1968-11-27

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
As of August 31, 1968, how many persons in the employ of (a) the Public Service of Canada (b) the Armed Services (c) Crown corporations or agencies, were being paid salary or pay and allowances, or emoluments in the following categories
(i)	$18,000-$20,000 per annum (ii) $20,000-$25,000 per annum (iii) $25,000-$35,000 per annum (iv) $35,000 and up per annum?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: (a) (i) 915;
(ii)	770; (iii) 178; (iv) 39*.
* It is to be noted that almost all these persons are in the Department of External Affairs where the maximum salary for a person stationed abroad is $25,980, but where allowances are paid under the heads of post and foreign service regulations for official hospitality, higher living costs, etc. The same consideration applies, but to a smaller extent, to category (a) (iii) above.
(b) (i) 144; (ii) 117; (iii) 10; (iv) nil. (c) (i) 314; (ii) 241; (ii) 43; (iv) 4.
Air Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian National Railways, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the Industrial Development Bank, and Polymer Corporation advise that it has not been considered in the best interests of their respective corporations to disclose data on employees' earnings other than what is available through the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


RENTAL SPACE IN OTTAWA FOR TRADE AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce rented or leased space in Tower "B" of the Place de Ville, Ottawa, and, if so, from whom, for what term and at what rate?
2.	On what date was the Trade and Commerce Building completed, on what date did the Department move into this building and why is it necessary to secure additional space?
3.	What was the total employment of the Department of Trade and Commerce when the new Trade and Commerce Building was opened and what is the present staff of the Department?
4.	What is the dollar value, per annum, of the lease for the additional space in Tower "B" of the Place de Ville?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. The Department of Public Works has rented 41,619 square feet of office space and 285 square feet of basement space in tower "B" of Place de Ville, Ottawa, for the Department of Trade and Commerce from Campeau Construction Company, 2932 Baseline Road, Ottawa, for a period of ten years commencing September 12, 1967 at the rate of approximately $4.82 and $2.00 per square foot per annum for office space and basement space respectively.
2.	The trade and commerce building was completed in September 1958 and the staff of the Department of Trade and Commerce moved into the building in September 1958. It was necessary to secure this additional space to accommodate the expansion of that Department.
3.	Total strength was 4242, however, a major portion of this total was not housed in the trade and commerce building. Present strength is 1877.
4.	The value of the space leased for trade and commerce in tower "B" is $201,141.43.


COMMUNICATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING DRAFT DODGERS
Mr. Roberts: 1.	Have Canadian authorities received notices from United States officials concerning United States draft dodgers or deserters, and also requesting Canada to inform American officials of attempts by such United States citizens to enter Canada?
2.	For what period of time has this practice been followed?
3.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration instructed his officials not to circulate such notices?

November 27, 1968
Questions
4.	If so, what was the date and content of these instructions?
5.	If not, does the Minister intend to issue such instructions within the near future?


Yves Forest: 1. There is no arrangement in effect whereby Canadian authorities receive notices from United States officials asking to be informed of attempts to enter Canada by American draft dodgers or military deserters. Occasionally immigration officers at border ports of entry receive advance information regarding individuals who will be seeking entry to Canada. This information can be with respect to any prospective immigrant and is not specifically with regard either to draft dodgers or deserters. These persons are examined as to their admissibility under the Canadian Immigration Act. If admitted, no further action is taken. If ordered deported, the United States authorities are informed as they are in all cases of deportations to that country.
2.	Incidents in which immigration officers have received such advance information have occurred as long as there have been border examination facilities.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	No.


COST OF PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the original estimate for the construction of the National Centre for the Performing Arts?
2.	What is the present estimate for completion?
3.	What is the breakdown of any increase over the original estimate?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. $18,223,000.
2.	$46,425,989. 3.	Breakdown of increase: Building and associated work including parking garage and	$
stage equipment	23,898,639
Consultants' fees	2,241,750
Visual arts program Relocation of municipal	113,600
services Furnishings, cafe and restaurant equipment and miscel-	400,000
laneous equipment	1,549,000
Total	28,202,989


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Canadian Transportation Commission move into new quarters or are they moving into new quarters and, if so, when?
2.	What building is the Commission moving into, who is the owner, what is the amount of the space under lease, for what period of time and at what annual cost?
3.	Are new furnishings to be provided for these offices and, if so, what will be the cost of furnishing these offices?
4.	Will the renovation of these offices be the responsibility of the owner or the Commission and if the Commission, what will be the cost of these renovations?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Department of Public Works as follows:
1.	The Canadian Transport Commission moved into new quarters in two stages, October 1968 and November 1968.
2.	The building involved is located at 275 Slater Street, Ottawa, and is owned by Two Seven Five Realty Limited, 141 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa. The commission occupies a portion of the total space of approximately 187,264 square feet being leased in this building by the Department of Public Works for a period of ten years at the annual rental of $898,868.
3.	Yes; $43,675, of which $25,057 was for carpeting which could not be moved from buildings previously occupied.
4.	The building is new so no renovation was needed. The purpose of moving to this building was to get all branches of the commission, originally housed in four different buildings, under one roof.


ILLEGAL. GREEK IMMIGRANTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many Greek nationals entered Canada illegally in 1967 and 1968 and, how many were (a) deported (b) allowed to remain?
2.	Did any of the above seek refuge in Canada on political grounds and, if so, how many requests were (a) granted (b) refused?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Except in the case of seamen who are reported to the department as having deserted their vessels in Canadian ports, there is of course no way of knowing how many people may enter the country illegally in any given year until such time as
November 27, 1968

they may be apprehended or otherwise come to the attention of the department.
1.	During 1967 and to date in 1968, 611 nationals of Greece are known to have deserted their vessels in Canada. Of this number, 273 were either apprehended or surrendered themselves voluntarily. Of these 273 persons, (a) 229 were deported and (b) 14 were allowed to remain. The remaining 30 were not ordered deported but left Canada voluntarily on their own initiative.
2.	No figures are available.
PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS, EXPO '67 Question No. 478


Mr. Mazankowski:: Who were the public relations firms that shared in the $26,755,000 expended on public relations, by Expo '67, and (a) how much did each firm receive (b) in what years?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition re-
Firm	$
Sydney Morel & Co.	105,562
Robert Wolcott	-
Eurelex	-
Mathers P.R. Ltd.	7,141
Bruce Cochrane Assoc.	-
Williams & Wilson	-
Questions
ports that: It is to be noted that the amount of $26,755,000 refers to the cost of the whole public relations department and this amount was not expended on public relations only by the Expo Corporation. Out of this $26,755,000 budgeted for the public relations department, $2,410,000 was budgeted for public relations in Canada, the U.S.A. and overseas countries. The balance of approximately $24,345,000 covered domestic advertising, foreign advertising, promotions (posters, calendars, films etc.), displays, news media, information and administration cost of the department.
Of the $2,410,000 budgeted, a total of $2,099,422 was shared by the following public relations firms: Sydney Morel & Co. (U.S.A.), Robert Wolcott (U.S.A.), Eurelex (Europe), Mathers P.R. Ltd. (U.K.), Bruce Cochrane Assoc. (Maritimes) and Williams & Wilson (Western Canada).
The above mentioned firms received the following amounts for 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967:
(a) and	(b)		
1965	1966	1967	Total$	$	$	$210,054	119,221	-	431,837-	455,766	884,436	1,340,20229,445	48,708	49,012	127,16527,484	47,617	59,640	141,882-	7,100	25,140	32,240-	7,326	18,770	26,0962,099,422


IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS FROM INDIA
Mr. Rose: Is there a backlog of applications for immigration to Canada from India and, if so, (a) was it created by limitations imposed in the Canada-India Agreement before October 1, 1967 (b) was it created by the substantially increased numbers of relatives acting as sponsors or nominators (c) has the government considered expanding the facilities of our New Delhi Immigration Office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a backlog of immigrant applications in the Canadian immigration office in New Delhi, India, all of which are in varying stages of process. The limitations of the Canada-India agreement and the number of new applications being received for sponsored dependants and nominated relatives are not the prime reasons for
this situation. Such applications represent only about one quarter of the present backlog. The remainder is comprised of independent applications which are being received at the rate of between four to five thousand per month. In the past two years, the total Canadian and local staff in New Delhi has more than doubled. The situation there is under review to determine what further measures can be taken to improve the service to applicants.


CIVIL SERVANTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE COURSES
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many Individuals in the federal Civil Service have received courses that would assist them in securing a working knowledge of the English language and of that number, how many are presently enrolled in such courses?

November 27, 1968
Questions
2.	Of the number presently enrolled in English 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 English language courses while continuing with their employment (a) how many are granted free time to take such courses (b) at the present time and for the present fiscal year, what is the number of manhours lost to the federal Civil Service?
4.	Of the number enrolled in English language courses who have obtained a leave of absence while taking the courses (a) how many are receiving their salary while taking these courses (b) what will be the estimated cost to the federal Treasury in the present fiscal year?
5.	Of the number enrolled in English language courses who have obtained a leave of absence from their employment (a) how many have moved from Ottawa for such purposes (b) how many have also moved their families (c) 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 State):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. (a) Since January 1, 1964, 2,550 public servants have attended English language courses in programs offered by the Public Service Commission. (b) On September 23, 1968, 260 public servants were attending English 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 time to take such courses. In addition to this time granted, many students are devoting up to 20 hours per week of their own time.
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 260 public servants now attending English language courses is 2,070 man-hours per day, of which 675 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 individuals; thus the total man-hours that will be devoted by these public servants to English 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 to which I referred in answering question 244 some days ago. The total salaries of ten officials attending at Toronto and York universities in the English language will be approximately $129,500 for the period of their secondment in the current fiscal year. Three officials moved to Toronto from Ottawa and seven moved from other centres. All officials moved their families to Toronto with assistance given by the federal government which it is estimated will cost about $6,000 in the present fiscal year. Exact cost figures cannot be given until the end of the fiscal year.
COST OF PRODUCING "CANADA: A YEAR OF THE LAND"


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the price paid by the Queen's Printer to the Carswell Printing Co., for the printing and binding of "Canada: A Year of the Land"; to the Graphic Litho-Plate Ltd. for offset separations: to Rolland Paper Co. Ltd. and Columbia Finishing Mills Ltd. for paper; to Hostmann-Steinberg (Canada) Ltd. for special inks; and to Cooper and Beatty Ltd. for typography of this publication?
2.	What was the actual cost of production of "Canada: A Year of the Land"?
3.	What was the total revenue to the government from the sale of "Canada: A Year of the Land"?
4.	How many copies of "Canada: A Year of the Land" were distributed free of charge by the Secretary of State?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and the Department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. To the Carswell Printing Company: $433,478.15. The Carswell Printing Company was the only firm under contract with the Queen's Printer for the printing and binding of "Canada: A Year of the Land"; other firms listed were subcontracted by Carswell Printing Company to supply components of the work, the cost of which was included in the prime contractor's quotation.
2.	$433,478.15.
3.	$425,000.00.
4.	484.
November 27, 1968


WATERFRONT PLAN, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government have a plan for dumping fill along the shoreline of Metropolitan Toronto?
2.	Has the so-called "Waterfront Plan" for Metropolitan Toronto been considered by the federal authorities and, if so, has approval been given?
3.	Does the federal government propose to make recommendations concerning the implementation of this conceptual "Waterfront Plan" for Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, when?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1.	No.
2.	The harbour and airport aspects of the "waterfront plan" have received careful consideration and I expect shortly to be communicating preliminary views on these matters to the appropriate local authorities.
3.	These views will deal primarily with those matters which relate to direct federal responsibilities, namely marine and aviation aspects; other aspects are primarily matters for the governments of the province and municipalities concerned, although the federal authorities will be glad to consult and co-operate with regard to their own particular interest in the over-all scheme.


PARK SITES, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government own any land In the Metropolitan Toronto area suitable for park sites?
2.	Does the federal government plan on providing any federal land for park sites through fill operations in Lake Ontario and/or through the proposed "Waterfront Plan" for Metropolitan Toronto?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. No, but as indicated in the answer to the previous question No. 564, the federal government is prepared to consult and cooperate with regard to the over-all scheme in reference to those matters which are of particular federal interest.


COST OF NATIONAL ART CENTRE
Mr. Diefenbaker: What is the total cost to date insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned of the National Art Centre?


Arthur Laing: Total payment to November 20, 1968, is $40,275,168
Questions


PUBLIC RELATIONS AGENCIES, NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What public relations agencies, persons or companies have been hired, retained or contracted with by the Board of Directors of the National Arts Centre and/or by the Centennial Commission since the 1st of January 1965?
2.	What are the names thereof, their respective addresses and amounts paid or undertaken to be paid to each of them?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Arts Centre Corporation as follows: 1. The board of directors of the National Arts Centre, who met for their first meeting in March, 1967, have contracted for the services of Mr. David Palmer for public relations activities.
The Centennial Commission did not employ or retain any public relations persons or companies, for or on behalf of the National Arts Centre since January 1, 1965, or prior to that date.
2.	Mr. David Palmer has been paid the amount of $400 and his address is: National Theatre of Great Britain, The Archway, 10a Aquinas Street, London, England.


TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have "advisors" or technical consultants been appointed or hired under contract in connection with the National Arts Centre since the 1st of January 1965?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses with the amounts paid to each of them for (a) salary, and (b) allowances?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2. Consultants paid directly by Department of Public Works: McRostie, Seto, Genest & Associates, Consulting Engineers, 393 Bel] Street, Ottawa, Ontario. Amount paid $34,840.24-Fee only. Charles W. Fairhall, Surveyor, 725 Churchill Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario. Amount paid $6,743.40-Fee only. C. C. Parker & Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, 688 Queensdale Avenue E., Hamilton, Ontario. Amount paid $2,527.43- Fee only.
Consultants paid through Affleck, Desbarats, Dimakopoulas, Lebensold and Sise in accordance with the provisions of their contract with the Department of Public Works: Bolt, Beranek & Newman Inc. Acoustics-Hall, 50 Moulton Street, Cambridge, Mass. Amount paid to October 31, 1968 (a) Fees, $107,120;

November 27, 1968
Questions
(b) Expenses, $9,018. N. J. Pappas & Associates, Acoustics-Theatre, 5253 Decarie Blvd. Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $34,425; (b) Expenses, $1,195. Design Collaborative, Graphics, 1460 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $7,741; (b) Expenses, $820. Richard Strong & Associates- Landscaping, 45 Colborne Street, Toronto, Ont. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $8,391; (b) Expenses, $703. Ben Schlanger- Sight Lines and Seating, 16 West 16th Street, New York, N.Y. Amount paid to October 31, 1968 (a) Fees, $3,780; (b) Expenses, $306. William Lam-Special Lighting, 18 Hilliard Street, Cambridge, Mass. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $12,645; (b) Expenses, $1,240. Silas Edman-Theatre Operations, 3484 Stanley Street, Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $800; (b) Expenses, $72. Jean Rosenthel-Stage Lighting, 52 West 46th Street, New York, N.Y. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $14,318; (b) Expenses, $650. George Izenour-Stage and Theatre Equipment, 10 Alston Avenue, New Haven, Conn. Amount paid to October 31, 1968,	(a) Fees, $1,718. James Domville-
Theatre Consultant, 407 St. Lawrence Blvd., Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $2,627; (b) Expenses, $400. Harry Homer-Opera Consultant, 38 York-ville Avenue, Toronto, Ont. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $300; (b) Expenses, $157. H. Krawitz-Opera Consultant, Metropolitan Opera House, New York, N.Y. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $511; (b) Expenses, $102. R. W. Enterprises (R. Walleau)-Catering/Installation, Christieville, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $4,920. Casavant Freres Ltee (Lawrence Phelps)-Organ Consultants, 50 Girouard Casavant, St. Hyacinthe, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, No payment to date. Norman Slater-Opera Hall Wall Screens, 7400 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $35,599; (b) Expenses, $506.
Consultants related to the Visual Arts Program: William B. Martin, Stairs Chandeliers, 261 Robbins St., Milton, Mass. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $21,900; (b) Travel, $91. Mariette Rousseau-Vermette, Theatre Curtain, Ste. Adele-en-Haut, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $1,200;	(b) Competition, $6,000. Norman
Laliberte, Wall Tapestries, 10509 Brewster, New York, N.Y. Amount paid to October 31,

1968, (a) Fees, $8,200. Charles Daudelin, Exterior Sculpture, 17166 Ste. Marie Road, Kirkland, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $28,000; (b) Competition, $700. Travel, $56. Micheline Beauchemin, Opera Hall Curtain, 3581 Ste. Famille St., Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $14,500; (b) Competition, $6,000. Travel, $1,437. Art Price, Crest for Royal Box, Box 116, R.R. 9, Ottawa, Ont. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $525. Gino Lorcini, Lobby Mural, 1 Canterbury Park, Pointe Claire, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968,
(a)	Fees, $8,600. Jordi Bonet, Salon Doors, 16396 West Gouin Blvd., Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $23,500. William Ronald, Studio Mural, 392 Brunswick Avenue, Toronto, Ont. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $11,500;
(b)	Material and Labour, $11,151. Travel, $446. Julien Hebert, Lobby Pool, 430 Bonse-cour Street, Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $14,500. Ossip Zadkine, Interior Sculpture, 100 D'Assas St. Paris, 6, France. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $20,000. Julian Hebert, Hall Ceiling, Box 113, N.D.G., Montreal, Que. Amount paid to October 31, 1968, (a) Fees, $10,000.
Note:	Travelling expenses according to
government regulations included in artists agreements.


STUDY OF AIRPORT EXPANSION. TORONTO
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What studies is the Department of Transport currently undertaking with regard to expanding the airport facilities in the Metropolitan Toronto area?
2.	Is the Department studying the possibility of constructing a second airport in the Toronto area, as an alternative to expanding the existing airport?
3.	Has the Minister of Transport authorized a study into the possibility of building a second airport in the Toronto area, specifically on Lake Ontario?
4.	If the answer to Part 3 is yes, how does the Department intend to estimate the cost of making the required land fill, necessary to the construction of such an airport?
5.	Is the Department giving study to the feasibility of building floating runways for such an airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Department of Transport has completed a study in depth with respect to the expansion of Toronto international airport. This study involved a consortium of recognized consultants as well as officials of
November 27, 19G8

the Department of Transport. At present senior officials of the Department of Transport are conducting a series of technical meetings with technical representatives of the municipalities adjacent to Toronto international airport, with the object of determining the compatibility of the Department of Transport proposals with these communities.
The answer to the second part of the question is that a variety of possible alternatives have been considered as means of meeting the future requirements of the area for increased air traffic, ranging from expansion of the present airport to construction or expansion of other airports, either as a supplement to or as a replacement for the present airport. No final decision has been taken.
The answers to parts 3, 4 and 5 of the question are as follows. A preliminary engineering and economic assessment indicated that this approach was not feasible at the present time as a means of satisfying the requirements of the Toronto area for expanded facilities for scheduled traffic, and more detailed investigation has not, therefore, been undertaken. However, the question of a general aviation airport of a type similar to the present Toronto island airfield to replace that field in the lakefront area is still under consideration.


MOVE OF AIR CANADA OFFICES TO WINNIPEG
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Is Air Canada moving its administration offices in the City of Winnipeg and, if so (a) what is the name of the building to which the offices are to be moved (b) who is the owner of the building (c) how many square feet will be leased (d) how many floors will be leased (e) what is the annual rental per square foot of space leased (f) when will possession of the new premises be taken?
2.	When does the term of the lease covering Air Canada's present premises in Winnipeg expire?
3.	How many square feet of space comprise Air Canada's present office premises?
4.	What is the annual rental per square foot of Air Canada's present office space in Winnipeg?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Air Canada advises as follows, Mr. Speaker: 1. Yes. Two years ago the company decided to consolidate all of its administrative requirements in one building and made an extensive examination of existing and planned buildings in the Winnipeg area, (a) Richardson building; (b) Lombard Place Limited; (c) 88,088 square feet of office space; 10,000 feet of storage space; (d) 5J
Questions
floors; (e) It has not been the company's practice to disclose details of such transactions as such disclosure could prejudiciously affect the company in future transactions. The company made an examination of its requirements in Winnipeg and the going market rate for office and storage space suitable to its present and future needs, and opened discussions with the building owners in
1966	and concluded negotiations in September,
1967	which lease with the building owners was approved by the board of directors of Air Canada at its meeting of October 31, 1967. (f) Estimated August 1, 1969.
2.	"Air Canada" building and Donnell building-December 31, 1974; Canadian Wheat Board building-December 31, 1969. The first two leases were assigned to Lombard Place Limited; occupancy of the latter building will be continued until the end of the lease.
3.	63,036 square feet of office space; 6,005 square feet of storage space.
4.	See answer to No. 1(e).


REPORT ON ALLEGATIONS BY ARTHUR DAVID PRICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that was established to look into allegations by Mr. Arthur David Price?
2.	What steps, if any, have been taken to implement the recommendations?
3.	Does the Minister intend to release the report to the public and, if so, on what date?
4.	If the report is not to be released, for what reason?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: 1. In January, 1967, Mr. Arthur David Price, who had been appointed to College Militaire Royal, St. Jean, for a one year term in 1965 and whose appointment had been renewed for a further term ending on May 1, 1967, was given notice that his contract would not be renewed for a further term. It was explained to him that this action was being taken as he did not have a Ph.D. degree and was not working fast enough toward one.
Maxwell Cohen, Q.C., dean of law at McGill University, in his report as commissioner under the Inquiries Act, found that the reason given was not the main reason for the decision not to renew Mr. Price's contract although probably one of the motivating factors. The main reason for the decision was a feeling of discomfort among the college authorities arising from rumours and gossip concerning Mr. Price. Dean Cohen went on to find that, while a degree of maturity and
*3254

November 27, 1968
Questions
good sense in handling the matters was lacking by college authorities, they had not acted in bad faith and that their decision was based on desire to safeguard the reputation of the college. Within the limits of the facts presented before him as commissioner, Dean Cohen found nothing in the rumours concerning Mr. Price deserving of belief.
In his general conclusions, Dean Cohen stated that the interests of justice would be served if the government compensated Mr. Price for the expenses borne by him arising out of the proceedings and for the effects which the failure not to renew his contract had upon his subsequent employment opportunities. He also suggested that there is probably room for fresh constructive thinking on how to maintain the essential military character and needs of the military colleges as military institutions while at the same time giving academic communities there a status and an environment essentially analogous to ordinary university conditions.
2. The matter of appropriate compensation for Mr. Price is in the final stages of negotiation with his solicitor. The suggestions of the commission regarding the operation and administration of the college are being carefully reviewed by a senior committee established to advise the deputy minister on matters affecting the administration of the military colleges.
3 and 4. Having regard to the interests of the persons involved, it is not proposed to release the report generally to the public.


CELERY IMPORTS AND PRODUCTION
Mr. Foriin: 1.	How much celery did Canada import in each of the last five years?
2.	What were the customs tariffs with respect to celery for each of the last five years?
3.	Has the government received representations advocating an increase in the tariff to protect Canadian celery producers and, if so, what was the government's reaction?
4.	How much celery was grown in Canada during the last five years?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Finance and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
Year	Quantity lbs.
1963	104,843,411
1964	105,877,091
1965	106,508,798
1966	104,987,633
1967 Cadieux (Labelle).l	122,399,543
2.	Fresh celery is classified under tariff item 8709-1. Celery imported under the most favoured nation tariff is subject to a seasonal duty of 2 cents per pound for a period of up to 24 weeks annually and for the balance of the year comes in free of duty. Celery imported under the British preferential tariff is free of duty. These rates have been in effect since 1959.
3.	No. However, representations were received in 1965 in connection with the Kennedy round negotiations requesting that the tariff on celery not be reduced. The tariff on celery was not reduced in the Kennedy round.
Year	'000 lbs.
1963	44,918
1964	40,504
1965	42,832
1966	38,790
1967	36,618


CHANGE OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INTO CORPORATION
Mr. Foriin: 1.	Is the possibility of transforming the Post Office Department Into a Canadian postal corporation being investigated and, if so (a) who are the members of the investigating group (b) when was each appointed?
2.	What, precisely, are the terms of reference of this investigating group?
3.	When will its report be ready and will such report be tabled in the House?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. (a) and (b) The management consulting firm of Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company was assigned to the initial phase of this study on September 23, 1968. Mr. W. H. Wilson was designated as Special Advisor to the Postmaster General on October 3 to co-ordinate this study. He will be assisted by management consultants and senior Departmental officials.
2.	To study and submit a detailed report on: (1) Current problems in the Post Office Department. (2) All the factors involved in the feasibility of establishing the Post Office as a Crown Corporation.
3.	Completion date is not known at this time. The question of tabling the report will be considered by the government.
November 27, 1968


'COST OF AID TO NIGERIA
Mr. Cafik: 1.	What cash contributions have been made by the government to relief operations in Nigeria up to and including October 31. 1968?
2.	To whom were such contributions made?
3.	What are the estimated costs for operations of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and personnel on Nigerian relief operations up to and including October 31, 1968?
4.	What are the estimated costs per day for operations of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and personnel on Nigerian relief operations?
5.	What are the estimated costs of the return of the Hercules Aircraft to Canada following completion of relief operations?
6.	Did the Canadian Government pay for the shipping cost of the relief ship that left from Halifax for Nigeria and, if so, what is the estimated cost to the Canadian Government?


Yves Forest: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, by the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence as follows: 1 and 2. Canada gave the International Committee of the Red Cross a cash grant of $60,000 through the Canadian Red Cross Society on June 5, 1968 for ICRC use in areas of Nigeria where the need was greatest.
3.	$201,000.
4.	Based on flying two relief missions per day-$8,500.
5.	$67,400.
6.	The Canadian government paid an estimated $149,000 for the charter of the relief ship which left Halifax October 22 for the Nigeria area but of this sum an estimated $31,375 is recoverable from the voluntary agencies who joined their contributions with those of the government in this shipment.


IMPORTS OF FRENCH CATTLE
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	By province, during the summer of 1968, how many import permits were issued for French cattle (Charolais and Limousin) ?
2.	What is the name of the holder of each such permit issued?
3.	What is the number of cattle specified per permit?
4.	Did any permit holder sell or transfer his permit and, if so (a) which permit holders and to whom were they sold or transferred (b) what action has been taken in each case?
Questions


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The following number of permits were issued in the summer of 1968 to import cattle from certain European countries:
Province	Permits
Nova Scotia	2
New Brunswick	1
Quebec	7
Ontario	29
Manitoba	10
Saskatchewan	30
Alberta	53
British Columbia	7
2.	Because of commercial considerations, it is not the practice of the department to divulge the names of livestock owners whose animals are being dealt with through quarantine or other controls under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
3.	From 1 to 6 animals, with each permit specifying the exact number.
4.	Import permits are not transferable and the department is not aware of any permits having been sold or transferred. All the certification documents that accompanied the cattle at the time of importation were in the name of the original import permit holder.


PUBLIC UTILITIES INCOME TAX TRANSFER ACT
Mr. Foriin: 1.	What payments have been made by the government to the governments of each of the provinces pursuant to the provisions of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, for each type of utility since its proclamation?
2.	Does the government intend to bring telephone companies under this Act as some provinces have nationalized telephone services?
3.	Were any regulations made by the government under Section 6 of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act and, if so, what are these regulations?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	None. It is anticipated that the first payments to the provinces will be made before the close of the present fiscal year.
2.	This is a. matter of policy; if the government should decide to recommend amendments to the Act, an announcement will be made.
3.	No.


CLOSING OF FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY, VANCOUVER
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries and Forestry discuss the closing of Rayonnier Canada (B.C.) Ltd.'s Vancouver research laboratory with the company prior to its closing?

November 27, 1968
Questions
2.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Forestry intend to take over the operation of the laboratory in the place of Rayonnier?
3.	Does Rayonnier carry out any forest research elsewhere in Canada?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The company has forestry oriented research in the forests of British Columbia.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVINCIAL PARKS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the Department of Forestry and Rural Development in any way assist in the establishment or enlargement of provincial parks?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such assistance and what amounts were or will be spent for each province?
3.	What criteria are applied for such assistance?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Yes.
2. Cost-sharing of certain development expenditures, particularly basic infrastructure in conformity with an overall plan.
Commitments and Expenditures to Date Province Commitments Expenditures
Newfoundland	$ 232,000	$ 189,667Nova Scotia	291,900	280,206New Brunswick Prince Edward	2,993,498	2,273,882Island	888,805	157,309Ontario	1,724,000	652,009Quebec	246,591	209,602Manitoba	1,672,425	1,049,365Saskatchewan	996,948	754,448British Columbia	Nil	NilAlberta	Nil	Nil3. An area to be	considered	for assistance
must be jointly agreed to by the federal and provincial governments. Consideration is given to factors such as earnings in the area, extent of unemployment or under-employment, record of social assistance payments, levels of education and similar criteria. If sizeable assistance is called for, it must be justified by benefit-cost analysis.


GOVERNMENT AIR TRAVEL REGULATIONS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Has the Treasury Board adopted regulations concerning travel by commercial airlines within and
[Mr. Anderson.)
without Canada by members of the Public Service of Canada and of the Armed Services?
2.	When were the main regulations adopted and when were they last amended?
3.	What are the criteria used to determine which persons in the Public Service and in the Armed Services shall be entitled to travel by air (a) first class (b) economy class, and where in fact is drawn the dividing line?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes.
2.	The public service travel regulations were adopted August 13, 19591 and were last amended August 16, 1968. The Queen's Regulations and Orders which relate to the Canadian armed forces were adopted September 1, 1951 and were last amended February 1, 1968.
3.	(a) Public service. In general the dividing line for first class air travel is at the level of senior officer 2 and equivalent. In the following circumstances employees below this level may also be authorized to travel first class: (i) when required to travel by air on two or more successive nights; (ii) on flights originating or terminating in Asia, Africa or Australasia, or internally in Latin America; (iii) when travelling with a minister of the crown; (iv) when the employee is designated as the head of a foreign post; or (v) when economy class is not available and the trip cannot be delayed, (b) Armed services. In general the dividing line for first class is brigadier general. The circumstances in which first class air travel may be authorized for personnel below this rank are similar to those of the public service. In addition, officers accompanying major generals or members of the defence council may fly first class.


PRODUCTION OF CANADIAN COINS
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the federal government to contract with firms in the United States for the manufacture or production of Canadian coinage for 1969, and does the federal government intend to establish in Canada facilities that will allow for the complete manufacture of coinage in this country and, if so, when and by what method?


Edgar John Benson: It
is not the intention to contract with firms in the United States for the manufacture or production of Canadian coinage for 1969. Plans are being considered for the building of a new and larger Royal Canadian Mint.
November 27, 1968


QUEBEC-LIQUOR SEIZED BY R.C.M.P.
Mr. Godin: From June 26, the beginning of the liquor strike in Quebec, to date (a) has the RCMP had to make any investigations within the Province of Quebec
(b)	how many establishments have been visited
(c)	what quantities of adulterated liquor have been seized (d) what quantities of alcoholic beverages originating in the United States have been seized (e) how does the RCMP dispose of such beverages (f) what quantities originating in the other provinces of Canada have been seized, and under what conditions has the Province of Quebec taken possession of these supplies (g) how can the province dispose of these supplies?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: (a)
Yes; (b) 285; (c) 2,774 imperial gallons; (d) 1,230 imperial gallons; (e) By destroying; (f) Not known-provincial jurisdiction; (g) Not known.


MINT SET PRODUCTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many mint sets were produced for sale in 1968, how many were purchased and what were the figures for 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	Of the total number of mint sets produced in 1968, how many were produced in Canada and how many in the United States?
3.	What was the total amount of coinage produced for the federal government in the United States and what was the amount of the contract or contracts of United States firms for the production of such coinage?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
Orders have been accepted for 518,000 sets, and 339,068 sets have been produced. Corresponding sets were produced and sold as follows: In 1967, 962,000; in 1966, 673,000; in 1965, 2,904,000.
2.	All were produced in Canada.
3.	The United States mint has contracted to manufacture 75 million 10-cent Canadian coins, but delivery had not commenced as of November 12, 1968. Cost of the contract is $149,000 not including cost of metal or transportation.


CIVIL SERVANTS IN FRENCH LANGUAGE COURSES
Mr. Robinson: 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
Questions
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 (a) how many are granted free time to take such courses (b) 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 (a) how many are receiving their salary while taking these courses (b) 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 (a) how many have moved from Ottawa for such purposes (b) how many have also moved their families (c) 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?


Gérard Pelletier: See reply to question No. 244, printed in Hansard, No. 29 of October 23, p. 1923.


JOHN C. DOYLE-PAYMENT OF TAXES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the federal government secured payment from John C. Doyle for outstanding taxes, what was the total amount outstanding and what is the status of the claim at the present time?
2. If payment in full has not been received what action is the federal government taking to protect the public interest?


Eric William Kierans: The decision rendered on June 6, 1967, by the Tax Appeal Board in respect of assessments against Mr. Doyle for the taxation years 1950, 1953 and 1954 has been appealed to the Exchequer Court of Canada and that appeal has not yet been heard. In connection with those assessments, a writ of extent was issued out of the Exchequer Court on July 8, 1963, for the sum of $3,410,130.90.
Except as indicated above, the information requested is confidential and cannot be divulged.


SPEEDING UP OF PASSENGER FLOWS AT AIRPORTS
Mr. Forresiall: Has the government considered the redesigning of such travel documents as the passport, with a view to utilization of computer techniques for the purpose of speeding up passenger flows at points of entry particularly airports?

November 27, 1968
Questions


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. This subject was formally raised for the first time in the agenda for the seventh session of the facilitation division of the International Civil Aviation Organization held last spring in Montreal. It was related to a proposal for the introduction of card passports as a means of facilitating an expected increase in foreign travel in consequence pi the introduction of jumbo jet and supersbnic aircraft within the next decade.
Canada contributed one of the four working papers on this proposal discussed at the seventh session. Subsequently, the Secretary General of ICAO invited member countries to nominate representatives to participate in examination of the proposals by a panel of experts. Canada has accepted this invitation. It is proposed that the panel of experts will hold an initial meeting in Montreal during the first quarter of 1969 to plan its examination of various ideas that have been made for an improved international travel document.
If the panel of experts is able to arrive at a solution in due course, ICAO will then consult member governments whether they are able to accept such a recommendation. At that time, the Canadian government will decide whether it wishes to accept the proposed solution as a recommended international practice.


PUBLIC WORKS, LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: In connection with the works undertaken by the Department of Public Works, what works are now in progress in the constituency of Lotbiniere?


Arthur Laing: Works now in progress in the constituency of Lotbiniere:	Deschaillons:
Construction of Post Office building, $34,700; Laurier: Construction of Post Office building, $25,005; Manseau: Construction of Post Office building, $25,358; Riviere Boisclair: Construction of Post Office building, $26,000; Victoria-ville: Installation of dumbwaiter in Post Office, $6,535.


LENGTH OF RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. Schreyer: Of the 2,068 postal delivery rural routes that are in excess of 30 miles in length, what number are (a) 30 to 40 (b) 40 to 50 (c) 50 to 60 (d) over 60 miles in length?


Eric William Kierans: (a) 30 to 40 miles, 1,191 rural routes; (b) 40 to 50 miles, 486 rural routes; (c) 50 to 60 miles, 175 rural routes; (d) over 60 miles, 216 rural routes.


EFFECT ON SALMON OF JORDAN RIVER HYDRO WORKS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries discussed the possible injurious effect on salmon of the proposed Jordan River Hydro-Electric expansion program with B.C. Hydro?
2.	Is it the intention of the company or of the Department to construct a spawning channel to ensure continuation of this salmon run?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2. Engineering and biological studies are now being carried out and discussions have taken place at the technical level. These studies and discussions will determine the particular action required to ensure continuation of this salmon run.


TRADE AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN
Mr. Godin: Does the trade agreement the Canadian government is about to conclude with Japan provide for the imports of hardware products and, if so, did the government prevail upon the Japanese to buy the steel required to manufacture those products from Canada?


Edgar John Benson: The agreement recently concluded between Canada and Japan related only to the application of quantitative restraints by the Japanese authorities on certain Japanese exports to Canada. The agreements which govern trade between Canada and Japan, which are the Canada-Japan Trade Agreement of 1954 and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, do not provide for the type of exchange described in the question.


CANADIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
Mr. Caouette: Following the meeting of the Federal-Provincial Committee of government officials on the regulation of financial institutions and securities last October 25, what progress is being made toward the establishment of a Canadian Securities Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Further discussions
November 27, 1963

are in progress at the official level. The intention of the government is to introduce a federal securities act in parliament during the present session.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Code: 1.	Since April 22, 1963, for what public buildings, with the name in each case, in the City of Ottawa, have construction contracts been awarded?
2.	In each such building, what is or will be the total square footage available for occupancy?
3.	What department or agency of government has occupied or will occupy each such building?
4.	Since April 22, 1963, in what buildings, with the name in each case, in the City of Ottawa, has the government leased space for a term exceeding one year?
5.	In each case (a) from what person, firm or corporation was such space leased (b) for what term of years?
6.	In each such building (a) what is the total square footage available for lease (b) what is the square footage actually leased by the Government of Canada (c) what is the per square foot rate for each such leased space?
7.	What department or agency of government has occupied or will occupy each such leased space?
8.	Have any letters of intent to lease or other similar document been given by the Government of Canada to any owners or builders in the City of Ottawa, for which no lease has yet been executed?
9.	If so (a) in respect of what buildings, with the name in each case (b) to what owners or builders?
10.	In any such buildings (a) what will be the total square footage to be leased (b) what will be the per square foot rate?
11.	Since April 22,	1963, has the government
given consideration to lease-back or lease-purchase arrangements for building space in the City of Ottawa?
12.	If so, with what result?
Return tabled.


SCHOLARSHIPS TO WEST INDIES CITIZENS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many scholarships have been provided to citizens of the British West Indies, by year, since 1965?
2.	Which universities do such students attend, by numbers?
3.	Have there been requests for more scholarships for that area from their governments and, if so, what is the response?
Return tabled.

Orders for Returns


PAYMENTS UNDER SHARED PROGRAMS
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total amount paid, or estimated to be paid, by the Government of Canada, to the provinces under the shared programmes in lieu of opting out for (a) the 1967-68 fiscal year (b) the 1968-69 fiscal year?
2.	What was the specific or estimated amount paid to each of the provinces by the Government of Canada for each of the shared programmes for (a) the 1967-68 fiscal year (b) the 1968-69 fiscal year?
Return tabled.


SPACE LEASED, OTTAWA AND HULL
Mr. Coates: What departments of government and Crown corporations rent or lease space in the Cities of Ottawa and Hull and in each instance (a) from whom was the space rented or leased (b) for what period of time (c) at what annual cost?
Return tabled.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the Canadian Government's total contribution to the United Nations for both the regular budget and the special or voluntary projects for the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68?
2.	What were the special or voluntary programmes for each of the above fiscal years to which the Canadian Government contributed and what was the expenditure on each?
Return tabled.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON SECURITY
Mr. Foriin: 1.	Who are the members of the Royal Commission on Security, when was the Commission established and what were its terms of reference?
2.	What were the expenses of the Commission since its establishment?
3.	What remuneration was received by each member of the personnel since its establishment?
4.	Was the report printed by the Queen's Printer and, if not, by whom was it printed?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT WHEAT POLICY-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), to move the adjournment of this house under standing order 26 to discuss an urgent
November 27, 1968

Government Wheat Policy matter of public importance, namely the catastrophic failure of the government's wheat policy resulting in the imminent loss of 200 million bushels of damp grain through lack of drying facilities, a blow to the economy not only of western Canada but the nation as a whole; and the refusal of the government to undertake necessary measures to deal with the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
please advise the Chair as to the urgency of this matter?


Richard Russell Southam: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to the matter of urgency. I am not in the habit of bringing forward motions of this type, but the urgency of this matter is so obvious and the opportunity for dealing with it in the ordinary way so lacking, that I am compelled to deal with it in this way. The occasion for the motion lies in the situation outlined at some length in a statement yesterday by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. W. C. MacNamara, in Winnipeg.
Briefly, Mr. MacNamara stated that unless immediate action is taken our economy is threatened with the loss through spoilage of some 205 million bushels of wheat stored damp in the bins. In order to show that the matter is not only urgent but also important, I am going to quote a sentence or two from Mr. MacNamara's report:
Even with maximum use of terminal drying facilities the bulk of the tough and damp grain will have to be dried on farms.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
And again:
A survey shows that terminal driers, operating at full capacity during the next eight months, would be able to condition about 100 to 150 million bushels of the estimated more than 350 million bushels of tough and damn grain stored on farms.
To emphasize the urgency of this matter, Mr. Speaker, the farmers cannot visualize drying grain for a period of eight months, because if spoilage is going to occur it will take place next spring. Only the climatic conditions of western Canada during the next three or four months, with temperatures around freezing, will preserve the grain over the winter, but after eight months spoilage will have set in.
Even this survey is optimistic, Mr. Speaker, because the truth of the matter is that our total drying capacity in all terminal elevators both inland and at the three ports is only 12 million bushels a month. For anybody who

can add and subtract the implications of this statement are clear; and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture can at least add and subtract.
This means a threatened and serious loss of 200 million to 250 million bushels. The loss to the economy is in the neighbourhood of $300 million, a serious blow to western Canada and to Canada as a whole. This outlines the importance of the matter to the economy.
Dealing with urgency of debate, there is no opportunity under the rules to deal with this matter in the ordinary course of events. I will, however, make a suggestion. If the government will undertake to bring forward the agriculture estimates today, that will satisfy the need for dealing immediately and urgently with a situation which could be catastrophic. The reason the government must act is that farm drying facilities, even if utilized to the full, cannot possibly deal with more than some 50 million bushels a month. This means that a period of five months, drying at full capacity, would be required to save the grain. But within a few months the grain could well be beyond saving.
The only solution I see is for the government, through the wheat board, perhaps by using the provisions of P.F.R.A. or acreage payments, to undertake to provide drying machines to those farmers who do not have them and cannot afford them, in order that the drying out of on-farm grain may begin as soon as possible. This is the only way we can hope to save the major part of the grain.
Government action is required, and required now. That is why I bring this motion forward. There is no other opportunity to deal with it except by bringing forward the estimates immediately. What is required is an immediate statement of intention by the government, and immediate action to provide financing of grain drying equipment. With that assurance farmers could carry on. Without it, our economy will suffer another, perhaps disastrous, blow.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I want with all the emphasis I can command to support the motion having regard to the urgency of this situation. Some while ago I moved a similar motion asking that this house take time to debate the very serious, even desperate situation that was developing in western Canada. This motion was turned aside, and between then and now we have lost much time to examine and prepare for the very critical situation that exists.
November 27, 1968

In all honesty I would ask the house now to seize this opportunity to see what can be done to stave off really serious losses as a result of the condition of this grain. I know whereof I speak, because I have a dryer operating on my own farm saving grain that otherwise would have been a total loss. This situation will be repeated on farm after farm in western Canada. There are things that can be done and should be discussed in this house. Those here who are able to advance solutions and programs that might be useful should be given the opportunity to place them before the government.
The government should bring before us and offer to this house the opportunity to discuss the situation thoroughly and examine all facets and all courses of action that may be taken to use the resources of the commercial channels which are available, as well as the resources that the farmers themselves may have available.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that we support the motion for study of the western farmers' very urgent problem.
However, frankly, we deplore the fact that, when we talk about an eastern agricultural policy, we do not get the necessary support in calling for justice for our own farmers. In the past, we have asked that grain elevators be built which would enable the transfer of feed grain from the west to the east; this would help the farmer, especially in winter, when boats cannot navigate and grain must come by rail, which of course makes it too expensive.
We support the motion and understand that there are problems in Canada. However, recently we too have asked that a solution be found to the unemployment and strike problems in the eastern townships; but we did not get the required support from the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may interrupt the honourable member, I should like to remind him that the debate on the matter under consideration is limited, since we have to determine whether or not there is urgency of debate. If the ruling of the Chair is favourable, the honourable member will then be able to discuss the subject matter of the motion to be moved subsequently.


Bernard Dumont: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker.
Government Wheat Policy
I simply wanted to say that we could have built grain elevators to solve the unemployment problem and to make it possible for this grain to be moved from the west to the east. Since we did not find the means to settle this problem, the Canadian parliament, on the one hand, must today face a surplus problem in the west and, on the other hand, a shortage of feed grain in the east. The farmers are complaining every day, and we could have settled this problem if we had listened to the voices heard in 1962. In fact, the urgency becomes obvious because the Prime Minister refuses to renew the winter works program and because this western grain which becomes a burden for the western farmer has to be moved and could bring abundance to the east.
This is why we are asking for the immediate planning of works in order to settle this problem of abundance. As far as we are concerned, we of the Ralliement Creditiste, the solution would be to utilize simultaneously the Canadian money and production, that is 664 million bushels of wheat and the necessary capital which would make possible the distribution of abundance.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of the motion I rise to speak in support of the urgency of debate. I trust the house will not try to treat this as a routine motion or as mere attempt to divert the house from its proper business. I hope we shall have the support not only of all western hon. members but of the majority of hon. members from the east as well.
I say that because the situation is of such a serious nature. The statement by the chairman of the wheat board cannot be discounted. It lends itself to one interpretation only; that western agriculture faces a loss of hundreds of millions of bushels of grain and millions of dollars, which farmers cannot afford to lose. I therefore suggest that we take action on the matter now.
As the mover of the motion said, there is no immediate opportunity to deal with this crisis which arises out of a series of failures on the part of the government. Unless this is dealt with immediately the result will be a paralysing blow to the western economy. The six weeks' grain handlers' strike resulted in a disastrous slowdown in deliveries from which we have not yet recovered. This matter has not been dealt with previously because the government failed to provide an occasion upon which to do so. Now, because of the
3262	COMMONS
Government Wheat Policy ramifications of the situation, it should be dealt with forthwith. There is urgency, and the urgency lies in the failure for six months to ratify the international wheat agreement, allowing the United States, deliberately and by agreement, an open door to markets which traditionally belong to Canada. As a result of these failures some 700 million bushels of wheat piled up on the prairies-not an unusual situation under Liberal governments. As far as the western farmer is concerned, Liberal years are lean years.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Robson Muir: Reference has been made to the agriculture estimates. I say bring them on; let us see what solution the government proposes to a calamity of its own making.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that he is now making the speech which I assume he would normally make if the motion were accepted. He should attempt to limit his remarks to procedural considerations having to do with the urgency of debate.


George Robson Muir: I was just laying the groundwork for the procedural argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Robson Muir: It is true the chairman of the wheat board will be appearing before the committee on agriculture. It is certain that when he appears he will repeat the outline of potential calamity which he dealt with yesterday. This does not solve the situation. Let us not fall into the error which the government is trying to foster, that a committee is a substitute for parliament. A committee is not a substitute for this house. It is true that in committee information can be elicited from the officials, but that is not what is needed at the present time. What is needed now, and needed immediately, is a statement by the government indicating awareness of the catastrophic situation into which the western farmer has been plunged by its lack of policy; and what is required is an undertaking by the government that there will be action. Such an undertaking can only be given in parliament. The situation can only be met by an immediate undertaking on the part of the government that something will be done, at least to double farm drying facilities. This cannot be given in a committee.

DEBATES	November 27, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member once again that according to my limited understanding of this type of question he is at this point considering the substance of the situation and it seems to me, as an independent observer, that hon. members really defeat the purpose of this kind of motion when they fail to limit their contributions to the debate to the procedural aspects. If a number of hon. members take part in this debate by putting forward their substantive arguments, it is then much easier for the Chair to take the position that the matter has already been debated and that the motion for adjournment should not be allowed.
With this in mind, I ask hon. members to limit their contributions to the procedural aspects.


George Robson Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the limited knowledge of this subject by members of the government that I felt they should be enlightened.
The farmers must have an assurance that the government will act to provide drying facilities on the farms. This is the first thing that should be done. Such facilities can cost a great deal of money. Should a farmer be asked to pay thousands of dollars out of his own pocket to make up for government negligence? Precious few farmers in western Canada have this kind of money at the moment to play around with. Unless we act immediately, millions of bushels of grain will rot in piles in the fields of western Canada.
That constitutes the urgency of the matter. Only government action can help the situation and prevent a very serious economic loss to the prairies and to the country as a whole. To be useful, such action must be forthcoming at once, or at least there must be an indication that it will be forthcoming at once. Unless an opportunity is granted to us now to deal with this subject and impress on the government the urgency of the situation there may be no other opportunity, once the time allotted to the estimates has elapsed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: In dealing with the question of urgency of debate, Your Honour will be aware that there have been numerous references to this subject on the orders of the day and on other occasions during the current session. I suggest there has been a pattern to the references which have been made to this matter, leading to the conclusion that there is now urgency of debate.
November 27, 1968
The first questions were asked on this subject on the second day of the session. The house was informed that everything was under control, that it was desirable to wait until the harvest had been completed before determining what action should be taken. Later, when it became perfectly apparent to all that a serious situation had developed in western Canada, the government gave an assurance that everything possible was being done to deal with the problem of tough and damp grain.
Hon. members were assured that terminal facilities were being used to the full at both lakehead and inland terminals. Later it was disclosed in reply to further questioning that these terminals were not in fact being used to the full, that there was difficulty in moving grain to the terminals. It then transpired that there were difficulties in getting box cars. The transportation problem was referred to yesterday by the chairman of the wheat board in the statement to which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain referred.
In reply to further inquiries we were told that the Saskatchewan department of agriculture had found there were some 800 farm dryers in the province at the present time, and that as a result everything was under control. On the following day, under renewed questioning, the Minister of Agriculture backtracked with respect to that statement. Recently I drew the attention of the house to a protest sent to the Minister of Agriculture by the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture in which it took issue with the minister's statement that the situation was well in hand. As a matter of fact the Saskatchewan wheat pool is quoted in a farm broadcast on November 12 as saying "the committee strongly states that this is not the case." The reference is to the situation being well in hand. As reported in the Leader-Post of November 19 the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture also stated there were 100 million bushels of wheat in the province which would have to be dried elsewhere than in commercial drying facilities.
Now we are faced with a statement by the chairman of the wheat board making it clear that the bulk of tough and damp grain will have to be dried on farms in western provinces. Thus I think it is abundantly plain that any semblance of a government program has been lacking, despite the assurance of its spokesman that they have the situation well in hand and are watching it closely. I maintain that the only way an adequate discussion
Government Wheat Policy of this problem is possible a this stage, having regard to the manner in which the situation has developed over the past number of weeks, is by allowing this motion. That would at least permit a full discussion of the serious situation which is affecting the entire national economy of Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised in the house on numerous occasions by many hon. members on this side. We have tried to impress the government with the seriousness of the situation. I refer to only two instances. One was on November 7 when the matter was raised with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatchewan. At that time he said he was not aware of any problem concerning an insufficient number of box cars. Again, on November 13 I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) about this matter, and he replied that he had been in contact with the wheat board that very day and said he had no reason to believe that the situation presently existing is abnormal.
In reply to a supplementary question the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) told me the terminal elevators were operating on a five day basis. Despite the urgency of the situation the terminal elevators at the lake-head are still operating only on a five day basis. Unless the government can be impressed with the fact that these terminal elevators must operate on a seven day basis, there cannot be any relief for the farmers.
Why is it urgent that the terminal elevators operate on a seven day basis? Much of the grain that has been harvested is of low quality. Consequently any grain that can be sold will not command a very high price, in fact approximately only two thirds of the normal price for No. 2 wheat. The situation is so urgent that one cannot expect farmers to sell their grain at that price and then turn around and pay for commercial dryers out in the country. The farmers must be able to sell their grain and have it delivered at the terminal elevators. In that way they will receive some money from the wheat board and have some income with which to continue operations.
The farmers cannot be expected to pay for the drying of grain and then store it for a year or two, as may now be necessary with the present developing situation. As I understand it, even at this late date there are

November 27, 1968

Government Wheat Policy not sufficient competent technicians at the terminals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member has been referring more to the urgency of the matter than to the question of urgency of debate. Perhaps he might very soon bring his remarks in line with the requirements of the rules of the house.


Stanley James Korchinski: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring out the fact that a debate is absolutely necessary, and to show that the problem is directly related to the fact that there are not sufficient competent staff at the terminal elevators, even though we have known since September that the situation was such that we would require more staff at the elevators.
Without further comment, Mr. Speaker, I urge the house to have this matter debated, particularly as there are other matters pertaining to the labour contract which must also be discussed. Apparently the contract does not permit the labourers to work on a seven day basis, and that is something which must be brought out during the debate. I therefore urge Your Honour to accept the motion.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest many of the comments of hon. members opposite and I thought I should bring to their attention, and particularly to that of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) two additional statements from the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board speaking in his capacity as chairman of the transportation commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, who is obviously going to make a contribution to the substance of the matter. I hesitate to interrupt him in view of the fact that contributions of the same nature have already been made in the debate, but in any event I have to remind him that, as much as possible, contributions should be limited in this debate to the procedural aspects of the matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to deal with the question of urgency in the tone I have heard from other hon. members. The point of the statement of the chief commission was that there was an attitude on the part of some farmers to the effect that there was in fact no problem at all, and he was bringing to their attention the fact that there was still some problem

left. I would like to read the final two sentences in his report:
All producers should be made aware of this situation. Current reports from the provincial departments of agriculture indicate a very substantial farm drying capacity which, if used fully, can go a long way toward helping farmers cope with this very serious problem.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the contribution by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) is one that will always be remembered for its impotence, its total disregard of the facts and the serious situation on the prairie. It is an amazing thing that we have two ministers from western Canada, both without portfolio, the one who has spoken who is not too conversant with this subject and the other from Manitoba who is one of the greatest authorities on wheat and the marketing of wheat in all Canada, but he has not chosen to make a contribution to the debate. Indeed, Liberal members have maintained silence in the face of the most serious situation we have faced in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the situation getting worse? Will the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) from Manitoba say the situation is getting better when only 12 million bushels have as yet been transported to the head of the lakes for drying, 12 million out of 250 million bushels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the right hon. gentleman, as I have already reminded other members, that the debate at this time is simply on the question of urgency of debate, and that we should not be debating the urgency of the matter itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was just answering the vacuous statement by the hon. minister from Saskatoon, and pointing out that what he said indicated he has no appreciation of what the situation is, and how it has worsened. For weeks we have tried to get action and the government, King Canute fashion, has simply sat, listened and done nothing to meet an ever worsening condition. According to the statement made today by the hon. member who moved this motion there are 250 million bushels of wheat that have to be dried-250 million bushels, and the government sits and does nothing. Surely this would have been a time when the Prime Minister, with his just society, would have listened and said this is unjust and the house should have an opportunity of speaking out.
November 27, 1968
There is no need to endeavour to exaggerate the situation. We in western Canada face a most serious condition of affairs, yet the government supinely refuses any consideration or any action. I know, Mr. Speaker, we have to go a long way to regard anything on the part of this government as an emergency, but this is an emergency that worsens every day.
One cannot go into the facts, as Your Honour has said. We can simply point out how serious things are, how we have warned them day after day, and all we have received in return is the glossed over observations of the Minister of Agriculture who, even today, is abroad telling them in Europe how to run the O.E.C.D. With all the force at my command I repeat that there never was before this house in the last eight, nine or ten years anything more emergent than this, yet the government sits silent. Even the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), the farmer from Bay Street, has not spoken yet. I await his words. He is the only one, I believe who has his heart sufficently softened to ask the house that this motion be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the cooperation and indulgence of hon. members, and I trust there will not be too many further contributions to the debate which we are effectively having at this time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Perhaps I should invite hon. members to be as brief as possible in their statements.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address myself to the urgency of this matter, and repeat that I am one of a number of members of this house who have exhausted every possible opportunity available since the beginning of this session on September 12 to obtain a statement of government policies and programs to deal with this situation. We have tried in every way possible, during questions on the orders of the day, during the throne speech and budget debates, yet we have not received any indication from the government as to what action it intends to take. We have exhausted every effort, sir.
I spent the last two week ends in my constituency, and the people I represent believe this to be a matter of urgency. I am sure every member who represents a constituency like mine has found the same thing. This is a matter of national importance which involves
Government Wheat Policy hundreds of millions of dollars and a great many more people than farmers. It involves the transportation industry, the grain handling industry and the entire economy of this country. It also affects our export markets. All these matters are of extreme importance to every member of this house. We have tried everything we can to get this government to deal with this situation and I plead with you now, sir, to rule this motion in order because of this urgency, so this house will have the opportunity to obtain some indication from this government about its programs to deal with this matter.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the only question to be dealt with at this time is the question of urgency of debate. If I may I should like to direct Your Honour's attention to citation 100(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
Mr. Speaker, an hon. member says we are two months late now. That is a very useful observation. We have followed a practice in this house in dealing with the estimates of various departments. I have arranged to introduce here such estimates as hon. members wished to have dealt with, and have, by agreement with the opposition house leaders, referred those estimates to the standing committees which hon. members in the opposition did not wish to deal with in the house. Therefore, if the hon. member who just sat down has exhausted every effort to have this matter dealt with in order to get action, let me suggest that he should have had his house leader, or one of the other house leaders, request that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture be considered here.
We have been considering estimates now for several weeks, and there still are several more days for their consideration, but there has been no request from hon. members opposite that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture be brought before this house at a time when the Minister of Agriculture was here. Just by coincidence this motion is proposed today when my colleague the Minister of Agriculture is attending the O.E.C.D. in Paris. I think it is important that a Canadian representative should be at an international meeting on farm policy.

November 27, 1968

Government Wheat Policy
In respect of opportunities, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I remind hon. members that the agriculture committee-


An hon. Member:: Come off it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the house that the agriculture committee will be meeting tomorrow and that there will be an opportunity to consider estimates next week. In respect of the suggestion that there has been no opportunity to deal with these matters in the house, so far as the official opposition is concerned, there has been no opportunity presumably because the leadership of the official opposition did not want the matter discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. And to comply with your instructions, I shall be extremely brief.
Having heard all the arguments from either side, I believe there is really a problem that must be solved, and it should come before the house. It is a major problem, vitally important for many farmers of the western provinces. It is equally of interest to the eastern farmers as far as supply is concerned.
So, in my humble opinion and considering the extremely serious nature of the problem, we should, if you allow me, Mr. Speaker, make you a suggestion: first, accept the motion and then discuss it in the light of all the ideas that may be brought forward. I think that would help the government to solve the problem.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the question of the opportunity for debate and its urgency, I must contradict completely the statement of the President of the Privy Council. There is no opportunity to discuss this now because, while it is true the estimates were sent to the standing committee, the right still persists in
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1

this house to call back, at the request of the government house leader, any estimates in order to facilitate the kind of debate we might now have under the provisions of standing order 26. If the government house leader refuses to accept the very reasonable request of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, then I suggest he is delinquent in his duty. It is his duty to bring back these estimates. It is only within the four corners of this house that this debate can be held with the solemnity and the attention it deserves, and the failure of the minister to respond to that request is a certain indication of the government's failure in its responsibilities in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. minister wishes to rise on a question of privilege. After hearing his question of privilege I would hesitate to allow too many more members to continue these enlightening contributions to this debate. Having heard the question of privilege, if it is not followed by a formal motion, I will recognize another hon. member who has been trying to get the floor, and then I suggest we go on with the business of the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been an imputation by the hon. member for Peace River regarding the manner in which I have called these estimates. I should like to point out that throughout I have called these estimates on the basis of consultation with house leaders. I can only say that this is typical of the hon. member for Peace River, and the kind of co-operation I can expect from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Battle River.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the verbiage of the hon. member for Rosedale in respect of why we should not consider the plight of the western agricultural industry at this time, let me say that if the government of Canada considers western Canada and its agricultural industry of any importance to this urban-oriented just society, then it should consider this motion at this time. If the government does
November 27, 1968	COMMONS
attach any importance, let it show us now in order that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me remind the hon. member that this-Would the hon. member resume his seat? Let me remind hon. members that this is a procedural debate. The more of these speeches by hon. members I hear, the more I am confirmed in my opinion as to the ruling I should make in respect of this motion.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Cliff Downey: I offer my apologies, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to impress upon the members on the government side of the house the real urgency of this matter. I can only say that if they ignore this urgent plea from the representatives of western Canada, our worst fears will become grim reality. I say that now is the time to act, not later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of urgency of debate of the very serious situation in western Canada, I believe the house should consider it urgent because, first, of the economic conditions in western Canada today. Anybody doing business in the rural areas of western Canada realizes that the farmers have a drastic need for ready cash. Their damp grain is not moving.
We have many times urged the house to put the dryers at the terminals on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. The government has decided not to do that. The President of the Privy Council suggested that this whole matter could be raised in the agricultural committee tomorrow when the chief of the wheat board will be before us. We are asking for a policy decision by parliament, not for a statistical review of wheat handling such as the chief commissioner of the wheat board can give us in the agricultural committee.
We want a policy decision by parliament, first, to activate the grain drying equipment at the terminals on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. This is a policy decision that parliament and the government have to take. Second, we ask that the transportation committee look into the problem with regard to box cars. In the past two weeks members of this party and others have urged the government to look into the problem of box car shortages. No fundamental action has been taken by the government on this serious question. We want
DEBATES	3267
Government Wheat Policy a policy decision by the government to alleviate the serious problem with regard to box cars and their availability in order to move our damp grain.
Third, we want a policy decision by parliament and the government with regard to commercial dryers purchased by farmers or farm co-operatives. Today they have to pay duty of 22J per cent on these dryers, which practically prohibits their importation. We believe these three policy decisions should be made by the government. They could be brought about today by having an active debate in the house on this serious matter.
On only two or three previous occasions has a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 been accepted by the Chair. One had to do with the drought-stricken conditions in eastern Canada a number of years ago and another with the problems on the St. Lawrence seaway a number of years ago. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this question is every bit as urgent, particularly in light of the statement made on television last night by the chief of the wheat board on two of the matters to which I have referred. I would like to think that you, sir, and the government feel that western Canada is every bit as important as eastern Canada, the drought-stricken conditions of a few years ago in that area and the problems on the St. Lawrence seaway of a few years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Starting at the end, I would say that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Crowfoot have very little relevance to the procedural aspects of this matter and I cannot consider them at all in reaching the decision which I am now going to give to the house. Very serious arguments have been advanced by hon. members who have taken part in the debate. It is not an easy task for the Chair at any moment to reach a decision on standing order 26. I gather that the special committee on procedure has been giving very special consideration to changing the conditions under which that standing order operates, which would, I believe, have the effect of making it much easier for the Chair to reach a decision and to take into account the views advanced by hon. members in such circumstances.
Hon. members know that what we have to consider at this time is not at all the urgency of the matter. Although I do not come from the western provinces, I fully realize how important and urgent this matter is. I have been in the house every day, of course, since
November 27, 1968

Government Wheat Policy the beginning of this session and in the chair I have heard the questions asked from day to day by hon. members on both sides of the house representing western constituencies. I have seen similar questions on the order paper.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The responsible ministers have not been here.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under standing order 26 was made earlier by another hon. member. I believe that was more than a month ago. All this indicates clearly to me- and I am looking at the question from strictly a procedural standpoint; hon. members must bear that in mind-that the matter has been under consideration, that it is not a sudden emergency as is required by the rule but is obviously a continuing emergency. I wonder whether there is a point at which a continuing emergency becomes a sudden emergency. This is a philosophical decision which I hesitate to make at this time. But when a month ago a matter was considered extremely urgent, and when every day since then it has been considered extremely urgent, I doubt that today, by reason of the fact that a motion is made, I can reach the conclusion that it has now become a sudden emergency.
On the other hand, I have to take into account that there may be opportunities for debate of this urgent matter within the next few days. I hesitate to mention, but I believe it is my duty to do so, that there is always open to the opposition the possibility of moving an amendment to a supply motion, at which time this matter could be debated at length. This is a possibility which might be considered. After the exchange between the government house leader and the opposition house leader, I hesitate to suggest that they should get together-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -and perhaps try to arrange to set aside a supply day for a debate on this very urgent and important matter. In any event I feel bound by the standing order and by the rules and precedents inasmuch as they require that the matter brought before the house should be one of sudden emergency. This is primarily a matter of a continuing emergency. Because in my view it should be possible for the house within the next few days to arrange for that kind of debate, I would be inclined to refuse the motion. At the same time I advance the possibility that the motion might be brought forth again later if

there does not seem to be an improvement in the situation and if there does not appear to be the possibility within the next few days of a debate being provided with the agreement of hon. members from both sides of the house. Having said all this-and much of it might be not entirely relevant-I must reach the conclusion that I cannot accept the motion.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege does not concern Your Honour's ruling but rather has to do with the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. He quoted or attempted to quote the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board and I jotted down the words he quoted. The minister attributed to that gentleman the words that Canadian farmers are not generally aware of the seriousness of the problem. Either the minister did not have a chance to complete the quotation, which would be unfair, or he misquoted Mr. McNamara and should have a chance to explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question of privilege. If any hon. member has a question of privilege now it would be the minister, not the hon. member for Selkirk.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not going to avail himself of the opportunity to explain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: I ask Mr. Speaker, that all the notices of motions be allowed to stand.



PROVISION OF DRYING FACILITIES ON FARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the appropriate minister, possibly the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. What efforts are being made by the Canadian Wheat Board or by the government itself to try to ensure that there are adequate facilities on farms to handle the 200
November 27, 1968

million bushels of grain that cannot be conditioned at terminal facilities? I ask this question in the light of the very disquieting statements made last evening by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board which have been discussed here this afternoon.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the terminal facilities do not come under the responsibility of the department of which I am the acting minister. However, this matter is, of course, being given active and serious consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio that the government has in fact no proposals to put forward with regard to measures to assist in the drying of the damp grain which is in danger of being destroyed?


Otto Emil Lang: We have, over a long period of tune, been assessing the situation-


An hon. Member:: Some three months now.


Mr. Lang (Saskaioon-Humboldi):: -and in
looking back at the debates in the past, one will find that the problems being considered today are not exactly the problems that existed a month ago since the weather has allowed a good deal of harvesting to take place. So it is well to look at these things. The chainnan of the transportation commission in his recent statement indicated that another questionnaire based on post-harvesting conditions has now been prepared and was put in the hands of the elevator operators on November 22. We expect to have the results at a very early date. This will no doubt be of great assistance in helping us assess the whole situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether the wheat board or the government is conducting any survey of the location of dryers in order to ascertain whether these facilities are in a position to be of maximum use in connection with grain drying, and has the government or the wheat board given any consideration to facilitating the importation of dryers from the United States or from other sources?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated at the beginning in my first answer, these are questions largely for the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Agriculture who is not here today. I am sure he would be glad to provide detailed information on this matter when he returns from Europe.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the acting minister of national revenue whether the government has given any consideration to the removal, by agreement with the United States, of tariffs on the admission of dryers into Canada or, if this cannot be arranged, would the government be prepared to pay the duty on the necessary dryers so that farmers in western Canada would be able to secure them?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that up with the officials of the department and to make to the cabinet such recommendations as seem necessary.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that part of the problem is due to the shortage of box cars, would the minister discuss this matter with the railways, if he has not done so already, and promise western farmers a flow of box cars so that damp and other grain can be moved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this up with the railways.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been any discussions to date with reference to this serious matter or are they to take place only now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, there have been discussions, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please take the house into his confidence and tell us what has been the result of those discussions with the Canadian railways?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At an early date, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The west is forgotten.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today both the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are away. We have witnessed the arrogance of the Minister of

November 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport who has refused to answer questions. What kind of a government is it that will not give answers to our questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may not be a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is a point of emergency on which Your Honour ruled a short time ago. These ministers will not answer; they will not even come into the House of Commons to grace this place with their presence. Parliament is falling to pieces now, and you are the Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister without Portfolio since he is certainly speaking for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the government undertake a program to co-ordinate the use of farm drying equipment that is now available on farms and to give financial assistance to farmers toward the cost of operating dryers in order to avoid the possibility of substantial losses because of damp grain?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring these representations to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. I am sorry to see that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are not in their places as they should be according to the roster. Will the government take under consideration the question I put two months ago to the Minister of Agriculture in which I suggested that in a similar emergency in 1959 with wheat and other grain under the snow acreage payments were made and asked whether this could not be considered now so as to alleviate the financial difficulties in which the farmers find themselves at this time?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course I must point out that this is a problem which was apparently much more serious a month or two ago when the hon. member put his question than it is now. With regard to the question as to how many

people the suggestion would help, this situation is certainly being examined at this time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. Now that we have lost one month in drying grain at the lakehead terminals, will the terminals be operating their drying facilities on a 24-hour seven day basis?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to bring that question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to provide the house with some particulars of the proposal to allow accelerated depreciation on farm grain dryers as referred to by the Minister of Agriculture in the house on Monday evening?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, regulations in this regard are being drafted and will probably be issued early next week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Congratulations! At least this minister is answering questions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. Can he advise the house whether the government has made any provision for additions to the drying facilities of the inland terminals by the purchase of this equipment and its immediate installation in order to increase the capacity of the dryers?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can only draw attention again to what I said before, namely, that the question is being directed to the wrong department.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I then ask whether the acting minister of agriculture or anyone who has something to do with agriculture can answer any of these questions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Where the hell are they?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to
November 27, 1968

the Minister of Transport. In view of press reports concerning discussions on a possible change in the ownership of Air Canada, and in view of the fact that a government committee is studying this matter, can the minister say whether a decision has yet been made and, if not, what is the position at the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is my hon. friend referring to the Winnipeg overhaul base or to the whole system?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the discussions that have been reported of a possible change in the ownership of Air Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change since the last time the question was asked and answered. The same answer has been given, I think, twice this session. Although the government is considering the future form of the corporate structure of the company, this is not a question which can be considered lightly. It has very serious implications regardless of the decision that may be made and therefore will require some time for study. No decision is imminent, but I do hope that perhaps some time next year or in the early months of next year we will be able to make some sort of a position statement in respect of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we be assured that parliament will have an opportunity to express its view on this matter before we are presented with a fait accompli?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that is a reasonable request, Mr. Speaker. I am sure an opportunity will be provided. New legislation would be required in any event so that parliament would have its full say in respect of any change in the corporate structure. I am very pleased to give my hon. friend an undertaking that an opportunity will be provided to discuss it.


Bernard Dumont: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In reply to question No. 623, the Minister of Transport said that the administrative offices of Air Canada in Winnipeg would be moved.
Has that branch anything to do with the maintenance of the Viscounts, which entails a deficit of $10 million by staying in Winnipeg instead of being transferred to Montreal?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question should also be put on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he prepared to report on a recent meeting between the representatives of the government and the United Auto Workers concerning lay-offs in Windsor? In particular, can the minister say what undertaking the government gave this delegation with regard to alleviating this crisis?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: As the hon. member intimates, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with representatives of that union yesterday. We had a very fruitful meeting. Many suggestions came out of that meeting, some advanced by the government and some by the union. I am not, however, prepared to state anything specific today. When and if there are any changes in government policy, they will be announced in the appropriate manner in the house next week.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give a date to the house on which he may be able to present any promises he made to the delegation concerning the eligibility of the union members for temporary assistance benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not be prepared to give any particular date. It would depend on the rate of progress.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: My question is directed to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Can the Postmaster General advise the house to whom R.C.A. Victor and Northern Electric delivered their reports following surveys they made on behalf of the government with regard to Canada's satellite?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, late yesterday afternoon I received copies of the reports.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Did some member of the government or an official

November 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry representing the government give authority for these companies to make these reports?


Eric William Kierans: No member of the office of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or in the office of the President of the Treasury Board or in the office of the Postmaster General gave any such authority.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Are we to assume, then, that these companies made these reports purely on their own initiative?


Eric William Kierans: No, they may have been in contact with some officials; that is the distinction I am making.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In the light of the minister's answer, would he advise the house who those officials were?


Eric William Kierans: They were not in my department; that is all I can say.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, could the Postmaster General tell the house if it is true that Mr. J. Orr, of the research branch, attended the press conference given by Northern Electric about a satellite?


Eric William Kierans: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Can the Postmaster General indicate whether the government of Canada is committed in a contractual way now to these two firms for development of a space communications satellite?


Eric William Kierans: The government is committed to no one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether that question can be asked at this time. This question should be placed on the order paper, I suggest.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Was permission given by anyone in that department for this report to be released or by anyone in the deputy minister's office?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the reports as such have been received by the government and have not been released.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: May I ask the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, whether he is in a position today to report to the house the results of his discussion with Canadian National regarding the alleged proposal to cut back the Canadian National police force in the Atlantic region, which has been brought to his attention by a number of members including the hon. member for Moncton?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not today, Mr. Speaker. When I was in Halifax on Monday a delegation of the policemen visited me on Monday morning. We had a discussion and I wired back for my departmental assistants to speed up the information. I have not had a chance yet to determine whether it is available and to look at it.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put my question to the Secretary of State but, in his absence, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the fact that, within a few days, a federal-provincial conference on constitutional matters will be held and that the question of using television for educational purposes will certainly come up, has the Secretary of State or the government received from the province of Quebec an official communication stating its position on the use of educational broadcasting?


Mr. Robert Sianbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have never received any proposal in that respect from the Quebec government, despite several requests.
However, I note that the Quebec premier has expressed the wish to discuss the matter at the next constitutional conference. I need not add that we shall welcome a frank and full discussion with the provincial governments on any subject of mutual concern.
November 27, 1968



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED KINGDOM ON IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will address it to the acting minister. Can the minister report on the outcome of representations made by the Canadian government to the government of the United Kingdom with regard to the new import restrictions recently put into effect, and especially the serious effect on imports of Canadian synthetic rubber, lumber, plywood and newsprint?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot as yet report on the outcome of these discussions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. In addition to the representations made by Canada directly to the government of the United Kingdom, can the minister say whether Canada has made any protest to GATT and, particularly has the government of Canada taken the position in GATT that the British import restrictions are in fact a contravention of Britain's obligations under GATT?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Canada is represented on a committee of GATT which will be studying this question and therefore will have direct access to the question of the position of these changes in relation to the GATT obligations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. I asked whether Canada made a direct protest to GATT with regard to this matter?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Since the whole matter has been referred to this committee for study it was not really a question of making a protest at that stage.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a related question. In view of the fact that we have had three monetary crises and an indication from the chief economic adviser to president-elect Nixon that we may expect six months of
Inquiries of the Ministry chaos and continuing crisis, can the minister assure the house that Canada will take the lead in seeking immediately an early international conference along the lines of the Bret-ton Woods meeting to make more satisfactory and permanent arrangements for the strengthening of international currencies and provision for orderly readjustment which may be necessary from time to time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, there are continuing consultations taking place on matters of international finance and exchange. Canada will play its full part in any such negotiations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I gather the answer is no, though it took the minister a little while to say so. Did he say on return from his recent trip to Bonn that the crisis which has just temporarily passed is "primarily a French or European problem"?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did say that there has not been any pressure on either the Canadian or the United States dollar as a result of this recent upheaval in international foreign exchange, and that the problem has primarily been a French-German-British problem. As my hon. friend knows, the movement in exchange was from France and Britain into Germany. Since the conference there has been a reversal of this situation, as I understand it, and quite a substantial outflow from the deutschmark.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Is the minister still-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Abiti-bi rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I hesitate somewhat to interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I would like to submit that, since the beginning of the question period, none of our group has been recognized and the time has almost expired.
Even though there was a request for a debate on a very important subject, namely the wheat problem, the fact is that a debate on this subject has taken place on two occasions, that is during the discussion of the motion and during the question period. Why is it then that members of the Ralliement Creditiste are not recognized this afternoon?

November 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may rest assured that I am keeping an eye open and that his group and himself in particular will be given their turn in a moment.
The hon. member for Abitibi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can tell the house if he has received an official invitation from the Niger-and on what date-to attend or participate in the coming conference of the education ministers of francophone countries?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, an invitation was in fact addressed to Canada. We received it on last November 17, I believe, or last Tuesday, from president Hamoni Diori of the Niger. We have been invited to attend a conference, not of the ministers of education, but of French speaking countries in general.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Will that invitation be handed over to the province of Quebec or does the federal government intend to accept the invitation for itself and send its own delegation?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the invitation was extended to us, and we are in the process of considering what reply we will give.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell us if the federal government intends to hold direct consultations with the Quebec government with regard to sending a Canadian or a Quebec delegation to that conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we would hope that, in accordance with the policy established by right hon. Mr. Pearson at last year's federal-provincial conference, a delegation to such a conference will represent all Canadians and particularly French speaking Canadians who, as everyone knows, do not

live only in the province of Quebec but also in other provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will admit perhaps that the situation has righted itself somewhat but just the same I give the floor to the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In the invitation received by the federal government, is it mentioned that the Quebec government has also been invited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can even say more. That invitation contained a special indication to the effect that it was their wish that Quebec would attend that conference and this is evidently in accordance with our own views. We hope, however, to establish a formula under which there would be a single Canadian delegation made up of the representatives of several provinces interested in the "francophonie" or French speaking countries.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends, since there are many French speaking Canadians in other provinces, to convey that invitation to other Canadian provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not hear very well, Mr. Speaker, but if-


André-Gilles Fortin: I will repeat my question in order to be well understood.
Since the Prime Minister said a while ago that there are many French speaking Canadians in other provinces, will he also convey that invitation to the other provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said it and I say it again: We intend to make up a Canadian delegation including representatives of the various provinces interested in the French speaking countries.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think I should direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the announcement last night by the prime minister of British Columbia to the effect that he intends shortly to absorb
November 27, 1968

the Yukon and part of the Northwest Territories, will the government give consideration to intervening to protect the natives of those areas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my function is to protect foreigners, not Canadians.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is it the policy of the minister to threaten prosecution of village service groups who send out notices of Christmas turkey bingos through the mails for local charitable purposes such as children's playgrounds, and at the same time permit the mayor of Montreal to send out lottery literature to homes in the same area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a policy statement which should be made on motions.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Maclean's magazine is presently informing thousands of Canadians that each is the winner of a genuine oil painting by Renoir or a genuine original etching by Rembrandt or four or five other similar art treasures, what steps does the minister propose to take to stop this fraud?


Stanley Ronald Basford: To start with, Mr. Speaker, I will read Maclean's, which I have not yet done.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week, as reported at page 2910 of Hansard, I asked the minister a question which he said he would prefer to take as notice. In
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the tables that he put on the record last week I am wondering whether he has given any further consideration to this matter and to the possibility of indicating the level of tar and nicotine on packages of cigarettes offered for sale?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this and other questions pertaining to tobacco will be discussed by a parliamentary committee, and I also believe that the President of the Privy Council will have an announcement to make in this regard on Friday.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the heavy pressure on the immigration offices of Australia and South Africa in the United Kingdom caused by prospective immigrants, I suppose because of the austerity program in effect there, could the minister inform the house whether or not there is similar pressure on the Canadian offices there? If there is, what measures are being taken to meet the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is pressure in a number of offices and we are doing our very best to staff these offices within budgetary limits.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman say whether the statement made by the Postmaster General on national television last night, that Canada should get out of NATO as well as NORAD since we have no contribution to make in that field meets with the earlier guide line the Prime Minister laid down yesterday in answer to my question, when he said that a minister should not place himself in an irrevocable position which might be contrary to that which the government might eventually take?


Eric William Kierans: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did

November 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry not say that. I support fully our present policy. I am a member of the cabinet and I intend to support it. I said that future alternatives were up for discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: I bring to the attention of hon. members that the only question that may be asked of the Prime Minister is whether the statement attributed to the minister represents government policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was simply asking the Prime Minister whether the statement which I suggest was made meets the earlier guide lines he laid down in his answer to me yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was not taking issue with the question but with the question of privilege.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, in view of what I have just heard from the Postmaster General I can only say the question is hypothetical.


Gerald William Baldwin: Table the transcript, then.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the house whether, in view of the Minister of Transport's comments in Halifax and St. John's, he is giving serious consideration to taking steps to direct pension fund holdings into the capital market for housing?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read the report of what the Minister of Transport said in Halifax and St. John's. I assure my hon. friend that anything the Minister of Transport says is taken under serious consideration by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running out of time, but perhaps the house might agree to allow the hon. member for Palliser to ask a question.


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
[Mr. Kierans.l
Since it is a fact that some 1,400 divorce actions are still awaiting trial in the Supreme Court of Ontario and the court expects an average delay of nine or ten months from the time the actions are filed, and since the same situation is developing in other provinces and imposes severe hardship on individuals, would the minister say whether the government is giving any consideration to changes in the divorce legislation that would, for example, give jurisdiction to county and district courts or otherwise enable divorce applications to be dealt with in a more efficient and considerate manner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday and yesterday three questions were directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relating to strip mining waste. A statement was promised for today. May I ask the acting minister, perhaps, if he is prepared to make that statement at this time?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, statements have been made in the province of British Columbia by Premier Bennett and by the minister of mines, Mr. Richter, which clearly indicate and acknowledge that this is a provincial problem and is directly within the competence of the government of the province of British Columbia and the provincial legislature.

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


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in estimates, $31,015,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Vote No. 1 will be found at page 392 of the blue book and the details are listed on page 394. For the information of hon. members these estimates were last considered on November 4 and 19.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on item 1 of the public works estimates. I have long been interested in public works
November 27, 1968

and I have often been concerned about what has motivated the government in some of its actions in administering this vast department. For example, I note that each year for the last three years we spent $180,000 in improving wharves. We have also done some dredging for Canadian Vickers at Montreal. Canadian Vickers is a worthy industry. I ask the minister, why are some wharves and some drydocks improved while others are neglected?
Two years ago when I was in Vancouver with the agricultural committee I saw how dilapidated the dock facilities were. Recently the port at Vancouver has become one of our major ports through which goods are exported from Canada. Yet I found buildings there which were, as people say in western Canada, as old as the hills. The dredging going on in the harbour was 20 years behind the times. What most concerned me was the lack of an over-all plan for the building of larger facilities at that port to enable the movement of a greater volume of commodities.
Without doubt, the attention of western Canada is focused on Vancouver as a port of export. Hon. members no doubt are aware of the serious situation in western Canada at the terminals and in government elevators. I know that terminal elevators need not necessarily come under the Department of Public Works. Yet when talking about port facilities one must include terminal elevators, and in western Canada we have been worried for the past month because these elevators have not worked at full capacity. They work five days a week and less than 24 hours a day.
We all realize that if the government, and particularly the Department of Public Works, showed a greater interest in this matter they would bring about modernization of port facilities and facilitate the handling of Canadian products. Those products, of course, include grain coming from the terminals and from the dryers. Of course, many realize that one of our bottlenecks in grain has been in drying it. Dryers operate in the terminals. If grain has to be dried elevator companies sometimes do not know where to put it. They have no place to put it. Surely the solution of this problem has something to do with the Department of Public Works and the operations of the department with regard to improving harbour facilities, dredging, and facilitating the movement of Canadian products to export markets.
I could not bring myself to admit when I toured the port of Vancouver, and the Lake-head shortly after, that the facilities I saw
Supply-Public Works
were modern or that the dredging operations at Vancouver, particularly, were up to date. I could only conclude that we are behind the times. It was realized that Asia was a gigantic market and that we should streamline our port facilities to accommodate that market. But we were late. And we have had to pay the price for allowing our harbour facilities to fall behind.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We hear a great deal nowadays from the Minister of Transport about the government's intention to build a brand new port on a sandy peninsula. The minister has not told us how he proposes to stop the sand drifting in without continual dredging. He has not told us whether the legal situation between the federal government and the province has been ironed out. With present pressure on the shipment of Canadian products, whether they be potash, iron ore or grain, surely there is urgent need to iron out the red tape and speed up the modernization of our port facilities and the development of new ones.
Looking over this year's estimates I find very little change in the total expenditure compared with last year. There is an increase of some $11 million. No real savings have been made in any of the items. There is really just a continuation of programs which have not proven to be particularly successful in the past. No consideration has apparently been given to the change which has taken place in the pattern of Canadian exports particularly from the Lakehead and the west coast. We see the United States taking advantage of our harbour facilities at Baie Comeau, for example, while we are failing to keep abreast of our leading export competitor. This should be brought sharply to the attention of the government.
One could go into the whole question of grain drying and grain drying facilities at these harbours. They have not proved good enough. A few years ago when the question of grain dryers on prairie farms was raised Mr. McNamara, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, advised against farmers purchasing dryers on account of the danger of damaging the quality of Canadian wheat. Yet today, because of failure to handle the massive amounts of damp grain on the prairies, Mr. McNamara is urging farmers to get into the business of drying their own grain. He has thrown his caution of a few years ago to the winds and has said in effect: Get into the business because the government cannot handle the 380 million bushels of

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works
damp, tough grain which will have to be dried this winter.
The picture is plain to see. Certainly we must improve the dredging oi our major ports. We must improve the buildings, the basic installations necessary for the handling of Canadian products. It is necessary to streamline port facilities. It is not good enough to put up modern buildings here and there while the railroad leading to them is tied up by city traffic for half a day before the cars can get in there. We remember the situation two years ago when box cars were piled up from Vancouver almost to the rockies because of the difficulty of moving cars to the terminals. The fact is that the activities of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Board of Grain Commissioners which handles the terminal elevators, must all be dovetailed together. In other words, one department has to know what the other is doing; they have to work together if we are to keep abreast of the demand nationally and internationally for Canadian products.
I can only say once again this fall that we in Canada have failed to keep abreast of the need for improved harbour facilities, particularly to deal with damp grain, a problem which is causing severe hardship to many prairie farmers because in consequence they have not been able to market their grain. They face the situation that if the grain is not marketed before early spring there will be a tremendous amount of spoilage and wastage. For this reason I urge the Department of Public Works to get together with the other departments concerned and not only give Canadian Vickers a subsidy of $180,000 every year but facilitate the marketing of Canadian goods and streamline the handling of Canadian products even if this includes the drying and cleaning of Canadian grain which has played such a major part in increasing Canada's exports during the past number of years.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, went on that trip two years ago when members of the agricultural committee learned a great deal about the agricultural problems of various areas of this country. I was impressed this afternoon by the motion which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain put forward with regard to western agriculture and I was surprised that members of the government did not take the opportunity to announce the changes which I am sure are necessary. When a motion of that kind is moved I am often impressed not so much by

the arguments as to the urgency of debate as by the indications that if a debate were allowed members of the house would be in a position to offer practical suggestions to solve the problems which had led to the demand for a debate. If the house is not capable of suggesting any solution to those problems then in my view there is really not much point in having a debate at all. But if a genuine crisis develops I am of the opinion that some consideration should be paid to the readiness of hon. members to offer their solutions.
I realize the minister is wondering what this has to do with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I am coming to that. The department is responsible, among other things, for providing the facilities needed by the grain trade in western Canada. I was surprised that one very vociferous group, the wheat board, under the able leadership of its chairman, was able to provide itself with new facilities which were probably long overdue. I was equally surprised when an even more influential group, the Board of Grain Commissioners, failed to obtain new facilities. The minister may say he will not build them but I suggest he should be interested in extending the influence of the Department of Public Works into the construction of all public developments in Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
When I visited the Moose Jaw terminal, one of the large inland terminals discussed today by a number of hon. members when they spoke about the drying of grain, I was surprised to discover it was built 50 or 60 years ago and very little change has been made in it since. In fact the method of dumping grain there has hardly changed at all from the time wagons were used right through to the use of rail cars. This is another matter that must be considered. Most of the box cars still use the side dumping method, archaic beyond imagination in the context of a commodity which is one of the largest revenue producers for a great portion of our nation.
Damp grain is a serious problem at present, and if the government considers the construction of drying facilities this would likely come under the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works. The fact that there are no additional drying facilities at Moose Jaw indicates that the government has failed to meet a need it should have foreseen. Over the years farmers have been plagued with cyclical problems of drought and damp grain, and had the motion been allowed for a debate
November 27, 1968

today I would have suggested the construction of permanent drying facilities at the inland terminals. Grain could be transported to them for drying and rerouted to country elevators for storage. Although this would not be the best way to handle grain it would be better than putting damp grain into country elevators where, as a result of weather conditions, it may become a partial or total loss.
One of the recurring problems has been the shortage of box cars at the harbour and inland terminals. On occasion this has been due to the reluctance of the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide box cars at terminals when it was more advantageous for the railway to use them elsewhere. I know this is not the responsibility of the minister, but I think he will agree that if he provides additional drying facilities at the inland terminals and damp grain cannot be delivered there because of a shortage of box cars, the whole process will break down.
On a number of occasions we have appointed a transportation commissioner and given him control over box car allocation. This is something that should be considered in the present situation. Such a commissioner could allocate box cars to areas from which it is necessary to move damp grain.
We have spent years and much effort developing markets throughout the world for our grain. We are not going to be able to sell damp grain on the export market. No one in eastern Canada will be interested in buying feed grain if the present situation is not rectified.
I have visited the terminal elevators on the west coast and at the Lakehead elevator complex and have been surprised that the construction we have undertaken is not meeting the ordinary needs of today. Recently I read a pamphlet issued by the Japan trade centre dealing with a complete change in the type of shipping that will be used to handle many types of cargoes. Many new ships are being built to carry container cargoes. The containers measure 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 feet and 700 or 800 of them are carried on one ship. It is possible that we shall soon be exploring this method of moving grain from our inland terminals and, if so, the facilities at those terminals will have to be changed accordingly.
All of us remember the efforts made by the hon. member for Skeena to have port and grain handling facilities expanded at Prince Rupert. His efforts were opposed both by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon.
Supply-Public Works
member for Niagara Falls when they occupied the position of minister of agriculture. However, I know that the Minister of Public Works, who comes from Canada's western maritime province, is familiar with the development taking place at Prince Rupert and knows the role played by the hon. member for Skeena in that development. The changes made at Prince Rupert will result in that port being able to handle new methods of cargo transportation.
If the government would direct the Department of Public Works to undertake new construction at inland terminals I believe that department has the necessary planning and construction know-how, although these things have not always been evident as some of my friends will argue in the case of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa. I am sure the minister will also agree that if his department rather than Mr. Bennett had had some say in the development of the facilities to be provided in the Roberts Bank project things would have been handled in a much more advantageous manner and many of the problems developing in the area might have been avoided. It is my opinion the minister has the facility to foresee some of the construction needs in his own area. Had he done so he might have avoided the problems which are now developing in western Canada, particularly those in respect of the lamentable situation which gave cause for an hon. member to stand up this afternoon and say we are not only drying a very limited amount of grain in terminal elevators but in inland elevators as well.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The members of the committee made a study of this situation and recommended that construction be undertaken to modernize the facilities for drying grain at a number of points on the prairies. As far as I know this has not been followed up by any concrete action. I presume that the drying facilities at the inland elevators have not been improved and that in fact there has been no substantial gain.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make in this regard. I feel that the Department of Public Works has a responsibility in this field and that this house has the responsibility to pursue every avenue to see that a long term or permanent solution is found for some of these problems which occur year after year to plague various areas. One of these problems relates to inland terminals and is the result of the fact that we have not

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works
constructed new facilities or modernized those built many years ago to meet horse and buggy demands in order to meet the demands of this modern day and age in which we live.
It is generally agreed by all concerned that this is one of the situations which might have been brought to the attention of the minister had hon. members been allowed to take part in the debate sought in the motion earlier today. It is my suggestion that the departments of government should not be divorced from one another and that when responsibilities affect large segments of our economy and our natural resources departments should work together so that an improvement accomplished by one will result in an improvement in the others.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak during the debate today I should like to say that in general I have supported the stand taken by the Minister of Public Works on the Roberts Bank super port issue in British Columbia. The minister was extremely forthright and decisive initially with the provincial government on this matter but as of late I feel he has been discreetly quiet.
I should like to make a protest about the veil of secrecy that has been dropped over the whole matter of the Roberts Bank superport, both by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works. This matter is of the greatest consequence to the future planning of the lower mainland of British Columbia and is probably more important than any project in recent memory.
As recently as August 17 I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and W. A. C. Bennett, the premier of British Columbia, in which I said that in view of the extensive ramifications of this project for the future of the lower Fraser valley and the resulting controversy, would it not be pertinent at this time to examine the Canadian National alternative route along the south bank of the Fraser river, a route which, incidentally, is favoured by the lower mainland regional planning board. Further, it would seem logical for a publicly owned railway to serve a port facility at least partially financed by the federal government. It appeared to me at that time and it appears to me today that this whole scheme has proceeded with undue haste, unreasonable secrecy and insufficient regard for the views of those people who are going to be most affected by this project.
On September 24 I submitted a notice of motion for production of papers and it was only recently, over a month later, that the

government finally agreed to produce those papers. I hasten to point out that I have yet to receive any of the documents requested, but at least the government is on record as agreeing to produce them at some time.
I feel now as I have felt for some time that there is federal pussyfooting about this project and that the government has been less than frank with the house about the Roberts Bank negotiations and agreements. It is not to the advantage of anyone that this be allowed to persist.
The original proposal, under which the rail line to serve Roberts Bank was to go through the finest agricultural area in the lower mainland and finally proceed along the shoreline of Boundary bay, which incidentally is the last major recreational resource on the lower mainland for the purpose of public recreation and also as a wildlife refuge, created a huge public outcry. Premier Bennett recently bowed to this public outcry and after one of his famous second looks ordered a study to proceed under Mr. J. Broadbent, vice-president and general manager of the Great Eastern, a provincially owned railroad.
Mr. Broadbent's study and proposals have resulted in some alterations of the original proposal so far as the rail lines are concerned. However, while conducting his study, Mr. Broadbent neglected to consult the chief planning agency for that area, the lower mainland regional planning board which represents 28 lower mainland municipalities and is ultimately responsible for lower mainland regional planning. It seems ludicrous to me that the chief planning authority for the area should not even have been on the team to assist Mr. Broadbent in his study and recommendations.
The Broadbent proposal, as some members may recall, suggested that the existing Canadian National rail line be used from Clayburn to Fort Langley where it would then connect with British Columbia hydro links and finally the port, thus avoiding the rather tortuous and very costly route through the mountainous area of Matsqui, known as Mount Lehman and Bradner. The proposal also suggested that the rail line be removed some two miles from the beaches at Boundary bay to avoid very serious despoilation of the last warm water beach in the area. This seems to me to be a compromise, but it may be only part of the over-all concept. I am forced, because I have no documents, to make some guesses and assumptions. This government leaves me no alternative by denying me
November 27, 1968

access to the information I need to be deadly accurate.
Two British Columbia cabinet ministers, Hon. Ralph Loffmark and Hon. Frank Richter, had previously assured the lower mainland public that the original route was by far the most economic that could be chosen. Paradoxically, Mr. Broadbent's route is now being boosted as being the cheaper by some $7 million. What kind of hasty planning has our provincial government been up to when a $7 million anomaly of this kind can manifest itself in so short a time? It reminds me of the Ottawa arts centre estimate.
Mr. Broadbent's second stage of recommendations disturbs me possibly a little more. It foresees a new C.P.R. bridge at Albion to connect with Fort Langley, thus avoiding the use of the C.N. line. This seems to be directed toward the development of a rail loop which would give the provincial government owned railroad complete access into the lower mainland area, and anticipates a causeway over the arm of Burrard Inlet to the present P.G.E. lines. Apparently what has happened here is that the public has been asked to approve of a half-loaf set of rail links, which probably implies more than we have been led to believe up to this moment. I do not think that a rationalized rail system is necessarily a sinister thing, but I am afraid that once we have agreed to a portion of the line it is possible that a much larger system may be forthcoming.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not think any one link in a rail pattern should be considered in isolation. The general public is entitled to know what are the overall plans and effects. I believe that by keeping this whole matter under wraps the federal government has defaulted in its responsibility for Canadian federal interests and has allowed provincial interests, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, to drive a rather bold bargain with the national railways throughout the lower mainland.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark Willson Rose: I would prefer, sir, that I be allowed to finish.


Arthur Laing: I was only going to suggest to my hon. friend, if I may, that while I would like to discuss all these matters in my position as a member of parliament from Vancouver and a minister 29180-207
Supply-Public Works
from British Columbia, I would be entirely out of order if I discussed them now. They fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, whose estimates will be considered immediately after those of my department. Therefore I am certain my hon. friend will have to repeat everything he is now saying.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I assure the minister that I would be most reluctant to repeat everything I have now said, and I know the minister would not want that. However, since the rail links are directly involved in the access to the superport, I suggest this question comes under the minister's department. I would be most happy if I were allowed to proceed with this question.
The federal government has been reproved once before because it neglected its duty to the people of Canada over matters concerning rail lines within a province. I cite the pertinent parts of the case of The Queen v. Board of Transport Commissioners before the Supreme Court of Canada, and later the Lus-car case. Referring to the Luscar case, the judge said:
There again the criterion of the jurisdiction is the fact that the operations are a part of the interprovincial system.
The question of jurisdiction before the supreme court was whether an Ontario government system for commuter trains using C.N.R. tracks came under the federal board. The court held:
The constitutional jurisdiction depends on the character of a particular service provided on that railway line. The fact that for some purposes the commuter service should be considered as a distinct service does not make it a distinct line of railway. From a physical point of view the commuter service trains are part of the over-all operations of the line over which they run.
The court has since reproved the board and the federal attorney general for not appearing to argue for their jurisdiction and held that the provincial system was subject to federal regulation. On the basis of this ruling the physical character of the Roberts Bank route is that it is the sole rail connection from interprovincial rail lines to a federal port. That it may incidentally carry local deliveries from Vancouver by B.C. Hydro trains does not change the principal purpose or character of that rail connection.
Perhaps it would be to the benefit of everyone if there were a rationalization of the whole lower mainland rail system into a recognizable rail authority for the area. There is a federal interest involved here. I think the

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works
federal government, since it is deeply concerned with the financing of the Roberts Bank port facilities, should be very interested in the composition of any authority or group which will control the rail access to this very important port and the Vancouver waterfront generally.
I would like now to quote from the British Columbia Gazette of September 26, 1968. My quotation is from the Canada-British Columbia Joint Development Act under which easement rights were negotiated between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada. The pertinent part of the document is found at page 479 and reads as follows:
-hereunder has now been reached between representatives of the board and of Her Majesty in right of British Columbia (hereinafter referred to as the "Crown") with regard to the period May 17, 1968-December 31, 1969, it being expected that, prior to December 31, 1969, a permanent solution of the matter will have been reached in respect of all periods subsequent to that last mentioned date.
Paragraph No. 2 provides:
The easement rights granted by paragraph 1 above shall nevertheless terminate on December 31, 1969.
I suggest this is an extremely serious matter. We are spending millions of dollars on a federally financed port and the situation is that we have an agreement with the government of British Columbia that is good for one year only. In other words, it is a temporary agreement. It seems to me the federal government must be on guard so that it is not put into an intolerable position in bargaining with the premier of British Columbia. I note that the British Columbia Gazette to which I have referred has outlined this matter in some detail. However, what is missing alarms me very much. What happens after December 31, 1969, if Mr. Bennett decides to change the rules of the game? Will we have to carry the coal by helicopter down the rail line and across the then closed easement in order that it may reach the ships? Will the federal writ, which incidentally is to the low water mark, force the Minister of Public Works to roll up his pant legs and wade from the docks to the waterway? What appurtenances are part of this lease? Where will federal services be established for the storage of material and equipment? Where will the servicing be carried on? These are very serious questions and we must be careful how we deal with them.
We all recall that in 1961 the previous Conservative administration was invited to sit

down with Premier Bennett on the Columbia treaty and ended up like the oysters in "The Walrus and the Carpenter". The National Harbours Board is now a tenant with a one year lease on the access to Roberts Bank, and Mr. Bennett is the landlord. One can visualize the renewal of that lease after December 31, 1969, being one where the landlord can padlock the tenant and where the board is at the dubious mercy of Mr. Bennett. When Mr. Bennett invites you to dinner, you might be the main course. I feel there has been an extreme reluctance on the part of the government to table the documents-


The Chairman:: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a certain disposition to continue with the estimates of this department. Do you want to deal with the question now or wait until the Speaker is in the chair?


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed that I do not see the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have not had very long on these estimates today and I think there would be general agreement to continue until six o'clock.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: I shall try to conclude as rapidly as I can, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, I feel there has been a reluctance on the part of the government to table the necessary documents. This is because the government does not wish to face a test of federal constitutional authority and wishes to avoid a constitutional confrontation with the provincial government at this time.
The federal government is undergoing an extreme paralysis in asserting its authority and the result will be a mish-mash of port authorities all across Canada. In the example before us we have established a precedent in that a provincial government has been delegated, by default, powers that can be used against the federal interest in future disputes of this kind. I ask: Is the federal government concerned about this? I know the minister originally was concerned about it. If the government is no longer concerned about it, why not?
November 27, 19S8

Federal railways are now being driven into agreements with provincial rail lines, and once the authority over these matters is frittered away or delegated it might be very difficult to get it back. In addition, the port terminal operators, which include the federal government, will in future be at the mercy of any provincial government in a position to exert considerable influence over the various costs of service to these ports. I think what is needed in this area to avoid future controversies of this kind is an over-all system, a rationalization initiated by a public authority so that the interests of everyone concerned are planned and considered.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I believe we are on the verge of making decisions that are going to affect the planning of the area I happen to represent and the areas adjacent to it for the next century, perhaps even longer. In my view the decision to go along with Mr. Broadbent's compromise solution pleases no one, including the national railways. The railways however, appear to be prepared to subordinate their own views and rights in order to ensure for themselves access to the superport at a later date. 1 think it is interesting that both the national railways seem to consider the establishment of the port at this time to be premature, if only because of their considerable financial investments on Burrard inlet in the Canadian Pacific Railway docks at Port Moody and the Canadian National Railways Neptune docks on the north shore.
Expediency is not a sufficient excuse for regional planning. The federal government, by its reluctance to act, is assisting Premier Bennett and defaulting on its responsibilities in this very important matter. If officials would be more open and forthright in explaining their position, most of us would feel much more comfortable.
Various municipalities have been concerned about this matter. Although some are prepared to endorse the present compromise on the grounds that it will provide more industrial development for their areas, I do not think this will happen, and even Mr. Broad-bent seems to support the suggestion that high speed commuter trains do not really add much to the municipality's ability to attract secondary industries.
People from the lower mainland planning board still feel that the kind of energy devoted to the development of the Broadbent compromise might have been better directed. They continue to favour the route which
29180-207J
Supply-Public Works
would provide a communications corridor along the south shore of the Fraser river and avoid the problem of the beaches. Some of them even feel that a causeway would assist in the development of port facilities in the Ladner area of Delta municipality.
I should like to say Mr. Chairman, that I do not think we can stand idly by forever. We have to search for all kinds of information with regard to what on the surface appears to be a very erratic position that has been arrived at in haste and protected by silence. That is why on this side we have been pressing for about three months now to get the kind of information we need. We cannot reach any reasonable and sensible conclusions on the basis of the rather tight-lipped and terse comments from the government side of the house.
The province appears to regard the lower mainland regional planning board as being the equivalent of some small pressure group. This kind of attitude is only too prevalent in British Columbia. The province has recently placed a dredging reserve for gravel right in the middle of Boundary bay. One is moved to ask why the federal government has not placed a recreational reserve in the same area. This bay is situated on the very doorstep of a great metropolitan area whose population is due to double by the turn of the century.
Finally, it seems to me that exhibited here is a total lack of co-ordination between the federal and provincial jurisdictions. Roberts Bank was a provincial game reserve in 1947, as was Boundary bay, but in 1968 Boundary bay has become a gravel reserve. Everyone wants to know to what extent there is federal interest in this development. Has the federal government decided to abandon its interest? Do we have to wait until we are in a real mess before we act? We will need a Pacific development board like the board in the Atlantic provinces in order to prevent the area from suffering intense religional problems. How will we integrate federal interests with provincial interests. Must we wait until we have an entirely new organizational framework? I do not think it should be necessary to impose a structure like the Atlantic Development Board in order to have the region extreme cost when it can be prevented by intelligent foresight.
I think the reason we are heading for a mess is that we have lacked the kind of courage necessary to go in as a federal authority and make the decisions we need to make. We

November 27. 1968
Supply-Public Works
have been forced to accept a compromise which is unacceptable, but we are doing this all the time. What will happen to the old Boundary bay airport? This airport can be easily declared a surplus property at some future time, just as Jericho was, and an entirely new interest could take over. At the moment it is only being used as a wireless station, although civilian pilots and some commercial transport pilots would dearly love to use this facility. The national wildlife service might be interested too in seeing Boundary bay became a wildlife refuge station and sanctuary.
People in this area are becoming extremely alarmed about where these rail links are going to go. The people of Fort Langley, for instance, are very concerned about what the changed route will do their community. There will be a line running through the very fine farmland along the Salmon river, and there is a risk it will destroy a fine residential area in the community of Fort Langley. Why is it necessary to have this third railway?
I should like to conclude by saying that the reason we have been so determined in pushing this whole question is that provincial political control of the lower mainland railways and port facilities seems to be the main stake in the whole matter. If this is so, we can deal with it. If it is not so, that is another matter, but in any event we are entitled to know what the real objectives are. Surely we can avoid a constitutional confrontation with Premier Bennett. We must be sophisticated enough so that we can plan with the province and do this whole thing openly. It has been suggested that there has been a public hearing with various groups. What happened was that Premier Bennett called to his office various petitioners one by one. This is not a public hearing.
I hope there will be some resolution of this hassle and I hope we can avoid constitutional difficulties. However, I doubt it because I think we will be heading toward this sort of thing as long as we keep matters of extreme national and, incidentally, local concern under a hat. I realize I have been persistent to the point of boring the house, but I do not think this is important so long as something is accomplished.
Finally, I think it is time the federal government acted decisively to protect the public interest and gave us a definitive legal opinion on whether or not it has the authority to take charge of this whole project and bring it to a reasonable, long term and sensible solution.
[Mr. Rosed
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, in commenting on the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I must pay tribute not only to the minister, but to his staff, which I have met on several occasions. Quite a few of my colleagues, I think, have met these officials, particularly in parliamentary committees. This team which, together with the minister, ensures the efficient administration of the department, is exceptionally competent and particularly convinced of the importance of its responsibilities towards the Canadian public. For example, I am among those who have admired the ease with which these officials answer the most complicated questions, which proves that they know their department thoroughly.
They deserve to be praised for that to offset criticism levelled at them. Of course, Mr. Chairman, when a service of that size is concerned, it is always possible-to use a very popular expression where I come from- to pick holes in something and find cracks in the shield when one must absolutely find fault with something. I think, however, that the department is well administered as a whole. Moreover, I think that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) showed exceptional courage when preparing his estimates by cutting them drastically to meet that financial situation and the wishes of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who had asked his colleagues to set an example to the provincial and municipal governments. In fact, he asked them to be extremely moderate with regard to capital expenditures precisely to prevent crises as serious as those we deplore in some European countries, such as England and France.
When the session began, Mr. Chairman, I tried for a few weeks to keep tab more or less of the amounts asked in this house from the Department of Public Works and other departments for works which normally should have been carried out only by the Department of Public Works. They added up to approximately $2 billion. I must say that most of those requests dealt with works which normally could be justified but that, under the circumstances, could certainly not be undertaken without seriously endangering the financial and economic situation of Canada and dangerously straining the budget. I am sure that the minister had to show great courage for he must have been subjected to extreme pressure. When one considers an administration as important as the federal
November 27, 1968

government, one must take into consideration the representations made to the ministers, the subtlety with which they try to establish priorities, to give precedence to what is most urgent and to put of! till the morrow what can wait. But this is not the main part of my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I would like, during the discussion of the estimates, to deal with the National Arts Centre. Many criticisms have been made about this national monument built for the centennial of confederation. I had the advantage of sitting on the committee which heard the evidence given by the Secretary of State-responsible for the National Arts Centre-his whole staff, the directors of the centre, those responsible for the various committees that studied the plans progressively, the architects, some government advisers, as well as officials of the Department of Public Works.
We questioned them very closely on everything. I do not think that one detail escaped our questioning, and we even questioned them at least two or three times on the same matter. Some of my colleagues are past masters at questioning witnesses and pumping them. Furthermore, people say in some circles that there has been a scandal. Here is a monument, they say, which was supposed to cost about $18 million, at the outset, and later $29 million; now, according to experts, it will cost $46 million.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the opposition could see in this a golden opportunity to say that there was a major scandal. However, in spite of repeated questions, and all the subterfuge they could resort to, those who were interested in finding a scandal, could not even find a trace of one. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have proof today that this building costs $46 million and this is, in my opinion, the most significant fact.
If evidence of squandering or patronage could have been found or if some politicians had taken advantage of the situation to gain some personal benefits, I too would say: "There is a scandal", but such is not the case. Everything has been conscientiously checked, not only by one, two or three men, but by dozens of men and at least half a dozen control committees.
There was, for instance, the commission set-up to prepare the plans. There were the architects and engineers and even consulting engineers. Also, the officials of the Department of Public Works. And then, of course, Treasury Board. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that makes a team of serious people, very
Supply-Public Works
much aware of their responsibilities. Then, how can we explain such differences in costs between the initial estimates which were around $18 or $19 million and the actual cost of $46 million? It is very simple for those who seek the truth.
First of all, they had thought about building on a given site which was changed for all kinds of reasons that would take too long to explain. Then, they chose another site, only to discover that the subsoil was of solid rock. Therefore, the cost immediately went up. Then, after the preliminary blueprints had been completed, they realized that a parking space for 900 cars was needed. In a rock foundation, the cost of this would reach a few million dollars. Then, they thought special sound-proofing was necessary. Everybody will understand, of course that if, during a concert, one can hear noises originating from the furnace and from the air conditioning, music lovers will not be happy, especially if they are perfectionists. Thus, many things which were judged essential in order to have a perfect public building were added as work progressed. The construction of a $20 million monument which would not have been perfect would not have given us any national pride. Now, since it is a unique monument which is built once in a century and there are so few throughout the world, it was surely impossible for those who drew up the plans to foresee those things.
I agree that, in an ordinary construction, some time is required to establish plans, specifications and costs, but in the present case, it was an exceptional and huge monument. It even belongs to a field where we have no experience in Canada. It is even something almost unique, if we compare that centre with other monuments throughout the world, because ours will be more modern.
The whole construction was performed with all the guarantees which I have just mentioned under the supervision of those various committees and with the approval of Treasury Board. I myself put the question bluntly to some of the witnesses. For instance, I asked the deputy minister of public works: "Can you tell me that the monument we have there is worth $46 million?" And he replied: "Yes, of course, what we have here is worth $46 million. The difference between the original estimates and the present cost, the true cost, is due to the additions that were made."
Certain things, for those who are not knowledgeable, are absolutely scandalous. At

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works
one point, the director told us: "The curtain of the large theatre will cost $72,000." Mr. Chairman, can you imagine the reaction of those who know nothing about the situation. As for me, my eyes popped out when I heard that the curtain would cost $72,000. But, when we were told what kind of a curtain it is that it was necessary to draw up plans and specifications-when we were told that only one plant in the whole world could make curtains of that size and that it is located in Japan, I understood better. It is a plant which has been in existence for 800 years. Naturally, this curtain had to be packed in a special way in order to send it to Canada. One can then understand this figure of $72,000. It may seem excessive, for example, to people who have no experience of these matters, who live in isolated parts of the country and who are struggling with poverty. However, in the case of a monument which reflects the soul of a nation, this sum is not excessive, for the best is not too good for a country such as Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, when a country reaches maturity and wants to compare itself with others, it must be able to do so favourably, and the best is not a luxury in our country. The National Arts Centre will be a source of pride for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: It has been said that the way those things added up is questionable. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that normally things are not done that way. It might happen that a construction project, even an important one, might include one, two or three additional features, but not as many as in this case. It is obvious. Monuments like that one are not erected every year; one is built every hundred years and it might be another three hundred years before another one is built. It is important that those additional expenditures be checked as they occur, that they be justified by various bodies that controlled one another.
This criticism was also heard: It will not be an economic proposition. Of course, it will not be so fundamentally. No one ever thought, for instance, that parliament would be a paying proposition in itself. That is obvious. No one ever thought that the C.B.C., set up as a public service, would make money.

Many other things are not economic in our country, Mr. Chairman, but if they are not, as far as money is concerned, they nevertheless constitute an enrichment for a country like Canada. Canada must provide Canadians not only with bread but also with culture and arts. Canada must give all its children the possibility of making the most of their talents and developing them here instead of having to go into exile to the United States or European countries.
So, Mr. Chairman, these things cannot be valued in dollars; they have an intrinsic value. These are intangible things that depend on money but which intelligent people understand; those who do not understand are lacking in intelligence and goodwill, or they are over-critical. That seems quite obvious to everyone. We say: It is a great luxury. But, after visiting the establishment and examining the plans, we realize that the building is really functional. Everything that we could describe as a great luxury does not exist. As a matter of fact, lines are simple, and costly accessories as we find in European institutions have been avoided to achieve a solid work that will perfectly meet the needs of the most demanding artists and even the perfectionists.
There have been insinuations for a time that Ottawa had been favoured to the detriment of other small towns that do not have the same advantages. That is a lot of childishness, stuff and nonsense, because Ottawa after all is the capital of Canada.
If we wanted to erect a monument which was to be the property of Canadians, then the right place to do it was in the national capital. Canadians and people from abroad, who will come to visit our jiational capital, will be very happy indeed to see the monument commemorating the first centenary of confederation. As for us, we shall have a little more pride in ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, some people have suggested that this building entailed extravagant expenditures. But figures never tell the whole story. We could have built a $20 million monument which could have been inadequate. This would have been wasteful expenditures and could rightly be called scandalous. Now, we have a $46 million monument which financially cost us more, but which meets all the requirements of the greatest perfectionist in the world. We can invite the most demanding companies of the whole world and they will be happy-and this is already evident-to perform here.
November 27, 1968

Mr. Chairman, we owed such a monument to Canada, our country. We owed it also to the young Canadians who will come after us and who will find here not only a reason to be proud of their country but also a place where they will be able to reach their ideal and continue to improve their knowledge in their field of interest. It will also be a centre to which our Canadian artists in exile will be able to return. Already a number of them are ready to come back in order to pursue their artistic career, thanks to the monument erected by the Canadian government which will be, as I say, a source of inspiration for all Canadians.
I think that it would be mean to keep on criticizing the National Arts Centre. Everyone readily understands what I mean. Therefore, we should try to make everyone realize that a country which aspires to such great fortunes, which is on the point of coming to maturity, and wants to play a part among the great nations, must from time to time achieve great things such as the National Arts Centre. Great things, of course, cost money because one does not get anything for nothing and it is not always the cheapest things which are the best.
In my opinion, it was a good idea to clarify the matter because it has been attempted too often to seek in that cause for scandal. Efforts were even made at a certain time to call the former minister of public works (Mr. Mcll-raith) to account, when everything had already been accounted for by a lot of people involved in every phase of the construction of that building. I call on the members who have not visited this Canadian Arts Centre to go and visit it as soon as possible for their enlightenment.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I was listening to him quite carefully and I thought he was talking very skilfully and in a general way about public buildings in Ottawa, cultural buildings, and so on. In that sense he was quite in order. However, I draw to his attention the fact that the arts centre specifically falls under the estimates of the Secretary of State. If he wants to deal with that specific building then the hon. member should wait until those estimates are before the committee. If he wishes to deal with public buildings in a general sense, then he is, of course, in order.
Supply-Public Works [Translation]


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, you are right. However, allow me to point out very respectfully that in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, when questions were put to the Secretary of State about the construction cost of that building, he referred us to the Department of Public Works. He told us that if we wanted to deal with cost, amended plans, increases or extensions, we should apply to the Department of Public Works. Complaints were made to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Chairman, and not to the Secretary of State.
I am speaking, of course, of the building which was constructed by the Department of Public Works and of its cost to Canada. In order to justify that cost, of course, I am speaking of the future use of that building. I apologize, because I seem to disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I think that it is not so much a difference of opinions. I feel that you were impressed yourself by all the good things I said about the future use of the building and I am pleased to have been eloquent enough to convince you. I hope I can also convince all my colleagues. However, basically my argument was meant to prove that the cost is not excessive, that the successive increases are largely justified, and that all the experts agree in saying that the monument, which has been added to in the course of its construction, is really worth what it costs us.
Besides, there may be a reason to justify why we proceeded differently in this case. Indeed, there was a date line. It had been hoped that it would be completed for the centennial year, which was impossible. So, Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, there is nothing to fuss about. It is a beautiful monument and we should be proud of it. It cost no more than it normally should have.
I shall conclude on a short remark which has absolutely nothing to do with the Arts Centre but which concerns the Department of Public Works. I am thinking of the retaining walls along the shores of the St. Lawrence in my riding and in some of the others. In fact, I mean my riding and the neighbouring one. The Department of Public Works is responsible for the construction of those walls to prevent land erosion.
I should like to ask the minister, his inspectors and his officials, to proceed with this work as extensively as possible.
I have seen with my own eyes certain lands being eroded to the extent where the shore

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works
has now reached the house or the cottage. The tide or the waves have nibbled away, in certain cases, some 100 or 150 feet of land; trees measuring 15 or 18 inches in diameter have been uprooted. And some experts say: We are not to blame, the waves cause that.
I have had the opportunity perhaps a hundred times, of seeing that the erosion is caused by the waves, but, in most cases, by waves stirred up by ships that go by too fast. Year after year, those waves nibble away at the shores, to the detriment of the shore owners. I feel that very often the inspectors of the Department of Public Works are really too severe and blame too easily natural erosion for the disappearance of the land of the shore owners. I would therefore ask the minister whether it might not be possible to ask those inspectors to be, let us say, a bit more human in their conclusions or to file more complete observations and not to be merely content with spending let us say 20 minutes or half an hour on the site and then say it is erosion. Let them go and see at different intervals. Let them go there when large ships are going through. They will realize that, in my riding and in the two adjoining ones-and I speak of this because, naturally, the cottages there belong to people in my riding-navigation	produces erosion
which causes great damage and is very costly for the shore owners.
I think the same situation exists on the other side of the river; anyway, it does on my side. I myself have made representations to the department; in most cases, I did not get a satisfactory answer. Mr. Chairman, I intend to raise the matter again with more details because, in my opinion when these shore owners built houses 100 or 150 feet from the shore, they could not predict that their cottage would one day be swept away by the tide, which is more or less what is happening today.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the estimates I wish to ask the minister a few questions and at a later stage perhaps he may be able to answer them.
I say to my hon. friend who recently sat down that if he is worried about erosion problems he should consider the erosion that has taken place on the east coast during the last thousand years. He should thank his lucky little stars for his problems. If ships are giving his constituents problems the port of

Halifax will certainly welcome all those that go up the St. Lawrence.
Can the minister say whether his department is in a position to consider the recommendations of the so-called Murray Jones report that deals with the development of the general over-all land use within the confines of the port of Halifax and Bedford basin? Specifically, is the department able to make specific recommendations flowing naturally from the important observations contained in the Murray Jones report? On the Halifax side of the port I know the department is bringing to a fairly rapid conclusion the development of container facilities. It is appropriate at this time for me to ask the department to look at the long range implications of this development and to consider adequate and proper utilization of the land surrounding the basin and the port. In this connection the Murray Jones report is most important.
I apologize if the answer to my next question is a matter of public record. Has the government advised the province of Nova Scotia or the Halifax-Dartmouth bridge commission that it will participate in the construction of the second harbour crossing, the approaches to that crossing and the crossing of the northwest arm?
If I may be parochial, may I ask the minister to advise the committee of the present status of plans for a new federal building In the city of Dartmouth? Do current plans within the department call for the construction of such a building or is it contemplated that suitable and adequate space may be leased elsewhere?
My last two questions are of pressing concern to some of my constituents. First, may I make a direct representation on behalf of one of the more active fishing areas in the constituency of Dartmouth-Halifax East. I am speaking of Little Harbour, and the minister will know what I mean when I say I understand the department's difficulties with regard to Little Harbour. It is all a question of priorities. I urge the minister and the department to make provision for Little Harbour in next year's estimates. That, Mr. Chairman, is an unabashed and straightforward plea.
Finally, may I ask about the access road to an old and traditional area, the breakwater at Eastern Passage in Halifax county. The piece of land in front of the breakwater recently was sold for back taxes. The fishermen in the area had to acquire this land; they had to pay the back taxes in order to be assured of
November 27, 1968

access to the breakwater and the wharves adjacent to it. I respectfully ask the minister to look into this matter. I hope to ask the minister more questions when we come to later votes but for the time being that is all I wish to ask.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a few questions to satisfy my curiosity about an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on Tuesday, October 1, 1968. The headline reads, "DPW 'Philosophy' Switch Saving Taxpayers Money". The first two paragraphs of the article read as follows:
It cost something like $10,000,000-plus for the 18 floors of 220-foot high Judy's Tower out at Tunney's Pasture. And now public works is running up 23 floors of a new 253-foot high-rise two blocks away for $6,694,000. How come five more floors and 33 feet of height cost better than $3,306,000 less? And at today's construction prices, running far ahead of those of five years ago? The answer, says public works, is a "break-through" in a lot of things. But mostly in departmental thinking.
I wish to ask the minister a number of questions. Was a clear and precise building program formulated for the private commission as well as for the department's own design? On what basis is the public plan more economical compared with that of the private commission?
For example, let us take the over-all floor area and volume. What is the usable floor area and what is the ratio of net to gross. How flexible is the design? What are the respective finishes, exterior and interior? What is the extent of partitioning? Is it the same or will it be greatly reduced? What amount of built-ins and fixed furnishings is included in both cases? Also, what was the total environmental control that was required in both cases? What other features were sacrificed or felt to be unnecessary at this time? What would be the total cost per square foot of the building, if it were designed privately or publicly, at the stage when the building is ready for occupancy?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Another question I might ask is this. Is the architect's fee equitably included in the cost for private and public designs? Are the hidden costs of public administration, such as use of office space, light, heat, janitorial services, building maintenance, depreciation, blueprinting, office supplies, general administration, owner's job supervision, etc., included in the comparison? Third, what assurance can be given that the new estimate will not be exceeded during actual construction?
Supply-Public Works
When the Department of Public Works submits its publications for the people of Canada to read, this is the type of information which I think should be given.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two constituency matters I should like to bring to the minister's attention. Some of them relate to wharves. First, I should like to point out that when the Columbia river treaty was signed and the Arrow dam built just north of Castlegar practically every wharf along the Arrow lakes was destroyed. Many of the communities had to be relocated. I do not know what kind of agreement the federal department has with B.C. Hydro for the replacement of these wharves but I suggest the minister should acquaint the committee with the terms of any agreement which may exist in this regard.
I point out that to date only one wfrarf has been replaced along the Arrow lakes. That wharf is at Nakusp. The department has done a reasonably good job; there are several complaints which I have taken up with the minister, and he is kindly looking into them. I am sure that quite often the hon. gentleman will find the B.C. Hydro authority coming to his department to say there is no need for the replacement of wharves at little places like Burton, Fauquier, Edgewood, or other communities which are springing up along the Arrow lakes. But they had these wharf facilities prior to the flooding. The new community of Fauquier has been in contact with me regarding the wharf; the people wanted to know to whom they should write. I gave them the minister's address and he may well have received a communication from them by now.
I suggest to the minister that in no circumstances should he allow his department to keep from these new communities which are springing up or which have been moved back from the water line the boating facilities which they enjoyed before the High Arrow project. I am sure it is only a matter of time before he receives requests from Burton and Edgewood in this regard, and I trust he will give them sympathetic attention.
The department has been dealing for some time with another wharf-really it is a breakwater and boat bay-being built by the town of Ainsworth on Kootenay lake. This is not a large community but there are not many communities like it in Canada displaying the co-operative spirit which this little community has shown. Public works engineers who have been there to see the boat bay and the breakwater estimate that at least $12,000 in
32S0

November 27, 19G8
Supply-Public Works
labour has already been spent on it. They put a cat in to clear the area. They put a shovel in and dug out an area where boats could shelter. They hauled a vast amount of rock. They supplied logs and built a breakwater so that boats in that area could shelter in the event of a storm. The minister knows this lake well and he realizes this is the only spot between Kaslo and Balfour where a boat can run for shelter in the event of a storm. I have seen the estimates of the cost. They are fairly high; in fact, some local people believe they are too high. But I ask the minister this: will his department match the $12,000 in the coming budget? That is the least he could do, give an additional $12,000 to the people of Ainsworth so they can add to the structure they have started. Perhaps a further amount could be included in some future budget.
Let us give encouragement, for goodness sake, to a community which has the intestinal fortitude to go out and do something for itself. They are hoping to build a little launching ramp where boats coming from Nelson to Kaslo and Ainsworth can get down to the beautiful Kootenay lake, one of the best fishing lakes in Canada. We do not catch little fish there; we get them up to 30 pounds, big rainbow trout, and people come from all over North America to this fine fishing area. The local people need places to launch their boats. Today people have more leisure time than in the past. They have their little cabin cruisers and rowboats and motors and they need places from which to launch them. We need more of these facilities and I urge the minister to put this work on his agenda for the coming year. It is not asking very much when one considers the vast amount covered by these estimates.
There are one or two other matters I should like to deal with while I am on this subject. We have heard a great deal about roads to resources and there is one road in particular I should like to mention. I refer to the Stuart-Cassiar road. At one time the federal government used to share in the annual cost of this road. Cassiar, I might say, is a whole mountain of asbestos in the northern part of British Columbia, and the road is designed to give access to this area. I do not think a better expenditure could be made in this part of British Columbia than by completing this road into this part of the country and giving access to a region which is extremely high in minerals. Perhaps the minister could tell us why the agreement fell through. I know he has a difficult customer to

deal with at times in the premier of British Columbia. Sometimes the demands from the provincial government might seem a little high. But I do feel the federal government should be sharing at least in this particular road. The lack of money is delaying its completion. A lot of money has already been spent on this highway and I think we should continue it and make certain it is completed at a very early date.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I wish to say one more thing and it is in connection with Roberts Bank and the premier of British Columbia. I think two portfolios may be involved here, and possibly the Department of Transport is the one to which these remarks should be addressed. However, a number of years ago we had a minister here by the name of C. D. Howe who knew how to say no to Premier Bennett when the premier of British Columbia was wrong.
I recall when the deal to sell the water of the Columbia for a song to Kaiser was under consideration and how C. D. Howe told the premier of British Columbia, "We are not going to go for this foolish deal-period." The federal government of the day had the courage to pass legislation and stop the foolish sell-out of a resource.
We can erode federal responsibility to the point where it will become ineffective. I say it is now time for a minister in the federal government to stand up to Premier Bennett and say no. If harbours and national transportation are federal responsibilities, then let us have the courage to tell this man no and mean no.


Arthur Laing: of parliament. The individual member of parliament is given credit for obtaining those services which are part of the daily lives of the people in all areas as the result of the representations that he has made in the House of Commons. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this is a far more political department than the one I was in charge of formerly. However, I want to say to hon. members that in the operation of the department I will assure them that no constituent of theirs in any part of Canada is going to suffer for the sole reason that constituents themselves were foolish enough to put a member on the opposite side of the house instead of on this side. I think that is an assurance that is due to members' constituents in all parts of Canada. I give them it unconditionally, and I will see it works that way.
In this department we are dealing with a variety of extremely important services such as dredging, the building and maintenance of harbours, and the erosion of water frontage, the question raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. We are doing what we think is fair. Where the responsibility for erosion is at least 50 per cent because of the effect of transportation in rivers or the building of government installations, then we accept the full responsibility for preventing that erosion. Where it is less than that we try to negotiate on the basis of a breakdown, after discussion and investigation by our engineers.
Several hon. members discussed the important question of services and assistance for the tourist business. A very important tourist industry is developing for Canada through the use of pleasure craft. As a matter of fact my department has received a report from the west coast which shows that there are no less than 71,000 tourist boats in Georgia Strait. In passing I may say I have a friend who has a yacht in that general area, and he says that if we could only put the commercial fishermen out of business he could catch fish that would produce not 65 cents for a half pound but over $8 per pound. Indeed the tourist business today is extremely important and we have to pay more attention to it than we have in the past when we restricted our activities to dropping some stones to provide protection for pleasure craft. That is not the final answer.
I now wish to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Western Nova who said that a number of fishing villages were inadequately taken care of in respect of accommodation. I draw his attention to the fact that we are
Supply-Public Works
moving into an era when larger boats are going farther off shore and, as a consequence, the type of facility required in respect of dredging and the building of docks is far more expensive than hitherto. Instead of building a great number of very small docks we shall have to point out to the fishermen that we will have to build a small number of larger docks which will require bigger expenditures. I would point out that in the case of representations which my department has received for the expenditure of $70,000 or $80,000 on a small wharf we have discovered that the amount of fish crossing such a wharf was not more than two tons a year. It is unreasonable on the part of people in such instances to expect that we make such expenditures.
I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton Centre who made reference to our intention to build utilitarian buildings. I am in favour of such buildings. I am of the opinion that a person who goes to work is entitled to a comfortable atmosphere but I do not think he should be provided with luxurious surroundings. He is supposed to enjoy that at home.


An hon. Member:: Tell Joe Greene that.


Arthur Laing: So far as I
am concerned, in the erection of buildings for the accommodation of servants of the public I am disposed to insist upon a greater degree of utilitarianism than in the past, and in the case of the building mentioned, which we are erecting for $6.5 million, about $16 per square foot, we are emphasizing the utilitarian nature of the building. At the same time I think the departmental buildings are entitled to have a little bit more sugar cake, if you want to put it that way, but when we double or treble the cost per foot in order to erect a building then I think we can do with less prestigiousness, and that is what we are driving for at the present time.
The hour is now six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and again I want to thank members who have participated in the debate. I want to assure them that in respect of all the questions they have asked they will individually receive a letter from the department giving them direct answers.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, we are quite happy with the minister's explanation and, even though it is nearly six o'clock, if you would like to call some of the items we would be glad to co-operate.

November 27, 1968
Supply-Public Works


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall vote 1 carry?


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, there were some questions I asked on vote 1. I am sure the minister would like to take some time and answer them, so I would call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before leaving the chair I should like to remind hon. members of the provisions of the special order adopted on Friday, November 22, 1968, which suspended tomorrow's sitting. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned to meet again at eleven o'clock in the morning on Friday, November 29.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 29, 19G8