1969-03-05

Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend a great Canadian and native of that great metropolis of the north, Sault Ste. Marie, accomplished something that has never before been accomplished. Philip Esposito of the Boston Bruins became the first man in history to accumulate 100 points in the National Hockey League in one season.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Terrence Murphy: May I say that he is capable of going on to achieve new records. Yesterday the senate of the state of Massachusetts saw fit to congratulate Phil. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members of the house will agree that a man of this stature, although not a prophet, should not go unhonoured in his country, the birthplace of the game in which he has become so proficient. I therefore hope that the Parliament of Canada will see fit to pass a motion congratulating Philip Esposito for having become the first player in history to accumulate 100 points in the National Hockey League.
I would therefore move that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Already the hon. member has fractured about a hundred rules. I suggest he table the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development announced to the house last week that an agreement is to be signed on March 7 with the province of Prince
Edward Island to provide for the joint implementation of a development plan for that province. I should like today to say a few words about that agreement.
The plan itself is a major undertaking and will be recognized as such, I am sure, by the house. The first phase will require some seven years to complete and will involve federal expenditures of $125 million. The second phase will extend through the balance of a 15 year period and is expected to involve federal expenditures of $100 million. The economic and social improvements which will follow from a development program of this magnitude are of the greatest significance to Prince Edward Island and deserve the very highest priority in any scale of assistance projects.
The government should have liked to be able to assist at the same time in the construction of a causeway linking the island to the mainland, because of the obvious benefits which would accrue to the province from such a structure. As hon. members recognize, however, and as I am sure the citizens of Prince Edward Island will appreciate, there is a limitation 'to the resources of Canada and a decision therefore had to be made fixing the priorities of expenditure. Following consultation with the government of Prince Edward Island, a decision was taken by the federal government to support the development plan as being the likeliest method of offering appreciable and lasting benefit to the economy of Prince Edward Island in the foreseeable future.
I wish to add that there is a recognition by the federal government that the existing mainland links-the ferry services-are not of an acceptable standard. I am pleased to be able to say, therefore, that these services will be extensively upgraded and developed. The vessel capacity of the ferry service will this summer be twice that of last year. Modern terminal facilities offering a range of services and conveniences to the public will be in operation as well. The new standard of service will be maintained by planned additions to the ferry fleet and to the terminal facilities as traffic demands.
We have every expectation, Mr. Speaker, that this massive form of assistance will give to those Canadians living in Prince Edward

March 5, 1969
Regional Development Island a full opportunity to improve their economic and social conditions to a standard in keeping with that enjoyed by Canadians elsewhere. Programs of this sort are one example of what federalism is all about; I am sure that persons from all parts of the country are proud to be able to join in offering a helping hand to fellow Canadians who have over the years made such an important contribution to confederation.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Sianfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to make a few comments Mr. Speaker, regarding the Prime Minister's statement. I do so with the benefit of very little solid information either with respect to the project being cancelled or with regard to the project being announced. It is clear however this is not on the scale recommended by the FRED group, which submitted a development plan. There is no way of judging from the Prime Minister's statement what the plan will be. It is clear it is not in the same order as that recommended by the study group. That should be made very clear, Mr. Speaker. We certainly want a full statement at an early date as to what this plan is. On the basis of this general statement, I must question what impact this plan, whatever it may be, will have upon the economy of Prince Edward Island. It appears to be a different plan from that recommended by the study group.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what confidence can anyone in Prince Edward Island have that this plan will in fact be carried through, since it is being announced at the very time that the government is breaking a solemn undertaking with regard to the causeway? As far as today's announcement is concerned, Mr. Speaker, all we have is another promise. We have to know what the government's commitments are in terms of a firm agreement before making any comment on this aspect. We will be interested in knowing precisely what this agreement is.
This statement must be read carefully, because if anybody reads it quickly they may think the government of Prince Edward Island has agreed to this change. It should be carefully noted that the decision has been taken by the government of Canada following consultations of some sort with the government of the province. I would like to know whether the government of Prince Edward Island has agreed to this plan, Mr. Speaker, to abandon the causeway construction, and voluntarily accepted this alternative.

We have no indication, but I presume we will learn in due course what contribution the people of Prince Edward Island are expected to make to this program. What is Prince Edward Island's share? This clearly represents another abandonment of a commitment made by a former Prime Minister of this country. I would not want to hold the government of Canada to an undertaking regardless of circumstances, but certainly this house and the country have been given no solid information at all as to the cost of discharging this firm undertaking to build the causeway, an undertaking given to the people of Prince Edward Island. We have only been given the simple statement that it is being abandoned. No information has been placed before us which would justify the government's not fulfilling a solemn commitment given to the people of the island province.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to discuss this on the basis of any information we have, because we have been given none- although a lot of information of some sort has been leaked out from time to time, no doubt calculated to give some kind of impression. I want to say that there can be no doubt about the importance of a reliable year-round service to Prince Edward Island if the economy is to develop, and I would question very much whether any plan of the magnitude announced here will have a very substantial effect in improving the economy of Prince Edward Island, without a permanent crossing being built as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Everything I say, Mr. Speaker, is subject to any solid information that the government may eventually produce to justify the decision it has taken. It has not given that information today. It is very doubtful if the economy of Prince Edward Island can develop substantially on the basis of the plan as announced, without satisfactory transportation system.
The tourist industry cannot develop to anything like its full potential on the basis of what is announced in this statement. The Atlantic Development Board, in a study, indicated that the development of the agricultural industry on Prince Edward Island is severely handicapped by the lack of a permanent crossing. I would venture to guess, Mr. Speaker, based on experience in the province
March 5, 1969

of Nova Scotia, that what is now going to happen is that the government will spend very large sums of money trying to improve the ferry service, and involve itself in increasing deficits of an operating nature. In the end it will spend as much money on the ferries as it would have spent on the causeway, and in the meantime will have continued to give a very inadequate service.
On the basis of any information that we have now, I think that the people of Prince Edward Island are being short-changed. I think it is time the government gave the house and the country some solid information which it believes can justify this kind of short-changing of the people of the island.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members in all parts of the house will be prepared to support any development project that would assist the province of Prince Edward Island, and help it to rehabilitate its economy. But before the members of the house can assess whether or not the project announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be of any value whatever, we need a great deal more information than has been given to us in the Prime Minister's very brief statement today.
It is a rather sad commentary on parliament that we have to look to the press in order to get some of the particulars with respect to this project. It is unfortunate one has to look to Time magazine to find out what this project is all about; and if the information in Time magazine is inaccurate, then of course the Prime Minister and the government must accept the responsibility for not telling the house what the actual facts are.
Assuming the report in Time magazine is reasonably accurate, this looks like a one horse, one rabbit deal. The contribution which the federal government proposes to make is $125 million in the first phase covering a period of seven years, and a contribution of $100 million in the second phase covering a period of 15 years. However the report in the press indicates that the province of Prince Edward Island will be required to put up $139 million in the first seven years, and in the second phase, in the last eight years, will be required to put up $380 million. This means that the provincial government will be contributing $519 million and the federal government $225 million.
Regional Development
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
But that is not all the story. Of the federal government's $125 million contribution in the first seven years, $41.6 million represents an interest bearing loan which the province must repay. Consequently the outright payment by the federal government will be $183.4 million, a little better than an average of $8 million a year over the 22 years that this project will be in effect. Now, $183.4 million or a little better than $8 million a year is very poor compensation indeed for the causeway that was promised to the people of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be interested in knowing whether the staff of the federal government which is studying federal-provincial affairs believes the province of Prince Edward Island can, over the life of this agreement, manage to meet its responsibility and also the loan which it must repay; this amounts in all to $560.6 million. That is a tremendous undertaking for a small province of a little over
100,000	people to assume, particularly when the federal government's contribution is to be a mere $183.4 million.
I think the government has a responsibility to provide an opportunity in the house, so that we can have all the information concerning what the respective commitments are, first with regard to the federal government and secondly with regard to the government of Prince Edward Island. I believe we have a right to know what guarantees and provisions are being made for the farmers who will be dispossessed under this program, for the lobster canneries that will be closed, for the industries that will be rationalized and for the number of ports that will be reduced. These are facts which we ought to have before us. I suggest to the Prime Minister that a bare statement such as we have today does not provide this house with the kind of information it requires upon which to make a proper judgment.
I urge that at an early opportunity the responsible minister, or the Prime Minister, should give the house the full details so that the matter can be debated. On the basis of the information we have at the present time I would say that the people of Prince Edward Island are getting the short end of the deal.

March 5, 1969
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: Is the publication "Audit Office Guide" (Cat. FA 3-258) available in the French language and, if not,
(a)	for what reason (b) when is it expected that it will be published in French?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The
Auditor General has reported as follows: No.
(a)	No French edition of the Audit Office Guide was printed, presumably because there was no demand for it; (b) As the present edition of the Guide, which was released in January 1958, is now out of print, and as the text must be revised before a further edition can be printed, there are no plans for publishing the present edition in French. Important changes have been and are continuing to be made in the financial management of departments of government. When these changes are substantially complete, the intention is that the Audit Office Guide will be revised and a new edition released. The next edition will be made available in both official languages.


CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS REFUSED
Mr. Deakon: How many residents of Canada, who have applied for Canadian Citizenship during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 were refused such citizenship?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1963, 337; 1964, 323; 1965, 287; 1966, 135; 1967, 146.


DEVELOPMENT OF CL-215 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Did Canadair Ltd. originally seek federal government support for its research and development project, CL-215 aircraft, under the Defence Development Sharing Program?
2.	Was the project supported under the Department Program, "Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology"?
3.	If so, what amounts were funded by the Departmental PAIT Program in support of this project?
4.	Was the project successful and, if so, what are the repayment provisions?
5.	Under the new changes in the Defence Development Sharing Program, would the Canadair project CL-215 be eligible for government support under this program?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Department of Industry has committed $5,250,000 under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology to support the project, of which $4,535,300 had been spent as of December 31, 1968.
4.	The project has not yet been completed. If the project is successful and the aircraft is put into commercial production, the Company is obligated to repay the Crown contribution wih interest on a royalty basis extending over the first 126 aircraft sold.
5.	This a hypothetical question. If an application was submitted the decision would be taken by the Inter-Departmental Committee, Defence Export Development which advises Treasury Board on such matters.


FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACTIVITIES
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	(a) In how many individual feature films has the Canadian Film Development Corporation invested (b) what are the names of these films?
2.	(a) How many loans has the Canadian Film Development Corporation made to film producers
(b)	what was the amount of each loan and to whom was it paid?
3.	(a) How many awards for outstanding accomplishment in the production of Canadian feature films has the CFDC made since its establishment (b) what are the names of the recipients?
4.	(a) How many grants have been made by the CFDC to film makers and film technicians resident in Canada to assist them in improving their craft (b) what are the names of the recipients and the amount awarded?
5.	What are the names of the firms and individuals who have been assisted by the CFDC in the distribution of their films?
6.	What are the names of the firms and individuals who have been assisted by the CFDC in the administrative functions of feature film production?
7.	How many feature films in the category "coproduction" has the CFDC encouraged, made a partial investment in, been the primary investor?
8.	What country, individuals or firms has CFDC made agreements with, including the names or firms involved as Canadian co-producers?
9.	How many people are employed by CFDC?
10.	What amount of money is paid to the chief executive officer annually and, what amount of money is paid to the Acting Secretary, or Secretary of the Corporation as the case may be?
11.	What amount has been paid into the Canadian Film Development Advance Account from consolidated revenue?
March 5, 1969

12.	What amount has been paid out of the Canadian Film Development Advance Account for (a) staff salaries (b) remuneration and expenses of the CFDC, for investment in all categories of feature film production?
13.	How much has the CFDC received as proceeds from or on account of production of projects in which the Corporation has invested?


Gérard Pelletier: I have been informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. (a) One feature film production; 14 additional projects have been accepted for initial investment. (b) The proposed title of the feature film production is "The Act of The Heart". Because of the confidential nature of negotiations between the Corporation and film producers, the Corporation, therefore, does not disclose details of projects in the preproduction stage.
2.	(a) and (b) The Corporation is presently negotiating a contract for a loan with an applicant for the production of a feature film. The Corporation does not disclose the names of applicants during negotiation stages.
3.	(a) and (b) None up to this time but the Corporation has allocated $100,000 for awards to be made before March 31, 1969.
Questions
8.	The Canadian Film Development Corporation is not empowered to make co-production agreements on behalf of Canada with other countries.
9.	Five.
10.	Executive Director $23,000 per annum.
11.	As at December 31, 1968, $108,225.13.
12.	As at December 31, 1968, (a) $25,641.57;
(b)	$82,583.56.
13.	Nil. No films in which the Corporation has invested have been completed and gone into commercial distribution.


THEFT OF MAIL BAGS
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	For each year since 1965, how many mail bags have been stolen in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec?
2.	What was total amount of money stolen in this manner in each of the provinces?
3.	What was the total value of parcels stolen in each of the provinces?
4.	What was the total number of letters stolen in each province?
5.	What steps is the government taking to stop these thefts?
6.	Is a study on this subject presently underway?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 4. (a) None; (b) Not applicable.	In so far as	the Post Office	Department is5. and 6. Frequent	inquiries are made of	concerned:	the Corporation and	discussions have been	1.	(a) Canada	(b) Quebecheld with several companies and individuals	1965	177	108concerning film distribution and the adminis-	1966	111	84trative functions of film productions.	1967	255	2467. None.	1968	727	5382.	1965	1966	1967	1968New Brunswick	-	-	12,225.00	-Quebec	51,664.00	3,920.26	21,960.60	331,571.22Ontario	675.00	523.68	175.00	-Saskatchewan	-	-	705.00	-Alberta	549.00	1,352.70	-	12,457.00British Columbia	-	-	296.68	-
3 and 4. The Post Office Department does not maintain a record of the value of parcels stolen or of the number of letters stolen.
5.	The primary responsibility for investigation of any crime rests with the police. The Post Office Department has its own Investigation staff, which maintains close cooperation with local police and other law enforcement agencies. The facts of each offence are studied for the information they may provide that will help in preventing future attempts. Departmental security procedures are under continuing review with the aim of ensuring that the best security precautions are in effect in the light of changing conditions.
6.	Yes.

March 5, 1969
Questions


LOSS OF MAN-HOURS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What	was the	number of	man-hours lost	inCanada in	1965, 1966, 1967 and	1968 as a result	of
(a) strikes (b) accidents (c) illness?
2.	What	was the	number of	man-hours lost	inthe Public	Service	of Canada	in 1965, 1966, 1967
and 1968 as a result of (a) strikes (b) accidents
(c)	illness?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) Federal Jurisdiction (including Public Service of Canada): 1965, 244,410 man-days*; 1966, 1,440,450 man-days*; 1967, 173,840 man-days*; 1968 (Prel.), 498,840 man-days*; Provincial Jurisdiction: 1965, 2,105,460 man-days*; 1966, 3,737,720 man-days; 1967, 3,800,920 man-days*; 1968 (Prel.), 4,676,830 man-days*. All Jurisdictions (including Public Service of Canada): 1965, 2,349,870 man-days*; 1966, 5,178,170 man-days*; 1967, 3,974,760 man-days*; 1968 (Prel.), 5,175,670 man-days*; (b) and (c) Not available.
2.	(a) 1965, 89,380 man-days*; 1966, Nil; 1967, 1,360 man-days*; 1968, 360,060 man-days*. (b) Man-days lost due to work injuries based on claims settled during fiscal years: 1964-65, 156,951; 1965-66, 190,002; 1966-67, 180,400; 1967-68, 200,857. (c) 1965, Not available; 1966, 1,347,318 man-days*; 1967,1,380,511 man-days*; 1968, 1,391,438 man-days*.
* Question asked for man-hours; answers given in terms of man-days since the statistics are compiled on this basis.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many regional offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were in operation during each of the past five years, in each province?
2.	What criteria are used to open or close a regional office?
3.	How many people were employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission during each of the past five years and in each province?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: 1. During the past five years, the Unemployment Insurance Commission operated five regional offices: Moncton, N.B., this office serves New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland; Montreal, Que., Toronto, Ont., Winnipeg, Man., this office serves Manitoba, part of Western Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta; Vancouver, B.C.
Note: The Vancouver regional office serves Yukon and the Winnipeg regional office serves the Northwest Territories.
2.	According to section 11(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Commission may establish such regional divisions as it considers desirable, and may establish a regional office within a regional division. The choice of the place where a regional office is to be opened depends on several reasons which amount to practical administrative, geographical and economic considerations.
3.	The number of persons employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in each province is not available, but the following table shows the number of UIC employees in each regional division during each of the past five years:
Head	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies	PacificOffice	Region	Region	Region	Region	Region	TotalApril 30, 1965	
319	608	1,542	1,499	649	546	5,163April 30, 1966	
323	618	1,555	1,522	666	555	5,239April 30, 1967	
346	597	1,501	1,467	658	528	5,097April 30, 1968	
386	581	1,407	1,408	655	503	4,940January 31, 1969	
367	544	1,312	1,249	614	471	4,557ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS	3. What has been the total value of the projects


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many projects were placed before the
approved to date and what is the estimated value of projects presently before the Board that have not as yet received a final decision of approval
Atlantic Development Board from its inception to or rejection?
the present date?
2.	Of the total number of projects before the Board (a) how many were approved by both the Board and the federal government (b) how many were approved by the Board and later rejected by the federal government (c) how many were rejected by the Board?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. 244.
2. (a) 125; (b) 8; (c) 80 (31 projects cannot be classed as approved or rejected, as some
[Mr. Kierans.l
March 5, 1969

were turned over to other federal government departments to carry out, and others as a result of discussions following initial Board consideration were carried out by other means or otherwise dropped as proposals for Board assistance.)
3.	$189,295,000; $20,000,000.


EXTENSION OF SERVICE ON FISHERIES VESSELS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	What is the procedure followed in receiving, considering and ruling upon applications for extension of service from officers and crew members of vessels under control of the Department of Fisheries in the Atlantic region?
2 How many such applications have been received in the past year, what was (a) the position (b) name and home address of each applicant (c) what was the decision in each case?
3.	What are the principal grounds upon which applications for extension of service are either approved or rejected?
4.	Are all such applications subject to final disposal by a senior departmental official at headquarters in Ottawa or can final disposal be made by departmental officials in provincial or local offices of the Department?
5.	Is any provision made for appeal by an applicant and, if so, what procedure is prescribed?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The employee may
Renovations
Project
Room 271-S Installation of air conditioning unit and painting
Room 185-S Construction of radiator covers
Rooms 183-S, 185-S and 187-S Installation of new lighting and redecoration of rooms
Room 279-S Construction of bookshelves
Furniture
Room 280-F (Speaker's Quarters)
Room 459-S
Room 371-S
Room 479-S
Room 659-S
Room 279-S
Questions
submit a written request to his superior officer in the region to be considered for an extension of service. This request is reviewed by senior officers of the region and a recommendation forwarded to departmental headquarters.
2.	Two. (a), (b), (c): Engineer: Narcisse A. Daigle, P.O. Box 55, Richibucto, Kent Co., N.B., extension approved. Deceased while on extension. Quartermaster: A. W. Bagnall, R.R. 1, Gabarus, N.S., extension approved. (Difficulty in obtaining a replacement).
3.	The needs of the department are the principal grounds in deciding on extensions of service, rather than the personal desires of the employee.
4.	Recommendations from Regional Directors are reviewed by the Deputy Minister and a final decision is made by him.
5.	There is no provision for appeal.


RENOVATION OF SENATORIAL OFFICES
Mr. Coales: Has the Department of Public Works renovated the offices of any Senators since June 25, 1968 and, if so (a) was such work done at the request of Senators (b) which Senators made such requests (c) what was the cost to the federal government in each specific instance?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, (a), (b), and (c). Listed below.
Requested by	Cost
Senators J. Connolly and	
J. W. deB. Farris	850.19
Senator J. B. Aird	398.00
Initiated by Department	
of Public Works	3,009.00
See reply to Question No. 310
Senator J. P. Deschatelets	374.00
Senator F. E. Inman	96.00
Senator J. Flynn	2,156.85
Senator C. McElman	238.00
Senator R. Eudes	83.55
See reply to Question	
No. 310	

March 5. 1969
Questions


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE-&quot;PROLOGUE&quot;
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What was the total cost of publishing each of the first three Bulletins, known as Prologue, of the National Arts Centre?
2.	How many copies were printed of each bulletin?
3.	How many pages were there in each bulletin?
4.	What was the cost of the art work on the cover of each bulletin?
5.	What was the cost of mailing each bulletin?


Mr. Roberi Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. Prologue 1, $6,752.63; Prologue 2, $6,227.78; Prologue 3, $4,250.35.
2.	Prologue 1, 20,000; Prologue 2, 20,000; Prologue 3, 25,000.
3.	Prologue 1, 11 pages; Prologue 2, 15 pages; Prologue 3, 15 pages.
4.	Prologue 1,	$2,462.45; Prologue 2,
$2,899.04; Prologue 3, $250.00.
5.	Prologue 1, $600.00; Prologue 2, $600.00; Prologue 3, $1,300.00.


C.B.C.-APPEARANCE OF SIR OSWALD MOSLEY
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Did the CBC provide TV exposure for the views of Sir Oswald Mosley and Ron Gostick at public expense and, if so, what is the corporation's policy in this regard?
2.	Were Sir Oswald Mosley and Ron Gostick paid a fee by the CBC for their appearances on the CBC public programs and, if so, what was the amount of such fees and expenses?
3.	Have any complaints been received by the management of the CBC protesting the appearance of Sir Oswald Mosley and Ron Gostick on CBC programs?
4.	What was the reaction of CBC management to these protests?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Sir Oswald Mosley was on "Front Page Challenge" and received the normal fee for his appearance. Ron Gostick was interviewed on "The Day It Is", without payment. In each case the procedure followed was in accordance with C.B.C. policy and practice. Mosley's appearance on the commercially-sponsored "Front Page Challenge" was in the capacity of guest challenger whereas Gostick was interviewed on "The Day It Is" as a newsworthy figure and was questioned about hate literature directed against Mr. Trudeau during the 1968 election campaign and about antiSemitism.

2.	See above. It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose payments made to individuals.
3.	Yes.
4.	Upon review, the C.B.C. concluded that "Front Page Challenge" was not a suitable forum for Mosley, while upholding C.B.C. policy of examining all viewpoints on matters of public interest. The C.B.C. felt that the Gostick interview was a legitimate item for a public affairs interview program such as "The Day It Is".


RECRUITMENT, CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	What is the number of recruits who joined the Armed Forces of Canada in the month of January 1969?
2.	What was the number of enlistments in the Armed Forces of Canada in Cape Breton in the month of January 1969?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. 813.
2. 12.


EXTENSION OF FARM TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Is the External Aid Office going to expand their Farm Training Programme and, if so (a) in what way (b) for how many people and in what countries?
2.	Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to accept the offer made by the National Farmers Union in their Annual Brief, dated April 1968, as to the (a) recruiting and organizing of a contingent of practical farmers to assist with the mechanization of agriculture in developing nations (b) has there been an Agricultural Division of the External Aid Office organized to date (c) if not, are there any plans for the establishment of such a Division under External Aid contemplated?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secreiary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1. The External Aid Office, now known as the Canadian International Development Agency, is prepared to assist any of the eligible recipient countries with farm training programs if the program offers real prospect of contributing to the economic development of the country concerned. Canadian development assistance is, however, provided after a priority requirement has been identified and a request for assistance has been received from a developing country. In the circumstances, it is not possible to forecast the numbers of Canadian personnel that may be required in this field
March 5, 1969

during the coming year or in what countries they would be requested to serve.
2. The Canadian International Development Agency welcomes the assistance of outside organizations in the implementation of its programs and should a requirement develop for practical farmers to assist with the mechanization of agriculture in the developing nations, would be pleased to discuss the matter further with the National Farmers' Union. Although CIDA does not have an Agricultural Division it has a Senior Agricultural Adviser on its staff and works in close cooperation with the Department of Agriculture when agricultural projects are selected for financing under Canadian development assistance programs.


NEW GLASGOW, N.S., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names, addresses and amounts of the various tenders for relighting postal accommodation in the Federal Building at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
2.	To whom will this contract be awarded?


Arthur Laing: 1. Edwin A. Smith, R. R. No. 1, Aspen, Guysboro County, N.S., $5,741.64; Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, N.S., $6,414.00; Hudry Electric Ltd., Stellarton, N.S., $7,100.00; C. E. MacCarthy, Box 156, New Glasgow, N.S., $7,259.62.
2. Edwin A. Smith.
Questions


TEMISCAMINGUE, QUE.-SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	During the years 1965 to 1968 inclusive, how many loans were granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act (a) in Canada (b) in the Province of Quebec (c) in the federal constituency of Temiscamingue?
2.	What was the average amount of such loans?
3.	What was the total amount of such loans?
4.	In which municipalities of the federal constituency of Temiscamingue were these loans granted and what was the amount of each?
5.	What criteria determine the approval or rejection of applications for such loans?


Edgar John Benson: 1. 2 and 3, (a) and (b): See attached table;
(c): These statistics are not broken down by constituencies, so the information is not available.
4.	This information is not available.
5.	The requirements to be met to obtain a
loan under this program are set out in the Act and Regulations (P.C.	1960-1764 as
as amended by P.C. 1967-2119 and P.C. 19682097). To qualify for the guarantee under the Act, the loan must be made in accordance with the terms of the Act and Regulations, and a responsible officer of the bank is required to certify that he has exercised the same care in making a Small Business Loan that is required of him by the bank in the conduct of its ordinary business.
Year	Canada	Quebec	Number of loans	Average Total Amount Amount of loans of loans	Number of loans	Total Amount of loans	Average Amount of loans$	$	$	$1965	.. 2,835	26,033,094	9,183	628	6,824,475	10,8671966	.. 2,187	20,095,355	9,178	277	2,863,399	10,3371967	.. 2,073	20,700,738	9,995	266	3,097,856	11,6461968	.. 1,103	11,190,027	10,145	203	2,223,285	10,952Total	.. 8,198	78,019,214	1,374	15,009,015	Average loan 1965 to 1968	9,517	10,923TEMISCAMINGUE, QUE.-	-SPORTS	GRANTS	[Translation]	
Question No. 1,406-Mr.	Caouelle:		Hon. John	C. Munro	(Minister of	National
1.	Which sports associations in the federal constituency of Temiscamingue received grants under the Amateur Sports Act during the past three years?
2.	What was the amount received by each province under this Act during the past three years?
Health and Welfare): 1. None. The Province of Quebec does not participate in the federal-provincial cost sharing program under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act.
6236	COMMONS DEBATES	MarchQuestions 2. Province	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68Newfoundland	$ 48,735	$ 61,311	$ 87,571Prince Edward Island	36,897	35,899	43,876Nova Scotia	47,614	50,925	56,860New Brunswick	68,901	67,970	83,192Ontario	133,517	128,982	251,942Manitoba	63,876	63,114	81,114Saskatchewan	38,813	60,990	62,055Alberta	26,908	43,874	101,683British Columbia	80,743	88,252	88,881North West Territories	34,206	35,762	35,762Yukon	22,283	32,210	32,797


CANADIAN SKI ASSOCIATION SUBSIDY
Mr. Malle: 1.	What Is the amount of the federal subsidy granted to the Canadian Ski Association?
2.	What proportion does the Province of Quebec receive?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Heallh and Welfare):: 1. $198,217.
2. The federal grant is made to the sports governing body for projects that are conducted on a national basis.


GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME STUDY
Mr. Fortin: Has the government made any study relating to the possibility of establishing a guaranteed annual income and, if so, will the report following such study be laid before the House and, if not, for what reason?


John Carr Munro: The government has authorized a review of all our social welfare programs, and in that context the concept of the guaranteed annual income is under study.


DISCONTINUANCE OF FISHING BOUNTY
Mr. Crouse: For what reason has the Statutory Fishing Bounty, as listed under Fisheries Vote 15, been discontinued for 1969-70, and what alternative use will be made of these funds?


Eugene Whelan: It is proposed, subject to approval of Parliament, to eliminate 
this item. The total annual outlay has been $160,000 for many years; the per capita payment for fishermen in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island has been less than $10, and the administrative costs are high. Savings resulting from change will be used for the expansion of the fishery resource.


C.B.C.-PAYMENTS TO ADOLPH VON THADDEN
Mr. Diefenbaker: What were the respective amounts paid by the CBC to Adolph Von Thadden and to Sir Oswald Mosley?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose payments made to individuals.


REGISTRATION OF PURE BRED DOGS
Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to approve the Canadian Kennel Club's proposed withdrawal from Canadian National Livestock Records and, if so, will it be possible for British Columbia members of the Canadian Kennel Club to continue the registration of pure bred dogs with Canadian National Livestock Records?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Canadian Kennel Club have been advised that there would be no objection to their proposed withdrawal from the Canadian National Livestock Records, as long as they continue to operate under the Livestock Pedigree Act.
Section 4 of the Livestock Pedigree Act precludes the possibility of British Columbia members of the Canadian Kennel Club from continuing the registration of pure bred dogs with the Canadian National Livestock Records should their association withdraw.
Maich 5, 1969


BUTTER AND TRACTOR PRICES-WAGES
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): 1.	What was the retail price of butter in the years 1940 and 1949?
2.	What was the average hourly wage in the years 1940 and 1949 for (a) carpenters (b) electricians (c) plumbers?
3.	What was the average price of a farm tractor, 35 H.P., in the years 1940 and 1949?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am in-
Questions
formed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Labour as follows: 1. Average retail price of creamery butter in Canada, one pound print: Year 1940, 29.6 cents; Year 1949, 63.2 cents.
2.	The attached table provides the average hourly rate for carpenters, electricians and plumbers for 1940 and 1949 in selected cities. An overall national average wage rate for each of these three occupations is not available.
3.	Information requested is not available.
Average Hourly Wage Rates in the Construction Industry for Selected Occupations in Certain Cities Across Canada-October 1, 1940 and 1949
1940	1949
Carpenter Electrician Plumber Carpenter Electrician Plumber Average Average	Average	Average Average	AverageCity	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	RateHalifax	70	. 95	. 95	1.23	1.33	1.30Quebec	60	.60	.60-.65	1.10	1.10	1.10Montreal	77	.83	.85	1.25	1.35	1.55Ottawa	85	.80	.95	1.30	1.30	1.60Toronto	95	1.10	1.00	1.60	1.75	1.75Winnipeg	85	.85	.95	1.40	1.40	1.55Edmonton	90	.85	1.05	1.47J	1.60	1.60Vancouver	75-.90	. 85-1.00	1.00	1.60	1.70	1.70


CHANGES IN FORCES RECRUITMENT POLICY REGULATIONS RESPECTING CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Have there been any policy changes regarding recruitment for the Canadian Armed Forces since 1966?
2.	How many new recruits have been accepted by the Canadian Armed Forces per month during 1967 and 1968?


David Walter Groos: 1. Atten-


REPORTS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Under present regulations, are Warrant Officers and N.C.O.'s no longer allowed to read their confidential reports?
2.	If so, for what reason?


David Walter Groos: 1. Warrant
and non-commissioned officers no longer see
tion is directed to Hansard dated 5 December their confidential reports.
1967, pages 5197-99 and Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 14 of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence dated 21 November, 1968, page 578. 2.
	1967	1968
Jan	883	88Feb	1,313	248Mar	1,687	181Apr	1,106	243May	1,451	326Jun	959	506Jul	857	535Aug	1,477	1,299Sep	1,699	865Oct	788	913Nov	365	742Dec	110	60829180-3951	
2. Previously, in the R.C.N. and Canadian army, men saw and signed their confidential reports. In the R.C.A.F., confidential reports were shown to men only when unfavorable comments were made and the report was considered to be adverse. With the new Performance Evaluation System, the key is the Performance Evaluation Report and the thoroughness with which it is prepared at three levels of reporting. With regard to disclosure of contents, the great value of personal discussion of performance is recognized. It is the duty of the superior to encourage and advise his men, and men have every right to know whether or not their performance is satisfactory. It is considered, however, that the validity of the Performance Evaluation Report is improved when it is kept

March 5, 1969
Questions
confidential, therefore, under normal circumstances, the completed form is not shown to the individual. Discussions with supervisors concerning good or bad performance are encouraged and are taking place continually, as well as at the time of evaluations. In this way no shortcomings should be contained in a report unless the man is aware of such and the Reviewing Officer is required to certify that the individual has been counselled during the reporting period on overall performance including the noted shortcomings.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES STRENGTH
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What was the strength of the Armed Forces as at January 31, 1969?
2.	Of the total number, how many were on terminal leave?
3.	In the case of Parts (1) and (2) above, how many were women?


David Walter Groos: 1. 97,798.
2.	1960
3.	(a) 1,621; (b) 10.


RECRUITMENT, CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What was the number of recruits to the Armed Forces for each of the months from August, 1968 to January, 1969 inclusive?
2.	For each of the above months, what was the number of discharges?


David Walter Groos: Month	Total
August 68	1,299
September 68	865
October 68	913
November 68	742
December 68	608
January 69	813
August 68	1,350
September 68	961
October 68	981
November 68	975
December 68	1,000
January 69	1,018


OLYMPIC GAMES BUDGET
Mr. Osier: What was the total budget of the Canadian Olympic Association for the Olympic Games, including the amount granted by the federal government to it for this event?


John Carr Munro: 1968 Winter Olympics, Grenoble $ 80,000 1968 Summer Olympics, Mexico 155,000


$235,000 FORT MCMURRAY, ALTA.-TELEVISION FACILITIES
Mr. Yewchuk: What are the tentative dates for establishment of television transmission facilities for (a) the Town of Fort McMurray (i) frontier package (ii) live rebroadcasting station (b) for the area of High Level, Fort Vermilion and LaCrete (i) frontier package (ii) live rebroadcasting station?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: (a) (i) A C.B.C. application of a TV frontier coverage package was filed with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission on February 25. If approved by the CRTC, the station is expected to be established and in operation within a year of receipt of approval; (ii) The present outlook for establishment of live CBC-TV service to the area is not encouraging due to high cost of such a project, although live service remains a possibility for the future.
(b) (i) A frontier coverage package is not planned; (ii) The C.B.C. has tentative plans to file an application with the CRTC in late 1970 to establish the rebroadcasting stations necessary to serve the area. However it is not possible to suggest any firm target date at this juncture.


C.B.C. ADVERTISING REVENUE
Mr. Diefenbaker: What has been the total advertising revenue of the CBC year by year, since 1956?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
Fiscal Years	
1955-6	$19,472,000
1956-7	23,913,000
1957-8	28,410,000
1958-9	32,270,000
1959-60	38,162,000
1960-1	37,602,000
1961-2	32,910,000
1962-3	30,847,000
1963-4	32,392,000
1964-5	33,208,000
1965-6	33,563,000
1966-7	35,153,000
1967-8	38,734,000
March 5, 1969


SALARY OF GENERAL ALLARD
Mr. Coales: What is the present salary of General Jean Allard, Chief of Staff of the Armed Services, and on what date was the present salary determined?


David Walter Groos: $28,750 effective 1 January, 1967.


SALARY OF C.B.C. PRESIDENT
Mr. Coates: What is the present salary of the President of the C.B.C. and on what date was the present salary determined?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: The salary of the President of the C.B.C. is $45,000. per annum, effective February 1, 1968, as approved by Order in Council P.C. 1968-119 dated January 18, 1968.


CANADIAN PATENT OFFICE RECORD
Mr. Caouetie: 1. How many copies of the Canadian Patent Office Record are printed each week?
2.	What is the weekly printing cost of the publication?
3.	To whom is the publication sent?
4.	Is this publication bilingual in its entirety or is it printed in English with a bilingual cover?
5. If this publication is not bilingual in its entirety, what are the reasons for this and will the government make it fully bilingual?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. One thousand copies of the Canadian Patent Office Record are printed each week.
2.	The weekly printing cost on an average for the last 48 weeks has been $5,726.75.
3.	The publication is distributed as follows: Paid subscriptions to patent agents and manufacturing firms all over the world, 585; Public Printing and Stationery free lists to government departments, members of parliament, public libraries, etc., 238; Patent Office free exchange list in exchange for other countries' official journals, etc., and also for scientific periodicals and trade journals for office use, 40; Patent Office, internal use, 12; Stock for sale by Public Printing and Stationery, 125.
4.	The cover page, notices of a general nature and the heading of each page are bilingual. For each patent issued one drawing and two claims are published, taken from and in the language of the specification, which
Questions
must be in either English or French. Any patent application received in the French language is printed in the French language. Any patent application received in the English language is printed in the English language. Any Erratum, Certificate of Correction, etc., pertaining to a patent is published in the language of the issued patent.
5.	An applicant for a patent may have the issued patent published in the language of his choice, either French or English, by filing his application in the language in which he wishes it published. As the claims published in the Record are taken from the specification they are published in the same language as the specification.


CURVENTON, N.B.-FISH COUNTING STATION
Mr. Smith (Norihumber-land-Miramichi): How many (a) grilse (b) adult salmon have passed upstream annually through the fish counting station at Curventon, Northumberland County, New Brunswick since its installation on the Northwest Miramichi River?


Eugene Whelan: Year	Grilse	Adult Salmon1950	1971	7261951	2183	8121952	2142	13071953	2165	10331954	2601	10811955	2756	7821956	774	5631957	875	7061958	2420	5801959	7355	10021960	2792	3771961	954	8771962	2285	2241963	6088	3091964	5127	1461965	1689	1201966	2913	1111967	1794	1691968	(to Oct. 15)	817	29


ATLANTIC SALMON IN CONVENTION AREA
Mr. Smith (Norlhumber-land-Miramichi): Have any representations been made or consultations held with the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries to prohibit the fishing, on the high seas, for Atlantic Salmon in the Convention area and, if so, what were the results of such action?

March 5. 1969
Questions


Eugene Whelan: Yes, in 1967. The proposal was not accepted because of requirement for further scientific assessment of the effect of high seas fishing on Atlantic salmon stocks.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many male persons and how many female persons received unemployment insurance benefits in each of the provinces for each month during the years 1960, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67?
2.	How much money was paid in unemployment insurance benefits to male persons and female persons in each of the provinces and in each month during the years 1960-67 inclusive?
3.	How many families (a) with husband working received unemployment insurance for the wife, and (b) with the wife working received unemployment insurance for the husband, in each month during the years 1960-67 inclusive?
4.	How many male/female persons received unemployment insurance benefits in Toronto/Montreal in each month in each of the years 1960-67 inclusive?
5.	How much money was paid to male/female persons in Toronto/Montreal in each month in each of the years 1960-67 inclusive?
6.	How many male/female persons received unemployment insurance benefits?
Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1960, how many people have immigrated to Canada?
2.	What were their countries of origin and what were their mother tongues?
3.	What was their occupation in their country of origin?
4.	What are the criteria used by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in refusing entry to prospective residents of Canada?
Return tabled.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, regarding written questions. I have reference to question No. 1608 of February 28. I submitted this question as a starred question but it does not appear as such on the order paper. I would hope that perhaps this error might be corrected.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 EDUCATION   DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Mr. Ralph Slewarf (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, seconded by Mr. Paproski, under Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the denial of the basic right of our young citizens to be given an education in the language of their choice, in that English speaking children entering kindergarten, even here in the national capital, are being refused entry into French language classes.
Although education, as such, is a provincial responsibility, the rights of citizens are being affected and national unity is being threatened by this action. Federal jurisdiction involves citizenship as well as national unity and present policies are introducing discrimination into the Canadian society in a flagrant disregard for the principles outlined in the languages bill now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Cochrane has filed with the Chair the notice required under subsection (2) of Standing Order 26. Subsection (5) of the standing order states that:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government-
In my view the grievance raised by the hon. member for Cochrane does not satisfy this particular requirement. The subject matter of the proposed motion does not appear to concern the administrative responsibility of the government, nor could it come within the scope of ministerial action.

I agree with the hon. member for Cochrane that this matter is important and urgent. However, in view of the provisions of the standing orders of the house, and more particularly those of Standing Order 26, it is not possible, I think, to adjourn the business of the house in order to discuss that question.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. March 5, 1969

Speaker, notice of motion No. 79 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING PROCESSING OF DAMP GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada with respect to the processing of damp and tough grain in Saskatchewan and the transportation of grain during the period of October 1, 1968 and January 31, 1969 inclusive.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 79 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 63 and 67?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

P.F.R.A.-TRANSFER OF COST Motion No. 63-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba with respect to transferring part of the cost of Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act projects from Ottawa to the provincial governments.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the department is presently engaged in discussions with the prairie provinces respecting a new arrangement regarding certain water projects constructed by P.F.R.A. These discussions are still going on and until they are completed, the confidentiality of the relevant documents and correspondence must be preserved in accordance with well-established practice regarding negotiations between governments.
The minister is fully prepared, however, to agree to table these documents at the end of the negotiations, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and
Motions for Papers
authorization of the provincial authorities concerned. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this deals with a controversial area of intergovernmental relations may I ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48.



COMMENTS ON &quot;POLICIES FOR PRICE STABILITY&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda, or other data received by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs commenting on his White Paper "Policies for Price Stability".
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in regard to this motion, and I believe agreement has been reached that only part of the motion is acceptable to the government. The documents referred to in the motion comprise internal memoranda and reports which are privileged, and will therefore not be tabled. Concerning correspondence mentioned in the motion, the hon. member appreciates, I believe, that I solicited many letters from individuals who would not have expected nor wished their answers to be made public. If the hon. member is agreeable, I am prepared to table shortly those letters which were not solicited by me and not marked as confidential.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 67 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to
March 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister relative to the announcement he made on motions. I ask when he will be prepared to table and make available to all members of parliament the details of the development plan. In the meantime, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the figure of $125 million over seven years, which he quoted, is over and above financial transfers between the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island, which transfers are in force at the present time; or does this figure include part or all of the transfers which have become the normal practice in the last few years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development will be signing on Friday of this week an agreement with the government of Prince Edward Island. I am sure he will be pleased to table that agreement in the house any time after that, and will be pleased to answer any specific questions arising from the agreement.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development say now what this figure of $125 million actually means?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is not signed, it can still be modified. I think it would be improper for me to cite any figure at this moment.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just had an announcement by the Prime Minister with regard to specific figures. We have had previous announcements by the minister of regional and economic expansion with respect to the agreement to be signed on Friday. Now the minister refuses to give information to the house on the basis that the agreement has not yet been reached. Surely we are being given sophist answers which are not in any way attempting to deal with questions raised by hon. members of this house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we could have signed the agreement on Friday and not made any prior announcement in the house. Surely the fact that we made an announcement of an agreement, which is not yet a public document, which is not yet binding on both governments-


Mr. Woolliams:: Why did you make a statement?
[Mr. MacLean.)


Edgar John Benson: Because you wanted some information.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because the members of the opposition have been asking us questions about when this agreement would be signed. The hon. member for Egmont last week asked for information on when it would be signed. The opposition cannot on the one hand ask for information, and when they get it complain that they have received it.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has stated his point of order. I would think we might now go back to the hon. member for Malpeque, who I understand has a further supplementary question.


John Angus MacLean: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is on a somewhat different subject but also relates to the statement made by the Prime Minister. Does the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the causeway mean that it is only postponed for a period of time, perhaps for the 15 years, or is it definitely cancelled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot, of course, say what will be done by federal governments in future years. I cannot bind them. But I will make a deal. If all the opposition agree that we should increase, for instance, the social security tax by 1 per cent, we would raise enough money to build the causeway. If there was a proposition from the opposition to this effect we could consider it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development with respect to the figures the Prime Minister gave in his statement. In view of the fact that the agreement has not yet been signed and could be modified, it seems all the more important that the opposition know all the facts, so we can make representations to the government. Does the $125 million which is to be paid in the first seven years of the agreement include $41.6 million of an interest-bearing loan, and is the rest of the contribution to be an outright grant to the province of Prince Edward Island?
March 5, 1969	COMMONS


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the text of the agreement is tabled in the house, it will be easy, I believe, to clarify the points raised by the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will give the house information regarding the cost of the causeway, as proposed, and the reasons for cancelling this project; or is he going to treat this house with the contempt with which the government has treated the people of Prince Edward Island?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the language of the hon. member. I do not think it is realistic language. I have not treated the other side with contempt, and I do not think anyone on this side of the house has done so.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Now answer the question.


Arthur Laing: I think there is a motion for the production of papers which was addressed to my department in the first instance, but which I think is now assumed by the Department of Transport. I think the information that was sought is going to be placed on the table.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think that, with regard to a topic like this, in regard to which a public commitment has been made, this house and the people concerned deserve an explanation at the time the announcement is made cancelling the project?


Arthur Laing: Yes, I would agree with that statement. I think an explanation has been given. I think the Prime Minister gave an explanation today, namely that there is a certain volume of resources and they have to be used to the best advantage.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, related to the remarks of the Prime Minister a moment ago concerning the cost of this causeway, and the confusion that has arisen with the Minister of Public Works with regard to the notice of motion for the production of papers. Would the Minister of Transport inform the house when the document that was promised many weeks ago, the Stanford Research Institute
DEBATES	6243
Inquiries of the Ministry study, that would make available some of the answers to questions raised, will be tabled in this house?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understood it was being tabled as part of an order for additional papers. To the best of my knowledge, I expected it had been tabled already. I would be glad to refer this matter to some appropriate person and see what the situation is.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know that the hon. member is rising to ask a question on a very important matter, but I wonder whether we could not go on to another subject. The hon. member for Egmont has a supplementary question, and I believe the hon. member for Hillsborough also has a supplementary question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In asking this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist the members of the house to satisfy much of the concern over this problem. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to referring the Stanford Research Institute documents, as well as witnesses from the Northumberland consultants, particularly Colonel Edward Churchill who was assigned by the government to help clear up any difficulties with the project, to the Committee on Public works, where we could hear the evidence of these people and study these documents in order that a complete disclosure and discussion can be had on this important subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would welcome a full and total exposure on this important subject. Of course the committee can choose the persons it wants to hear on this. We have no objection to producing the facts on which our decision was made. It would have been nice to have both the FRED program and the causeway too, but the amount of money involved is such that the Canadian taxpayer could not be asked to contemplate it at this time. The choice between the causeway and a ferry service was made on the basis of cost accounting, and we would be very happy to have the opposition know the facts behind this.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, perhaps without meaning to, the Prime Minister
March 5. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry implied something that is not in accordance with the fact, that has been made available to many people now, that the present ferry operation will cost the federal government $1 billion in the next 60 years.


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering setting up a task force to find some alternative use for the $15 million worth of roads and railways already built in this long promised and now callously abandoned project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford appears to be disappointed that I do not allow him to ask a supplementary question. I do not want to disappoint him so I will allow the question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour assumes that, despite the noise, I could make you hear the question, and I will be very pleased to present it. If I seemed a bit disappointed it is perhaps because I have not been able to catch your eye for the last day or so.
My supplementary question is as follows-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am afraid I am having difficulty in making Your Honour hear my question. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Would the minister consider delaying the signing of this agreement with the government of Prince Edward Island until perhaps the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has had the opportunity of presenting its report, in view of the fact that the committee has just returned from the Atlantic provinces and heard briefings on this important subject, and was hoping to make appropriate recommendations to the government.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the government of Prince Edward Island asks us to delay the signing of the agreement, we shall certainly do so, but not on our own initiative.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious situation in Berlin and the developing difficulties, the members of NATO were consulted before the decision was made to hold the elections of the West German president in west Berlin, and the Prime Minister said he would refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps we might have an answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were informed some months ago of the intention of the federal government to hold the presidential election in west Berlin on March 5 this year, in accordance with the practice followed since 1954. The subject has been fully discussed in NATO, as I informed the house on February 10. Canada and the other NATO allies have supported the course taken by the federal government of Germany in carrying out this established democratic practice in an unprovocative manner, despite the obstruction to which it has been subject.
The three allied powers with special responsibilities in Berlin have naturally been in the closest consultation with the Federal Republic of Germany on practical measures to be taken, but NATO has been kept fully informed throughout.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It is strange that the Prime Minister did not know anything about this yesterday.


David Lewis: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house of the situation as it is now, and what steps are being taken to ensure-if it is possible to ensure-that the situation does not reach a more dangerous point. I can fully understand the desire of West Germany to have this meeting in west Berlin, but what steps are being taken to avoid a dangerous escalation?


Mitchell William Sharp: The most recent reports indicate that the election is taking place and that, as we foresaw, communist harassment has not approached the levels reached on several previous occasions, for instance in 1965.
March 5. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE	GRAIN


MEDICARE-INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRIC AND CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In those provinces that have an established medicare plan meeting the criteria laid down by the federal medicare program, and that includes paramedical services such as those offered by chiropractors and optometrists, will federal medicare include those services?


John Carr Munro: As I have indicated earlier, such services in the paramedical field to which the hon. member referred would not be included at this time under the federal scheme because there is no consensus among the provinces, which would be required in such a case.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister mind defining, in Canadian terms, the word "consensus"?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question. Has the federal government any further plans that will include paramedical services to relieve the extreme pressure on the medical profession?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the supplementary question is too general in nature. Perhaps it is the kind of information that ought to be given on motions.


MEDICARE-PARTICIPATION BY ONTARIO IN NATIONAL PROGRAM
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he will meet with the Ontario Minister of Health to discuss Ontario's entry into the national medical program, and whether the federal minister will allow the Ontario government to charge deterrent fees for insured medical services subsidized by federal moneys?


John Carr Munro: To answer the last part of the question first, deterrent fees I hope are not a course that Ontario would take,-in any event I rather doubt it, should Ontario come in. So far as meeting with the provincial health minister is concerned, I think I will be meeting him in the next few days.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ACREAGE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he intends to make a statement on motions at an early date regarding wheat acreage for the next year. I ask this question particularly because of the difficult situation of the wheat farmers this year, and the comments made by the task force which considered this subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The comments made by the task force with respect to the wheat and oil seeds economy in their fourth paper must be taken for what these papers are, that is, position papers that have been prepared for use by the delegates at the National Agriculture Congress, which will be held starting on March 24. They are not government policy and they were not prepared by the Department of Agriculture, but I think they will be very useful as a basis for discussion, in two ways: First of all to analyse problems-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no right to insist on the Minister of Agriculture answering my question, but I do not think he should be permitted to answer a question I did not ask. I asked the minister whether on motions, at a suitable occasion in the near future, he would make a statement with regard to wheat acreage in the coming year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is something that we are considering all the time, but whether or not the Department of Agriculture can accurately predict what the market for grain will be after this harvest is a question that I do not think I am sufficiently courageous to undertake to answer now.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfooi):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Agriculture not consider it is his job to provide leadership and guidance with regard to wheat problems, in view of the difficult wheat marketing problems that the farmers are confronted with these days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister agree with
March 5, 1969

Inquiries oj the Ministry the contention that Canadian wheat sales cannot be expanded and that therefore we must accept a reduction of wheat acreage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it regards the creation of a Canadian securities commission. Will the minister advise the house of the fundamental difference of opinion between himself and the provincial authorities over the structural organization of such a body, and whether it shall be a federal organism located in Ottawa or a joint body in which all the provinces and the federal government shall participate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the fundamental differences to which the hon. member is referring in his question.




Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in the house yesterday that he has made verbal representations to the British government asking them not to ship arms to Nigeria, is the Canadian government now ready to follow up these verbal representations with an official and public communique asking the British government not to ship arms to Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing more public or more formal than statements by the Prime Minister of Canada in this house.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question. Is the minister able to make public the contents of these verbal representations that have been made by the Prime Minister to the British government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made these statements, which are in Hansard, and I made them as explicitly

as I could. If hon. members did their homework they would find that on November 12 I repeated the government's position on the supply of arms to either side in this conflict. On January 20 I reported to the house what I had told the British Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth secretaries when I was in London a few days earlier.


BIAFRA-BOMBING OF CIVILIANS AND RED CROSS OUTPOSTS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville addressed another question to the Prime Minister relating to the situation in Biafra and inquiring whether Canada would join the British government in protesting or inquiring into the bombing of civilian targets within Biafra. The Prime Minister replied that he had discussed this matter with the minister and that he was sure he would be in a position the next day to say whether any action had been taken.
May I now ask the minister whether any action has been taken or will be taken in this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, last week we expressed to the authorities at the senior level in Lagos our concern at the continuing reports of bombings involving non-military targets in the rebel area. I have been assured that General Gowon has had our views brought to his attention.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice whether or not he would take up with the law officers of the Crown the question whether certain plays that were shown on the C.B.C. came within the provisions of the law respecting obscenity. Has he discussed the matter with the Secretary of State since the latter's return from one of his peripatetic pilgrimages and, if so, would he let the house know what is going to be done?
Furthermore is the minister now in a position to advise whether, if a private member
March 5, 1969	COMMONS
introduces amendments to the obscenity sections of the Code so as to put teeth in the law, such a bill would be presented to the committee that is now sitting in connection with the criminal law?


Mr. Nielsen:: That is an omnibus question.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the right hon. gentleman that he stays up late watching television and I do not follow all the programs, as he does. However, as a result of his question I did ask the officers of the department to review the present state of the law on obscenity, which I suggested to him at that stage was somewhat confused. As for the responsibility of the Secretary of State, when I get some clarification from the law officers I will take the matter up with him.
As for the present omnibus bill, I do not contemplate adding to it before the committee; but to use the right hon. gentleman's own terms, if there is need for clarification of the law on obscenity I will consider subsequent legislation at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Over 200 Canadians have written complaining, regarding programs on the C.B.C., and no doubt the minister too has received complaints. Does it take more than two months to get information from the law officers on a simple question such as this, namely whether two specific plays contravened the obscenity section in the opinion of the law officers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that the definition of obscenity is a fairly subjective one and he and I might not agree on that subject.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a supplementary question. I was not asking for the minister's opinion or giving mine; I was asking for the law officers' opinion. Has the minister consulted them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: You haven't. That is all I wanted to know.
DEBATES	6247
Inquiries of the Ministry OBSCENE MATERIAL


NUDE MALE AND FEMALE PHOTOGRAPHS ON RECORDING JACKET
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that foreign made pornographic material in the form of a cover for an "Apple" record shows two full length nudes and is being sold in Canada, specifically in Ottawa; and is such distribution-


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -is such distribution in keeping with the Prime Minister's view of a just society, or is it to become a completely permissive society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Justice does not wish to answer, I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the Minister of National Revenue himself or in co-operation with the Postmaster General take immediate steps to ban the distribution of "Apple" records in Canada which display this particular pornographic cover?


An hon. Member:: What are they, Northern Spies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, hon. gentlemen opposite find this subject very amusing. I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to state his point of order in the first instance, and then I shall try to rule on it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the pictures alone are not only obscene and objectionable, but the wording on this particular piece of pornographic literature reads: "When two great saints meet it is a humbling experience". I suggest it is also anti-Christian. Hon. members of the government are applauding this type of material.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has an argument here, but I would not think that he has a proper point of order.
March 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


REQUEST FOR EARLY SHIPMENTS TO AVOID POSSIBLE FLOODING
Mr. Jcseph-Philippe Guay (SI. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the flooding predictions in Manitoba, is any action being considered to help farmers in the Red River valley with early movements of grain, unharvested crops and stored grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that there is a very high potential risk of flooding in Manitoba when spring arrives and the heavy snowfall there begins to melt. I can assure the hon. member that we will do whatever we can to be helpful if that situation does in fact arise.


VIOLENT DISTURBANCES
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Does he know about the statement made yesterday by the Montreal police director who said that when a man was arrested in connection with bombing incidents, papers and revolutionary Communist pamphlets were found, notably the pocket books of quotations from Mao Tse-Tung, Che Guevara and others?
Does he intend to investigate in order to find out the extent of Communist infiltration in Canada and what measures does he consider to control and eliminate revolutionary activities here?


John Napier Turner: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I must obtain more specific information from the director of the Montreal police, then, I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Solicitor General.


Georges-J. Valade: Can the minister answer the second part of the question?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice will check with the library and the Prime Minister at the same time?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the minister if he is ready to answer the second part of the question, to wit, whether he intends to launch an inquiry, in order to determine the extent of Communist infiltration in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer without having previously obtained further information.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In negotiations the federal government may have with the government of Ontario concerning the entry of that province into medicare, will the federal government stand by the criteria in the act and, in particular, will it oppose the right of private insurance companies to carry medical care insurance on a loss leader basis?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about maintaining the criteria under the act. It is the law of the land and we will maintain that law. On the subject of Ontario and the question of private insurance companies, as the hon. member is aware insurance companies are participating in providing coverage, subject to public audit and all other requirements, on a non-profit basis in British Columbia. They have been permitted to do this because such action falls within the purview of the act. Conceivably, Ontario could adopt the same legal position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So far as the insurance companies are concerned, will the minister make sure that handling medicare is not just a loss leader proposition?


SARDIS, B.C.-OPERATION OF COQUALEETZA HOSPITAL AS TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIUM
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the employees of the
March 5, 1969

Coqualeetza Hospital in Sardis, British Columbia, have been notified the hospital will cease to be operated as a tuberculosis sanatorium, will the minister please inform the house as to the future of this fine institution?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question might well be discussed at the time of adjournment.




Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of certain difficulties arising between Canada and the United States in the petroleum industry and other industries, will he consider inviting President Nixon to come to Canada in order to negotiate with him on some of these problems and possibly to have the President address a joint assembly of the House of Commons and the Senate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I expect we will be discussing the problems of oil in my forthcoming meeting with the President of the United States. If the need for an invitation such as that proposed by the hon. member appears necessary, I will certainly extend it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of courtesy and good public relations between our two countries, is the Prime Minister prepared to extend an invitation to Mr. Nixon to come to Canada?


An hon. Member:: Common courtesy
demands it.


MAINLAND CHINA-DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.S.R. ABOUT RECOGNITION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now prepared to answer the question to which the Prime Minister said the other day he would ask him to reply? My question was whether Canada had discussed the recognizing of Red China with the Soviet Union, among other countries. That matter has now become extremely urgent because of the tense relations between China and Russia. Has
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada discussed this question with the Soviet Union, among other countries? If it has, what was the reaction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union was informed, as many other countries were, of our intention to have discussions with the Peking regime. But there was no reaction other than to thank us for the information.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTERS EXCHANGED BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister table copies of the letters exchanged between Jean-Guy Cardinal of Quebec and M. Debre, the foreign minister of France, as these letters have now been released by the government of Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the house previously, I did not think it was appropriate for us to table letters that had been signed by the province of Quebec and the government of France. But now that they have been made public I will obtain copies and have them tabled here.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement contained in one of the letters that the two letters would constitute an agreement between the two governments, is it still the position of the government of Canada, as stated by the minister on January 31, that this exchange of letters does not, in fact, constitute an agreement? Or is this a semantic battle?


Mitchell William Sharp: No; I entirely agree with what the hon. gentleman has said. I repeat the statement I made before. In order for such exchanges to take on international status engaging both Canada and France, the approval of the French and Canadian governments would be required. Such approval could be given either under the accord cadre, the umbrella cultural agreement of 1965, or in virtue of a separate exchange of notes between France and Canada. Since in this case there was no consultation whatsoever between the French and Canadian governments, neither of these conditions was met.
March 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


REPRESENTATIVE FROM PRAIRIES ON DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of recent public statements by the Manitoba dairy council that present dairy policy is militating against the dairy industry on the prairies, will the minister consider the request that at least one permanent member of the Canadian Dairy Commission should be a representative of the prairie provinces?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's contention that the policies and activities of the Canadian Dairy Commission militate against the interests of the dairy industry. Therefore the other part of the question does not apply.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Even if one accepts the minister's contention and ignores the preamble to his remarks, I still wish to know whether the government will consider appointing someone from the prairie region to the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that may be one consideration. An even more important consideration is the competence of those appointed to do a good job for the dairy industry all across Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a two-part question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. His parliamentary secretary took it as notice. Is the minister now prepared to answer my question?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been in touch personally with the person the hon. member referred to and I think in a day or two a decision may be rendered with respect to the matter he is concerned about.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will residents, indus-

trial concerns and members of the fishing community on the eastern side of Halifax harbour be in any danger from dredging or filling operations carried out in connection with completing container facilities in Halifax?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make the necessary inquiries.


CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of recent criticisms of the Cinematographers Association of Canada with respect to the inadequacies of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, was that organization consulted before the recent promotion of Mr. Spencer, the acting secretary, to the permanent position of director general of the C.F.D.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think at least one question might be placed on the order paper, and perhaps this is the question.


SCIENCE SERVICES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the speech made by the chairman of the Science Council, Dr. Solandt, over the week end in which a statement was made to the effect that the government ought to appoint a minister who would be responsible for science policy, may I ask whether the government has considered making such an appointment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, many months ago I told members of parliament in the house that there is a minister responsible for science policy. He is the President of the Treasury Board. I indicated that there will be certain changes in the area of science policy. Some were announced in the government reorganization bill. We have created the Science Council and the secretariat, and there will be more changes in the future.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider making a full statement on science matters when we discuss the Science Council under the government reorganization bill?
March 5, 1969


FINANCE
Mr. Slsven E. Paproski (Edmonion Centre):: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In its search for funds, is the government at present considering the removal of the exemption from the magazine tax now enjoyed by an extension of the state department of the United States, Time magazine?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a policy statement. I suggest the question cannot be answered at this time. If the hon. member thinks there is urgency he might like to have it discussed at the time of adjournment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Cannot the minister take action to eliminate this Canadian subsidy for United States propaganda?