1968-03-20

PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth, sixth and seventh reports of special committee on procedure-Mr. MacEachen.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That the house adjourn immediately after returning from attending royal assent to the proposed appropriation bills (supplementary estimates (c), 1967-68 and interim supply, 1968-69) and to any other measures; and
That it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 23rd, 1968, at 2:30 p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


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


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, should not this motion be transferred to government orders?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should refer the hon. member to standing order 32(l)(a) and (m) which I think will convince him that we are following the correct procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, convinced or not I rise to speak on the motion and to indicate that in view of the failure of the government to give a clear indication that it will proceed with the bill reducing drug prices before this house rises, we shall vote against this motion.
27053-494 i
Let me point out that today we are being put in the same position we have been put in on a number of occasions. The most recent one that comes to my mind is the occasion of July 7, 1967 during the course of this very session. At that point we had before the house the report of a committee regarding the pensions of retired civil servants. Some of us wanted action on that report before the house rose for the summer recess. We were told to put it off. We were told the matter would be considered and dealt with in the fall. Frankly I did not believe that, but we had no option in the end but to accept the decision of the house, although we voted against the motion to adjourn on that occasion.
We are now being put in the same position. We have had no assurance from the government that it will proceed with the consideration of Bill No. C-190. In fact all the indications are that we are not going to proceed with it.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I point out that if we are asked to adjourn the session at this point without dealing with that legislation, that the legislation will not be passed in this session. According to the terms of this motion we will be asked to come back on April 23 to continue the session. Everyone knows that certain important changes in the life of this country will take place in the meantime. There is the possibility, if not the probability, that a new government will face us when we return on April 23, and everyone knows that not much more work will be done in the remainder of this session.
This means that Bill C-190 is almost certain to die with the then imminent prorogation of this session. To tell us that the matter can be dealt with then is not, we suggest, at all satisfactory. If we are going to get this legislation, we have to get it now. I call upon the government to hold off the motion until this matter has been dealt with. I recognize that in the way the motion is worded measures other than the two supply bills could be dealt with by the house and given royal assent before we rise. But it is significant that the only items that are named are the two supply bills. I suggest this makes it very clear that the government is not prepared for us to stay in session until we deal with Bill C-190.
March 20, 1968
7842	COMMONS DEBATES
Adjournment on Completion of Business
I am fully aware of all the arguments for our having a recess. I am fully aware of the particular reason for this motion. I am fully aware of the desire of those engaged in another contest to have the opportunity to do that. But I think we have a prior obligation to the people of Canada to do something about the problems that are facing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of those problems is the high cost of living. The one specific piece of legislation this government has given us that will do something about the high cost of living is Bill C-190, which is designed in such a way as to bring down the cost of drugs to the people of this country. This is something the government has boasted about. It is one of two responses the government has made to the report of the special committee which recommended that something be done about drug prices. The government has boasted to high heaven about what it is going to do, and now it asks us to pass a resolution which in effect closes out any passing of that bill at this point in the session.
I stand here, Mr. Speaker, and make the assertion that if the bill is not dealt with now it will not be dealt with in this session. I have already cited the case of the superannuated civil servants who were asked to wait last July. They are still being asked to wait, those who have not died in the meantime. I remember that some years ago we had a government bill having to do with the Government Annuities Act. We were asked to wait until after a certain recess to deal with that bill. When we came back after the recess nothing was done, and that bill also died on the order paper.
I mention that bill in particular because the situation then parallels the situation which now faces us. The Government Annuities Act amendment of that year, about 1950 or 1951, was a government measure brought in with a great deal of fanfare; but then an insurance company lobby developed against the bill, and the lobby won. The government put the bill over until after the recess and that ended it.
We have the same situation now. We have a government bill of which the government has boasted. But there has been a terrific lobby against it by the pharmaceutical industry, and if this motion is passed and further consideration of the bill is put over until later, that lobby is such that the legislation will not be passed. Any assurances that this matter will be dealt with when we come back on

April 23 might as well not be given, because they are not worth the time it takes to give them. I say that on the basis of experiences I have had, two of which I have cited, with this present government and a previous Liberal government.
We do not quarrel with April 23 as the date of our returning. We do not quarrel with the idea of a recess that is a little longer than the usual Easter recess, particularly in view of the Liberal convention that is to be held. But we still say that to the Liberals as well as to the rest of us the interests of the people of Canada should come first, and one of the things about which we could do something is the price of drugs.
My hon. friends opposite keep referring to matters of courtesy and the fact that they let others hold conventions without parliament being in session. I would remind hon. members opposite that when they had a convention in 1948 they managed to do it in such a way that parliament did not meet at all. That was the last time a party in power changed leaders. Parliament prorogued on June 30, 1948, and did not meet again until late in January, 1949, so the Liberals had ample time in that period to carry on their campaign and elect their new leader. It is the present Prime Minister who chose to give his resignation and to precipitate the leadership campaign while parliament is in session. He is responsible for this situation, but he has said repeatedly that the business of parliament comes first; in fact he said so several times in the last few weeks.
The Prime Minister has said the business of parliament comes first, even ahead of the Liberal leadership convention. This motion denies that statement. The motion says in effect that the Liberal leadership convention must come ahead of legislation to bring down the price of drugs. A statement was made a little while ago about another matter, namely the curtailing of health services in the north.
I was very interested in the way Shaun Herron referred to this move on television, and spoke of the shabby values which some of the leadership candidates are giving us in this respect.
This motion is another case of shabby values. The right of the Liberal leadership candidates to travel around the country to try to win that coveted place is put ahead of their responsibility in parliament to deal with a matter which has been before us for a couple of years. This is not an opposition motion; it is not a proposal of ours. This is a government measure about which the government
March 20, 1968	COMMONS
has boasted a great deal, the famous Bill C-190, one of the important effects of which is to reduce the price of drugs.
Therefore, because we have no assurance that this matter will be dealt with, we contend that this motion should not be passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members can utter these interjections, but all they are doing is giving me time to think of a few more things to say. Let it not be said that efforts have not been made to get this matter considered. The other house leaders have known for weeks that we wanted this piece of legislation dealt with. Attempts have been made to arrange to see the estimates through and pass this legislation at the same time. Strong words have been used, but one does not need to worry about that. The fundamental fact is that there is a difference of opinion in the house on this legislation. I know why there is a difference of opinion. It is a result of the power of the pharmaceutical lobby, which has influenced a great many people. I think we have a responsibility not only to the pharmaceutical industry, and not only to the Liberal convention, but also to the people of Canada. Therefore I insist that we stay here until this legislation is dealt with.
Although we are going to vote against this motion I have reached the conclusion that its wording does not preclude the possibility of dealing with Bill C-190. Therefore I say that even if the motion carries we shall continue to press in every way we can for Bill C-190 to be dealt with, in the hope that it can be one of the other measures referred to in the resolution which will receive royal assent at the time this part of the session comes to a conclusion. I deplore as strongly as I can the wording of this resolution which denies the Prime Minister's assertion that the business of parliament comes first. It is for this reason that we shall vote against it.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we share the concern which has been expressed over the possibility that Bill C-190 will be allowed to die on the order paper at the end of this session. This is a very important bill. I think the fact that the government introduced it is an indication that the government considered it an important measure. On many occasions the government has expressed concern over the high cost of drugs, and in order to achieve some amelioration of the situation they did decide to introduce this measure. They assured us it
DEBATES	7843
Adjournment on Completion of Business would have a beneficial effect on drug prices. It is a little difficult, therefore, to understand why there has been such delay in having the house deal with it in a conclusive manner.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I too was a member of the public service committee which dealt with another measure to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred. Remembering the fate of that particular promise there is little to reassure us even if the government does say the measure will be dealt with after the recess. For these reasons, therefore, we share the concern of others about the delay that has been indicated. Yesterday I stated we would be happy to have the supplementary estimates and interim supply go through with a minimum of debate, possibly no more debate than has been held already, in order that we could deal with Bill No. C-190.1 still feel that is a desirable procedure and hope consideration would be given to that suggestion.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, just like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I see that we will meet again on April 23 after a recess. At that time, it will be much more difficult to have any legislation now on the order paper passed.
We expect, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, that the next prime minister will then want to prorogue the current session and open a new one.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned a very important bill which appears on the order paper, that is Bill No. C-190, and we would also like to see it passed before recess.
But there is another legislation which, we hope, will be passed during this session, and I would ask the government house leader to place it among the measures to be passed before the adjournment proposed in the motion before us. It is Bill No. C-186 entitled "An Act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act".
Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that we have been asking for at least two years, amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the composition of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
A cabinet committee studied the problem. At least three ministers, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), the hon. Minister of
7844	COMMONS
Adjournment on Completion of Business Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. Member of the Administration (Mr. Mackasey) have spoken very strongly in favour of Bill No. C-186.
Moreover, on several occasions, we asked the right hon. Prime Minister if he would take the necessary steps for this bill to be passed during the present session, and he always seemed to be very much in favour of the idea that Bill No. C-186 should be passed during this session.
Now, if the government took the trouble to create a special cabinet committee if three ministers and the right hon. Prime Minister are directly interested in having Bill No. C-186 passed as soon as possible, I feel that, under those circumstances, not only should Bill No. C-190, which I strongly support, be included in the legislation to be passed before adjournment, but also Bill No. C-186 which I favour even more.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are ready to consider the motion for second reading of this bill. By the way, yesterday, the chairman of the committee on labour and employment asked for the unanimous consent of the house in order that the committee might sit during the sittings of the house yesterday in order to prepare its report. We gave that unanimous consent. The committee sat yesterday. I think it is now ready to present its report on Bill No. C-186 which I think could be passed very quickly.
If the government is willing to co-operate and accept the suggestion that the two bills, Nos. C-190 and C-186, be passed before the house adjourns, all the members of the opposition will then show much greater co-operation with regard to the speedy passage of the supplementary estimates and interim supplies which the government is asking.
Therefore, I appeal to the spirit of co-operation of the government house leader. If he is willing, to proceed with those two bills which, as stated earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, have been introduced and endorsed by the government, we are ready to co-operate fully for the passage of the supplementary estimates, interim supply and the two bills I have just mentioned, namely Bills Nos. C-190 and C-186.
A good impulse on the part of the government leader will be followed by the full cooperation of the opposition; in fact, we can probably complete our business even more quickly, with the government's co-operation.

DEBATES	March 20, 1968


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker,
I think it will be generally accepted that I do not take up the time of the house too often, or for too long a period of time when I do. I am wondering whether it is possible for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to aid me in this pursuit of brevity. Could the minister give us an assurance that the bill to reduce drug prices will be one of those "any other measures" mentioned in paragraph 1?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are not in committee now. The minister has already spoken. If the hon. member for Timmins wants to make a presentation, he should complete it before the minister responds.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, failing that assurance I will have to be my usual brief self.
There are two or three points which have been made and should be underlined. We should all realize that this is a government bill; that the bill has received first and second reading, approval in principle; that we do not need to take too much time of the house to complete the further stages. I think most important of all, Mr. Speaker, we should realize that no later than yesterday afternoon we had the assurance of the minister of consumer affairs that he is prepared to proceed with this bill at once. We also had the assurance that the minister wanted to see this bill through.
In the face of this, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the co-operation offered by the opposition to implement this legislation, what real reason do we have to hold it back?
Another matter that hon. members should realize is this. The government have the primary responsibility of bringing in the legislation that the house is going to deal with. They also have the responsibility of setting the time when the legislation should be brought in and dealt with. I think the members of the opposition should realize that they also have a responsibility in this regard. Who is affected by this legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Timmins to remind him that what is now before the house is not the bill to which he refers. I fully admit that the matter can be referred to incidentally when speaking to the motion, but there is a very specific motion before the house. The hon. member is making a speech that he
March 20. 1968

might want to make, or perhaps has made already when the house considered second reading of the bill to which he has referred. If the hon. member were given an entirely free hand to discuss this bill we might spend a long time discussing at length and in detail every item of business that is on the order paper.
I suggest to hon. members that this would not be in order, and that an effort should be made to concentrate on the motion that is now before the house.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Murdo William Martin: I agree with Your Honour, so I will approach this question from the other direction. If the motion that is on the order paper is agreed to it will mean that as soon as we finish supplementary estimates and interim supply we can forget everything else on the order paper and go jogging off across the country on what the newspapers like to refer to as another holiday for members of parliament.
If we go off just like that we shall be judged by those in this country who will be affected by our failure to pass the legislation, the sick, the aged and those with chronic ailments who must buy drugs every day and who every day are shocked by the prices they must pay for those drugs.
Here we have an opportunity to lower drug prices and we are asked by the government to forget about it. That is tantamount to saying "Let's get on with the Liberal leadership race and forget our responsibilities and ignore the first opportunity we have had to lower the cost of living in this country. Let's forget all about it. This isn't really important; other things are far more important." The judgment of the people will be passed not only on the government but on the opposition also, and the way our people judge us will depend on the way we deal with this particular issue.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we must support the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) inviting the government to give us the assurance that Bill No. C-190 will be considered and passed before the recess.
I wonder why the government is taking so much time to introduce this bill which seems very important for the reduction in the cost of drugs? We are confident that the bill will succeed in reducing the prices which are exorbitant in many cases, and the more we delay in passing it, the longer the consumers
DEBATES	7845
Adjournment on Completion of Business who cannot do without drugs must pay exorbitant prices. For a long time now, the government has told us of its determination to fight inflation and, in my opinion, it now has a golden opportunity to do so, at least in part, by reducing the price of drugs.
I think that we should study this bill before this session is adjourned, and that is why we support the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this motion to adjourn the house after interim supply and the supplementary estimates have been passed, I know most members are always glad to see the house recess after they have been here for a long and strenuous session. Most of us have things we want to do in our constituencies.
I am surprised at the silence of the government benches, at the failure of the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister to tell us why the adjournment is so important that we cannot deal with a piece of legislation which was introduced by the government on the recommendation of a committee of the house, a piece of legislation which has had second reading and only requires to be discussed in committee of the whole and given third reading. Surely the house is entitled to some statement from the government about why the adjournment is so urgent that a vital piece of legislation which could be put through the house in a comparatively short period cannot be dealt with.
I point out that the legislation we are asking be dealt with before the recess is the outcome of the work of a house committee which was appointed about two and a half years ago. The committee spent two years investigating the drug industry, and it professed to be appalled at the high price of drugs for the consumer. That committee brought in a series of recommendations, and the government has acted on one of them by dealing with sales tax on drugs. That action resulted in a temporary reduction in some drug prices, but I am told that prices already are climbing back up, and there has been virtually no relief for those in Canada who have to buy drugs.
The other committee recommendation the government acted on was the introduction of Bill C-190, dealing with patents and trade marks. We discussed this bill fully on second reading, and the government convinced many
March 20, 1968
7846	COMMONS
Adjournment on Completion of Business members that while the legislation would not solve all problems, it would go far toward reducing the price of drugs for Canadian people.
The government having done that, fine; we want to know why the government is not prepared to complete the job before it recesses. It is not as though the government has not had plenty of warning about our views. On orders of the day two or three weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider calling Bill C-190, and the Prime Minister said then that once we get the supplementary estimates and interim supply through it might be possible to do that. We want to know whether the government is prepared to assure us that the bill will be called before the recess. Is this bill among "any other measures" referred to in the motion? The motion before the house says:
That the house adjourn immediately after returning from attending royal assent to the proposed appropriation bills (supplementary estimates (C), 1967-68 and interim supply, 1968-69) and to any other measures;-
If the government would tell us this bill is one of the measures referred to, we could make rapid progress. The government knew this matter to be contentious, and it had ample opportunity to arrange the business of the house. I submit discussion of the matter would not take a great deal of time now. We could discuss the bill in committee of the whole and give it third reading in relatively short order.
I appreciate the government's problems. Government members want to get out of here as quickly as they can. They want to get on with the Liberal leadership convention, and that is understandable. I point out that the decision to hold the Liberal leadership convention in the first week of April and to try to carry on parliament while the leadership of the Liberal party was being contested was not made by the opposition parties. It was made by the government. Consequently this house has been bedevilled for the past few months with the government trying to run a two ring circus. Our present dilemma has been precipitated because the minds of many cabinet ministers are more on the leadership contest than on the business of the house or the affairs of their departments. We do not want in any way to obstruct the government members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -from attending their convention. We are prepared to do what we can,


within conscionable limits, to see that government members get out of here and that cabinet ministers can conduct their campaigns and line up their delegates. But surely we are not asking too much when we ask the government to take a day or a day and a half, or whatever time is necessary, to pass this particular piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, if the government had agreed, yesterday we could have put through interim supply and supplementary estimates, and we could have begun the drug debate today and probably finished it by tomorrow. The government must decide what is its top priority.


Mr. Pearson:: Exactly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government must decide whether this drug legislation is more important than getting out of here a couple of days earlier. Whether it is of greater advantage to the people of Canada to have government members getting out a couple of days early to campaign instead of having the house sit for another day or day and a half to pass this important legislation is a decision and a responsibility the government must accept.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that for the Prime Minister or anyone else to tell us that this legislation will be dealt with when we come back is not at all satisfactory. I have risen session after session for the last four years to ask the government about the Canada Development Corporation. There have been resolutions on the order paper to set up such a corporation. We were told repeatedly that the matter would be dealt with later in the session. We have not seen it yet.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: You will.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says "You will". Where is it? The government has had four years to put it on the order paper. If the hon. gentleman as a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party is making this a promise to me, he has my vote right now. But we have had promises for four consecutive years and nothing has happened, and such being the case I think we are justified in taking an attitude which is somewhat cynical, somewhat sceptical.
The government has brought in a motion which says parliament shall adjourn just as soon as the supplementary estimates, interim supply and any other measures it may wish to bring in have been dealt with. I want to
March 20, 1968

say to the government in all seriousness that they will facilitate the adjournment of this session by saying now they are prepared to bring in Bill C-190 either before interim supply or right after interim supply, and that Bill C-190 will be one of the items listed under other matters. If we receive this kind of assurance we are prepared to support the motion before us and facilitate the business of the house. But if the government intends to insist that its political considerations take priority over a piece of legislation which they themselves introduced for the alleged purpose of helping to reduce drug prices, then we shall have no alternative but to oppose this motion and continue to insist that before parliament recesses we shall deal with this important piece of legislation. We feel we owe this to the people of Canada as well as to the members of the committee on drugs who toiled for two years to deal with this question.
Neither members on this side of the house nor members on the other side have the right to allow this legislation to be tossed into the wastepaper basket merely because there are political considerations which require the government to adjourn the house early, rather than do the thing which is the responsibility of parliament at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I almost gagged when I heard him say that the government was being influenced by political considerations. I suppose what we have heard this afternoon is a demonstration of the purest concern for the public interest, completely unrelated to ballot boxes or votes or constituencies or the electorate. It has been an exercise in the public interest, nothing else. It has been an exercise in public morality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A party which voted for dissolution three weeks ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A party which voted for an end of parliament, a party which voted to kill every item on the order paper, is today
DEBATES	7847
Adjournment on Completion oj Business on its feet crying and begging to us to stay here for a few more days to pass a particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those of us who have watched the New Democratic party on these occasions will realize that this is a familiar technique. Last July the house was moving toward an adjournment on a regular basis; there was a consensus that it was time to adjourn for a period and go back to our constituencies. Everyone felt this. Suddenly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said "No, you cannot leave until I have my increase for the retired civil servants."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Today we were told by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that if we give a commitment to him and his party that we will bring in the drug bill now, he and his hon. friends will facilitate the passage of supplementary estimates and supply. What is that but political blackmail?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday we tried to work out arrangements to accommodate all interests in the house. There was resistance to it because members of parliament both on this side of the house and on the other side are fed up with the tactics which are being employed on every occasion when we try to bring on an adjournment, tactics of blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are told we cannot close the house until such and such is done. We on this side know perfectly well that we cannot bring an end to the session. The right hon. member for Prince Albert, when he sat on these benches as prime minister, often said "The government opens the house but the opposition closes it." He was perfectly right. We need to get interim supply. We need to get the supplementary estimates passed. We must have these things before the house is adjourned. There is no time limit on the discussion, and members of the opposition, or members on this side, can keep us here as long as they wish. It is up to the members of the opposition to decide when the house is to close.
March 20. 1968
7848	COMMONS
Adjournment on Completion of Business
A week ago Monday I made it clear in informal conversations-I do not intend to disclose anything which was said in confidence, but this has been made public-that it was the intention of the government to bring on an adjournment when we had completed the passage of interim supply and the supplementary estimates. This was the intention. Naturally the New Democratic party asked us to bring on the drug bill. We considered this and found that consideration of the drug bill would involve protracted debate. It could not be disposed of in a day or two. Hon. members over in that corner say they only want the debate to take one day, which means that everyone else must agree to pass it in a day. Mr. Speaker, other hon. members may wish to take a longer time.
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to Bill C-190. It was brought in by the government, it has been given second reading, it has been approved in principle by the House of Commons. Yesterday the responsible minister stated he was ready to stand by the bill in terms of its economic significance and the safety afforded to the Canadian public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister to read the rest of the statement made by his colleague?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will. He said he was prepared to have it debated at any time. Certainly he is ready to have it debated at any time, because he is fully prepared; he knows his legislation and is ready to deal with it in the house.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We are not withdrawing this bill. It is still on the order paper and when the session is resumed next month it will be proceeded with by the government. I am quite satisfied that no matter what events take place in April this bill will be proceeded with by the government of Canada. In saying that I am satisfied that it is reasonable at this point to ask the house to complete consideration of the supply items and interim supply and reach an early adjournment so the house can return and complete the business on the order paper.
We are not asking for any special consideration. We have been engaged in the business of the house for a long period since the session began, and I believe it is reasonable to ask for an adjournment at this particular
[Mr. MacEachen.)

moment. I would ask the members of the New Democratic party to reconsider their position and give this motion unanimous approval.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister, as house leader, is prepared to say that the bill which has been under discussion will be the first item of government business to be called when the house resumes its sittings on April 23 in accordance with the terms of this motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be house leader when we return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will grant me the indulgence of a very brief statement before you call for the vote. I accepted without question your ruling about this motion as to when it should be debated. May I ask Your Honour at your leisure to reread standing order 21(2) which requires that certain government notices of motion be transferred to government orders. Would Your Honour also look at page 2 of the notice paper of Monday, March 18, in which notice was given of this motion and in which it is identified as a government notice of motion. It was because it was so identified as a government notice of motion that I thought standing order 22(2) should apply.
I do not quarrel with the fact that we have had the debate now, but I should like to point out that this is the reason I thought it should have been transferred to government orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might further substantiate the opinion I expressed a moment ago when I ruled on the point of order raised by the hon. member. I suggest to him that this is a point of order he is raising now rather than a question of privilege.
I should like to refer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the report of the committee on procedure which is referred to in volume XCIX of the Journals of the house for the year 1955, at page 746v. This is a report of the committee on procedure with which the hon. member is familiar. It was presented on June 14, 1955 and concurred in
March 20, 1968

by the house on July 12, 1955. It reads in part as follows:
That motions for concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee, for the suspension of any standing order, or such other motions made upon routine procedings, as may be required for the observances of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment shall be listed, when notice is required, called and disposed of under "Motions".
Those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fulton: 1.	As the result of discussions with provincial authorities about the proposed medicare program, or through other means, is it within the knowledge of the federal government what is the annual cost of that portion of the present medical care program in British Columbia which is paid out of tax money in that province and, if so, what is the amount?
2.	On the basis of current statistics, what will be the cost to the treasury of British Columbia, in a full year, of the medicare program as provided under the federal legislation of 1966, if the program goes into effect with respect to B.C. on July 1, 1968?
3.	What is the estimated cost to the federal Treasury in the same period in respect of British Columbia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No.
2.	In the hypothetical case of a medicare program as provided under the federal legislation of 1966 being in operation for the full calendar year 1968, the estimated aggregate cost in British Columbia would be $82.3 million. With federal participation, the estimated cost to the treasury of British Columbia would be $39.6 million. Such an estimate, of course, is based on a number of assumptions concerning the number of residents
covered, the schedule of fees, the percentage rate of payment, etc.
3.	In the same hypothetical case for the calendar year 1968, assuming 100 per cent population coverage and full participation by all provinces and territories, the estimated cost to the federal treasury in respect of British Columbia would be $42.7 million.


CONTINGENCY VOTE IN ESTIMATES
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	During each of the fiscal years 1963-64 to date, what was the total amount of the Vote in the Department of Finance or Treasury Board for contingencies and minor unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for?
2.	In each of the said years, what was the gross total amount initially charged to the said Vote for contingencies?
3.	Of such amounts so charged to the said Vote, what was the total amount in each of the said years subsequently replaced in the said Vote by provision in Supplementary Estimates or otherwise?
4.	In each of the said years, what was the net total amount finally charged to the said Vote after such replacements?
5.	At any time, during any of the said years, was there outstanding and charged to the said Vote for contingencies an amount or amounts greater than the amount at that period of time appropriated by Parliament for the said Vote for contingencies?
6.	If so, on what occasions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. See statement Column (1).
2.	See	statement	Column	(2).3.	See	statement	Column	(3).4.	See	statement	Column	(4).5.	No.	6.	See	no. 5.	

2
4
Total	Gross Amount Charged	Total Amount Replaced
Amount	

 

Fiscal Year	Appropriated	Salaries	Other	Salaries	Other1963-	64	
109,000,000	96,847,895	6,661,100	-	3,739,9121964-	65	
46,000,000	35,602,645	13,456,119	-	11,257,7851965-	66	
71,000,000	64,865,654	11,834,217	-	9,466,8561966-	67	
110,000,000	106,226,670	9,545,679	-	9,544,8711967-	68 (as at March 13, 1968)	
45,000,000	19,645,700	13,625,772	-	4,716,744
'Largely expenditures on federal government's winter works program.
"of which $8,908,819 will be reimbursed from items in supplementary estimates (C), 1967-68, leaving a net charge of $209.
Net Total Charged Salaries	Other
96,847,895	2,921,188*
35,602,645	2,198,334*
64,865,654	2,367,361*
106,226,670	808
19,645,700	8,909,028**
COMMONS DEBATES	7851
Questions

March 20. 1968
Questions


NEW BUILDINGS, EXPERIMENTAL FARM, OTTAWA
Mrs. Wadds: What new buildings have been built at the Experimental Farm in the last five years, and what was the cost of each?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Department of Agriculture: 1964, Storage building (prefab), $14,765; 1965, Plastic greenhouse, $10,794; 1965, Lath house, $4,339; 1965, 2 Plywood silos, $4,700; 1966, 8 Screen-houses, $2,600; 1967, Greenhouse, $34,202; 1967, 2 Plastic greenhouses, $64,900.
Department of Public Works: 1963, East west headerhouse, $322,213; 1963, Seismograph vault (Energy, Mines & Resources), $90,421; 1964, Honey house addition, $165,039; 1966, Irrigation pump house, Hartwell locks, $40,360;	1966, Sir John Carling building,
$9,962,579; 1967, Addition to apiculture building, $46,243; 1967, Plant growth building, $135,220.


OPERATION OF RETAIL OUTLETS, ARMED FORCES BASES
Mr. Ballard: In connection with the operation of food stores and other retail outlets on Canadian Forces Bases:
1.	How many food stores, gas stations and other retail outlets are operated by N.P.F. (non-public funds of units)?
2.	What is N.P.F.?
3.	Is N.P.F. incorporated and in what province?
4.	Who appoints or elects its management and to whom do they answer?
5.	What is the total business volume (retail sales)?
6.	Who audits the books and where is the audit published or to whom is it available?
7.	Have there been any modifications to the policy governing N.P.F. in 1967, and are any proposed changes at present under discussion?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Food stores, 12; Gas stations, 41; other retail outlets, 179. In addition, Maple Leaf Services operate, 7 Food stores; 4 Gas stations; 16 other retail outlets; as well as canteens in troop lines and junior ranks' clubs.
2.	"N.P.F." stands for "non-public funds" which is a term used in the Department of National Defence to indicate non-public money and property used for the collective benefit and welfare of the members of the forces, in accordance with section 39 of the National Defence Act.

3.	No, "N.P.F." is not incorporated. However, Maple Leaf Services is an independent body incorporated in May 1954 under the provisions of part II of the Companies' Act, and is therefore not a crown corporation.
4.	The non-public funds of units or other elements of the Canadian Forces are administered by mess, institute or canteen committees, which are approved by the commanding officer, and are responsible to the commanding officer of the unit for the efficient management of the messes, institutes and canteens in accordance with orders issued by the chief of the defence staff. Insofar as Maple Leaf Services is concerned, the members of the corporation are the officers and men of the regular army. The operations are controlled by a board of six directors, (officers of the Canadian Forces). The president and managing director are responsible to the board of directors for the day to day management of the corporation.
5.	In 1966-67, the total retail sales of the N.P.F. businesses listed in (1) above was $28,477,782, and Maple Leaf Services $20,377,175.
6.	Non-public fund accounts are audited not less than once annually by a board of officers appointed by the commanding officer of the unit. The audit reports are made available to the commanding officer, his next superior officer, and to the mess, institute and canteen committees. Insofar as Maple Leaf Services is concerned, the annual audit is carried out by a private company. This audit is available to all members of the corporation.
7.	No. However, in view of the fact that the reorganization act was proclaimed on 1 February, 1968, a proposal is being considered which would bring the services and amenities provided by Maple Leaf Services, as well as other N.P.F. activities, within an organization to be known as the Canadian Armed Forces Exchange System (CANEX). This will result in all resale outlets and amenities formerly under Maple Leaf Services and former naval or air force bases and units, being operated within the Canadian Armed Forces Exchange System under common management procedures and technical advice by the Director General CANEX as directed by the chief of the defence staff.
March 20, 1968


&quot;GUIDE TO CANADIAN MINISTRIES&quot;
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Was a Guide to Canadian Ministries 1867-1967 planned as a centennial project?
2.	If so, what stage has been reached in its publication?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by Public Archives as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The data upon which the text of the Guide is based is provided by the Privy Council office. Owing to pressure of other work the office has not yet been able to send to the Public Archives the data for the period August 1, 1965 to July 1, 1967. As soon as this is received the Archives will proceed with the publication of a complete new edition of the Guide that will cover the period 1867-1967.


SALES OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT TO U.S.
Mr, Douglas: 1.	What was the value of all arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, water-craft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, articles, materials, substances and things required or used for the purpose of the defence of Canada or for cooperative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and an associated government sold by Canada to the United States in 1967?
2.	What was the value of air-to-ground rockets sold by Canada to the United States in 1967?
3.	What was the value of TNT sold by Canada to the United States in 1967?
4.	What was the value of Octroi sold by Canada to the United States in 1967?
5.	What was the value of aircraft sold by Canada to the United States in 1967?
6.	Was any of the material named in Part 1 and sold by Canada to the United States made in plants owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Government and, if so (a) what plants were involved and (b) what was produced in each of these plants?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Insofar as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. Items under the heading "arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, water-craft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, articles, materials, substances and things required or used for the purpose of the defence of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and an associated government sold by Canada to the United States in 1967" would include a substantial proportion of raw and semi-processed materials such as nickel, copper, zinc, iron
Questions
ore, oil, chemicals, etc. entering into Canada/ United States trade, for which there is no satisfactory method of ascertaining what proportion of the total movement was required or used for the purpose of defence. It is, therefore, not possible to give a definitive and meaningful answer to this part.
2.	Nil.
3.	In 1967 U.S. contracts for TNT placed in Canada under the Canada/United States production sharing program totalled $4,091,342.
4.	No Octroi nor Octol was sold by Canada to the United States in 1967.
5.	No completed military aircraft were sold to the United States in 1967.
6.	For the reasons given in the answer to part 1, a complete answer cannot be given for this part. For sales under the Canada/ United States production sharing program, which are known to fall in the category defined in part 1: (a) (i) Canadian Arsenals Limited, filling division, St. Paul l'Ermite, Quebec; (ii) Louise Basin Plant, Quebec, (operated by Valcartier Industries, Valcartier, Quebec); (iii) Canadian Arsenals Limited, small arms division, (b) (i) Miscellaneous ammunition components; (ii) Brass cartridge cases; (iii) Components for small arms.


CONSTRUCTION OF DESTROYERS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What is the present total estimated cost for construction of the four new destroyers, including the equipment costs of these ships?
2.	When will the review of the bids for the construction of these ships be completed?
3.	Is any consideration being given to having one yard build all four ships?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. The present estimated total cost for construction, equipment, installation of equipment and testing of equipment during the sea trials is between $220 million and $225 million.
2.	Prior to April 12, 1968.
3.	Consideration was given but it was found that such a course was not advantageous.


TENDER CALLS FOR DESTROYERS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Have tender calls been put for the construction of any or all four of the so-called D.D.H. destroyers of the Department of National Defence and, if so (a) for how many (b) on what date?

March 20, 1968
Questions
2.	How many tenders were received, from what firms, and for what amounts either individually or on any other basis?
3.	If bids were received, are any or all of them acceptable and, if so, when is it expected that a decision would be reached to award a contract and, in that event, what would be the expected date of signing the contract?
4.	In the event of a firm date for awarding a contract for any or all of these vessels, what would be the anticipated dates for (a) laying the keel (b) delivery of the vessels to the Canadian Forces Naval Branch?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. Requests for proposals for the construction and installation of equipment items on four DDH-280 class vessels were issued to the shipyards qualified to submit proposals in two categories, one for the lead (first) ship and the second ship, and the other for the third and fourth ships, on April 12, 1967.
2.	On the closing date for receipt of proposals, December 12th, 1967 two were received for the lead ship and the second ship of the program, and four were received for the third and fourth ships, as follows:
Name of company	Evaluation
price
Lead and second ship
Marine Industries Limited	$20,436,200
Davie Shipbuilding Limited $24,042,767
Third and fourth ship Marine Industries Limited Davie Shipbuilding Limited Halifax Shipyard Division of DOSCO Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited

3.	Assessment and evaluation of the proposals is continuing. Award of contracts is expected to be made by April 12th, 1968.
4.	The schedules for the construction of these ships will be the responsibilities of the successful contractors to meet the required delivery dates of June 1971 for the lead ship, November 1971 for the second, June 1972 for the third and September 1972 for the fourth ship.


SHIPS BUILT FOR ATLANTIC SUGAR REFINERIES
Mr. MacRae: 1.	How many ships have been built for the Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited on which a federal government subsidy was paid?

2.	Where were these ships built?
3.	Where will they be used?
4.	What were the total construction costs?
5.	What was the total amount of the subsidy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited have contracted for 15 ships for which ship construction subsidies have been authorized. Of these, 11 are completed and four are under construction.
2.	Yarrows Limited, 2 ships; Canadian Vickers Shipyards Limited: Montreal Division, 3 ships, Geo. T. Davie Division, 8 ships; Newfoundland Marine Works, 2 ships.
3.	Not known.
4.	Total construction costs are not known. However, "approved costs" for purposes of subsidies are $24,346,335.
5.	Total amount of subsidy paid or to be paid is $12,173,167.50.


WHEAT BOARD ALLOCATION FOR MARKETING GRAIN
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In the last fiscal year, what was the expenditure by the Canadian Wheat Board allocated to the operation of marketing producers' grain?
2.	Of the above amount, how much was allocated to sales promotional activities?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1 and 2. Information with respect to the expenditure by the Canadian Wheat Board allocated to the operation of marketing producers' grain for the fiscal year ending July 31st, 1967, will appear in the board's annual report for the 196667 crop year and cannot be released until that report has been tabled in parliament. The annual report is now in its final stages of preparation and will be tabled in parliament shortly.


COMMITTEE ON MUTUAL FUNDS AND INVESTMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Committee on Mutual Funds and Investment Contracts?
2.	What are the terms of reference of the Committee?
3.	When is it anticipated that a report will be received from the Committee?
4.	What has been (a) the total cost of the Committee to date (b) the share thereof of the Government of Canada?
5.	What is the anticipated additional cost of the Committee?
March 20, 1968


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Gordon E. Grundy, F.C.A., chairman and Ontario representative; Louis de B. Gravel, Quebec representative; W. S. Irwin, British Columbia representative; K. P. Lawton, Q.C., New Brunswick representative; Marc Lalonde, Federal government representative; G. H. Rose, Q.C., Alberta representative; F. C. Tapley, Manitoba representative.
2.	The Canadian securities administrators at their Winnipeg conference in 1965, passed a resolution recommending that a committee be established to study the mutual fund and investment contracts industries in Canada. In furtherance of this resolution, the province of Quebec, at the interprovincial conference of prime ministers of 1966, proposed that such a study be undertaken and that the federal government be invited to participate in it. The proposal was ratified at the federal-provincial conference held at Ottawa in November 1966. The purpose of the committee is to study the operations of mutual fund and investment contracts industries, including invesment funds offered for public participation by trust companies, and equity-based insurance contracts offered by insurance companies and to report on whether the existing legislation and regulation, in these areas, is adequate for the protection of the investor.
3.	The winter of 1968-1969.
4.	As at February 29, 1968, the total cash disbursements were $175,743.72. The federal government's share is 50 per cent of the total amount.
5.	The committee has budgeted for additional expenditures of $312,407.


PENSION PLAN COLLECTIONS FROM PERSONS SINCE DECEASED
[Stage Direction]
Question No 1,104-Mr. Rapp:
1.	How much money was collected for the Canada Pension Plan from persons who died between January 1, 1966 and January 1, 1968?
2.	Will these payments be returned to their estates?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Not available.
2. The maximum contribution payable by a contributor when calculated in accordance with the plan is not returnable to the estate of the contributor. However, for the year of death the calculation of the maximum Canada Pension Plan contribution payable by
Questions
the deceased contributor is based on the number of months before the date of death and if the amount so calculated is less than the contributions actually collected the difference would be refunded to the estate of the contributor.


INCOME AND ESTATE TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. Davis: 1.	What were the personal Income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1965-66?
2.	What were the corporate income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1965-66?
3.	What was the Estate Tax, in total and by province, collected by the federal government in the fiscal year 1965-66?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Personal income tax payments to the federal government for the fiscal year 1965-66 were $3,166.6 million. The total includes old age security tax and provincial income tax collected by the federal government. Collection figures by provinces are not available because payments processed by the taxation data centre in Ottawa relate to all provinces and district office collection figures therefore do not indicate correctly the amount collected in each province. The following table, based on an analysis of tax returns, shows the total tax payable by individuals in respect of the 1965 taxation year distributed by the province of residence:
	Total	Averaj
	Tax	per
Province	Payable	Capit
	$ million	$
Newfoundland	30.4	62.30P.E.I.	5.8	53.21Nova Scotia	66.1	87.43New Brunswick	47.5	77.24(x) Quebec	475.7	83.68Ontario	1,425.0	209.93Manitoba	129.2	133.89Saskatchewan	115.3	121.37Alberta	205.0	141.38British Columbia	361.3	201.06
(x) Excludes taxes payable directly to the province.
2. Corporate income tax payments to the federal government in total for the fiscal year 1965-66 were $1,891.1 million. The total includes old age security tax and provincial

March 20, 1968
Questions
income tax collected by the federal government. Collection figures by provinces, based
on the location of the district		office in
which the revenue was in the following table:	collected, are shown	
CORPORATIONS		
	Total	Average
	Tax	per
Province	Collected Capita	
	$ million	$
Newfoundland	18.6	38.11P.E.I.	2.8	25.69Nova Scotia	18.2	24.07New Brunswick	12.9	20.98(x) Quebec	596.7	104.96(x) Ontario	864.3	127.33Manitoba	81.9	84.87Saskatchewan	16.4	17.26Alberta	84.4	58.21British Columbia	194.5	108.24
(x) excludes corporation taxes collected directly by the province.
3. Estate tax payments to the federal government in total for the fiscal year 1965-66 were $108.4 million. Distribution of this total in accordance with the province in which the district office is located are set out below:


ESTATES
[Stage Direction]
Total
Tax
Province	Collected $ million
Newfoundland	1.1
P.E.I.	.4
Nova Scotia	12.1
New Brunswick	2.0
(x) Quebec	21.1
(x) Ontario	52.6
Manitoba	4.8
Saskatchewan	3.2
Alberta	6.6
(x) British Columbia	4.5
(x) Succession duties are collected by these provinces.

Mr. Caouelle: 1.	What are the government's plans regarding the expansion of Dorval Airport?
2.	In the last three years, what sum was expended on (a) Toronto Airport (b) Montreal Airport?
3.	During the next three years, what sum does the government intend to spend on (a) Toronto Airport (b) Montreal Airport?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Major studies are underway by consultants and by the department in respect of future expansion of Montreal international airport. These studies are designed to consider both immediate and the long term needs for airport facilities relative to the current foreseeable demands of the aviation industry. At this time this examination is not sufficiently complete to permit a definitive statement of the department's plans. It is however expected that by early summer the studies will have been completed and firm plans evolved regarding the future development of the airport.
2.	Capital expenditures at Montreal and Toronto international airports (1965/66 and 1966/67 actual; 1967/68 estimated). Montreal international airport, $12,322,338.00; Toronto international airport, $5,226,930.00.
3.	Forecast of possible and foreseeable capital expenditures at Montreal and Toronto international airports for the next three years: 1968/69, 1969/70, 1970/71. Montreal international airport, $37,483,000.00; Toronto international airport, $35,372,000.00.


RECIPIENTS OF CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister table in the House the full list of the names and addresses of recipients (other than the Armed Forces) of the Centennial Medal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
By long established practice the list of recipients of commemorative medals is not published. This, however, is not the difficulty in this case. In the case of the centennial medal the awards were made to persons nominated by federal, provincial and municipal authorities, as well as by many national organizations in the fields of welfare, education, defence, science, the arts, labour, sports, business and industry. These agencies and organizations made their recommendations on the understanding that their list would remain confidential as regards their source.
Moreover, the awards have not yet been completed as one province and certain municipalities have not sent in their full list. If these are not received shortly, the government intends to consider the list as completed. It can then be made public, though without any indication of the source of the recommendation.
March 20, 1968


IMMIGRATION IN 1966 AND 1967
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many immigrants were permitted to enter Canada (a) in 1966 (b) in 1967?
2.	From what countries did the majority of immigrants come?
3.	What particular skills did the majority of immigrants have to qualify for entry?
4.	How many people were deported from Canada (a) in 1966 (b) in 1967?
5.	(a) How many immigrants are now incarcerated in Canada while awaiting disposition by way of an inquiry or appeal as to their right to remain in Canada (b) of those mentioned, how many have been refused bail while awaiting a hearing or appeal?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. (a) 192,804. (b) 209,840.
2.	Great Britain, Italy, the United States, West Germany.
3.	Managerial, professional, technical, clerical, service, manufacturing and construction.
4. (a) 1754. (b) 2172.
5. (a) 2. (b) 1.


COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE OF FERRY &quot;JOHN HAMILTON GRAY&quot;
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it expected that the car ferry, John Hamilton Gray, will go into service between Borden and Cape Tormentine?
2.	What was the original expected date?
3.	What factors have caused the delay in completing construction of this ship?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. October, 1968.
2.	Fall of 1967.
3.	Design, engineering and production problems within the plant of the main propulsion supplier.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 57 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and the consent of the relevant government authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
Inquiries of the Ministry


HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT, ROBERTS BANK, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia on the subject-matter of the harbour development at Roberts Bank.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with regard to the $175 million bond issue of April 1 about which a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. Is the Bank of Canada taking $85 million of the issue immediately and, if so, what is the further $100 million in five year bonds which the bank will purchase later? Can the minister state what interest rate is being offered?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information with me today. I will take the question as notice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is the government lending $55 million to the C.N.R. to redeem an issue due on May 15 and, if so, what is the interest rate involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will also take this question as notice.


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES ON GOVERNMENT BONDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In the last few days, the Minister of Finance announced an increase in the interest rate of a few million dollars in government bonds, to convert matured bonds which the government is unable to refund at maturity. This rise in the interest rate varies between 2 and 2| per cent and I would like to know whether this increase is included in the blue book containing the estimates for 1968.

March 20. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no substance to the hon. gentleman's statement that interest rates have recently risen by 2.5 per cent. The interest rates that have been fixed on the bonds recently offered by the government are at the market.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Finance.
Following the J of 1 per cent increase in the bank rate by the Bank of Canada during the weekend, this morning's Le Devoir reports that several trust companies, among whom the General Trust of Canada, have also raised their interest rates. Can the minister tell us whether the government or parliament has jurisdiction over the Bank of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: -and whether means could possibly be found to stop this reckless escalation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now asking for an interpretation of the legislation and, for this reason, I think the question is out of order.


ACTION TO CURTAIL INCREASES IN INTEREST RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister indicated in answer to a question of mine that the cabinet was studying the effects of rising interest rates. Has the government reached any conclusion on what steps should be taken to correct the social and economic disabilities that have resulted from high interest rates?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question so wide in scope that I suggest to him such a statement should normally be made on motions.


Edward Nasserden: Several weeks ago I
brought this question to the attention of the Prime Minister. He indicated the matter was under study by the cabinet, so perhaps he would like to give us an interim report on the decisions they have reached.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with respect to the setting up of the review board which he mentioned a week or ten days ago. Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when this board will be set up, whether the terms of reference have yet been drafted, and whether he is able to table his letter to the premiers with respect to this board?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tabling the letter. A a matter of fact-and I will have to check this-we have already been in contact with the provinces to see whether there is agreement to table the correspondence between us. Immediately after my statement senior officials visited the provinces. They have already visited Ontario, Quebec and two other provinces and discussed with provincial officials the terms of reference for such a board and other matters related to it. I expect to have a report from them at the beginning of next week. This will enable us to go ahead with the drafting of the terms of reference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister state a tentative date when he hopes this review board will be established? Is he hoping to do it while he is still in office or is this matter to be carried on by his successor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope there might be at least considerable progress and perhaps some finality reached between now and April 25.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether the house will have a chance to discuss the matter, having in mind that the board will be set up under the Inquiries Act and it will not be necessary, as he indicated, to secure parliamentary approval?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope it would be possible. I see no reason why it should not be possible for an appropriate parliamentary committee to discuss the matter after the recess.
March 20. 1968


HARBOURS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Has he yet reached an agreement with the government of British Columbia on the joint development of a super port at Roberts Bank?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: We are continuing to exchange letters, Mr. Speaker, and to keep the lines of communication open. In the meantime, plans for the port development are continuing so that there will be no hold-up and so we will be able to have it open on the required date.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the appeal made at the United Nations yesterday in the speech by Lord Caradon, chief British delegate, for a review of possibilities for international action directed at crushing the Smith government in Rhodesia, can the minister state Canada's position with regard to methods to be used against the Rhodesian government? Is Canada going along with suggestions that Rhodesia be placed in international Coventry through suspension of mails and total rupture of economic and diplomatic relations, which will be detrimental to the Africans as well as the whites, or is the Canadian stand that present measures are as far as Canada is prepared to go?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes the statement made by the British ambassador, Lord Caradon. Canada has, all along, supported the British government, as indeed all commonwealth governments have, in opposing the unilateral declaration of independence by the government of Mr. Smith. As I said yesterday, the Security Council has begun again to consider the Rhodesian question in the light of the executions carried out recently by the Smith regime. Our representative is scheduled to take part in the discussion this afternoon in
Inquiries of the Ministry the Security Council. He will state the Canadian view of the situation and make clear our dismay at the deplorable conduct of the Rhodesian regime. In regard to sanctions he will also be suggesting that the council consider extending the existing selective mandatory sanctions to encompass the whole of Rhodesia's external trade, as we ourselves have done. This move should bring further pressure to bear on the Smith regime.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a supplementary question. Has Canada expressed agreement with Britain's stand against the use of force in dealing with the Rhodesian government?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Our view with regard to the use of force has been well stated. What I have just indicated is that we strongly support economic sanctions and believe the time has come when they might be strengthened.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he give consideration to reporting to the defence committee of the House of Commons and seeking its opinion on the purchase of new planes, the construction of additional destroyers, and any new relationship with NATO and NORAD prior to their presentation as a fait accompli to the house or the defence committee?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This is such a broad question, Mr. Speaker, that I ask the privilege of studying it very carefully.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of a statement by an official of his department on March 18, as reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail, that there are a number of problems associated with the commencement of the new international world wheat agreement on July 1, 1968, can the minister advise the house what steps, if any, are being taken to seek the co-operation of Russia and other

March 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry communist bloc countries who are not signatories to the international world wheat agreement in order that the new agreement may become effective?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the wheat board have visited Russia, as well as participating countries, and there are no grounds for the pessimism reportedly expressed in the article.


Mr.   Soulhara@: A supplementary or related question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say what progress is being made toward setting up an international wheat council in London to take the place of the council that lapsed with the last international agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: There was a discussion last week. I understand they got along well and everything is moving in the direction of implementation. One cannot take it for a certainty because there are so many nations involved, but the proceedings are going well.


DURUM WHEAT-PROSPECTS FOR EXPORT SALES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house what the present situation is regarding quota regulations on Durum wheat and the sales prospects for the rest of this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated this question and I am prepared for it. Sales of Durum wheat have been relatively good. For several weeks now the delivery quota on Durum wheat has been open and sales have been made as this type of wheat arrives at terminal positions. The wheat board informs us there will be relatively little left on farms at the end of the crop year. The market for Durum wheat next year, like this year, will be around 20 to 25 million bushels.


CROWN ASSETS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Prime Minister. Has any one minister been given special authority for the disposal of surplus government material or does the minister of each department necessarily have to dispose of surplus assets through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister concerned dealt with that last night. There is a recognized procedure in connection with this matter under the responsibility of a minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister outline for the benefit of members the procedure that one minister has to follow and which is directed to other ministers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I doubt that this question is in order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The answer given by the Prime Minister is definitely not in order if the question is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot rule on that point.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can surplus assets within the Department of Defence Production be sold directly by the minister or his department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is in his seat, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps my hon. friend would direct his question to him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, quite often you have decided that when we wish to ask questions of policy we should direct them to the Prime Minister. We have often received that advice. Surely the Prime Minister knows what the law is. I asked him a simple yes or no question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, I directed this question to the Prime Minister's attention because I cannot get an honest answer from the Minister of Defence Production.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
March 20, 1968	COMMONS


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and I have given him notice of it. It arises from an answer he gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on Monday last which appears at page 7725 of Hansard. In answer to a question whether Canada would be selling gold to the United States the minister said in part:
If we come to the conclusion that our gold reserves are more than adequate as a proportion of our total reserves, we might feel we should sell some in order to increase our earnings and thereby reduce the taxes we have to raise.
My question is: Under the terms of the agreement reached in Washington last week, would the minister tell us if it is possible for the government to transfer monetary gold-he referred to reserves-in any other way except by settlement of balance of payments? That is to say, can it actually be sold from our reserves and is the United States still going to buy gold or is it merely going to be transferred as part of the process of settling international payments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there is nothing in the agreement reached in Washington last week which prevents the transfer of gold between central banks or between our exchange fund and the United States. The limitations are, first, upon the sale of gold out of reserves into the private market and, conversely, a restriction on the purchase of gold by monetary authorities from the market.


Colin Cameron: I have a supplementary question again arising out of the answer the minister gave last Monday. This part refers to the purchase of gold from Canadian producers by the government. The minister had this to say:
The position at the present time under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


Colin Cameron: Very well. The minister has suggested that the provisions of the gold mining assistance act-excuse me, I simply have to lay the
DEBATES	7861
Inquiries of the Ministry ground for the question; it is not one you can just spit out in two or three words. The minister has said he considers the situation is not changed and that the Canadian mint will purchase gold from Canadian producers. The question I want to ask is, on what terms will it be purchasing the gold, how will the price be set, and what will the Canadian mint do with it when it has purchased gold from Canadian producers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the gold that is being purchased by the mint is being held in its own vaults until we reach a decision as to the best means of dealing with it. As the hon. gentleman knows, it is part of the agreement among the central banks that the monetary authorities will not add to their reserves by buying gold. We are not yet sure what policy to follow with respect to the gold acquired, so we are keeping it in the vaults pending final decision.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is related to that asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This matter is of particular importance to my area. Could the minister clarify whether the government is going to continue to buy gold from Canadian producers and, if so, at what price?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act gold can be purchased by the mint at $35 an ounce. The agreement that we have with the central banks is that our exchange fund will not buy any gold from the market. That is why I said in reply to an earlier question that the gold being purchased by the mint is being held in its vaults pending a decision as to the proper way of disposing of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the gold producers are free to sell gold on the open market at the same time if they so desire but that they will have to forgo the subsidy if they do?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The gold mines have the alternative of selling on the open market. If they do that, then of course they do not receive the subsidy. If they sell their gold to the mint they do receive the subsidy.

March 20, 1368
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS


VIET NAM-SUGGESTED ACTION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On March 11 I asked the minister whether, in view of the serious situation of the children of Viet Nam and their plight as a result of the war, the United Nations or some agency of that body was giving consideration to evacuating these children from the war area. In reply the minister stated that he would make an examination to see whether this is being considered. Has the minister made this examination and is he able to advise me on this matter?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with officials of the United Nations through the United Nations specialized agencies which have undertaken specific projects in Viet Nam. However, the sort of extensive evacuation program referred to in my hon. friend's question is not now under consideration by the United Nations. Practical possibilities do exist, however, for helping the victims of the recent upsurge in hostilities. The Canadian government has considered favourably an appeal for assistance from the government of the republic of Viet Nam and we will supply aid to the extent of some $200,000, including food, refugee supplies and the sponsorship of medical volunteers.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. During the adjournment debate on March 14 the minister, speaking about health services for the Indian people, said, as recorded on page 7662 of Hansard:
-we have been able to maintain at least the same level of expenditures for northern health services and Indian health services as was established last year.
May I ask the minister how he can reconcile that statement with the directive that has been issued by his department to all chiefs and councillors of Manitoba Indian bands, which leads off by saying that the federal government has been forced to reduce its program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is certainly argumentative. He is asking the minister to reconcile a statement made to the house with the statement to which the hon. member refers, which is argument.


Robert Simpson: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question and ask the minister when he will be able to make a statement to the house to clear up the situation that now exists regarding reduced health services for the Indian people in northern Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make the statement before adjournment, preferably, if I am permitted, when my estimates are reached.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government reconsider its policy of halting any increase in expenditures on northern health services in view of the fact that the mortality rate among Indians and Eskimos in Canada is among the highest of any country in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member is restating a question that has been asked in precisely the same terms.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence perhaps I can direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the prime importance of the representations that have been made to the government on behalf of the greenhouse industry, can the minister indicate whether the government has yet formulated any policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there has been any final resolution of the presentation that was made by the greenhouse industry. The representations are being studied by my department as well as by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Tariff Board. Any government action that is taken as a result of these representations will be taken in the normal fashion.
March 20, 1968


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he received this week further representations from the Public Service Alliance of Canada urging him to take action before his retirement to increase the pensions of retired civil servants? Will the Prime Minister crown his career by acceding to this request as well as to the unanimous report of the special joint committee on the public service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his anxiety to have me crown my career. I have received such a letter. I have not yet dealt with it, at least in the way indicated by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he will deal with this matter before the date of his retirement, and is April 25 a significant date since he mentioned it a little while ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's statement on this matter a little earlier indicates that by dealing with it he means dealing with it to his satisfaction, which is not quite the same thing. We will certainly give the matter consideration and do what we think is right in the circumstances.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is very similar to the one I asked him last Monday which he took as notice. Will the minister indicate whether the federal government will be discontinuing payments for hospital and medical services to Indians in those provinces that have not come into the medicare plan by July 1?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is to be expected that if the medical care plan is universally applied to the provinces that will be the source of medical care services.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
In view of the urgency and the importance of the matter, I should like the Minister of Labour or his colleague, the Member of the Administration responsible for studying the conflict between the shippers and the dockers in Montreal harbour, to tell us how far negotiations have progressed and when we can expect normal activities to be resumed in the largest port in Canada?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I reported in the house a few days ago, the conciliation board chaired by Associate Chief Judge Gold has been working assiduously. Hearings opened last Friday and the parties have been at it more or less continuously this week. I get periodic reports, including one received today from the Minister without Portfolio who, at my request, has been taking a special interest in this matter. Encouraging progress is being made. That is about all I can say at this time.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that this session will soon be adjourned, can the minister tell us whether normal activities in the harbour can be expected before resumption of the session, at the end of April?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is no reason why not, if the good will that we hope will be shown by both parties is exhibited before the conciliation board.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister say whether there are any grounds for reports that because of administrative changes under way in the department
7864

March 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry there will be a big influx very soon of Chinese and Indian immigrants to Canada? If so, will such immigrants be relatively skilled and will they be directed to those areas of Canada that have a manpower shortage?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication that the information given to the house is correct. I will inquire and, if it is true, I shall give details.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and I ask him to note it in any event. Does the minister think that the 11.5 per cent to 16 per cent wage increase for West Indies seasonal labour falls within the acceptable percentage for wage increases under his wage restraint proposals?


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


RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has received a report from Professor Plumptre about the feasibility of an international development centre in Canada, I would ask him whether tangible steps have been taken since that report was received.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, not yet, Mr. Speaker, but progress has been good. I know my hon. friend is particularly interested in this matter and perhaps I would be able to have a word with him and send him a progress report on it.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister or his department received a protest from the Canadian

Airline Pilots Association about the report on the crash at Uplands airport a while ago? Will the minister arrange to dispose of this matter since this is the third time in recent days that the pilots' association has objected to departmental crash reports?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of my hon. friend's question.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Monday, March 11, the hon. member for Skeena and the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked the Prime Minister questions about reported discrimination in an employment contract in Canada's north. I refer to the case of Terence Whitfield. The Prime Minister said he would like to study this matter before making a statement. It was our understanding that he would make a statement to the house. Is he now in a position to make that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received a long report on the matter, Mr. Speaker, which corrects some of the misunderstandings and distortions arising from published reports. The report is too long for it to be useful in answering this question. I have asked the Minister of Justice to boil it down. Perhaps he will have it ready tomorrow.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pilon:
That the name of Mr. Stafford be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts;
That the name of Mr. Ryan be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on health and welfare;
That the name of Mr. Groos be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on veterans affairs;
That the name of Mr. Noel be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on printing;
That the name of Mr. Caron be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant;
March 20, 1968
[Stage Direction]
That the name of Mr. Patterson be substituted for the name of Mr. Leboe on the standing committee on labour and employment; and
That the name of Mr. Addison be substituted for the name of Mr. Goyer on the standing committee on transport and communications.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Walker:: Mr.	Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted, I would have voted either for or against.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
March 20, 1968

Supply-Defence Production


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, for the record, I was present but abstained on what I consider to be a purely internal problem of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting as a protest against this waste of time and this abuse of parliament.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I take this opportunity to suggest to hon. members that I do not believe it is in accordance with the practice of the house for hon. members to make statements explaining why they voted or did not vote or why they were paired.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, does the same thing apply to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The same thing applies to all members.

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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose on Tuesday, March 19, item 6c of the Department of Defence Production was under consideration.


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
6c. Reimbursement of the Defence Production Revolving Fund established by section 16(1) of the Defence Production Act for losses sustained in the operation of the crown-owned magnesium foundry at Haley, Ontario, prior to its sale in December, 1967, $480,000.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, may we have a statement from the minister? I believe he has some information for us.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for Rosthern asked who were the auditors of Haley Industries. There have been three firms: In the period 1951 to 1962, Thorne, Mulholland, Howson and McPherson; 1963, Clarkson, Gordon; and 1964 to 1967, Tighe Pearson. The Auditor General has not been appointed the official auditor of this company. Use was made of the auditors who were associated with the companies which had the management contracts.
The question was asked as to how many employees there were at Haley Industries. The current level of employment there is 184, I am informed, 34 of whom have been added since Bartaco took over early in the new year. Most of the employees reside in the constituencies of Renfrew North and Renfrew South. I am told that the length of service is as follows: 30 per cent of the employees have in excess of seven years service and the balance, some 70 per cent, have less than seven years service.
The special skills required in connection with this operation are those of metallurgists, radiographers, pattern-makers, core-makers and machinists. Even in respect of those who are not what one might call professionally trained, for the semi-skilled workers special training is needed.
The original facility in 1951 cost as follows: for land, $1; for buildings and services including water and electricity, $1,818,000; equipment, $894,000. In respect of the condition of the plant prior to the solution which has been proposed, namely the transfer to Bartaco Industries, we engaged consultants to report on the possibilities of keeping the plant in operation by various options. I am informed that the consultants reported that substantial new investment would be required if the plant were to continue profitably in the operation of the business in which it was engaged, that of producing magnesium and high quality aluminium castings. The foundry, and it is basically a foundry operation, had deteriorated over the course of the years, as one would expect, and further investment would be needed. In the view of the consultants this investment was required and would either have to be made by the crown or by a successor taking over the operation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The report also pointed out the need for a strong management group to run the operation. I am told that the facility currently
March 20, 1968

requires roof repairs, a waste disposal system, general renovations, processing rearrangements, and improved ventilation systems. Of course these are the responsibility of the new operator, Bartaco.
A question was also asked on the details of profits and losses during the firm's operation. I have the figures here. In 1952 there was a profit of $210,000; in 1953, $383,000; in 1954, $113,000; in 1955, $60,000; in 1956 $61,000; in 1957 $41,000. Subsequently there was losses: In 1958, $161,000; in 1959, $172,000; in 1960, $147,000; in 1961, a profit of $70,000; in 1962, a nine months period, a loss of $102,000; in 1963, under Fleet management, a profit of $55,000, followed in 1964 by a loss of $136,000; in 1965, a loss of $57,000; in 1966, a profit of $93,000; in 1967, a loss of $315,000; and in 1967, from September, the end of the company's fiscal year, until December 5, a further loss of $87,000.
The hon. member also asked for the names of the directors and the shareholders. The following are the directors: Robert Mathew Barr, president, J. S. Gairdner, vice president, John Howard Hawke, Samuel F. Ross, secretary, William A. Barr, Clarence W. Leo-nardi, and John Charles Sawchuk. The shareholders are: R. M. Barr, operating through Barchild Investments of Orillia, and J. S. Gairdner, operating through Glengair Investment of Toronto, who together own 82 per cent of the common stock, and there are also some 300 miscellaneous shareholders holding 18 per cent of the common stock. I am told that most of these 300 miscellaneous shareholders are Canadians.
In respect of the obligations of Bartaco, they have undertaken to continue this facility in operation for a minimum period of two years.
A question was asked as to when a sale to a United States firm was first known to the department and whether the department has ever obtained an assurance to maintain Canadian ownership. There has been no sale to a United States firm, although I am told that an offer was made by a firm in Philadelphia to purchase 52 per cent of the stock of this enterprise. The offer was made in February. I must say I do not know how long it will be valid and whether it will be accepted. No undertaking was given by the purchaser that it would remain under exclusively Canadian ownership.
The hon. member asked whether balance sheets were available. The answer is yes, a balance sheet is now in the process of being
Supply-Defence Production audited by the audit service branch of the Department of Finance.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, we thank the minister for the information he has given us. Can he tell us whether the figures regarding the plant, the building and the equipment, etc., related to the time of the sale? My question was related to the value of the asset at the time of the sale, not at the time it was first constructed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the hon. gentleman, who I understand is a member of the public accounts committee, will know, the valuation of the land would probably be obtainable on some form of appraisal. The cost of the land was $1. This is rural land in Renfrew county, and without in any way wishing to run down Renfrew county may I say that it is not of very substantial value per acre. Under a system of accounting which governments of Canada have pursued for a long time, the buildings are carried in their books, not at a depreciated, current or market value, but merely at the original cost figure. This is the only figure we have for this building which, since the inception of the operation, has continued to be owned by the government.


Edward Nasserden: Was there any inventory of raw materials or stock on hand at the time of sale?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: An audited balanced sheet was made up at the end of the company's fiscal year. A pro forma balance sheet was drawn up as of the date of sale, and this is the one which is currently being audited by the audit service branch of the Department of Finance. I do not think it should be released before it has been audited. But the figure in the balance sheet dated September 29 shows an inventory of raw materials of $116,000; work in process, castings, $120,000; castings finished but undelivered, $63,798; and work in process in respect of patterns, $103,000.


Edward Nasserden: Were there any accounts
receivable?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In September there were accounts receivable in the amount of $261,979.15, without any reserve for bad debts in the balance sheet.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to direct the minister's attention to some remarks he made in the house last night. Near the bottom of page 7831 of Hansard in
March 20, 1968

Supply-Defence Production the left hand corner he made the following statement:
This is not the general procedure, but rather an exceptional procedure.
The minister was dealing with the disposal of public assets in this manner. He continued:
The reason what appears to be an exceptional procedure was used in this case is, as I explained earlier, that we were not disposing of assets from which the taxpayer could expect to recover some proceeds, but rather we were disposing of a liability.
Later he quoted his authority for disposing of it. Section 5(e) to which the minister referred last night reads:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
(e) authorize a government department to dispose of surplus crown assets in such manner, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as he may consider desirable;
The marginal note reads:
Authority to department to dipose of assets.
This section gives the department the authority to dispose of assets, but if this is a liability where does the minister get his authority to dispose of a liability? This section only gives him authority to dispose of assets. Despite what the minister says, if this is the authority he is using then he must be disposing of an asset for the sum of one dollar. The minister said also that this procedure had only been used in exceptional cases. Would the minister mind telling the committee how many times he has used this authority to dispose of public assets?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Fortunately we have not
encountered this kind of situation where a crown corporation has been in a consistently losing position and arrangements have had to be made to try to ensure its continued operation under the best circumstances possible. There have been other crown corporations which have not been consistently profitable but have been dealt with. In one instance there was a large ammunition producing facility at Val Cartier operated by Canadian Arsenals Limited. There was a sale made of this operation. It was somewhat similar in that it was a crown owned operation that was sold. However, in the case of the Val Cartier operation it was not a liability but represented a net asset to the crown.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that answer. I should like to ask him if section 8 of the Surplus Crown Assets

Act has been drawn to his attention? This section reads:
The minister may authorize the corporation to exercise or perform any or all of the functions, powers or duties of the minister under section 5.
Last night I asked the minister why he had not turned this plant over to Crown Assets, as directed by this act. The case to which I referred the minister concerned armouries under the Department of National Defence, and he thought they should be turned over to Crown Assets. In this case he did not do that because he said the plant was a liability. We have proven it was not a liability but an asset.
I should like to refer the minister to subsection 4 of section 13 of the same act. It reads:
The accounts of the corporation shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada and the audited statements of such accounts shall be included in the corporation's annual report.
Was the fact the accounts of the corporation were being audited by the Auditor General one of the reasons the minister did not handle the transaction in this way? I should like to ask the minister also, where are the credits shown? Where are the profits to which the minister referred during the period 19521958 and which I think amounted to over $2 million?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the accounts of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are audited by the Auditor General whereas Haley Industries accounts were audited by an outside auditor had nothing whatever to do with the means of disposal of this particular operation, as I endeavoured to indicate to the hon. gentleman last night. What was being sought here was an arrangement whereby, if possible, the plant could be continued as an industrial operation. This is not the kind of business with which Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is normally familiar. Crown Assets Disposal, in its normal course of business, deals with commodities, land and buildings not continuing in their previous use. In this sense it is not endeavouring to dispose of continuing operations. The search for a prospective buyer could best be performed by those who have some working knowledge of the business in which the firm has been engaged, and this knowledge of course resides in the Department of Defence Production rather than in Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
The excess profits for the years in which there were such profits have, in accordance
March 20. 1968

with the usual procedure, been turned back to the crown. The profits earned by the operator when he was operating on his own would remain with him. In the years in which a profit was made and a charge was made to the management operator for the use of the premises and for the use of government machines, those charges would be paid into the public accounts of the Receiver General.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will try to simplify the point I am trying to make. How does the Auditor General scrutinize the balance sheets of transactions such as we have been discussing today from the time they start to the time of the disposal of the plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not quite sure what technique he would use, Mr. Chairman. However, the Auditor General has a resident representative in the Department of Defence Production. He has welcome access at all times to all the files in the department, and that is why he is a resident there, so he can obtain easy access


John (Jack) McIntosh: In view of that remark I would draw the minister's attention to page 29 of the Auditor General's report, section 65, which deals with the unauthorized use of the defence production revolving fund. I asked this question last night. Has this paragraph anything to do with transactions such as we are discussing at the present time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think that paragraph refers to the use of the revolving fund in connection with the acquisition, holding and disposal of commodities, if my recollection is accurate. This is really quite a different type of operation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: When the minister talks about commodities perhaps he had better define them because I think the defence production revolving fund is used for the purpose of acquiring, storing and maintaining stocks of material for defence supplies. Certainly the press release concerning the sale of this property led us to believe the department had been purchasing material for the Avro Arrow which went out of production some years ago. I am not sure the minister's reply to my question is correct, that the Auditor General was not trying to get at such transactions as this in his report. However, I will leave that for the moment and turn to another part of the minister's remarks last night. He said, as reported on page 7832 of Hansard:
-I should like to say to him that if he had assumed the contract that Bartaco assumed I would have been glad to pay him $100. Bartaco has
Supply-Defence Production
assumed a lot of continuing contractual undertakings which represent crown liabilities. In order to get the company to do this, we had to agree to absorb incurred losses carried forward from the balance sheets of previous years, plus the discharge of a number of outstanding financial obligations against the company. We were unable to get a continuing operator on any other condition.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am wondering how the minister relates that statement to his press release which tells the Canadian public that the Haley foundry was set up at a time when no other source for such castings was available to Canada but that other sources are now available and it is no longer necessary to maintain this facility as a crown owned plant for defence purposes. I should like to know how long this situation has existed and why it was necessary for the government to enter into future contracts when according to the press release this material is now available from other sources.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, one of the principal consumers of the output of the Haley plant has been United Aircraft. With a substantial measure of crown assistance they have quite successfully developed the P.T.-6 gas turbine engine. Some of the essential castings for the P.T.-6 gas turbine engine were produced at Haley. It is my understanding that it would not have been possible for United Aircraft quickly to find sources other than Haley for these particular castings. In the interest of the continuing success, particularly in export markets, of the P.T.-6 it seemed desirable for Haley to continue its operations and if possible to expand in the export market, which is what we hope for beyond December, 1967.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then may I ask the minister whether the government has contracted with Bartaco, or whatever other company owns the plant, in regard to future production of the plant and, if so, up until what time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned we have had an undertaking from Bartaco to keep the plant in operation for a period of two years. This is a unilateral obligation on their part with no corresponding obligation on the crown to purchase any or all its output.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then I take it from the ministers' remarks that Bartaco cannot sell to any foreign interest before the end of two years? Is this in the agreement with the crown?
March 20. 1968

Supply-Defence Production


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman. The undertaking is on the purchaser to ensure that the plant continues in operation for two years. That is the commitment. There is no commitment to remain as owner.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this matter. I do so with deep feelings because last night in this chamber an insinuation was made against the Minister of Agriculture who is my next door neighbour. I should like to read a brief extract from Hansard. The hon. member for Swift Current said:
Perhaps it is coincidental that in this case, in respect of which the minister sold the property for $1, the property was located in a constituency represented by a minister of the crown, who is a contender for the Liberal leadership. Is there any connection in that regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret that the hon. gentleman should suggest that there is any possible connection.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I regret that I had to do so.
I should like to set the geographical statistics straight here and to tell the hon. member for Swift Current that-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Maple Creek.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am sorry, Swift Current-Maple Creek-that he does not need to worry about this plant being located in the constituency of a person who is in the Liberal leadership race. The plant happens to be in my constituency, and there are so many capable men running for the leadership of the Liberal party already that I really do not think I will throw my hat into the ring.


Mr. Fane:: You would do better than a lot of them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am always interested in the comments of the hon. member for Vegreville. I should also like to point out that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said-


Malcolm MacInnis: Page.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: As reported on page 7831:
I do not agree for one moment that the minister did not dispose of an asset of the Canadian people. I should like to have had the opportunity to buy that factory for $1.
I suggest that selling the plant to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek would not be the solution to the economic

problems of Renfrew county. The hon. member went on:
It would have been far better for the minister to have closed the factory and given it to the town, because it might have been of some benefit to the town.
This plant is located in a rural township, not in an incorporated town. What concerns me is that a member of the Conservative party is suggesting that an industry in my constituency should be closed. This is indicative of the attitude to eastern Ontario taken by the Conservative party for several years. They say nothing about the employment that this plant has provided in Renfrew county over the years.
In view of some of the losses that have been recorded I think I should point out that the magnesium business is very competitive internationally. It has also been stated that at the present time the plant has 184 employees, including 30 who have been added to the staff since Bartaco took over. It is said that 30 per cent of these employees have been with the plant for over seven years and the other 70 per cent for a lesser period.
It should also be noted that some special trades are employed such as metallurgists, radiographers, pattern-makers, core-makers, machinists, and so on. These people have homes in the area and deserve the consideration that the government has given them by keeping the plant open. I want to express my sincere appreciation to the government for so doing.
Another fact which should be stated is that since this is a magnesium foundry it is of limited use so far as any changeover or readjustment to another industry is concerned. Therefore the market for such a plant is relatively small. If this arrangement had not been made many families would have found themselves without income. Yet the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek suggests that it should have been closed down. I say this shows a callous disregard for humanity.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This government-


An hon. Member:: What page was this on?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -is spending millions of dollars to keep people employed in the Cape Breton area and as a Canadian and a friend of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I support this program wholeheartedly.
March 20, 1968


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Would the hon. member allow one simple question? Would he outline what program he speaks of?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Dosco program.


Malcolm MacInnis: But let
us have the details of the program.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member can make his own speech later.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order to tell the committee that in referring to a Cape Breton matter the hon. member is speaking of something of which he has absolutely no knowledge.


Mr. Choquetle:: That is not a point of order.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Auguste Choquette: It is a stupidity.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Will the hon. member clarify the point of order for the Chair?


Malcolm MacInnis: May we
have some order, Mr. Chairman? I do not think an hon. member is allowed to speak from his seat. When I am on my feet making some remarks I think it behooves the Chair to ask other hon. members not to interject from their seats. The hon. member for Renfrew North was talking of something he knows absolutely nothing about. When he directs his remarks at what the hon. member for Swift Current-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Actually the hon. member has no point of order. He is making an argumentative representation.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
Chairman is jumping the gun. I have not arrived at my point of order. I was clarifying my remarks.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member would not keep him in suspense too long.
Supply-Defence Production


Malcolm MacInnis: Speaking of suspense, everyone is anxious to get the estimates through but the hon. member for Renfrew North has been speaking for the last 15 minutes and has not contributed anything to their passage.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek spoke last night of a situation in Renfrew county. The hon. member for Renfrew North referred to the same situation, described the attitude of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek as callous and also referred to the steel situation in Cape Breton. If he wants to discuss that matter he had better do some homework so he will know what is going on.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member for Cape Breton South is so far out in left field he cannot see the batter.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly free to speak about Cape Breton as long as he can substantiate what he is saying. If he does not understand what he is saying he should consult someone who knows about the matter, and in this case I am not suggesting he go to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Before we hear any more suppositions I want to say that as a Canadian I am referring to programs elsewhere in Canada. Wherever problems are faced in Canada and people are in trouble my humanitarian instinct is on their side. I ask that the same consideration be given by hon. members opposite, and that consideration is not being extended by suggesting that a plant in my riding be closed.


Donald MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, at no time have I objected to government aid being given in Renfrew county or elsewhere. The hon. member should remove that implication from his remarks.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I did not imply anything like the hon. member suggests. I am only asking for Canadians to be interested in Canada. As a Canadian I support programs that are being implemented to help others in Canada. We must look after all Canadians in all regions, and I wish to make a few comments along these lines.
So far as I am concerned the people of my area deserve as much consideration as the people of other areas in Canada. As a
March 20, 1968

Supply-Defence Production humanitarian I compliment the government on making arrangements with the plant concerned so that our local people can be employed. This seems to be such an issue with the opposition, and it proves once again that they are not interested in eastern Ontario. Any party that wants to see an industry close down in an area that needs economic growth has proved its callous disregard for the people of that area, and the people of my area are going to know the attitude of the opposition on this issue.
The jobs of the employees of Bartaco at Haley are being protected by the government and I thank the government for the arrangements that have been made. If they had not been made many families would have been left without an income. As I said, notwithstanding the interruptions, I extend the same humanitarian sympathy to other areas that face circumstances similar to ours. I know that the people of Renfrew county and some in Pontiac county in Quebec are grateful for the arrangements that have been made, and I do not think the minister should back away one inch from his position. On behalf of Renfrew county I thank him.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Inasmuch as the hon. member brought me into his argument one might have expected him not to quote me out of context. I wish he had given me the consideration that I hope to give him. I commend him for the protection he is extending to the people he represents. I do not know whether he was here last night to hear the minister's reply. I thought the Minister of Agriculture, a potential leader of the Liberal party, was from Renfrew and that that was where the factory in question was. I admire the humanitarian instinct of the hon. member but I wish he would go back to the opening remarks of my speech. I was glad to hear the hon. member say he does not believe in discrimination.
I brought the matter up and made the comparison because I understood that this factory in the hon. member's area had been sold for $1. Last night I asked the minister if he would sell the armoury in my area for $1 so that there would be no discrimination. If the hon. member had been here last night he would have heard the minister say, "No". I asked the minister why the government would sell a factory in the hon. member's area for $1 and not do the same in my area.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: On a point of order, I say to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that I was in the house last night.
[Mr. Hopkins. 1


John (Jack) McIntosh: I apologize.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I was here when the statement was made so no inferences can be drawn based on absence. So far as I am concerned the minister answers for the minister, but I am here representing the constituency of Renfrew North. As a member of parliament I have a job to do and that is why I am on my feet today. The matter the hon. member raised is a departmental one and he ought to refer to the department concerned.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, the hon. member rose on a point of order to indicate that he was present in the house last night. We all know the rules. If a statement was made in the house last night to which he takes objection, last night was the time he should have raised his question of privilege. If the hon. member was here last night he should have raised his question of privilege then, not 24 hours later.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Renfrew North, did not rise on a question of privilege but to take part in this debate. In the course of doing so he drew attention to a statement which was erroneous, not in accordance with the facts.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the
question of privilege, the Minister of Labour ought to know better. I was referring to the rules of this house. Questions of privilege should be raised immediately, not .24 hours later. The Minister of Labour has interjected a point of order which is nonsense. I suggest he should go back to India and look after his work. The government of which he is a member has indicated to the people of Canada that the hon. member for Verdun is looking after his portfolio. Why doesn't the hon. gentleman go back to India?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There is a matter I wish to clear up with the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order before you and I think you should rule on it.


An hon. Member:: Who is your doctor?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: If the hon. member would resume his seat-


Malcolm MacInnis: The
hon. member over there is still on his feet. Talk to him, not to me.
March 20, 1968


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I shall try to rule on the point of order submitted to the Chair. There was no question of privilege; it was merely a contribution to a debate. I think everyone is taking part in a debate. There are no points of order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Nor questions of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
speaking on a question of privilege right now.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: There can only be one question of privilege before us at one time and I wish the hon. member would not make the task of the Chair more difficult. I have been looking at the clock for the last 15 minutes hoping it will be six o'clock.


Malcolm MacInnis: Am I to
understand the Chair is now ruling that questions of privilege can be brought up at any time and need not be raised at the earliest opportunity?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The question is hypothetical. The Chair ruled there were no valid points of order raised on either side of the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: There was a question of privilege before you, if not a point of order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I should like to clarify this point. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek knows that I rose on a question of privilege a couple of minutes ago specifically because he implied I was not in the house last night. The question of privilege I raised followed the comment he made not five minutes ago. It was not something which arose 24 hours ago as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has suggested. I rose this afternoon to deliver a speech, and that speech is obviously not a question of privilege. I am speaking on behalf of my riding. The question of privilege related to something which occurred immediately before I rose and has no connection with anything which happened last night.


Malcolm MacInnis: Why
were you quoting from Hansard?


John (Jack) McIntosh: It is quite correct that the hon. member for Renfrew North spoke on a question of privilege arising from a statement I made that he was not in the house last night. I apologize for making that statement; I did not know he was in the house. But I 27053-4961
Supply-Defence Production will make another suggestion right now. His speech today was intended for consumption in his own area, looking toward the next election. He says he does not want to see discrimination. When I asked him a question he said: Let the minister answer it. If he is in favour of equal rights for all he should be supporting the idea I am putting forward. If he did not support ministers who make deals in this way we would have less trouble in Canada than we are experiencing today.


Edward Nasserden: I have one or two questions to ask the minister. Was an item in respect of prepaid expenses included in the financial statement of this organization and was there an amount reserved for bad debts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I mentioned that there was no reserve for bad debts in the balance sheet of September 29, but there is an item for prepaid expenses in the amount of some $9,000.


Mr. Peters:: Was this previously a crown corporation? If so, for how long had it been a crown corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry the hon. member did not hear my outline. This is a plant built and owned by the crown but operated by a number of private operators.


William Arnold Peters: I am prompted to rise by the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew North who told the committee he was happy the minister had been able to solve this problem by the sale of the Renfrew plant. There has been some suggestion that the Polymer Corporation should be sold but if that happened I presume the transaction would be handled in a totally different way, possibly through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, a course which would, I imagine, result in a great deal of extra prestige for that corporation.
The hon. member pointed out that the maintenance and operation of this plant were a matter of great importance to more than 200 workers and said he was pleased about the decision which had been reached. However, it seems to me we should be given a much clearer understanding of the means by which crown corporations are disposed of. Several weeks ago another crown corporation, Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, was wound up. It had been set up by parliament for a specific purpose and when that purpose had been achieved it was disposed of by an act of parliament. The machinery used to close that corporation down was the same
March 20, 1968

Supply-Defence Production as that used to establish it but in reverse, one might say. I admit the bill was passed more quietly than the bill for its establishment in 1956. However, the process was the same and legislation had to be passed. In this case action is being taken through a supplementary estimate and it seems to me the house is not getting the whole story. 1 am not sure I understand part of the minister's submission and I should certainly like some time in which to consider the observations he made. I would therefore call it six o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Michael Starr: I wonder whether there is a disposition on the part of the committee to sit for a while longer and pass these estimates of the Department of Defence Production in
view of the fact that getting answers from the minister has proved to be a hopeless task. Apparently we will not get any answers anyway.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee in agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. member?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, taking into account your words of a few moments ago with regard to your desire to be elsewhere, I call it six o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 21, 1968