1968-03-11

VACANCY

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, I wish to give notice that a vacancy occurred in the representation in the House of Commons of the electoral district of Saint-Jacques, Montreal, in the province of Quebec, as a result of the death of Mr. Maurice Rinfret, former member for the said district.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Last night, interviewed by journalists on television, I gave an approximate figure in answer to a question about the amount of reserves held by Canada. Trusting my memory, I made a mistake. The only figure I know is the one given by the Minister of Finance on February 29 last, namely that our reserves approximate to $2.49 billion.



THE MINISTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the resignation from the cabinet of the President of the Privy Council, Hon. W. L. Gordon, in accordance with the request he made to me some weeks ago and which I accepted, with both personal and official regret, as of March 11, 1968.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Woolliams: 1.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 Inclusive, how many persons were employed from time-to-time in the information and/or public relations 27053-4694
services of the Department of Justice (b) what position has been and is now held by each such employee, for what period and at what salary or remuneration?
2.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what persons, firms or corporations, if any, other than the departmental information services or public relations division, have been employed and/or retained for the purpose of preparing, disseminating or in any manner dealing with the information services and/or public relations of the Department of Justice (b) what are the names of such persons, firms and corporations, if any; for what purpose and period was the employment and what was the cost in each instance (c) were public tenders called for the services described in (a) and (b) and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the selection made?
3.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, how many press releases have been prepared for or on behalf of the department and/or the Minister of Justice; by whom were the same prepared and at what cost (b) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what radio and television time has been purchased by the Department of Justice; for what purpose and for what cost (c) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or other space was purchased in domestic and foreign newspapers, magazines and other publications; for what purpose and for what cost?
4.	For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what was the cost of travel of the Minister of Justice and his staff and of any of the personnel described in parts 1 and 2 above; what trips were undertaken and for what purpose?
5.	For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or any other related contracts have been awarded by the Department of Justice; to whom were the same awarded, for what purpose and for what cost; were public tenders called in each instance and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the contract awarded?
6.	Does the Department of Justice maintain and/or operate any office located elsewhere than in Ottawa for the purpose, in whole or in part, of promoting the public relations of the department and/or the Minister of Justice, and if so, where are such offices located; what is the cost of the maintenance and operation of such offices; how many are employed in each such office and at what salary or remuneration in each case?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1.	(a) None, (b) Not applicable.
2.	(a) None, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
3.	(a) None. All press releases were prepared by departmental and ministerial personnel. (b) None, (c) None.

March 11. 1968
Questions
4.	For the Ministers of Justice and staff, the following amounts were paid with respect to travelling expenses for the fiscal years shown below: 1964-65, $8,729.33; 196566, $6,724.07; 1966-67, $2,316.86; 1967 to Oct. 31, $1,530.17.
All travelling was on government business. No record is maintained of the purpose of the individual trips.
5.	None.
6.	No.
Note: Since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Penitentiary Service, National Parole Board, investigation and research (Combines Investigation Act) and bankruptcy branch no longer fall within the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Justice, the information supplied above does not include information respecting these services.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF EXPO AND PAN-AMERICAN GAMES
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What were the total direct and indirect costs of the C.B.C. preparations and coverage of the Pan American games in Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	What personnel, facilities and equipment from C.B.C. maritime region were made available to assist in the C.B.C.'s network and local coverage of the Pan American games in Winnipeg?
3.	How many days in advance of the opening of the Pan American games in Winnipeg were personnel from the C.B.C. maritime region authorized to proceed to Winnipeg?
4.	Has the C.B.C. purchased any equipment since January 1, 1966 from funds specifically designated for centennial productions or centennial coverage?
5.	(a) What was the estimated capital cost by the C.B.C. for its structure and facilities at the Expo site (b) what are the actual expenditures to date (c) what are the actual direct and indirect expenditures to date by the C.B.C. for the operation, administration, maintenance and production costs of its broadcasting centre at the Expo site?
6.	Is the C.B.C. or any agency of the government undertaking any studies or investigations related directly to expenditures made by the C.B.C. leading to the construction of new buildings in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, since the answer to this question covers a page and a half, I would ask that it be considered as read and printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. The C.B.C. was host broadcaster

and exclusive production agent for the Pan American Games. As such, it was required to assume responsibility for not only television and radio of all athletic events, many of which occurred simultaneously and at widely scattered venues, during the period of the games. The C.B.C. was also required to provide production facilities and staff assistance to foreign broadcasters. This work resulted in the production of 62 hours of television programming to Canada, United States and Mexico in English, French and Spanish; and of 233 hours of radio in many languages to all of the Americas, the Caribbean and parts of Europe and Africa. The financial requirements of so doing were as follows:	direct costs of production-
$587,000; the use of staff and other regular overhead items when applied to the games on a standard rate basis-$362,000; and the provision of temporary technical and production installations to meet special demands- $307,000.
2.	No facilities or equipment from C.B.C. maritime region were made available to assist in coverage of the Pan-American Games. Eleven TV technicians from Halifax, one radio technician from Moncton and one program clearance officer from Halifax were assigned to Winnipeg for various periods.
3.	The 11-man technical crew from Halifax was part of the corporation's pool of personnel organized to cover major centennial events across Canada. Their involvement in the PanAmerican Games was planned before the beginning of the year and they were in Winnipeg from July 26 to August 8. The radio technician was in Winnipeg from July 16 to August 8 and the program clearance officer was in Winnipeg from July 1 to August 10. Actual travel dates would have been finalized approximately three weeks in advance.
4.	No.
5.	(a) $9,858,000 exclusive of provincial sales tax. (b) $10,191,000 inclusive of provincial sales tax. (c) The cost of operating the International Broadcasting Centre was approximately $6,000,000. Under the corporation's terms of reference, these facilities were available to all users without charge.
6.	Yes.


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: I.	How many times has corporal punishment been used each year for the past ten years in federal institutions?
March 11, 1968

2.	How many prisoners have had such corporal punishment more than once?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2. In federal institutions, corporal punishment is administered as a court order or as a sentence awarded by an institutional board of discipline. Corporal punishment, as a court order, was used as follows: 1957, 28;
1958,	14; 1959, 7; 1960, 17; 1961, 6; 1962, 11; 1963, 9; 1964, 22; 1965, 3; 1966, 3; Total 120.
In 34 of these cases, corporal punishment was used on two or more occasions to discharge the court order.
Corporal punishment, as a sentence awarded by an institutional board of discipline, was used as follows: 1957, 15; 1958, 16;
1959,	24; 1960, 12; 1961, 67; 1962, 18; 1963, 96; 1964, 26; 1965, 7; 1966, 32; Total, 313.
17 of these inmates have had such corporal punishment more than once.
Under the provisions of the Parole Act the National Parole Board may, upon application therefor, revoke or suspend any court sentence of whipping.
As of 1967 and pursuant to a new directive, sentences of strapping awarded by an institutional board of discipline may not be executed unless and until approved by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries except where an inmate is found guilty of participating in collective riotous behaviour beyond normal methods of control, and instant use of corporal punishment may restore order.


STUDIES FOR LABOUR RELATIONS TASK FORCE
Mr. Allmand: 1.	What are the titles of the studies undertaken by federal government departments for the Labour Relations Task Force, and who are the authors?
2.	What other studies are in the research program which have not been commissioned or assigned?


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Full details of the research program of the task force on labour relations indicating the titles of studies undertaken by federal government departments, and studies which have not been commissioned or assigned, can be found in Appendix B of the progress report, tabled in the house on February 29, 1968.


* STUDY OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
Mr. Southam: When the government decides to establish a joint study with a view of setting up a National
Questions
Capital Area, will it give consideration to having officials from each of Canada's ten provinces on this study group in order to fully examine the matter?


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 867 is as follows.
This question has been discussed with the premiers of all the provinces and it has been agreed that there should be a study group set up by the governments of Ontario and Quebec and by the federal government concerning the national capital area, and that the other provincial governments will be kept informed of all important developments in connection with this matter. The study group has been established and has held a number of meetings.


'FEDERAL GRANTS, CONTRACTS, ETC.- LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the total value of federal grants, subsidies and contracts awarded to the City of London and its agencies, including Public Utilities Commission, Board of Education, Hospitals, Old Age and Rest Homes, during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the total value of federal grants, subsidies and contracts to educational institutions, including the University of Western Ontario, in this period?
3.	What was the total value of federal grants, subsidies and contracts awarded to manufacturing, business firms and other service organizations in the City of London, in this same period?
4.	In each instance what was the name of the recipient and the amount of each contract, grant or subsidy?


Albert Béchard: It is impossible to give a complete breakdown of government expenditures according to municipalities, electoral ridings and other entities of this sort. The government does not base its budgetary estimates on such a breakdown nor register its expenditures in this way. It would be possible to give information concerning expenditures when a definite work, program or beneficiary is mentioned in the question. Naturally, in some cases these concern a municipality or a particular electoral riding.


EXPO '67 DEFICIT
Mr. Coates: Is the government now in a position to indicate the expected deficit associated with Expo '67 and,

March 11. 1968
Questions
if so, what is the amount of the estimated deficit and, of this estimated deficit, how much is the responsibility of the federal government?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 
* C.B.C. USE OF U.P.P. PROGRAMS
Mr. Ormislon: 1.	Has the C.B.C. at any time delivered U.P.P. programs, purchased by the C.B.C. to its affiliates that purchased these U.P.P. programs?
2.	In respect to Part 1 above, does the C.B.C. make the normal program charge on a per hour range for these U.P.P. programs?
3.	In respect to Parts 1 and 2 above, to how much has the subsidy to the affiliates amounted, to date?


Albert Béchard: The answer to this question is as follows:
Some of the United Program Purchase organization's programs purchased by C.B.C. owned stations for local use are transmitted via microwave at a common time period. C.B.C. affiliated stations purchasing the same programs independent of the C.B.C. are permitted, upon request, to "lift off" these programs during the time of the C.B.C.'s line feed. This practice is usually employed to complement regular network colour programming where affiliated stations not able to originate colour film programs can transmit network colour programs. In addition, sponsors of specific programs common to both C.B.C. owned stations and some affiliated stations have requested that such programs be "lifted off" by the affiliated stations during the period they are being fed to C.B.C. stations. The affiliated stations U.P.P. membership is not a requisite to receive this service.
The answer to Nos. 2 and 3 is that there is no charge to affiliated stations, whether or not they are members of the U.P.P., nor is there any additional cost to the C.B.C.


LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTMEN
Mr. Valade: 1.	What are the requirements of the Postmaster General concerning a knowledge of the English language for French-speaking Canadians and of the French language for English-speaking Canadians who apply for the position of mailman?
2.	How many applicants have been turned down between January 1, 1967, and January 1, 1968 (a) in the case of applicants residing in Quebec who did not have an adequate knowledge of English (b) in the case of English-speaking applicants who did not have an adequate knowledge of French, in each of the provinces?
3.	Are applicants for the position of mailman required to undergo an examination on their knowledge of the French language in provinces other than Quebec?
4.	What type of examination applies to applicants for the position of mailman as concerns (a) the English language (b) the French language?
March 11, 1968


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: As the Public Service Commission has no class "mailman" all answers to the questions below refer to the official class letter carrier.
1.	Section 20 of the Public Service Employment Act reads as follows: "Employees appointed to serve in any department or other portion of the public service, or part thereof, shall be qualified in the knowledge and use of the English or French language or both, to the extent that the commission deems necessary in order that the functions of such department, portion or part can be performed adequately and effective service can be provided to the public."
2.	(a) 161. (b) Four in the province of Ontario; none in other provinces.
3.	Yes, provided a knowledge of the French language was indicated as a requirement for the position.
4.	At the time of interview, applicants are given an oral examination to determine the degree of ability to understand or to speak the language, or languages, as the case may be. The Public Service Commission will shortly have tests designed to determine the candidate's ability to read and to write the language, or languages, as the case may be.


YOUTH TRAVEL AND EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	During the year 1967, how many (a) students (b) escorts, took advantage of the youth travel and exchange program?
2.	(a) On what basis is the federal contribution thereto made (b) what was the total cost thereof to the Government of Canada?
3.	Will the program be continued in 1968 and subsequent years?
4.	If so, is it anticipated that (a) changes will be made in the program and, if so, what changes (b) an increasing number of students will be enabled to have the advantage of the program?
5.	By what branch or division of government will the program be administered?
6.	Who is the director or chief thereof?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	(a) 4,800. (b) 400.
2.	(a) The federal government paid all travel costs and made a grant to each province of $260 per unit for travelling expenses and $520 per unit for hosting purposes, (b) $820,000.
3.	Yes.
Questions
4.	(a) Yes. Whereas the commission did not support exchanges with other countries, such projects will be supported in the future and will account for about 10 per cent of total programs. Furthermore, the following changes are made to domestic programs: Federal-Provincial: The name will be changed from "The Federal/Provincial Youth Travel Program" to "The Young Voyageur Program". Provinces will put more emphasis on the educational aspects of the program. Voluntary Agencies: Projects will be assessed on the basis of the contribution they make to the development of a higher standard of Canadian citizenship. A small international dimension is to be added, (b) No.
5.	The travel and exchange division of the citizenship branch, Secretary of State.
6.	J. R. Prefontaine.


PILOTAGE BOARD
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	When was the Pilotage Board set up and who are the members of that Board?
2.	What are the total expenditures of the Board?
3.	What are the total expenditures for each of the members since their appointment?
4.	Who are the full-time and part-time employees of the Board and what amounts have they received since their appointments?
5.	When will the Board's report be published?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the royal commission on pilotage as follows: 1. The royal commission on pilotage was appointed on November 1, 1962 by P.C. 1962-1575. Its members are: Hon. Y. Bernier, Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. Mr. R. K. Smith, Q.C., Waterloo, Ontario. Mr. H. A. Renwick, Vancouver, B.C.
2.	The total expenditures of the royal commission on pilotage from Nov. 1, 1962 to February 1, 1968 has amounted to $917,867.
3.	The total expenditures for each of the commissioners for the period November 1962 to February 1, 1968, is: Hon. Y. Bernier, $67,443.00, covering per diem living allowance ($50.00) plus travelling expenses. Mr. R. K. Smith, Q.C. $56,505.00, covering per diem honorarium ($100.) and living allowance ($20) plus travelling expenses. Mr. H. A. Renwick, $52,123.00, covering per diem honorarium ($100.) and living allowance ($20) plus travelling expenses.

March 11, 1968
Questions
4.	The number of employees of the royal commission on pilotage (exclusive of consultants) has varied from year to year and the total expenditures in salaries during the period Nov. 1, 1962 to Feb. 1, 1968 has amounted to $368,200. Following are the names of the persons now employed by the royal commission on pilotage with the annual emolument each receives from the royal commission: G. W. Nadeau, Secretary, director of research and asst, counsel (on loan from Dept, of Transport). (Terminable allowance $6,429 yearly). F. C. Morissette, Asst, secretary (on loan from the Public Service Commission). (Terminable allowance $2,500 yearly). Capt. J. A. Heenan, Technical adviser, annual salary $12,600. Cdr. C. H. Little, English editor, annual salary $15,000. Cdt. Geo. Sabouret, French editor, annual salary $15,000. Mrs. J. Lamontagne, Clerical staff, annual salary $6,256. Mrs. E. Tzopa, Clerical staff, annual salary $5,847. Mrs. D. Chabot, Clerical staff, annual salary, $5,594. Mrs. E. Havercroft, Clerical staff, annual salary $5,571. Mrs. Y. Nadeau, Clerical staff, annual salary $5,400. Mrs. C. Alary, Clerical staff, annual salary $5,228. Mrs. M. Heatley, Clerical staff, annual salary $4,093. Mr. L. Menard, Clerical staff, annual salary $4,021.
5.	The royal commission's report to the government will appear in 5 parts, each contained in a separate volume or group of volumes. Part I will be the main one; it will direct attention to the present state of the pilotage legislation in Canada, will report on its pilotage legislation in Canada, will report on its adequacy or otherwise in the light of existing conditions as disclosed by the evidence and will recommend the basic changes that should be made in the law, including the pilotage organization, to meet the present and foreseeable requirements of the pilotage service. The commission expects to be in a position to present this first part of its report to the government in about 6 to 8 weeks. The other parts of the report, which will be in the nature of supporting documents, will report on the factual situation in each of the 25 pilotage districts in Canada, including those on the great lakes. These separate reports (part II-part V) will be submitted to the government progressively as they are completed, which it is expected may take another year.


FRED PROGRAM, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What projects are (a) In being (b) In prospect under the Fund for Rural Economic Development (FRED) program for Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the total amount of expenditure by the Government of Canada involved in these projects for the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69 (a) for Prince Edward Island (b) for all of Canada?
3.	What number of the Public Servants of Canada are employed for this program in Prince Edward Island?
4.	Where will such personnel be located?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. (a) None, (b) Officials of the federal government and the provincial government are currently working together in the preparation of a comprehensive rural development plan for presentation to the governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island.
2.	(a) In 1967-68: None. In 1968-69: No specific allotment has been set aside for Prince Edward Island for the fiscal year 1968-69 as there is no way of knowing, at this stage of the development of the plan, how much will be required during the year, (b) In 1967-68, approximately $6,000,000 will be spent for all of Canada. In 1968-69, parliament will be asked to approve an estimate of $9,600,000 for all of Canada under the Fund for Rural Economic Development.
3.	Two public servants of Canada are working full time in the preparation of a comprehensive rural development plan in Prince Edward Island. In addition, from time to time, in Prince Edward Island, several other federal officials have worked and are working on the preparation of the plan.
4.	The two federal officials working full time in the preparation of the comprehensive rural development plan live in Charlottetown, P.E.I.


CIVIL DEFENCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many civil defence schools are there in (a) Canada (b) each province?
2.	What amount was spent by the federal government each year since 1960 for civil defence (a) in Canada (b) for each province?
3.	What is the planned expenditure for the years 1967-1968 and 1968-1969 (a) in Canada (b) for each province?
March 11, 1968


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Insofar as Canada Emergency Measures Organization is concerned: 1. (a) in Canada: 3. (b) In each province: Ontario, 2 (one of which is the Federal Canadian Emergency Measures College, Arnprior, Ontario); Alberta, 1.
It is pointed out that the provinces not having permanently established schools fulfil their training requirements by conducting
courses on	an ad	hoc basis.	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63Nfld.	46.2	29.3	30.7P.E.I.	14.1	16.2	16.8N.S.	150.4	182.3	203.8N.B.	93.4	145.3	137.9Que.	NIL	426.4	669.7Ont.	799.7	1,010.8	1,323.9Man.	124.4	151.2	217.7Sask.	131.6	109.2	166.4Alta.	405.0	442.5	475.1B.C.	482.5	565.8	567.8Y-NWT	NIL	NIL	NIL3.	(a) Planned expenditures in Canada for 1967-68 and 1968-69 include expenditures planned by Canada EMO, other federal departments and agencies and grants to provinces, as detailed at 3(b), but exclusive of the Department of National Defence. (Figures in $1000) Estimates 1967-68, $16,046.4; Planned Expenditures subsequent to Government Economy Measures, 1967-68, $14,190.8; Estimates 1968-69, $10,154.4.(b) For each Province	1967-68	1968-69Nfld.	92.1	92.1P.E.I.	26.4	20.1N.S.	210.2	139.4N.B.	155.9	114.1Que.	1,499.2	1,079.5Ont.	1,799.6	1,312.0Man.	249.1	177.2Sask.	218.4	176.1Alta.	408.3	273.5B.C.	519.2	357.4Y-NWT.	11.8	8.5


RECRUITMENT IN U.S. OF CLASSIFICATION OFFICERS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Is the Public Service Commission endeavouring to recruit in the United States of America officers for the Bureau of Classification Review?
Questions
2.	(a) The amounts spent by the Federal Government in Canada include expenditures by Canada EMO, other federal departments and agencies and grants to provinces as detailed at 2(b), but exclusive of the Department of National Defence: (Figures in $1000):
1960-61,	15,756.3; 1961-62	;, 66,981.1;	1962-63,53,122.5;	1963-64, 33,715.3	!; 1964-65,	20,444.2;1965-66,	18,856.6; 1966-67,	20,344.7.	(b) For each province:	1963-64 1964-65	1965-66	1966-6742.9	47.7	49.9	87.224.7	16.7	17.3	28.9189.7	218.0	207.2	208.4149.4	135.1	143.6	146.91,264.7	1,469.2	1,468.5	1,636.21,353.8	1,556.2	1,690.2	1,742.6202.2	222.8	243.0	256.4155.3	167.1	197.9	200.4509.2	517.6	558.7	493.5532.0	576.7	514.2	532.7.4	.1	9.9	12.02.	If so (a) what number of officers (b) what precisely are the duties to be performed by such officers (c) what salary range will attach to such positions (d) what educational and other qualifications will be required of appointees?3.	(a) Were attempts made to recruit such officers (i) in Canada (ii) in the Commonwealth (iii) in France (b) if so, with what results precisely in each case?4.	Will it be a condition of employment of any officers recruited in the United States of America that they be or agree to become bilingual?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. Yes. In January of this year the Public Service Commission endeavoured to recruit in the United States, professional personnel administrators with specialized training and qualifications in job evaluation and pay administration to fill existing vacancies in several departments of government including the bureau of classification revision.
2.	(a) The Public Service Commission was prepared to recruit up to forty eight officers possessing the special qualifications referred to in (1). (b) The duties of officers who might be recruited may be summarized briefly as follows:
For officers placed in departments: the implementation within the department of the current classification program; job
7456

March 11. 1968
Questions
description writing; job analysis; job evaluation and pay administration.	1.
For officers placed in the bureau of classification revision: the development, writing and maintenance of classification standards; performance of the classification audit and review function, (c) In January 1968, when the recruitment effort was made the salaries of the positions in question ranged from $9,955 per annum to $12,603 per annum, (d) Prospective candidates for these positions are required to have a university degree. Other qualifications required are: professional experience in job evaluation and pay administration; professional knowledge of modern principles and techniques of general personnel administration.
3.	(a) (i) Yes. Since 1965 several countrywide campaigns have been conducted in Canada to recruit candidates possessing the required qualifications. As a result of these campaigns approximately fifty employees have been recruited in Canada from outside the public service. In addition, through intensive training programs some one hundred and ten employees from within the Public Service have acquired the necessary skills and qualifications and are now employed on classification and pay administration work, (ii) Yes. Efforts were made to recruit qualified candidates in Britain in late 1967. (iii) No. See also answer to 3(b). (b) The result of the recruitment effort in Britain was that two candidates were qualified for employment in classification and pay administration, but neither of these qualified candidates accepted offers of employment with the Public Service of Canada.
In the light of the experience in Britain, it was decided not to attempt to recruit candidates in France.
4.	Yes. It is a condition of employment for any officers recruited in the United States for the positions in question that they either already have a working knowledge of both French and English or that they agree to acquire it through appropriate training.
SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS Question No. 1,022


Mrs. Wadds:: 1.	What amount was loaned under the Small Businesses Loans Act in each month beginning January, 1967, through and including January, 1968?
2.	What amount was loaned under this Act each year from its commencement?
[Miss LaMarsh.l


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Month	Amount
1967	$
January	1,231,620
February	1,169,111
March	1,190,267
April	1,239,775
May	2,266,407
June	2,356,725
July	2,108,888
August	1,940,147
September	1,563,515
October	2,032,256
November	1,860,824
December	1,741,203
Total	$20,700,738
es for January, 1968	not yet rec<
Year	Amount $
1961	25,557,269
1962	25,687,434
1963	23,325,499
1964	26,473,825
1965	26,033,094
1966	20,095,355


BRIDGE COST, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the estimated cost of constructing a bridge across Rustico Harbour to complete the Gulf Shore Highway in the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	What was the estimated cost of such a bridge when it was decided to construct the Gulf Shore Highway?
3.	Is it intended to build this bridge?
4.	If so, when is construction scheduled to commence?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
cost estimate for this bridge was completed in 1965. It was $1,550,000. To meet rising costs this estimate would now have to be increased to approximately $1,800,000.
2. As the Gulf Shore Highway project was divided into three separate phases, no detailed estimate of the Rustico Harbour bridge was prepared at the time construction started on phase I. However, a preliminary estimate of the entire project, including the bridge, made in 1954 was $2,845,000. The actual cost of completing the highway without the bridge was $3,397,000.
March 11, 1988

Questions
3.	The construction of this bridge is not currently being considered.
4.	Not applicable.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS PRESENTLY OPERATING
Mr. Coates: How many Royal Commissions are in operation at the present time, what area does each cover, what has been the cost of each to the federal government as of this date, what is the estimated final cost of each, and on what date should final reports be received by the government?


John Ross Matheson: Six royal commissions were in operation on February 12, 1968.
Forecast to
Pilotage
Bilingualism and Biculturalism Farm Machinery Security
Status of women Hay River
Cost to date $ 922,794
6,745,612
497,835
220,698
254,275
15,000
March 31, 1969

N/A
The areas covered by these commissions include problems relating to marine pilotage provided in Canada, bilingualism and biculturalism, farm machinery costs, security, status of women and the administration of justice at Hay River, N.W.T.
It is expected that the report of the commission of inquiry into the administration of justice in the Hay River Area of the N.W.T. will be completed during the current fiscal year (1967-68). It is not possible to forecast the date when final reports will be received by the government from the other commissions, although it is considered reasonable to assume that all of these commissions excepting the royal commission on the status of women will terminate their work during the 1968-69 fiscal year.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	No. The Department of Defence Production invited tenders for the supply of fuel oil for the federal building at Montmagny, Quebec, during the period August 1, 1967, to July 31, 1968.
2.	The Department of Defence Production does not publicly advertise tenders. It does send invitations to tender to suppliers from established departmental source lists.
3.	Six (6) firms submitted bids as follows:
1.	Champlain Oil Products Limited, Montreal 3, P.Q. 2. Texaco Canada Limited, Montreal, P.Q. 3. The British American Oil Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. 4. Imperial Oil Limited, Ottawa, Ontario. 5. Les Petroles Irving Inc., Saint John, N.B. 6. Les Huiles de Quebec Limited, Quebec City, P.Q.
Contract was awarded to Champlain Oil Products Limited, the lowest bidder.


P.F.R.A. PROJECTS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	How many P.F.R.A. projects were started in 1967 in each of the Prairie Provinces?
2.	What was the nature of each of the projects and estimated cost?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Manitoba, 6; Saskatchewan, 33; Alberta, 19.
2.	Manitoba: 6 Community Dugouts, $21,080; Saskatchewan: 2 community pastures, Kinistino, $186,000; White Bear, $265,000; 4 large community water storage projects, Lake Lenore, $98,000, Helgason, $96,000, Esterhazy, $200,000, Greenleigh, $32,500; 24 community dugouts, $75,090; 3 community stock watering dams, $48,120; Alberta: 1 large community water storage and irrigation project-Therriault, $90,500; 16 community dugouts, $70,660; 1 community stock watering dam, $1,850; 1 community irrigation project, $4,950.


FUEL OIL TENDERS, MONTMAGNY PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. Berger: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works asked for tenders for the supplying of fuel oil to the government's Montmagny Building (Post Office, Customs-Manpower) for the year 1967-1968?
2.	If so, where were such tenders advertised?
3.	How many tenders were submitted, by whom were they submitted, and to whom was the contract granted?


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION RADIO TIME
Mrs. Wadds: 1.	How much radio time does the Department of Manpower and Immigration use?
2.	How much does it cost annually?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. 20 hours and 35 minutes from April 1, 1967 to February 23, 1968.
2.	$12,226.62.

March 11. 1968
Questions


BILINGUAL BONUS TO PUBLIC SERVANTS, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: How many persons in the public service of Canada, employed in Edmonton or its immediate area, qualify for the 7 per cent pay bonus or any other bonus for sufficient proficiency in both the English and French languages?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission:	The
answer to this question is "nil".


* FLOOD CONTROL AGREEMENT, UPPER THAMES VALLEY
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is it the intention of the federal government to negotiate with the City of London, the Government of the Province of Ontario, and the Upper Thames Valley Conservation Authority for an extension of the 1961 Flood Control Agreement which would permit the completion of the program outlined in the Upper Thames Valley Conservation Report of 1952?
2.	Have representations been received by the federal government from the City of London?
3.	Have representations or submissions been received by the federal government from the Government of the Province of Ontario?
4.	What initiative does the federal government intend to take in this urgent matter?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is related to the river Thames project and the Water Protection Act.
1.	The 1961 Flood Control Agreement referred to in the question presumably is that signed by Canada and Ontario on January 28, 1961, providing for a contribution by Canada not exceeding $3,615,200 over a period of ten years to the construction of four flood control reservoirs and related channel improvements on the Upper Thames River system. This agreement resulted from an application by Ontario for a financial contribution to these works under the above act. The initiative for negotiation of extension of the agreement rests with Ontario. Any negotiations would be between Canada and Ontario.
2.	No representations have been received by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources from the city of London in this connection.
3.	No representations or submissions in this connection have been received by my department from the government of the province of Ontario.
[Mr. Munro.l
4.	The initiative in this matter rests with the government of Ontario.


NATIONAL MANIFESTATIONS ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Did the Secretary of State receive a letter from Z. Jarmicki, National President of the Canadian Polish Congress, protesting the exclusion of the Polish ethnic community from the national manifestations on Parliament Hill on June 30-July 1?
2.	If so, what was the reply to such representations?
3.	Were similar protestations received from national organizations representing the Italians, Dutch, Slovaks, and Hungarian communities in Canada and, if so, what was the nature of the replies?
4.	What were the criteria used by the C.B.C. to determine participation in the national presentations made on Parliament Hill on June 30, in addition to long hair and screaming voices?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3 and 4. Not from specific ethnic organizations, but a letter was received from the chairman of the Canadian Folk Arts Council commenting on the fact that some ethnic groups were not represented in the program. In reply, it was noted that the selection of participants in the program was a joint undertaking of the centennial commission, Canadian Folk Arts Council and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. While the general goal was to reflect all facets of Canadian life, it was recognized that time and budgetary limitations would mean that some national groups and some geographical areas could not be represented. Since the program was to be viewed by Her Majesty the Queen as well as carried on national television, the final selection of participants was left to the C.B.C. producer who, it was felt, was best qualified to decide which groups together would offer the most representative, colorful and professional presentation.


* REMOVAL OF INCOME TAX DOCUMENTS, WINNIPEG
Mr. Sherman: 1. Were any documents of taxpayers removed by officers of the Department of National Revenue from the premises of the taxpayers or of their accountants or agents in Winnipeg during January 1968?
March 11, 19G8

2.	If any documents were so removed, were they removed with the consent of the taxpayers or the accountant or agent concerned?
3.	If any documents were so removed without such consent, under what statutory authority did the removals take place?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	The records were delivered voluntarily to officers of the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, pursuant to a requirement issued under Section 126(2) of the Income Tax Act.
3.	Not applicable.


PORTRAIT OF MR. DIEFENBAKER
Mr. Enns: 1.	On what date was the portrait of the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent placed in the Parliament Buildings?
2.	(a) What are the government's plans for displaying a portrait of the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker? (b) Does the plan in this regard differ from that followed in regard to the display of portraits honouring former Prime Ministers?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. March 4th, 1959.
2. (a) The portrait of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, commissioned by the government, will become the property of parliament. The display of this portrait in the parliament building is a matter falling within the domain of His Honour the Speaker, (b) See answer to part (a).


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, ST. BRIDE'S, NFLD.
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
Has a survey been conducted recently in the harbour area of St. Bride's, Newfoundland and, if so, when will improvements be made?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Funds have been allocated for repairs and maintenance work on existing facilities at St. Bride's to facilitate the local fishery. In addition, a survey is now in progress to ascertain what other improvements may be warranted.


NATIONAL MUSEUMS ACT
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the National Museums Act been proclaimed?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	If not, when may Its proclamation be anticipated?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	It is the intention of the government that the act shall come into force on April 1, 1968.


NATIONAL MUSEUMS APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Canada been appointed?
2.	If so, who are the members thereof?
3.	If not, when may its proclamation be anticipated?
4.	Has (a) the Secretary-General of the National Museums of Canada (b) the director of each museum, been appointed?
5.	If so, what are the names of such appointees?
6.	If not, when may such appointments be anticipated?
V. Have any by-laws of the National Museums of Canada been enacted?
8.	If so, on what date and to what purport are such by-laws?
9.	Have any consultative committees been established?
10.	If so, what committees and who are the members thereof?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Jean Ostiguy, Montreal, Quebec, chairman; Mr. J. Ronald Longstaffe, Vancouver, British Columbia, vice-chairman; Mr. Allan Bronfman, Montreal, Quebec; Mrs. Nina Cohen, Glace Bay, Nova Scotia; Mrs. Phyllis George, Moncton, New Brunswick; Mr. George W. P. Heffelfinger, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. Kiyoshi Izumi, Regina, Saskatchewan; Dr. Amiot Jolicoeur, Ste. Foy, Quebec; Mme C. Marcoux-Baillargeon, Montreal, Quebec; Mr. David Spurgeon, Toronto, Ontario; Professor G. S. Vickers, Toronto, Ontario; Dr. J. Tuzo Wilson, Toronto, Ontario; and, ex officio, Mr. Jean Boucher, Director of the Canada Council, and Dr. W. G. Schneider, President of the National Research Council.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
5.	Mr. Charles J. Mackenzie has been appointed Secretary General of the National Museums of Canada; under the act; the directors of the museums are to be appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board of trustees.

March 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
6.	After the first meeting of the board of trustees.
7.	No.
8.	Not applicable.
9.	No.
10.	Not applicable.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last Wednesday at this time I asked whether starred question No. 545 could not be answered, and I was told by the parliamentary secretary that my request would be considered. It has not been answered yet. In view of the fact that this is a simple question requiring straightforward and factual information, and that it has been on the order paper for nearly five months, I would request the Prime Minister to speak to the minister concerned to see if this question could not be answered on Wednesday next.


Lester Bowles Pearson: will be glad to do so.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to question No. 909. It has been on the order paper since January 22 and is a very simple series of questions. I was wondering if perhaps the Secretary of State could make arrangements to have this question answered by Wednesday. I quite understand, Mr. Speaker, that the government may not want to answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister will advise the house whether the level of Canada's foreign exchange reserves had dipped to $1.7 billion or thereabouts by the time Canada had obtained the additional credit rights to $900 million U.S. announced by the Minister of Finance on Thursday, as asserted three times by the Minister of National Revenue on the French television network last evening.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows it is not customary to reveal the state of our foreign exchange reserves, except at the end

of the month. The Minister of National Revenue spoke to me about his statement on the television network. He rose today on a question of privilege and said his memory was at fault. I wish to assure the house the Minister of National Revenue is not aware of the current state of our foreign exchange reserves.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister kindly advise whether the Minister of National Revenue was also in error when he advised that Canada's daily loss of foreign exchange reserves was at the rate of $25 to $35 million per day up to the time the minister announced these new credit rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not wholly aware of what the Minister of National Revenue said, but I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of National Revenue is not aware of the change in our exchange reserves from day to day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking with reference to the text of this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that the only questions which can be asked about statements made outside the house should be put to the Prime Minister, with a view to ascertaining whether such alleged statements correspond to government policy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will ask my question of the Prime Minister, then. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Minister of National Revenue was in a position to disclose figures regarding Canada's foreign exchange reserves at any time during the recent monetary crisis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already indicated on a question of privilege that the figures he used yesterday were inaccurate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the Prime Minister agree that ministers of the crown should appear on television programs with faulty memories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to tell the house that yesterday I was defending the Canadian dollar. I wanted to establish that the dollar had sufficient reserves and that, last week, we had
March 11, 1968

improved the situation in that area. Therefore, I think that the hon. member has no reason to become excited.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we might not go to another question. The minister has risen on a question of privilege which is really an explanation of a statement made outside the house. I suggest it should not be pursued further.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask my question in light of the Supreme Court decision last week upholding the validity of an employment contract clause that forbade a relationship between members of different races. Because of our concern for equality in this regard, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can advise the house of the intention of his government to introduce legislation to make such contracts or impositions illegal in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on this matter from the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice received the report only at lunch time, and I would prefer to examine it before I reply to my hon. friend.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There have been instances in the past when the Supreme Court of Canada has seen fit to permit a rehearing before the full court. As the decision in the Canadian Marconi case is one that, regardless of its merits as a legal proposition, will place Canada in the position of being regarded internationally as a country in which the highest court has determined that discrimination is in order-for that will be the misinterpretation-would the government consider doing that which has been done in the past, namely asking the Supreme Court to have a full panel of judges sit on this question instead of five judges, in view of the importance of this matter to Canada's international face, if I may use that expression, or image all over the world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I would look into this matter in all its aspects and with all the facts before me. I think that
Inquiries of the Ministry is a wise procedure to follow before coming to any decision or making any statement in connection with such an important question.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister of northern affairs whether his department still requires companies that employ men in northern parts of Canada to write this kind of clause into their employment contracts.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say confidently that no contracts are written in either of the territories, but in all instances they are consummated in one of the provinces; and the law respecting any such contract would be the law of the province in which the contract was written.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is true, as has been reported, that this clause in the contract was written in at the request of his department some years ago?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an aspect of the matter that might well be disclosed when the Prime Minister makes the comprehensive statement that he has indicated.


Frank Howard: May I address a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Considering what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said, that the contract in question was written in one province and was to be applicable in another jurisdiction, the implication being that such province has extraterritorial jurisdiction to make a contract which is to be effective in areas which are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, will the Prime Minister look into that aspect of the matter as well?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell the house whether the Canadian government intends to shake its

March 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry fist at every country which, like Gabon, is totally unimpressed by its uncompromising arrogance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is an argument rather than a question.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to that section of his department which deals with meteorological matters. I ask the minister whether he might be able to arrange that March 22 be a fine, clear and sunny day.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is responsible to parliament for the historic sites commission. With reference to the importation of potatoes from the United States to Canada, would the minister give consideration to the construction of a hothouse at Cap Rouge, Quebec, to commemorate the planting of the first potatoes on Canadian soil?


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Considering the number of complaints that I and many other members of the house, no doubt, have received concerning the sharp increase in interest rates now being charged by all lending institutions, may I ask what the government proposes to do to curtail these increases in interest rates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we shall be discussing the finance estimates again shortly, I hope.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider referring this very serious matter to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should think, Mr. Speaker, that should the committee feel it would be useful to look into this matter, it would take that action.
[Mr. Simard.l


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the imminent danger of a complete paralysis in the Montreal port which could affect its activities for a long time and the possibility that the house will adjourn soon, does the government intend to take immediately, with all its resources and authority, some steps liable to solve the labour-management conflict delaying the settlement of that collective agreement?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, considerable effort is being made to see there is no strike. I think the hon. member should refer this question to the Minister of Labour, who has the primary responsibility in the matter.


Mr. Regimbal:: May I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. At least one minister believes he knows what he is talking about.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Would the hon. member please repeat the question? I did not hear the first part of it.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Are you
the Minister of Labour?


Roger E. Régimbal: In view of the imminent danger of the complete paralysis of the port of Montreal, which would affect the activities of the port for a long time to come, and since there is a possibility that the house will adjourn soon, will the minister initiate immediately with all the resources and authority at his command any proposal to find a solution to labour-management troubles in that port?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Some days ago, in answering a question put by an hon. member, I think I said that if the two representatives, that of the longshoremen and that of the shipping federation on the conciliation board requested, were not able to agree on a chairman, I would be glad to appoint one. When a report was received by me on Thursday last from the representatives of the longshoremen and the shipping federation that they had not
March 11, 1968



been able to agree on a chairman, on Friday we approached Associate Chief Judge Alan Gold, of Montreal, and asked him to chair the board. I am pleased to say that on Friday night Judge Gold accepted the chairmanship of the hoard of conciliation and I understand that .ie is already at work. I am hopeful that with Judge Gold's experience and prestige in labour disputes, and with men like Louis La-berge and William Baker on the board, they will be able to come to grips quickly with the problems causing the present difficulties.


Roger E. Régimbal: As a supplementary question, is the minister now prepared to advance the opposition's suggestion of a long term contract and a permanent industrial relations committee?


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Member of the Administration):: That has been considered, Mr. Speaker. I share the hon. member's interest in the port of Montreal, which I think he will agree should be above petty politics.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, further to the question put to him by my colleague from Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes.
Can he tell us whether his department or one of its agencies, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, or the Corn Exchange, have invited foreign shippers to use the Port Cartier or Baie Comeau port facilities, instead of the Montreal harbour, during the next shipping season, in view of the fact the present difficulties between shippers and dockers would make that port unusable?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that my department has done anything of the kind, but I shall take the question as notice, in case instructions should have been given to that effect.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would inquire also as to the wheat board and the corn exchange, not only his department but also these agencies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that according to today's Montreal
Inquiries of the Ministry Gazette the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is now handling the labour matter?
I would like to know who is minister of labour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of reports over the week end that the United States commander in Viet Nam is asking for an additional 200,000 or more troops, thus indicating a further escalation of the disastrous war there, would the government consider asking the Secretary General of the United Nations to place this matter on the agenda of the Security Council immediately, in order to try to bring world opinion to bear on the possibility of a cease fire?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered at the United Nations. It could be considered in the general assembly and the Security Council, but I would point out to my hon. friend that on the basis of the investigation that has been made there is no reason to believe that North Viet Nam or communist China would appear at the Security Council.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it would not be possible at the Security Council to discuss the matter on a world wide basis; and can the right hon. Prime Minister be so certain that either or both of these countries might not be induced to appear if the matter was discussed by the Security Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would hardly be in a world wide framework if one quarter of the world's people were not represented in the Security Council at the time of the discussion. I should also point out to my hon. friend that the Secretary General, who is always anxious to use the United Nations, as we all are, whenever possible, has taken the position that this is still a matter for the Geneva conference to decide before the United Nations.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: As a supplementary question will the Prime Minister

March IX, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry inform the house whether the government has expressed any opinion with regard to the enlargement of forces in Viet Nam, particularly as it might affect Cambodia and Laos?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question based on newspaper reports which we have not yet had confirmed by any official source.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressing the view of the government when he said in Halifax that the 3 per cent surtax on corporation levies is a decentive to industry, and that confidence in the country's economy has been shaken by the deficits this country is experiencing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quoting, of course, from a newspaper account.


George Harris Hees: Would the right hon. Prime Minister lean slightly to his left and confirm with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is exactly what he did say?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the minister's announcement over the week end that he has instructed the combines investigation branch to investigate the grocery retail business on the prairies, can he tell us what powers he has given in connection with this investigation? Can he also say whether it will cover the whole of the country, in view of the fact that the grocery retail business is nation wide?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to clarify the assumption in the hon. member's question. I said I had asked

the director of investigation and research to examine the allegations set forth in the particular chapter of the Batten report relating to the grocery industry in western Canada, and that if he were to find substantiation for those allegations he should on his own motion begin an inquiry.
At the moment a formal inquiry is not under way. The officials of the department and the director of investigation and research are investigating those allegations.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister, as he suggested in Calgary, prepared to meet with the three provincial premiers with regard to this matter and recommend that there be a reference to the restrictive trade practices commission with regard to the high cost of groceries in western Canada?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member will recall that I mentioned I had invited Judge Mary Batten to Ottawa. She will arrive on Tuesday night and meet with me and the officials of my department on Wednesday. I would, of course, be willing to meet the three premiers at any time to discuss the matter. The royal commission was commissioned by them, and Judge Mary Batten and her two fellow commissioners reported to them. After they have had an opportunity to review the report they might wish to approach me on the subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister not take the initiative and ask to meet with the three premiers with regard to such an important matter as the high cost of living and the high cost of groceries?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member would expect me to review the report in some detail before I took any such action.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position at the present time to say whether he has given serious consideration to a similar study which would affect the maritime provinces and Quebec?


John Napier Turner: This commission was undertaken on the instructions of the three provincial governments. I see no reason that the premiers of the maritime provinces, if they saw fit, might not undertake a similar inquiry.
March 11, 1968


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Who will pay lor it?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a belated supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When he is discussing this report with respect to price increases in the prairie provinces, will he ask those who are particularly concerned to inquire as to the direct relationship of the people who own these chain stores with fruit wholesalers and brokers who sell our British Columbia fruit?


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the present state of confusion which exists with regard to matters of confidence, would the Prime Minister indicate if the vote on the proposed Criminal Code amendment dealing with abortion will be a free vote or whether it will be regarded as a vote of confidence? I ask this question in the light of the apparent conflicting views of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this score.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


OATS AND BARLEY-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction is the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the Canadian Wheat Board sending out the cheques today, or will the farmers have to wait longer?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to make a statement tomorrow about the delivery dates for the cheques for oats and barley, and the amount of the final payment.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question and a supplementary question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Provencher regarding the signing of the international grains arrangement.
The international grains arrangement consists of a wheat trade convention and a food aid convention. Thirty two countries have signed the wheat trade convention, including Canada, the United States of America and the other major wheat exporting countries. A significant number of the major importers such as Britain, Japan and the European economic community have also signed. The 17 countries that participated in the Kennedy round grain negotiations and were eligible to sign the food aid convention have done so.
With regard to the supplementary question, the answer is that, as indicated last Friday, Canada does intend to do so. We expect that all of the countries that have signed the conventions will complete ratification procedures by the deadline.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard  Johnsion@Okanagan-Revel-stoke: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Following the failure of the C.B.C. to credit the federal government with the financing through the Company of Young Canadians of two private schools in Vancouver as shown on a nation wide television program yesterday, will the federal government correct this omission or will it withdraw its financing from these rather startling schools?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the question might be placed on the order paper.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Secretary of State for

March 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs. In view of the serious situation of the children of Viet Nam and their plight as a result of the war, could the minister advise us whether any thought is being given to the evacuation of these children from the war area under the supervision and protection of the United Nations or a subcommittee of that organization?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I do not believe consideration has been given to this matter by the United Nations. However, I will make an examination to see whether this matter is being considered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the right hon. Prime Minister. In giving consideration to the suggestion made last Friday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that this house consider a resolution urging a cessation of the bombing in Viet Nam, would the government take into consideration the newly released public opinion poll which shows for the first time that a majority of the public in the United States is adverse to the involvement in the Viet Nam war?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question he has asked is argumentative.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister further to the questions I put to him last week concerning Rhodesia. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say whether consultations or discussions are still taking place with Great Britain, and whether consultations have taken place with other members of the Commonwealth concerning the Rhodesian situation? Further, would he state whether these consultations concern a tightening of the sanctions on Rhodesia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these exchanges are still going on. My hon. friend may have noticed that in

Westminster last Friday Prime Minister Wilson rejected a suggestion that there should be an emergency meeting of the prime ministers to discuss Rhodesia, on the ground that it is not likely that any constructive result would come from such a meeting at this time-
This matter is before the Security Council of the United Nations, and I believe consideration is being given to having a meeting of the commonwealth sanctions committee in London.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, reports published just before the week end indicate that the level of unemployment is at a ten year high and that construction starts are at a ten year low in Canada's largest city, the island of Montreal. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now proposing a course of action to his cabinet colleagues or whether he intends in the near future to meet with provincial or municipal officials to determine an immediate course of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first part of the question is not in order. The hon. member is asking about communications between members of the cabinet, and that part of the question is not in order.


William Heward Grafftey: Then I will ask the minister whether, in view of the grave situation existing at this time, he intends to meet with municipal and provincial officials in order to determine an immediate course of action.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The situation is under active study. It has been under study by the branches of government concerned. It is, I may say, a matter of more direct concern to the Department of Manpower and Immigration than to the Department of Labour in accordance with the existing division of responsibilities, but I can assure the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and I are working on this difficult and serious problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
March 11, 1968

Does the minister intend to confer with the municipal and provincial authorities in order to decide on a line of action and remedy the situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is a general situation with which we are dealing at the moment. We have contracts with the provinces and the municipalities and we are doing all we can.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are 67,000 people out of work in the city of Montreal, a number equivalent to the whole working force of one city the size of Regina. Will the minister meet with Mayor Drapeau and see whether he can work out a plan to deal with this situation?


George Harris Hees: I
wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unsatisfactory answers given by the Minister of Labour and the minister of manpower to the questions asked them in connection with the serious plight of those who are unemployed in the city of Montreal, where the number out of work has now risen to the highest point in eight years, would the right hon. gentleman speak to these two ministers to see whether some more serious attitude toward unemployment in our largest city-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the war between Nigeria and Biafra. Considering that a member of the Commonwealth is supplying arms to one party in this dispute, can the minister advise whether Canada is taking any initiative within a Commonwealth context to bring to an end this flow of war materials and, hopefully, to the war itself?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I indicated on Thursday last, I believe, that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, with the approval of most Commonwealth countries, was in the
Inquiries of the Ministry process of mediation, and it was generally felt that his endeavours in this regard ought to be supported.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance to Canada of current negotiations for the renewal of NORAD will the right hon. gentleman assure the house that the renewal agreement will be submitted for discussion in this house before it is signed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. The government will have to take its responsibilities and then submit its decision to the house, as is normally done in connection with these matters.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to proceed with the purchase of four Lockheed C-141 Starlifter transport aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I point out that there is urgency attached to this question, in view of the fact that defence planners have known since 1965 that they would want about a dozen Starlifters to make the army truly mobile and to refuel Canada's new fighters-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. This appears to be argumentative. The hon. member knows that if in his view there is urgency attached to the matter it can be discussed on the adjournment motion.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I wish to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs the following question. When can the war veterans of Canada expect to receive the

March 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry much needed 15 per cent increase in their pensions, which was to have gone into effect on January 1 last?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It will, of course, go into effect as from January 1 as soon as the house sees fit to pass the supplementary estimates.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On the undertaking of the opposition to deal promptly with the estimates of his department, will the hon. gentleman assure us that those estimates will be brought before the house without further delay?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: These estimates are already before the house to be dealt with.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister say when they will be brought before the house?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: They are before the house now.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether we can expect amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act to be introduced prior to any adjournment which may come about in the course of the next three weeks or so.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it will be on the order of business, but of course that would depend on how much longer the house sits. I find it difficult to answer the question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made toward the end of last week, when he said he would be making a statement today on the proposed prices and wages review board. Since the right hon. gentleman did not do so on motions, would he be good enough to inform us when he intends to make that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I intend to make a speech, if I am permitted, and I will refer to this matter in the course of that speech.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last Monday the right hon. gentleman indicated that correspondence had been sent to Premier Smith in connection with the Sydney steel situation. As of Friday this correspondence had not arrived. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would check with his office to see whether it was actually put into the mail.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A letter has gone to the premier, and a telegram was sent to him today asking if he agrees to having it tabled.



REVIEW OF DESIGNATED AREA POLICY RESPECTING ATLANTIC PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. The question as asked is argumentative.']
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Has the minister yet received the study of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council showing that the slowest city growth rates in Canada exist in the maritimes, and would he now re-examine the request to have the whole of Atlantic Canada made a designated area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What position has the Canadian government taken with regard to the objections raised by the government of West Germany to the draft treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly in regard to the four further safeguards which the West Germany government has stated to be necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member is now asking a question which is
March 11. 1968

very wide in scope and of the type which should be answered on motions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With respect, I do not think so. I believe the minister is prepared to state Canada's position with regard to this important matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to take this question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Secretary of of State for External Affairs. In view of a reported statement by the Minister of Transport over the week end, is it now a fact that the Canadian government has decided that Canada should not become a member of the Organization of American States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is argumentative.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the large number of requests for copies of the report by Dr. Tom How on the administration of small vessel harbours, and in view of the desire of many people to help the government to arrive at a speedy solution to problems of this sort on the Pacific coast, would the minister reconsider his earlier decision not to make this report public?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to think about it. It is, of course, an internal document, but as I indicated what we might do is extract certain of the contents for publication. I will give the question further consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago the premier of Prince Edward Island led a delegation to Ottawa which conferred extensively with the Minister of National Defence. I now ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister, inasmuch as this delegation returns tomorrow, whether in view of the very serious economic situation that has developed in Prince Edward Island, particularly this winter, he will be in a position to assure the premier and the members of that delegation that there will be no reduction at this time in the Canadian Forces base at Summerside.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are making good progress in working out arrangements which I think will be satisfactory to the provincial and federal authorities.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Several months ago the minister indicated to the house that he would be proposing amendments to the act at the earliest possible opportunity. I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to say whether any amendments will be proposed before the adjournment of the session.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be difficult before the present session is adjourned, but I believe that next session we shall propose some amendments to the Immigration Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
MATTERS TO BE DEALT WITH BEFORE RECESS On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to indicate to the house what items of business the government has on its list for parliament to deal with before we adjourn or rise for a certain event that some of us have heard about?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we must dispose of this bill, and I hope positively.
Then there are the supplementary estimates and interim supply. Perhaps we could then adjourn, although I know my hon. friend does not want us to adjourn because he wants to save the country from too many speeches,

March 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry according to the press this morning. But if we adjourn after interim supply, when we return after the events to which my hon. friend referred we could carry on with the rest of the business that is considered essential.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Where does the legislation regarding the Canada Development Corporation now stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is important legislation, and I hope we will be able to dispose of the bill before this session finishes all its work. But that may be out of my control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the government house leader. When does he intend to bring forward the supplementary estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs so the house may agree to them?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we worked out an arrangement with the other house leaders with respect to the sequence of the estimates, and it was understood that following the finance estimates we would deal with external affairs and then defence. We would be prepared following that to deal with any other department, including veterans affairs.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the date of parliament's return be set before parliament adjourns for that certain event, or will it be set by the new prime minister when he is chosen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh no, Mr. Speaker, it should be set for quite early in April.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether Bill No. C-186 is still on the government list of priority measures to be passed this session?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. On
(Mr. Pearson.]
November 1, 1967 an address was passed for documents in relation to the control of pollution in the Ottawa river, and on December 20, 1967, a further address for documents in relation to the development of the national capital area. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would see what can be done to expedite the tabling of these documents.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it immediately. I am advised that we have asked for authorization to table those documents.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's triumphant week end on the prairies, and particularly in Winnipeg, is he now in a position to ice the cake by announcing his plans for the future of the Winnipeg air base and the government's regional air policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to make every effort to reach a satisfactory solution. It is not possible to make an announcement at this time, but I can assure my hon. friend that a great deal of time and effort is being expended to make an announcement at the earliest possible date.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of the financial crisis faced by the government of Canada, are funds for Indian health services in the provinces being curtailed on the same scale as those in respect of northern health services for Indians and Eskimos in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice.
March 11, 1968



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. Inasmuch as the house did not sit on Sunday I did not have the opportunity to wish the good lady a happy first anniversary of the giving of royal assent to the Canadian Film Development Corporation legislation. I wonder whether now, a year later, the government has appointed the officers of that corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has, but the announcement has not yet been made.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask whether negotiations are in progress between the government of Prince Edward Island and his department with a view to instituting a moratorium on debts payable by farmers in Prince Edward Island to the Farm Credit Corporation, due to the depressed economic situation of agriculture in that province.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I know of no specific and current negotiations with the provincial government at this time on this question, but the Farm Credit Corporation, as I understand it, does have authority to postpone payments in a year when prices and returns to farmers are inadequate. I feel very certain that if things are of this critical nature they will give very serious consideration to such requests.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I had a tete-a-tete about the Athabasca tar sands, and the minister indicated he would give consideration to making a statement about this. I wonder whether he has come to a conclusion about it.
Income Tax Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is not enough material on which to make a statement. This is only an interesting project, and that seems to be all there is to say about it at this time.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-207, an act to amend the Income Tax Act-the Minister of Finance.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to make it clear that I do not wish to make life difficult for Your Honour; neither do I wish to bore the house with a procedural discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that was a way in which I could get applause. Nevertheless it does seem to me that there is a point that should be decided by Your Honour, if not for the sake of the debate on which we are now about to launch, then it should be decided for the sake of the future. We have learned around here that precedents can sometimes get established very easily, and once we have them they become binding for a long time to come.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I would point out that there are quite a few citations in the authorities regarding the house being asked again in the same session to decide on something on which it has already made a decision. I will not take the time of the house to read all of these citations but I will quote a couple of them just to have them on the record in this context. Citation 200(1) at page 167 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
The other citation to which I would draw your attention is citation 163 at page 137 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as

March 11, 1968
Income Tax Act
one which has already been expressed in the current session. It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
I read the whole of that citation not only to be fair but because it was the last sentence on which the chairman of the committee of the whole relied when he made his ruling on an amendment proposed over a year ago by the then minister of transport, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. You Honour will remember that that decision of the Deputy Speaker, which had been given after a great deal of study and thought, was appealed to you. You had to go through the same process again and you ruled that the amendment was out of order. It was your opinion that the substitute proposition offered by Mr. Pickersgill was not sufficiently different from the one that had been defeated for it to be allowed for presentation to the house in the same session.
Having made reference to Your Honour's ruling in 1967, may I indicate for the record that it is to be found at pages 12269 and 12270 of Hansard for January 26, 1967. What we had before us then was an amendment to a bill with which we were dealing in committee of the whole, and therefore Your Honour relied on citations which dealt with amendments. I believe Your Honour will agree that the same principles apply to a bill which is being offered in the place of one that has been defeated. You pointed out that there were citations at page 549 of May's seventeenth edition and at page 285 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 406(c), for example, which say that amendments are out of order if they are inconsistent with the decision which has been given upon a former amendment. You went on to say that even though hon. Mr. Pickersgill had brought in an amendment which varied from the former one, in your view it was inconsistent with the former decision and that the committee could not be asked to make the same decision in reverse.
Therefore it seems to me we have to be concerned about what we are being asked to do today. The order has been called for second reading of Bill No. C-207 which, as everyone in Canada knows, is the government's replacement for Bill No. C-193. Some of the facts about this bill should be noted. There are eight clauses in Bill No. C-207. I have not read every last line of the bill but I have checked the clauses closely and I have made all the necessary comparisons. I find that clause 1 of Bill No. C-207 is a brand new clause. It bears no relationship to anything

that was in Bill No. C-193. So far, so good. Clause 2, however, seems to me to be clause 1 of the former bill, verbatim. Clause 3 of Bill No. C-207 is clause 2 of the former bill, verbatim. Clause 4 of Bill No. C-207 is clause 3 of Bill No. C-193, verbatim. Clause 5 of Bill No. C-207 is similar to clause 4 of the previous bill but its similarity is a little short of identity. Clause 6 of the new bill is a brand new one. It is completely different from anything that we had before us in the previous bill.
Then we come to clause 7 which is the contentious one having to do with a temporary surtax. I remember there was a little discussion on these words on February 19. It is true, and I do not argue with it at all, that clause 7 is in many respects different from the similar provisions of the previous bill. May I take a moment to indicate what some of these differences are. In the previous bill the surtax was only on individuals. In this bill the surtax is on both individuals and corporations. In the previous bill there was a floor of $100 of income tax before the surtax applied. In this bill the floor is $200. In the old bill the rate was 5 per cent; in this bill the rate is 3 per cent. In the old bill there was a ceiling; in this bill there is no ceiling. This bill provides the surtax for only two years; in the former bill there was no time limit. I can see that a pretty good case could be made procedurally for this clause being different from the corresponding clause in the other bill, and if all this bill did was to bring in a new style of surtax in place of the other one I agree that one would have a hard job trying to argue that it was the same proposition. It is not impossible to argue that way, but it would be difficult.
I move on to clause 8 of the new bill and I find that it is identical with clause 6 of the previous bill.
To sum up, there are eight clauses in this bill of which two are brand new, two are similar and four are identical. It is like the bishop's egg, and I do not quite know what Your Honour will do with it. When on February 19 the house voted against third reading of Bill No. C-193 it voted down the whole bill. Your Honour, as a member of parliament, knows what went on in committee of the whole but as Mr. Speaker your only concern is what happened in the house, and in the house Bill No. C-193 in its entirety was defeated. I recognize that those clauses in Bill No. C-207 which are identical with clauses in Bill No. C-193 were not contentious. Your
March 11, 1368

Honour knows it, but I am telling you anyway that these were the clauses which went through the committee of the whole with little or no debate, and certainly without any votes being called on them.
The most contentious clause was the one which had to do with the surtax. There was a vote on that clause in committee of the whole, and I am free to admit that when most of us voted against the third reading of Bill No. C-193 we were directing our vote mainly against the surtax. The fact is that the bill was turned down in its entirety and now we have before us a bill containing eight clauses, four of which are identical reproductions of clauses in the bill that was defeated, two more of which are similar and only two of which are brand new.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If there were a way to separate these various clauses, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the house would mind giving unanimous consent to the introduction of the clauses that we do not oppose, that we did not contest on the previous occasion. I can see that a ruling could be made that the clause on the surtax is different but I am concerned about the future if this bill is allowed to be presented for second reading without any comment, any protest or any qualifications. I have been around here long enough to know what will happen if this bill is allowed to be presented without any objection. A session or two or a parliament or two from now, some other government will want to introduce a bill replacing one that has been defeated, and Bill C-207 as substituted for Bill C-193 will be cited as a precedent. It will be said that it was done in March, 1968, so it can be done again. This kind of situation must be avoided, and that is why I raised this point of order.
I have tried in this presentation not to make things too difficult for you. I have tried also not to take a position to the effect that we cannot proceed with this legislation. I take the position, as do my colleagues, that we have no objection to the clauses that we opposed before being brought back again. On the other hand, we opposed the surtax previously and we are going to vote against it this time. We are not unwilling for the house to be asked to consider this surtax provision because of the fact it is reasonably different from the provisions of the previous bill, but we hope the house will vote against it, as it did on February 19.
Income Tax Act
This is the problem as I see it, Mr. Speaker, and I place it on your doorstep, conscious of the fact that you realize how important it is that our precedents be ones that will not make difficulty in the years that lie ahead.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Speaking personally on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on his statement of the facts to you and the authorities he has mentioned. I should like to set out briefly the similarity between the railway bill and the one now before the house which imposes a surtax. Before doing so may I point out that the most important thing to keep in mind is that a question having once been moved and carried in the negative or affirmative cannot be revived again and must stand as a decision of the house. We have heard a lot about the waste of time in parliament, and that is one of the reasons for this rule. Once a decision has been made on an important matter the government cannot keep dragging it in and forcing parliament to make another decision upon it.
In order for the government to get around the problem so ably presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Your Honour has to consider citation 163 which reads as follows:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
My submission is that a surtax is a surtax and a change in the rate of the tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent or from 2 per cent to 7 per cent would be a mere alteration which would not affect the rule that once a judgment has been made it has been made. I feel that Your Honour is going to have some difficulty, if you permit the house to proceed with this bill, in being able to distinguish the decision you make this afternoon from the one you made in connection with the railway bill. What was that decision? The former minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill, introduced changes in the Railway Act concerning the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. This provision was defeated in committee and the next day he dragged in another amendment which changed the words "Crowsnest Pass freight rates" to statutory rates. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 11. 1968
Income Tax Act
Diefenbaker), and I objected on that occasion. The chairman ruled against us.
When Mr. Speaker resumed the chair he reviewed our arguments as well as the decision of the chairman. He found that the new amendment was substantially the same as the original amendment to the bill in question. Your Honour ruled, therefore, it was a matter that could not be decided again in the same session, so the amendment was ruled out of order. This government failed the first time to get a favourable judgment on a surtax of 5 per cent so they have now reduced it to 3 per cent. The reason this party voted against the surtax last time was not so much because of the amount of the tax but because we felt the government would not cut down its expenditures. We say this country does not need a surtax. If the government had kept its financial house in order it would not have needed a surtax. However, they are back again with the same question, a surtax. This is the fundamental part of the bill before us. It is the same horse being trotted out again before parliament. I do not believe that the government is on sound ground so far as this bill is concerned.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has carefully set out, and I am not going to review again, those sections of the bill which are identical and those that are not identical. The sections that are identical are the meat of the bill which we are going to discuss this afternoon, namely, the surtax. The surtax is needed because the government is in difficulty financially and it is in difficulty financially because it would not put its house in order. This is the position we have taken in the past and it is the position we are going to take now. It seems to me the government is asking that something be done again because it was unable to win a vote in the house on a previous occasion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was discussed at the resolution stage there was a preliminary objection to the presentation of the resolution. I was not present at that time. I should like to ask Your Honour, even at this late date, to examine the situation with regard to the question of notice for the taking up of that resolution. If memory serves me right, the two instances in which this particular general procedure was adopted occurred in 1957 and again in 1962 when I occupied the chair Your Honour now occupies. There was never any question of notice, so those occasions were not precedents and may not be

germane. I share with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), the grave concern for the precedent that may have been established on this particular occasion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour has probably anticipated this point coming up and has canvassed the rules. However, I would refer Your Honour to page 126 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 148, which reads:
It Is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session is, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
I ask Your Honour to try to anticipate the course that this debate will take and ask yourself this question: Will we be retracing our steps and reviving a discussion which took place on a previous occasion in this session with regard to the particular issue which is before the house?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the points of view that have been put forward by hon. member who have spoken. I think we are justified in showing concern with regard to the setting of precedents in the House of Commons. There are plenty of people who think they are unimportant, but the experience of the last few days has shown that they are vital to the operation of this institution. If it seems wise to Your Honour to rule that the present bill is acceptable and if the bill should subsequently be defeated on second or third reading, I suggest it would then be open to the government to bring in yet a third bill with a slight modification in the percentage rates sought for surtax purposes. This is the danger that I see. There could be a repetition of several bills in a session, each with slight variations to permit a government to extricate itself from some difficulty.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I consider that the arguments that have been presented cover the ground thoroughly and are an expression of the point of view that is held by many members in this house. I simply add, Mr. Speaker, that an opposition has only the protection of the Speaker and the rules in order that its position may not be downgraded to one which would make the opposition very inferior in the House of Commons.
March 11, 1968


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my comments on the point of order by referring to the nature of the motion to which this particular bill is now related but without making any comment about the constitutional aspect of the situation that developed on that Monday night.
It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the motion which was then before the house and which is now mentioned as a possible barrier to our proceeding with this bill was the simple motion that the bill be now read a third time and do pass. I have examined the Canadian authorities, both Beauchesne and Bourinot. I have also examined the precedents of the house. I suggest that it was open to the government to make a motion to revive that particular bill at that time. The Minister of Justice in his statement made this argument, though the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre disagreed with it.
I think there is a very strong case to be made in support of the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice that the motion at that time was a simple motion and that the operative word in the motion was the word "now". It was open to the government to move that the bill be given third reading at a later time. This is a very important point, and there is quite a bit of evidence to be found in the authorities to support the argument made by the Minister of Justice.
In this particular instance, however, I do not intend to lay the weight of the procedural argument on this particular point because the essence of the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that the house has already taken a decision on this question and therefore it cannot be brought back again in the same session. In substance that is the basis of the problem before the Chair.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have examined some of the authorities. I have examined the bills and I have examined some precedents. First of all, I want to outline to the house the principal difference between Bill No. C-193 and the bill now before the house. The new bill proposes a different scheme of taxation. It should be apparent to hon. members that the surtax in the previous bill rested solely upon the individual taxpayer. There was no surtax payable by corporations. In this particular bill there is a new scheme of taxation because the incidence of taxation has been shifted partly from the individual income taxpayer and placed upon the corporations. Certainly this involves a very new element and is a new and substantial aspect of this bill.
Income Tax Act
The surtax on corporations and individuals proposed by the new bill differs from the previous surtax on individuals not only in the essential matter of the incidence-and the essential matter of the incidence is a shift, in part, from the personal income taxpayer to the corporate taxpayer-but also in its rate, its maximum and minimum amounts and its proposed duration. The surtax on individuals is proposed at a rate of 3 per cent compared with a surtax at a rate of 5 per cent. The proposed surtax on individuals is on basic tax in excess of $200 compared with a surtax in the former bill on basic tax in excess of $100. The proposed surtax will not apply to taxable income under $1,643; the surtax in the former bill would have started to become payable on taxable income in excess of $909. The proposed surtax on individuals will have no ceiling; the surtax in Bill No. C-193 would not have exceeded $600.
The proposed surtax on individuals will apply for the taxation years 1968 and 1969 only; the surtax proposed in Bill No. C-193 was intended to be temporary but was not restricted to specific years. A surtax of 3 per cent is proposed on corporations for 1968 and 1969; the former Bill No. C-193 did not provide for such a tax.
The resolution preceding the bill and the bill we are now considering which is based on that resolution propose that corporations be required to move forward by two months the period during which they pay their income tax for a year. But the payment schedule to be followed by corporations in changing to the new payment period differs from that proposed in Bill No. C-193. Instead of making ten payments for their first taxation year starting after November, 1967, each of which would be one-tenth of their estimated tax, corporations will be required to make five payments, each of which is equal to one-fifth of their estimated tax.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill and the resolution on which it is based propose that the 10 per cent of income limitation on the amount deductible as a charitable donation be removed with respect to donations to a province, thus bringing the deduction of such donations into line with that allowed for donations to the federal government. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it proposes that the present right to carry forward for one year any amount by which charitable donations in a year exceed the maximum deductible in that year be extended to apply to donations made to a province or to the federal government.

March 11, 1968
Income Tax Act
This provision was not in the former bill at all.
So it seems quite apparent, Mr. Speaker, that not only is there a different scheme of taxation proposed in the new bill, specifically and basically with reference to its incidence, but there is also a range of differences that are very important to the population of Canada, to corporations and to individuals. Therefore we can argue that these provisions are different.
As Beauchesne says in his fourth edition, there is no rule which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading, then the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions. I am arguing that the provisions in the bill before us are not the same in substance as the provisions in the former bill because in the second bill a scheme of taxation entirely different in character is proposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer a question later. In the same citation Beauchesne says:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On consideration of the Profiteering Bill as amended, in session 1919, a member asked whether clause three of the bill was in order, as it was substantially a repetition of a bill which had been rejected on second reading; but the Speaker held that the house could revise a decision, provided that it was not asked to disagree with the same question.
That is paragraph 2 of citation 373, Beau-chesne's fourth edition, page 273.
On looking at May's seventeenth edition one finds that Beauchesne used May as a source. At page 518 of the seventeenth edition May repeats the same rule:
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions-
On the following page there is another interesting paragraph. As Your Honour pointed out the other day, May's seventeenth edition is fairly recent, having been published in 1964. On page 519 the following paragraph is found:
Objection has also been taken to a bill on the broader ground that it raised a question which had been previously decided by the house in the course of proceedings on another bill of the same session.

Then May goes on to say:
Such objection has rarely been found capable of being sustained.
Then he lists a number of cases. The last case is very clear. It deals with this subject:
When the latter bill contained a portion only of the earlier rejected bill-
I am arguing that there are differences in substance in the provisions of the two bills. I am also relying on this particular instance which May cites when he says on page 520:
When the later bill contained a portion only of the earlier rejected bill.-The Local Government Provisional Order.. .Bill, 1914, was allowed to proceed, although it contained one of the orders contained in the Local Government Provisional Orders .. .Bill.. .which had been rejected in the session of 1914.
Here we have several new elements. Even if we brought forward the same bill and put in a new part one we would gain some support from this particular paragraph in May to argue that it was in order.
I want to refer to two precedents in the British house which are very much on point. I have not done the research that others have done on this matter but there is a case that May refers to in the British house on August 14, 1919. It is found on page 1718 of the British parliamentary debates. An amendment was proposed and one member of the house, Sir G. Younger, rose on a point of order. He said:
Before this amendment is moved may I ask whether clause 3 as it stands is not really a repetition of the Municipal Authorities Enabling Bill which was rejected in this house on second reading, enabling authorities by order of the Board of Trade to establish businesses and does the clause not put into this bill what was actually refused a second reading by this house at the beginning of the session?
The Speaker ruled as follows:
It is sometimes found that second thoughts are best.
I am sure the Minister of Finance may find food for thought in that comment. Mr. Speaker went on to say:
It is open to the house to revise its decision provided that it is not asked to agree to or disagree with identically-
I emphasize "with identically''.
-the same question. That is not the case here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Rewriting a paragraph and inserting new commas does not change something from being identical with something else.
March 11, 1968

Income Tax Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As Mr. Speaker said then, if he were asked to give an opinion on identically the same question the matter would then be out of order. That, clearly, is in his ruling.
There is another case in the British house. I will not read it all but it is to be found on August 3, 1920. At page 2206 of the British proceedings Mr. Palmer, rising on a point of order with regard to an amendment to a motion then before the house, said in part:
My point is this, that this house, having come to the decision early in the year to enact these regulations only until 31st August, or peacetime, whichever came the sooner, this house is not competent to act on that decision, and by a bill of this kind to extend the regulations with regard to shops for another 18 months; that it is a rule of this house that the house having come to a decision, cannot reverse, alter or override that decision within the same session.
That is the point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put to the Chair. The Speaker on that occasion said:
I do not think that can be strictly applied in a case of this sort, for, even assuming the house had in its mind that these regulations in the first instance should continue only until 31st December, it was quite open to the house to reconsider the matter, and to extend that period. It might have done it by an amending bill in the same session. There is nothing to prevent that.
Another member who was then present, Major Nall, said:
May I ask whether it is, in that case, competent for this house actually to reverse in the same session, a decision arrived at in the early part of the session?
The Speaker gave his decision and said:
The house must not be asked to consider the proposition in exactly the same terms;-
Those are the words he used, "exactly the same terms."
-that is to say, I ought not, if I observed it, to put identically the same question twice. The house having come to a decision, I ought not to put identically the same question-
Again we see the words "identically the same question".
-again to the House, so that the House could have an opportunity of reversing its decision. In this case, there is no question which I have put from the chair which could be regarded as identically the same as that upon which the house has already pronounced.
I suggest to Your Honour that this question, if it is put, will not be identically the same as the previous question. I have indicated that there is a difference in the scheme of taxation and in the incidence of taxation. The burden of taxation is being shifted in part
from the individual taxpayer to the corporation. There are differences in ceilings, in floors and in rates as well as in other aspects. My argument, based on the precedents I have just cited, is that in proposing this particular bill the government is, of course, proposing a bill which is related to the same subject and which contains similar provisions. Of course that is so, because both bills relate to taxes and surtax. But there is no rule against that. I have cited the authorities. A bar would be raised against the government in proceeding with this bill if the house, when the Chair put the question, were asked to decide on exactly the same question or on identically the same proposition. That is what British Speakers have held.


Gerald William Baldwin: How do you regard a surtax of 4.99 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have put forward my points after considering the authorities. I am not resting the case on the nature of the question which was defeated. I am resting my case on the simple argument that the house, when the Chair puts this question, will not be asked to deal with identically the same question that was contained in Bill C-193.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question or two? First, may I ask him if he will address himself to the fact to which I drew the attention of the house, namely, that there are four clauses in the new bill which are identical with four clauses in the previous bill? He knows that I admitted there are differences in the surtax, and I outlined them as well as he did, but will he deal with the fact that there are four clauses in the new bill which are identical with four clauses in the old bill? Will he also address himself to this fact? He gives citations and says it is possible to bring forward part of a former bill that has been defeated, but would he recognize that this new bill does not leave out anything that was in the former bill?


An hon. Member:: Address the Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am addressing the Speaker but I am putting a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I would like his undivided attention. I enjoy it better that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he face the fact that what is proposed in this bill is not to bring forward parts of what was in the former bill?

March XI. 1968
Income Tax Act
It is all here, everything that was in the former bill. There is not a clause that is missing. Some of it has been changed, but this is not just partially the old bill. It is all of it, and a couple of new things have been added.
Just one other question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister cites Speakers' rulings from Westminster will he face the fact that our Speaker on January 26, 1967, ruled it was not only identity that mattered but also similarity and the necessity not to infringe on the rule that the house must not be asked to do something that is inconsistent with a former decision?
I submit that what we are being asked for in this bill is to re-enact the whole of Bill C-193, with a couple of changes and additions, and we are being asked to make a decision which clearly in four cases, and almost so in other cases, is inconsistent with the decision we took on February 19.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The question has been dealt with at length by members more learned in the rules of the house than I but I would like to point out the difficult position that you are in and I would like to refresh your memory on a ruling that you made on January 26, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would advise the hon. member of the rule against repetition. This has already been brought to my attention.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will endeavour not to be as repetitious as perhaps you think I may be. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has stated that he thinks this bill is not identical with the previous one and therefore should be accepted, but I would like to point out what Your Honour said on January 26 last year, as recorded on page 12270 of Hansard:
The minister this afternoon showed that in the one case there is a mandatory review, and in the other case what he calls a facultative review. In the one case there is a one-shot review; in the other a continuing review. These, I admit, are substantial changes-
Those are your words.
-and I might even be prepared to admit that the objectives of the original clause and of this amendment may differ. But from my limited understanding it seems that the adoption of the amendment would reinstate in part-
This is the important point.
-a clause which has already been rejected in its entirety by the committee.

You then went on to reject the amendment offered by the minister of transport of that day, saying that it proposed to reinstate a clause which had already been rejected. In that case you referred to substantial changes and to differences between the objectives of the original clause and the amendment. In this case we have not got a substantial difference. We have not got an objective that is different. Some four clauses are going to be reinstated and in fact the entire old bill is included in new Bill C-207. I cannot see Your Honour ruling in any other way than you did on that occasion and saying anything else but that this bill is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) about the point of order now being discussed.
At the outset of his remarks, the minister seemed to suggest that the motion before the house on Monday, February 19 last was that the bill be now read for the third time. But he forgot to add that when the Speaker calls for the question, he also asks us that the bill be now read the third time and passed. The minister did not add the words: "Agreed to and passed".
Now, what was the answer of the house? It was of the opinion that the bill be not now agreed to. It was not merely a matter of saying "now". The opposition did not introduce any amendment to say in six or eight months. The opposition simply voted against the bill, and rejected it.
In addition, the Minister of National Health and Welfare feels that there are some differences between Bill No. C-207 and the former Bill No. C-193. He says: Bill No. C-207 does not only apply to individuals, like the former bill, but also to corporations. Now, that part concerning individuals, namely the surtax on personal income tax was defeated with Bill No. C-193.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare maintained that the new bill only applied to corporation income tax, then it would be different. But he adds corporations only to be in a position to include the 3 per cent on personal income tax. It only means that he adds, in the same sentence, part of what has already been rejected in Bill No. C-193, and other things, so that what has already been rejected can be agreed to.
March 11, 19G8


Georges-J. Valade: It is arsenic.


Gilles Grégoire: For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the bill is the same as the one which has already been presented.
Those are the remarks which I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.

March 11, 1968
Income Tax Act


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not prolong this discussion unduly because I think we all agree that the basic principle involved is simple although its application may be difficult. The basic principle surely is this: Is the question raised by the new bill essentially the same as that raised by the old bill? I doubt very much that an exact precedent can be found. I think this is a question which has to be decided upon the basis of common sense. One of the questions raised is whether a 5 per cent surcharge on personal income tax is essentially the same as a 3 per cent surcharge on personal income tax. If my recollection is correct, the 5 per cent surtax would have raised approximately $185 million and the 3 per cent surtax will raise about $105 million, a difference of $80 million. How can hon. members opposite say that $80 million represent a meaningless difference unless they are prepared to say "what is $80 million"? I do not think they would wish to take that attitude.
To get down to figures which we can perhaps understand more easily, suppose I am offered $50,000 for my home. This raises a question, should I sell? But if someone else offers me $30,000 for the same home, it seems to me it becomes a very different question. It is clear to me that on common sense grounds, apart from other circumstances, a 5 per cent surtax on personal income tax is very different from a 3 per cent surtax on personal income tax.
Other differences have been referred to. There is the fact that to make up in part for the revenue lost by the reduction in the surtax on personal income tax the surtax is now to apply to corporations. There is the fact that no limitation is now placed on the maximum tax-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether we are making much progress by having these figures quoted. They were quoted in detail by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have heard them a few times now.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker, because I think as you do that we have been discussing for several minutes whether or not Bill No. C-207 is a repetition of Bill No. C-193.
Now, I believe that citation 148 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms,

4th edition, quoted earlier, can be applied here:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session-
Government members maintain that Bill No. C-207 is different from Bill No. C-193 but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) maintains the opposite. The fact is that the principle of Bill No. C-207 remains the same as that of Bill No. C-193. What we discussed on February 19 and on preceding days concerned a surtax proposed in Bill No. C-193, and we will again be discussing a surtax. Whether that tax is 2, 3, 5, or 10 per cent, the basic principle remains the same.
Now, we are asked to discuss again the surtax that I regard as poison because, in the present circumstances, this is really a poison, and whether it is administered in small or in large doses, it still remains a poison.
I believe we are going to repeat the speeches we had the opportunity to deliver while considering Bill No. C-193. We will resort to the same arguments and maintain the same positions, because we are definitely against a surtax at this time. I say the government is acting hypocritically in introducing Bill No. C-207, because it had promised that Bill No. C-193 would be dead and gone and would not be reintroduced in this house. Now, they are introducing just about the same bill, with a few changes in the details of Bill No. C-193. The surtax rate is 3 per cent and the corporations are also taxed, but the principle of the bill is exactly the same from beginning to end, from A to Z, and we shall oppose it. Mr. Speaker, we humbly submit to you that this bill is but a repetition of the other one.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I should mention to hon. members that I do not propose to give a decision immediately. I should like to have at least a few minutes in which to study the interesting arguments put forward by those who have taken part in this debate.
However, I should like to refer specifically now to one question which has already been decided and to which reference was made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that is, the question of notice which was raised originally by the hon. member for Lapointe. The substance of the ruling I made at the time, a ruling which I still think is in order, was that
March 11, 1968

our procedure in regard to a resolution in ways and means is distinctive; no notice is required for the very reason that such resolutions are introduced in committee of ways and means. The resolution does not exist until it is introduced in committee of ways and means which is set up not by notice but at the beginning of each session. No motion is required for the Speaker to leave the chair and the house to go into committee of ways and means to consider something about which the house may have no notice at all. I am assured by the clerks that there is not one single precedent in the whole history of this parliament of a ways and means resolution having been placed on the order paper by way of formal notice. It is only appended to the notice paper. There must be a reason that this type of resolution is not given the usual type of notice provided for by standing order No. 41. The reason is that such resolutions are initiated in ways and means.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Perhaps I should have mentioned the other day that there is an apparent discrepancy between the procedure which has always been followed and standing order 41. It may well be that our rules should be amended in some way relative to supply and ways and means procedure or that we should change the procedure which has been followed in the past. Certainly there seems to be something basically wrong with the principle that a resolution can be brought in without notice at all in the committee of ways and means, by virtue of a long-standing practice of the House of Commons. Some hon. members may wish that I submit this matter to the committee on procedure. In fact, I propose to submit it to the chairman of the committee and ask him to review the situation which was raised at the time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that it was a grey area. I admit that it is at least grey and I would ask him, along with his colleagues on the committee, to review the situation.
Returning to the perhaps more important question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members and having considered the point of order, the house might allow me a few moments to review the argument, to look over the blues and study the precedents quoted by all hon. members. I am sure I will be in a position in the latter part of this afternoon to give a decision. If the government house leader is in agreement I would suggest that he might call another order to allow the Speaker to leave the chair.
27053-471J
Supply-Finance


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, your suggestion can be carried out by the house going into the committee of supply and continuing with the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tar-dif in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Administration-
4c. Grant to the endowment fund of the Vanier Institute of the Family-L'institut Vanier de la famine, $236,869.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. House again in committee of supply, supplementary estimates (C) 1967-68, Department of Finance, vote 4c.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the estimates of the Department of Finance, a suggestion has been made widely on this side of the house which I am happy to voice. The suggestion is that we take up the supplementary items of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am sure we can pass these quickly and give the veterans the assurance that their disability pensions will be increased.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to pass the estimates of the Department of Finance and then we might proceed with the Department of Veterans Affairs. I believe this would satisfy everybody.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Municipal Development and Loan Board_
46c. Further amount required in the current and subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of Finance Votes 50b of Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966, and 50e of Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, respecting the forgiveness of 25% of the amounts of the loans made to municipalities under the Municipal Development and Loan Act, $17,000,000.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lc. Departmental administration, $11,300.
Item agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, if it is acceptable to the Chair we might now call the Department of Veterans Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Administrationlc. Departmental Administration-To extend the purposes of Veterans Affairs Vote 1 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to include the recoverable expenditures and the payment detailed in these Estimates, $1.

March 11, 1968
Supply-Veterans Affairs
The Assisianl Depuly Chairman: Estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, administration, Vote lc.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to make a statement concerning the intentions of the government in respect of veterans pensions so that it will be on the record at this time.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I think I did that at the time I made tthe announcement. The intention of the government is to increase the pensions 15 per cent across the board effective January 1, 1968. I appreciate the co-operation of members in dealing with these estimates today. We will be able to get the cheques out by the end of the month.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inform us what he intends to do with regard to war veterans allowances?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I also answered that question some time ago. We have considered it and there is no intention to proceed with it at the moment in view of the adjustment which was made previously.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs this afternoon. The veterans of this country have waited a long time for the 15 per cent increase that was promised them by the minister last fall. It certainly is high time this matter was brought before the house. It is too bad that the Woods report on veterans affairs has not been presented. The minister says this is because of the difficulties in translation from one language to the other. I wonder, however, whether that really is the situation. I wonder whether Mr. Justice Woods may perhaps have said something in that report that the government does not like and is afraid to bring before the house.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I think he would want to be fair. No member of the government, including myself, has seen the report. We do not know what is in it.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that the Woods report had been presented to the minister and that he was in possession of it. I apologize to him for having made a statement which I apparently made out of turn.
The veterans have waited a very long time and feel that this government throughout its
[Mr. MacEachen.l
whole life has not given them proper consideration. Their pensions have been graded according to the lowest category of civil servant. They have not received increases comparable with the increases granted to civil servants. Therefore their pensions perhaps should be again reviewed so that they might be brought more in line with the wages and salaries of the same class of civil servants.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is unfortunate that veterans pensions are tied to the lowest paid class of civil servants, because our veterans are Canadian citizens who volunteered for the armed services that were brought into being when necessity faced our nation. Not all the people who enlisted were in that low category of civil servant. Some very able men served in the ranks as private soldiers. I have spoken about two of the men who served with me. They were both killed beside me. One was a very noted lawyer-he was a private soldier-and the other was a minister of the Presbyterian church. They were both university graduates and could certainly not be considered as those in the lowest paid class of the civil service. I am not saying anything against the lower categories of civil servants, but I believe that veterans are entitled to more consideration than being tied, so far as their pensions are concerned, to the lowest paid class of civil servant in the government of Canada.
I do not want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, and take up too much time because I know other hon. members wish to speak on these estimates. I think it is a very good thing that we have an opportunity to discuss the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs this afternoon, and the sooner this item is passed the sooner our veterans will receive the increases in their pensions.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, we are naturally very glad that the government found it possible to bring forward these estimates at this time. I assure hon. members that there will be no delay so far as our party is concerned. I would ask the minister to give us the assurance that the increases in veterans pensions will go out in the March cheques.
There is one point, and only one, that I wish to make. It is with regard to directives that have gone out to Veterans Land Act offices across the country respecting restrictions on loans to veterans who apply for establishment under the Veterans Land Act. According to the directives that have gone out, starting April 1 this year a veteran will
March 11. 1SS3
not be able to receive a loan under the Veterans Land Act if his income is more than $7,000 or, in the case of the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland, if his income is more than $6,000. This restriction does not apply in cases where a new house is to be built. I must confess right off the bat that I do not know the details of these instructions.
I wish to sidetrack for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to indicate the position at which we have arrived in Canada with respect to directives which are not confidential. Administrative directives go out to several hundred members of the civil service, even to the lowest of the low clerks in the civil service. But when a member of parliament asks for a copy of such a directive the minister himself refuses to give him a copy. There must be a rethinking on the part of the government of Canada with regard to its attitude toward members of parliament.
I can, as a veteran, go into a Veterans Land Act office and obtain a great deal more information by asking questions than I can by writing to the minister. The minister ordered his top civil servants to send me a summary of these directives. I have obtained ten times as much information from inquiring at Veterans Land Act offices than the minister gave me in a letter. This is a different subject, Mr. Chairman, but it is something that requires the attention of governments in the future. We have arrived at a deplorable situation when members of parliament cannot get information to which every civil servant has access.
Coming back to the restrictions on Veterans Land Act applicants in the future, it is true that this policy is supposed to apply for one year only. I maintain that we can be sure of that only if the present government is not in office at the end of that year. I recognize that behind this directive, this policy decision of the government, is the saving of money, but there are certain places where it is not possible, reasonable or feasible to save money. Veterans legislation such as the Veterans Land Act was passed by parliament as a reward for service. It was not social welfare legislation. It was never intended that there would be a means test to ascertain whether a person should receive benefits under the Veterans Land Act for university training or reestablishment. Whether a veteran was to receive these benefits was not dependent on the amount of income he earned. These benefits were provided as a reward for service.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Beginning on April 1 of this year we could have a most anomalous position. Let us say that veteran A has five children, had meritorious service, receive a disability pension of 100 per cent and has not been able up to now to save enough money for a down payment on a house under the Veterans Land Act. When he goes to the Veterans Land Act office he will be rejected if he resides in the Atlantic provinces or Newfoundland and his income is $6,001. If the veteran is from elsewhere in Canada his application will be rejected if his income is $7,001.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Be fair, now.


George Louis Chatterton: But another veteran who has no children will probably be able to receive a loan because his income is less than the minimum set by the government. I should like the minister to tell us later what will happen when such an applicant applies. Will the minister use his discretion? Why were these directives issued saying that in the circumstances I have outlined a loan cannot be made?
There is another class of veteran who could be badly hit. I refer to those now in the armed forces. As hon. members know, members of the armed forces can receive a loan under the Veterans Land Act only if they are on their last posting and they can get a letter to certify that they are on their last posting. However, it is very difficult to get such a letter. The result is that many veterans who stayed in the armed forces and have not hitherto been able to qualify for a loan under the Veterans Land Act will in the ensuing year beginning April 1 not be able to get such a loan.
I have not been able to find out what other exceptions there are. I realize that where the loan is for a new house the veteran will be able to get it. However, I have not been able to find out exactly what will be the situation with regard to full-time farmers. I understand that under the Veterans Land Act those full-time farmers who apply for a loan in order to remove an encumbrance will be refused. I maintain that this is an extremely wrong princinle to adopt in the case of legislation which was intended as a reward for service. It was certainly never the intention of parliament when the Veterans Land Act and other veterans legislation was passed that there should be any kind of a means test with respect to the reward to be given for service. I hope that before we pass these estimates the minister will answer some of the questions I



March 11, 1988
Supply-Veterans Affairs raised or refute them if the information I have obtained about these directives is incorrect.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased that the last speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, brought up the point about the position of the present members of the armed forces with respect to establishing their claims for loans under the Veterans Land Act without having received a firm notice that they are on their last posting. I would be very interested to hear the minister's reply on this point.
I want to bring out once again, even more forcibly than I brought it up before if that is possible, the matter of domiciliary care for veterans, particularly the older veterans. If I may refresh the memories of some hon. members on this point, may I point out that I am not talking about complete medical care but rather about care for older soldiers who do not require full hospital and medical care but do require some medical supervision and some place to go where there is someone to look after them.
I realize this is a provincial matter, but I do not think we can shrug off our federal responsibility with respect to these men and women, and shortly there will be an increasing number of women as those women who served in the armed forces in the second world war become in need of this type of care. We cannot shrug off our federal responsibility in this regard. These people have served their country in time of need, and I am quite positive that the country would hate to see them out on the streets, so to speak, with no one to look after them. Therefore I think it is up to the Department of Veterans Affairs to take up this challenge and deal with it.
However, I wish to go on record as saying that I realize how humane the Department of Veterans Affairs has been so far in their dealings with cases of this sort. I realize how they have bent the regulations as far as possible to provide the kind of assistance which these people need. But I think we have reached the point now where, with the provinces unable to cope with this situation and regardless of how many pensions we give, the total amount of money is not sufficient to provide an old veteran with the type of facilities he needs in his old age.
I would like to hear from the minister exactly what the government is prepared to do about this matter. I will not expect him to

have the answers at his fingetrips right now, but I wish to serve notice on him that the next time his estimates come before the house I will want to hear some firm government policy from his lips. The time has passed when we can afford to make do with the facilities provided up to now by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and if we are going to be honest about this we must realize that we will have to provide what is required in the absence of the necessary provisions being made by the provincial governments. I should like to reiterate that I realize how far the department officials have bent the regulations to meet the need, but more facilities must be provided for the ever-increasing need.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as usual I shall be quite brief. I do not intend to take the time of the house to deal with the administration of the department because that is being done very thoroughly by the members of the standing committee on veterans affairs. The officials in the various branches of the department come before the committee and explain to its members how the department operates in various provinces and various sections of Canada. However, I do wish to say that having been a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs since 1945 I know the officials of the department have set a standard of excellence in their human approach to the problems that veterans and their dependents face which could be copied to an even greater extent by some officials in other departments.
I rise at this time to say in particular that I am delighted that these estimates provide for $7,800,000 to pay for the 15 per cent increase in disability pensions. This increase was welcomed by all the veterans organizations, which I understand wrote the minister on this account, and it was certainly welcomed by the veterans and their dependants. As a matter of fact, some veterans discussed this matter with me recently and told me how fortunate they thought it was that they got the 15 per cent increase before the economy moves were undertaken. At one time they were very worried. The increase applies as of January 1. It will take some time for these pensions to be recalculated and they will receive the 15 per cent increase for the first three months with their April cheques. I am very glad the house has agreed to go ahead with these estimates at this time to make this possible because I know a great deal of work is
March 11, 1968

involved in preparing the cheques and sending them out to the veterans concerned and to their dependants.
I received many representations with respect to this matter and I have no hesitation in saying that the veterans and their dependants were very worried about the possibility of an early dissolution of parliament as the result of the confidence motion. I am pleased that we are considering these estimates now in time for the office work to be done so that the veterans will have no further reason to worry.
There is another matter which I am sure will come before the standing committee on veterans affairs when it meets, I presume, after the Woods report is tabled in both languages. I am referring to the new formula which I expect the departmental committee has devised and will bring before the committee so that in future disability pensions will be based on a sound foundation. I remember quite well that when the first act was drawn up the basic pension was based on the wages of a casual labourer or someone working in maintenance work in the House of Commons. There is no relationship today between the scale of pensions and the original intention when the act was established. I trust that the minister's committee will recommend something to correct that injustice.
I have a word or two to say about war veterans allowances. It is late in this session, but I expect that when the standing committee on veterans affairs meets to study the recommendations of the Woods report with respect to the administration of the Canadian pension commission the commission will also make representations before the committee with regard to certain changes they think are desirable in war veterans allowances. I will not say any more about this matter at this time because I would like to hear the representations from veterans organizations.
I would like to say that the veterans organizations seem to be very responsible since they have had an opportunity to make representations to the government. I remember a different set of circumstances which prevailed in the United States where in some cases such organizations asked for government action which could not be justified by the circumstances at the time. But I do want to pay a tribute to all veterans organizations in this country for their responsible approach to these problems, having in mind that these
Supply-Veterans Affairs pensions have to be paid for from the consolidated revenue fund and having in mind the needs of the veterans and their dependants whom they represent.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Before resuming my seat I want to bring one or two other matters to the attention of the minister. I want to thank the minister for his willingness to have officials of the Veterans Land Act administration go into the Arrow lakes and other areas affected by the Columbia treaty project. He will be interested to know that one of his officials went to Kelowna not so long ago to deal with a problem of a veteran. He was very concerned about it. Later the veteran was pleased with the result of this man's visit. He was satisfied because he got other land to compensate him for the land that was to be flooded. Other arrangements were also made, as a result of support from one of the minister's officials, and the veteran appreciates this.
This department is reaching its closing phase so I ask the minister to urge his officials to go into that area again to clean up the few odd cases that remain. I should like to deal particularly with a veteran who is not a settler under the Veterans Land Act. He is an old veteran with whom I served in the first world war. I am informed that the B.C. Hydro and power authority is going to expropriate his property. His wife is a rather vigorous lady so they will have quite a time in getting that veteran and his wife off the property if they send in the police.
The man in question is very ill so his wife has had to carry on the battle in his name. She has done an excellent job. They have a very good farm in the Arrow lakes district some six or seven miles from Nakusp. I trust that the minister will get one of his officials to go there and have a chat with this man to see if the parties cannot be brought together in order that this project will not be marred by some unfortunate incident. It is unfortunate for the veteran concerned because he has a very fine property. I thank the minister for doing this on one or two other occasions for men who had not settled under the Veterans Land Act. I know of one or two instances in which, as a result of a visit from a Veterans Land Act official, the veteran got a few thousand dollars more from B.C. Hydro and agreed that the compensation was fair.
One other matter about which I receive some complaint concerns veterans who have to have dentures or dental treatment. They are required to go to Shaughnessy for this

March 11, 1968
Supply-Veterans Affairs work. In view of the ages of some of these men I hope that arrangements can be made for a local dentist to do this work for them so they will not be caused this unnecessary inconvenience. I note I have the support of the hon. member for Cariboo in this connection.
The other point I wish to make concerns prescriptions. There are a few veterans who require drugs repeatedly. Under the present arrangments they are required to send periodically to Shaughnessy for a new order of these drugs. Some of these men are reaching an age where they are not really capable of writing letters of that sort. I ask the minister to look into that problem to see if the officials at Shaughnessy could not give authority to some local doctor or druggist to provide the drugs required by these veterans. In some cases they find it very difficult to comply with this regulation.
These are my remarks at the present time. I know there are others who want to speak and I hope these estimates will be completed by six o'clock so these veterans will have their fears removed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question or two about the Woods report. My understanding is that the board of inquiry, or whatever they call themselves, completed their hearings around June 15 last year. Then, of course, the board reviewed the evidence in order to write its report. My understanding is that the report was completed in October and has been awaiting translation for months. On February 8, as recorded on page 6501 of Hansard, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked the minister a question with regard to whether the Woods report had been translated. The minister replied as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker. I have no information other than what I gave the house last week. I will make inquiries, but I understand that it should be in my hands by the middle of this month.
That would be the middle of February, which is some time ago now. Then the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked a supplementary question:
In view of the fact that it has already taken four months to complete the translation, will the minister now in any event study the report in English so that a decision may be expedited?
So many things have gone wrong with the present administration that I am not surprised that the translation of the Woods repor has been delayed. However, it seems to me the minister has not shown much initiative in
fMr. Herridge.]
pressing for the translation of that report. Why are the veterans placed at the bottom of the list with regard to the translation of reports? So far as veterans are concerned the investigation by the Woods committee with regard to the Pension Act was considered and is still considered to be of vital importance. It has been delayed for years. The committee, I believe, was quite competent to review the matter, so why this endless delay? The minister says, I have not received the report. Who has the report? Where is it in this great conglomeration of government administration? To whom was the report made? Was it made to the minister or the Prime Minister? In whose hands is that report and why can it not be translated? This is a clear case of discrimination against the veterans of this country.
It seems to me that one of the priority tasks last fall should have been the translation of that report and tabling it in the house as well as referring it to the standing committee on veterans affairs. The time to work on it would have been during the course of the winter. As I see it now, we are not going to have this report in our hands before the session comes to an end. When the next session starts there will be delays. The minister will say if he is then the minister, and I express the hope that he may be transferred to another department, that he has not received the report or it has not been translated. A whole year will have gone by before the disability pensioners of this country have any idea whether or not justice is going to be done to them at long last.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned once again that the basic pension of the disability pensioners should be adjusted. It bears no relationship to conditions and has no relationship to the sacrifice that has been made by these men. We have been looking to the Woods report to present a solution to this problem.
I conclude by remarks, Mr. Chairman, by asking the minister to give us an explanation as to why he cannot get action on the simple matter of the translation of this report. We have had all sorts of other things translated and reports filed but, oh no, if it is a veterans affairs matter it is at the bottom of the list. I hold the minister responsible for this shabby neglect of the disability pensioners of this country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. First of all I want to echo the
March 11, 1968	COMMONS
strong sentiments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and also to point out that in my constituency, and I am sure in all others across Canada, there are invariably veterans who feel that the burden of proof imposed upon them by the Canadian Pension Commission is unjust. We have all had the idea that in cases of doubt the issue should be resolved in favour of the veterans; yet I know of several instances in my own area- and I am sure other hon. members have had the same experience-where veterans feel that the burden of proof is resolved against them unless they can clearly establish their case.
I understand that the purport of the legislation was not to throw that stringent a burden upon a veteran who may have some complaint or disability which he finds virtually impossible to link up with service rendered to Canada years ago. I further understand that the Woods report will deal with this point, which I think makes it all the more necessary that the minister see to it that those responsible for translating the report place it before us as soon as possible. If it is only the translation that is holding up the report, then I think this is one of the biggest arguments that can be raised against bilingualism. Whether a report be in one language or the other, surely the important thing is to have it before us so that some action can be taken to clear up long-standing abuses. Certainly I hope this action will be taken.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs is busily taking notes, presumably in order to reply to the questions being raised in the committee. There are two matters upon which I should like some clarification from the minister. First, what, if anything, can he do to assist people on war veterans allowance who for some time have been experiencing a nightmare? I admit that the nightmare was not created directly by the minister but rather by his colleague, the minister of National Health and Welfare, who brought in the supplementary benefit for recipients of the old age security pension. As the minister knows, that department invited people to apply for the supplementary benefit. A great many people on war veterans allowance accepted that invitation in good faith but as a result found themselves in what I have described as a nightmarish situation in that they would have received more than the allowable income permitted under war veterans allowance.
DEBATES	7487
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I have not had the experience on the veterans affairs committee of my colleague from Kootenay West, but I do try to follow the statements made by the minister in the house from time to time. One of the matters that I feel the minister has still not explained to the satisfaction of myself and certainly to the satisfaction of some people on war veterans allowance is how the increase resulting from the cost of living index provision can be allowed to war veterans allowance recipients without exceeding the ceiling on income but the supplementary benefit itself cannot be allowed. How is somebody on war veterans allowance going to sort out all the permutations that can arise in this situation?
For example, a person on old age security receives the $1.50 or 2 per cent increase. If he has applied for and is receiving the supplementary benefit he gets the extra 60 cents a month. On the other hand, if he decides, as an increasing number of recipients of war veterans allowance have, not to reapply after one year's receipt of the old age supplementary benefit, then I understand he is not entitled to the 60 cents a month cost of living bonus, which to say the least is a fairly modest amount. Nevertheless people with the kind of income ceiling that such recipients of war veterans allowance have are called upon to take into account relatively small amounts of money.
How can the minister justify the equity of a system-I realize that this matter does not come wholly within the purview of his department-whereby certain people on war veterans allowance receive the cost of living bonus while others are unable to do so, depending on whether they decide to apply for the supplementary benefit? Without going into this question extensively, because the matter has been debated in the house, could the minister explain with a greater degree of clarity than he has hitherto why it is that there is a ruling that war veterans allowance recipients cannot be allowed to receive the old age income supplement if they are also old age security pensioners unless it is included in their income for purposes of the ceiling?
There is one other question I want to raise with the minister. I grant that this may be a temporary situation but it is one that arises in connection with war veterans allowance recipients who are receiving a disability pension from the United Kingdom. If my understanding is correct there was an increase in the disability pension rate in the United

March 11, 1968
Supply-Veterans Affairs Kingdom just prior to the recent devaluation of the pound. As a result people in Canada in receipt of this pension expected to get the increase. However, when they cashed their cheques they found they got less than before. If I understand the situation correctly, the decision of the war veterans allowance board was that for war veterans allowance income purposes the British pound would be valued at its pre-devaluation level, with the result that for a one month period recipients of war veterans allowance in Canada actually received less in Canadian dollars than they would have had the British pound not been devalued and the disability pensions not raised.
This kind of action is pretty niggardly, to say the least. I do not understand all the complexities of the timing, but according to my information the practical effect of the situation is that war veterans allowance recipients in Canada are actually receiving a number of dollars less from the United Kingdom, according to the size of their disability pension, than they would have otherwise received. If this is an administrative decision it is a pretty unfortunate one to make at a time when the present government is supposed, as it says, to be exercising economy measures. I hardly think we need go that far. If the minister can clarify the two situations I have raised I think it would be of value to veterans across the country and might perhaps give us some understanding of what course of action should be taken in regard to some of these matters when they are dealt with in greater depth than is possible in this committee at the present moment.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to let the debate on supplementary estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs go by without saying a few words on the overall problem of Canadian veterans.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) made some statements which, to my mind, were most unfair for the hon. minister. I do not want to take it upon myself to defend the minister, because I know that he is capable of finding the necessary arguments to justify certain attitudes or positions his department has taken in the face of problems which have come up. But I do want to tell the members I hope personally that in spite of what happens
[Mr. Barnett.)
in the next few days and months, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) will continue in that post, for, in my opinion, he is the one who has best served the interests of veterans.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. minister for the step he has taken-that is why the supplementary estimates of his department are before the house-by increasing the veterans' pensions by 15 per cent. If one considers the various increases granted in previous years, one finds that they actually represent a substantial improvement, compared to the pensions paid when the present government came into power.
Of course, there is still a great deal to be done and, personally, I hope that it will be possible to readjust those pensions according to some schedule so as to avoid asking the house constantly for further increases. But until then, Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister is to be commended, and I hope that the inter-departmental committee now considering the basic rates of pensions will be in a position to submit to him a report which will result, in the next months, in the introduction of a piece of legislation designed to settle this problem once and for all.
As far as the Woods report is concerned, I hope, like all members of the veterans affairs committee, that it will be referred as soon as possible to that committee, either the report itself, or a summary of that report, or still a piece of legislation relating thereto. But it is urgent that the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs provide an opportunity for organizations to make representations and offer comments in order that we may obtain a complete reform and reorganization of the Pension Commission, with a view to improving the situation and serving the interests of veterans better.
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that this report which, according to my information will be quite long, will open the way toward improvements in the pension field, for the greater good of veterans.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would simply thank the members of the house who are members of the committee on veterans affairs for their co-operation, but I would say to them that when this report is sent to the committee, we shall have a great deal of serious work to do, so as to help the minister in accomplishing a reform which has perhaps been delayed, but which will surely be worth it.
March 11, 1968
However, I must comment on the remark made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who said that it might be one of the reasons why he might have reservations about bilingualism if the latter entailed such delays in the introduction of reports in both languages. I wonder what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) would have said if the French version only of the Woods report had been tabled in the house.
This is a very technical report. One should not forget that such reports comprise some quite technical terms and that it is important that both ethnic groups can have an exact understanding of the recommendations in precise terms and in a quite definite translation. I think that perhaps the Woods commission, which has undertaken this translation itself, should be urged to speed it up a little, but I am convinced that the minister will receive the report and that it will be made available to us without delay, so that the committee can get to work if this report is sent to it.
tEnglish]


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just taken his seat directed some remarks at me and I do not expect he will quarrel with my rising. My response to his remarks is simple. I would not mind if the report were written in Latin, in Iroquois or in any other language. If there has been an injustice it is up to the government to correct that injustice. It should not hide behind the excuse that it has had to wait for months and months for a translation. If the report can only come before us in French and if the recommendations of the report are sound, the government should act on those recommendations. I would accept that wholeheartedly. I do not think we should take a good cause and trample on it or postpone action by hiding behind bilingualism.


Gérald Laniel: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member know that the veterans association did not want that report to be referred to officials of the pension commission before it was referred to the committee on veterans affairs? The association did not want the commission to begin work on the report before the report had been made available to the committee because the veterans association wished to make representations to the committee in order to help in the preparation of a good committee report.
27053-472^
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not quarrel with the request of the veterans association nor do I argue with the hon. member. His remarks do not seem germane to the point we were arguing about.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to hold up the minister's estimates. Like many other hon. members I feel that the increase in pensions is long overdue, and I welcome it.
I wish to bring one or two matters to the minister's attention. One is the interminable delay that some people experience in trying to have their appeals heard. I shall not go into great detail and I shall cite only one case as an example. It is the case of a veteran who was receiving a disability pension and who died approximately two years ago. Because it was alleged that his disability was only two-fifths attributable to war service his wife was not entitled to a war pension. Following his death strong evidence came to light contesting the allegation that his disability was two-fifths attributable to his war service and supporting strongly the widow's claim for a pension. I will not go into details about the case since it is being processed. I shall merely say that from my reading of the evidence there is a strong case for paying the widow a pension. She appealed the previous decision some months ago and despite numerous telephone calls and letters I understand that the appeal will not be heard until May or June.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The widow is faced with a real problem. She has a child attending a secondary school. He will finish school this year and she wants to send him to a university. Although she does not at present need financial assistance she is obliged to conserve the little money she has in order to hold on to her home. Her resources are not enough to permit her to further the education of her child without assistance and she is anxious to know where she stands so far as the child is concerned. In all fairness I do not understand why there should be such a delay in handling appeals after all the evidence has been turned in. In cases of this kind, widows are placed in an extremely unenviable position.
I have been involved in another similar case. The appeal was finally decided in the widow's favour after the case had been under consideration for almost five years. Such delays appear to be unnecessary and when they do occur the provision for 12 months



March 11, 1968
Supply-Veterans Affairs retroactive pay is insufficient. Something should be done to expedite the handling of appeals in cases such as those I have mentioned.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. We are waiting for a reply from the minister. If he is not going to reply there will have to be further discussion. I give him the opportunity. Does he intend to answer the questions which have been raised?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I think I should be permitted to wait until all the representations have been made and then reply to the questions. I do not think I ought to get up half a dozen times to speak on different points.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case perhaps the committee should allow the item to stand until we have dealt with the other questions. Otherwise the minister might be ruled out of order when he does rise to speak.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not think it is a question of passing this item immediately. After hon. members have asked their questions and made their comments I shall be glad to deal with them.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on this matter. I think we are all deeply in debt to the present minister. The announcement that this rather substantial increase was to come was made on December 20. Anyone who reflects on the events of that time will recall the situation on the London money market, the scramble there, virtually duplicated in every treasury in the western world, the anxious preoccupation with budget balancing, fiscal responsibilities and so on. Bearing in mind the fact that my hon. friend has brought in three substantial increases in the less than five years during which he has held his present portfolio, the increase before the one now contemplated having been on September 1, 1966, and bearing in mind the sacrifices we are asking the Canadian people generally to make so as to present a position of fiscal responsibility and integrity to the world, I think it is greatly to the minister's credit that he should bring forward this recommendation now.
I am sure we are all anxious that the Woods committee report should not be delayed. I feel it would be very wrong if the report came to us in English alone and we had to await a second report in French. As one who appeared before the Woods committee and therefore seized with the highly technical

arguments that were brought to bear on certain sections of the Pension Act, I can think of nothing more painful than the necessity of re-examining later, in another language, the significance of the committee's recommendations.
We are looking forward not to a modest change in pension legislation but to a new, streamlined act which will meet the requirements of veterans as we find them today rather than as we found them at the conclusion of the war. I think the report will recommend far reaching changes and, as I say, I hope it comes forward very shortly.
During the past week I lost a friend, a member of my battery with the same rank as myself. He left a widow and a family-two children at university, I believe. Had it been possible to implement the recommendations of the Woods committee, the financial position of this veteran before he died might have been altogether different and the circumstances of his dependants would consequently be much more satisfactory. Over the weekend a doctor friend of mine, an active Conservative, incidentally, telephoned to tell me about another friend of mine, a man who fought overseas as a very young fighter pilot and who may die very soon. The changes one might expect from the Woods committee recommendations could very well bring about major improvements in the lives of veterans such as these two and I suggest that the minister, who is most sympathetic in this connection, might reflect on the serious consequences of undue delay.
In calculating pensions paid to veterans we often find that the basis used is the salary currently received by low paid civil servants. By comparison the veteran is thought of as a man with a wife, two children and a 100 per cent disability. Perhaps it was not unnatural to expect that a veteran at the conclusion of a war would have a wife and two children; I can understand why this comparison was made originally. But possibly the French officials whom we interviewed in Paris at the Boulevard des Invalides were correct in their approach, that compensation should be paid with the veteran alone in mind, not his wife and his other dependants.
Such a suggestion is immediately questioned, of course, by experts such as the officials of service organizations who say that additional pension allowances are required in respect of a wife and children or the family simply could not survive. But this approach, I feel, begs the question. The amount of the
March 11, 1968


George Louis Chatterton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We on this side purposely cut down our speeches so that the minister would have a chance to reply before six o'clock. The discussion which the hon. member for Leeds is now carrying on could be more properly carried on after we have received the Woods report. We want to get these estimates accepted today because we might not have a chance after six o'clock.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing more to add.


George Louis Chatterton: You were taking up time.


John Ross Matheson: That is not fair.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, on rising to reply to the representations and queries I wish to express my thanks to the members of the committee for the interest they have again shown in this very important subject. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was
Supply-Veterans Affairs the first to speak and some of the subjects he covered were also mentioned by a number of other hon. members. Speaking of the Veterans Land Act, which I know interests the hon. gentleman very much, I urge him to understand that there is no question of a means test being applied but certain guide lines-I know that is a much misused word-have been issued to the regional offices in the hope that veterans would go to those offices, ask for explanations and get a clear understanding of what is involved. The hon. gentleman mentioned a figure of $7,000 which was used as a guide line, as an income below which veterans would be given priority. That $7,000 does not include such things as pensions, the wife's income, or family allowances. It is personal income outside of these other things.
This is the guide line that was given and it is hoped that not too many people will be affected. However, it is not mandatory and instructions have gone out that every case is to be judged on its merits in order to avoid the kind of thing that the hon. gentleman mentioned where in some cases a matter of a few dollars might cause hardship. This is only a guide and we hope that no hardship will result.


George Louis Chatterton: Will the minister assure the house that no veteran will be denied a loan simply because of income?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not believe I could give that assurance because the case may arise-I am not speaking of new construction-where a veteran wants to improve his holding but his income is at such a level that it may be felt he could wait for a year before doing so. That could result from this directive.


George Louis Chatterton: Could the minister give us the assurance that no veteran, other than a veteran wanting to build a new house, applying to acquire a small holding or farm will be denied a loan on account of income?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Again I would say that generally speaking this would be the case. I hesitate to give an absolute assurance. A case may easily develop where a veteran might be requested to wait for a year because his personal circumstances were such that he could do so without any hardship. This does not affect the applications of veterans at any time and those who qualify will be eligible, even those who may be asked to delay for a year. It is also my understanding that any effect on farm lending will be negligible. I believe that covers most of the points raised by the hon.

March 11, 1968
Supply-Veterans Affairs member with respect to the Veterans Land Act.
With respect to the 15 per cent increase in pensions and the issuing of the cheques may I say I appreciate very much getting these estimates through today. This will give the officials of the department an opportunity to get to work, although I believe the calculations have already been made. They can now put the operation into the works in order to get the cheques out by the end of this month.
I cannot, of course, give an absolute guarantee because the final authority will not be given until such time as the supplementary estimates bill receives royal assent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is going to be any delay would the minister request that this item be taken out and be made a bill by itself? Then it could be given royal assent right away.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That might be done, and I will be glad to consider it. I see no difficulty about that because once the house has approved I do not think there is much question as to what will happen in the other place. We are very anxious to get this out this month. Even though the March cheque might be only for the regular amount, at least we could get the adjustment cheque out at about the same time.
Hon. members showed much interest and asked a number of questions about the Woods committee report. I should explain the difficulty involved in the translation of it. It is a very extensive report comprising, I understand, some 1,600 pages. As has been mentioned, many technical terms are used when dealing with veterans affairs. In fact reference was made to our own Department of Veterans Affairs jargon. The manner of speaking of veterans when they are dealing with veterans benefits is sometimes extremely difficult to translate, and I have some responsibility for some of the delay in the issuing of the report because I have had the translation very carefully checked as it proceeded. I insisted on this being done in order to make sure that the two texts of the report would mean exactly the same thing.
Not too many hours ago I was informed that the chairman of the committee proposes to be in Ottawa about March 21 and hopes to be in a position to present the report at that time. I certainly hope he can meet that deadline. In view of the criticism that has been levelled at the delays, may I say that I in no way hold the members of the committee

responsible for those delays. Whatever criticism may be justifiably levelled, I accept it. I think they were very diligent in their work. They undertook a tremendous task and considering their enthusiasm and ability I believe that their report will have been well worth waiting for.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised a number of questions concerning eligibility for the $30 a month old age adjustment payment and not it being available to war veterans allowance recipients. The experience has been that administratively this becomes very awkward. This type of thing was done on two occasions in recent years when old age assistance was increased by $10. Things became very difficult administratively. Finally we increased the ceiling of allowable income for war veterans allowance recipients in order to take that in. We also did so again just about the time when the $30 a month supplement came into being. The ceiling was increased to $145 a month for a single man and $245 a month for a married man. While these amounts were needed, part of the reason for this procedure was not to get involved in administrative difficulties.
In the case of the cost of living supplement the amount is small enough that it would not cause difficulties but if it were multiplied four or five times over the years it would. It is anticipated that before this occurs another raise in the ceiling on allowable income for war veterans allowance recipients would be justifiable and there would be a need at that time for this to be absorbed again. If the hon. member would like to speak to some of the officials about this matter I believe the situation could be explained to him much better than I could do it here at this time. I am sure they would be pleased to talk to him.
You will recall that at the time the $30 a month supplement was passed the war veterans allowance board wrote a letter to each war veterans allowance recipient asking that they make no decision before consulting the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. If they would follow that course, I believe they would find that the decision taken would be to their advantage. The officials of the department would advise the veteran to make the type of application that would be most beneficial to him. I might suggest that the same situation pertains in respect of the Veterans Land Act. I believe that if they went to the officials they would be given the kind of advice which would be most beneficial to them.
March 11, 1968

I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for again bringing to my attention the difficulties faced by those in his area. As has been the case in the past the officials will do everything possible to be helpful. I believe this is an assurance which members of the house will accept because the officials of the department have a reputation for acting in the interests of the veterans.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote lc carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Shall I rise and report certain resolutions and request that the committee be granted leave to sit later this day or at the next sitting of the house?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, it is not yet six o'clock and we are willing to pass these estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I understand that the Speaker wishes to come into the chamber.


Michael Starr: Before the Speaker comes into the chamber perhaps we might pass these estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall Vote 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the minister leaves the matter of the Veterans Land Act may I ask whether any consideration is being given to a reduction in the size of the veteran's holding to take into consideration the situation where the land value places the land out of the reach of the veteran?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I would like to refer back to the answers I have given the house previously in this regard, if that would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Pensions-
25c. Pensions for Disability and Death-To provide, effective the 1st day of January, 1968, that the Pension Act be amended as follows:
(a)	Schedules A and B to the said Act are repealed and the Schedules A and B set out in the details of the Estimates are substituted therefor; and
(b)	in subsection (2) of section 38 the words "six hundred and thirty-six" are struck out and the words "seven hundred and thirty-two" are substituted therefor; and
(c)	in subsection (4) of section 38 the words "three hundred dollars" are struck out and the words "three hundred and forty-eight dollars" are substituted therefor, $7,800,000.
Income Tax Act
Treatment Services-
38c. Treatment and Related Allowances, $205,000. Veterans Affairs-
LIZOc. To increase to $450,000 the amount that may be charged at any one time to the Working Capital Advance established by Vote 517 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958, for the purpose of financing the manufacture of Remembrance Day poppies and wreaths; additional amount required, $50,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: That completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the order:
Second reading of Bill C-207, an act to amend the Income Tax Act-the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker:: At this time perhaps I might be permitted to apprise hon. members of the ruling I have reached after considering the very interesting arguments submitted earlier this afternoon. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, it is a question which has attracted my attention during the past few days and, as many other hon. members have done, I, too, have reviewed the precedents on the point.
The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and discussed by other hon. members is that Bill C-207 should not be proceeded with because in effect it renews a question decided during the current session. I should like to refer hon. members to citation 200(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition and also to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 328-9. The latter reads as follows:
It is, however, an ancient rule of parliament that "no question or motion can regularly be offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed during the current session." The old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 373(2), reads as follows:
There is no rule which restrains the presentation of two or more Bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions-

March 11, 1968
Income Tax Act
This is a point which is important because some hon. members have suggested we should not discuss similar matters or similar principles during the same session. The experience of hon. members, I am sure, is that we have done that, at least, exceptionally. Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 373(2), continues:
But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such Bill, for example, if the Bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions-
The word "substantially" appears again. Beauchesne's citation 163 reads as follows:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
Again, citation 375(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
A Bill is in order when substantially different from another Bill on the same matter previously disposed of during the session.
The solution, according to Bourinot, must be found within the following proposition which appears at page 329 of his fourth edition:
"The only means by which a negative vote can be revoked is by proposing another question, similar in its general purport to that which had been rejected, but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question; and the house would determine whether it were substantially the same question or not."
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It then becomes a matter of interpretation or judgment whether, in the words of the rule, the motion offered is substantially the same as the one on which the decision of the house has been expressed. The only way to interpret the two measures in relation to the rule is to compare the proposals offered in each case; that is, in the previous bill and in the new bill now before the house.
What the Chair should do, in my view, is to compare the provisions of Bill C-207, now before the house, with those of Bill C-193 which was defeated on third reading. This was done by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by other hon. members who have assisted the Chair. Perhaps hon. members will allow me to refer again to the several clauses.
Clause 1 of the new Bill C-207 deals with a gift tax. It is a completely new proposition which was not dealt with in any way, shape or form in Bill C-193. Clause 2 of Bill C-207,

on the other hand, is a repetition of clause 1 in Bill C-193. Clause 3 of Bill C-207 is consequential upon the change proposed in clause 2 and is also of a purely technical nature. However, this clause is an exact repetition of the corresponding clause in the Bill C-193.
Clause 4 of Bill C-207 is identical with clause 3 of Bill C-193. This clause relates to deductions permitted in computing the tax payable under the farmers' and fishermen's averaging provision. This provision does not appear to be related to a surtax; it is an independent proposition, standing by itself, and I have serious doubts whether it ought to be reintroduced as part of Bill C-207.
Clause 5 of Bill C-207 provides for prepayment of the corporation tax. There are different rates of prepayment. One hon. member found it difficult to see the difference, but there is some difference between this clause and the corresponding clause of Bill C-193. Clause 6 of Bill C-207 is consequential upon the amendments set out in clause 1 thereof. It is entirely new, and therefore it is in no way objectionable.
Clause 7 of Bill C-207 contains the substantive part of the new taxation proposal. It is similar to the previous proposal in that it is a surtax. According to our authorities and precedents, the fact that they are similar proposals in itself is not sufficient to justify a ruling that it is out of order. The test is whether or not there are substantial differences between the two proposals.
The new clause of Bill C-207 provides a special surtax of 3 per cent compared with a surtax of 5 per cent in the original bill. The earlier resolution and bill carried a basic tax floor of $100. The new clause in Bill C-207 increases the basic exemption to $200. The first proposal fixed a ceiling of $600 with regard to surtax payments. Bill C-207 imposes no such limitation. The original surtax was a continuing tax. The revised bill proposes a levy of a fixed duration for the years 1968 and 1969.
The new bill proposes, in clause 7, the imposition of a surtax on the tax paid by corporations. This, of course, is entirely new. There was no similar provision in the previous bill. This in itself would appear to constitute a substantial change making clause 7 of Bill C-207 a new question in relation to clause 5 of Bill C-193. Finally, clause 8 of Bill C-207 dealing with the refund of tax repeats word for word clause 6 of Bill C-193. I find it difficult, again, to justify a repetition of this clause in the new bill.
March 11. 1968

It will be seen, therefore, that while the substantive clauses of Bill C-207 are, in general, substantially new, clauses 2, 3, 4 and 8 of Bill C-207 are a repetition of the clauses in Bill C-193 which was defeated on third reading.
Hon. members have referred to a ruling which the Chair made last year in connection with the transport bill. The hon. member for Acadia in particular and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to this ruling. I am in agreement with what the Chair stated at that time, namely:
The cumulation, however, of all these added changes does not obviate the basic requirement that no part of the new proposal should be inconsistent with the committee's previous decision.
That is a quotation from the ruling of the Chair made on January 26, 1967 (p. 1233, Journals, 1967-8) on an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole when the committee was considering the transport bill. In other words, what we have to guard against is putting the house in a position where it might have to take a decision which in part would be inconsistent with a decision taken previously. I suggest to the house that this is exactly what the house would be doing if it were allowed to adopt clauses 2, 3, 4 and 8 which are exact repetitions of the clauses in Bill C-193 which was defeated on third reading.
For all these reasons my suggestion would be that Bill C-207 should be withdrawn and a new measure introduced which would take into account the fact that there should be no contradiction between it and the decision taken previously.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a citation from May's seventeenth edition, page 522, which is as follows:
If it should become necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, such changes can only be accomplished, at this stage, by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill.
I should bring also to the attention of hon. members that in my view this does not invalidate the ways and means resolution which was adopted last Friday. A new bill based on that resolution and containing clauses which in my view are acceptable and not in contradiction to the principle of the decision on the former bill can be submitted readily to the house, introduced and considered for first reading.
I therefore consider that an order of the house should issue for the withdrawal of the
Income Tax Act
bill now before the house so that the government may have an opportunity to introduce a new measure.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), Indian Affairs-Saskatchewan-medical decision respecting sterilization and contraceptives; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-potatoes-imports from United States into western Canada; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Company of Young Canadians-reported subsidization of private schools in British Columbia.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Government order No. 69, second reading of Bill No. C-207, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the ruling made by His Honour at 6 p.m. I move that the order for second reading of Bill No. C-207 be discharged and the bill withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of introducing a bill based on the ways and means resolution adopted on Friday, February 9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of introducing a bill based on the ways and means resolution adopted on Friday, February 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I am asking leave to introduce is similar to Bill No. C-207 except that it removes those clauses to
7496	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State which His Honour took exception. It also includes one very minor subclause of a very technical nature, which I would have moved in committee, which does not affect in any way the substance of the bill.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we agree, provided the bill receives only first reading this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Sharp moves for leave to present Bill C-208 to amend the Income Tax Act, based on the income tax resolution concurred in by the house on Friday last. Shall the minister have leave to introduce said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the first reading of the bill.


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


Michael Starr: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when copies of the revised bill will be in our boxes?


Mr. Fairweather:: The government is retreating but maintaining the initiative.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It shows how flexible we are. Copies of the bill will be in hon. members' boxes tomorrow morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the Chair to assume that the house will now go into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE Board of Broadcast Governors-
1c. Salaries and other expenses, $35,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply supplementary estimates (C), 1967-68, Department of Secretary of State,

DEBATES	March 11. 1968
Board of Broadcast Governors, vote lc. Shall vote No. lc carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make just a few brief remarks on this item. It would seem to me that the members of the new Board of Broadcast Governors, when they have had an opportunity to get settled, will realize that they should do something to correct what has gone on of late on the C.B.C. television news and news commentaries.
In the last few weeks there have been people in the country who have said they have seen nothing but a complete take-over by the government of the C.B.C. news media, and that the C.B.C. news has become little more than a government brainwashing operation. We saw a good sample of it recently, shortly after February 19, when the Prime Minister returned to Canada from Jamaica and appeared on C.B.C. television. The information that a number of us have been given is that the Prime Minister went on television that evening on the understanding that no other person would be allowed to go on the television after he appeared that evening, and that no commentary would be permitted on his remarks. When one hears these observations made by those who are in a position to know, it becomes very alarming indeed.
As most of us know, television is one of the most powerful media of information to influence the public. In recent weeks, within the space of three days, through the medium of television the names of persons little known to the general public became household words. I believe the new Board of Broadcast Governors should ensure that every effort is made to see that there is no interference by the government in office with the news media. Not only that, but they should ensure that there must appear to be no interference from within the news media. This is very important.
In addition to that, in the house and in other places, the suggestion has been made in the last few months that there has been some political interference with the C.B.C. I do not wish to rehash what has already been said in the house on other occasions, but I would certainly hope that the new Board of Broadcast Governors will take the greatest care to make sure that there is even no appearance of any control of the news media by the government, or indeed by any political party. I hope the new president of the CB.C. will bear this in mind when he assumes his new duties.
March 11. 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Priliie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks while we are on the item concerning the Board of Broadcast Governors. The hon. member for Oxford made a complaint about the news coverage on the C.B.C., and the leader of my party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, also made a passing reference to this subject in the debate which followed the February 19 incident. I am not inclined to make very much of that at the moment because the C.B.C. has a new management, and I think it is only fair for members of the house to give the new president and executive vice president some time to assume control of their jobs and make whatever changes they think are necessary in the operation of the corporation. So I will refrain from making any other remarks concerning the C.B.C. at this time.
The new Broadcasting Act has now received royal assent, and I wish to express the hope that the members of the regulatory authority, the chairman, vice chairman and the members who are to make up the new Canadian Radio and Television Commission, will be appointed without too much delay. We have been drifting for a number of years in the field of broadcasting, beginning with the Fowler report, which was followed by the white paper on broadcasting. Then followed the committee's study on the white paper, and then finally the long debate on the act itself.
It took the government a long time to find the personnel to head the C.B.C.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We understand a number of people refused the job. Let us hope that it will not take as long for the government to find personnel to man the new regulatory authority, because that body will have very important work. The new authority will have the job of controlling radio and television broadcasting in Canada. There are a number of very important things which have to be tackled and the sooner these people are appointed the better.
Then, I should like to refer to some of the items that need to be looked at in the very near future. We have had very strong representations made to the broadcasting committee about the employment of Canadian talent. This is a matter which really cannot be left too much longer. Month by month talented Canadians, actors, writers and producers leave for the United States and the United Kingdom. This problem, if allowed to continue for a matter of a year or two, will result in the loss of the pool of talent this
DEBATES	7497
Supply-Secretary of State country has to do the kind of broadcasting that should be done.
Another matter with which we are dealing in the broadcasting committee at the present time is educational television. One of the matters about which we hear a great deal is whether educational television should be on very high frequency or ultra-high frequency. Recommendations have been made by a number of groups that have appeared before the committee to the effect that all television receivers in Canada should be equipped to receive ultra-high frequency channels. They are not, as yet. Over two years ago I introduced a private members bill on this subject. There is a provision in the new act which would allow the regulatory authority to require Canadian importers or manufacturers to build into all T.V. sets the capacity to receive ultra-high frequency channels. I say this because there are sets still being manufactured without this capability. In fact most sets manufactured in Canada are in this category, and it is going to be essential when educational television actually gets on the air in this country. When that will be I do not know, at the rate we are going at the present time. So I do urge simply that the government, without too much delay, find the people necessary to staff the new Canadian Radio and Television Commission. This commission has in front of it some very important tasks. Enough has been said about broadcasting in general during the debate which took place only last month, so I shall confine my remarks to these few at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed any further with the consideration of the estimates I wonder if we could have some information from the government house leader as to which member of the administration is responsible for piloting these estimates tonight. Several times we have had the President of the Treasury Board in charge, but tonight perhaps it is the Minister without Portfolio who is sitting on the front bench. He always seems to be around whenever a crisis develops.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the Secretary of State who will be back later tonight, I am taking notes of the representations made by hon. members concerning these supplementary estimates.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. March 11. 1968

Supply-Secretary oj State Bechard) say that he was taking it upon himself to listen to any matter related to broadcasting to which we might call his and the government's attention.
It is a rather costly service for Canadian taxpayers. It is true, as the previous speaker just said, that the C.B.C. now has a new management: new presidents, new vice-presidents and new secretaries. We can only express the wish now that this new management will take into account the true situation prevailing in Canada at present and that it will not try to lay down policies but rather to serve the best interests of the Canadian people.
Too often in the past, we have had to deplore serious mistakes on the part of C.B.C. officials, even some high officials. This makes us invite the new administration to be careful, to avoid errors as much as possible. Mistakes will be made, that happens everywhere-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if members hear me as well as I hear them, they hear me very well indeed! I understand that many of them are not interested in what we have to say about a state corporation, and that is why we see quite often that positions are taken which are not compatible with the studies we must make in the house.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak very long about the C.B.C. tonight. I would only say again that we want the C.B.C. to deal with everyone fairly and impartially, to give the Canadian people a just treatment.
In the past, we have seen certain groups receive preferential treatment while others were almost totally ignored. In my opinion, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should respect all schools of thought in Canada and all should be allowed to express their opinion, for only thus, in my opinion, will we achieve greater understanding.
Everyone does not necessarily have the same ideas and opinions. However, the C.B.C. should recognize this basic principle and allow all groups to express their opinions, explain their program and put forward their point of view. This will help to create a spirit of good will and mutual respect in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that on many occasions, we had cause to complain about the administration within the C.B.C. For instance, with regard to news coverage, we are given daily reports on the Viet Nam war,

while current events in Canada are systematically ignored. We are told about terrible massacres which occur thousands of miles away, in countries where the C.B.C. sends reporters with cameras and so on. This is beyond me.
It is all very well to tell us what is going on in Viet Nam, but it is another matter to devote energies and millions of dollars to present solely, more or less, news about war and its atrocities. In my opinion, it would be more important to earmark that money for the extension of broadcasting services to those areas of the country which are still without them.
I want to mention, for example, certain towns in northern Quebec, like Chibougamau and Chapais, where C.B.C. television programs cannot be received. The inhabitants of Parent, along the C.N.R. tracks, cannot receive them either.
For six years now, we have been calling for television for the French-speaking citizens of British Columbia. We are told that when the necessary money is available, the French television network will be extended to the population of western Canada.
We hear in this house flamboyant statements to the effect that there is a wish to respect bilingualism, that the French-speaking citizens should have the same advantages as tire English-speaking, that they should receive equal treatment. But the only place where all Canadians receive equal treatment by the C.B.C. is in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, it would cost far less to the government or to the crown corporation to provide a French television service in the western provinces than to cover wars in Viet Nam, Korea, Africa or other countries in the world.
It is all very well to give us news coverage of current events but, I reapeat, we should first provide services for our own people at home.
It would be very interesting, for example, to have television programs showing the Rocky Mountains and the beautiful lakes in that region. It would also be interesting to see the sights in eastern Canada, in the maritime provinces and in the province of Quebec, for example: the Manicouagan or other very important industries, which would be of great interest to Canadians in the west.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the new C.B.C. management will take into account the wishes of the people, which are mainly to know their country and be informed of what is going on
March 11, 1968

in Canada. The C.B.C. will fulfil this function when it informs the Canadian people of what goes on in Canada, on what exists in Canada, and when it stops spending millions of dollars to cover wars, murders and shameful events.
Mr. Chairman, we firmly believe that the C.B.C. can be useful. It must service Canadians and serve them with justice and objectivity, giving them the right to speak and respecting that right, so that the C.B.C. may be avluable and truly represent the Canadian people.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, we all
remember that the young lady who is Secretary of State said one day that there was something rotten in the C.B.C. That statement angered certain existentialist commentators. I have the impression, just the same, that among the members of this house, that statement met with the acceptance of most of us who are trying to estimate the work performed by the C.B.C. and that, in the party itself, it was agreed that there was much room for improvement in the C.B.C.
At the time when our government was putting forward the improvements, the amendments or the new organizations which we have approved, we hoped that the C.B.C. would give to the Canadian people something more objective and lasting under the circumstances, because we had all deplored, Mr. Chairman, the kind of infiltration which we have all witnessed. I do not think that it is some kind of partisanship merely reflecting electioneering, which is usually deplored, but even then, those conditions were so obvious that we generally recognized there had been some separatism and socialism infiltration within the C.B.C. and in certain fields for reasons which may seem evident to some, less to others, and perhaps also some people who reject all the principles in which we have believed up to now.
Mr. Chairman, I see that my hon. friend, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), disagrees. I do not believe that he is protesting on behalf of that swarm of atheists who would like to bring into question again everything in which we believe, we the representatives of all Canadians, of all faiths or allegiances.
We have seen on the C.B.C. revolutionaries who did not even need the excuse of a more acceptable ideology to be given the right of expressing themselves on the air more often than their turn.
Supply-Secretary of State
Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) said that the C.B.C. could respect all currents of thoughts. That was indeed the opinion of the government which established the C.B.C., of the governments which, ever since, have endeavoured to modernize the C.B.C. structures, and of parliament which has voted this year a very substantial budget to the corporation. I too believe that the C.B.C. should respect every opinion.
However, Mr. Chairman, when I watch the C.B.C. programs, I cannot help noticing that the Liberal party is being treated generously, which is only natural since it is the party in power; the same thing would probably be true of the Conservatives if they were in power. They would be treated just as generously, to be sure.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Members of the New Democratic party also appear more often than their turn, but I am not going to blame them. Perhaps, it is because they have members who are-how should I say; I am trying to find a word to which they will not take issue-who are more aggressive than the others and they happen to be on the French and English networks perhaps more often than would warrant their representation in the house. I am not going to complain about that, because every time they appear, they have something constructive to offer.
The same thing applies to members of the Ralliement Creditiste, but they enjoy an extraordinary advantage. Since they have no money of their own, thanks to the generosity of philanthropists or charitable people who want to save the race, they have programs on private stations to propagate their doctrine, their revalorization of the financial system.
Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting for two years and a half in this corner of the house, next to the door, on the first row. Therefore, nobody can call me a black-bencher, and I am one of those who are wondering why nobody thought of asking an independent, since we are so few. Until recently, we were four; we are now only three: one Independent Conservative, who persists in sitting next to the Conservatives, which implies that his views are rather conservative, the hon. member for Lapointe, my good friend, behind me, who is a Creditiste, a separatist, and an independent, because nobody else wanted him, and myself. We, independents, are of that breed of Christians who are alleged to have to accept anybody with all their failings
March 11, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State and all their qualities. We have accepted the hon. member for Lapointe even though we often disagree with him, and I say so with great kindness, because he also can, if need be, prove rather helpful to us, since he is much more familiar than we are with parliamentary procedure. I think of all that and, in conclusion, I see myself as a true Independent.
In spite of that agreement, the member for Lapointe persists in saying that I am a Liberal or an Independent who has sold out to the Liberals. If I followed his trend of thought, I could say that he has sold out to all types of independent ideologies because, from my point of view, there is only one Independent member and, I say it most humbly, it is the member for Trois-Rivieres; all the others ran under other tickets, either Independent Conservative, Creditiste, separatist. They now claim to be Independents because, ultimately, no one was willing to adopt them.
All this, Mr. Chairman, to say that it seems to me that the C.B.C. could, at least once a year for perhaps five minutes, or let us say ten minutes, invite the Independent members to air their views on national politics, to sort out what is good about the Conservatives, the members of the New Democratic party, of the Social Credit party, the Ralliement Creditiste, the Liberals and perhaps even the separatists, and try to make a synthesis, so that Canadian listeners might hear objective opinions; because the only ones left who can laud the ideologies adopted by their colleagues are the ones who bear the obvious label of as categorized a party as that of the Liberals, or the Conservatives, or the the New Democratic party, or the Ralliement Creditiste or the Social Credit party.
On the other hand, those who have some sense of solidarity do not say anything to harm their party; nor do they praise it too highly, for fear of being accused of prejudice, because we, French Canadians, are constitutionally modest. But there remains only one true Independent who ran under the independent ticket.
My friend, the member for Lapointe, claims that I am a faithful servant of the Liberal party, but he did not follow me in my last electoral campaign. He does not know that back home I had the courage to tell my constituents that I would not come here to oppose but to co-operate, because there is enough opposition but perhaps not enough co-operation.

Were the Conservative party in power, I should adopt the same attitude. I would have adopted the same attitude provided, of course the Conservatives had not made the same blunders as the Liberals, and I feel that things are pretty equal.
If I add up parliamentary childish tricks, and errors due to childishness which can be attributed to the Liberals since they have come to power, I admit, Mr. Chairman, that I start to worry. The situation we witnessed this afternoon is another example that strikes me as sadly convincing, that the Liberal party and the Conservative party need to turn a new leaf. That is what I have been saying for two years and a half in this house and I say it again, as a piece of friendly advice which is not necessarily destructive, although it seems to shock some of my friends on the treasury benches.
Mr. Chairman, I am still talking about the C.B.C. and I find it surprising-I see that everyone understands except the hon. member for Lapointe-that in view of its impartiality, at least that was the intention of the legislators and the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste summarized it when he said that the C.B.C. should reflect all currents of opinion in Canada, the corporation does not invite once a year, for five or ten minutes, the independent member who might be, for the Canadian people, the voice of the conscience of all those parties which have allegiances to respect and which do so sometimes at the expense of the simple and naked truth.
Mr. Chairman, I was shocked on many occasions. I shall mention one case so that the house will understand what I wish to illustrate, because most hon. members, at least the French-speaking ones, who have seen that program, must have also been shocked.
Time after time, young people of 16, 17, 18 and 19 years of age are invited on the French network. They come and tell us that God does not exist anymore, that religion is nothing but utter nonsense, a sham, whereas I believe that the young people of my province, who speak my language, have an entirely different concept of the religious philosophy which must guide a Canadian who has not lost his senses. I am surprised to see that the C.B.C. does not invite young people from my riding and others who are 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 years old, who are still going to school and who could use their leisure doing things as frivolous as tearing down those eternal truths in
March 11, 1968
which we have all believed, whatever the language or the formula we use to worship the Creator.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Instead of wasting their time at such things, those young people should be doing, for instance, what we call charitable work or they go and work in underdeveloped countries in order to rekindle the flame of friendship for such developed countries as we are, although we do not always give them any proof, and I cannot conceive that the C.B.C. does not consider having those young people appear on those programs when they occupy their free time with so serious, so constructive and so conventional concerns. It seems that nowadays everything in which the community has believed for thousands of years, should be completely demolished for the benefit of a very small minority, either Catholic or Protestant, or whatever its allegiance. However, the fact remains that we all ask ourselves, whatever our beliefs, if the world in which we live has not had a Creator, and I am surprised, I am even shocked to see the C.B.C. featuring those nihilists, those intellectual revolutionaries who are barely old enough not to be in diapers and who come and tell us that God does not exist, that the religious principles in which we believe are all a sham and foolishness, and that we should not even consider them for a minute.
Mr. Chairman, if the C.B.C.-


An hon. Member:: Name the program!


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: One cannot name them all. There is "Tirez au clair", for one, and a host of others! Seminary students are guests on these programs. Where I come from, Mr. Chairman, seminaries are religious institutions and I cannot but think that such persons are chosen intentionally, to bring them on television and have them hold such language. I live among French Canadian workers, whom I have known for 20 or 25 years, and I know that they are but a very small minority to think like that. I think that hon. members from the other Quebec ridings

I speak only about the French network programs, but I imagine that the same problem arises on the English network-take the same view, for mine does not differ so much from that of others.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. has no true sense of values.
Supply-Secretary of State
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) was right in saying that something was rotten within the C.B.C. Whether existentialist newspapermen and the sophisticated people we have today like it or not, I think that, for the sake of truth and objectivity, we must repeat these things in the house.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. should perhaps have invited more often-at least once a year or, to be reasonable, once every two years- the only independent member in this house.
I would add that my friends in the Rallie-ment Creditiste are truly independent, for they do not let themselves be influenced by all these partisan considerations. I am not ready to accept their financial ideology because I do not understand it. But their leader is a good teacher and perhaps one day I will finally understand it.
Mr. Chairman, are the actual values of the society in which we are living inevitably negative values? Must the representatives of the Canadian people, who are here to play their part, destroy everything that existed until now? Must we make a clean sweep of everything we had before to take up dubious doctrines which have not proved themselves?
I think that the C.B.C. fails in its duty when it allows revolutionaries, systematic wreckers to attack the eternal values in which we believe. I think that the C.B.C. should reflect the opinion of the majority, and see to it that most programs correspond to the will of the public.
Mr. Chairman, my conclusion will be modest and probably disappointing for those who are listening to me, but I should like to conclude by saying that the Secretary of State, that brilliant young lady whom we know and admire, told the truth when she stated in the house that there was something rotten in the C.B.C. But it is equally true that there are not enough independent members being elected and who could be the "voice of conscience" for all parties, by grouping all members of goodwill who are not free to express in the house what an independent member can express. As a matter of fact, there are among the Liberal and Conservative members, the members of the New Democratic party and the Creditistes, members of parliament who have good ideas and sensible attitudes.
I will stop here as I am well aware that this will not impress the C.B.C. But I should like to have the support of other members

7502	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State when I say that the C.B.C. is not commissioned to give subversive ideologies an exaggerated importance but rather to serve the Canadian people in what are their strongest assets, namely those truths in which the great majority of us believe, but which the C.B.C. has apparently been taking pleasure in downgrading those past few years.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Nasserden:: Rising to say a few words on this supplementary estimate I would point out to the hon. member for Three Rivers that when he talks about mistakes the Liberals have made during the past three years he is talking about mistakes he himself has made, because most of the time he has been supporting the Liberals in the House of Commons.
I think it is appropriate that on a day like this we should be undertaking a study of supplementary estimates1-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a question of privilege. I should like to apologize to the hon. member for interrupting, but I have the impression he was speaking about myself. I missed his remarks because I did not have time to put on my earphone. Would the hon. member repeat, for my benefit, what he said?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
Under the rules of the house-I do not know exactly under what standing order-it is forbidden to repeat the same thing twice. That is why, if the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is asking that, I wish to point out that it is forbidden under the rules.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On the same point of order, may I say that I did not address the hon. member for Lapointe. I addressed my question through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: I would be glad to repeat what I said in any place in Canada as well as in the House of Commons. If the government has been making mistakes, as the hon. member for Three Rivers indicated, most of those mistakes have been his mistakes, because he supported the government on so many occasions.
DEBATES	March II, 1968


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order. I should like to remind the hon. member that there is no city in the province of Quebec which is called Three Rivers. There is only one which is called Trois-Rivieres.


Edward Nasserden: I agree with the hon. member. And Trois-Rivieres is one of the most beautiful places in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: I hope some day it will
send to the House of Commons a member who will support in the House of Commons the things he speaks about.
We have before us supplementary estimates covering a variety of items and, as I say, it is appropriate that on a day such as this in the history of parliament we should be discussing the question of expenditure. If one looks at expenditures on administration in the various departments he is bound to notice that salaries and special services, including professional services, are mentioned in almost every one of them. Take the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, where the amount is $234,578. Then again, in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, we find that $67,000-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sure the hon. member was listening to the hon. member for Trois Rivieres when he said we were supposed to be talking about the estimates of the Board of Broadcast Governors, and that he would do so. May I suggest the same course to the hon. member?


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is what I intend to do. I intend to relate what I am saying to the item before us, because on occasions such as this it is the duty of the opposition to draw attention to areas in which the government could make the savings necessary to prevent an increase in taxation, such as they are so desperately seeking from parliament at the present time. To assist me in this connection I have here an article taken from the report of the Auditor General telling us that the C.B.C. spent $104,000 for hotel space which it did not use and a further $217,000 for programs which were junked. Talking about programs which could be junked, I too can think of a few that could very well be junked.
Visiting my riding not too long ago I had occasion to call at the town of Duck Lake. The C.B.C. had a crew out there in connection

March 11. 1368
with a program dealing with the plight of the Indian population in this country. They went into this community, not to picture what was good but to pick out everything that was undesirable, everything that cast a poor light on the people there.
They dealt with this subject in a film which was sent out across Canada on more than one occasion showing what was supposed to be the situation at Duck Lake. Mr. Chairman, they even had a man go down on his knees and wash his hands in a mud puddle. Then they called Duck Lake a mud puddle, situated halfway between Saskatoon and Prince Albert in the province of Saskatchewan, e (8:50 p.ra.)
That is the kind of thing for which we pay our money. That is why we have a government that is on the ropes today, because it has to provide the money for this kind of thing. Bearing in mind that the C.B.C. spent $104,000 on unused hotel space, how dearly must the Minister of Finance wish he had that $104,000 today. How dearly he must wish he had the $217,000 spent on programs that were junked, and the $103,000 which went into obsolete film.
When the hon. member for York-Humber was speaking on the broadcasting bill, which was his right-whether we all agree with everything he said or not-the Secretary of State offered him $5.48 if he would shut his mouth, saying that was his share of the cost of C.B.C. operations. Yet when the estimates were issued later they showed that the C.B.C. cost per capita is $7. The cabinet intimates that this is a small price to pay for a national institution such as the C.B.C., but recently one newspaper headline pointed out that civil service payrolls could bankrupt Canada.
We must consider economic conditions in the country at present. We must remember how the government has shown a careless attitude with regard to the manpower requirements not only of its departments but of the various crown corporations such as the C.B.C. When we do this we have a picture of a government that does not know how to spend money properly, yet it has the arrogance to come to parliament and seek approval for these supplementary estimates.
Items in these supplementary estimates for the various departments which have caught my eye are those for specialist and professional services. I would like to know how these are broken up and who receives these moneys. I would venture the opinion that
Supply-Secretary of State much of these moneys go to favourites of the government engaged in the advertising business.
When the government took office it was supposed to have all the answers. It was going to solve all the problems. It was going to eliminate all the waste and extravagance in the public service. Now we see item after item in the estimates portraying the extravagant incompetence of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat I am strongly tempted to say it would be interesting to ask questions about the cost of a certain Tory extravaganza, which some of us had to watch on television last summer. For a few days we had nothing but Tory propaganda broadcast across the length and breadth of the country.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was educational television.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The item under discussion is an estimate for the Board of Broadcast Governors, and I would like to make a few remarks on that topic, supplementing some observations made earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. Reid:: Don't ruin the debate, Tom, by talking about the subject.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not catch that
interjection.


An hon. Member:: He said don't ruin the debate by talking about the subject under discussion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I detect that you are in a somewhat indulgent mood this evening and I trust you did not catch that interjection. I wish to direct the attention of the committee, and of the parliamentary secretary who is being very attentive to the discussion, to the last section of the Broadcasting Act passed by the House of Commons recently, which says that "this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation." I think we should have some declaration from the government on when it intends to make the new Broadcasting Act operative.
This is most important so far as the operations of the new Canada Radio and Television Commission are concerned. Appointments have been made to the top executive positions in the C.B.C., and we assume those new public servants are taking a hard look at the

March 11, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State corporation's operations and at the direction in which it should be moving. I think it is equally important that the new Canadian regulatory body should start functioning as quickly as possible.
The new regulatory body should be taking a hard look at the over-all picture concerning the future of Canadian broadcasting and should be considering the new guide lines to be laid down. In addition to the points raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond 1 wish to stress one important area which should receive early attention from the new regulatory body, and this covers the question of how the operations of community antenna systems are going to fit into the current broadcasting picture.
One of the most important changes made in the Broadcasting Act involved community antenna systems. I believe that all concerned should know as quickly as possible the rules, regulations, and the lines of departure that the new regulatory body is going to lay down in this connection. This is something of vital concern to much of the coastal area of British Columbia. At the moment it is of very real concern to certain operators within my area on Vancouver island.
As the parliamentary secretary is aware, the coastal area of British Columbia and Vancouver island is broken up by mountains which interfere with television reception. What is now needed is information on extensions planned by the C.B.C. and private broadcasters in the conventional sense, and the degree of freedom of action which community antenna system operators will enjoy, particularly in the utilization of microwave lengths.
C.A.T.V. people have expressed many fears about the prospect of their coming under the jurisdiction of the new regulatory body. I have suggested that if this new body operates as I feel it should operate, then it will protect community antenna operators, because under the terms of the legislation it must take them into consideration as part of the total broadcasting picture throughout the country.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
As I have said this could be a matter of great importance and practical concern to many communities in the more isolated areas of the country which at the present time are not able to enjoy any form of television broadcasting. Associated with this I would hope that the new regulatory body, when

planning the total broadcasting picture, would impress upon the C.B.C. the importance of bringing at least basic television coverage to the areas of the country which do not now have it through the public broadcasting system. Again, in mentioning the whole northern three quarters of Vancouver island, which is one area that for a long time had neither television nor radio coverage from the public broadcasting system, I am happy to say that this last year, some 13 or 14 years after I first began making representations, radio service has been brought to many of these communities. However, I understand that television coverage for these areas is a long way in the future.
I believe this matter should be given priority by the council and the C.B.C. when planning its future capital expenditures program. When considering the capital financing requirements of the C.B.C., especially in view of the further terms of reference we have given in the new act, I believe the council should recognize the importance of the C.B.C. bringing at least its basic radio and television services to the areas of Canada which now have no such services. I hope there will be an early proclamation of the new Broadcasting Act and that this will be one of the things which will be accelerated. I believe it is important that this be done and that there be no unnecessary duplication of effort and expenditure on the part of the people in the C.A.T.V. field with that of the people in the so-called conventional broadcasting field. I hope we will be given some information either from the parliamentary secretary or from the Secretary of State, if she returns before these items pass, concerning the intention of the government when the new Broadcasting Act becomes effective.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I listened earlier with great interest to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). He reminded me of a San Francisco hippie throwing flowers. For the past two years, he has been going around throwing bouquets right and left. I think that is somewhat the part played by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres in the house. He keeps the vase behind the curtain and when the opportunity presents itself, he does not hesitate to throw it, especially when the person involved is absent. Besides, the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) knows something about
March 11, 1968
it, even though he came in for some praise this evening.
He asked earlier to take part in a program, perhaps once every two years, as he said. I would suggest to the C.B.C. that he not be given free time on the program "Les affaires de l'Etat," but rather on the program "Les tra-vaux et les jours," which deals with gardening, where he would feel completely at home. On the other hand, if he is allowed to appear on the program "Les affaires de l'Etat, it will be more free time granted to the Liberals. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres may protest as long as he wants but we know very well that it is not necessary to dig very deep before uncovering the ideas of the Liberals in him.
Now, let us go on to more serious matters.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Lapointe is insulting me when he says: "Let us go on to more serious matters". He is suggesting that the member for Trois-Rivieres is not serious in his remarks. I want to tell him that if I were growing flowers I would not grow evil-smelling or prickly flowers like cactus.


Gilles Grégoire: Cactuses grow in barren land, not in good land.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I wonder whether we should not leave horticulture now to study the question before us.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what I wanted to do, Mr. Chairman, withdraw from growing flowers.
A few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, something about the C.B.C. impressed me particularly and I would like to give it my support: the member for Villeneuve said that all sensible ideologies, whatever they are, must be given free expression on the C.B.C., as long as this is done equitably and everyone is able to express his opinions, and there is no shedding of blood.
Mr. Chairman, one thing should be noted in all this. We would allow everyone to express their views, but this does not necessarily mean that, during a given period of time or during a same week, everyone will have the same opportunity to express their opinions. It comes by variable periods and cycles.
I remember quite well that, following the 1962 election, the Ralliement Creditiste of
Supply-Secretary of State which I was then a member was quite popular and was invited regularly by the C.B.C., as was the case following the 1963 election.
I remember also that the Conservatives had a lot of publicity, on the news, for two or three months before their convention and that they were given two full days during their convention.
Now, that the Liberal convention is forthcoming, we notice that the candidates to the leadership are given more publicity on the news and they will get even more as the date of the convention draws near. And that is only to be expected.
I noticed also that, during the crisis of February 19 last, when I held in this house the balance of power, the C.B.C., of course, wanted to know what side I would support. It did not last very long because at the end of two days, it was the hon. member for Villeneuve who took over. The television cameras started hounding him, and I find that perfectly normal, because his role became more important.
In 1962-1963, when the Creditistes had 30 members in this house with 26 from Quebec they had some weight and they were a source of news much more important than in 1958 when none had been elected or in 1968 when there is only 8 of them left. The thing is obvious.
Mr. Chairman, we must admit that these things can vary. If, after the next election, they are 50, as I hope, they will represent a greater source of news.


David Réal Caouette: Fifty Creditistes.


Gilles Grégoire: Fifty Creditistes, that is what I said. That will be a much greater source of public news. Sometimes it is the number, sometimes it is the occasion, that attracts the cameras.
I mentioned earlier the Conservative convention as well as the Liberal convention. In such a case it is the occasion which is the source of news and which brings the television cameras zeroing in on such group rather than on other groups. It is perfectly normal. As was the case in 1962, 1963, the Creditistes have had their day-they will probably have it again, I hope so for their sake we must not forget that at the present time, at the Quebec level, there is another group which is also newsworthy. It may not be because of the number of members represented in the house, since there is one here, and two in Quebec. It

March 11, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State may not be either on account of a special occasion but it might come from something else such as, for instance, new ideas. All this is information, and nobody-neither the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) nor the C.B.C.-can forget it. All these factors must be taken into consideration for that is what makes the news.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
For example, when a new power group scores a success, as did the Ralliement Creditiste in 1962; when a party holds a convention, as the Conservatives did last year and the Liberals will this year; when a special event occurs, such as the crisis of last February 19-all this makes news of various degrees of importance and coming from various sources. It allows each particular group to come into the limelight at one time and recede into the shadows at another time. That is normal.
What I find abnormal is that a director general-I do not remember his exact title -Mr. Marcel Ouimet, the general manager of the C.B.C., should send "secret and urgent" messages condemning the publicity given to the so-called "Levesque Gang". I do not consider that as normal for several reasons.
First of all, the Independentists, as any other group, pay taxes. Furthermore, they are good news material, since they have something new to offer at a given time or period. They come up with new ideas as others could.
Secondly, the number of his appearances on television is considered as "secret", although it has never been so for others. Why send a secret and urgent message to condemn the number of times that the name of Mr. Levesque has been mentioned, when no general investigation was launched to assess the publicity obtained by others on the basis of news they could represent and the circumstances under which they made the news? If instead of a secret and urgent message, a general investigation were launched by the C.B.C. services, on the number of times politicians have appeared, the circumstances under which they did appear and the sources of such news, perhaps then conclusions could be drawn other than those deriving from a mere interest in a specific ideology, the Quebec independence movement, caused by its novelty.
For a year, there have nevertheless been two members in Quebec and one in Ottawa.


David Réal Caouette: May I put a question to the hon. member?

A few days ago, as all those who listened to the news on the national television network, I heard Mr. Pierre Bourgault twice airing his grievances against Mrs. Ferretti, vice-president of his group.
Does the hon. member think that can be called expressing ideas? Must the C.B.C. allow time for quarrels inside a party, between Mrs. Ferretti and Mr. Pierre Bourgault, for instance?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will give two answers.
I remember very well that when a former member of the Ralliement Creditiste, Dr. Guy Marcoux, left the party, the C.B.C. news service broadcast the ideas expressed by Dr. Marcoux, by the hon. member for Villeneuve, by myself and by another member of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Moreover, when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) decided to sit as an independent Progressive Conservative member a week ago, he was allowed to explain the reasons of his decision and the causes of the division within his party.
The R.I.N. has called a conference which is to be held on March 30. This party has several thousands of members but it is divided. The supporters of both viewpoints have been allowed to air their views. I must point out that the R.I.N. receives much less publicity on the C.B.C. than the Liberal party can have now and this is understandable. It receives much less publicity than the Conservatives during their convention last September.
I think I have answered the question.


Mr. Guay:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: The member for Villeneuve asked me if I could explain the matter and I said yes. He had two reasons. First, the R.I.N. convention is the object of as many comments as the Liberal convention taking place at this time and the one the Conservatives had, last September.
Second, that quibbling has been explained over the news, just as all other quibblings that have taken place.
These are but two examples.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Bourgault is not a member of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: That does not make any difference. It is a political movement that has its justification.
March 11, 1968

In this connection, I would remind the hon. member for Villeneuve, for the benefit of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) that before 1962, when we did not have any member in the house, when we were in the same position as that referred to by the hon. member for Levis, the hon. member for Villeneuve and I were saying that nothing represented in the House of Commons, was not a sufficient reason to be deprived of the news services from the C.B.C. Any ideology should be freely expressed. It is after elections that public opinion makes itself known.


David Réal Caouette: I wish to point out that before the election, the C.B.C. never asked us to express our views or to say anything. On the other hand, when the disagreement arose, we had actually been elected by the people, whereas neither Mr. Bourgault nor Mrs. Fer-retti were and will ever be elected.


Gilles Grégoire: I admit that they were not, but I am not a prophet any more than the hon. member for Villeneuve to say that they will not be. Just wait and see.
The hon. member asks me whether I admit that before 1952, we had never been asked. I will not say "never", but I agree that even without a single elected member, we were far from getting the publicity we were entitled to. We were told at that time, as the hon. member for Villeneuve will remember, that the Ralliement Creditiste would not get a single member elected. But we got 26 elected.
And now, the hon. member for Villeneuve says: You will not get a single member elected! He will admit with me that by saying that we will not get one member elected-


David Réal Caouette: I mean at the federal parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: We do not intend to run for the federal parliament and the hon. member knows it. But he must confess that he is using now the same arguments the Liberals used at that time. I would ask him to show his good faith by calling on him, in any event-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Of course.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Lapointe not make a distinction between what is usually called newscasts, interviews, forums or expressions of opinions which are presented as being the opinions of most people?
Supply-Secretary of State


Gilles Grégoire: Of course, Mr. Chairman, one must make distinctions in all that. But whether on news programs or elsewhere, all ideologies have their place.
If a political party, for instance, even one not represented in parliament by a member, brings together in a convention 1,000, 1,200 or 1,400 persons in Quebec only, that is news.
The member is asking whether I admit the difference. I also admit that all ideologies must have access to the opinion programs, for these ideas must be presented to the public. I think that all ideologies have a right to both kinds of programs, opinion and news.
Mr. Chairman, I think my answer satisfies the member for Villeneuve. He has suffered enough discrimination from the Liberals, before 1962. As I am personally aware of the situation, I think he is satisfied with my answer.
When you have been in the same situation, Mr. Chairman, you understand what I mean. The hon. member for Villeneuve knows what I mean when I say that even though we did not have any elected representative before 1962, we represented an ideology. The fact that we did not have any elected member at that time did not prove anything, since we had 26 elected later on. I hope there will be as many in the future.


David Réal Caouette: But we did not have any before.


Gilles Grégoire: We had some after. People believed in that theory, since we had 26 members elected. That, we know afterwards. But beforehand, we should not try to stifle ideologies.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I am now reverting to the point I was dealing with. What worries me most is that a general manager of the C.B.C. should send "confidential and urgent" messages condemning on ideology because the name of a certain person or that of his movement were mentioned a certain number of times-28 times, I think-in the space of ten days, three weeks or a month.
In my opinion, that is not right. If somebody wishes to have such inquiries made and to quote figures, this should be done for all and in an honest way. I do not see why such messages should be sent confidentially, since the public must be interested in knowing these figures.
The proof is that the hon. member for Villeneuve and I myself have already put on the

March 11, 1988
Supply-Secretary of State order paper questions asking how often a certain person had appeared on television, on a certain program, and we have always received an answer.
So, why send secret messages? What is there to conceal in all that? What does the manager of the C.B.C. want to hide? Would he want to prepare a black list of indepen-dentists? Why, Mr. Chairman? They are citizens who are entitled to their opinions as long as they express them peaceably and quietly, and I think that they are now expressing their opinions quietly and peaceably.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 7-Up.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Levis says: 7-Up. The Liberal party was there, as well as the members of the N.D.P., the Q.F.L. and the C.N.T.U. Let us not try to blame what does not exist. Some individuals may have taken advantage of the circumstance to create trouble. We do not approve it; on the contrary, we disapprove it; we condemn it. But as long as we do it peacefully and quietly, there is no reason to try to prevent the expression of any ideology.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) mentioned that all political parties were invited to the programs "Les affaires de 1'lStat" and "La politique provinciale".
It should not be forgotten that at the last provincial election, 9.9 per cent of the people, that is 200,000 persons, voted for the independ-entists, and out of 25 programs available to the provincial parties, only one went to the independentist parties. Do you find that sufficient considering that independentists got 10 per cent of the vote? Can you say that that is normal and reasonable? Mr. Chairman, I think it would be advisable to ask the C.B.C. to revise its calculations in this regard.
That is what I wanted to say. I think the general manager of the C.B.C., Mr. Marcel Ouimet, should stop trying to build a black list around ideologies, around individuals who have the right to express themselves on the C.B.C. He should become a bit more broadminded and allow everyone to make himself heard, and not prevent the Independantists from appearing on the C.B.C. because, like everybody else, they pay taxes to support that institutions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, some time ago we had the opportunity of expressing our

views and our wishes with regard to the C.B.C. I do not therefore intend to repeat the opinions expressed at that time.
Nor do I want to repeat the recriminations, the personal complaints and lamentations voiced by the members for Trois-Rivieres, Lapointe and Villeneuve (Messrs. Mongrain, Gregoire and Caouette) because by so doing we would be straying from the purpose of the debate in which we are taking part this evening.
However, while we are studing item 1 of those estimates, I should like to express the views of those who elected me here, to acquaint my colleagues and the government with their views on that crown corporation.
I repeat that I do not intend to lean to generalities that I could lead us to criticisms with regard to all fields of administration of the C.B.C. I do not have to do so as recently, the regional director of the French network, Mr. Marcel Ouimet, in non-equivocal and extremely overwhelming terms severely criticized the conduct of his subordinates. What concerns me is to see that a responsible person in such an important position within a crown corporation should deem it necessary to accuse publicly employees under his own authority. Moreover, those charges were so serious that they infected and affected as well the confidence the public should have in this crown corporation. I said "infected" as I believe there is within the C.B.C. an infection which the regional director of the French network deemed necessary to expose publicly. We all know-all the members of the house are aware of it, whether they admit it or not-that there is within that organization an all-powerful control depending not upon the higher authorities, but in many cases upon those holding inferior positions in the hierarchy. We know, for instance, that there is in the field of public affairs an all-powerful person who determines what programs of public interest will be broadcast by the C.B.C. and what people should be chosen to take part in them.
Finally, that person whose name I believe I can mention, Mr. Marc Thibault, enjoys a greatly exaggerated authority within that crown corporation. Several employees of the C.B.C. complained to my office in the past about the omnipotence, the power of that high official who domineers over the public information broadcasts and controls them according to his whims.
So, if the regional director-
March 11, 1968


David Réal Caouette: Not the regional director, the general director.


Georges-J. Valade: -the general director of the French network deems it necessary to make such a criticism known to the public, it is because, in my view, he seems unable to solve the problem. On account of the part he is made to play, of the little authority or the little protection he is given by the government, he felt, at a given time, the need to express publicly his uneasiness in the face of conditions he is unable to correct by himself.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to my friend, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who is usually very objective, but I would not want him to lead the house astray. Twice now I have heard him say that the vice-president wanted to discuss publicly a matter of internal administration, when everyone knows that those were confidential instructions sent within the C.B.C. administration. It was through the indiscretion of some journalists that they were made public. The vice-president did not publish them.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is justified.
If those instructions leaked out or were published in the papers because of an indiscretion, I am willing to take the word of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for it.
On the other hand, with regard to Mr. Oui-met's statement, one may wonder whether there really was a leak or whether, in certain quarters, someone did not want those instructions to appear in the newspapers.
In any case, whatever the technique that was used, one cannot deny that there is very deep unrest within that corporation, specially when a person in authority such as Mr. Ouimet, feels unable to solve as difficult a problem as that one. I think that, in a case like this it is the duty of parliament or of this government to step into the picture. After the violent accusations the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) launched against the corporation, I wonder what we are waiting for to show that we are not afraid of a corporation which is in some way the child of the government, that we do not hesitate to protect the interests of the public which must pay the cost of the corporation, to set up the machinery of an inquiry?
Supply-Secretary of State [DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Let us convene the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, let us conduct an inquiry, in camera if necessary, but, if we have some respect for those who have elected us, I do not think we should allow all kinds of doubts or implications to subsist. If there is any basis to them, the situation should be corrected. Otherwise, those who cast doubts within the C.B.C. should be blamed.
I do not want, Mr. Chairman, to dwell further on that point. I will probably have the opportunity to bring it up again, but I would like now to refer to an extremely important thing for the city of Montreal.
Several years ago, that is in 1958, 1959 and 1960, the C.B.C. began negotiations with the Montreal authorities for the construction of a complex for the technical facilities, the studios, cameras, indeed for all that is required for the new television technique.
The former government had committed itself, with the city of Montreal and Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation to build in the eastern part of the metropolis what was known as the "Cite des Ondes".
As we know, this project was to have been started on October 1st, 1965. But of course, after election day, it was put off until October 1st, 1966. The present Secretary of State, and the one before her, who is now in the other place, had, at a number of public meetings, promised the Montreal taxpayers that no delay would be tolerated on this project.
However even though it is of vital importance to the metropolis of Canada, it has been continuously put off. At that time we believed the minister when she said, that this "Cite des Ondes" project was being put off until the end of Expo '67, in view of the considerable amount of works that would accrue to Montreal because of Expo.
Expo is over now; business is extraordinarily slack in the city of Montreal, where you find more than 8 per cent of the unemployed of Quebec. All merchants, businessmen, citizens and workers, who are interested in knowing the government's intentions as regards this project, are still waiting for the implementation of this election promise by a minister, by a government which have given no indication yet of their intentions concerning the execution of that project.
Some people say it will be worth $70 million. Perhaps the population will be told that
March 11, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State because of the austerity program, the government lacks the money. Perhaps the government will say: We cannot afford it, and the project must again be put off.
However, Mr. Chairman, in that is a political and moral obligation of the Liberal government towards the people of Montreal. It consists in carrying out that project in Montreal without any delay. If there is a lack of money, perhaps the government could reduce the C.B.C. budget by $15 or $20 million a year, and after three years, it would have paid for the new buildings of the corporation.
We have no right to leave the entire population of the metropolis of Canada in a state of indecision. All this is extremely prejudicial to the businessmen and the people of the eastern part of Montreal.
I am surprised-and I say this without reflecting whatsoever on my Montreal colleagues-at the silence of my friends opposite who represent ridings in the Montreal area. The population is greatly concerned over the government's delay in carrying out that project and I am surprised to find that no Liberal member from Montreal is rising to insist that his party, the present government, keep its formal commitment toward the people of Montreal. If the government fails to make its intentions known, whatever they are, the people of Montreal will surely not forget it. The government should recognize that that is a formal commitment, an undertaking, an election promise that it is not keeping and has not kept. Mr. Chairman, I feel I had to emphasize in this house that oversight, that anomaly on the part of the Liberal party.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make.
I want to stress again that millions of dollars which could be invested in the eastern part of the city of Montreal will be so only when the people, the businessmen and the contractors know whether or not those buildings will be erected in the eastern part of Montreal as promised. Incidentally, I met several people who assured me that there will be a recrudescence of activity in the eastern part of the metropolis, as soon as the government makes its intentions known. It will certainly help the workers to get some work and alleviate the serious problem of unemployment which exists in the Canadian metropolis.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be mercifully brief. When the hon. member for

Rosthern was cataloguing the waste the Auditor General found in the C.B.C., to the extent of $320 thousand. I could not help thinking back a year when the Board of Broadcast Governors approved the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's request that television facilities should be built in the city of Saskatoon, my constituency. This facility had been promised for many years and suddenly the cabinet, faced with financial problems and all the other internal problems, squashed the idea very completely. I thought perhaps that now was as good a time as any to rise and briefly ask the government once again whether or not they would consider reinstating the construction of this facility. They seem willing to see $320 thousand wasted which incidentally was the amount of money voted in the estimates from which this facility in Saskatoon would have been supplied. Somehow or other, the money got lost.
I can assure you that the people of my constituency, who are contributing something over $7 per capita to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would be more than interested in being able to assess the results of their investment in this crown corporation. Saskatoon is the only city of its size in Canada that does not have a second television facility, and I feel the time has come when this should be provided. In addition, provision should be made for a satellite transmitter to cover the other areas to the west. A year has gone by, and we have been very patient in my city. If the aspirants for leadership have any influence at all,-yes, even the good looking ones, and I note that three of them smiled when I said that-it would be very much to their advantage to press on their cabinet colleagues the need for allowing this facility before April 6. Certainly we believe we are entitled to it. Heaven knows we are paying for it. I feel we should have the opportunity to decide whether or not our money is being well spent.
The only C.B.C. programs we get from the station we have are the ones the C.B.C. dumps on that station. Some of them are good, I will admit, that, but some of them are utter trash, as has been pointed out before. I should like to tell the government that from now on, as long as the house is sitting, I intend to raise this matter at every possible opportunity until they see the error of their ways and allow Saskatoon the privilege of having a C.B.C. facility in that city.
March 11. 1968	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those in this chamber who during the past two years or more has on several occasions had some stern and critical things to say about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly in the area of public affairs programming on television. Therefore it may surprise some members of the committee this evening to learn that I come here not to bury Caesar but to praise him.
I believe that the criticisms that have been levelled at C.B.C. public affairs programming on television during the past two years by a number of members of this chamber, including the hon. member for Elgin, the hon. member for Oxford, the hon. member for Leeds, myself and others who have spoken out, were entirely legitimate. Certainly I know they were criticisms made by those who were entirely sincere and conscientious, and I am now satisfied that those criticisms were compeletly constructive.
I think it is becoming apparent to an encouraging degree, albeit to a limited extent, that some of the shafts of criticism have found their target and are producing some improvements. I like to think that it is because members of the chamber, as well as members of the general public, editorial writers and members of the press, have taken it upon themselves to speak out in this area and objectively and constructively to analyse and assess what our public broadcasting service is doing, what it is achieving and where it is falling short of its legitimate aims, that these encouraging improvements, gradual and minimal as they may be, are now becoming evident in our national broadcasting programming.
I exclude myself from any participation in this exercise, but as far as the others to whom I have referred are concerned I suggest they can take some well earned satisfaction at the degree of study and application that they have brought to bear on this question. In the past little while public affairs programming in the C.B.C. television service has reflected a substantial improvement in the area of balanced programs, an area about which many of us expressed concern. I think this improvement is reflected in a general healthiness in the programming of the corporation that was not present before.
There are two cases immediately in point. I think of some excellent public affairs shows on C.B.C. television last week, one on India and another on the anatomy of communist 27053-473
DEBATES	7511
Supply-Secretary of State espionage. I also think of what I found to be a moving experience last night when producer Beryl Fox's tribute to Bernard Fall was presented on C.B.C. television in the form of a documentary film entitled "Last Reflections on a War". Personally, Mr. Chairman, I found my exposure to that hour of documentary film a moving experience and an infinitely poignant one. I do not agree entirely with the persuasion of the film itself, but generally I thought it was a fair, objective, valuable and, as I said before, infinitely poignant contribution to the current bibliography on Viet Nam.
I did not feel that way about the first film that was produced by Beryl Fox entitled "Mills of the Gods", an award winning film which admittedly was technically and artistically excellent. I did not feel, however, that the content, philosophy, persuasion and message of that film was entirely constructive, objective, fair or balanced. However, that is my personal opinion, and I dare say that others in the country, and certainly Miss Fox herself, have a view that is opposed to mine. I thought her first documentary left something to be desired and I have said so both inside and outside the chamber.
However, Mr. Chairman, whatever shortcomings were found in the first documentary poem that Miss Fox did on Viet Nam, and whatever weaknesses and errors were there, these were more than overcome and compensated for last evening in her moving film that the C.B.C. screened last night under her production, "Last Reflections on a War". I do not believe that such a documentary could possibly have been shown on the C.B.C. network two years ago. Two years ago, even a year ago, I felt that this was the type of balance or objectivity that was desperately needed in television programming on the national network of this country but which we were failing to get because of a particular cant, slant or point of view that was being brought to international affairs as a result of certain influences that were being exerted in the programming department of the C.B.C. However, this kind of objective approach is now possible, and the documentary screened last night was a manifestation of that approach.
Some members of this house, and other people outside it who have spoken out during the last two years or more against what they felt was a serious weakness in the programming policy of the C.B.C., can now take some well deserved credit for having achieved
March 11. 1968

Supply-Secretary of State improvement in this particular area. It is an improvement that a great many Canadians-I venture to say the majority of Canadians-desperately and devoutly wished and which they now hail with considerable satisfaction.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I think the programming is now considerably better balanced. There is certainly less of what I regarded as blatant and unreasonable anti-Americanism in the C.B.C. television news broadcasts and some of the more telescopic public affairs programs such as "Viewpoint". As I say, I think this creeping evidence of balanced objectivity is a response to the views enunciated in this chamber and articulated by people outside the chamber, not just by professionals, such as members of the press and people in other areas of professional life who have spoken up, but by the average citizen who has made his opinions known through the mail, at meetings and by word of mouth. I suggest they can take satisfaction from something that represents an obvious improvement in our national broadcasting service and its approach to national events and affairs. Much needs to be done, but there is evidence of the legitimacy of many of the criticisms some of us expressed about the C.B.C.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
About ten days ago, Mr. Marcel Ouimet, a top executive of the corporation, felt constrained to issue a directive focussing attention on separatist influences and programming tendencies within the corporation. Inside and outside this chamber during the past two years, evidence, with supporting documentation, was given of this unfortunate and nefarious practice. Unfortunately, though, these activities have been hard to prove. Such activities, which are sensational and invite criticism, tend to compromise the credibility of the person making a charge. I think that those who spoke out against the use of existing C.B.C. facilities for the spread of separatist influences are to be commended.
The criticisms of the corporation which have been made are justified beyond all shadow of doubt. Because of Mr. Marcel Ouimet's initiative a few days ago evidence in black and white was brought forward to show that this unfortunate manipulation and exploitation of national broadcasting facilities, for which each and every one of us pays, was taking place. The evidence of that manipulation and exploitation was so serious and

strong that a senior executive, Mr. Ouimet, felt constrained to tell all program and production personnel working under him that he was aware of this practice, and that it was their responsibility in the interests of Canada and confederation to eliminate it so far as was constitutionally and legally practicable within the national corporation. At the same time it must be remembered that a great many people in the corporation display loyalty and patriotism to this nation.
Much needs to be done to improve the corporation, as was made evident in the past few days. Nevertheless, having been fairly free with my criticisms of the C.B.C., I wish to take this opportunity to say that I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I believe a concerted effort has been made in recent weeks on the part of program directors and senior executives of the C.B.C. to bring a new balance to their public affair programs, and I commend them for that. There is room for better balance, as there is always room and need for vigilance and management responsibility, but a start has been made in the direction of improving matters. I should be delinquent as a member of this chamber and as one who is interested in this field if I failed to recognize the improvement that has taken place.
May I say a word or two about the Board of Broadcast Governors, covered by this item in the estimates. Though some of my remarks have not dealt with this central subject, since Your Honour was charitable enough to allow others to deviate from it I hoped you would allow me to do the same, and I thank you for allowing me a certain latitude.
When considering the B.B.G. we must realize that in Canadian broadcasting we have come to the end of an era, an important era in an important industry. Soon the B.B.G. will be phased out of existence, to be replaced by the regulatory authority, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. It behooves us now to salute an authoritative body that has made great contributions to Canadian broadcasting. In particular it behooves members of this house to salute the outgoing head of the B.B.G., Dr. Andrew Stewart. I do not know what plans Dr. Stewart has for his future because I have not been privy to any decision that has been made. However, judging from the silence on the subject I should judge that Dr. Stewart is not planning to extend his active life in broadcasting at this time. If one may judge from the lack of comment with
March 11, 1968	COMMONS
regard to C.R.T.C. appointments up to now and with regard to Dr. Stewart's future plans, one might expect that Dr. Stewart will be employing his many talents in fields other than broadcasting, though what those fields will be it is difficult to say.
I wanted to say some things about the B.B.G. which the house I think would wish to hear, but time does not permit me to do so now. Perhaps within the next 24 hours I might be permitted to continue my remarks. May I call it ten o'clock?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Since it is ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader what surprises the government has for us tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we want to take second reading of the tax bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Following that, we shall take the supplementary estimates.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On February 8 I addressed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asking whether he had received letters of protest from certain medical authorities in Saskatchewan regarding actions by officials of the department of Indian affairs in making arbitrary and long distance medical decisions contrary to those made by the local doctors with respect to treating Indians in connection with medical sterilization and the use of contraceptive pills.
Quite properly, the minister pointed out at that time that I should have addressed my 27053-473|
DEBATES	7513
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare within whose purview the question of the health of Indians comes. However, I should like to point out that I deliberately addressed the question to the minister of Indian affairs because it seemed inconceivable to me that decisions affecting Indians and the manner in which they are treated should be made unilaterally by the Department of National Health and Welfare, without consultation with the minister of Indian affairs.
Needless to say, when this matter was brought to my attention I was very perturbed about two factors in particular, first that there should be bureaucratic interference with bona fide medical decisions and, second, that there should be an attempt by the department, whichever it was, to control Indians-to consider them as some sort of imbecile ward of a government department.
The question came to my mind whether we were encouraging the Indian people toward self-determination by acting in this way, and whether this bureaucratic interference with valid medical decisions should be permitted. In support of my statement I have here a copy of a letter from the Department of National Health and Welfare in which, after a reference to the sterilization of two particular native people who are mentioned, the following appears:
Sterilization for Indians is not condoned as a directorate policy, nor is the routine use of contraceptive device or pill. However, with certain medical grounds contraceptive techniques are allowed under physician guidance.
It is true there are valid medical reasons for sterilization, apart from any policy which might be laid down by a bureaucratic administration. For example one could mention chronic disease, such as kidney disease or tuberculosis where further pregnancies would exacerbate the disease, and where there are several children in the family and it was felt sterilization should be carried out. And there are many gynaecological reasons for precluding further pregnancies unless grave risk to the mother is accepted.
The use of the contraceptive pill may also be justified for valid and cogent medical reasons, not just for the social reasons which we have all come to understand. Today we seem to be asking for self-determination for our Indian people, the development of a spirit of self reliance so that they can look after themselves and play their part to the full in our society because, after all, they are the true
7514	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion founding people of this country. Accordingly, it seems to me this interference with valid medical decisions should be ended and that Indians should be given freedom to make decisions for themselves under proper medical guidance.
I would be very interested in hearing either from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), who I know has a sympathetic regard for this sort of problem, or from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Rideout), to see whether or not this policy is going to be reversed, and what are the plans of the departments to look after what to me appears to be a very serious problem.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) about the question the hon. member has raised, and I have been advised that he has received no letters protesting the action that his officials allegedly took in connection with medical sterilization and the use of contraceptive pills by Indians. In any event these matters would normally come within the purview of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has also informed me that his officials did not send out a directive regarding sterilization or the use of contraceptive pills by Indians.



AGRICULTURE-POTATOES-IMPORTS FROM U.S. INTO WESTERN CANADA

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) is present to listen to the subject matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the department and the minister. What is involved is an application by the Canadian Horticultural Council, on behalf of the potato growers organizations of Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, made to the minister in an attempt to get him to consider imposing value for duty on the importation of potatoes from the United States.
The application for the imposition of value for duty was made on January 22, by which time the groups involved had already become concerned about the effect which American *surplus potatoes was having on prices paid to producers in western Canada. The application was followed up by a delegation which came
.
DEBATES	March 11. 1968
to see the minister in Ottawa in February. Since then there has been no indication from the minister as to whether he will accede to this request.
Last week I asked the minister if he was in a position to say whether his officials had made any calculations to determine whether in fact there was dumping of American potatoes in Canada. The minister has said that one of the reasons the government has not as yet agreed to the imposition of value for duty is because of the opposition to such a course of action by maritime provinces potato shippers. It is not clear in my mind, nor in the minds of western potato growers and their representatives, whether the potato shippers from the maritimes are truly representative of the growers or whether they are more representative of the wholesaler and distributor segments of the potato industry in that part of the country.
In any case I would like to point out that section 40(7)(b) of the Customs Act provides that the minister may have a calculation made as to the importation of any fruit or vegetable into this country to determine whether or not the price at which they come in constitutes dumping. The minister should do at least that much. He should indicate to the people who have made this request to him six weeks ago what the findings of his officials were with regard to their application. He should not just simply sit back and say that they are giving the application consideration, but that because they have this opposition from the maritimes they do not feel it would be wise to take any action just yet.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The fact of the matter is that very often when a value for duty imposition is requested by producers, if action is not taken within two or three weeks it really loses its effectiveness. At the time in late January when the application was made approximately 40 per cent of western Canadian potato production was still not marketed. As a result of the procrastination and the failure to impose the value for duty there has been a depressing effect on prices to the producers in western Canada. Twenty per cent of that 40 per cent has still to be marketed.
When does the minister intend to take action in this regard and impose a value for duty? If another six week period goes by he might as well forget it. It should be said in closing that the potato growers in western
March 11, 1968
Canada have had to suffer through two consecutive years of depressed prices. This is not a healthy situation for any industry. Last year it could have been argued that the low price was due to over-production on the part of the producers themselves. I believe the minister suggested this last year. His advice was heeded by the growers and aided perhaps by nature. The fact is that potato production is down considerably in Canada this year, but despite this reduction the over-all prices remain depressed. They remain depressed because of the huge surplus south of the line which, as I said, is acting as a depressant on Canadian potato prices.
There is much more in the way of fact and figures which I should like to place on the record, but this is not necessary in view of the fact that the minister was in receipt of the brief and the application of the Western Canadian Potato Growers Association. They show a formula which under the provisions of section 40(7)(b) of the Customs Act could mean that the minister could take action to place a value for duty on American potatoes at a level of approximately $2.75. If this were done I am sure Canadian producers would be satisfied. By doing this the minister would be doing nothing more than what is provided for under the law. The law is there and I should like to know why the minister does not avail himself of it.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the appreciation of the minister and my own personal appreciation to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schrey-er) for the very responsible way in which he has presented his question. I am pleased tonight that I have a rather straight-forward answer for him, which I am sure he will find helpful, if not as encouraging as it might be.
Early in February the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien) met with representatives of the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board, the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board, the Alberta potato commission and the Manitoba vegetable marketing commission at which time they requested that the government impose a minimum value for duty on potatoes imported into western Canada under section 40A(7) of the Customs Act. They indicated that their application had the support of potato growers organizations in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. However they
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion indicated that concurrence in their application was refused by officials of the growers, shippers and processors associations of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Following these representations the government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the application. A review of the situation by this committee indicated that a minimum value for duty on potatoes imported from the United States was not appropriate under conditions existing at that time. In reaching this conclusion the major factors that were considered were:
1.	The relative volumes moving from the United States into Canada;
2.	The importance of the trade in potatoes between Canada and the United States;
3.	The lack of unanimity and the opposition to the imposition of value for duty on potatoes by other growers across Canada;
4.	Our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
5.	The fact that the United States was at that time instituting a potato diversion program aimed at strengthening their market.
Since then the matter has been kept under continuous review by departmental officials and has been considered from time to time at the ministerial level. In the meantime prices in the United States have firmed and this has been reflected in prices in western Canada. The situation, however, is being kept under review.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS-REPORTED SUBSIDIZATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN B.C.

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a program which appeared on television yesterday, "Through The Eyes of Tomorrow", which dealt with three private schools in the Vancouver area, the New School, the Barker School and the Knowplace School. At no time during the course of the program was any mention made that two of these schools, the Barker School and the Knowplace School, are being subsidized by the federal government through the Company of Young Canadians.
This was a rather surprising oversight because we know that the Company of Young Canadians recently hired a public relations officer whose job it is to see that this organization obtains wide coverage for its activities.

751S
March 11, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion On the other hand, I think anyone viewing the program would understand the oversight, because I am sure that the average taxpaying citizen would not be reassured, after watching the activities in the schools, to realize that his tax dollar was going to subsidize a private school.
I raised the question of the Knowplace School, but if there is any doubt about it, with regard to the Barker School there is an article in the Vancouver Province of February 14, written by Mr. Wilf Bennett, which reads in part as follows:
Barker admits his school would be out of business this year if it weren't for a boost from the Company of Young Canadians. His staff teachers are C.Y.C. members, drawing incomes of $2,600 a year -not princely by today's teacher salary standards but enough to get by on. The C.Y.C. is backing the school for just one year.
Also, there is an article which appeared in an issue of "The Ubyssey", the student newspaper of the University of British Columbia, which reads in part as follows:
Barker admits his school would have been out of business this year if the Company of Young Canadians had not agreed to pay the salaries of his staff. "We charge parents what they can afford to pay, but this doesn't nearly cover our costs. If it weren't for the C.Y.C., we couldn't have operated this year."
So I do not think there is any doubt about the involvement of the C.Y.C. in an activity that is completely outside the scope of the act under which that organization was set up. Certainly sections 14 and 15 of the act dealing with the objects and powers of the company expressly indicate that it is to work alongside of and in co-operation with the existing organizations in the field. This would include the field of education. Anyone watching the television program would realize that a good deal of the time is spent in direct criticism of the existing school organizations.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Again I might draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an article from The Ubyssey written by one Terry Campbell for the Canadian

University Press. Speaking of the schools, he said:
The second thing that is clear is the youngsters who are coming out of the free schools are going to be very different from our normal schools system's product.
They will not be complacent acceptors of the status quo or apathetic citizens. They will be the product of an organized attack against the existing educational structure and are going to expand this attack into other areas of society.
The movement is young and spreading. Its ultimate results remain to be seen.
This is one observer's view of the activities which the federal government is subsidizing through its Company of Young Canadians. I would argue that it was not the intention of this parliament when it passed the bill to launch an attack on the public schools system of British Columbia or of any other province. I would ask seriously whether the federal government is investigating the constitutional factors involved in this most remarkable intrusion of the federal government into the field of education in a province.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised by my friend, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, this afternoon, and his representations will be brought to the attention of Mr. Alan Clarke, the director of the Company of Young Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. The house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
4c, 46c.


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 12, 1968