1968-10-23

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER AND CABINET OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the members of this house the presence in your gallery of a very distinguished group of parliamentarians from Prince Edward Island. Hon. Alex. Campbell, premier, and the members of his cabinet are here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Trudeau:: When we see a delegation from that province come to meet us in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, we are always reminded of the great beginnings of this country and the importance of Charlottetown in the establishment between all parts of Canada of greater bounds of friendship and loyalty. We are always pleased when delegations from that province come to discuss other bonds that might make the country even more united.



NOTICE RESPECTING PARKING AREA IN ENGLISH ONLY

Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We received a letter last night, the heading of which was given in English only, advising us that on Saturday, October 26, the parking lot adjacent to the building will be paved. Mention is made of gates and we are asked to leave our keys with the constable. It is signed D. V. Currie, sergeant-at-arms.
I wish to point out to the house that we did not understand this notice at all which, in fact, was written in English only. As this is often the case, we would appreciate, in order to comply with the requests, receiving bilingual instructions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have taken note of the representations of the hon. member and I will see to it that the situation about which he is complaining is remedied.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when we might expect a statement from him on the marketing of fish, as promised last week to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether that question should be asked at this time. We have just reached the written question stage of proceedings.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fortin: Of senior civil servants earning $17,000 and more, what is the number of Canadians (a) whose mother tongue is French (b) whose mother tongue is English (c) other languages (d) how many bilingual for each of the following corporations: Bank of Canada, Industrial Development Bank, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Corporation, Polymer Corporation, Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, Central Mortgage arrd Housing Corporation?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Bank of Canada Industrial Development Bank Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)3	27	-	82	20	-	3-	117	3	14-	8	1	--	5	1	29	48	3	23
October 23, 1968
Questions
Polymer Corporation does not have any civil servants in its employ. Also, the corporation would not wish to furnish the information requested as disclosure of the number of employees earning $17,000 and more would not be in the best interests of the company.


DELIVERIES OF AIRCRAFT TO AIR CANADA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is there a delay in the delivery of aircraft to Air Canada and, if so, what is the cause?
2.	How much did Air Canada lose in 1967 because of the delay in delivery of aircraft and are the suppliers responsible for the loss?
3.	How much does Air Canada expect to borrow in 1968, and will it be borrowed (a) from the C.N.R. (b) from the general public, or (c) from the government?
4.	Is Air Canada still using JP-4 fuel and, if so, is this fuel as safe as kerosene?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. In 1968 aircraft deliveries have been in accordance with dates agreed upon with the manufacturer.
2.	There was delay in delivery of certain equipment in 1967. The effect of this delay on the year-end financial results is difficult to assess precisely in view of the fact that the existing fleet was utilized to a greater degree in the interim, higher load factors were incurred, and the travelling public had to use less heavily booked flights at less desirable times of day. In view of the complexity of the contracts involved, the company does not consider it appropriate to disclose its actual position in the matter of the suppliers' responsibility at this time.
3.	The amount, and the manner and method of any borrowings for 1968 is a matter under active consideration at this time between the government and the corporation.
4.	Air Canada uses both JP-4 and JP-1 (kerosene) depending upon circumstances, and they are regarded as equally safe.


CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES, TORONTO AND MONTREAL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees do Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Farm Credit Corporation have (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario?
2.	Is there any difference in the number of such employees in Quebec and Ontario and, if so, for what reason?
3.	How many employees does C.M.H.C. have in (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?
4.	How many employees does the Farm Credit Corporation have in (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?
[Mr. Forest.l
5.	How many employees does the Defence Research Board have in (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and National Defence and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) 562; (b) 1101. Farm Credit Corporation: (a) 120; (b) 220.
2.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: The greater number of employees located in Ontario is due to the corporation's head office being situated in Ottawa, Ontario. The staff strength at head office is 644. Farm Credit Corporation: The greater number of employees located in Ontario is due to the corporation's head office being situated in Ottawa, Ontario. The staff strength at head office is 104.
3.	(a) 146; (b) 319.
4.	(a) 57 (provincial branch office); (b) Nil (provincial branch office is located at Ste-Foy, Que.).
5.	(a) 133; (b) Nil.


FRED AGREEMENT, NEW BRUNSWICK AND QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 101 - Supplementary - Mr. Coates:
1.	What was the total amount of the federal government commitment under the FRED Agreement with the Province of New Brunswick and what was the financial formula for the undertaking of projects through this agreement?
2.	How many projects have been undertaken to date In New Brunswick and what is the estimated cost to the federal government and the estimated cost to the Province of New Brunswick?
3.	What was the total amount of the federal commitment under the FRED Agreement with the Province of Quebec and what was the financial formula for the undertaking of projects through this agreement?
4.	How many projects have been undertaken to date in Quebec and what is the estimated cost to the federal government and the estimated cost to the Province of Quebec?
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Because of a typographical error occurring either in telex or typewriter transmission the words "Twenty-three" appeared in part 2 of the answer given on the 7th day of October on page 851 of English Hansard and page 851 of French Hansard. The correct answer to the question is: 1. $77,494,000. The financial formula varies with
October 23, 1968

each program within the agreements. There are cost shared programs, programs fully financed by the province and programs fully financed by Canada.
2.	Thirty-three projects with estimated cost to the federal government $11,645,000, to the provincial government $13,536,000.
3.	$212,920,000. The financial formula varies with each program within the agreement. There are cost shared programs, programs fully financed by the province and programs fully financed by Canada.
4.	Four projects with estimated cost to the federal government $1,026,525, to the provincial government $342,175.
Questions


EMPLOYEES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the number of employees for each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations in 1966 and 1967?
2.	How much was paid out in salaries and wages for each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations for each of the years 1966 and 1967?


Yves Forest: 1 and 2.
The number of employees for each of the proprietary corporations, and the payroll for each, as at the end of December 1966 and 1967, are shown in the attached table.
Proprietary Corporations
Air Canada
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation
Cape Breton Development Corporation Canadian National Railways
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Eldorado Aviation Ltd. Eldorado Nuclear Limited Export Credits Insurance Corporation
Farm Credit Corporation Northern Transportation Company Limited Polymer Corporation Seaway International Bridge Corporation The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Number of	1966	Number	1967 ofEmployees*	Payroll $	Employees** Payroll $	13,718 (average)	99,574,000	15,823 (average)	124,666,000Nil	Nil	3	9,0009,138	61,596,670	9,060	66,874,135685	4,753,491	705	5,732,612Nil	Nil	2	15,56985,538	497,849,970	86,200	550,049,038(Canadian	(Compensa-	(Canadian (Compensa-	Lines)	tion-Canadian Lines)	Lines)	tion-Canadian Lines)2,080	12,576,463	2,165	13,841,14732	273,110	32	283,392795	6,071,078	923	7,255,74975	557,000	81	612,000591	3,979,036	627	4,398,336540	2,183,912	490	2,032,1303,911	29,578,000	3,976	32,464,00020	118,622	20	123,7061,724	12,358,668	1,749	13,510,724
Number of employees as at end of December 1966. Number of employees as at end of December 1967.

October 23. 1968
Questions


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What amounts are earmarked, under regional development and other programs, to be expended in the Province of Nova Scotia in the calendar year 1968?
2.	What are the total amounts to be expended in aid of the fishing industry in southwestern Nova Scotia in the calendar year 1968?
3.	What is the amount to be expended in the 1968 calendar year on improvements to the ferry service between Digby, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick?
4.	What are the total contemplated expenditures for wharves and breakwaters in the 1968 calendar year in southwestern Nova Scotia?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries, Forestry and Rural Development, Public Works, and Transport as follows: 1. Department of Fisheries: Shared cost programs, $231,750; Technical assistance, $50,000; Other, $196,500; Total, $478,250. Department of Forestry and Rural Development: (i) $25,097,546; (ii) Cape Breton Development Corporation, $31,430,000. Department of Transport: Regional development programs, Nil; Other programs, $17,433,041.
2.	$424,500.
3.	$100,000.
4.	Department of Public Works, $848,000; Department of Transport, $7,807.


DEPARTMENTAL BILINGUALISM ADVISERS, OTTAWA
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Do positions exist in the Public Service in Ottawa for departmental advisers on bilingualism and, if so, how many?
2.	How are these positions allocated among the various departments of government?
3.	What is the salary range of these positions?
4.	How many of these positions are filled at the present time?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board as follows: 1. Yes. There are 17 positions of departmental advisers on bilingualism at present.
2.	All departments of government have been authorized to establish such positions and 17 have now done so.
3.	The salary ranges for positions of this kind will vary depending on the size of the department, the responsibilities involved, and

the qualifications of the individual incumbent. The position of adviser on bilingualism is generally being filled at the AS 6 level which has a salary range from $12,327 to $14,007.
4.	All 17 positions are filled at present.


CANADIAN DELEGATION TO UNESCO
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What was the size of the Canadian Delegation to the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1965 and 1967?
2.	Who were members of the Canadian Delegation to ECOSOC in each of these two years?
3.	What was the total cost to the Government of Canada of maintaining its Delegation to ECOSOC in each of these two years?
4.	What was the cost for maintaining such Canadian delegates to ECOSOC who were not members of the Canadian Civil Service in each of these two years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. 39th Session, June 30-August 3, 1965: 11; 40th Session, February 23-March 4, 1966: 6; 42nd Session, May 8 to June 2, 1967: 7; 43rd Session, July 11 to August 5, 1967: 8.
2.	39th Session, June 30-August 3, 1965: Representative: Saul Rae, Permanent representative to the European office of the UN. Alternate Representatives: Marvin Gelber,
M.	P. Mr. Jean Cote, Counsellor, office of the High Commission for Canada, London. Advisers: L. Houzer, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva. J. A. Beesley, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva. C. J. Marshall, First Secretary, Disarmament Delegation, Geneva. E. D. Wilgress, Economic Division, Department of External Affairs. G. Grondin, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, New York. R. MacLaren, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, New York. Miss G. Sellers, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. Miss D. Fawlyshyn, Department of Finance.
40th Session-February 23-March 4, 1966: Representative:	Paul Tremblay, Canadian
Ambassador to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: B. I. Rankin, Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela. J. O. Parry, Deputy Head, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. Advisers: R. W. MacLaren, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission,
N.	Y. G. S. Grondin, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, N.Y. Miss M. C. Fletcher, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, N.Y.
October 23, 1968

42nd Session-May 8 to June 2, 1967: Representative: The Honourable Rene Tremblay, P.C., M.A. B. I. Rankin, Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela. Alternate Representatives: J. O. Parry, Deputy Head, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. R. M. Middleton, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. Advisers: G. S. Grondin, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, N.Y. R. W. MacLaren, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, N.Y. Miss M. C. Fletcher, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, N.Y.
43rd Session-July 11 to August 5, 1967: Representative: Marvin Gelber, M.P. Alternate Representatives: J.-L. Delisle, Permanent Representative Designate of Canada to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva. J. O. Parry, Deputy Head, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. Advisers: L. Houzer, Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva. R. M. Middleton, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs. R. McKinnon, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva. D. Wilson, Department of Finance. L. Y. Fortin, United Nations Division, Department of External Affairs.
3.	1965-66: $22,568.00; 1967-68: $21,590.00.
4.	1965-66: $2,060.00; 1967-68: $3,717.62.


SUBSIDIES ON WOODEN SHIP CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Has the government considered the problem of unemployment in Canadian shipbuilding yards created by withdrawal of the subsidies on wooden ships?
2.	Are new policies to assist such yards being prepared?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question 215 is in two parts and is as follows.
1.	Subsidies for the construction of wooden fishing vessels have not been withdrawn; they have been reduced to the level permissible within the funds voted by parliament.
2.	I am not aware of new policies being prepared.


CROWN ASSETS SALES OF SLEEPING BAGS
Mr. Marshall: When the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold a number of sleeping bags to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Limited of Toronto for $59,687; to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Limited of Toronto for $15,032; to Acme Surplus Sales Limited of Toronto for $15,000 and to Western Surplus Sales Limited of
Questions
Edmonton for $6,051 (a) how many sleeping bags were involved in each case (b) what was the type or types of sleeping bag involved in the various sales (c) what was the original cost of the sleeping bags to the Canadian Government, per unit, per type, and in total (d) why was it found necessary to dispose of them?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am
informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows: Oscar's Surplus Jobbers: (a) 14,044; (b) 8465-21-107-4605-(bags-inner lining). Oscar's Surplus Jobbers: (a) 2,520; (b) No. 4605-bags, inner lining (2350 sold); No. 4611-bags, outer lining (170 sold). Acme Surplus: (a) 3,000; (b) No. 4605 bags, inner lining. Western Surplus: (a) 217; (b) Assortment of Arctic bags and bag covers.
(c)	and (d) The sleeping bags referred to were used components of Arctic sleeping bags purchased in 1949-51 and which no longer met the required specification for extended use in cold weather. Before being declared surplus to defence requirements, these bags were subjected to a rigorous inspection, and it was determined that the insulation within the bags had deteriorated and become packed to such an extent to render them unfit for their intended use. The original cost to National Defence of components concerned was bag liners $10.00 each; bag inners $27.00 each' and cases $7.35 each.


LANDING RIGHTS FOR ALITALIA, TORONTO
Mr. Badanai: Has the government reached a decision with regard to the granting of landing rights to Alitalia at the Toronto International Airport and, if not, for what reason?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A number of requests have been received from European governments, including the government of Italy, for extension of traffic rights to include Toronto on services operated to and from Canada pursuant to bilateral agreements. A study has been undertaken on the implications of opening the Toronto gateway to additional foreign carriers, and this matter is receiving the attention of the government.


EXTERNAL AID AND LOANS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What amount of aid has Canada given abroad during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the total amount of the loans granted to other countries during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 and at what rates of interest were they made?
Questions

October 23, 1968


Mitchell William Sharp: The volume of parliamentary appropriations for aid purposes plus commitments made under Section 21(a) of the Export Credits Insurance Act (ECIA), which are included as part of Canada's official aid contributions, are as follows:
Fiscal year 1965/66 1966/67 1967/68
Amount
($ Can. Millions)
208.7
309.7
316.7
Under the Canadian International Development Agency's Special Development Loan Programme almost all loans are provided interest free, the exceptions being loans bearing interest rates of 3 per cent which are granted to those developing countries not burdened with debt servicing problems. The total parliamentary appropriations for loans under this Programme are as follows:
Fiscal year 1965/66 1966/67 1967/68
Amount
($ Can. Millions)
50.0
50.0
90.0
Loans are also granted by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, under Section 21(a) of the ECIA, at interest rates of 6 per cent. The total amounts of these loans are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1965/66 1966/67 1967/68
Amount
($ Can. Millions) 49.3 61.8 63.6


CLOUD SEEDING
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Has the federal government signed a contract with Weather Engineering for cloud seeding and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what amount (c) what is the duration of the contract?
2.	Has the federal government signed a contract with BoyalAir for cloud seeding and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what amount (c) what is the duration of the contract?
3.	Since what date has the federal government been interested in cloud seeding?
4.	Does cloud seeding by aircraft come under a Federal-Provincial program and, if so, are the provinces responsible for the administration of the program?
5.	Has the federal government proceeded with cloud seeding without consulting the provinces?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Transport and the National Research Council as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	1946.
4.	No.
5.	No.


PUBLIC WORKS, LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the total cost of public works in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere for each year since 1962?
2.	To what public works were such sums allocated for each fiscal year?
3.	In 1968-69, what will be the total allotted for public works in the federal constituency of Lot-binicre, and what is the nature of each project and the amount to be allocated?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Total expenditures since 1962: 1962-63, $184,300; 1963-64, $75,000; 1964-65, $41,700; 1965-66, $39,200; 1966-67, $30,100; 1967-68, $42,800.
2.	1962-63, Construction of Post Office Buildings, $36,000; Repairs and construction of protection works, $103,300; Repairs and improvements to wharves, $45,000. 1963-64, Construction of Post Office Building, $15,000; Repairs and construction of protection works, $30,000; Repairs and improvements to wharves, $30,000. 1964-65, Repairs to Post Office Building, $2,900; Repairs and construction of protection works, $8,800; Repairs and improvements to wharves, $30,000. 1965-66, Repairs and construction of Post Offices, $22,200; Repairs and construction of protection works, $12,200; Repairs to wharves, $4,800. 1966-67, Repairs and construction of Post Offices, $21,400; Repairs and construction of protection works, $3,300; Repairs to wharves, $5,400. 1967-68, Repairs and construction of Post Offices, $24,900; Repairs and construction of protection works, $11,000; Repairs to wharves, $6,900.
3.	Total amount allocated for 1968-69: Repairs to Post Office Buildings, $34,500; Federal Building in Victoriaville including site, $100,000; Construction of Post Office Buildings, $160,000; Repairs to wharves, $4,000; Protection works, $3,500; Total $302,000.
October 23. 1968

Please note that expenditures are related to old Constituency of Lotbiniere up to April 1967 and to the new Constituency of Lotbiniere after April 1, 1967.


FRENCH LANGUAGE COURSES FOR CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many individuals in the federal Civil Service have received courses that would assist them in securing a working knowledge of the French language and of that number, how many are presently enrolled in such courses?
2.	Of the number presently enrolled in French language courses (a) how many receive the courses while continuing with their employment (b) how many are receiving the courses while on leave of absence (c) how many on leave of absence have been granted leave for more than a period of one month?
3.	Of the number enrolled in French language courses while continuing with their employment, how many are granted free time to take such courses and at the present time and for the present fiscal year, what is the number of man-hours lost to the federal Civil Service?
4.	Of the number enrolled in French language courses who have obtained a leave of absence while taking the courses, how many are receiving their salary while taking these courses and what will be the estimated cost to the federal Treasury in the present fiscal year?
5.	Of the number enrolled in French language courses who have obtained a leave of absence from their employment, how many have moved from Ottawa for such purposes and of those who have moved, how many have also moved their families and was assistance given to those who moved their families by the federal government and, if so, what will be the total cost to the federal Treasury in the present fiscal year?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. (a) Since January 1, 1964, approximately 9700 public servants have attended French language courses in programs offered by the Public Service Commission. (It is not known how many have attended other courses), (b) On September 23, 1968, 690 public servants were attending French language courses conducted by the Public Service Commission.
2.	Of the number enrolled as in 1 (b) above, (a) all receive courses while continuing with their employment; (b) none were on leave of absence; (c) not applicable.
3.	Of the number enrolled as in 1 (b) above, All are granted free time to take such courses. In addition to this free time granted,
Questions
465 students are devoting up to 20 hours per week of their own time during each course.
In the view of the commission, the training time spent by public servants is a gain rather than a loss to the public service of Canada. The time devoted to training by the 690 public servants now attending French Language courses is 5700 man-hours per day of which 1950 hours will be on their own time. Students will attend classes for periods of 13 to 35 days depending on the level of instruction and the needs of the individual; thus the total man-hours that will be devoted by these public servants to French language training during the present fiscal year will not be known until the close of the year.
4.	See 2(b) above.
5.	See 2(b) above.
Note: The hon. member in posing questions 4 and 5 may have had in mind the public service bicultural development program in which 20 officials are attending for one year at Laval University and 10 at Toronto and York Universities, to follow varied academic programs. The total of salaries of the 20 officials attending at Laval in the French language will be approximately $325,000 for the period of their secondment in the current fiscal year. All 20 have moved their families to Quebec with assistance given by the federal government which it is estimated will cost $12,000 in the present fiscal year. Exact figures cannot be given until the end of the fiscal year.


COURT ACTIONS BY RURAL MAIL CONTRACTORS
Mr. Hales: Have any actions been initiated in the Exchequer Court of Canada by rural mail contractors against the federal government as a result of the postal mail strike and, if so, how many such actions were initiated to date?


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is no.


COST OF COLUMBIA RIVER PROJECTS
Mr. Harding: 1.	What has been the total cost of the Columbia River Treaty projects to date?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of the projects when completed in 1973?
3.	What was the total cost of the completed projects as estimated in the years (a) 1962 (b) 1963 (c) 1964 (d) 1965 (e) 1966 (f) 1967?

October 23, 1968
Questions
4.	Is it the intention of the federal government on completion of the Columbia River Treaty-projects in 1973 to (a) make up the difference to British Columbia between the estimated cost and the actual cost, if any exists (b) share the difference, if any, with British Columbia between the estimated and the actual cost (c) have the Province of British Columbia assume full responsibility between the estimated and the actual cost, if any?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows:	1. Under the
Canada-British Columbia agreement of 8 July 1963 the province undertook to finance the Columbia River treaty projects in Canada. Disclosure of information on the current cost of the projects is therefore the responsibility of the province.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	(a) $345 million; (b) $410.6 million; (c) $410.6 million; (d) to (f) No federal government estimate available.
4.	(a) No; (b) No; (c) Yes.


ASSISTANCE TO FRESH WATER FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Since 1960, what has been the federal Department of Fisheries' expenditures in the inland freshwater fishing industry of the prairie region for the purpose of (a) conservation (b) production research and development?
2.	Has the Fisheries Prices Support Board at any time since its establishment in 1947, purchased any of the products of the inland freshwater fish industry of the prairie region and, if so (a) in what years and to what amount by quantity and value (b) what was the basis of the purchase price, i.e., the proportion to the price computed to fishermen and the proportion related to processing?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a) Nil.
(b)	1960-61, $265,110;	1961-62, $317,810;
1962-63, $316,435; 1963-64, $314,540; 1964-65, $382,159; 1965-66, $431,183; 1966-67, $947,539; 1967-68, $1,462,143; 1968-69, (forecast) $1,730,-
000.
2. Yes. (a) and (b)
		Value	
Quantity	$	Basis1949	3,376,802 lbs.	281,740.43	80% of market price1953	2,181,085 lbs.	192,757.60	70% of market price1964	93,745 lbs.	16,405.38	80 % of market price


ELK ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total attendance at Elk Island National Park for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the cost of operating the Park in those years?
3.	What form of government promotion is exercised in encouraging use of these facilities, particularly by tourists?
4.	Has any consideration been given toward improving and increasing recreational facilities at Elk Island National Park re (a) expansion of the present nine hole golf course to an eighteen hole course (b) improved swimming facilities (c) the establishment of a Cultural Heritage Museum, within the Park boundaries, wherein the cultures of the ethnic and founding races may be displayed (d) the possibility of routing a fresh water supply from a practical source and the feasibility of undertaking a study thereof?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. April 1, 1965-March

31, 1966, 197,728; April 1, 1966-March 31, 1967, 204,286; April 1, 1967-March 31. 1968, 232,286.
2.	April 1, 1965-March 31, 1966, $347,015; April 1, 1966-March 31, 1967, $370,900; April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, $394,616.
3.	The travel bureau publishes and distributes to prospective park visitors the following brochures which describe the park facilities: Canada National Parks-West, booklet; Canada's National Parks, folder; National Parks of Canada Accommodation, booklet; Angling Regulations in National Parks, folder; Elk Island National Park, folder (publication of this folder is under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, national and historic parks branch).
Additionally, the travel bureau publicizes this park through: (a) publicity stories and photographs released to news media in the United States; (b) circulation of three films on the national parks, in which Elk Island is featured. Two of the films were produced by
October 23, 1968

192S
the government of Alberta and one by the Calgary convention and tourist bureau. These films are distributed through the Canadian government travel film library outlets which are operated by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau in the United States and other countries; (c) circulation in the United States of a colour televisit (2J-minute T.V. film) produced by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau on Elk Island national park,
(d)	inclusion of a tour of the national parks in its "Visit Canada" programs, under which the bureau sponsors groups of travel writers, journalists, editors, tour operators and AAA travel counsellors on promotional tours of Canada.
4.	The Elk Island national park has been under study and a plan of the park is in final stages of production: (a) no proposal has been made to increase the size of the golf course; (b) studies have shown that the beach capacities are adequate to meet demands for the next five to ten years. Research was carried out in 1966 and 1967 to find a feasible answer to a problem from algae. The summer of 1968 has had the best water conditions for many years, (c) there is a Ukrainian pioneer home in the park which is an authentic replica of a Ukrainian thatched cottage, built in 1951 as a tribute to the settlers in the vicinity. The cottage is furnished in the style of the early Ukrainian homes on the prairie and contains typical examples of clothing and utensils either made by the early settlers or brought with them from the Ukraine. A stone monument close by was erected in 1963 to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian settlers in the area, (d) Astotin Lake is stagnant with no inlet or outlet. The feasibility of providing a fresh water inlet is under review. The cost of transporting fresh water from the Saskatchewan river 20 miles away would be extremely high. Deep wells would also be costly, and it is not likely that sufficient water would be available to produce the required inlet flow.


POST OFFICE FACILITIES, LAMONT, ALTA.
Mr. Mazankowski: Has any consideration been given toward upgrading the post office facilities in the Town of Lamont, Alberta and, if so, is there any indication as to when action will be taken?


Eric William Kierans: The Department of Public Works has been
Questions
requested to provide a new post office in Lamont, Alberta during the fiscal year 196970.


CLOUD SEEDING BY ROYAL AIR CO.
Mr. Laprise: In accordance with the Air Transport Board decision bearing series number 2463, did the Royal Air Company Ltd. seed clouds in an attempt to induce rainfall during the summer of 1968 and, if so (a) at the request of what company did Royal Air Ltd. provide its services (b) in what region?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: By decision 2463 of the Air Transport Board (now the Canadian Transport Commission) Royalair was licensed to operate an aerial control (cloud seeding) service within Canada utilizing one Lockheed Lodestar aircraft.
The reports of Royal Air to the Air Transport Committee indicate that no cloud seeding was performed in the first seven months of 1968.


PRICE CONTROL BOARD FOR FARM MACHINERY
Mr. Beaudoin: Does the government intend to set up a Price Control Board for farm machinery in order to reduce prices to farmers?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Agriculture as follows: Government measures with respect to farm machinery will be considered following study of the report of the royal commission on farm machinery, receipt of which is expected within a few months.


CATCH FAILURE ASSISTANCE TO FISHERMEN
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys): 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries been studying the matter of legislation that will provide catch failure assistance to fishermen on a national level?
2.	What progress has been made in determining such legislation?
3.	On what date did the study of such legislation commence?


Eugene Whelan: 1. This complex subject has been investigated since 1966 but no legislation is under consideration.
2 and 3. Answered by above.

October 23, 1968
Questions


RECEPTION OF REFUGEES FROM BIAFRA
Mr. Yewchuk: Will the Government consider accommodating Biafran refugees in Canada in a similar manner as it has recently accommodated Czechoslovakian refugees in Canada and, if not, for what reasons?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Applications for admission to Canada from persons from the eastern region of Nigeria affected by the civil war will be given sympathetic consideration. Instructions have been issued to offices in Canada to extend the length of stay of visitors from this area who are already here and, if necessary, to assist them in finding employment.


DOCTORS' FEES, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What percentage of the doctors' schedule of fees Is made in payment for medical services under Indian Health Services?
2.	If the full fee is not paid (a) what is the reason (b) will the government give consideration to increasing the payment?
3.	Will the government consider turning over the administration of the Indian Health Services to the provincial governments and compensate the provinces adequately to enable them to pay the full rate as listed in the schedule of fees?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Generally payment is made at 75 per cent of the provincial schedule.
2.	(a) Indian health services is a program devised to provide essential care to Canada's medically indigent Indians. Authorities charged with operating similar programs, such as municipal and provincial departments, do not pay the full fees based on schedules applicable to private patients. It would not be in order for this department to pay at higher than usual rates, (b) These matters are considered from time to time on a regional and/or provincial basis according to the factors current at the time.
3.	The federal government has encouraged provincial governments to provide health services to Indians on the same basis as such services are provided to other residents. When they do so the arrangements for compensation will be a provincial prerogative.


TAPE OF INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Canadian Embassy in Washington request a tape of an hour-long interview conducted

by Patrick Watson of the Prime Minister and telecast over CTV in the two months leading up to June 25, 1963?
2.	Was the request met?
3.	Who requested the same, and for what purpose?
4.	Did the Embassy or any official thereof make use of same, and for what purpose?
5.	, Are there plans to use this tape in the future and, if so, what is the nature of such plans?
6.	On what equipment can such tape be used?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. A request was made in April, 1968 but this request was withdrawn in May as a result of the calling of a general election. The request was renewed in September, 1968.
2.	Yes.
3.	The request was made by an officer of the staff of the Canadian embassy, Washington in order to evaluate the tape for such limited informational use as might be appropriate in the U.S.A.
4.	Yes, for an evaluation screening by officers of the embassy staff.
5.	No.
6.	The tape can be used on a videotape recording machine.


FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Fisheries to disband the Fisheries Research Board as such, and to incorporate same within his Department?
2.	Does the Minister intend to second the Director of Public Relations of the Board to act on the Minister's personal staff?


Eugene Whelan: 1. There is no intention to disband the Fisheries Research Board.
2. No.


ISOLATION ALLOWANCE TO NORTHERN POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What is the amount of the monthly "isolation allowance" paid to postal employees at (a) Goose Bay (b) Happy Valley (c) Labrador City (d) Wabush?
2.	Is any consideration being given by the government to equalizing these allowances?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Post Office Department and the Treasury Board as follows: 1. (a) Goose Bay, married $65-single $40; (b) Happy
October 23, 1968

Valley, married $65-single $40; (c) Labrador City, married $35-single $20; (d) Wabush, married $35-single $20.
2. As a result of recent collective agreements negotiated between the Treasury Board and various bargaining agents representing employees in the public service, the matter of payments under the isolated posts regulations has been referred to the national joint council of the Public Service of Canada for review and recommendations.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS, QUEBEC AND ONTARIO
Mr. Matte: 1.	During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, what was the monthly average number of persons for which reimbursement claims were made under the Unemployment Assistance Act (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario?
2.	During the same year, what was the federal government's share of such payments (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario, and if the contributions made in Ontario are higher than those made in Quebec, what are the reasons therefor?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Quebec, 317,612; *(b) Ontario, 144,870.
*The statistics were reduced in the latter part of the year by the transfer of a portion of the general assistance program to the Canada Assistance Plan.
2. *(a) Quebec, $59,786,898; (b) Ontario, $42,923,298.
*This figure consists of $33,286,898 paid under the authority of the Unemployment Assistance Act and $26,500,000 under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.


INCREASE IN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
Mr. Nesbiil: What is the explanation of the Department of Transport for the very sharp increase in the number of accidents to Canadian registered aircraft from January 1, 1965 until the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The number of aircraft accidents which have occurred since January 1, 1965, have actually declined in relation to the volume of flying as indicated by the following figures.
Between January 1, 1965, and December 31, 1967, accidents to Canadian registered aircraft increased by 35.6 per cent. During the same period flying hours increased by 46.2
Questions
per cent. Figures for 1968 are not yet available.


POSTAL CANCELLATION STAMP RESPECTING SMOKING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 355

Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-
Haldimand):
1.	Did the Postmaster General authorize the use of a cancellation mark for postage stamps bearing the slogan "The safe cigarette is the one you don't light" and, if so, when was this authorized?
2.	Has the minister considered the effect of the use of such a slogan on all aspects of the tobacco industry; and, if so, will the Postmaster General have such cancellation marks immediately withdrawn from use?
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question comes in two parts.
The first answer is Yes, in February, 1968. The answer to the second part is, after due consideration I do not plan to withdraw the use of the die at this time.


CAMPAIGN AGAINST CIGARETTE SMOKING
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the total amount spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the campaign against cigarette smoking?
2.	What was the per capita consumption of cigarettes (a) across Canada for each of the years 1964 and 1967 (b) per province for the year 1964?


John Carr Munro: 1. $582,777.36.
2. (a) 1964, 2,113; 1967, 2,293. (b) Not available.


PER CAPITA MEDICAL COST
Mr. Rynard: What is the average medical cost per capita (a) across Canada for the month of January 1968 (b) per province annually?


John Carr Munro: (a) The average per capita cost of physicians' services in Canada in 1966, the latest year for which data are available, was $33.45, or $2.79 per month. On the basis of preliminary observations it is estimated that the corresponding figure for January 1968 was $3.26.
The per capita costs include payments made to physicians engaged primarily in private fee practice, payments made to salaried physicians, and payments made to residents and senior interns in hospitals.

October 23, 1968
Questions
(b) Per capita costs of physicians' services, by province, are available for 1966 only. They include the professional earnings of private fee practice physicians, but exclude payments made to residents, interns and salaried physicians, except for an estimate of the cost of services provided by certain physicians employed in private group practice and physicians employed under the cottage hospital medical service and by subsidized voluntary plans in Newfoundland:	Newfoundland,
$13.01; Prince Edward Island, $17.92; Nova Scotia, $22.94; New Brunswick, $18.50; Quebec, $25.27; Ontario, $35.55; Manitoba, $30.86; Saskatchewan, $30.22; Alberta, $29.25; British Columbia, $38.19; Yukon & Northwest Territories, $10.62.


BUCKMASTER'S FIELD HOUSING PROJECT
Mr. Carter: What was the total cost per unit of the Buck-master's Field, tri-partnership subsidized housing project?
Hon. Paul Hellyer Minister of Transport):
The total per unit cost of Buckmaster's Field is estimated at $20,522 including the estimated cost to complete the project and capitalized interest of $1,982 per unit.


URBAN RENEWAL SCHEME, ST. JOHN'S WEST
Mr. Carter: What is the present position with regard to the proposed urban renewal scheme for the Mundy Pond Area, St. John's West and has the Newfoundland Government indicated its willingness to proceed with the scheme?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Mundy Pond area urban renewal scheme is being prepared by the city of St. John's and should be completed by the end of the year. The government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that it wishes to proceed with the preparation of the scheme and its implementation.


ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING NATIONS BY AGRICULTURAL TEAMS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	In what areas are Canadian Agricultural teams providing assistance to developing nations?
2.	What are the qualifications of the members of each team, how many members make up each team and does any member have practical experience in the operation of a farm?
3.	What are the agricultural qualifications of the members of the team presently in Tanzania?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canadian agricultural teams are providing assistance to Tanzania and India/Malaysia.
2.	The qualifications of the team members are, for Tanzania: agricultural engineering, animal husbandry, soil fertility, wheat breeding and agricultural economists; for India/ Malaysia: soils specialist and general agriculturalist. Five members serve on the Tanzanian team and two on the India/Malaysian team. All have had practical farm experience.
3.	The individuals serving in Tanzania are specialists agricultural engineering, animal husbandry, soil fertility, wheat breeding and agricultural economics.


FRED AGREEMENTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Coates: Of the four projects carried out in the Province of Quebec under the FRED agreement, what was the total cost of each project, its objective and the percentage cost to the federal government and the Government of the Province of Quebec?


Russell Clayton Honey: As none of the projects has been completed, the total cost is not yet known.


FRED AGREEMENTS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Coates: Of the twenty-three projects carried out in the Province of New Brunswick under the FRED agreement, what was the total cost of each project, its objective and the percentage of the contribution by the federal government and the Government of the Province of New Brunswick?


Russell Clayton Honey: As none of these projects has been completed, the total cost is not yet known.


HEAD OFFICE, HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Since May, 1948, has the National Harbours Board refused to pay for water and sewage services provided by the City of Quebec and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Is the matter in dispute and, if so, how much does the City of Quebec claim?
October 23, 1968

3.	Is it the intention of the government to move the Head Office of the National Harbours Board to Montreal?
4.	Does the government intend to appoint a representative of the Montreal area to that Board?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. Amount of claim has not been determined as the matter is under negotiation.
3.	No.
4.	Appropriate considerations of broad regional representation as well as other relevant factors are taken into consideration when filling vacancies on the board.
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Newfoundland
Questions NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Foriin: 1.	How many national parks are there in each province?
2.	What were the expenditures by province, for each of the past three years?
3.	Are there any provinces that have no National Parks and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. British Columbia, 4; Alberta, 5; Saskatchewan, 1; Manitoba, 1; Ontario, 3; Quebec, 0; New Brunswick, 1; Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 2; Newfoundland, 1.
2.
1965-66	1966-67	1967-683,577,740	3,068,881	3,185,34210,782,558	15,329,105	12,136,777849,146	780,749	1,422,369937,417	922,386	1,007,948773,382	533,236	644,395762,541	681,821	765,932752,420	380,597	527,0851,590,803	1,868,909	3,534,781995,142	763,199	760,655
3. Yes. The reason for this is that no agreement for the establishment of a national park has yet been entered into with the government of the province concerned.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: For each year since 1962, what was the number of unemployed living in the constituency of Richmond, and what was the average age of those unemployed for each year?


Gérard Loiselle: There are no unemployment figures for areas of this size. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics produces unemployment statistics for Canada and the provinces only. The size of the labour force survey sample does not allow for the production of figures in any greater geographical detail.


FARMS TAKEN OVER BY CREDIT CORPORATION, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: For each of the years from 1962 until 1968, how many farms were taken over by the Farm Credit Corporation in the federal constituency of Richmond, and at what price?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: The corporation does not keep statistics by federal constituencies but for the municipal county of Richmond only one property was repossessed in the years from 1962-1968.
The amount owing to the corporation was $18,968.19.


RESEARCH GRANTS IN CARDIOLOGY
Mr. Isabelle: Did the Canadian Medical Research National Council award any grants for research work in cardiology in 1966-67, and if so (a) what was the amount of each such grant (b) to whom was each awarded?

October 23, 1968
Questions


John Carr Munro: In 1966-67 the Medical Research Council awarded the following grants in aid of research in the field of cardiology:
(a)	(b)
$ 7,200	Awad, J. A.


GRANT TO MONTREAL CARDIOLOGY INSTITUTE
Mr. Isabelle: Will the Montreal Institute of Cardiology receive special subsidies from the Canadian Medical Research National Council in recognition of having successfully carried out the first heart transplants in Canada to allow the Institute to continue its humanitarian work in the important field of heart diseases?
11,500	Balis, J. U.
12,000	Beaulnes, A.
7,450	Benfey, B. G.
12,880	Beznak, M.
8,000	Biron, P.
2,940	Bittar, N.
10,200	Boucher, R.
9,865	Calaresu, F. R.
11,500	Constantinides, P.
6,800	Cookson, F. B.
5,000	Cronin, R. F. P.
11,565	Dieudonne, J. M.
14,000	Dresel, P. E.
13,100	Gagnon, E. D.
50,000	Genest, J.
21,000	Genest, J.
39,700	Genest, J.
37,000	Genest, J.
8,896	Gutelius, J. R.
9,000	Haust, M. D.
9,000	Hinke, J. A.
4,000	Hunter, J.
6,475	Josenhans, W.
9,470	Kako, K.
3,100	Korecky, B.
7,800	Lakey, W. H.
6,000	Low, J. A.
2,750	MacConaill, M.
8,000	MacLeod, D. P.
24,000	McGregor, M.
29,000	McMillan, G. C.
17,000	Melville, K. I.
15,000	More, R. H.
12,000	Mustard, W.
6,200	Organ, L. W.
8,000	Panisset, J. C.
6,000	Prioreschi, P.
11,334	Reininger, E.
16,000	Renaud, S.
4,085	Reynolds, A. K.
2,100	Sanders, H. D.
5,000	Schatz, D.
6,500	Scott, H. J.
10,000	Simard-Duquesne, N.
6,000	Trobridge, G.
9,038	Valadares, J. R. E.
1,500	Whyte, J. C.
17,600	Yamada, S. I.
9,420	Zingg, W.
4,800	Zsoter, T. T.


John Carr Munro: The Montreal Institute of Cardiology has requested no special subsidies from the Medical Research Council, although two members of its scientific staff currently receive grants in aid of their research.


SLAVE LAKE, ALTA-DESIGNATED AREA
Mr. Yewchuk: What are the necessary qualifications which would enable the Town of Slave Lake, Alberta and vicinity to become a designated area and is it the intention of the government to make the Town of Slave Lake and vicinity a designated area?


Russell Clayton Honey: To be designated under the Department of Industry Act, any town must be within a Canada Manpower Centre area or a county or census division that has suffered from high, chronic unemployment or low income. On September 25 last the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development announced the government's intention to review the program of industrial incentives for development areas, with a view to proposing legislation next year.


SURPLUS EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	In what region or regions of Canada is the Customs and Excise Division of the Department of National Revenue considered to have surplus employees?
2.	How many employees, by category and region, are considered surplus?
3.	What has happened to such employees declared surplus in each year?
4.	Other things being equal, is veterans' preference given such surplus employees?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 2.
Region	Category	NumberAtlantic	Clerical	32Stenographic	1Program administration	1Truckmen	3Caretaker	1Quebec	Clerical	6Central	Ontario	Clerical	3Program administration	1Truckman	1Southwestern	Ontario	Clerical	11Stenographic	1Program administration	1Pacific	Clerical	7Program administration	13. No action	on this group of surplus	personnel prior to	1968.	
During 1968, 56 surplus situations, over and above those listed, have been resolved as follows: (1) By reassignment in the same port or region, 35; (2) By relocation in another region, 9; (3) By transfer to other departments, 2; (4) Through death, resignation or voluntary retirement, 10.
4. No. Under the Public Service Employment Act veterans' preference applies only to candidates for appointment to the public service.


RETIREMENT OF JUDGES
Mr. Diefenbaker: Since 1935, how many Judges have retired (a) within one year (b) within two years (e) within three to five years after appointment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: (a)	None, (b) One. (c) Six.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	When was the category of Executive in the Public Service of Canada established?
Orders jor Returns
2.	How many groups are defined within the Executive category and is one of these called the Senior Executive Group?
3.	How many levels are there to be within the Senior Executive Groups and what are the salary ranges of each of the levels?
4.	How many positions in the Public Service Establishment are considered to fall within the Senior Executive category?
5.	How many of these have now been filled (a) by departments and (b) at what levels (c) respectively by persons of what prior category or level and salary?
6.	When is it anticipated that the remaining appointments within the Senior Executive category shall be completed?
7.	What happens to the positions vacated by the appointees to the Senior Executive category, are they merged, abolished or retained to be filled by someone else?
8.	Generally what are the parameters of responsibility and duties for the position of Senior Executive at the various levels?
9.	What person or persons shall have the responsibility of assessing the performance and capabilities of Senior Executive?
10.	Will deputy ministers be responsible for assessing persons of equivalent or higher salary brackets, on the basis of present salary levels or ranges?
11.	Who determines the salary scales for the Executive Category?
Return tabled.


INTERNATIONAL BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is Canada taking part in the five-year International Biological Program?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the contribution of the Canadian Government to this important project, and in what fields will Canada be making its main contribution?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN ANTI-EROSION PROJECTS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In each of the past three years, has any federal assistance been given for the purpose of riverbank stabilization or other anti-erosion measures relating to the protection of riverbank property?
2.	If so (a) at what locations were such works carried out (b) what were the amounts of federal assistance in each case?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on September 13 I
j 932	COMMONS
Assistance to Western Farmers placed question No. 57 on the order paper. It reads in part:
How many Liberal Members of the last parliament and Liberal candidates in the last election have been appointed to positions in government, civil service,-
and so on. Forty days is a long while to wait for an answer. I know there are a great number who have been appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Surely in this computer age this government could tabulate the number, without making us wait for this length of time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by my hon. friend from Battleford-Kindersley, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious situation facing western farmers as a result of restricted grain sales and unfavourable harvest conditions, which have led to there being large quantities of tough and damp grain and to serious deterioration of crops still out in the field. This situation gives rise to a need for immediate discussion in the House of Commons so that hon. members may present the fact and the government may tell parliament and the country of any steps it proposes to take to deal with this serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly address the house and the Chair in relation to the urgency of debate. The hon. member knows that discussion at this point should be limited exclusively to the question of the urgency of debate rather than to the urgency of the situation about which he complains.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is urgent. Questions have been asked repeatedly in the house over the last short while in an attempt to find out what action is being taken by the government with regard to the situation which has developed and is developing in western Canada. Weather reports indicate that this situation is not improving. In fact it is getting worse, and this will affect not only the area in which it is occurring but the whole economy of Canada.

DEBATES	October 23, 1968
The effect of these adverse weather conditions has been compounded by the slowdown in grain sales, which has limited the amount of cash going into the hands of farmers in the area. These two factors are building up to a situation which will have disastrous consequences, first for the people of the region, and second for the economy as a whole.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. member in connection with the urgency of debate. I doubt whether there is any point in pursuing the matter further. It seems to me that citation 100, paragraph 4 of Beauchesne's fourth edition is pretty well to the point in the special circumstances here, and I ask leave of the house to read it.
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26, for the purpose of discussing-
And this is a particular case to which the learned author refers in this instance
-"the serious situation in which the farmers of Manitoba are at the present time, on account of lack of feed for cattle and seed grain and no satisfactory result can be obtained from the government for relief", was ruled out of order because the subject matter thereof could be discussed either on the motion for the house to go into committee of supply or on a certain bill then on the order paper in respect to unemployment and farm relief.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I also refer to citation 100(8) which suggests that the matter should be one of a sudden urgency. From the questions which have been asked by the hon. member and a number of other colleagues in the house during the last few weeks I gather that this is not particularly or especially a sudden emergency but rather a very serious situation which has been continuing for a while, and because of this I doubt if there should be an adjournment of our debates at the present time.
I see that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) appears to want to contribute to the discussion and I would not want to be placed in the position where he would wish to discuss the matter after I had made a ruling. If he feels that he should add a few words at this point I think he might be allowed to do so before I make a ruling.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the hon. member who has just spoken in referring to the emergency of the situation. Although it is true that this has been building up over a number of weeks the crisis has reached the point where there is no possibility, or very little possibility, of the
October 23, 1968

crop being recovered. The year is going on, we are getting into November, and we expect winter instead of harvest conditions.
We have repeatedly asked the government to give priority to the cash advance legislation over other legislation that has been brought forward, and this has been refused. In the last few weeks we have had no opportunity to discuss this matter which has now become not only a regional problem but one that is going to affect the economy of the whole of Canada.
I respectfully suggest to Your Honour that this matter should be discussed today; because the farm credit act, even though it may come up after the post office bill is passed, does not deal with this particular situation. All it does is provide money to be lent to farmers, but it does not in any way alleviate their immediate lack of cash which we feel the government should be considering in this serious situation.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that this matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is a serious one; as is so frequently the point, this is not the issue here. Had the hon. member waited I am sure that later today he would discover that the wheat board, in its usual fashion, has the matter well in hand. So far as the handling of the difficult problem of damp and tough grain is concerned the wheat board is taking steps, in its usual fashion, to see that the greatest possible favour is given to the handling of damp grain.
The situation is so serious this year that it may not be able to handle the tough grain, but so far as urgency of debate is concerned it seems to me clear that the urgent thing is for this house to get on with the announced business of the house so we can then proceed with those pieces of farm legislation to which reference has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, until the hon. gentleman opposite spoke I could fully understand the reasons for your expected decision, but the hon. gentleman transgressed the rules of the house in endeavouring to explain why the government has not acted up to now, and has now acted today through the wheat board.
If ever there was a serious situation it is this. The seriousness has been admitted by the hon. gentleman, and I appreciate that admission on his part. Anyone in this chamber who has not been in western Canada has
Assistance to Western Farmers no idea how serious the situation is. The hon. gentleman says we should get on with the rest of the business of the house. I say there is nothing more important, more imperative and more urgent than the dangerous situation on the prairies today.
I would like to see the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, rise and say "We want immediate action in this regard." We want immediate action because in the last two or three days the situation has seriously accelerated to a point where the economy of western Canada is in danger. I would think this is one occasion when the government would not follow the course of forgetting about western Canada, and would give the house an opportunity to discuss this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that there is urgency of debate on this question. On the facts of the matter there can be no dispute. According to the most recent reports of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, approximately 40 per cent of the crop in that province still remains to be harvested, and a good deal of the grain that has been harvested is in tough or damp condition.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, a number of inquiries have been made in this house with regard to government programs to deal with the serious situation which faces the prairies. The normal answer given is that more time is required to determine the exact extent of the problem, and to see whether the farmers in fact would be able to harvest all of the crop on the prairies.
I think, as has been made clear .within the past several days and as has been pointed out today, it will not be possible for many of the farmers on the prairies to harvest their crop. I confirmed this myself today in conversation with my constituents.
With reference to the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio, it seems to me there is no better opportunity than is being presented now to discuss some of the matters to which he referred. He referred to the actions of the Canadian Wheat Board. What we require is a discussion of the over-all situation. The minister referred to the necessity to get on with the legislation that is now before us. I suggest that this is only one part of the program required to deal with this situation. In fact there are many different programs which are required to deal with the problems facing the prairies.
1934	COMMONS
Assistance to Western Farmers
I suggest this is a matter which could best be dealt with in a debate such as that proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. There are several problems. There is the problem of tough and damp grain, the question of assistance to farmers who are unable to harvest their crop, and the need to further encourage and assist the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of the sale and export of grain. Therefore I urge that the motion be allowed and that we have a debate on this subject.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to rise in the house at this time to support the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and so eloquently supported by the hon. member for Lisgar and the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
As you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we as members have been putting questions to the ministry opposite regarding this serious situation that has been developing. We have seen the legislation which was earlier placed on the agenda for debate sidetracked on many occasions. Day by day the situation becomes worse. I think it is high time the regular business of the house is adjourned so we might debate this urgent matter.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that on a number of occasions motions similar to that which is before the house, having to do with a situation of national importance, have been allowed. Although it would seem that little purpose would be served by a motion of this nature in respect of crops that will not be harvested in some areas, I suggest the statement by the minister on behalf of the government is an indication that the Canadian Wheat Board intends to take only the normal action it is empowered to take in the circumstances.
Your Honour will remember that on a number of occasions concessions have been made to the wheat farmers in western Canada. If we are to override the quota system the wheat board has in use we must be in a position to permit the treatment of damp grain by the use of all our transportation facilities and the rerouting of the grain in the area. It seems to me this is something parliament could do by giving a direction.

DEBATES	October 23, 1968
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Because of the national interest in this matter I believe this motion should be allowed so that other steps can be taken in addition to those outlined by the minister, which I think we all welcome but which we all know will not solve the total problem. Surely parliament can give some direction in respect of changing quotas, and today is the day I suggest that we should give that direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me suggest to hon. members that nothing that has been said following the motion by the hon. member has really changed the situation. I am still as convinced as I was in the first instance that this is a serious matter, and urgent; and if hon. members will allow me to do so I am prepared at this time to express an opinion and make a ruling.
I fully appreciate how urgent the matter is and how important the situation is to the
country, and to members of this House of Commons. The decision before the Chair at the moment is whether the ordinary business of the house should be set aside for the purpose of discussing this situation. I must consider whether, within the near future, there will be an opportunity for hon. members to discuss this matter.
Reference has been made to the farm legislation which has come before the house and will come before it again later on. I am not necessarily impressed by this argument, but it seems to me that when we reach the budget discussion, which is a very general debate of much the same nature as the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, there will be a number of days for hon. members to discuss this most important and urgent situation. I think that might be a very good opportunity to go into this matter.
If there were a delay in reaching this debate perhaps the motion could be made again and further considered, but because of the fact that within a short period of time there will be this general debate I think it would not be proper for the Chair to allow a debate at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 14 is agreeable to the government, subject to the usual reservations with regard to confidential papers and
October 23, 1968
[Stage Direction]
authorization from government authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour be good enough to call notice of motion No. 11?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Nielsen:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters, telegrams, briefs or other documents exchanged since the 1st day of January, 1966, between the Prime Minister of Canada or any Minister or official of the Government of Canada and the Premier of Ontario or any Minister or official of the Government of Ontario, and between the Prime Minister of Canada or any Minister or official of the Government of Canada and the Premier of Quebec or any Minister or official of the Government of Quebec, on the subject of the establishment of bilingual high schools in the National Capital Region.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Fortin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of Quebec since January 1, 1965, relating to the request for assistance to the producers of maple sugar and syrup.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that there is no correspondence in respect of this motion. I wonder, therefore, whether it might be appropriate for the hon. member to agree to having the motion withdrawn.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer yes to the President of the Privy Council, provided there are no papers on the matter.
(Order discharged and motion withdrawn.)


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a matter of privilege in respect of notice of motion No. 24 in my
Motions for Papers
name. It deals with a report in respect of fish and game laws as they relate to native Indian people. I have been asked to attempt to obtain this document in light of the current consultations which are taking place with the native Indian peoples. They desire to have as much information in their hands as possible in order that they may fully and thoroughly discuss the various aspects of the laws relating to them. It seems to me that the longer the answer is delayed the more disadvantageous the position will be in which the native people will find themselves in dealing properly with the subject matter of the motion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the hon. member's representations and I hope to be able to give him an answer next week.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a matter of personal privilege. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Transport about the production of papers referred to in notice of motion No. 12 which was placed on the order paper on September 24. This has reference to the Roberts Bank rail controversy. The minister replied at that time that this material would be available soon. Since this is the earliest available time I should like to ask the minister the reason for the delay in producing this information in relation to this urgent matter. I mention this because I feel my privilege as a member and the privilege of those people I represent are being disregarded by a continued reluctance on the part of the minister to provide this house with this factual information.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, including the fact that there are many agencies involved which have to be consulted. I can assure my hon. friend that I believe this will be dealt with next Wednesday.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has acceded to
1936	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the request of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada for a meeting of a delegation of the institute's officers and the Prime Minister to discuss and seek clarification on certain matters arising from Bill No. C-120 and, in particular, from the Prime Minister's statement to the house at the resolution stage.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I received this letter from the institute the day before it was delivered to the press. At that time I considered whether this was conducive to obtaining the information really wanted. I was asked in the letter a series of questions concerning government agencies, and I referred this letter to those agencies in order that they might verify whether the fears or allegations referred to were well founded. When I receive a reply I will in turn reply and indicate whether I wish to see these gentlemen.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that despite the recent desirable increase in our foreign aid Canada still stands twelfth among the 16 western industrial nations in the proportion of the national income which is used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question? He knows the purpose of asking questions at this time is not to convey information but rather to seek it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I did not think the question 1 am about to pose would have meant as much to the Prime Minister without the preamble. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the house of any plans the government has to increase foreign aid so that the goal he has expressed of 1 per cent of the national income may be reached by 1970; and will he indicate in what stages?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it was the previous government's policy, as it has been the policy of this government, to consider this as a goal. Every year we are doing better. I believe the increase this year was some $50 million for foreign aid and for international development. We are still aiming in this direction, and perhaps in next year's budget we will discover new ways of finding more money so we can help more people in other countries.

DEBATES	October 23, 1968



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
MONTMAGNY, QUE.-REQUEST FOR DREDGING On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Will the Department of Transport undertake shortly the dredging of the Montmagny basin to promote the economy of that area, as the shooting season for migratory birds on Ile-aux-Grues has now started and communications by water have become extremely difficult?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this question should be put on the order paper, but if it is urgent, the hon. member could advise the Chair so that it can be discussed during the adjournment motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask the minister, for how many days was the urban task force scheduled to sit in the city of Montreal for the purpose of hearing briefs from groups or individuals concerning urban development and urban housing problems in this metropolis of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it was scheduled to sit for two days, but if there are additional excellent briefs that should be considered we would be willing to consider additional time, or we will hear interested persons when we return to the Hull-Ottawa area about the end of the month.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question.
What steps has the minister taken to inform the public, the intermediate bodies as well as the federal and provincial members of parliament interested in that problem that public sittings will be held at such a date and time set aside for that purpose-
October 23, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much that the question is in order because the hon. member is referring to something that has already happened.


Georges-J. Valade: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, public notice is given by newspaper advertisements. In addition we often send letters to organizations which we feel will be particularly interested in the subject.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate to the house whether his task force on housing will return to Montreal, in view of the fact that they spent only two days there and three days in Toronto?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister advise the house whether the government has given consideration to the establishment of a national securities commission, in line with the request from a number of provinces and of several responsible financial bodies in the country?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been very actively engaged in the preparation of a federal position on a national securities administration. There will be a meeting on Friday, as I have answered in written questions, of the continuing committee of officials on financial institutions, to discuss this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to indicate when a decision may be reached and announced?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to introduce in this session of parliament a securities act, which we will be discussing with the provincial officials on Friday.
1937
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio from the province of Saskatchewan, in view of the fact that he made some observations a few minutes ago and apparently is looking after this side of the question. Will he say whether, in view of -and I do not think I overstate the situation in saying this-the devastation on the prairies, consideration is being given by the government to bringing in acreage payments for the small farmers? Second, will he add to the observations he has already made regarding the nature of action to be taken in so far as marketable wheat is concerned; that is, wheat that is damp and will not be saleable unless action is taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman asked the question of the minister in his alleged responsibility as minister from Saskatchewan. I have suggested to hon. members in the past, rightly or wrongly, that it is not in accordance with the rules to ask questions in this way. The right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that the minister spoke before, but my understanding was that he was speaking on the point of order. I would think this question should be answered by the responsible minister, or the minister who has administrative responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I direct my question to a minister who can be described as responsible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -that is, the Minister of Agriculture.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the ministers on this side of the house would fit into that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Baldwin:: Speak for yourself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In direct response to the right hon. gentleman's question I would say that everyone in this house, and particularly members from western Canada, know there is no assistance program that is equal, or even near equal, to the farmer being able to harvest a good crop in good condition. However,

1938	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry there is a series of programs available this year which in the aggregate exceed anything that has hitherto been available to the grain producers of western Canada. No. 1: there is $127 million worth of crop insurance in force in the three prairie provinces this year, in connection with which the federal government has paid 25 per cent of the premium plus 50 per cent of the administrative cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Second, on the basis of the estimates that we now have, there will be a minimum of $14 million paid out in P.F.A.A. payments.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is impossible to give an estimate of the maximum until harvesting operations are completed this fall. Third, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has risen on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. Isn't this a speech which might well have been made on the motion to adjourn the house, or when we are on a piece of farm legislation? I submit that it should not be made in the question period.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, speaking first on the point of order, all these programs are well known to hon. members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister should not speak on the point of order but should perhaps complete his answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Third, this government has introduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that he is now giving a complete review of government action over a period of time. I will allow the hon. member for Lisgar to ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask a supplementary question because I have not received any answer to the original question. Would the minister, instead of giving voluminous approbation to the crop insurance program which my government brought in advise whether this government is going to give the

DEBATES	October 23. 1968
small farmers the acreage payment. Surely the minister can answer that question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of being responsible is to answer, and that is what I want to do. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman that all the programs we have add up to substantially more than acreage payments to the-


George Robson Muir: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been a ruling on the point of order. The ruling was that there was not one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not agree that all he is doing is repeating the legislation that was brought in by the former government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The advance payments, that we would like to bring in as soon as the opposition will let us pass the legislation, is a substantial improvement over previous legislation in this respect.


Mr. Ricard:: Bring it in.


Mr. Schreyer:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk on a supplementary question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether in addition to the existing program to which he referred, any extraordinary, special programs are to be undertaken to deal with this extraordinary situation on the prairies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my department and the other departments concerned are always considering extraordinary programs to meet extraordinary situations. But the hon. gentleman knows that this situation cannot be assessed until the harvesting season is completed, and there are many areas in western Canada where harvesting operations are now under way.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to
Ociober 23, 1968

which the minister can answer yes or no. Does he not think the farmers now need special assistance, in view of the horror tale which was unfolded last night?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, sir; and I suggest the best way we can get it is to pass the farm legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Bring it in.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. On September 18, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister stated that the government intended to proceed with negotiations dealing with offshore mineral rights, and they expected soon to lay a proposition before the provinces. My question is, since five weeks have passed, has the government presented such a proposition to the provinces, and will this house have an opportunity of dealing with this matter in the near future?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the very near future. It is a matter which has already been dealt with in cabinet, and we are waiting for the appropriate time to proceed.


George Harris Hees: Has the proposition been presented to the provinces, or will that be done in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the near future.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I change the subject from agriculture to prisons, Mr. Speaker, and direct a question to the Solicitor General? Since matters affecting all phases of penology have been referred to a standing committee through the medium of the estimates, can the minister advise the house when we can anticipate receiving the report of the Ouimet royal commission which was appointed over two years ago? Has any deadline been set for the receipt of this report?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope to receive the report
by the end of the fiscal year.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID



NIGERIA-DELAY IN USE OF HERCULES AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since it now appears that the Hercules aircraft we provided for the International Red Cross to carry relief supplies between Fernando Po and Nigeria or Biafra are unable to use Nigerian airstrips, I should like to know whether the minister intends to substitute the Caribou or some other lighter aircraft which could use the airstrips now in existence?


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as the Hercules are concerned that are awaiting clearance to fly from Fernando Po to Biafra, we fully expect that when the formalities are cleared with Equitorial Guinea these planes will fly. Difficulties have been caused by the fact that the established airstrips within the control of the federal government of Nigeria do not seem to be in proper condition to accommodate the large Hercules aircraft. I therefore communicated with General Wrinch the other day and asked him to inquire of the International Red Cross about the possibility of supplying other planes.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonf):: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the discussion during the question period yesterday, can the minister tell us whether there has been an effort to obtain the views of the Nigerian government with regard to permitting Canadian Hercules aircraft to fly from Sao Tome over Nigeria to Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. As I said to the hon. gentleman yesterday, we fully expect we will get these aircraft into operation between Fernando Po and Biafra.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Will the
Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm a statement made by Dr. Arikpo in New York on October 8, in the presence of the minister's parliamentary secretary and several other members of parliament including the hon. member for Egmont and myself, to the effect that there would be no objection on the part of the Nigerian government to mercy flights from Sao Tome to Biafra provided the Red Cross inspected the cargo?


Mitchell William Sharp: This question was asked yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I said I was trying to
October 23, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry ascertain whether this was so. Unfortunately the commissioner for foreign affairs of Nigeria is in hospital. He is ill. I am still pursuing my inquiries.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy-
Royal): Does the statement mean the minister has now found the lost officials from Equatorial Guinea?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are pursuing the matter diligently, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax):: May I ask a further supplementary question. In the minister's consideration of alternative equipment for the movement of food and supplies that have been placed in depots, would he study the possibility of using rotary wing aircraft if the present landing strips or roadways are not suitable for the Hercules or Caribou?


Mitchell William Sharp: The situation in which we are now is that the International Red Cross has told us quite definitely they prefer that Canada supply the Hercules. This was the request we had from the International Red Cross. The Hercules, I believe, will be able to fly into Biafra territory if not into the federal Nigerian areas. We are now exploring alternative possibilities.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF EXPO EXPRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Does the minister or his officials intend to ask the SUTRI company to reconsider its decision to purchase Expo-Express, so that this means of transportation may become the property of the city of Montreal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am now conducting an investigation on the matter, Mr. Speaker. It is possible that SUTRI may wish to withdraw. I will meet this evening the Minister of Trade and Industry of the province of Quebec in this connection.


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix wants to ask a supplementary question.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I would like to address a supplementary question to the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has just stated clearly to the house that he has received representations from the directors of the company to the effect that the company was withdrawing its bid.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I mentioned that this was said. I am conducting an investigation.


Martial Asselin: Did the minister have any other discussions with officials of the city of Montreal, in order to confirm to them what he has just said?


Jean-Luc Pepin: First I want to meet my provincial colleague.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the house why the measure he announced last night to provide help to the farmers who need larger grain storage facilities does not apply to the farmers in the province of Quebec and the Maritimes?


Mr. Speaker:: That question could be put when the house studies the budget.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. The other day I inquired about a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia relating to Indian reserve lands which is of extreme importance. I wonder if the minister has any reply he would like to make.


John Napier Turner: have now had an opportunity of reading the judgment of Judge Kirke Smith. I understand that because of a dispute over costs the judgment has not been entered as yet so the period for appeal has not begun to rim. However, the solicitor for the plaintiff will send to the department all the pleadings and relevant material connected with this case.
October 23, 1968

Since the appeal date has not commenced to run, I must forgo expressing an opinion.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the same subject. I should like to ask the minister whether any application has been made to his department, since Indian reserve lands are involved, for his department to participate in financing an appeal.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether such a request was made by the people concerned, but I can assure the member that I shall look into the matter and give him an answer within a few days.



GRAIN-REPORT OF SCIENTISTS RESPECTING EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I
should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister inform the house of the results achieved by the commission of two senior scientists sent to Japan by the board of grain commissioners concerning the export and processing of Canadian grains?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have a report from this commission, Mr. Speaker, but I have requested one. I will take the question as notice and give a reply to my friend as soon as I receive the report.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has any final decision been taken to make available all or part of the former Smithers experimental farm in British Columbia for use as a retarded young people's training centre?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the question could be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, which is not readily apparent, the matter could be discussed at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PLANE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house whether the government has taken a decision with regard to joining the European fighter aircraft consortium. If so, what is that decision?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have reached a decision. As a matter of fact we are instructing our officials today to inform the European consortium on the multi-role aircraft that Canada will not participate in this project. With the current budgetary restraints and the high risk factor of this venture we have concluded that it would be inadvisable for Canada to participate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that a decision has been taken in respect to the long term and that Canada will withdraw from this type of fighter aircraft project completely?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member is always referring to fighter aircraft. We refer to it as a multi-role aircraft, so it is fighter, bomber and support aircraft.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Might I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I bring to the attention of the hon. member that he has asked one supplementary and that we are running short of time. The Leader of the Opposition is very anxious to ask a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order if I may, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister answered the question. He merely referred to the type of aircraft. I am wondering whether he would now answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I
October 23. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry directed a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, and it became clear on reading the reply of the minister that he had not understood the import of my question. I should therefore like to ask him now whether the intention of the Atlantic Development Board to bring forward a plan for the economic development of the Atlantic provinces this year has been abandoned. I think the minister will recall that the board was initially charged with the responsibility of arriving at a development strategy for the region, and this has not yet been done.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I
know that the Atlantic Development Board is considering a long term program for the development of the Maritime provinces. That board has done a great deal for the Maritime provinces. The program is not ready yet and, therefore, has not been submitted to us. We expect to receive it one of these days-I do not know when-but in the meantime since there will be a change in departmental responsibilities, we will no doubt take this work into consideration.


J. Michael Forrestall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. In view of the uncertainty expressed by the minister in charge of regional matters, can the minister give maritimers some assurance that individual programs that might normally fit into the context of his colleague's plan will be brought on a little more quickly? Could he take some steps to make sure this matter is brought on at an early stage?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there will be maximum co-operation between the two departments concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house as soon as possible when he expects to receive such a plan from the Atlantic Development Board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can try to find out when, but one thing is certain, as soon as we receive reports from the Atlantic Development Board we shall be glad to
IMr. Stanfield.]
have them published and make them available not only to the members of this house but also to the general public.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this might sound like a technical question, but I can assure you it is an important one. I address it to the minister responsible for forestry and regional development. When the minister refers to the maritime region, does he really mean the Atlantic region? This mistake has been made on a number of occasions, but there is a very sharp distinction between the Atlantic region and the maritime region. Would the minister bear this in mind in future statements?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What measures have been taken by the Canadian Wheat Board to equalize the quotas in the three prairie provinces? Also, what measures have been taken to give priority through the railway companies to the allocation of box cars for the movement of damp grain from shipping points that are still on units?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already given a reply to the house concerning the initiatives that have been taken in this matter by the wheat board. The board is doing some of what my hon. friend suggests it should be doing.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does not the Canadian Wheat Board have any authority to set special quotas, such as might be required for damp grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand they do have, but the Minister without Portfolio, who was in touch with the wheat board this morning, has reported to me that the wheat board are finding out how much tough and damp grain there is at the moment, and that they are temporarily stopping the shipment of dry grain while checking into this.
October 23, 1963



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house if the new appointment to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism can create such a commotion that it will free both ethnic groups of their frustrations?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister recently indicated the difficulty of legislating against the use of glue and other commodities he mentioned at the time. My question to the minister is, has the government made a study of how widespread are these bad habits, and are these habits being carried on openly under some form of camouflage?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a study is under way at the present time.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did ask the minister whether these bad habits are being carried on openly under some form of camouflage, and my supplementary question to the minister is whether such ingredients could be sprayed on a flower and sniffed all evening?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the time allotted for the question period has expired.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would arrange on another day of the week to have all his ministers present, in view of the fact that there are so many unanswered questions. This is not meant as a reflection upon Your Honour, because I think you have divided the time as fairly as you could, but there are many questions that we have been waiting to ask for some days. I know some ministers are lying around the House of Commons with nothing to do, and if this day could be arranged-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: -we would appreciate it, perhaps some time later this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will see to it that next Wednesday all ministers will attempt to be present again.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I should like to take this opportunity, if you will be lenient with me, sir, to congratulate the Prime Minister and some of the ministers of his cabinet on wearing today the lapel pins of the province of Prince Edward Island. We hope this is a good sign for the prospects of the causeway to our province. We also hope the fact that only a very small minority of the ministers are wearing the pin is not going to be a bad omen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On the same point of order perhaps I should allow the hon. member for Cardigan to ask the question that he has been trying to ask for 30 minutes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether he did meet earlier today with this distinguished delegation from Prince Edward Island that is presently in the gallery, to discuss the question of the causeway and, if a decision has been reached, would he care to make an announcement?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there will be no announcement made today in view of the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans for the second reading of Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act, and the amendment (page 1623) thereto of Mr. Macquarrie.
[Stage Direction]


October 23. 1968
Post Office Act
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, though there is a good case to support the amendment to refer this matter to a standing committee on transport and communications, in view of discussions which have gone on during the question period I think that all members of the house realize that farmers in western Canada face an extremely serious situation. I therefore would move, in accordance with one of the provisions of standing order 44:
That this house now proceed to Order No. 8, second reading of Bill No. C-133, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious doubts about whether this motion is in order. If hon. members wish to advise the Chair, I shall be glad to hear them. If not, I shall render my decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour is prepared to render a decision perhaps it is in vain to argue. But may I draw Your Honor's attention to standing order 44. That standing order has been included in our rules and it must serve a purpose. It must be in there to be used on appropriate occasions.
Standing order 44 reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the house; to continue a sitting between the hours of 1.00 o'clock p.m. and 2.30 o'clock p.m. or 6.00 o'clock p.m. and 8.00 o'clock p.m., as the case may be; or for the adjournment of the house.
The motion of my colleague from Moose Jaw relies on one of the rights set out in this standing order, the right, when an order is under debate, to proceed to another order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw has the floor and his motion is properly before the house. I submit he has the right to be heard under standing order 44.
I have not found many references in Beau-chesne to this standing order. Citation 195 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is too long for me to read fully, distinguishes between a substantive motion and other kinds of motions, such as those having to do with privilege, superseding motions, dilatory motions, and so on. The last paragraph reads:
Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently. They are the following: "That consideration of the question be postponed to ....
(date)." "That the orders of the day be read." "That the House proceed to" (name another

order); or "that the House proceed to the next business." "That the debate be now adjourned." "That this meeting be now adjourned."
I might also refer to the sentence by way of preamble to citation 189, which reads:
In the absence of standing orders to the contrary, the following motions may be made without notice:
There is a long list, and one of the items near the bottom of that list is, "for proceeding to another order;".
I submit therefore that a motion of this kind is provided for in standing order 44. Several other references in Beauchesne's fourth edition indicate that this standing order may be of use. I grant that it is used very rarely but, surely, because it has not been used for a long time does not mean that we are not entitled to use it on this occasion.
As the hon. member for Moose Jaw intimated, there has been considerable discussion about setting aside the post office legislation to deal with the advance payments legislation. As a result he moved his motion, and we are asking this house to make a decision on that motion.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I say briefly that I support this motion. I think it is in order, and I think it is a proper procedure to follow at this time. There has been much effort to have the government proceed with farm legislation. Standing order 44 I think is fairly clear. There was a reference on March 29, 1966, to this rule. At that time there was an application to proceed from government orders to private members orders. It was then ruled that such a proceeding could not take place because the application had to remain within the same type of order, or the same type of amendment that was then, or currently, under consideration. I do not have the case before me, but the inference was clearly to be drawn that if the motion were that the house proceed from one government order to another, it could be brought.


Mr. Speaker:: I may advise hon. members that I am prepared to render a decision on good authority. If other hon. members wish to express their views on a point of order at this time, I shall hear them.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that the Ralliement Creditiste is very happy to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).
October 23, 1968

Our arguments are very simple and not very much inspired by the law but by plain common sense. We feel that the passing of Bill No. C-113 entitled: An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is very urgent as compared to the Post Office bill which no one wants to see passed.
lEnglish]


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the expression of their views. Unfortunately, I do not think it is possible for the Chair to accept the motion proposed by the hon. member. It is true that the standing order referred to by the hon. member must be taken into account, but we must also take into account other standing orders, and particularly standing order 18(2) which reads:
Except as provided in standing orders 43 and 56, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
There are a number of other precedents that I might bring to the attention of hon. members. There is one precedent that is entirely on point. On that occasion a motion was brought under the standing order to move from one government order to another government order. The matter was not, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said, a proposal to move from a government order to a private member's order.
I refer hon. members to the Journals of the House of Commons, 1966, page 543, where the following is to be found:
And the question being again proposed,-That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a certain proposed resolution-
Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Blair, moved,- That the House do proceed to another order, namely No. 12.
Mr. Speaker ruled as follows:
May I point out to the honourable Member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that I cannot accept his motion because the order that is now before the house is a government order, and the other order that the honourable member now considers we should proceed with is order No. 12, which is another government order, and government orders may be moved only by the leader of the house. I would refer honourable members to standing order 18(2).
There is also citation 136, which reads:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
"All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house."
By virtue of standing order 18(2) the government has full jurisdiction over its own orders.
Post Office Act
Standing order 18(2) reads:
"Except as provided in standing order 56, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit."
Therefore, I cannot accept the honourable member's motion.
In view of this precedent-and in the circumstances this is the only one which I thought was necessary to bring to the attention of hon. members-I regret I cannot put to the house the motion proposed by the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I rise to seek Your Honour's guidance in this matter? Does Your Honour consider, then, that while standing order 44, which is binding on this house, does indicate that a motion may be made without notice to transfer from one item of business to another, that this is a prerogative of a minister of the crown in the light of the wording of standing order 18(2) to which Your Honour referred?


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is a point of argument which might have been raised before I made my ruling. I can only tell the hon. member that there is a standing order, 18(2), which binds the Chair and all hon. members, and that there are precedents by which I feel bound. I have quoted one of these precedents, and I have also quoted the standing order. There may be, to some extent, a discrepancy between the two standing orders; but in the light of previous rulings I have no alternative but to accept the interpretation which has been placed on these two rules by past Speakers.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment which is now before the house, that this bill to amend the Post Office Act, Bill No. C-116, be referred to a committee.
It is very difficult for me, and, I am sure for many other hon. members in this house as well as Canadians generally, to understand why a bill as important as this should not be referred to a committee. These proposals will affect everyone who buys a postage stamp. They directly affect many businesses, large and small. They affect all the publishing companies in this country, and there are many questions to be answered. I realize that the minister has provided all members with what we call a white paper outlining a good deal of the information. I also realize that many hon. members have been presented with briefs on this subject, and that the minister himself has received representations. However, there are

October 23, 1968
Post Office Act
many questions to be answered and we have no opportunity to ask them in the house. We were given this white paper and told: Here it is; I ask you to accept it.
No opportunity has been provided which would enable members to address questions to departmental officials. Neither is there any opportunity, really, for research to be undertaken; the opposition is not equipped with the type of research facilities available to the officials of the hon. gentleman's department. Yet we are asked to accept this document without question. As I say, we have all received briefs. But we have not had a chance to pool them all and discuss them thoroughly. So, I say again that I find it hard to understand why the minister is not willing to allow this important bill to be sent to a committee.
I have a few other observations to make. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on the freshness of his approach to the Post Office Department, the zeal, drive and initiative which he has brought to that department. I sincerely hope that this initiative, this great spirit of his, will permeate right down through the ranks to the men who deliver the mail at our doors. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on instilling this fresh outlook into the department.
By the same token I am rather surprised that the minister, who has had a tremendous background in the business world, and who has made an outstanding success of a private business he operated, should have introduced into this house the idea that you can charge more and provide less service. This seems an unusual idea to come from a man who was professor of economics, or director of the school of commerce at McGill University. I cannot imagine any company or corporation which was engaged in any competition whatsoever, proposing to raise its prices and give less service at the same time. But this is what the postmaster is asking us to accept. Can you imagine, for instance, the Ottawa Transportation Commission raising its fares and at the same time taking buses off the routes, or abandoning routes altogether? It is hard to imagine anything like that happening.
I congratulate the minister upon incorporating into this bill some of the recommendations made by the public accounts committee. These recommendations were made time and time again, but it has taken this new postmaster to incorporate them in a bill. One of the recommendations was that second class mail rates should be increased in order that

the post office might at least break even in this operation, while not necessarily showing a profit.
Then again, there was the suggestion by the committee-it was a suggestion rather than a recommendation-that the post office savings department be abolished. There was a third suggestion or recommendation to the effect that the Post Office Department be made into a crown corporation. I am sorry the minister has not taken this suggestion under serious consideration and recommended making a crown corporation out of the post office. Had he introduced a bill along these lines I believe it would have proceeded satisfactorily, and that the post office would have been placed on a sound, businesslike basis, with all the political atmosphere taken out of it.
What has happened in the last three years? How serious is this financial loss of which the minister speaks? Only three short years ago the post office showed a profit of $20 million. Even after deducting sums in respect of services supplied by other government departments, and adding a credit in respect of franked mail, the deficit amounted to only $11.5 million. The deduction included sums in respect of rents for accommodation supplied by the Public Works Department, a charge for accounting and technical services, contributions for superannuation, the Canada Pension Plan, and employees' compensation. Added on the credit side was $4.3 million in respect of franked mail sent by the departments and by members of parliament.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What has happened in such a short time? I realize costs have gone up. I appreciate the circumstances which have followed the settlement of the strike. But surely this does not account for the $100 million that the Postmaster General is talking about. Post office sales have gone up considerably during the last three years. Why should we be talking in terms of a $100 million deficit? Is the Postmaster General tacking on millions of dollars for depreciation of equipment? Is he adding on service charges for other departments? These are some of the questions we would like to ask in committee.
The other day I read in a newspaper that a Union Nationale frontbencher in the Quebec legislature nicknamed our Postmaster General a lemon squeezer. Here he is still squeezing lemons. This might be justified, but he is suggesting rates that, from what we have
October 23, 1968

October 23, 1968
Post Office Act
States. He also mentioned the possibility of making the post office a crown corporation. Had all these things been done long ago by his predecessors it might not have been necessary to introduce such drastic increases in postal rates.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
With the new rates, Canadians will be in a position to demand service, but I have not heard the Postmaster General guarantee that we can be assured of next day delivery. The way mail deliveries have been going of late I am inclined to think we had better mail service when delivery was by stagecoaches. A letter mailed from within a radius of 60 miles of Toronto or in that general area might arrive in Toronto the next day, or it might not arrive until four days later. Sometimes a letter mailed from Toronto and addressed to my community of Guelph, 60 miles away, does not travel any faster than it did in the days of the stagecoach. Sometimes a letter mailed in England will reach my area more quickly than a letter mailed from Toronto. We will be looking forward to an improved service. We will be looking for next day delivery in all possible cases.
What will the situation be in respect of the five day delivery service? I wonder whether the officials in the department have realized that all our national holidays fall on a Monday. On Tuesday the poor courier will have to deliver the mail for four days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. He will have to lug this around to my house and yours. Already he is complaining about having to carry a bag which is too heavy. What kind of service can we expect when the mail for a period of three or four days will have to be delivered in one day.
We might consider also the situation in respect of the retail stores, many of which close on Mondays. This is a situation which is very common across Canada. So, under the new system, in the downtown section of the cities a four day volume of mail will have to be handled on one day. I can conceive of many problems in respect of next day delivery; we are likely to have a two or three day delivery. What will the situation be with regard to doctors, lawyers, and others who depend on good mail service?
Then there is the situation concerning bills of lading. A railway car which is sitting on a siding cannot be unloaded until the bill of lading has been received. That car might be loaded with perishable goods. The person who

has ordered those goods will be in an unfortunate position because he will have customers waiting. I am sure the answer will be that these places of business should be instructed to rent lock boxes in the post office, so that they would be able to pick up their mail daily. This will not solve the problem, because at the present time it is very difficult to rent a post office box when such boxes are in short supply.
The statement given to us by the Postmaster General shows that for the year 1968-69 there will be a loss of $2-| million in respect of post office lock boxes. If we were to step up the use of these boxes we would probably lose more money. These are some of the situations which I believe will develop under the five-day delivery system, and if efficiency, productivity, and other things are not introduced into the operation and policies of the Post Office Department.
Not too long ago an increase was introduced in relation to special delivery letters. A special delivery letter should be delivered to the addressee as soon as the post office receives it. I am told, however, that shortly after this increase in price became effective special delivery letters would go out on the regular route if the delivery in that area happened to be in the morning. If the delivery happened to be in the afternoon, the letters would be sent out by special courier. This is an example of where the price went up and the service went down. I am told this is what happened in this situation.
I received a letter from a merchant-and he has the facts to back up his case-who told me that a parcel post package took six days to reach him in Guelph, mailed from Toronto, 60 miles away. During the Christmas period a person in Guelph must allow seven days for a parcel post package to be delivered in Toronto in time for Christmas.
In closing I should like to say a few words about the philatelic division of the Post Office Department, and take this opportunity to thank the Postmaster General and the officials in his department for having produced a very nice looking and much appreciated memorial stamp in honour of the late Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae. This was well received by the veterans of this country and I am sure by every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am informed that this branch of the Post Office Department has a turnover
October 23, 1968

of about $ 1J million a year. Most of this represents a profit. Because of this one might be led to suggest that we should be turning out some of the most attractive stamps that could be made. I am sorry to say, however, that Canadian stamps do not compare with those of other countries. Take a look at the stamps of Jamaica, Antigua or some of the other Caribbean countries. These are beautiful stamps with clear and crisp colours, and a pleasing photograph. They are real treasures for anybody who is in the business of collecting stamps. I believe the Post Office Department could do a better job in the production of stamps, and I am sure that the philatelic branch will be imbued with the zest and zeal of our new Postmaster General, so that we will have some of the best looking stamps in the world. I see no reason why Canada should not have stamps that are as attractive as any in the world.
Finally, I should like to say that I am opposed to this very important bill being passed until it has been considered by a committee. I am also opposed to the principle of increasing charges and reducing services. It is not good business, nor can I understand why anyone would wish to do it. I am sorry the bill has not been introduced in another form. I would like to see the post office become a crown corporation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the Post Office bill and, in my opinion, this discussion is taking a very interesting direction, to judge from the speeches made these last few days. In fact, the majority of the members are blaming the government for putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Speaker, let us refer this bill to a committee. The minister already said some time ago that a group of experts of his department are studying the reorganization of the Post Office Department and rethinking completely the structure of that department, in case it were to become a crown corporation. If this measure is passed, it will render our discussion and this bill absolutely worthless, since the whole concept of mail service in Canada would be completely changed.
Mr. Speaker, the minister would like us to pass his Post Office bill in a hurry, before we learn the results of this study. I find the attitude of the minister rather strange; he is putting the cart before the horse and serving interests other than those of the Canadian people, since, if this bill is passed, the cost to
Post Office Act
the Canadian people will be increased, without knowing whether another study may not be undertaken in a year or in two or three years to determine whether or not the Post Office Department is to become a crown corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the matter is serious indeed. With regard the possibility of the Post Office Department becoming a crown corporation, I tried to obtain some information on the subject recently, but the minister did not answer when I asked him whether experts are really studying this matter. I would like the minister to confirm it now, since the question was declared out of order on October 22, as may be seen from page 1647 of Hansard. I therefore ask the minister again to tell us whether studies are really being conducted at this time, in order to ensure that this bill has a solid base.
Mr. Speaker, an article published in the newspaper Le Devoir dated May 23, 1967, reported as follows:
President Lyndon Johnson set up a special commission to study the reorganization of the U.S. Post Office Department and its eventual replacement by a government corporation.
We see the same conclusions, the same evolution, in many countries.
Here, in Canada, we had the Anderson report in 1965. The same article also mentioned this report, and I quote:
In his report dated September 27, 1965, Judge Anderson made the following comments: "While I was trying-
Here comes the interesting part.
"While I was trying to determine whether the postal employees' salaries were fair and reasonable, I began to ask myself whether it might not be indicated, in order to ensure better postal services in Canada and to meet the needs of the people who operate it, to hand over its administration to a Crown corporation."
Judge Anderson goes on to give the arguments in favour of turning the Canada Post Office into a Crown corporation:
1.	Postal employees constitute a distinct and homogeneous group; they would readily constitute an appropriate negotiating group.
2.	The postal service earns the major part of the income used to pay its employees.
3.	Postal employees are, for the most part, semiskilled workers and because of this there is great similarity between their group and labour unions in industry.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Judge Anderson continues his eight-point demonstration to prove beyond a doubt that the problem in the Post Office Department is not one of deficit but one requiring the reorganization of its whole structure.

October 23, 1968
Post Office Act
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have also had in 1966 the Montpetit report. I quote:
As a result of persistent uneasiness within the Post Office Department, the government set up a royal commission of inquiry on working conditions in the postal service, known as the Montpetit Commission. That commission submitted its report in Octber 1966. Amongst its 282 recommendations-
This excerpt reveals how disorganized the department is. The commission made several recommendations about the advisability of turning that department into a crown corporation.
All that goes to prove without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the problem now facing us is a basic one. It is a matter of whether the Post Office Department should remain and continue to operate as it does now, that is as a government department, or if it should be turned into a crown corporation with a mixed economy.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would stupid for hon. member to pass the present bill when they know that before long everything will have to be done over again, because the present structure of the Post Office Department will be obsolete. It must be adjusted to the conditions of a modern economy.
Mr. Speaker, this point deserves a thorough study, so that it is possible to decide whether every dollar taken from the taxpayer is well invested and brings in the maximum return.
I think there is a great deal of waste in the federal administration. The budget speech of last night proved it clearly, with its deficit of $760 million; it is a proof that our economy is in recession. That is why Canadian taxpayers are looking towards this parliament from which they expect immediate solutions.
However, Mr. Speaker, they pass the time bringing in useless bills. Moreover, the minister has now the following alternatives: either act as an administrator or put money first and tell us: "The Post Office Department must at all costs avoid a deficit." Such a position could be justified; I admit, but if at the same time the minister interferes with the basic rights of each Canadian citizen to be informed, I say that he does not then merely deal with a moral problem but also with an administrative matter and that he must alter his positions.
What astonishes me, because I always held him for a trustworthy man, is that the minister is always trying to force the opposition to side with the financial powers, instead of siding with the people. This beats me and I cannot understand it. The opposition would
[Mr. Fortin.l
have to be blind to allow a bill like this to pass.
Mr. Speaker, my impression is that this bill has been drafted by high officials of the Post Office Department, who have abandoned their own rights as citizens, in order to enter the civil service. They have no political opinions other than those of the government which they consider to be the best, and they say to the minister that it is absolutely necessary to do this. Then the minister says: that is how it must be. Our minister is a blind man guided by other blind men and when a blind man is guided by blind men, only one thing can happen: people are knocked about and deprived of their fundamental rights.
When we read the many telegrams we receive every day from all parts of Canada, when we read the briefs, the newspaper articles, and the letters we receive, when we meet people, we realize that, from coast to coast, there is a general outcry against the bill since it puts the cart before the horse, and asks us to take a stand even though we do not know exactly whether the Post Office Department should not change its constitution.
I refer here to a very interesting editorial published in the October 17, 1968 edition of the Quebec newspaper Le Soldi, and signed by Mr. Raymond Dube, an excellent journalist who confirms what I have just said, and I quote:
From the strictly economic point of view, the attitude taken by the Post Office Department is understandable, but its position becomes absolutely unjustified and untenable when it places the economic soundness of a state-provided service above the respect for a principle as unquestioned today as the obligation for a democratic government to ensure that the whole population can fully exercise its right to be informed and to eliminate anything which may directly or indirectly interfere with that right.
At this stage, I should like to state, with supportive evidence, that the bill now under consideration is interfering very seriously with this fundamental right to information of every Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point which I must make at this stage of the debate. It concerns the extremely critical situation of Canadian weeklies, and particularly those of Quebec, which are small papers with small resources and which, in many cases, are the only real source of information available to the population.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an editorial taken from the October 16 edition of the paper L'Union, which is published in the Eastern
October 23, 1968

Townships, signed by Mr. Marcel Rivard, a journalist from Victoriaville. I should like to read it to the minister, that he may know what the people think of him. All the hon. members have expressed the views of their constituents during our consideration of this bill, and I think the minister should know what the people of the riding of Lotbiniere think of his bill. The editorial written by Marcel Rivard is entitled: "A stab in the back for the weekly papers".
The title alone gives us an idea of the atmosphere which prevails among the people. I quote the article in question:
The local weeklies seem prepared for an increase in the postal rates but they object to an increase which will triple the cost of their postal charges.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that under the present system, the government solutions can be but increases, increases and again increases of rates and taxes and it is always the little wage earner who foots the bill. Besides, as we saw again last night in the budget speech, the small wage earner will again pay more taxes for the benefit of the rich.
The bill introduced by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) certainly does not find favour with the Quebec weeklies-and I should like the minister to listen to me-no more than with the dailies who will have to cut out their Saturday delivery. And Mr. Rivard continues:
Who will suffer from that bill, if it passed such as it is, if not principally the rural areas?
I have to mention that Marcel Rivard writes in several weeklies of the Bois-Franc and the eastern townships areas.
And that is why the weeklies including the eastern townships newspaper L'Union, do not agree with Mr. Kierans.
In fact, it is believed, and rightly so in some quarters, that the new Postmaster General considers his department as a business which must at any price show a significant profit at the end of a fiscal year-
And I add: even at the expense, of the Canadian citizen even if he knows it.
-as to the weeklies, they think that it is exactly the opposite-
For more than a decade, we have seen state television take away from them a more than significant portion of the so-called "national" commercial advertising-
Through state television which we finance with the taxpayers' money.
-because, with its system, television has crept in every area in Quebec and its penetration rate in the homes is quite high. However, the question
Post Office Act
is whether state television has succeeded in taking away the exceptional role of the weekly which is to reflect the life of a community: it has not, and never will-Of the two, the television and the weekly, which is then the stronger?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marcel Rivard replies quite objectively.
The weekly paper.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) made a very interesting and well documented speech. He explained the situation I have described, from another point of view. He listed a number of weeklies which are faced with problems and, here again, the minister makes no answer and keeps urging us to pass his bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable that, in 1968, we have to tolerate a government which, to the knowledge of everybody, proves dictatorial to the point of imposing its views upon the people, in order to pave the way for a socialist regime.
Mr. Marcel Rivard continues and I quote:
It would seem that is not his intention, even less that of the minister Kierans, since the new legislation as introduced, without any precise wording, in the House of Commons constitutes-that is what is unfortunate and inadmissible-a stab in the back for the weeklies, a mortal wound for some of them.
And if tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, some weeklies, such as L'Union des Cantons de VEst, le Nouvelliste, Le Courrier-Sud, L'Echo de I'Abitibi, La Frontiere-and many more since there are over 150 in Quebec alone-are forced to fold, the population will have a right to say: If we lose our regional means of information which created a certain climate in our area and among us a feeling of friendship, which preserved our strength and vitality, it will be the fault of the nice and big Liberal party, it will be the fault of a nice and big majority government, it will be the fault of a group of Liberal members who will have lacked the courage to rise in the house to protest against measures that they know are drastic ones. They keep their seats and remain silent although they know what repercussions they might have. That pleases me to a certain extent because it shows the population that only members without any financial ties, free as the air they breathe-there are fourteen in the house, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste-who can stand up for private enterprise and the people in general.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

October 23, 1968
Post Office Act


André-Gilles Fortin: Some government members are now trying to interrupt me; it would be so easy for them to rise and speak. They have the right to do so because we live in a democratic country. Let them rise and say what they think of the Postmaster General, what they think of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I received in my office a telegram from Le Soleil and three times, telegrams from the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph.
I also received telegrams from L'Union des Cantons de VEst, from La Tribune, from Le Nouvelliste of Trois-Rivieres and as the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste said, from nearly all Quebec newspapers. All members are aware of that situation. We do not want the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to think that we will accept that without any protest.
Mr. Speaker, we must wake up. It is about time that we assume our responsibilities in that field as in others. The minister said today, and I will conclude my remarks with that: I urge you, hon. members of the opposition, to pass my bill to reduce the cost of public information, so that the Post Office Department can balance its budget and make some profits like private enterprise. I implore you, help me to save my department from failure. And in a year, to the day, the same minister-if he is still in Ottawa, and I doubt, because his popularity is rapidly declining-will say to us; I beg of you, vote my estimates to make up for my deficit. That is what we have seen last night.
A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Sharp) told us: I beg the hon. members of the opposition to give me the authority to borrow money to make up for my deficit, and I guarantee that with an increase of 5 per cent in taxation, we will not have any deficit.
Last night, a speech of more than 11,000 words was needed to repeat this rubbish that we have known for a hundred years: I beg of you, vote my estimates, we have a deficit of $760 millions.
Mr. Speaker, I have taught school at the primary and secondary levels. I even taught children in an occupational centre, that is mentally retarded children. I would not go so far as to say that the house is made up of mentally retarded people, let me be clear on that; but I say that the house reacts in the same way before such tremendous deficits, and the government seems to think that we of the opposition, are completely irresponsible.

At this stage of the debate, I want to tell the government that it must reconsider its decision without any political sentimentalizing, because the Post Office bill would stab the weeklies in the back. I therefore ask him to review his decision, bearing in mind the well informed speeches of the members of the opposition and the incalculable representations made every hour and every day of the week. I ask him to pay particular attention to the thousands of letters we receive. I ask him to acknowledge a principle has never been disputed, that of an objective information in a democratic land.
Consequently, we would like, as would the whole population, not only from Lotbiniere or the eastern townships in Quebec, but from all Canadian provinces, to see the minister, for one or two more months, refer the matter to a committee, to which members of the government party, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and the Ralliement Creditiste could invite witnesses. For example, such newspapers as Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph, Le Manitobain, or others as Le Patriote and Les Quotidiens du Quebec Inc. could be asked to express their opinions, so that officials would have plenty of time-since they like that-to study the possibility of transforming the Post Office Department in a Crown Corporation. If we do not do it today, we shall have to start all over again tomorrow. So, why not get at it right away?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am therefore asking the minister to reconsider seriously his decision and to comply with the wish of the opposition thanks to his majority and to his authority, by referring the bill to a special committee which could thoroughly study the matter, and make the right to information prevail, while enabling the Post Office Department to provide an intelligent service without a deficit.
I believe that both are reconcilable Mr. Speaker; I think that it is possible to have a Post Office Department which would not incur a deficit and a right to information which would be respected and protected; in my opinion, both are possible. However, up to now, it seems to be impossible. Why? Because we do not take the necessary means and do not discuss the matter. What about the Montpetit report published in 1966 and the Anderson report published in 1965? What about the Carter report and the Royal Commission of inquiry on Banking and Finance?
October 23, 1968

What about the Glasgow report? Those enquiry commissions have costed millions of dollars and with what results, I am asking the minister? With the results that their reports have been shelved. Years have passed, governments have passed and the said reports still are there accumulating dust.
When the government becomes conscious of a gathering storm, when it feels that the atmosphere is unsettled, that people are dissatisfied then some representative of the government stands up and with a big smile, like the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Pepin) he tells us that a royal enquiry commission will be established. Then they appoint judges, or people like Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, an ex-communist, and they conduct an inquiry to quiet the storm. Once people are satisfied, they say: Ottawa is moving. The government is happy. An enquiry has been made. Some people climb on the gravy train, at the expenses of the taxpayer thanks to incredibly high salaries. Those inquiries cost $20,000 or $25,000 a year. I am told that it even costs $100 a day to delve into a matter, to solve a problem, to study it, to read briefs, receive them, hear the witnesses and, once the inquiry is closed, hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid out again. The printers are paid to publish the reports. We saw what happened to the B & B report for instance, and the Glassco report, the Carter report, the Porter report. They were consigned to oblivion. When the storm is over and peace has been restored, there is a rush to put away on dusty shelves a report which deals with a specific situation. Meanwhile, restrictive, negative measures are introduced which give nothing to the Canadian people, which on the contrary deprive them of the daily bread to which they are entitled, which is known as information, and which is a fundamental right in a democratic society.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the situation is extremely serious at this point, and if the minister maintains his absurd and untenable position, tomorrow we will witness an information crisis, a crisis involving the right to free speech, to freedom of the press. Who knows whether tomorrow perhaps the freedom of the press may not be attacked by the same majority government? Who knows? Perhaps the right to vote may be attacked by the majority government since that same government is buying votes. Who knows? Maybe this very government will attack the freedom of the press or the freedom of expression.
Post Office Act
Mr. Speaker, I think the situation is extremely serious. It should not be considered as a sentimental issue but rather as a matter of reasoning. As to whether or not it is more important that the Post Office Department should pile up deficits or that the right to information should prevail and should be fed, I then say that priority is self-evident and that we must keep on feeding public information rather than cut it to the heart as the minister is doing, arguing that the question of money must come first so that he may tell the opposition next year: Would you please, I beg you, vote more credits for me because my plans did not materialize and I come back with empty hands and facing another deficit.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister he has no conscience if he comes back one year from now-it is obvious that the bill will go through since this government is authoritarian-and if he asks us to vote credits for him, because his department shows the usual yearly deficit. I will tell him then that he is unscrupulous and that he has made a complete about-face.
I should like the minister to consider that. All members, even the government members, would be glad to sit on a special committee to examine more thoroughly the situation in the Post Office Department so as to update that department and render it more profit-earning, in order to serve more adequately the Canadian people, since after all it is always the Canadian people, the Canadian citizen, the little man who has to pay for the damage done by a high-handed majority government.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because I feel very strongly about the impact of this bill on the Canadian people. The proposals contained in Bill No. C-116 will have a direct bearing on all Canadians, rich or poor, and will hit their pocketbooks. In common with other legislation so far produced in this just society, this bill will hit the low income Canadian the hardest. At the outset, I should like to concur in the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) made in this house on Monday. I, too, question the accounting procedures of the Post Office Department, and wonder if the financial picture is as bleak as it is being painted.
Several questions come to my mind. Is the Post Office Department being assessed for charges which should be assumed by other

October 23, 1968
Post Office Act
departments of government? Has every operation of the department been thoroughly studied, and the waste and fat cut out? I will be the first to admit that costs have gone up-and this seems to be a way of life under this government.
As a businessman, however, I also know there is no pat answer to eliminating a deficit. It is fine to say, "I will just raise my price". I believe the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) will agree, however, that it is equally important to re-examine operating expenses, to eliminate unnecessary expenditures, but without reducing the quality of the service you are giving your customers. This is why we, on this side of the house, have proposed that this bill be referred to a standing committee, where the whole operation of the department can be analysed and suggestions made to eliminate any unnecessary expenditures, to develop and promote new sources of revenue and new types of service.
Many suggestions have just been made by my colleague the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) and I feel these are worthy of consideration. If this bill is pushed through the house in its present form, it will mean reduced service for large sections of the Canadian public, especially the rural mail subscriber who cannot afford to pay the increased subscription rates that will result. In my opinion, this is just another in a series of retrograde measures by which the post office has steadily cut down its service to the Canadian people. In no other field have Canadians experienced so drastic a reduction in service, coupled with an enormous increase in rates. In no other field do Canadians pay so much more for so much less.
If this bill becomes law, Canadians, in this age of expansion and acceleration, in this swinging society, will end up with a mail service that is slower, less frequent and less convenient than that enjoyed by a previous generation in the horse and buggy age. In return for this service, we will be asked to pay an exorbitant rate which has increased in inverse proportions to the service provided. One cannot help but wonder if the post office millenium will be no mail delivery at all, at enormous public expense.
Some of the statements made by the Postmaster General in support of this bill have been confusing, to put it charitably. Last week, in answer to a question in this house he said, as reported at page 1150 of Hansard:
-our present subsidy to newspaper publishers amounts to approximately $37 million.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot understand this statement. Surely the minister will admit that if any subsidy is involved it is being given to the rural mail subscriber, not the publisher.
Let me quote from an editorial in the Moncton Transcript for Wednesday, October 16. This editorial is captioned "Let's keep the record straight!", and is as follows:
In order for the publisher to receive the subsidy, he would have to charge the rural mail subscriber the same as the carrier delivered subscriber and pocket the difference between what it cost to deliver by mail and by carrier. But this he does not do and Mr. Kierans does not seem to understand this fact.
This is not an isolated editorial opinion. The implication is plain: if this bill passes and the so-called subsidy is reduced, any increase in mailing costs will be passed on to the subscriber in the form of increased rates, though these higher rates will still not meet the increased cost of delivery. We have heard various estimates of increased cost, some being as high as 400 per cent, but it seems fair to say that the increases will be so great that subscription rates will be raised by as much as 40 per cent. This could mean a drastic drop in rural subscribers, with severe effects on weekly papers and those dailies which have a large rural subscriber list.
The Globe and Mail for Friday, October 11, reported that this could be a death blow to such papers. It could mean that papers of this type would no longer effectively cover rural Canada. This would be another of those retrograde steps to which I referred earlier; and if the reduction of the so-called subsidy to the rural subscriber puts the price of the newspaper beyond his reach, the government alone must bear full responsibility.
I find it hard to accept the position that the rural mail subscriber must pay the whole shot for his daily or weekly newspaper. Does not the fact that the government is prepared to pay the deficit of the C.B.C. out of general revenue establish the principle that the right to be informed in this country does not have to be borne by the individual alone? Why should there be a distinction between different forms of news dissemination? The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has expressed this very well, and I echo his sentiments.
Running all through the defence of this bill by hon. members on the government side of the house, Mr. Speaker, is the inference that the effect of the legislation will be to soak the
October 23, 1968

corporations, the publishers, the mail order houses, the businessmen. The Postmaster General has already announced increased rates for third class mail to become effective November 1. The inference has been that this will eliminate a lot of junk mail, or at least force it to pay a larger share of the costs involved.
This is fine; if the new rates do eliminate a lot of this nuisance mail, I will be the first to congratulate the Postmaster General. But my concern is for the legitimate mail order houses, those firms that have played such a large part in building rural Canada, and are even yet an integral part of the Canadian way of life. Under these new rates they get a double jolt-the double whammy, as my colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) so aptly put it. The cost of mailing their catalogues will show a large increase, and the cost of mailing merchandise orders to their customers will be increased approximately 50 per cent. Now, how will they absorb these increased costs of doing business? I suggest to you, sir, that they will not absorb them but instead pass them on in increased prices to the consumer.
So here we have it: No matter how you try to camouflage it, the end result will be the same. In the final analysis, the public pays. Let us not try to fool anyone. The net result of this bill will be to increase the cost of living to those who can least afford to pay it-the average consumer. This is why we on this side of the house feel so strongly that this bill should be submitted to a committee for a full and complete analysis of all the problems involved. We cannot understand the minister's great haste to ram the bill through the house. Why does he not want a thorough study of the department? To return again to the editorial from which I quoted earlier:
Further, Mr. Kierans does not seem to want to have these points brought to light by committee study. In spite of repeated opposition demands he has steadfastly refused to refer this matter to a Commons committee where all this would be revealed.
Canadians have long wanted a majority government which would be a strong government. Is this an indication that instead of a strong government they have an autocratic government?
The Postmaster General's argument seems to stand on one premise-that every department of government must pay its own way. I submit that this is a false premise. There are certain services that every Canadian is entitled to, and if necessary these must be subsidized out of general revenue. This government, and every government before it, has
Social Security
recognized this principle in the case of the C.B.C., the C.N.R. and the Department of National Defence. Can the government now say to the Canadian people: "You can only use the postal services if you are able to pay for them"?
After listening last night to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), it is apparent that this government expects the small wage earner to pay the whole cost of the just society. But surely he should have some choice as to how his money should be spent. Let the Postmaster General prevail upon his colleagues to cut out some of the waste and trash from the C.B.C. The millions saved could be applied to the postal deficit, and he could earn the thanks of thousands of Canadians.


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



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending from 25 to 40 days the exemption period for social security, unemployment insurance deductions and taxation deductions presently allowed in the case of migrant agricultural workers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a motion which has very important implications for that part of the country from which I come and, indeed, for all employers of agricultural labourers and workers throughout Canada.
In speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I should first like to review very briefly some of the background that led up to the regulations with which this motion is concerned. In the 1930's massive unemployment swept across our country, placing hundreds of thousands of workers in a very unenviable position and causing them undue hardship. As a result, Mr. Speaker, successive governments sought some means whereby this hardship could be prevented from recurring, and in their wisdom in August, 1940 a system of unemployment insurance was introduced in Canada. The unemployment insurance commission was set up to administer the plan, Mr. Speaker, and in July 1941 employers began to make the required deductions from

October 23, 1968
Social Security
workers' wages. However, it was not until just recently, in July 1966, that further deductions from workers' wages were made for the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
At the beginning, these regulations, privileges and benefits were made available only to workers in industry, and they exempted groups of workers in agriculture, logging and so on. When farm organizations saw the disadvantage under which agricultural workers laboured, agricultural workers in the meantime being more difficult to obtain because industrial production had increased in this country, those farm organizations sought some avenue whereby they might make applicable to farm workers benefits similar to those that had been given to industrial workers. Accordingly they presented briefs to the government of the day, and eventually these plans were made available to agricultural workers. Effective on January 1, 1966, at the time when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, agricultural workers had to pay deductions from their wages.
The second page of the pamphlet distributed by the government when the Canada Pension Plan was put into operation reads in part as follows. The heading is, "Employment Not Covered", and this relates specifically to my resolution. Underneath the heading are found the following words:
Employment as a migratory worker-in occupations like farming, fishing, trapping, hunting, logging-where you work less than 25 days a year for the same employer or where you earn less than $250 a year from the same employer;
In April, 1967, the unemployment insurance legislation was extended to cover agricultural workers. The directive which was sent to all employers of farm labour on August 24 reads in part as follows:
-Unemployment insurance regulations-
-and this refers to agricultural workers-
-have therefore been changed to bring them in line with the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan as they pertain to the payment of contributions for casual agricultural workers.
A temporary or casual employee in agriculture or horticulture is one who earns less than $250.00 in cash wages and works for less than 25 days in a calendar year. Effective immediately such an employee is not insurable.
Plans such as this that apply to agricultural workers have been in operation for two seasons. It is time for government officials charged with the administration of such plans to make an assessment of the success of their

operation. I propose to outline to hon. member some of the results which have become apparent in these two years of operation, and I wish to suggest ways in which improvements may be brought about.
I must say that government officials charged with the responsibility for putting into operation these plans took steps to make farmers well acquainted with the way in which the schemes would operate. Employers of agricultural labour do not quarrel with the provisions that are made for those who work permanently on farms-that is, for those who work a whole season. Farmers are happy to see such workers receiving benefits. My resolution has to do only with migratory workers.
At meetings sponsored by the departments of agriculture in the provinces the government made its position clear. I myself attended a meeting in our organization to familiarize myself with the farmer's part in the operation of this plan. Officials from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and from the area taxation offices came to these meetings, explained the plans to farmers, and heard complaints and objections, which were many. As a matter of fact I felt sorry for officials who tried to explain this complicated legislation to our farmers. The standard answer from these people to farmers' objections was, "We do not make the laws; we only interpret and enforce them. You will have to talk to your member of parliament".
I am now speaking to the government and asking it to recognize our farmers' problems. With the utmost sincerity I plead with members of the government charged with administering these plans to heed what I am about to say.
First, the farmer lacks training in accounting, yet he is obliged, under the regulations, to keep all manner of records. He must show the wages paid, the days worked, how much is attributable to board and meals, since these items are counted as wages, and in addition, he must make deductions with respect to unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan as well as income tax.
I know many farmers who are skilled in raising crops; yet they have not the remotest idea of accounting procedures or how to keep the simplest records. Also, the farmer just has not the time to devote to all these tasks. He himself will be labouring during the harvest season and he may not have time to look after his casual labourers. The farmer hires his labourers, some of whom may work only a day or two, and quit. He must replace those
October 23, 1368



workers by going to the marketplace. In my area the farmer will be looking for tobacco workers. In addition, farmers in my area have the task of curing tobacco.
One might ask: Why does the farmer not hire clerical help? It is not practical to hire clerical help for two months of the year; it does not make sense. Also, clerks are just not available. I have heard of accountants who hire themselves out to farmers; yet when the crisis comes, when the accountants are most needed, they are not available, not being able to spread themselves among all the farmers who have retained them. Farmers have neither the time nor the experience to handle that type of work. Even though the farmer may retain an accountant, he must still keep detailed records to turn over to that accountant.
There is also the matter of the lack of education, and the language problem. In the area I represent we have a great many so-called new Canadians whose mother tongue is other than English or French. Though they may converse reasonably well in English they have the greatest difficulty in understanding printed directions and instructions which arrive on their desks in reams almost every day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Seven copies.


William David Knowles: Perhaps the language difficulty is our greatest difficulty. I talked to one young farmer who had a successful farm, a modest home and a good income. But he was overwhelmed with the paperwork that daily came to his desk and he said quite frankly, "I do not know what all this means. They are going to come here and fine me because I could not fill out these papers." That farmer just could not understand what he was required to do.
Farmers resent being a collection agency for the government. In addition, they resent having to police the plans I am talking about. Many migrant workers bitterly resent having deductions taken from their wages. As a result the farmer is forced to make the deduction his worker does not like, and thus the farmer becomes a policeman enforcing the plan.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
What is the effect on the workers themselves? I am speaking only of migratory workers, the people who go in for the harvest season. But there are others who help at these times, including housewives, students from
Social Security
the high schools and retired persons. These people resent the deductions and it is difficult for the farmer to induce them to work for him. And at the end of the 25 days, when he must deduct these sums from their wages, what happens? These workers quit their work and move to the next farm. Twenty-five days are exempt, you see; so they work for a new employer and are not required to submit to the deductions. The government therefore is not really making any money out of this. The department is not getting anything now, because the majority of these people will not work for more than 24 days before they move on.
Consider the situation in which the farmer is placed. His crop is in the field, and something must be done in order to recoup the money invested in it, to repay a bank loan which might amount to as much as $25,000. These farmers are placed in an unenviable position.
A word about the effect on students. It seems eminently unfair to deduct from a student's wages sums in respect of these special plans, when he is working only to finance his way through college or to build up savings which will enable him to enter college. On the one hand, governments are taking money from students, while on the other it is making available student loans to help finance their education. These people will never benefit in the majority of cases from the contributions they make and in any case the sums contributed are negligible.
The solution lies in the resolution I have offered to the house and to the government for consideration, a motion which asks that this exemption be extended from 25 to 40 days. This would allow all agricultural crops to be harvested without the red tape which the present situation entails. I am not asking this as an individual, or because half a dozen farmers have urged me to raise the matter. I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the agriculture industry.
I have before me briefs which the Ontario fruit growers and the Ontario tobacco growers have presented to the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa asking for consideration of the proposal I have made this afternoon. The department listened with great respect to the arguments presented to them, and I feel the officials and others were sympathetic. However, they said-and this seems reasonable enough-that the scheme had only been in operation for one year and that it was not government policy to make any changes

October 23, 1968
Social Security
in legislation until it had been given a fair trial. I think the time has now come to make an assessment based on the facts I have laid before the house, facts which can be demonstrated in any number of instances.
In order to elaborate further as to the difficulties faced by farmers, may I be permitted to read into Hansard part of the brief which was presented to the department? How much time do I have left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There are about four minutes left.


William David Knowles: This is what the brief said:
It cannot be denied that to comply with the terms of The Canada Pensions Act, far more extensive farm records will have to be maintained. This will principally affect sharegrowers as well as farm owners. The bulk of the work will occur during harvest when the time for the bookkeeping can least be afforded. While large farm operators may well be able to cope with such problems, the smaller farmers, who form the bulk in numbers, will be hard pressed to do the necessary work.
Producers will be insecure in their labour force, not knowing at the time of hiring whether an employee will quit before the 25 days or $250 limits are reached.
This refers to the $250. I am suggesting that we forget the amount of money and simply give a 40-day exemption. The brief goes on:
At hiring, the farmer must decide whether to deduct Canada Pension Plan contributions or not. Will he be able to collect retroactively if he does not and the employee goes over the minimum? He must calculate allowance for board and lodging once $250 is reached. In all the general stress and strain associated with harvest, the time available for proper keeping of detailed books becomes a question of considerable importance.
The ethnic groups also have a problem in that a number of farmers have difficulty with English and French languages.
Some of this is repetitive and I do not think I will burden hon. members with more.
In December of the same year the tobacco growers presented a second brief demonstrating their concern. In addition, I have here a petition signed by 204 farmers from different parts of Ontario, after my motion had been placed on the order paper. This is what one farmer had to say about the situation, and I quote him because it sums up what so many farmers think about this plan. I refer to Mr. Jack Gilchrist on whose land near Guelph the international ploughing match is held. This article appeared in the London Free Press of Saturday, October 12:
Jack Gilchrist has become disenchanted with the extra workload placed on farmers through

legislation in the form of workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance and Canada pension deductions for hired labour.
The article goes on to say that in order to be relieved of all the bookkeeping and red tape in connection with hired help Mr. Gilchrist has placed his herd under contract to another man. The article says, quoting Mr. Gilchrist:
I am now relieved of all this bookkeeping. There's so much red tape with hired help (the deductions) its driving farmers out of the business.
Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but it certainly describes the feelings of the majority of farmers in this regard. The results of the changes proposed would be to remove some of the irritations which I have outlined. It seems to me that a good law should accomplish its purpose without causing undue vexation to those who are called upon to submit to it. These laws and regulations as they now apply to farmers do the opposite and create in farming people a disrespect for laws and regulations. The government has a responsibility to remove as many of these irritations as possible.
It might be argued that by taking the course I suggest the government would lose considerable revenue. But every farmer is willing at the end of the year when his crop has been harvested to fill out the T-4 forms in connection with income tax which show the total earnings of all his employees. Revenue authorities can then easily determine whether or not an individual should pay. The amount which the Unemployment Insurance Commission would lose is negligible, since this applies only to migrant workers. I am glad the parliamentary secretaries to some of the departments are here to listen to what I have had to say. I hope I have pleaded my case earnestly and sincerely, and I trust hon. gentlemen opposite will take note of these things because I can assure them they will hear more on the subject.


Russell Clayton Honey: I wish to give general support to the motion moved by the hon. member from Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles). I have two or three points to mention and I hope I can do so in a constructive fashion which might strengthen the motion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon, member for Norfolk-Haldimand. By this motion he is carrying on the tradition of his
October 23, 1968

predecessor, the former member for Norfolk, Mr. Jack Roxburgh, who along with members on both sides of the house expressed the concern of the farming industry to government and parliament. I am pleased to see that his successor is carrying on with the same type of arguments and constructive proposals that characterized Mr. Roxburgh.
The motion itself is somewhat broader than the argument used by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand. I think it is pretty difficult to deal with this matter in isolation. By that I mean it is difficult to do anything constructive by referring only to the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which were used as the basis for my hon. friend's remarks. As I say, the motion itself is much broader than his remarks.
It calls for-
-extending from twenty-five to forty days the exemption period for social security-
Within that context I am sure it is really referring to the Canada Pension Plan and to unemployment insurance deductions as mentioned by the hon. member. I wish to emphasize, as he did, that here we are dealing only with itinerant farm labourers, not with permanent farm labourers who benefit from the provisions of these social measures. They received a real benefit when they were covered by the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, and when the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act were extended to cover them on April 1, 1967.
Both these programs were also welcomed by their employers. They put farmers in a position where they could compete more effectively in the labour market for good, responsible farm help. I had some particular knowledge of these matters. In 1967 I worked with hon. members on both sides of the house to express the serious concern of the agricultural industry with respect to deductions for income tax purposes, the filing of T-4 forms, and deductions for unemployment insurance benefits.
The April, 1967 issue of The Grower, a monthly publication of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, carried an editorial dealing with the serious situation facing the farm industry at that time. It was headed "Battle of T4 Form," and was in these words:
Consternation and frustration reign in the fruit and vegetable industry these days-
Social Security
It would be fair to include the tobacco industry and many other industries that were also concerned.
-as the battle of the T4 form mounts in fury. It's the farmer against the bureaucrat, although the latter is only doing what parliament commanded him to do. It has to do with the difficulty of making out unemployment insurance forms and Canada Pension Plan forms where casual labour is involved. Actually the struggle is between the casual labour work force and the government. The farmer is in between. If he tries to obey the regulations he is caught up in a mountain of paperwork. One grower we know had 500 forms to make out. The report is that one auditor, operating in the Simcoe area where tobacco, apples and strawberries are heavy in the use of casual labour, had 10,000 T4 slips to handle and check. Even a ten year old boy picking strawberries has to declare he doesn't want coverage. Some refuse employment when asked for unemployment insurance number or their social security number. Others accept employment but give fictitious names and addresses. It all mounts up to a gigantic mess. To the grower it is a headache especially for those who are making a conscientious effort to comply. The result is a mounting demand for action at least to the point where the bureaucrats and the representatives of the farm community can sit down and draft a system that will work and that will not add to the difficulties already clouding the farm labour picture-
The growers are not fighting the law. It is the red tape that annoys, plus the very evident fact that many in the ranks of the casual labour force refuse to accept farm employment at a time when the labour shortage is at an all time high. Apparently the demand is not for elimination of existing regulations but for the development of a simple system in which the paperwork can be materially reduced.
That was the situation, Mr. Speaker. With the co-operation of members on both sides of the house, and with guidance and stimulation from all agricultural organizations-I will not name them here because I believe they were all involved-the matter was pressed home to the government.
This is a matter which extends to somewhat broader proportions than the motion before the house. We have to keep in mind the practical difficulties that exist. The Canada Pension Plan statute can only be amended under the circumstances set out in that act. It can only be amended by this parliament with the consent of a certain proportion of the provincial governments. I think it will be of no practical benefit to the farm industry if we or the government were to persuade the Unemployment Insurance Commission to do what my hon. friend has suggested. It would be a good step to take but it would not solve the situation because farmers would still have to make deductions for Canada Pension Plan contributions. They would still have to file T4 forms and make deductions for income tax

October 23, 1968
Social Security
purposes. These three matters would have to be tackled together.
We cannot move ahead with these three matters all at once. However, I understand, and I would like the responsible minister to make an authoritative statement on it, that preliminary consideration is being given to amending the Canada Pension Plan. This will require involvement with the provinces, and the amending of it cannot be foreseen in the immediate future.
Many helpful things were done for farmers in 1967. Representations were made to the minister of national revenue who now is our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The situation that the sponsor of this motion has outlined very graphically, and which the editorial from which I have quoted demonstrates very clearly, is an absurd situation in respect of the filing of T4 forms and forms having to do with income tax deductions. That situation has been corrected, but it seems to me it could be improved. As my friend suggests, I think I would prefer to see a 40 day period rather than a 25 day period. However, in 1967 there was a very great advance in this area when the minister of national revenue on June 12 said this:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Changes in income tax reporting which will reduce the paperwork required of employers were announced today by National Revenue, Taxation.
Effective immediately salary and wages paid by employers need not be reported on T4-T4A Sup-plementaries when the amount paid to an individual in the year totals less than $250.00 if neither income tax deductions nor Canada Pension Plan contributions are required to be withheld.
Then, in dealing with employers in agriculture, the release reads as follows:
In addition, employers in agriculture are no longer required to make income tax deductions when total wages paid are less than $250.00 a year, or the number of days worked by an individual in a year is less than 25. These limits already apply to C.P.P. contributions.
I mention this really to underline what I said previously. The release from which I have just quoted I believe indicates that the exemption applies, providing that neither income tax deductions nor Canada Pension Plan contributions are required to be withheld. So, if Canada Pension Plan contributions are required to be withheld beyond the 25 day period, as is the case as I understand it now, then of course it would be meaningless or of little practical value I believe to extend the exemption period for either income tax purposes or for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

With the major advance on the part of the minister of national revenue in June 1967, members of this house and representatives of the agricultural organizations persevered in the matter with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. At that point there was the ridiculous situation that the Canada Pension Plan statute and the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations provided for a period of 25 days, but the farmer was still tied to the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulation which required him to make the deduction and which required the casual employer to have a book, be registered, and so on.
Representations, therefore, were made to the commission and to the responsible minister, at that time the minister of labour, and later to cabinet. In August of 1967 the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations were brought into line with the Canada Pension Plan regulations and the income tax regulations. At that point we had at least made a major advance to the point where the three programs were all in step.
I have here the release dated August 24 from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which is essentially the same as the release from the Department of National Revenue which I read. I join with the sponsor of the motion in the hope that we will be able to move the 25 day period ahead to a 40 day period in these three programs.
I should like to close these remarks by saying that I hope members of this house on both sides, who represent the agricultural industry, and others who are interested in good legislation and the reasonable application of government programs, will in fact assist the government and particularly the responsible minister-the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)-in his negotiations with the provinces, so that the statute may be amended. Then we would be in a position to move the three programs ahead, in unison.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that I can support the resolution of my colleague from Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles). I was very delighted to hear the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in which he indicated there is government approval in principle of the idea. I think perhaps members on all sides of the house will be pleased about this, because it is not only members on both sides of the house who represent tobacco areas who are interested in this, but also members on both sides who
October 23, 1968

represent fruit growing areas such as the Okanagan valley, parts of the province of Ontario and other specific parts of Canada which are affected.
From what we have heard it is clear that it was the intention of the government in the first place, for reasons we have heard already, to give exemptions to transient and migrant labourers who work during the harvesting of seasonal crops. The only difficulty was that the magic number in this case was 25, which obviously was arrived at incorrectly. I agree that it was a good idea that this be given a year's trial; but apparently either the civil servants gave poor advice to the government or were given poor advice themselves, because the magic number 25 should have been 40 in the first place. I believe it is evident that this has caused confusion, because it has been pointed out that migrant labourers, particularly those who come here from the West Indies are promised so much money and are not willing to remain for more than 25 days. This has been dealt with very adequately, and I do not intend to pursue the matter.
The only area in which there is disagreement is in respect of the number 25, which should be increased to 40. I am glad to hear the government is considering changing this. I am glad also to see here at the present time a number of members of the previous parliament who discussed this matter with the then minister of national revenue, the present Minister of Finance. The minister pointed out at that time that it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces in this regard. At that time, when the members of the tobacco board were here in Ottawa discussing this situation, members of the house were critical of the procrastination with regard to getting the matter through before this crop season. There is, however, plenty of time between now and next spring to clear up this situation. I do not foresee any difficulty.
The parliamentary secretary said he hoped that hon. members on all sides of the house would do their best to see that the provincial governments give their consent. I am quite sure he did not mean that very seriously.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I suggest that all the responsible minister would have to do would be to have his secretary contact the ten appropriate officials of the provincial governments, and consent could be obtained in a couple of hours. I cannot imagine any provincial government objecting to something it has already approved in principle, particularly if it is
Social Security
only the 25 day period that is found to be inappropriate for the reasons we have heard. Between now and next spring I hope the minister will be able to make the ten phone calls. If amendments are necessary I am sure they will receive the immediate approval of this house. As Your Honour is aware, when appropriate amendments are placed before this house they are approved, sometimes in two or three minutes.
I have no additional remarks to make to those presented very ably by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) and the parliamentary secretary. I hope this matter will be expedited.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention and interest to the speech delivered by the mover as well as to those of the two members who spoke before me.
The notice of motion now before us reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of extending from twenty-five to forty days the exemption period for social security, unemployment insurance deductions and taxation deductions presently allowed in the case of migrant agricultural workers.
That motion has perhaps not struck or influenced me the way it did some other members. Maybe I am influenced, which is normal, by the opinion of my fellow citizens in my area, in the constituency I represent. While I think that the mover and the two hon. members who spoke before me deserve our congratulations, I feel that in our region the farmers and the farm workers cannot see that motion in the same light as its mover or other Canadian citizens who live in regions other than mine. I think that we must always consider all those policies from a regional and a global point of view. All the same we get our inspiration from what we see around us.
The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) made a very fine speech. Reviewing the background of that legislation, he detailed very skilfully the results obtained in barely a year, as well as those he knew from his personal experience, as I have just learned.
On the other hand, I think that we should think not only about the workers who are in that situation but also about some farmers who live in other regions.
It is well-and I agree with that-to think about the lot and the problems of our students, about the lot of the migrant workers who

October 23, 1968
Social Security
come from other countries for a while, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), when he told us about those workers from the West Indies who come for a relatively short period of time and then go back home.
On the other hand, if we are to help these sectors of our society, then we might, again consider making changes through more special legislation. Why consider helping students and these people who come from outside the country on a relatively short term basis? Why think of dealing with their problems by a motion which concerns our agricultural industry?
These workers and students work also in other fields here in Canada, and they face the same difficulties. That is why, in my opinion, we should consider helping these people more fully and more generally by means of other amendments.
Before making more concrete comments on this motion, I must say that I was struck by a point made by the sponsor of this motion. He said that the farmers could not keep account books, journals of operations, or deal with other paper work of that sort. I think that we should not be too insistent in asking not only the farmers but the businessmen of the country to deal with that bothersome paperwork. However, I believe-because I know some of them-that there are a great many serious farmers in our country who are capable of adopting an accounting system and keeping books for their operations.
Some of our farmers have a good educational background and are intelligent enough to keep books as well as the neighbourhood grocer or other small traders.
I had the opportunity a few days ago to discuss that motion with some farmers of our region and with some agronomists who are in daily contact with the farmers. Therefore, I can say that in our region in general the farmers are not pleased with that amendment nor the farm workers, I would say. I make no difference between the farm worker and any other worker in my region, and I think the same thing is true everywhere in Canada.
Why make those distinctions? They do not help more that group of citizens we all sincerely want to protect. I think that the basic principle of our government and the party is to try to make of the farmer a first class citizen who will be able to make an income comparable to that of any worker in industry, and our party intends to take the same stand with regard to our farm workers.

Here is the opinion of a farmer with whom I discussed that matter last night. He said that the farmer who, in our region, can be considered a big farmer might not be as big compared to others elsewhere in Canada who go in for farming on a larger scale and in more developed areas. In any case, that man can be considered a serious farmer and a big farmer in our region. He told me that, at the present time, the period of 25 days for a total maximum amount of $250 was considered profitable, for the farmer as well as the worker.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The extension to 40 days would be less advantageous for the farmer. It would be to the advantage of the so-called big farmers. For example, in our area, in the lower St. Lawrence region, we know that the hay season lasts from four to five weeks. After that period of 25 days, the farmer can give unemployment insurance stamps to his workers and get workers, day-labourers more interested in working for him, since 40 day periods are very few indeed in farming in eastern Quebec. The same is true for the harvesting periods. We think that in our area especially, with the new developments which will undoubtedly follow the agreement entered upon between the federal and provincial governments last May, farming will thrive and will profit more from the legislation now in force.
I was discussing that question only yesterday with another man from our region, and he agreed with that. This act concerning the agricultural worker is an exceptional measure, and when it was adopted, we took inspiration from representations and reports made by farming associations.
A period of 40 days. So, many agricultural workers in my region will no longer be insurable. In our area, many farmers who are already registered to take advantage of that legislation will keep on losing interest.
A member of the C.F.U. told me the same thing. He told me that they wanted, in addition, the agricultural workers to be treated like other workers everywhere in Canadian industry. He told me that he could not see any advantage in that 40 day period; the big farmer will be protected, while the worker will not. This is how, in my opinion, we must endeavour to maintain a certain balance between the protection we granted to the farmer and that given to the worker.
October 23, 19G8	COMMONS
Does that mean our workers, labourers and day-labourers are not protected under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know, for example, that even a few years ago, at my office, I used to hire a worker for half a day and I would give him a 1-week stamp. It was an advantage for him. I never heard a worker complaining about such a situation. Why would the agricultural worker, the labourer or the day-labourer working part-time on the land complain about it? At the present time, a worker in eastern Quebec can, when he is free and unemployed, go and work three weeks to grow or harvest sugar-beets at Saint-Hilaire. He can then spend two or three weeks, for example, at Saint-Jean to harvest tomatoes and then, another three weeks somewhere in Ontario to gather the tobacco crop. During the winter, he can again be lucky enough to work a few weeks and be in a position to draw unemployment insurance instead of being simply on social welfare, as so often happens.
We know that the first condition to draw unemployment insurance benefits is to have paid 30 contributions and collected stamps for 30 weeks, within the two years prior to the claim. Therefore, we must have made 30 contributions and have worked during 24 weeks out of the last 52; eight contributions must have been paid in the course of the previous year. These are, I believe, the details. That is the spirit of the law. It must be looked at, according to the spirit of the motion. And so, a farm worker could not benefit from the law, according to the example I have just given.
DEBATES	1963
Business of the House
Last week, I met a Quebec farmer; I would say that he is one of the most dynamic and most intelligent. We discussed this matter and I took note of some of his views; I have come to the conclusion that as the motion stands, it is not advantageous for the small farmer who, once again, will be victimized by the application of that law should it be amended as provided for by the motion.
I also agree with the previous speaker; as I understand it, he said that it was a most complex business to face the situation on three fronts at once: social security, the Canada pension plan and income tax deductions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before the house adjourns, I wonder if the house leader would outline the business for tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cash advances.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tomorrow we wifi continue with the cash advance legislation, after having passed the post office and farm credit bills.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
29180-124}
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 24, 1968