it is clearly set forth that the misrepresentation is wilful and the information is material and relates to immigration matters, otherwise, this power is open to abuse and would lead to "fishing expeditions" into the private lives of individuals into areas of no direct concern to the immigration department.
I am reading excerpts from this brief. Finally, the recommendations are as follows:
(a)	the right to counsel should be meaningful and should be exercisable immediately upon, detention;
(b)	there be a complete separation of officers performing adjudicatory functions from those handling the investigation and prosecution of cases;
(c)	petty offences be excluded from those convictions under the Canadian Criminal Code that are subject to deportation
Farther down the page they recommend:
(g) evidence before the special inquiry officers should have probative value and not merely be "credible and trustworthy in the opinion of the special inquiry officer";
(li) judges be given the power to recommend no deportation in convictions under the Criminal Code;
(i)	police cells and prisons be not designated as "immigrant stations";
(j)	machinery be set up to prevent unreasonable delay in processing cases.
Those are the highlights of the brief. I believe that many of the matters complained
13508	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board of have been covered by the various amendments that have been made by the minister. Those that have not can be covered in subsequent legislation. Many people are concerned about Canada being a satellite of the United States. I do not know how Canada can get away from the status of being a satellite of the United States as long as we continue the practice of discouraging United States investment for manufacturing purposes and discouraging immigration into this country. I do not know how we can ever become a great nation. During the last two years about 250,000 immigrants came to this country and they brought with them $250 million. This is a statistical fact. I have suggested on occasion that perhaps it might be a good idea for Canada to admit a million immigrants immediately so we could redress our balance of payments because they would bring $1 billion into Canada. I feel that since 1957 the Canadian government-I include the present government and the government of the Conservative party-has been over-protective. As a result we have become a nation of re-senters. We resent everything in this country. We even resent each other.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Milton L. Klein: This is true. We seem to want to make progress in this country reluctantly. If there is a difference between 1867 and 1967, I think it would be that in 1867 we feared the United States but we did not resent her. In 1967 the reverse is true; we resent the United States but we do not fear her. Perhaps if the reverse were true we would be a more united country than we are at this time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: You are all wrong.


Mr. Siewari:: Those are harsh words.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let us get back to the bill.


Milton L. Klein: I want to come back now to the question of the immigration appeal board and the hearing of appeals on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I think this places on the special inquiry officers a greater duty than heretofore. In my opinion, unless the special inquiry officers are ready to shoulder their responsibility the immigration appeal board is going to be swamped with appeals. Every single case of every immigrant, so far as the immigrant or the sponsor is concerned, has a humanitarian and compassionate aspect. What is needed in the immigration department is a process of unlearning what has

DEBATES	February 27. 1967
been learned in that department in the past 50 years. The department has to adopt a new attitude. It has to adopt the attitude expressed by the briefs that have been submitted by the different organizations which have come before the committee.
I may say that in view-I may be contradicted by other members of the committee-the country is ahead of the white paper. I believe that the progress made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as referred to by other members who have preceded me, deserves commendation and the highest praise from all segments of the Canadian people. He has introduced for the first time, in the immgiration appeal board, the concept that a sponsor can sponsor a relative of his by right of the fact he is in Canada. I want to add my personal compliments to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the point that has been discussed this afternoon and I can assure members of the committee I shall stick to the principle of the bill. A comment has been made with reference to an incident that took place in the committee on immigration last Thursday in the city of Montreal. I must admit I was somewhat disappointed and frustrated at having to be away from the house when this important bill to set up an appeal board was under discussion. At the same time I felt that the benefit of attending the committee hearings in Montreal would in the long run be of some useful purpose in gaining a wider understanding of the problems of the very difficult field of immigration.
I must confess too that I thought it might have been a deliberate government stratagem to have the members of the house most directly interested in immigration matters elsewhere at the time such an important item as Bill No. C-220 was before the committee of the whole. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, judging from the comments of the hon. member for Parkdale and the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Cartier, there was no deliberate stratagem. It was just lack of good planning and management that the two activities relating to immigration took place simultaneously.
The new approach to the functions of house committees has been heralded by the government as an improvement in the management of the growing complexities of the business of this house. That could be, but unless there is
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
overall co-ordination to avoid the situation which confronted us last week this approach, rather than assisting and facilitating the business of the house, is going to create a further log jam. As a matter of fact, this debate was held over from last Thursday because of the criticism that had arisen in the committee. We have been proceeding now for an hour or so to debate matters that could have been resolved had there been proper co-ordination. I feel that the present operation of the committee system instead of facilitating the business is confusing and aggravating. There are so many committees sitting that it is quite impossible for members to give attention to their respective committee responsibilities.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I can sympathize with the hon. member for Park-dale in his concern because the brief presented to the committee in Montreal last Friday by the United Council for Human Rights pertained specifically to the legislation before the house. On looking at Hansard to review the debate which took place last week in the absence of the members of the committee I find that the United Council for Human Rights dealt precisely with one of the points which were raised with considerable force and skill by the hon. member for Carleton. That was the matter of the reference of security cases to the appeal board. The suggestion of the United Council for Human Rights was that we might consider security cases under the two heads of criminality and subversion and cases in the first category might be referred to the appeal board. I know that the minister put up a strong argument that in cases of subversion sources of information are dried up if they come before an appeal board and are discussed publicly.
This question was discussed in the committee last week and the United Council for Human Rights was aware of this difficulty. At the same time it saw no need for such hush-hush procedures in cases involving security based on criminality. In view of the debate last week this is all water that has gone under the bridge. Clause by clause consideration of the bill has already taken place. Some excellent amendments put forward by hon. members were acceded to and they do improve the bill. At this state an opportunity is merely being provided on clause 1 to make general statements, and I thought it was incumbent upon me to add my voice to those of others who have protested against the lack of co-ordination and the further confusion of our business which has resulted from the failure
DEBATES	13S09
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board of the government to co-ordinate the functions of the committee of the whole and the committees of the house.
Bill No. C-220 to establish an appeal board is an important bill. As I recall, there have been no changes in immigration policy since January, 1963, when very dynamic leadership was given to the immigration department by my colleague the hon. member for Carleton, and I am delighted to see that he has been most active in the course of the committee deliberations.
Perhaps I should add one other comment We had an interesting presentation on Friday last, by a very fine group representing the West Indies, I believe, and they wound up their presentation with that well known French adage, "Plus ga change, plus c'est la mane chose". That was their summation of the white paper as it stands. I am sure that had they looked at the original form of the bill to establish the appeal board they would have made the same comment. As I say, some worth-while amendments have been made, which is an indication of what can be done when opposition and government work together to achieve beneficial results in the most important field of immigration.
I am not going to press the brief of the Manitoba government because I might be accused of being prejudiced in this regard. I am sure that the minister will read it with a great deal of edification because I think it points to one of the great weaknesses in the white paper, namely, that it is oriented toward our urban, industrial, metropolitan communities. The fact is that in certain parts of Canada, so far as manpower needs on our frontier are concerned, there is still much to be taken care of by a dynamic immigration policy. However, this is another matter which lies in the future. We shall be considering immigration in its broad perspective in due course and we will have many more comments to make at that time.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to make any comment on the statements that have been made today? With friends such as he has on his side of the house I do not think he needs an opposition.


Mr. Marchand:: Just a few comments, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I understand that the members of the committee in Montreal felt frustrated when they heard that we were discussing in this chamber the very subject they were dealing with in Montreal. I think
13510	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the members of the committee will also understand that the committee of the whole might be frustrated if all the standing committees sat at the same time and paralysed the work of the house. So there is a problem of organizing the work of the committees and the house. I hope we shall find a solution. It is frustrating for the committee of the whole to be paralysed by a telephone call or by an item in a newspaper. This problem must be dealt with. I understand how the hon. member feels, but I hope he understands how we all feel in the house.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As to the second point, I do not wish to dwell on the white paper. It is not perfect and I hope it will be amended in parts. The educational requirements seemed to exercise most hon. members. I did not invent the educational requirements. They were in the law before I appeared on the scene. We must remember that the bill concerning the appeal board was read for the first time before the white paper was tabled in the house. I hope we shall find more flexible criteria and that in due course we shall obtain the same kind of co-operation in this area that we have obtained in discussing the appeal board bill. I do not wish it to be thought that I am not interested in hon. members' comments, but at this stage I do not think they are relevant to the bill we are studying.
Another point I wish to refer to affects the department and the government. I think the hon. member for Cartier referred to this matter, which also was dealt with in the newspapers. It has been alleged that mental hospitals and prisons on a certain list are used by the immigration department. I must state emphatically that a person appearing at a port of entry with inadequate documents is not detained in a prison or mental hospital. Any such allegation plainly is not true. It is not a fact. Of course, if the person is mentally ill he might be referred to a hospital. If he has been sentenced in Canada he might be sent to a jail shown on a list, but never for the reason alleged. The immigration department does not send a person to a mental hospital or prison. This impression should be corrected, if there is such an impression. It is not the policy of the department and it has never been in the past under any government. We have enough real problems and we should dispense with all unreal problems. I do not know what motivated this rumour, but let us forget about it.
DEBATES	February 27. 1967
Those are the only comments I wish to make at this stage. Again I wish to thank hon. members for their co-operation. Though this legislation is not perfect and can be improved, I am sure it is an important forward step in bringing in the kind of immigration policy that we desire to have for Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the bill has
been substantially amended in committee is it the wish of the house that the bill be reprinted before being read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. It is ordered.



POSTAL SERVICES INTERRUPTION RELIEF ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. S-55, to provide relief in certain cases against loss or hardship suffered as a result of interruptions of normal postal services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some federal enactments impose a time requirement or period of limitation within which something must be done. If a person fails to comply with such a time requirement or period of limitation, other than by his own choice, he may suffer loss or hardship. One example of a time requirement or period of limitation of that kind is found in section 28 of the Patent Act, which imposes a time requirement with respect to the filing of an application for a patent for an invention. If the time requirement is not complied with, no patent can issue for the invention and the invention will fall into the public domain.
It is known that a number of persons missed time limits of one kind or another under the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act as a result of the postal strike in 1965. Although it is likely that all cases of time limits missed under industrial property legislation as a result of that strike have by now come to the government's attention, there is, of course, no way of being certain that that is

February 27. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13511
so or of knowing whether there are cases that have not come to our attention of time limits missed under other federal enactments. Moreover, it is not possible to foresee under what federal enactments time limits may be missed as a result of any future interruption of normal postal services.
The purpose of this bill is, therefore, to provide a way in which relief may be obtained by persons who, because of an interruption of normal postal services, suffer loss or hardship as a result of failing to comply with a time requirement or period of limitation contained in any law of Canada. This bill will apply not only to the interruption of normal postal services caused by the postal strike in 1965, but also to any subsequent local or national interruption of normal postal services however caused. A flood or other local disaster is an example of something that might cause a local interruption of normal postal services.
The bill provides that a person who wishes to obtain relief must apply to a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada. He must also give 14 days notice of the application to the deputy attorney general of Canada and to any other person who he has reason to believe may be affected by any order that may be made pursuant to clause 3 of the bill. In order to ensure as far as possible that the application for relief will come to the attention of all interested third parties, clause 4 provides that the judge may direct the applicant to give public notice of the hearing of the application. By providing in the bill that notice of the application must be given to the deputy attorney general of Canada, it was felt that the interests of the government department or authority administering the law that contains the time requirement or period of limitation will be adequately protected.
The bill provides that the granting of an order will be in the discretion of the judge. However, before he may exercise that discretion he must be satisfied on three points, namely,
(a)	that the applicant suffered loss or hardship as a result of the interruption of normal postal services;
(b)	that the applicant took such reasonable steps as were open to him to comply with the time requirement or period of limitation; and
(c)	that the application was made without undue delay.
Clause 3 also requires the judge to afford to any person who may be affected by any order that he may make an opportunity to be heard
Postal Services Interruption Relief Act or to make representations. Paragraph (d) of clause 3 provides that the judge may make an order waiving the time requirement or period of limitation and fixing a new one. Paragraph
(e)	of that clause provides, in effect, for the making of such further order as may be necessary to give full effect to an order made under paragraph (d). The provision in clause 3 that an order may be made subject to such conditions, if any, as to the judge seem just is intended to give flexibility that may be necessary in dealing with cases where third parties may be affected by the order.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Perhaps I should mention in closing that at the appropriate stage when the bill is before the committee I shall seek an amendment to the bill proposing the addition of one further clause of a procedural nature. It has been suggested to me, and I am inclined to think that the suggestion is a useful one, that it would be undesirable, where an application has been made to a particular judge, to require that all further proceedings consequent on the application must be taken by or before that judge. The proposed amendment would make it clear that any such further proceedings may be taken by or before any other judge of the court in the same way as though the application had been made initially to the court.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Application for relief to judge.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has made the case as to both the necessity and desirability of this legislation and I have only a few brief comments to make in connection with it.
The first question I would like to ask him is whether the bill applies in cases other than patents, trade marks and copyrights? Has he knowledge of other legislation where this bill might be effective?
The second question I would like to ask him is whether this principle of the bill and the proposed procedure thereunder have been discussed with the Canadian Patent Institute and whether it is satisfied that the bill will meet the situation as it applies to patents and trade marks?
The third matter to which I would refer is the question of the time limit within which
13512	COMMONS
Postal Services Interruption Relief Act an application is to be heard. The bill provides that the judge must be satisfied that the application has been made without undue delay. Those words are not too clear. Does the minister not think it would be wise to put a time limit in the bill within which the application would have to be made subsequent to the resumption of normal service?
Finally, may I ask the minister whether he does not think there may be some possibility of similar difficulties arising in relation to other interruptions, for example, an interruption of telegraph and telephone service, and whether the confining of this bill merely to postal services is in fact a wise limitation?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is my understanding that the bill will apply to any situation where a person has suffered loss or hardship by failing to comply with a time requirement in a statute. It is my understanding that the only cases that have come to light come under the Patent Act. Under the Bank Act bills of exchange are instruments that are subject to time requirements. I understand the Industrial Design and Union Label Act is another statute which has certain time requirements. Therefore, dealing with that particular aspect of the hon. member's question, the bill applies to provide relief against loss or hardship caused by stoppage of normal postal services where a statute has a time requirement.
Another question arised by the hon. member centred around the words "undue delay".
I agree that so far as lawyers are concerned this is a vague term. However, the bill provides for the operation of the discretion of the presiding judge. I am sure the hon. member will agree that if it is a question of fact then each case must be taken on its own merits, and what might be undue delay in one case might not necessarily be undue delay in another. For that reason, as it is a matter of fact rather than of law, we used the words "undue delay" and left it to the judge hearing all the facts in a case to decide whether it was an appropriate case.
Another interesting point raised by the hon. member concerned why the application of the bill was limited to interruption of normal postal services and did not include telegraph and telephone services. From talking with the officials I understand that it is only in case of the interruption of postal services that there is any real difficulty and that it applies almost entirely to applications mailed from other countries. Some of the applications would require written forms, possibly with some designs attached to them that could not be

DEBATES	February 27. 1967
transmitted very well by telegraph or telephone. It was felt that restricting the bill to postal services would not impose any hardship on any individual and that the addition of provisions covering telephone and telegraph services would not add materially to the application of the bill. Just as I was reaching for my pen the hon. member asked another question. Would he mind repeating it?


Thomas Miller Bell: Has this matter been discussed with the Canadian Patent Institute and is the executive of that distinguished organization in general agreement with the bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am advised that there was no formal discussion with the institute but a number of the leaders in the institute have been consulted as individuals. The hon. member, of course, is aware that this bill has been dealt with in the other place and that there was considerable public notice of the bill and its contents. No opposition having been filed by the institute, we proceeded on the basis that there was no formal objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether the bill has any effect on loss or hardship suffered outside the government area, for example, if a person suffers loss or hardship in relation to an insurance contract where there is a time limit involved? Does this legislation apply any relief in such a case?
o (4:50 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: As I understand the bill relief can only be granted when there has been loss or hardship suffered by failure to comply with a time limitation set down in a statute of parliament. A private individual, of course, could obtain relief if he, for instance, was filing an application for a patent and because of the interruption of the postal services was not able to file his application in time. That would be a case of a private individual suffering a loss. I hope I have explained the situation satisfactorily.


Richard Albert Bell: In any event, this probably would be a case in respect of which the provincial legislatures would have to act.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I think the hon. member for Carleton has put the case correctly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, is this the point at which the minister has an amendment?
February 27, 1967	COMMONS


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier I seek to make an amendment by adding the following new clause 5:
Where in respect of any application under section 2 any matter or thing is authorized or required by this act to be done or proceeded with by or before a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the matter or thing may be done or proceeded with by or before any other judge of the court as though the application were an application to the court.


Mr. Greene:: I so move.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Perhaps I may be permitted to offer a brief word of explanation. As members of the committee are aware the Exchequer Court judges frequently are required to conduct courts in various provinces across the country. It was felt it might not be advisable to have an application made to a judge while he was sitting in Ottawa because he might be called, for instance, to Vancouver to perform other judicial duties and the applicant, as the bill is now worded, would have to wait until that judge returned to Ottawa before he could take any further steps in respect of the application. The intent of the proposed new clause is to permit a second or subsequent step to be taken before another judge of the Exchequer Court.


Richard Albert Bell: I do not think there will be any objection to this amendment, although I would have preferred to have the minister amend the bill so that the application would be made initially to the court rather than to a judge. If that were the case this amendment would not be needed. There is some danger in providing for application to a judge as such, because it may be that the judge thereby is persona designata. However,
I shall not pursue the argument. There is no objection to the amendment, although a drafting amendment whereby the application would be to the court might have been preferable.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I answer very briefly? What the hon. member says is quite right. It could have been done in the way he suggests and it might have been more explicit in that form. But as I understand it, by drafting it in the way proposed a little less work was necessary on the part of the draftsman. It will achieve the same end.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to
Title agreed to.
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate that the hon. member for Carleton is well informed so far as the importance of this bill is concerned. It now has been drawn to my attention that the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada did suggest that the department make an amendment concerning the points covered by this bill although it did not appear formally as a body to make representations.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Richard Albert Bell: By leave, now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FUND FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act to increase the limit on the aggregate of the amounts that may he paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Fund for Rural Economic Development under agreements with the provinces from fifty million dollars to three hundred million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, royal assent was given on July 11 to Bill No. C-151 to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas. The purpose of today's resolution and bill is to increase the fund from $50 million to $300 million-

When royal assent was given to establish the fund for rural economic development the legislation provided a special account in the consolidated revenue fund and the appropriate authority to enable the federal government and the provinces to join forces in concerted attacks on the problem of rural poverty. The approach was novel and significant in that it called for the joint development and
13514	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act implementation of comprehensive and coordinated programs for regions of acute rural poverty to raise substantially the standards of living of the residents of these areas as well as the economic and social opportunities open to them.
The fund was to be used to provide financial assistance beyond that normally available under the cost sharing provisions of the rural development agreement established under the ARDA legislation. More fundamentally, however, the legislation was designed to provide a means whereby federal and provincial agencies could work together to birng all available programs to bear jointly on depressed rural areas. The process leading to the signing of a federal-provincial agreement for the comprehensive development of special rural development areas involves several steps.
[DOT] (5:00 pjn.)
In the first place, development areas have to be identified. These are areas with readily apparent	problems of widespread and
severe low income, where the economic and social situation indicated little hope for improvement without special action and where there exists none the less a recognizable development potential. Economic and social studies are then undertaken to detail in depth the problems of the area and the appropriate remedies. These researchers can be carried out with substantial federal assistance under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Once the investigations are completed, the province and Canada can jointly draft a comprehensive development plan based on the studies and taking into account the attitudes of the local people as expressed through local committees. These integrated plans provide for a broad range of interrelated projects designed to increase income, raise the standards of living in the area and provide a better adjustment of resources and peoples. It should be stressed here that involvement of local people is built in throughout, both at the development and at the implementation stages.
When this legislation was introduced it was mentioned that studies were in progress in various areas of this country preparatory to the development of comprehensive plans. At that time, none of these studies had reached the point where a comprehensive plan had been finally developed. While we had every indication of substantial provincial interest, we could not yet be certain of the extent to which provinces would wish to participate in

DEBATES	February 27. 1367
large scale in integrated programs for specific areas. This uncertainty, as I will make clear later, has now been substantially removed.
At the time the bill was introduced into the house, we noted that studies were in progress in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the interlake area of Manitoba and the lower St. Lawrence-Gaspe area of Quebec. Since then a new study has been initiated in Newfoundland. On September 20, 1966, Canada entered into two agreements with the province of New Brunswick under the terms of this legislation calling for comprehensive rural development plans for the northeastern and Mactaquac special rural development areas of that province. Northeastern New Brunswick, a region containing approximately 106,000 people, has a labour force of which approximately one-third are seriously underemployed or permanently unemployed. Incomes are just over $500 per capita, much less than half the Canadian average. Investments in social capital have lagged behind, especially in education. Thirty six per cent of the labour force have an education of grade 4 or less compared with 13 per cent for Canada, and only 17 per cent have reached grade 9 or higher compared with 33 per cent for Canada.
The main objective of the plan, as it was developed, is to provide for a major provincial commitment in education to enable the population to take advantage of new opportunities expected to become available in the area. There is provision for profound structural adjustments in the resource sector, to be accomplished by the province standing ready to buy land offered for sale to permit the rural people to benefit from technical and vocational training. There will be development work to assist fisheries; roads will be built to assist school consolidation and there may be some investment in recreation. A resettlement program is foreseen for those who voluntarily agree to move to larger centres to take advantage of new opportunities and social amenities.
The total development program calls for expenditures of $90 million. The federal contribution, including the cost of the manpower program, will exceed $62 million. The contribution from the fund for rural economic development is to exceed $31 million.
In the Mactaquac area, a smaller but similarly well balanced plan calls for a total com-itment of almost $21 million, with a contribution of more than $9 million from the fund.
February 27, 1967
The Mactaquac plan also foresees major retraining, resettlement and rehabilitation programs to go along with resource adjustment and development.
In signing agreements with the province of New Brunswick for two major comprehensive rural development programs, Canada has committed almost $41 million of the $50 million provided by the initial legislation which was passed by this house on May 12, 1966. The legislation provides that when an agreement is signed the funds must be encumbered. At the present time, however, the research phase in the interlake area of the province of Manitoba has been completed and the province and the officials of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development have drafted a proposed comprehensive development plan. This plan is now ready for final review by senior federal and provincial officials and, if accepted, will result in an agreement requiring a substantial commitment from the fund, possibly in excess of $25 million, although the total plan may cost about $65 million to $70 million.
In the initial debate in the house, many members suggested that $50 million was not enough to carry out the program that was outlined as the objective of the legislation. One hon. member commented that almost $2 billion would be required to develop the rural areas of Canada that are subject to chronic poverty conditions. At the time of discussion it was agreed that the initial $50 million would undoubtedly be insufficient to meet demands but that as yet there was some uncertainty as to the reception of this new concept in rural development by the provinces. We now have clear indications of provincial interest. The comprehensive plan for the interlake area may require at least $25 million from the fund.
Preliminary discussions are under way with the province of Quebec based on the report of the Bureau d'Amenagement de l'Est du Quebec and it is hoped that a mutually satisfactory strategy for the lower St. Law-renee-Gaspe area can culminate in an agreement with that province in the near future.
The investigations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland are to be completed this year and agreements with those provinces might be concluded shortly thereafter. The totals of these programs, plus developments in certain areas of Ontario and the three remaining western provinces, will easily commit the balance of the $300 million.
The process through which plans can be developed has been determined and progress
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act has been rapid. We have good hopes that the provinces will now take advantage of the opportunities open to them to assist those rural regions that require special attention. We are confident that we can join together as partners to eliminate the conditions that have resulted in abject poverty for so many rural Canadians. The fund as it now stands is totally inadequate for that overriding purpose. Its enlargement to the proposed size should enable us to look forward more reasonably to the final elimination of rural poverty in Canada.
I hope that members of the committee will readily adopt this resolution.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, we on this
side of the house are not surprised at the minister coming once again with a request for additional funds to augment this program. We were dubious when the act was passed in May that $50 million would be adequate, particularly in view of the vast areas of this country devoted to agriculture. No matter how affluent agriculture may be in a province there are always some segments which, because of climatic conditions and geographical locations in relation to markets will suffer more than others to the detriment of the financial return to those engaged in agriculture in those areas.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When this legislation was introduced we in the official opposition took no exception to it and in fact were in accord with the principles outlined in it, but we had some reservations which we expressed at that time. One reservation was: Why was such an act necessary when one considers all the specific aids outlined in ARDA? Second, we asked how this act would be administered in conjunction with the ARDA program. We were particularly concerned about the joint action of the federal and provincial governments under this new legislation. It seemed to us that the provisions of Bill C-151 gave the federal government much more power to intrude into provincial jurisdiction than was necessary or had been granted under the provisions of ARDA.
We are not too adverse to the actions of the federal government in promoting the welfare of agriculture in the various provinces. I think farmers in general are not too particular where the aid comes from provided that the nature and substance of the aid are enough to really achieve something in depressed areas. But according to the explanation given by the minister today we see that the act allows a more concentrated effort

13516	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act in the way of federal aid in smaller, designated regional areas. It allows the more effective use of government funds to correct what is a very major problem in smaller areas to the degree that the financial return to the farmers or indeed the communities in those areas can be raised.
When this act was introduced by the minister he enumerated some of the things it was designed to do. In explaining the reasons for the act the minister stated that it certainly could not be used as disguised social welfare for any particular reason. He said it was not designed to provide work for the unemployed; this was not the major or principal consideration of the act. He said that the provisions of the act could not be used to support a rural economy whose resources could not carry it once the provisions of the act were withdrawn. If we understand the minister correctly, the basis of the act was to assess carefully the entire resources of an area and develop those regions wherein it was felt the resources could provide opportunities for the people to increase their potential and improve their standard of living. I think in the main this is what has been done.
I had intended to ask the minister what progress has been made in the interlake area of Manitoba, the Gaspe peninsula and northern New Brunswick, because these were the areas he designated in particular when introducing the bill. The information he provided in Hansard at that time gave no reason for mistaking the intentions of the measure. There was no reason for misinterpreting what the minister said on that occasion. He stated that these were areas in which something should certainly be done to improve the average income picture.
It seems that this act and the accompanying ARDA program are being used in a way which means that ARDA provides the funds for the exploratory, information gathering services that are so necessary before any comprehensive program can be undertaken. The minister indicated today that there are now other areas in Canada where initial investigations are taking place, and no doubt programs will be carefully worked out for these areas which will then approach the government for more funds.
We are not going to oppose the passage of this resolution calling for an increase in the fund from $50 million to $300 million. It is not a normal procedure after the introduction of a bill in this house to come back within a year and request an increase in the fund of

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
almost 600 per cent. That is the increase requested in the amount of money to be available. However, in view of the information given by the minister today and in view of the fears we expressed on the introduction of the bill, we feel that the increase is justified. Although $300 million is a tremendous amount of money, when we take into account the fact that it will be devoted to improving agriculture across Canada and realize how costly some of these projects must be if they are to improve the economy of a particular region, the fund is not excessive.
In his explanation today the minister placed a great deal of emphasis on the retraining and education being undertaken in these areas by the provinces. The very low educational standards in these regions is no reflection on the people there. The fact that they have these low standards is due to circumstances which have been forced upon them. We see this measure as the first step to bringing these areas out of their economic stagnation. We believe there is real hope in this program because with the facilities available today in the fields of science and applied technology we can do much to help these regions. In view of the fact that the government is taking the initiative at the federal-provincial level to make available these very essential tools to the people of these regions, we believe that at long last they have the opportunity to face the future with a great deal of hope.
We on this side of the house are not going to elaborate on this resolution because the act, as was indicated by the minister, was passed just last June and most of the arguments we put forth at that time still hold good as far as we are concerned. This is a new measure; it has just become active and a good deal of time will elapse before we are able to assess fairly and honestly how effective it has been. The only question that remains in my mind is where actual responsibility under the act ends and responsibility under ARDA comes into play. When we speak of an expenditure of $60 million or $80 million in one province under a single plan we certainly wonder whether a great deal of this work could not have been undertaken under ARDA. However, the minister will have an opportunity during the committee stage on the bill to elaborate on his explanation in this regard. That being so, I am prepared to allow the resolution to pass.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, having heard the two previous speakers, I feel that the minister will have the present motion accepted without difficulty. As a matter of fact, he acknowledged the importance of the studies and developments which must be undertaken with respect to the underdeveloped areas, and recognized that the funds available for such surveys and developments must be consistent with the projects to be implemented.
I agree with the increase provided for in this resolution and I believe that it will help us to achieve tremendous improvements in our rural areas, which are greatly in need

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
of planning and surveys in order to be efficiently developed. I happen to live in one of those areas, namely Abitibi, where considerable sums are required for the development of the immense natural resources of all kinds.
In a speech delivered to the two economic councils of the lower St. Lawrence region on October 23 last, the minister made the following statement:
The purpose of this program is to help the people living in rural areas adjust to the rapidly-changing economic situation, whether it be in agriculture or in other rural industries. The program is also aimed at developing rural resources, with a view to providing increased income and greater employment possibilities for the rural population, through development projects.
I believe this is what the minister meant when he introduced his resolution a few moments ago.
I should like to point out to the minister -he may or may not be already aware of this-that Mr. Michel Sice, a consulting engineer, recently completed his report on a detailed survey of the Nottoway basin, in the Abitibi area. I have not had the opportunity to read or examine the report myself because it is still in the press, but I have read excerpts which appeared in our Val d'Or and Rouyn newspapers.
These excerpts show that this northwestern Quebec area is extremely rich, that is has been neglected to a considerable extent and that it should have been developed a long time ago.
With regard to agriculture, Mr. Sice noted that no real study of farming possibilities in this vast area had ever been made since Abitibi was first settled, 50 years ago. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that a whole area should be mapped out for farming settlements, without a survey of farming possibilities having first been undertaken or at least having been carried out during the developmental period.
Therefore, I feel that the directors of the ARDA program should, following experiments in the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence region, apply the knowledge gained from these studies and experiments and conduct similar surveys in the Abitibi region, so as to bring about the necessary development and improvement as regards agriculture.
With respect to forestry, the Sice report states that the area can support at least four pulp mills with an annual consumption of 300,000 cords of wood. Therefore, there are
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
great possibilities in the pulp and paper industry. The report also adds that there is enough wood to supply 135 sawmills cutting one million board feet per year.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Supposing that a sawmill with a capacity of only one million board feet a year might not be profitable and supposing that the 135 sawmills were to be reduced by half to increase the capacity of each, there again it is realized there are untapped resources, which, if they were developed, would help considerably in finding jobs for local manpower, particularly seasonal workers.
In the mining area, the same report notes that 1,022 mining companies are operating or holding mining claims. Once again, Mr. Chairman, this means that the vast region of Abi-tibi is teeming with enormous resources of all kinds, of minerals that might be needed. It is a known fact that the government of the province of Quebec is currently surveying the James Bay area hydroelectric possibilities in view of the future or possibly even the early construction of a dam the potential of which might be greater than that of the Manicouagan or even the celebrated Churchill Falls, in Labrador.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that we have everything required to give jobs to the workers of the area. In fact, a large number of people might even be imported to populate this immense area. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, to bring this vast region within reach of the industrialists, the businessmen, access roads are naturally required to open up the area and to assess its wealth.
Now, I would ask the minister to concern himself with a matter not necessarily connected with ARDA, that is, to proceed with the roads to resources program, which has already proved highly successful. I urge him to pursue that development and to consult with the Quebec minister in charge of this program in order to extend as soon as possible the access roads to those vast areas.
Since I feel the resolution before us deserves our full attention, I therefore endorse it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The resolution before the committee, Mr. Chairman, standing in the name of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Devel-lopment asks the house to approve the introduction of a bill to increase the fund for rural economic development sixfold from $50 million to $300 million. I suppose members ought
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act to take advantage of this opportunity to review the work that has been undertaken under ARDA and perhaps discuss these projects with the minister to ascertain whether or not they have been useful. Furthermore, we could ascertain whether or not the accomplishments under ARDA have been anything like the accomplishments anticipated when that legislation was brought into being. I am not going to do that because the many projects that have been undertaken in co-operation with the provinces have not yet reached the stage where we can make a useful assessment of them. I should say to the minister, however, that I agree there have been a number of useful programs undertaken even at this date. I would have to say that what has come about has certainly not been in line with the expectations of the people with respect to this program, particularly when one reviews the tremendous amount of publicity given to the program across the country when it was launched several years ago. I do not believe it would be fair to try to attach all the blame for the shortfall to this particular minister. However, as I said, we should probably look at these projects.
One of the criticisms I have of the ARDA program to date is that there have been far too many surveys and studies and an insufficient amount of action. However, bearing in mind that $50 million was available for all ten provinces, perhaps this was a first step and all the money the minister felt he was authorized to expend on behalf of the federal government. I know that the federal government has not been limited by the amount of $50 million because there is one project under way, I understand, that is going to cost an aggregate of $41 million. If one adds this amount to the cost of other projects agreed to by the various provincial and federal ARDA committees, then of course the total far exceeds $50 million.
I know that all this money has not been spent at the moment. Certainly the total would be over $50 million if we had to pay now for all the projects that have been agreed upon to date. Perhaps, therefore, there is some validity in the position that we should in the first instance make surveys and studies to find out what we are going to do. What disturbs me about all these studies and surveys is this. I am not attaching blame to the minister for this; it is probably the fault of the provincial or even local ARDA committees just as much as the fault of the minister. However, it seems to me that if you do not know what to do about a certain matter or
13520	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act how to go about it you make a study of the situation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The fact remains that there is a problem of rural poverty which in some cases is staring the minister, the provincial ministers and the ARDA committees right in the face. When there is need for immediate action what we do is to launch a study or a survey and it is months and sometimes years before we are able to take effective action.
The only criticism that I make of the minister is that probably he should resist acquiescing in the making of a survey or study of a situation where it is completely obvious there is need for immediate action. I hope we are going to be a little more bold, imaginative and active in setting up programs to deal with immediate problems facing us, rather than relegating them to the subject matter of a study or survey, knowing very well it will be months and in some cases years before we can take action. This is particularly useless in cases where there is immediate need to resolve the problem.
I am not going to say much more, but I do know that in my own constituency at the present time there is need to do something to assist Indians who want to come to that part of Canada to take advantage of the job opportunities that exist there. There is great need for manpower in southern Alberta, and some of the Indians from northern Alberta and Saskatchewan have shown the capability of filling jobs available there. The farmers want them and the Indians want to go there. The farmers also pay good wages.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Are these the sugar beet workers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Some of them are sugar beet workers but they do all the other work which needs to be done in the agricultural sector, as well as filling industrial jobs. I admit that not all these Indians are satisfactory workers at the outset but certainly a very high percentage of them are.
Unfortunately there are social problems involved such as lack of housing and recreation. There is no problem as far as jobs which pay reasonably well are concerned, but because of the lack of housing and recreational facilities, places where these Indians can gather in the evenings when oil work, social problems are created which need to be resolved.
I hope that the officials of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Indian Affairs

DEBATES	February 27, 19G7
and Northern Development and ARDA will get together and provide the capital funds required to build the kind of housing units which will be satisfactory for these seasonal workers. In one town near my constituency this scheme was tried last year and it worked, but the farmers had to undertake to provide these accommodations themselves. The Indian workers all lived in a small community-I think there was only a few families. The farmers had to undertake to provide the housing, to look after the accommodation, to provide some recreational facilities and so on, as well as make sure there was a group of Indians in charge and that there was some kind of social responsibility and discipline in that small community. This was tried and it worked. The farmers and the Indians, I am told, are happy with it.
But this involved only 10 or 12 families. About 3,000 of these people are required every year and there are job opportunities for them from May right through to the end of September. My information is that if these very same people do not take advantage of these job opportunities they are committed to living on welfare all through the year. It seems to me it would be a far more satisfactory situation for the people involved if something along this line was done.
At the present time there is a movement under way on the part of the farmers who have already subscribed several thousand dollars to bring the local community into the whole project. My information is that the farmers were asked to make some contribution to a camp which would provide the kind of housing that was suitable for the Indians, and the response was terrific. We are now waiting for the provincial and federal governments to come along and make their contribution. I understand that the need is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $160,000. The farmers have put up a substantial share of that already but they want some co-operation from the two senior levels of government so they can proceed further with the project. They do not want the accommodation to be substandard or low-grade. These people will be required in this area not only this year but for a long while into the future. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this is a development that could be very useful to these Indian people as well as to the farmers. People who do not have a job will benefit and it also enhances the productive capacity of the irrigated acres of southern Alberta.
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
I do not know whether a request for funds will come to the minister but I am sure a request will be made to the government, whether through the department of Indian affairs or C.M.H.C. I hope there will not be any resistance to this proposal because I think it would be a very useful service to the Indian people who come to this area from time to time. I have had some complaints from time to time from the local municipalities concerning Indians who are loitering on the streets and visiting beer parlours and various other places in the evening. If there is no other place for them to go, Mr. Chairman, where can one expect to be? That is the problem.
I think these housing unit developments require a recreational area and need to be administered, at least in part, by leaders selected from the Indian communities or the working groups themselves. As I said, this plan worked well last year as a very small pilot project and I hope it will be continued in the future so that both parties involved will be able to reap the benefits that are apparent.
I am not going to go on any longer. I hope the minister will take into account the few criticisms I have made, knowing full well I am not making them of him directly. But there are some shortcomings compared with what could be done and with what I suggest was anticipated under the ARDA program. If agreeing to increase greatly the amount of money made available by the house to the government brings to fruition some of these projects and plans to which reference has been made, and which I am convinced will be beneficial, then we in this party are prepared to support this resolution.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us is important and deals with one segment of activity by the federal government which is most commendable. I wish to touch on several aspects of the situation and in doing so I should like to go somewhat farther than the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in regard to the native population of our country.
Before making my comments I want to say something about my province, Saskatchewan, which at the present time is undergoing a more rapid change than any other part of Canada. I refer to the transition from a rural to an urban economy, and to the development
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act of the South Saskatchewan River dam, renamed by the present government as the Gardiner dam. It will have an appreciable effect on the industrial capacity of our province and on employment.
May I deal now with the situation in our northern areas where our native Indian people are suffering from various degrees of poverty regardless of the grants made to them individually or collectively by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wish to reinforce the argument of the New Democratic Party member who spoke of the need to bring the people into the program sought to be undertaken so they may participate personally. The hon. member's remarks apply particularly to the native population of our country. When I think of the various resources in my constituency and in nearby constituencies in Saskatchewan I think of the need to train and retrain people. This applies not only to the young but also to those in the older age groups. Training and retraining will enable such people to take a more active part in the producing capacity of our nation. Many of these people have skills of one kind or another and perhaps through the ARDA program they might develop these skills and produce things, thereby being able to live a better life than they live now. That should be possible without having to disrupt the way of life these people have chosen.
When one considers northern Saskatchewan, the frontier limits of our province, one immediately thinks of the wealth of tourist and recreational facilities and resources of the area. Nevertheless people there today are unemployed and are suffering greatly from poverty. These are the people who ought to be fitted into the development program. They have a place in this kind of development. I hope that the ARDA program in Saskatchewan and across Canada can give all such people their rightful place in our economic and social life. They ought to be brought into the program in such a way that other Canadians will have a renewed appreciation of the part that all can play. If that is done it will be good.
The Gardiner dam and the Saskatchewan potash industry might affect thousands of people who have left farms and are now living in Saskatoon or Regina on limited incomes. I believe there is an opportunity here for the development of secondary industry. I ask the minister not to forget these people and the native people in the northern part of the province when considering the various
13522	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act programs to be brought forward under this government activity.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary are not here to share in the discussion. They must be interested in rural redevelopment programs. That they are not here shows one of the weaknesses of the present allocation of duties to various ministers. I do not detract from the present minister when I say that. This is one of the facts of life. Perhaps this subject is small enough for one minister to handle but all the same it would have been nice to see the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary sharing in the discussion.
I agree entirely that we must take an inventory of what we have before embarking on a program. In a province such as Saskatchewan, where the trend is toward larger operations and where the cost-price squeeze is affecting agriculture, our primary industry, the need for this program will become more evident not only in the immediate future but in subsequent years.
In conclusion I wish to emphasize again to the minister and the government the need to remember our Indian people when considering this program. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has spent much money but when one looks at many reserves across Canada one wonders what has been achieved. Perhaps the ARDA program can restore, to the original people of this country the pride of achievement and tradition that they should be able to have in this nation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this resolution. The impression I have is that so far the province of British Columbia has not been one of the places where the program now being discussed has developed on a large scale. That may be partially explainable by our geography. Our area is perhaps more interesting to the minister in his capacity as minister of forestry. There is one matter in the category of things to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred which I should like to put before the minister. It has to do with what I believe may be a possible joint development under ARDA and the federal Department of Fisheries.
As I understand it, under the ARDA agreements the basic initiative normally has to come to some extent from local or provincial authorities. I believe that along the eastern coastal plain of Vancouver Island small scale ARDA projects could be developed in conjunction or in co-operation with the federal

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
Department of Fisheries in order to reclaim and develop our rather limited acreage of agricultural land. At the same time we might improve salmon spawning channels in smaller streams which in the past have been quite important but which have lost importance through the encroachment of sentiment. I have raised this matter with the Minister of Fisheries and I understand from him that there is nothing in principle to prevent cooperative arrangements between the federal Department of Fisheries and the ARDA administration for the development of projects.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I am rising at this time to make a specific suggestion and to request the minister to have his officials take a specific initiative with the Department of Fisheries in providing a background of factual assessment as to what the possibilities may be. My request concerns particularly the eastern side of Vancouver Island. I suggest that an investigation might include the Cowichan River valley, and moving up north into my own area I would specifically mention the Tsolum and Punt-ledge River areas. Farther north there is a creek known as Black Creek, and I might say that at one time I had discussions with fishery officials with a view to having steps taken to eliminate some of the loss of young spawning salmon which often takes place there because of flood conditions in the spring. According to the local people good agricultural land could be developed through a proper drainage program, but at the time I was told by the Department of Fisheries that the economic benefit from salmon stream improvement would not warrant the cost it would have to meet to provide stream flow control. However, I believe that a properly combined scheme would rescue a relatively small but quite good agricultural area from its present rather marginal situation and at the same time make a valuable contribution to our salmon fishery resource.
I realize that such a program would have to be the subject of investigation and evaluation. I hope the minister will take steps to have that kind of evaluation provided for him by the Department of Fisheries. If this were done the relevant information and a forecast of economic possibilities related to such a development could be passed on to the provincial authorities. With such encouragement and interest on the part of the federal Department of Fisheries the provincial authorities might then be prepared to take a really active look at the possibilities of such projects
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
within the limit of the ARDA program itself and the agreements made between the federal and provincial authorities.


Mr. Stefanson:: Mr. Chairman, I am in full
accord with the purpose of the resolution to increase the fund for rural economic development from $50 million to $300 million. As has been pointed out, when the original legislation was passed we on this side of the house felt the fund was not sufficient. I have always believed that this legislation should have been introduced as an amendment to ARDA as both acts deal with the same types of projects, but I do congratulate the minister for introducing this resolution to increase the fund and for his enthusiasm for ARDA itself. The minister from whom he took over was not so enthusiastic about ARDA and it was during that minister's period of responsibility that things seemed to slow down. However, I know the present minister is very interested in ARDA developments.
The minister is quite familiar with the interlake area. He has visited it on at least two occasions. Last year he attended a successful conference of provincial and municipal officials at Teulon. I hope this legislation will be broad enough to cover a wide variety of projects. As the minister has mentioned, the province of Manitoba has submitted a comprehensive program for the interlake area. He and his colleagues are now studying it. I hope it will not be long before they are able to approve it and sign the appropriate covering agreement.
I believe the minister mentioned that the cost of the over-all project would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $65 million or $70 million and that possibly $25 million would be made available from the federal fund. We are very happy about this and we hope that education and retraining will be included in the project. Many development committees have been working in the interlake area and have done a great deal of work. Nearly all of them have mentioned education and retraining as the No. 1 priority. Sometimes the interlake area has been referred to as a depressed region. I have never felt that it is. In my opinion it is an underdeveloped area. It has great potential, and with co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities I believe the area will move forward and provide a higher standard of living for the people living there.
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act
Some hon. members have mentioned the native population. So far as I know representatives of the native population in the interlake area have served on a number of the area's development committees, and I am sure consideration is being given to their problems.
Last year Lake Winnipeg was at an all-time high level, which created many new problems. I am hoping that under the proposed agreement something can be done to solve some of those problems. The area is different from many others. It contains many miles of beaches and we certainly must develop more recreational facilities. There are many opportunities in the area for that type of development and we shall have to provide such facilities for both winter and summer. At present there is a pattern whereby people earning average incomes or above average are acquiring second homes. These used to be known as summer homes but now more and more of their owners are using them in wintertime. Therefore we have to think along the lines of developing recreational facilities for wintertime.
I may have one or two questions to ask at a later stage but at the moment I am pleased that the minister has announced that the agreement with the province of Manitoba covering the interlake area will soon be ready for signing. The only complaint I have received from people serving on the local development committees is that they have been discouraged by the length of time it has already taken to get things going. I know that many extensive surveys have been carried on in the interlake area which no doubt were necessary in order to obtain the required information. I and everybody in the area will be happy when the agreement is signed and the actual projects are undertaken.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, if I may I should like to make a few brief observations with regard to the resolution before us. I accept the invitation to speak from my hon. friends directly across from me. The minister referred to the areas of eastern Canada which will be considered under the legislation. I long have felt, when the government of Canada is willing to spend such amounts of money as will be available under this legislation, that a hydraulic study of the St. Lawrence waterway would be a very valuable project to undertake. As I understand it, some persons who are knowledgeable in the field of hydraulics believe that the change in the flow of the St. Lawrence, which has had an effect
13524	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act on man-made structures along the waterway, has also had a very undesirable effect on the fertility of the maritime provinces. They believe that the character of the area and its ability to produce have been changed in that the climate has changed from what might be referred to as a maritime climate to a continental climate.
I understand that it would not take a tremendous amount of money to solve this and other problems which are not necessarily related to the field of agriculture. Because this matter is so important and because I am sure the minister is interested in that area of Canada I hope that he will take this matter to heart and do something practical about it. I know that in the past there have been very divergent views among the engineers in the various departments of government concerning the St. Lawrence waterway and therefore the good results which this waterway could produce for the maritimes have not been forthcoming. I wished to make this point.
I should also like to say that I think there is a relevancy between what the minister is endeavouring to do and what the Minister of Industry has done in respect of the designated area program for Canada. I believe that diversification of industry to a degree in some of the rural areas would be as advantageous as it is in some of the places the minister has in mind. This would help retain the local population who otherwise would have to go to the urban centres in order to find jobs and earn a livelihood. I should like to impress this point on the minister and ask him to consider having a study made in this regard. I believe that if this matter were considered, having in mind the goals and the money to be spent, this would bring about a valuable result.
In speaking for the people whom I have the privilege to represent I might say I am sure that if this were done in the rural areas of Bruce county, Grey county and some of the other areas close by, the minister would not have to be interested in these areas from an agricultural point of view. The Minister of Industry has been very dogmatic in his position when I have requested that he include some of these fringe areas in the coverage of the designated area provisions. I hope that the minister in the implementation of this legislation will consider the points I have raised.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to tell the minister that I am sorry I was not

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
here when he made his comments, and above all to give him the encouragement which he deserves.
In the measure now before us, the minister certainly took the necessary steps to do the task assigned to him. If I am not mistaken, this bill is partly based upon and constitutes a continuation of ARDA. We also know that the minister spent a lot of time and energy to see that ARDA would give a part of the population, and particularly the unemployed and the most needy, the help they need.
The minister will undoubtedly have an opportunity while doing some interesting work to make a name for himself since he will be spreading a little prosperity in all the regions which need it.
I am sure that the Quebec minister of agriculture understands the problem very well and that, like the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), he wants very much to help the rural people.
Everyone knows that the rural sector plays a very important role in our country's economy; in fact, I think that no economic progress can be achieved if it is ignored. There are so many sectors in the rural economy, namely agriculture, fisheries and forestry. In my opinion, to overlook those various branches would risk jeopardizing any work undertaken by the minister in those different fields.
I know that the minister is determined to succeed and is sparing no effort to obtain good results. I want to assure him that we, on this side of the house, are keeping an eye on his activities, not for the purpose of criticizing him, but because we look favourably on him and want him to accomplish even more. Knowing the feelings of all members, I am sure that if we co-ordinate our efforts, we shall surely be successful.
I take this opportunity to call his attention to a problem of capital importance, that is the problem of fresh water, of drinking water in the province of Quebec as well as in the other parts of the country. This is one of the great resources we have and we are wasting it without due consideration. I would even suggest that we are consuming our fresh water too freely, and unless measures are taken, sooner or later, we are bound to regret the excessive and inconsiderate use of the fresh water we have.
If my information is right, I believe the province of Quebec controls nearly one fifth of the fresh water supply of the globe. This, of course, means that we are in a favoured
February 27. 1967	COMMONS
position and that we should take care of this resource, so as not to pollute the waters of our lakes and rivers to the detriment of our population.
I know that the minister will wish to pay some attention to that natural resource and, as far as we are concerned, he can be assured of our full co-operation.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the minister for asking the house to provide additional funds to further the implementation of the ARDA program. In the past I have stressed the desirability of using this program to improve agricultural lands on Indian reservations. In southwestern Ontario there are several reservations which contain some of the finest land in that area. These lands could be made very productive to the great benefit of the residents and the economy of the country if modern agricultural techniques were employed. Such techniques cannot be employed without first providing drainage for the lands. If these lands can be drained and proper fertilization effected they would be more productive than any other land in the area. When these additional funds are made available I hope the minister will not lose sight of the requirements in respect of agricultural lands located within these Indian reservations.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, at the resolution stage, I should like to call the attention of the minister responsible for ARDA to the desirability of introducing a measure to increase the amounts available to develop special regions. About this special program, referring to the catalogue of ARDA projects,
I note that western Quebec, which includes the constituencies of Pontiac, Gatineau, Hull and Papineau and the provincial county of Labelle, seems to have been overlooked. I do not want to blame the minister responsible for this program, for I know that the initiative must come from the province under the act passed in 1961.
I also note, sir, that under that act the federal government may take certain initiatives in the field of research and studies.
Last year, in 1966, the four ridings located in western Quebec formed an economic council. Very recently, the county of Labelle also established an economic council.
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act
Among other undertakings, under ARDA it contains provision for an inventory of information and data regarding a comprehensive development program for the area; pilot studies in the western part of Quebec, with a view to working out a development program for outdoor recreation; of rational utilization of forest and agricultural resources, along with the setting up of a series of provincial camp sites in the western part of Quebec.
So far, Mr. Chairman, according to the information I have received, only two projects have been implemented in that area since the beginning of the ARDA program, in 1962; one of these is the Rouge valley survey. Here are some of the recommendations contained in this 2,000 page report: an 850-acre community pasture for sheep raising purposes in Marchand district; planting of 25 million trees over a 25,000 acre area, at an approximate cost of $1,300,000; construction of a 38-mile highway between Saint-Sauveur-des-Monts and Saint-Remi d'Amherst; a tourist centre for Saint-Remi d'Amherst; a tourist trail in the Laurentians; setting up of a series of camp sites; establishment of a fish hatchery station; construction of a technical and vocational training centre for retraining rural workers.
Mr. Chairman, I need not urge the necessity of taking action on the minister responsible for this program, for he is aware of the needs of western Quebec and Labelle riding. I am sure that these areas will be included in future undertakings.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sauve thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-274, to amend the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-274, to amend the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act.
On clause 1-Limitation.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee will note that this must be one of the shortest bills ever introduced in this house. In fact, the object is to replace one figure, $50 million, by another figure, $300 million. This will increase the fund for rural economic development from $50 million to
13526	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act $300 million. It is expected that the total cash payment from the fund in any one fiscal year will not exceed $40 million. The fund will be increased from $50 million to $300 million, but we cannot commit funds for special rural development agreements unless parliament has already voted the necessary amounts.
When the first bill was introduced in the house last spring, I for one and most of the hon. members of this house mentioned that the amount of $50 million was small and we could expect large calls on the fund from the provinces. This has happened, as expected. One of the reasons the fund was limited to $50 million in the first bill was that at that time we did not have any precise figures about the cost of other programs that were to be developed. Since then as I mentioned at the resolution stage, we have proceeded with negotiations, with many of the provinces and we now know we will have to commit $250 million more in the next two years for rural development programs.
Some hon. members have asked, especially the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), why it is that the ARDA agreement is not sufficient to cover these rural development programs. There are many reasons for this, and I will enumerate a few. The first reason is that ARDA applies everywhere in Canada, that is, to any rural areas, while this fund applies only to certain specific regions where there is a concentration of low income families and where the income is usually half, or less than the average income for families across the nation.
The second reason for having this fund rather than an extension of the normal ARDA program is that under the ARDA program the provinces have an annual allotment. The third reason is that under the ARDA program and its agreements the federal government's contribution is limited to 50 per cent of the cost of any project. Under this fund for rural economic development the federal contribution can go up to 100 per cent of the cost of a project. Under the ARDA program we are committed to 5-year programs or projects. Under the fund for rural economic development we can commit the federal government's contribution for 10 years. Those are some of the reasons why we felt-and I explained this to the house-there was a necessity for this fund.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat said that he thought there was too much research and not enough implementation in respect of this program. The catalogue of the programs

DEBATES	February 27. 1967
of the ARDA administration has been distributed to all hon. members of the house and the public in general. This document deals with projects undertaken in 1962-65 and 1965-66. While the hon. member for Medicine Hat was speaking I glanced at the projects that had been accepted by or were being implemented in the province of British Columbia. I do not want to have an argument with the hon. member, but in the province of British Columbia in the years 1963-65, the first term of the ARDA agreement, 35 projects were accepted for a total shareable cost of $3.7 million. If one looks at the list of projects he is surprised at the very limited number of research projects undertaken in the province. They are mostly concerned with the development of marginal land and the maintenance and improvement of agricultural production. There are projects listed to improve storage capacity for a reservoir, the reconstruction of a dam to increase productivity, to improve soils, and so on and so forth. There are listed very few research projects, at least in that province. If I look at the same document for the year 1965-66 I am amazed to see the extraordinary expansion in British Columbia. Shareable cost programs in British Columbia have increased in one year to $9.4 million, while in the first three years we committed only $3.7 million. So in that province, as in all other provinces, the ARDA program is picking up.
I will undertake to have the ARDA administration prepare for hon. members of the house and the general public an account of all the projects, by categories that is, soil, water conservation, research, rural development and so on so that hon. members will be able to judge for themselves exactly what has been done under this program. As hon. members know, the ARDA catalogue gives the description of each of the projects, but it does not classify them under various headings for the provinces. I think such a classification would be very useful. In this respect a good suggestion was made earlier. It would be useful because many people in this country are under the impression, and some people outside the house have made speeches to this effect, that ARDA is too much of a research program, and I think such a list would tend to prove that we have committed and spent very large sums of money on concrete projects, and not only on research. I do not think we have so far committed more than 10 per cent of our total funds on research; 90 per cent has been committed and the amount spent on various projects.
February 27, 1967
Some hon. members have talked about the native people and their involvement in this program. When we adopted the amendment to ARDA last spring I mentioned that for the first time under the new agreement, which will cover the period April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1970, the provinces, under article 11, may apply ARDA programs to Indian lands and Indian people. This was an innovation. I am pleased to report that some provinces have already embarked upon projects under which the native people are benefiting from the ARDA program.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We would be pleased if we could secure the appointment of a metis or an Indian to direct the program in the interlake region. I share some of the views of the hon. member for Selkirk regarding the involvement of the metis people. We will start recruiting people for the program in the interlake region as soon as we have signed the agreement with the province of Manitoba. As hon. members know, a federal director and a provincial director will be appointed, and if, with the help of the Civil Service Commission, we can secure the services of a metis or an Indian, we would be well satisfied because I understand that about one third of the population in the interlake region is of metis or Indian origin. We want the local people to be ininvolved in the program. This has been so in all the regions where we are now implementing rural development programs. The program is complex but we have been satisfied with the results so far.

The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) just remarked that the approval of projects rests upon the provinces. Therefore iri the case of the valley of the Rouge river and of other areas, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, we must await provincial proposals.
There is a tendency to believe that the province is not willing to approve or to carry out such or such program. It is not only a matter of willingness; it is a financial matter. It happens very often that the province- I do not refer specifically to the province of Quebec because that applies to all Canadian provinces-having allocated or decided to allocate a certain amount for the ARDA program, is forced, because of the great number of projects submitted, to put off the execution of certain projects it wished to submit to federal authorities. I know that in the valley of the Rouge river, for instance, the minister
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act of tourism is extremely concerned with the development of tourism in that area of the province of Quebec.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members agree on the necessity to increase this fund from $50 to $300 million. I also think that the work we have done is going forward at an increasing speed. This work is worthwhile, and while we cannot presume to settle all problems in rural areas covered by the fund for rural economic development, it seems obvious that, within the next five or ten years, when these projects have been implemented as they were designed, the people living in these rural areas will be better off. In fact, there is every reason to believe that through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments, we will have brought a valuable contribution to this war on poverty about which we have been talking for so long.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I think all of us on this side of the house share the minister's enthusiasm for the bill before us. I will not dwell too much on its purposes, but I think it should be pointed out that the minister has accomplished a feat which is somewhat rare in parliamentary history. The accomplishment lies in the fact that on June 21 the house passed the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act, and in the same session we are presented with amendments to that act. There are probably reasons for this, one of which may be that it looks now as if this session will never end, and undoubtedly the second reason is the fact that the provincial governments, with whom cost sharing arrangements and agreements have to be worked out, have had the advantage of completing one, perhaps two, sessions of their legislatures since the act was originally introduced.
May I also say by way of some criticism that it would appear that somebody had not quite done the necessary homework because the original sum of $50 million has now been succeeded by one of $300 million. At one time it used to be great fun for Conservative and other non Liberal campaigners to quote or misquote the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe's remark "What's a million?"
However, here the minister has, in a very quiet way and in a very small house-one more member was present in the national defence committee than here, in this much larger chamber-succeeded in outdoing the late Mr. Howe's pronouncement of the day.

13528	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act
I think perhaps it could be pointed out that at one time parliamentary practice did not allow us to amend a bill that had been passed in the same session, the amendment had to wait tor another session. However, this shortsighted government may thank heaven that the Interpretation Act permits the procedure we are following this evening. I would like to compliment the minister on the positive purposes of the act. Although I do not want to throw any cold water in his direction I think he will be very pleased to know that he is one of the very few people in this chamber who is making parliamentary history by following the procedure which we have now adopted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous speaker. All I want to say in that connection is that, according to our experience since the bill was passed in the first instance, the minister was quite right in raising by $250 million the amount that can be provided for this program. I want to thank the minister for his explanation of the program, to date, and on the procedure in its development.
I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat showed himself to be less well informed than he usually is on these questions when he complained about the amount of research, because I think it is well in balance with the purpose of the program. However, I would like the minister to explain to the house what procedures will be used in the development of this program. Could he tell us for instance what approach will be taken with regard to the provincial governments, to the communities and to the farmers organizations? I mention this because I have one criticism to make of the minister's department, so far as the district which I have the honour to represent is concerned. I am referring to the taking of land inventory under ARDA. The gentlemen who did this work stole in silently during the night, as it were, and proceeded to do their work under cover, so that information was difficult to obtain even from the local newspapers. People were even writing to me and asking me what these people were doing in the district.
I suggest that the program is of such great value that every effort should be made to inform local people of what is being undertaken, whether it is a land inventory or some research in connection with the development of a certain project under this act. The only failure I can mention in connection with these programs, to date, is the failure of the officials of the department to take advantage of the

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
publicity in connection with the work they undertake in any particular area or region. I believe that the local people usually co-operate once they understand what is being undertaken. I found in the instance that I mentioned that people were mystified as to what was going on. I actually asked the minister on one occasion, on the strength of a number of inquiries from various nersons and organizations, what a land inventory meant and under what branch of the government it was being undertaken, s (6:50 p.m.)
This is the only criticism I have to make with respect to the administration of the ARDA program. I want to make one other suggestion. It might be a good idea when the minister's officials visit the district to address the chamber of commerce, not on government policy but on the administration of this act, or to address farmers' organizations or women's organizations-which I am sure they would be very pleased to do if they saw the women in my constituency. This would result in getting as much information as possible about the application of this act to the people it is intended to serve.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the minister if he would make some reference to the brief contribution I made about the effects of the climatic changes, particularly in the Gaspe area, as a result of the hydraulic changes in the St. Lawrence. Has there been any thinking in his department in this regard?


Maurice Sauvé: I have taken note of the remarks made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, but I could not decide if this subject came under the authority of the ARDA administration or the authority of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. For this reason, I did not refer specifically to his remarks, as I desire to consult with officials and then perhaps write to the hon. member to give him the information.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is fine.


Maurice Sauvé: In so far as the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West are concerned, I must say that so far the ARDA administration has been very discreet about publicizing its activities or the results of its work. We intend, in the coming fiscal year, to embark on a program of information to all the people of Canada, telling them what we
February 27, 1967
are doing, either under the Canada land inventory, the ARDA administration or the fund for rural economic development. As you know, there is in existence the Canadian Council for Rural Development in which all the major organizations are represented and through which continuous contact is established with these organizations. This council is about to present its annual report to parliament and make its comments on the ARDA administration.


Mr. Enns:: The minister referred to the fact that there was some delay in coming to an agreement with the provinces because there had been no regional directors appointed. Was I correct in that understanding?


Maurice Sauvé: No, I did not say that at all. Where an agreement is signed between the province and the federal government for a special rural development region, as in the interlake region, we would appoint a federal director for administrative purposes and the provinces would do the same for their share of the program.


Siegfried John Enns: This, I take it, is not what is holding up the signing of the agreement in the interlake area?


Maurice Sauvé: No, there are many problems in the interlake region. The federal and provincial authorities have been negotiating an agreement, which is being reviewed now by a committee of officials at the federal-provincial level. I hope that in the next four to six weeks we would be ready to proceed with the final document at both levels, the provincial and federal cabinets. This agreement has to be authorized by both cabinets, and then we can proceed with the official signatures to the agreement.


Siegfried John Enns: It is a source of some chagrin to me that it has taken so long to arrive at this point in Manitoba. Even the promise of reaching an agreement will be delayed for six weeks. This seems a long delay when you think of the agreement that was signed in New Brunswick and other areas of the country. I am wondering if Manitoba is being left behind.


Maurice Sauvé: No; one must remember it took many months to prepare the northeast New Brunswick agreement. There has been no undue delay in the case of the interlake region, but the procedure used to establish the plan was different. In northeast New Brunswick,
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act we had a task force which proceeded in a different manner than that followed in the interlake region, where there was a provincial government working group studying the many problems. The report of this group was presented to us, and after that, you will recall, that parliament voted the funds for rural economic development. Then we entered into negotiations with the province. We have to be very specific in what we want to have, how it is going to be paid for and who will be responsible. I have seen the final draft of the agreement, and my understanding is that we should be able to proceed as I mentioned earlier.


Eric Stefanson: I have a brief question for the minister, but first I want to express my appreciation of the attitude he has adopted toward the interlake region. He did say the department would be prepared to consider hiring people from this area. Reference was made to the fact that the total cost of the agreement signed with New Brunswick would be $90 million, of which $31 million was coming from the fund but the federal contribution would be $52 million. Is the difference between the amount contributed by the federal government and the amount contributed toward the project coming from ARDA funds?


Maurice Sauvé: It is partly coming from ARDA funds and partly coming from funds for specific programs in each department. The member will notice that the brochure called, "Northeast New Brunswick", which was distributed to all members, a breakdown is given of these contributions on pages 38 and 39. There will be $2.3 million coming from ARDA funds; $24 million from the fund for rural economic development; $25 million from the Department of Manpower and Immigration; $3 million from Central Mortgage and Housing and $34 million from the province itself.


Eric Stefanson: The minister said that the interlake agreement would probably involve a total of $65 million to $70 million, of which approximately $25 million would be coming from the fund. Will there be some other federal money flowing to that project?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes; some will come from the ARDA fund and some will come from the specific departments of the federal government that have responsibilities in that region.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have a brief question I should like to pose to the minister. He referred to discussions between various mem-

13530	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act bers of the provincial and federal governments concerning the sharing of costs and he also indicated that the federal government could undertake a project on its own initiative. Could the minister indicate roughly just what yardstick is used when federal participation is considered, whether it be 20 per cent or 60 per cent?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Before the minister replies to that question perhaps I might be permitted to outline the business on the adjournment motion: First, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai); trade-failure to mention lakehead cities in advertising brochure; the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard); Canadian National-reporting cancellation of express services in Saguenay; the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Bower); transport-second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England.
It being seven o'clock, pursuant to an order of the house made February 20, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. It may be possible to dispose of this in a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: Order.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. When the committee rose at seven o'clock the minister was about to answer a question.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for dinner the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), asked me whether I could indicate roughly just what yardstick is used when considering federal participation in the fund for rural economic development. Much depends on the nature of the project in a specific region and on the importance being attached by both authorities as to the urgency of the implementation of a specific project. There is really no precise yardstick; it is a question of the importance of a project in the total rural development plan and the easiest way of financing it, either provincially or federally. It varies from one region to another.
[Mr. Danforth.l
DEBATES	February 27, 1967


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, before asking my question, I should like to express the great satisfaction felt by the hon. member for Bona-venture, and the inhabitants of the pilot area generally, concerning this resolution which will increase the funds for rural development.
I know the hon. minister is closely associated with the economic studies undertaken in the pilot area of the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen Islands under the ARDA program by the Eastern Quebec Development Board, known as the E.Q.D.B.
The hon. minister is also most anxious to see implemented the project handed over to the provincial government last summer, on July 17, during a ceremony attended by the federal minister. Above all, the minister wishes to reassure the population which has high hopes with regard to this program.
Can he tell us what proportion, as a result of this discussion with the provincial minister concerned, of the $250 million will be spent on implementing this E.Q.D.B. project? As the hon. minister knows, implementation of the whole project could cost much more than those $250 million.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, it is too early to foresee exactly what amounts will be allotted by the fund for rural economic development to make the area development program for the lower St. Lawrence, Gaspesia and the Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
But it may be presumed, in view of our negotiations with other provinces, that the over-all federal contribution will represent between 60 and 70 per cent of the total cost of similar programs. What portion of the federal funds will come from the fund for rural economic development it is absolutely impossible to say precisely.
What we do know, however, is that the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau program comprises a development plan which was handed over to the provincial and federal governments last summer. Implementing the initial phase of this development program represented outlays of roughly $250 to $300 million for both the provincial and the federal governments. If those figures are accurate, and all depends on current negotiations between the two governments, we could expect the federal government to contribute from 60 to 70 per cent of the total amount of $250 to $300 million. But as several of the projects referred to such as transportation and public works
February 27, 1967
projects, will be implemented under the direct responsibility of federal departments, and as certain other projects will be financed under a regular ARDA program, that is by a 50 per cent federal contribution and a 50 per cent provincial contribution, there will be left to determine what portion must be financed through the fund for rural economic development we are now referring to. It is really too soon to give precise information about that contribution.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, shortly before the adjournment, while talking of the Rouge river valley, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development said that the minister of tourism was interested in it. I imagine this is the Quebec minister of tourism?
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to join my colleague from Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) in thanking the minister for the benefits the ARDA program has brought to the province as a whole. However, I cannot add my thanks as far as western Quebec and my riding of Labelle are concerned, because my remarks are based on the list of projects. Western Quebec and the riding of Labelle have not benefited so far from projects carried out under ARDA. The minister said that this area and the riding of Labelle could undoubtedly benefit from the ARDA program but that it was a matter of budget as far as some projects are concerned.
However, since the ARDA program has been in operation, I notice that the province of Quebec is the one which has benefited most from it because as of March 31, 1966, under the ARDA program $98 million had been allocated, out of which $28 million went to the province of Quebec, and the contribution of the federal government amounted to a little over $14 million. Like the hon. member for Bonaventure and others, I hope to be able to extend my thanks to the minister when my area has benefited from that program.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: 
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the more we talk about ARDA, the more we realize how much the initiator of that act, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) was far-seeing.
Therefore, I should like to add additional information to that gathered by my good friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), with whom I rejoice in the benefits which Gasp6 and his section of the country will derive from this act. I should also like to ask the minister to tell us which projects are now under way in the province of Quebec under ARDA, aside from those already mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure?


Mr. Sauvfe:: Many projects have been undertaken in the province of Quebec, as may be seen from the list of works for the years 1962, 1965 and 1966. During the first period,
1962-65, there were 179 projects in the province of Quebec, to which the federal and provincial governments subscribed a total of $23.4 million. For the period from April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966, there were 61 projects, to which the two governments subscribed a total of $5 million. To enumerate all the items on the list would take too much time, and I believe that all the hon. members have received a catalogue of the works executed under the ARDA program; this catalogue gives a very detailed idea of what is being done not only in the province of Quebec but also in the other provinces. The document

13532	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act supplies the number, the title, the description, the place and the operation of the project, that is the location of the project under way, the total cost and the federal government's share. I shall be pleased to send the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) a copy of this document, which is a public document, and he may see for himself that we have projects of all sorts in the province of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I do thank the minister and I wish to ask him a supplementary question.
Has he noticed, in routine dealings with his colleagues from the other provinces, a greater desire for co-operation? For instance, does the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec show as much will to cooperate as do the other hon. members, the ministers of other governments? Is there room for improvement, are conditions better or worse than before?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I presume our hon. friend the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) wants me to speak of our old friend from Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) in flattering terms. The ministers of all provincial governments have always cooperated fully. As far as ARDA is concerned, contacts are numerous between officials and between ministers. Meetings and conferences are often held, attended by representatives of all Canadian provinces, and I must say that a very healthy atmosphere has been created, in short, relations with the former government of the province of Quebec were just as cordial as they are with the present government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that earlier I raised some questions about the eastern part of Vancouver island involving the minister's department with the federal Department of Fisheries. Since then the Minister of Fisheries has come in. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development may recall my suggestion that we ask for the co-operation of the Department of Fisheries in certain investigatory work. What I had in mind may not come within the scope of this program. Since the Minister of Fisheries is here it might be a good idea for the two ministers to get together in committee, in answering my question.


Maurice Sauvé: I did not reply directly to the hon. member's suggestion because it was not clear to me if the initiative should be taken

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
by the provincial authorities or by the Department of Fisheries. If the Department of Fisheries took the initiative it could finance the entire cost of the program from its own budget. One thing is certain, that for any province to benefit from the rural development program, it must be a comprehensive program. A comprehensive rural development program has to be treated as such. There is no proposal from the province of British Columbia at this moment such as that to which the hon. member has referred.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I was referring to the salmon fishery and I felt that it would be in keeping with our constitutional understanding if the Department of Fisheries could make the type of investigation I referred to, and perhaps provide background information which, if made available, might stimulate an interest by provincial authorities. They might take the appropriate initiative to seek an agreement with the minister. The point is that the Department of Fisheries might deem it advantageous to participate also in such investigation. This is the point I was making. There has not been much provincial initiative in this area under the ARDA program, or the rural economic development program. I felt that if the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development would make this sort of request to the federal Minister of Fisheries and his department, this might act as a catalyst in producing desirable results in that region.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: 
Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister is quite anxious to have this legislation put through all stages just as quickly as possible. Looking at the subject matter of the bill one can readily admit that it is quite simple and should go through relatively quickly. I would like to congratulate the minister on his successful persuasiveness with his colleagues, in being able to increase by $250 million the amount of money for the purpose of this special fund for rural econo-ic development.
The problem this fund was designed to cope with is a massive one and requires massive amounts of money. I believe this was the central point of my remarks last year when the original bill was before us. Further, I believe that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of moneys necessary under this program and ARDA, and the kind of agricultural policies which we have in Canada. I say there is an inverse relationship, because the more limited the success of our agricultural policies, at the federal level in particular, in dealing with the specific problems of low farm income and prices, the more money we shall have to keep pouring in to this fund for rural economic development, and the more we shall have to put into ARDA. I am not trying to say that the relationship is completely inverse, but it is to a degree.
It can be argued with validity that even if we did have agricultural policies that were successful in coping with the problem of low farm prices and income, there would still be the problem of rural non-farm poverty, and funds for rural economic development and for ARDA would still be necessary. I certainly agree, but I do not apologize for repeating the assertion that with each passing year of this decade there is an ever-worsening differential between farm prices and costs, causing in
23033-856i
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act turn a steady deterioration of the farm income picture and position. As this proceeds the minister will have to come back again to this house and introduce more legislation to increase still further the fund for rural economic development.
I would like to think that within the next two or three years we shall be more successful in devising agricultural policies that will help improve the farm income position. Such a step would take the immediate stress off the fund for rural economic development and ARDA, thus allowing those programs to fulfil their true purpose, to deal with rural nonfarm poverty and with small farm adjustment problems.
The way things are going now there is even an income problem with those farm operations that approach the statistical average, and this is certainly cause for alarm and distress. Although one should seek to avoid appearing to be a doom seer 1 must say that, after spending three days at a farm conference in the prairies recently, it is clear to me that the present trends are really cause for distress. I do not say this in a tone critical of the Minister of Forestry. I believe he is to be commended and congratulated for, as I said, being so persuasive with his colleagues and getting this fund increased by the order of about 600 per cent. The problems require dramatic and immediate action and when the minister brings in a bill like this I believe he means business. Let us hope his good intentions and the increase in the fund can be translated into effective action at the point where the problem exists, in our rural areas.
I know the minister has to look at this legislation from the perspective of the federal government, but in order to assist him gain an insight into particular application of the legislation I would like to refer him to the interlake area of Manitoba and the manner in which ARDA and the F.R.E.D. legislation is working there. No doubt the hon. member for Selkirk made some extensive comments in this regard. I am sorry I was not in the house to hear him. In any event, I feel that in many ways this program does provide some hope for the people of that area. Some specific things can and are being done. The educational programming facilities of that particular area are or soon will be in the process, hopefully, of being upgraded. Technical and vocational training facilities will be more readily available in a more conveniently accessible manner.
13534	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
If the minister has not been asked this already, I should like to ask him whether there is any substance to the press stories that one reads in the Winnipeg papers. These stories appeared a few months ago and were to the effect that there seemed to be disagreement arising between the provincial and federal authorities relative to the constitutionality of the technical education content of the AR-DA program as carried out by the province of Manitoba under the provisions of the federal-provincial agreement. I must admit that I have not seen anything more about this in the press, but usually where there is smoke there is fire and there must have been some basis for those stories.
It would be disturbing to me if the federal government were attempting to discourage or inhibit the province of Manitoba, as one of the patrons of the interlake area program, putting emphasis on upgrading the educational program and facilities, because it seems to me and to many others that one of the things which can be done in a tangible way for the residents of that area is to give them access to technical and vocational training and assist them in the upgrading process.
In the not too distant future one really can foresee a possibility that the technical and educational opportunities under ARDA and related programs can be correlated with or joined to the concept of the guaranteed minimum annual income so that while society tries to help those in immediate financial straits there is also in turn a responsibility on the people involved to try to get out of their particular difficulty. So, it seems very logical to me to upgrade the educational and training courses available to the people in rural areas, and join this program to the guaranteed minimum annual income concept.
I should like to make brief reference to one other field under this legislation and the allied legislation of ARDA. It is my understanding that the ARDA program inherently and of necessity is based on the regional concept. This may be very necessary for administrative and other purposes, but quite frankly I am not aware of this. If this is necessary, however, I also see in it a dilemma, because in the way in which it is working now we have one area in the province of Manitoba which is specifically designated as a special area eligible for special grants and special programming. Obviously this is on an experimental basis; it is an experiment in dealing with this problem in a social and

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
economic way-that is, it is an effort to deal with the economic problem, but also a social and perhaps even a human problem, involving human beings.
I am not convinced there is any fairness in the special area approach. The only justification for it can be that it is being tried for experimental purposes and is set up on a temporary basis. What is more fair is to have this kind of programming available to areas which qualify, provided they meet certain criteria or conditions. We still have in many parts of the country-certainly in the province of Manitoba with which I am more intimately familiar-areas which would meet the same criteria. Yet one area is deemed to be a special area eligible under ARDA and another is not. This of course, as I say, can be justified only on a temporary basis.
I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention to move toward implementation on the basis that so long as certain sets of criteria are met these areas become eligible. It is all very well to speak about specially designated areas, but the justice of the matter demands that all areas which meet certain criteria become eligible. I am not suggesting that anyone in Manitoba begrudges the benefits being received by the residents of any specially designated area in Manitoba, or in any other part of Canada, or the fact that they are eligible for certain programs under ARDA and F.R.E.D.
We find, however, that within the special area there are districts which really are not facing any problem of rural poverty and where relatively speaking-and of course this is so important-there is no problem in respect of small marginal farm units. If there are problems, they are few. There is no problem with regard to farm income relative to other areas of the province, and yet that area is eligible for special grants for ordinary municipal and intermunicipal drainage. Through ARDA federal moneys have been used to build big municipal and intermunicipal drainage works in districts which do not meet any of the criteria which were set up for ARDA or F.R.E.D. Yet, 50, 60, 100, 200, 300, or 400, miles away there are farming districts in which the same kind of conditions exist, where virtually no money is available under the auspices of ARDA.
I understand that ARDA moneys can be made available to non-specially designated areas, but the amount is limited; it is very small indeed. Therefore I should like to ask the minister for how long an interval it is
February 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13535
intended that the special designated area concept will continue. I realize that it is necessary in the short run, but I should like to know how long it will be before we recognize the principle that equality of criteria should bring with it equality of eligibility under federal-provincial programming.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Springfield came into the house I indicated that we expected to sign the agreements with Manitoba about the interlake region within the next four to six weeks. This would show that the press reports he has mentioned are without foundation. There has been no difficulty so far as provinces are concerned in relation to this fund for rural economic development, and the ARDA agreement, although some distinctions have to be made.
The ARDA agreement applies to all rural areas in Canada, irrespective of social and economic conditions. The fund for rural economic development is limited to areas where there is a concentration of low income families, according to certain criteria. The provinces must decide which projects will be initiated under the ARDA agreement. They must also decide what projects should be initiated with federal government assistance in respect of the designation of special rural development areas under Part VI of the federal-provincial rural development agreement, which was signed early in 1965.
Administratively it seems that most provinces have desired to begin with one project under Part VI. In any event it was left with the provinces to designate, in co-operation with federal authorities, the regions where this special program would apply. In Manitoba it was felt by the provincial authorities that the interlake region was the first region where such a program, partly financed by the fund for rural economic development, should be initiated. There are other regions in that province, as well as in other provinces, which also qualify for financial assistance from this fund, and I am sure applications in this regard will be forthcoming in the future.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a short statement and then ask a question. Recently I saw plans for the redevelopment of a small town in a resort area of the Muskoka district. This town was not developed under a plan. The town council has now seen the error of its ways in that the growth
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act of this community has not developed to facilitate the purposes for which it was proposed; that is, to provide beach and playground areas.
The new plans which have now been prepared are very substantial and are being submitted to a provincial department for transmission to the minister. This is a new development under ARDA so far as I am concerned, and I am wondering whether or not the minister has received other applications of this kind for the redevelopment of small communities in order that better use can be made of the occupied areas. Perhaps the minister can give us some indication as to whether or not redevelopment plans of this type are being submitted.


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see this additional money made available. I am sure the minister will agree that in some areas of Canada there is a great need for the development of community pastures. The cost of land is very high and it is very difficult for individual farmers to increase their land holdings. These areas are not necessarily low income areas. Very often there is not sufficient land available for grazing. Some community pastures have been developed under the P.F.R.A., but there is not enough land available to alleviate the situation. Can this program be used in this way for the benefit of these small farmers?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two remarks at this time, but I will yield the floor to the minister if he wishes to make some comment about community pastures.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, the two preceding speakers asked specific questions. In answer to the first let me say I do not have with me the list of projects initiated under this part of the agreement, but I recall a development at Mont Ste-Anne in the city of Beauprd which is very similar to the one mentioned. Provincial authorities must make the decision to accept this kind of project, and once one has been accepted plans must be forwarded to the ARDA development administration.
Large numbers of community pastures have been financed under the ARDA agreement. In this regard the provincial governments must make the decision as to the type of program they wish to initiate with federal support. The federal government does not initiate or indicate projects in respect of which provinces should spend ARDA money. The decision rests solely with each province.
13536	COMMONS
Fund for Rural Economic Development Act


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the difficulties being experienced by many small producers of beef who are attempting to increase the size of their herds. The operation of community pastures is becoming more important to these small producers in western Canada. While the government of the province of Alberta frowns upon the federal government purchasing land, there is nothing to prevent the provincial and federal governments co-operating in the development of community pastures. I hope the minister in his wisdom will encourage this type of development.
Grazing land is essential to beef producers in western Canada and grass is needed to raise cattle. Many thousands of acres of land in semi-airid regions are used for cattle grazing, but it requires 60 acres of this land per animal. I think this ARDA program could be used to advantage for the development of this type of land. The cattle grazing in this area tend to eat off the preferred grass and leave the less palatable. As a result, over a period of time, the land becomes almost entirely covered with vegetation of a type not readily eaten by the cattle.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
When this transition has taken place in the past the composition, palatability and nature of the vegetative cover has changed. We find that the vegetative cover today has a deficiency of phosphorous and the livestock are in many cases in need of grasses that will provide them with phosphorous. It is not uncommon to see a cow with a large bone in its mouth, chewing away in order to obtain phosphorous. Stockmen have to put out phosphorous in boxes on their ranges in certain areas in order to provide the phosphorous which animals need to achieve proper growth.
In the United States experiments are being carried out with different grasses that can be grown on semi-arid lands and will step up the carrying capacity of these lands. I refer to such grasses as sainfoin, the rambler alfalfa in certain places, pubescent wheat grasses in others, tall wheat grasses, Russian rye grasses, and many others.
If the ARDA program is to be of benefit in this regard, I think the minister ought to encourage the setting up in these semi-arid regions, in co-operation with the provincial and federal research stations to try to grow grass which will be palatable to our cattle and increase the carrying capacity of those areas. Once the best method to do this has been established you will find that stockmen
[Mr. Sauve.l
DEBATES	February 27, 1967
will welcome the information provided, and will appreciate what the government is doing and will give 100 per cent co-operation. They are asking for this kind of information. They want it. They feel that when all this money is being spent on ARDA projects they have a right to ask that research projects of this kind be conducted under the program in order to improve the vegetative cover of their ranges and increase the palatability of the grass on their lands. In other words, they want a type of vegetative cover that will put more beef on their cattle. These lands are quite capable of a greater degree of carrying capacity. This is being shown down in Wyoming where sainfoin and certain other grasses are being grown, which has tripled the vegetative cover of semi-arid range lands. The benefit to the stockmen grazing cattle on their range land would be tremendous. Such a program would cause some expense to the stockmen, but they are willing to accept this expense if the range will produce more grass for their beef cattle.
I do not care whether or not this measure is passed; I want to get my story across to the minister. We have a minister who lives in a little island some place down east, and these western people never see him. I want the minister to come out there, get in the car with me and I shall take him over the area about which I am speaking. I am sure I can bring home to him very forcefully and clearly, and without any malice aforethought, what the problem is and in what way a project could be started, with the co-operation of the provincial government, that would be to the benefit of Canada as a whole and in particular to the people who live in these areas.
This government says it is always looking for useful things to do. Perhaps the minister is familiar with this problem because of his wide experience. All I am saying is that if he does not know about it, I stand ready to assist him. If he will give me a ring ahead of time, I shall meet him and take him in the car into these areas; then we can look at this problem and consider many other problems while we are there.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I gather from the remarks the minister made in answering one or two of my questions that the fund for rural economic development, unlike ARDA, was to be related to designated or special areas or regions exclusively. If this is the case, I should like to ask the minister whether the regions to benefit from the fund for rural economic development will be established on the basis of specific criteria. I realize that the
February 27, 1967

minute one begins to draw up a set of specific criteria he injects a certain amount of rigidity into a program, at the expense of flexibility. On the other hand, I think that to be consistent, to be responsible, we must have a certain, basic set of criteria which any area must meet before it can become eligible under the provisions of this legislation, somewhat along the same lines as ARDA in the industrial development field.
I would ask the minister whether this set of criteria has already been elaborately set up, and if so, is it available to be taken advantage of? I have followed this debate quite closely, and quite frankly I have not heard of any articulated set of conditions, standards or criteria in respect of the purposes of this legislation.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, in 1964 the ARDA administration published a series of definitions with respect to poverty in Canada and the criteria to be applied to the farm. We have divided farms into those which earn $2,500 or less a year and have an income from the sale of produce, and a non-farm family which has an income of less than $3,000 per year. This has been the sole criteria for both farm and non-farm families. Everywhere in Canada where there is a concentration of such low income farms there is a possibility for the federal and provincial governments to agree on the designation of a region. These have been the usual criteria used in Manitoba, where such conditions exist in the interlake region; and they also exist in other parts of Manitoba, especially the northern region.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I was aware of the information which the minister has just given us. But if there is a set of criteria upon which an area is designated, I say to the minister that I believe it will require a tightening up of administration on the part of his department, because whether it be my own province or not I say to him that in some instances the boundaries have been drawn so as to take in areas or parts of areas where the income factor is considerably above that which is required for an area to be eligible for assistance under the provisions of this legislation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It was done in order to get special projects carried out which really have nothing to do with the kind of legislation we have before us, or with ARDA. We can support the request of a province for a project which has
Income Tax
merit, but when a program that does not meet the criteria is being proposed under the aegis of ARDA or F.R.E.D. it should not be allowed by the federal government. If such a program is allowed it will become the butt of jokes and wisecracks, as is the case right now in the Manitoba legislature and in other parts of the province.
I do not say this as a criticism of the federal department, but if there is to be a set of criteria-and I certainly agree there must be-then they should be well administered and upheld.


Maurice Sauvé: I would not like to forgo giving the last speaker some further information. Another necessary criterion is that the region must be economically viable. It is quite possible that part of the interlake region may not qualify as far as a number of families are concerned, but they would have to be attracted to the other areas so as to make economic development possible.
One cannot include one area of so many thousands of square miles, and exclude another, because the economic development of the region is dependent on the entire area. Otherwise its economy would not be viable. We cannot exclude small wealthier sections from a larger area of low income families. The well-being of the whole region depends on the global approach which would tackle all the problems of the region. Evidently there will be some people who are better off who would also derive benefits from that program.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Maurice Sauvé: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill S-56, to implement agreements for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and Ireland, Canada and Norway and

February 27, 1967
Income Tax
Canada and the United Kingdom, and to implement a supplementary income tax convention between Canada and the United States of America.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as its title indicates, is to give legislative effect to the recently signed income tax agreements with Trinidad and Tobago, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. For convenience all these agreements have been incorporated into one bill, as had been done on previous occasions in recent years, and the bill has been divided into parts, each dealing with one agreement.
In substance the bill is similar to the bills implementing income tax agreements or supplementary income tax agreements between Canada and other countries that have been approved by the house since 1942. Canada now has in force 12 comprehensive income tax agreements with the United States of America, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, West Germany, the Union of South Africa, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland and Japan.
The agreement with Trinidad and Tobago is new. The 1946 agreement with the United Kingdom was extended to Trinidad and Tobago when it was a colony and remained in force when it became an independent state; but that agreement was terminated. The new agreement, which reflects changes in the tax structure of Trinidad and Tobago, was negotiated immediately after the Common-wealth-Caribbean-Canada conference of last summer, and the minister was particularly pleased to be able to sign it together with the minister of finance of Trinidad and Tobago a few months later. Since the agreement will come into force as soon as each country has given legislative approval to it, and this has already been done in Trinidad and Tobago, we are hopeful that this agreement will come into force very shortly.
The agreement with Ireland replaces the existing comprehensive agreement with that country. The change of most significance to us is that Canada will have the right to impose a tax of 15 per cent on dividends paid to a parent company in Ireland by its subsidiary controlled company in Canada. Under the existing agreement the tax rate on such dividends is limited to 5 per cent.
The convention with Norway is new. A previous agreement signed in 1960 was not proceeded with because it provided for a

maximum 5 per cent rate on dividends from a subsidiary in one country to a parent in the other. The new convention provides for a maximum 15 per cent rate.
The agreement with the United Kingdom assimilates the provisions of the limited agreement that parliament approved last year and also contains provisions similar to those of other comprehensive agreements. The terms of the new agreement generally become effective from the dates when the 1946 Canada-United Kingdom agreement ceased to be effective, so that there is no hiatus between the provisions of the two agreements. The provisions of the new agreement relative to the new British taxes on corporations and capital gains become effective from the inception of these taxes. The agreement will enter into force when parliamentary approval has been given in both countries.
The supplementary convention with the United States of America is designed to overcome a tax avoidance device now being used by certain companies incorporated in Canada but not resident in Canada. The supplementary convention deals only with this change which was requested by the United States. The Canadian government has generally been postponing negotiations with other countries to be held with a view to revising existing tax agreements or entering into new agreements until after there has been an opportunity to examine fully the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Taxation. The other agreements dealt with in the bill now before the house are the culmination of negotiations held as a result of Canadian initiatives taken some years ago.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the principle embodied in these agreements is well known and the legislation follows a familiar pattern. Consequently I think it is not necessary to delay the house for any length of time on second reading of the bill. Agreements of this type have been in existence for a considerable number of years as a means of avoiding double taxation, of preventing fiscal evasion and of endeavouring to promote international trade and commercial relations among the nations. They are highly complex and technical in nature, and I think it is in committee of the whole that the best examination can be given them. Indeed I doubt if there is anyone in the country who really fully understands the complexities of these agreements, except for that very dedicated public servant, Mr. F. R. Irwin, director
February 27, 1967

of taxation, who has had so much to do with their negotiation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think the house will welcome, sir, the new agreement between Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, and will hope that this agreement heralds an increase in commercial and fiscal relations between that country and Canada. We believe that increased commercial relations would be greatly to the advantage of both countries.
The agreement with the United Kingdom is perhaps, that of greatest significance among the agreements which are in this bill. We will wish to know in committee just how the agreement which is now proposed integrates with the earlier agreements of June 5, 1946 and December 6, 1965.
The agreement with Norway is a new one which replaces an agreement which is perhaps the longest lived of all, since it has been in existence since May 4, 1929. The agreement with Ireland replaces one which has been in existence since October 28, 1954. The parliamentary secretary, sir, has told us that there are 12 agreements of this type and he has listed the countries with which we have such agreements. Perhaps it is worth while that we should ask how many additional agreements there are under negotiation, and why it is that this country does not have more agreements of this type with the nations of the world.
There are now, of course, well over 125 nations of the world. It seems rather extraordinary, when we are attempting to avoid double taxation and to prevent fiscal evasion, that we should have agreements with as few as 12 countries. As I have indicated, sir, the technicalities and complexities of these agreements are such that I think the proper place to put questions is in committee of the whole. We have no objection to second reading of the bill and welcome the agreements themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that the proper place to discuss the details of this bill is in committee of the whole. I shall therefore take only a moment or two and, in effect, I shall be presenting the parliamentary secretary with a couple of questions with which I hope he will be ready to deal when we get to the appropriate clauses or schedules. I suppose the parliamentary secretary will not be surprised at my particular interest in the fact that in the new agreement between Canada
Income Tax
and the United Kingdom there is a reference to the capital gains tax which is in effect in the United Kingdom. I hope he will be ready with some choice comments about what would happen if, during the life of this agreement, this government saw the wisdom of the Carter commission recommendation that Canada should also have a capital gains tax.
I should appreciate it also if the parliamentary secretary would spell out a little more fully the relationship between the agreement with the United Kingdom that we are now being asked to approve and the one we approved a year or two ago. I have in mind in particular the situation that obtained with respect to the pensioners who draw a pension in one country and live in the other. To be even more precise, I am thinking particularly of the pensioners from the United Kingdom who are living in Canada and who, for a period of time, were being taxed somewhat disadvantageously to them. It was my understanding the agreement we approved a year ago improved the situation, and I should like to be assured the agreement that is now before us does not interfere with the improvement that was made in that respect last year.
Like the hon. member for Carleton, I would be interested in knowing why it is we have these agreements with only 12 countries out of all those around the globe, but that too is a matter with which we can deal when we get into committee. Generally speaking, I am sure the house will approve of the idea of these agreements with other countries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), seconded by-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should bring to the attention of the house that we are dealing with only a procedural motion, a motion that the Speaker leave the chair. Perhaps there is no specific difficulty-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wanted to make a few comments before second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make comments because the question has been put and we have had second reading. I do suggest to the house, however, that we are dealing with a procedural motion and perhaps the hon. member for Carleton would second the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.

February 27, 1967
Income Tax


Thomas Miller Bell: I am intrigued by the suggestion which you make, Mr. Speaker, but I think attention should be drawn to the fact there is only one minister in the house when government legislation is under consideration. On Friday we had a situation in which there was not a minister in the house who had even read the bill. I regret, therefore, I must decline your invitation to second the motion, and I respectfully suggest to you it is not within the prerogative of someone who is not a minister of the crown to second even a procedural motion on a government bill.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, who is supposed to be in the house at this time, was called out for a few minutes. It was an emergency, but he is here now to second the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) moves, seconded by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) that I do now leave the chair.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Agreement approved.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance could answer some of the questions which were asked during the debate on second reading?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The first question asked by both the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerned the number of countries with which we have agreements. The explanation is simple. We have some negotiations going on now, but the policy of the government has been to await the expected report of the commission on taxation in view of the fact that many technical changes in our tax laws were expected. This is the reason we have waited up until now, and perhaps we will have to wait a few years or a few months, I do not know, to make new agreements. We have agreements with most countries in which Canadians do business and with countries very closely related to Canada. I do not think any citizens of this country are suffering now as a result of this situation. If an emergency does arise my hon. friend can be sure that the government will take the appropriate steps.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In reply to the question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regard to capital gains, although I cannot express a

view on this I do not think this problem will confront us next week. If a problem does arise next week in connection with this matter we will make the necessary provision. The agreement with the United Kingdom of 1965 is still valid and nothing in the new agreement will change that situation. So I do not see any problem there.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has stated that a number of agreements are under negotiation. Could he indicate how many there are and with which countries negotiations are taking place?
Second, the parliamentary secretary indicated that there has been a holding back on the part of the government in the conduct of negotiations by reason of the deliberations of a royal commission which has now reported. Are we to infer from this that until a decision has been made whether or not to implement the Carter commission report, the government will not engage in negotiations on a more extensive basis except with the particular countries with which negotiations are now under way?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I think I can tell the hon. member that we are in the process of conducting negotiations with Jamaica and we are negotiating to renew some agreements, especially with Germany and also with France. We hope the agreements will be concluded soon, judging from the stage of the negotiations at the moment.
With regard to the second question, I think I answered it when I said that we are dealing with the problems which have arisen. If the hon. member finds a situation in which a citizen of this country is suffering, then I would ask him to inform the government. But I can assure the hon. member that there is no such problem. We are in negotiation or have agreements presently in force with all the countries with which we have had some problem.


Richard Albert Bell: The parliamentary secretary has indicated that the government is seeking to renew the agreement with West Germany. Does that mean that this agreement has expired?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. I said "renewed" but I meant "revised". The hon. member will understand that I should probably use the language of Moliere to reply, instead of Shakespearean language, in which case I would not make such mistakes.
February 27, 1967



13S41


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by the reference made just now by the parliamentary secretary to the Carter report. For the last three or four years the stock answer to almost every question about taxation has been: We have to wait till we have the Carter report. The parliamentary secretary almost admits tonight that the government now stands exposed. It has the Carter report and has not yet found another excuse. However, we will give the government a few weeks to find another excuse for not acting in these matters, and I am sure it will find one.
At the risk of seeming to be more persistent than I ought to be I wonder whether I may ask the parliamentary secretary for an answer to the specific question concerning pensions which I asked him earlier under the heading of the United Kingdom agreement. I think he has given the answer, but I have had a number of contacts from people in this country who have been concerned.
Let me spell it out briefly, Mr. Chairman. When they first came from the United Kingdom to Canada a certain agreement was in effect which established the rate of taxation on their pension originating in the United Kingdom. This provision was changed and I think the fault was on the other side. About a year ago the fault was corrected and the agreement that we passed a year ago restored the status quo. All I should like to be sure of is that the agreement we now have leaves the position with respect to the taxation of people who draw pensions from the United Kingdom, but who are living in Canada, exactly as it was last year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can reply to the hon. member by saying that the text of the provision included in the 1965 agreement has been incorporated in the new agreement, so there is no problem at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question, but first of all may I congratulate you upon obtaining your high office of chairman of the committee of the house.
What would be the position-and I am now quoting a case of which I have knowledge-of a pensioner living in Canada who had certain moneys left her in England, from which she draws a dividend sufficient to go to England perhaps every year and spend a couple of months at a posh club in London? This money is never brought to Canada but left in England. The dividends are collected in England and spent for the purpose that I
Income Tax
have mentioned. What would be the position under this agreement of a pensioner in this situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The question asked by the hon. member is an interesting one but I cannot assume the office of dealing with the taxation of citizens. The general policy is that all the revenue of a citizen is taxed. It is not a question of pension or no pension; we are all in the same position whether pensioners or not. If a person has income in another country, then he has to abide by the law of the country. If he is not satisfied, then there is provision for appealing the decision. However, I do not want to take the place tonight of the legal officers of the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Short title of Part II.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could briefly indicate the basic differences between the agreement with the government of Ireland, which we are being asked to approve, and the previous agreement with Ireland which was dated October 28, 1954?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I do have a press release about this which was issued on November 23, 1966, so I might read it to the hon. member.
In substance the new agreement will differ from the existing agreement only in the following respects:
(1)	Effective upon ratification of the revised agreement Canada will have the right to impose a tax of 15 per cent on dividends paid to a parent company in Ireland by its subsidiary controlled company in Canada. Under the existing agreement the tax rate on such dividends is limited to 5 per cent.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
(2) It will be made clear that Canada has the right to impose a special 15 per cent tax on the branch profits of Irish companies operating in Canada. At present Ireland does not impose a tax on branches similar to that of Canada.
(3)	Canada undertakes to exempt from its withholding tax on non-residents the dividends paid by a certain kind of holding company known as a "funnel" company because it funnels its earnings, substantially all of which come from outside of Canada, to its parent company in Ireland.
(4)	Both countries undertake not to tax an individual who has come from the other country to pursue advanced studies (including research) at a recognized institution of higher learning, or to be employed as a teacher provided that his temporary residence does not extend beyond two years. A similar provision in the existing agreement applies to teachers only.

February 27, 1967
Income Tax
(5)	The new agreement will remove a doubt arising from a court decision that Ireland has the right to continue to tax the investment income of any Canadian insurance company attributable to operations in Ireland.
(6)	Canada will bind itself to exempt that proportion of a dividend received by a company resident in Canada from a subsidiary in Ireland that is attributable to profits in respect of which the current tax incentive concessions in Ireland apply, if that subsidiary is owned to the textent of 25 per cent or more by the Canadian company. This does not represent a departure from current Canadian tax law, which, under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, exempts dividends received by a company resident in Canada from a non-resident company that is at least 25 per cent owned by the Canadian company.


Thomas Miller Bell: I take it that the decision regarding the taxation of Canadian insurance companies to which the parliamentary secretary referred is a decision of the Irish courts.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. It is not a decision of the Canadian courts. I understand it is a decision of the House of Lords. I must admit I do not know that exactly. It is at the request of this country that the various conditions referred to were put into the new agreement.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member must refer to an ancient case. It surely is not a House of Lords case. I do not think any Irish case has gone to the House of Lords since about 1921.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is a new regulation or new legislation. The problem is that the Irish law is similar to the law in England. The Irish were afraid that the decision of the English House of Lords would create a precedent. That is why they asked to change this part. I am not familiar with the Irish tax laws, and it is difficult for me to give the hon. member a clearer explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Short title of Part 111.
Thomas Miller Bell: I observe that the previous agreement with Norway was dated May 2, 1929. This perhaps is the oldest of the existing agreements. It must have been well negotiated to last so long. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could explain briefly the basic differences between the agreement we are asked to approve tonight and the previous agreement.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I understand that the old agreement covered only shipping profits and such matters. It was not as extensive and as

comprehensive as this agreement. The present agreement is much more comprehensive.


Thomas Miller Bell: This agreement covers the field usually covered in such agreements.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. The other one provided for shipping profits only.


Mr. Monleilh:: The agreement was not amended since 1929?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Short title of Part IV.
Richard Albert Bell: I have had some
difficulty in studying this and in calculating how this new agreement integrates with the earlier agreements which are still in effect, the one of June 5, 1946, and that of December 6, 1965. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would tell us how these agreements do integrate. Why was it not attempted to consolidate the agreements into one agreement, to place the whole situation in front of us?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I shall refer my hon. friend again to the news release of the Department of Finance of December 12, 1966, which explains the situation in this way:
The Canada-United Kingdom Income Tax Agreement of 1946 was terminated in 1964. It was replaced in part by a limited agreement confined to four classes of income, signed in 1965. Subsequent negotiations have resulted in a comprehensive agreement similar to the comprehensive agreements concluded by Canada with other countries. The provisions of the 1995 agreement have been assimilated


Richard Albert Bell: Assimilated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.
-into the new agreement.


Richard Albert Bell: Has the 1965 agreement not been taken into account? That seems to be already in that agreement.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: According to my understanding, the others will end when the new agreement is in force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the wording that was in last year's agreement has been built into this one. Is that it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one other question at this point. This bill seems a bit odd, in the sense that it has four short titles. I do not
February 27, 1967

know what you decided, Mr. Chairman, about applying the rules of debate to clause 1, because clauses 1, 4, 7 and 10 are all short titles. Does this mean that when the commission that is revising the statutes gets around to its job with respect to this matter, this bill will be separated into its various component parts, and in each case each part will be an act that will stand on its own feet? For example, will the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement be a separate act in the Revised Statutes of Canada?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In revising statutes sometimes one has to face a problem like this, and I think it is better for us to leave the job to the people mentioned by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We may leave the job to them, but certainly we have created a good many jobs for them over the last few years.
While I am on my feet, and dealing with clause 10 which has to do with the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement, in the interval since we discussed this matter has the parliamentary secretary come up with any ideas about the capital gains tax? This is the agreement that specifically refers to a capital gains tax on the part of the United Kingdom but does not refer to any such tax on the part of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the capital gains tax provision was included in the agreement at the request of the United Kingdom, because there is such a tax in that country, and it is in order for the United Kingdom to control its own taxes. This is not a new problem. We face the same problem with the United States, which has similar taxes. We have the same thing in the agreement with the United States. They asked us to put this provision in the agreement in order to protect themselves. I do not know the actual implications for them, but the reason is that they have such taxes in those countries. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we do not have a capital gains tax in Canada yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I take it that if we were to introduce a capital gains tax in Canada these agreements would have to be renegotiated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We do not know yet. Perhaps this clause may or may not apply, but if that happens we will look into the situation.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the parliamentary secretary consider that the expression in
Income Tax
article 1(b) "income taxes" would be sufficient to cover the proposals in the Carter commission report in view of the fact that they do not propose to tax capital gains as capital but as income?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the rules do not permit us to give legal opinions in the House of Commons.


Richard Albert Bell: I would like to be clear on one matter with the parliamentary secretary. If this agreement before us in schedule IV be approved in parliament, it is the only tax agreement that will be in effect with the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Perhaps my hon. friend will read with interest paragraph 3 on page 64 of the bill which states:
The agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of Canada signed at Ottawa on 6 December, 1965 shall not have effect in relation to any tax for any period for which this agreement has effect as respects that tax.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, but is it not true that the agreement of December 6, 1965, will continue to have effect for any taxation period prior to the coming into effect of this agreement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Supplementary convention approved.
Richard Albert Bell: Would the parliamentary secretary explain the need for this amendment to the United States agreement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In my statement I said that the problem concerned some companies incorporated in Canada but which are not resident in Canada any more. There was a kind of loophole for tax evasion by companies incorporated in Canada but not resident in Canada, and that is why we have been obliged to put that provision in the agreement.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does the parliamentary
secretary mean by that companies incorporated in Canada but not actually doing any business in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is what I mean.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
13544	COMMONS
Income Tax Amendment
Schedules I to V inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act is long and unfortunately somewhat complicated. Its amendments might be said to fall into four categories as follows:
1. Amendments to implement three paragraphs of the March, 1966 budget resolutions.
It will be recalled that the resolutions were approved by the committee of ways and means in June, 1966, and that all but three paragraphs in the resolutions were implemented in the income tax bill, Bill C-216, passed in July, 1966.
When Bill C-216 was before the committee last July I explained that it had not been possible to complete the drafting to cover all the proposals, but that it was the intention of the government to proceed with the remainder of the resolutions when the house resumed in the fall. The three paragraphs of the resolutions left to be implemented were: paragraph 11 dealing with deferred profit sharing plans, paragraph 12 dealing with transfers from pension plans or retiring allowances into a deferred profit sharing plan, and paragraph 13 dealing with supplementary unemployment benefit plans. The second category was the repeal of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It may be recalled that when Bill No. C-216 was introduced last year it contained provisions dealing with the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. These provisions were withdrawn from Bill C-216 in order to give the shipping and shipbuilding industry time to study and make representations on the proposed changes. It was indicated that these provisions would be reintroduced in the autumn of 1966.

DEBATES	February 27. 1967
The third category was what I would call provincial abatements. It is necessary to change and extend the abatements of personal and corporation income taxes on income earned in a province in accordance with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
The fourth category is miscellaneous amendments, which included some changes to remove uncertainty and assist in the administration of the act.
This bill received first reading on December 21, 1966 but because some of the provisions are complicated it was thought desirable to allow a period of some weeks so that it could be thoroughly examined by all who are concerned. In this period the government has had the benefit of a number of submissions on particular parts of the bill and I shall have several amendments to place before the committee.
I shall be glad to provide comments and information as each subclause is called but since the bulk of the bill is made up of amendments dealing with deferred profit sharing plans and the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act, and since these amendments are spread throughout the bill, it might be helpful if I gave a general outline at this stage of what is proposed in these two areas.
It will be noted that a substantial part of this bill deals with deferred profit sharing plans. The bulk of these amendments is contained in clauses 15 and 19 of the bill.
Hon. members will recall that the budget speech on March 29, 1966 announced that changes would be proposed to the Income Tax Act to prevent abuse of the provisions dealing with these plans. In that speech as reported on page 3385 of Hansard, I said:
In recent months there has been evidence of increasing abuse of the section of the act providing special tax treatment for deferred profit sharing plans. In 1960 and 1961 my predecessor, then the hon. member for Eglinton, with the worthiest of motives, introduced a section in the act to provide for these plans, which he described as an important piece of social legislation. Since then various businessmen and their professional advisers have exploited this well intended but vulnerable section in various ways. Essentially what happens in typical cases is that contributions of profits from a business, made deductible in computing income for tax purpose and held in a tax free fund, which were intended to benefit the employees of the business generally are being diverted to benefit a few key people, chief shareholders or their relatives or heirs.
Briefly, a deferred profit sharing plan is an arrangement under which payments, computed by reference to profits from a business, are
February 27, 1967

made by an employer into a trust on behalf of his employees. These payments, sometimes called contributions, are deductible for income tax purposes by the employer. The contributions are held by the trust for a period of years, very often until the employee retires. The earnings from investing these accumulating' funds by the trustee are not taxed in the hands of the trust. When the accumulated funds to the credit of an employee are paid to him, either as a retirement income or in a lump sum, these payments are taxable in his hands.
The two important tax features of these plans are that the employer obtains a deduction for amounts paid into the plan and the employee enjoys deferral of tax, often for many years, on the amounts eventually paid to him. In order to prevent abuse of these plans it has been found necessary to propose new rules dealing with several features of the plans including, first, vesting of the amounts allocated to each employee; second, reallocation of amounts when an employee leaves; third, investment of the funds held by a trustee, and, fourth, distribution of the accumulated funds.
It has also been necessary to impose penalty taxes to ensure that all the requirements are observed. Existing plans which are not now operating in accordance with the new rules will have to make changes to comply, but the amendments provide some time for these plans to make the necessary changes.
In drawing up these new rules there has been careful regard for the objectives of legitimate profit sharing plans. I think that most of the established plans that have been operated for the benefit of employees following the generally accepted principles of profit sharing will not be much affected by the new rules. Since the announcement last March that changes would be made we have had the benefit of a number of very helpful representations from persons who are familiar with profit sharing plans. In the two months that have elapsed since the proposed legislation was made public there has been a good opportunity for interested persons to examine the proposed changes in detail and again we have had the benefit of suggestions from those who are close to the operations of these plans. All the suggestions and representations received since December 19 have been helpful and they have been considered very carefully. It has not been found possible to accept all of these suggestions, but I shall have several amendments to place before the committee to
Income Tax Amendment improve the wording and to modify the application of the relevant clauses.
I shall be glad to give a more detailed explanation of the amendments as each clause and subclause is called, but by way of general outline I might point out that clause 16 lays down new requirements with which plans must comply in order to be accepted for registration. Clause 19 provides some rules of operation and imposes penalties for non-compliance.
Clause 15 would add five new paragraphs which describe conditions with which plans must comply if they are to be accepted for registration by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) as deferred profit sharing plans. These are as follows: First, if the trustee under the plan is not a trust company there must be three trustees who shall be individuals. Second, all income received, all capital gains made and capital losses sustained by the trust must be allocated to beneficiaries under the plan within 90 days after the end of the year. Third, all amounts allocated or reallocated by a trustee under the plan to a beneficiary must vest in that beneficiary not later than five years after the year in which the amounts are allocated or reallocated unless the beneficiary has ceased to be an employee.
Fourth, the trustee must inform all new beneficiaries of their rights under the plan. Fifth, all amounts vested in an employee under a plan must become payable to that employee-or to his beneficiary or estate in the event of his death

promptly after the employee dies, leaves the employment or become age 71. However, the plan may provide that upon election of the employee all or part of the amounts payable to him may be paid in equal instalments over a period of 10 years or used to purchase an annuity.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be beneficial to the house if I could complete my remarks. They are a bit complicated. I am sure that if I could get them on the record, it would expedite the subsequent debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister should continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: This clause will also provide an amendment to place a new limitation on the amount an employer may deduct as a contribution to a deferred profit sharing plan. Under the present law the limit on the amount an employer may deduct in respect of each employee who is a beneficiary under the
13546	COMMONS
Income Tax Amendment plan is $1,500 minus the amount deducted by the employer as a contribution under a registered pension plan in respect of that employee. I shall have an amendment to propose to this section, but it is proposed that the amount contributed to a deferred profit sharing plan may not exceed 20 per cent of the salary or wages paid in the year to the employee. The effect of this will be that an employer may no longer deduct $1,500 in respect of contributions for employees, such as relatives, to which he pays only a small salary.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
A new subsection is provided to deal with the situation where a trust governed by a deferred profit sharing plan, or a revoked plan, disposes of property at less than its fair market value or pays more for property than its fair market value. Where this has occurred two things are deemed to have happened as follows:
(a)	the difference between the fair market value and the consideration for the property shall be deemed to have been received as proceeds from the plan by the taxpayer who benefited, and
(b)	the difference between the fair market value and the consideration for the property shall be deemed to be an amount forfeited in the trust and re-allocated to the taxpayer as if the taxpayer were a beneficiary under the plan.
The Minister of National Revenue is given authority to revoke the registration of a plan, including a plan now in existence, unless the plan has met two conditions by January 1, 1968. These two conditions are:
(a)	it must comply with the rules described in section 79CC2) of the act, including those which will be added by this bill, and
(b)	it must provide in its terms or bylaws that amounts held by the trust for the benefit of beneficiaries that remain unallocated to employees on December 31, 1967 must be allocated before 1969.
Clause 19 will add a new Part II E to the act to impose certain penalty taxes where a trust governed by a deferred profit sharing plan does certain things. It also deals with returns and provides definitions. It will add new sections 105K to 105Q to the act.
The new section 105K will provide that every trust for a deferred profit sharing plan that acquires a non-qualified investment, or uses any property of the trust as security for a loan, shall pay a tax equal to the cost of the

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
non-qualified investment, or equal to the value of the property used as security for a loan, as the case may be. However, it is also provided that this tax shall be refunded when the trust disposes of a non-qualified investment or when a loan for which property has been pledged is renaid.
This new section also provides that a trust may use as much as 25 per cent of all amounts paid into it each year to pay premiums for life insurance of any kind without being deemed to have acquired a nonqualified investment. If the 25 per cent limit is exceeded the life insurance must be endowment type policies as described in the new section.
The new section 105L is intended to induce the trust for a plan to dispose of its nonqualified investments but it provides that this may be done gradually between now and the end of 1970. The proportion of non-qualified investments that must be disposed of in order to avoid a penalty tax are as follows: 20 per cent thereof by the end of 1967; 40 per cent thereof by the end of 1968; 60 per cent thereof by the end of 1969; 100 per cent thereof by the end of 1970.
Where a tax is imposed because nonqualified investments held on December 21, 1966 are not disposed of within the time limits, this tax will be refunded whenever disposal does take place provided the nonqualified investments are disposed of for not less than the full value placed on them on December 21, 1966. If there is some loss on disposal and the tax paid exceeds the loss there will be a partial refund of the tax.
A new section 105N will impose a tax when excessive amounts are re-allocated to remaining employees when other employees leave the plan. Since amounts paid into a plan and yearly earnings of the trust do not have to vest in members of the plan for five years there may be substantial amounts to be reallocated to remaining members of the plan when employees terminate their employment or otherwise leave the plan. The amounts that are forfeited by the terminating employees may be returned to the employer and included in his income for tax purposes or reallocated to remaining members of the plan. A tax of 50 per cent will be imposed on excessive re-allocations but the amount of a re-allocation to an employee will not be regarded as excessive unless it, plus the amounts paid into the plan by the employer on behalf of that employee, plus previous
February 27, 1967
tax-free re-allocations to that employee, exceed an amount equal to the number of years the employee has been in the plan times $2,000.
A new section 1050 requires a trustee for a plan to file returns for each year and a new section 105Q provides definitions including the definition of qualified investments for a trust under a plan. It should be borne in mind that the rules governing what shall be a qualified investment have been influenced by the need to prevent funds paid into a plan being returned to the employer as a loan that might never be repaid. The trust may buy the shares of the employer company where these shares are listed on a prescribed stock exchange in Canada and also in non-listed equity shares of the employer company where these shares meet certain tests. The right to invest in the shares of the employer company is an important part of the philosophy of some profit sharing plans since it is believed that this gives the employee a greater sense of participation in the business for which he works.
I apologize for this long and very complicated statement which departs somewhat from the rules governing debate on second reading, but without it I think it would have been very difficult for a debate to take place that would be relevant to this complicated change. I thank the house for its indulgence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether or not it would be possible to have these proposed amendments included in Votes and Proceedings?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have the amendments with me and I intended to suggest that they be distributed to hon. members. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion because I think if these proposed amendments are distributed it will help during subsequent discussion, I think this will help in the subsequent discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as far as this party is concerned, I think this will probably fill the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the amendments referred to by the minister be distributed to hon. members?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As far as I personally am concerned, that is very satisfactory. I was just thinking that possibly there are other hon. members who would like copies of the amendments.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and complicated matter. I wonder whether the minister could give notice of these amendments and have them printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. I think this would be most helpful to hon. members.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite agreeable to doing this, if it meets the wishes of the house. I have distributed these copies for the convenience of hon. members. If they are printed in Votes and Proceedings I think it would be even more convenient.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the amendments be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of amendments referred to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose submitting to the house for its consideration the continuation of the matter now before the house, that is, item 119 on the order paper. Then we will deal with item 133, item 83, item 135 and item 134.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What was the third item?


George James McIlraith: The third item was the third reading of the immigration appeal board bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, today I addressed the following question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters):
Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the elegant and presumably expensive brochure on Canada for distribution to the United States and. if so, did he take note that the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur were completely ignored? In fact, as far as this publication is concerned the Canadian lakehead does not exist.
In the minister's absence the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) took notice of the question and promised to bring it to the attention of

13548	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the minister upon his return. However, I considered the matter of sufficient importance to ask for a debate on the adjournment motion. It seems inconceivable to me that the Canadian government travel bureau has permitted an elaborate publication to be circulated without showing complete access to Fort William and Port Arthur. I wonder whether those responsible for the printing of the booklet were really serious in producing a map which is supposed to show how Canada can be reached by train, plane and automobile, and leave out the whole of northwestern Ontario.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
No Air Canada route to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur is shown, nor is the North Central Airlines serving the lakehead mentioned. But the most glaring error is in the omission of the Canadian Pacific Railway passenger service, and of course the map leaves out even the international highway 61 from Duluth, Minnesota to the lakehead.
An appropriate editorial in the Fort William Times Journal bore the headlines: "It is in our own capital where education is needed", pointing out that there is no plausible excuse for such omissions.
The Northwestern Ontario Development Association, upon hearing of this unbelievable discovery, issued a news release condemning such an unseemly oversight, which may have the effect of drastically reducing the extent to which the lakehead area will share in the influx of tourists expected to be drawn to Canada by Expo.
The news bulletin of the association contains the following observations which are really a classic description of disappointment. It writes:
With Ontario's northwest thus relegated to the status of an almost inaccessible no-man's-land, it follows naturally that scant if any attention is given our region, either in the descriptive text of Canada's delights, or among the 140 colour photographs that cram this handsome publication.
The Ontario section, for instance, is dominated by a view of Niagara Falls. Other photos show Toronto's skyline, Upper Canada village, and an unidentified lakeside picture. The text, though brief, mentions tulip time at Ottawa, the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto, the Royal Winter Fair at the same place, car racing at nearby Mosport, Highland Games at Maxville, Indian pageant at Brantford, Shakespearean Festival at Stratford and the flea market at Aberfoyle.
But what upsets the people of northwestern Ontario is the apparent disregard exhibited so often in the past by government agencies and

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
others, whose horizon apparently does not extend too far beyond the larger populated centres of Canada. I ask the minister to have the publication withdrawn and the proper correction made at the earliest possible moment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). I can well appreciate the disappointment of the hon. member for Fort William, and I sympathize with him in not seeing any reference to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur in this publication. The reason is not that the lakehead cities were deliberately ignored but that a single booklet that skims over Canada's 10 provinces and two territories in 4,000 words of copy and 54 pages of photographs simply cannot do justice to every important community.
I am told that the travel bureau is now in the midst of giving thought to the production of an entirely new version of "Invitation to Canada" for 1968, and every consideration will be given to the inclusion of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur.
However, after examining the first and second versions of other basic booklets distributed by the Department of Trade and Commerce I have realized that the department is really doing its best to give the lake-head the recognition it deserves. I have here a collection of booklets distributed by the department. One is entitled "Adventure along the Trans-Canada Highway". The red markers I have here are not to indicate the party to which the hon. member for Fort William belongs but simply to help me identify the references to the cities he represents so well. Another booklet is entitled "Canada Events 1967" and it indicates many events and festivities taking place in the lakehead this year. I have another pamphlet entitled, "Hay Fever, Canadian Havens From". It gives proper recognition to the climate of Fort William and Port Arthur. Then, I have a last pamphlet entitled, "Circle Tours from the Trans-Canada Highway". This one really gives Port Arthur and Fort William recognition with words like, "dynamic twin cities of the enormously important lakehead; a metropolis of 100,000 persons which offers a rare combination of scenic grandeur and industrial power." Fort William is referred to as, "the greatest grain port in the world," with the additional comment that "there are 25 grain
February 27, 19G7	COMMONS
elevators which store annually over 100 million bushels of wheat." The pamphlet contains such phrases as, "see beautiful Boulevard Lake in the heart of Port Arthur". There is a reference to having "fun in Fort William's Chippewa Park", as well as a reference to a "miniature railway".



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EXPRESS DELIVERIES IN SAGUENAY-LAKE ST. JOHN AREAS

Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I put the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
Is the minister aware that the C.N.R. officials have ordered the discontinuation of express services in the Saguenay, Lake St. John and, especially, Alma districts?
Many serious reasons prompted me to ask this question of the Minister of Transport. However, I shall limit myself to listing the main ones which I hope will succeed in getting the minister's sympathetic attention.
Last week end, I received many telephone calls from constituents who wanted to bring to my attention the fact that, in a very near future, they would be deprived of the express services now offered by the Canadian National Railways. Most of the people who complain are store owners, businessmen, industrialists living in Alma, my riding's major city with a population of approximately 25,000. It should be noted also that those businessmen extend their operations over 25 or 30 square miles.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that our population feels that this decision is completely arbitrary and harmful to our region which has already been classified as economically weak. How can anyone imagine that such action will improve its economic and commercial situation? I doubt very much that it will.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if my suspicions are justified but until I get evidence to the contrary, I will find it very hard to get rid of them. I have good reason to believe that the government has chosen the Saguenay-Lake St. John area as a buffer zone where it can try out all kinds of experiments which most of the time go against the interests of our good people who have a right to expect fairer treatment from their government.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that our businessmen will have to spend time and money in order to pick up their goods in Jonquiere presumably; this is unacceptable, because I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion feel the cost of delivery service which is presently available to them, is compensated to a large extent by express rates charged by the Canadian National Railways.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, economic reasons will be put forward; the point will be made that we must cut down on operating and administration expenses since the annual deficits of the national railway system, which is a crown corporation, must always be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. This reason does not stand up to examination, according to the comments and recommendations of the Auditor General of public accounts for Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966. We can reasonably say that the administrators are not particularly careful in their spending or, shall we say, do not hesitate to squander public funds.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the riding I have the honour to represent in this house, and on behalf of all citizens whose rights have been violated by arbitrary deci-cisions of bureaucrats and well paid quill-drivers, I wish to voice vigorous protest against the way in which my constituents are being treated, and I urge the hon. minister to review this unfair policy, if there is still time.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker,
there seems to be some misunderstanding about this matter which has been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Lake St. John. Information that was provided me by telephone from officials of the Canadian National Railways is to the effect that, following general practice in industry, where firms are working a five day week delivery of express has been discontinued in the area on Saturdays. However, the offices will remain open on that day for those wishing to pick up their parcels.
If the hon. member has information that the entire service has been discontinued, then this is not the information that we have to hand.



TRANSPORT-SECOND FERRY BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND

Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I raised or tried to raise with the Minister of Transport a matter concerning transportation of some importance to the economy of the maritime provinces. Your Honour ruled that I was a
13550	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion little verbose in my question and invited me to bring the matter up on the adjournment debate. I am now taking advantage of that advice. I regret that at this late hour the minister is not present, though I understand this. In view of his interest in and sympathy for all things for the good of the maritimes, I wish he were here. However, I trust that he has instructed his parliamentary secretary to give equally sympathetic consideration to the matter.
I should like to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Minister of Transport to the need for supplementing the ferry service of the motor vessel Bluenose on the Bar Harbor, Maine-Yarmouth, Nova Scotia run during the coming summer months. As the minister and his parliamentary secretary undoubtedly know, the tourist business is of major economic importance to Nova Scotia and indeed to all maritime provinces. Tourist traffic demands have grown to such proportions that the Bluenose can no longer handle the traffic during the peak season. The necessity for making reservations for car space well in advance under the present congested summer traffic conditions tends to discourage potential traffic flow. Thus the actual over-demand for space is obscured, because people simply give up and do not visit the maritimes.
In addition to the tourist trade there is another function that the Bar Harbor ferry performs, that of carrying the truck transport of our fisheries exports. Since we are involved here with the freighting of a perishable commodity it is of fundamental importance that this particular traffic suffer no interruption or slow-down for the want of carrying capacity.
It has been the practice to give the Bluenose an annual overhaul in the winter. When she is laid up a substitute ferry of sorts has been provided. This year it was reported that a car ferry type of vessel, the Lief Erikson, suitable for the Bar Harbor summer service would be utilized during the Bluenose overhaul period. Owing to the accident to the ferry Cabot in Montreal harbour, the Lief Erikson was called in to take its place and was thus eliminated as a replacement for the Bluenose.
A small ship, inadequate as a summer supplement, was provided by the Department of Transport to render a minimum freight service at least. This emergency action was

DEBATES	February 27, 1967
much appreciated. On the assumption that the Cabot will be back in commission by next June, I urge the minister to assign her to fill the aching void next summer-the aching void I have called to his attention.
In pressing the project I have been discussing, and to emphasize the dollars and cents practicality of it, I draw attention to the fact that during the period January 1, 1965, to December 31,	1965, the ferry Bluenose
showed an operating profit of some $19,000.
Finally, sir, while reminding the minister again that the ferry service to Bar Harbor is basic to the trade in tourists and fish of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-a pipe line as it were-I venture the hope that the minister will not allow this pipe line to become intolerably constricted.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that the minister's absence is not an indication that he does not consider this a most important matter. He is on important business elsewhere this evening. I have information supplied by the department, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of some of that information that I have this evening.
The Bluenose service was set up originally as a result of a co-operative arrangement between the federal government and the provincial government, under which each assumed a portion of the capital cost involved at the outset. Two or three years ago the federal government made a special study and forecast which indicated that the longer term traffic growth between southern Nova Scotia and New England would, in due course, justify additional service.
Around that time, and arising out of this, the provincial government suggested that a special consultant be employed to report more specifically on the need for an additional ferry, and the terminals which should be used. The federal government agreed to share in the costs of this study. The study itself was completed last year-in the first half of 1966-and made available to the province, and through the province to the federal government. This indicated there was need for eventual development of additional service. Several alternative routes were studied, with particular attention being given to the desirability of a Bay of Fundy routing.
February 27, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Since that time, the departmental representatives have been actively engaged in consultation with various interested parties about the best means of developing an appropriate, long-term solution to this problem, this course being considered preferable to short-term improvisation. The province has been kept in-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion formed of developments in this connection, and I want to assure the hon. member that I will draw to the attention of the minister new evidence which he has produced here this evening.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, February 28, 1967