1969-03-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report briefly to the house on my recent meeting with the President of the United States.
If I were asked what has been the most significant result of the events of the last two days, I would say without hesitation that it is the fact that the groundwork has been laid for co-operation and consultation between our two governments, which will allow for the holding of consultations at all levels, the official level, the ministerial one and that of the leaders of governments.

I should report as well the significance, in my view, of the fact that President Nixon set aside some time so early in his new administration to receive the Prime Minister of Canada. No other country is as important to Canada as the United States; it is therefore reassuring to know that we have at this early date established the contacts and fortified the channels of communication so necessary to the effective conduct of our relations.
A number of matters were discussed by the President and myself, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his counterpart Mr. Rogers, and by other officials. These discussions led to a confirmation of the Canadian-United States commitment to the continued expansion and freedom of world trade, to agreement with respect to our community
of interest in the expansion of energy movements across our border, and a confirmation of the importance of an early solution to the current wheat marketing problems.
I wish to add that we were given a very full explanation of the reasons which led President Nixon to initiate the Safeguard anti-ballistic missile program, and these I intend to convey to cabinet at the earliest opportunity so that Canada's attitude may be determined.
It was further agreed that a meeting of the joint cabinet committee on trade and economic policy will be held on June 25, 26 and 27.
I do not wish to sit down without saying that I found in President Nixon a warm and understanding friend of Canada, a man with whom I shall be able to speak on behalf of Canadians in a frank yet genial fashion. For this I am very thankful. To further this good beginning I extended to the President and to Mrs. Nixon a warm invitation to visit Canada at their earliest convenience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am happy to note that we all look forward to that event and that the house welcomes it.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: My first words are to extend to the right hon. Prime Minister a very warm welcome back to the country and to parliament. This was the first meeting between the Prime Minister and the new President of the United States. In the space of two days, and from their initial encounter it would probably be unrealistic to expect much more than that the leaders of the two governments should exhange views on important subjects that are of mutual concern to the countries, and that they would establish a relationship as leaders of governments which could easily be drawn upon in the future to our mutual advantage. I think it 'is quite apparent from what has been said that the Prime Minister and Mr. Nixon have begun to establish this kind of relationship. This is a very constructive development.
At least two serious economic problems were discussed, oil and wheat. It was apparently agreed to hold meetings at the official level between the two countries to discuss the
March 26, 1969
7128	COMMONS
Prime Minister's Meeting in Washington oil policy. Certainly there is more insecurity and apparently there is a greater danger to the Canadian oil industry today than there has been for ten years or more. The importance of the decision to hold meetings between officials of the Canadian and U.S. governments on this question is obvious enough. I assume that no other consensus, was reached by the Prime Minister and the President, and I hope that at some stage we may have some further enlightenment from the Prime Minister as to what proposals, if any, were put forward on behalf of Canada. I suggest that in recent times there has been far too much secrecy about the oil policy. We need to know where we stand. Indeed, I think it would be useful for this house to contribute to the position that the government of Canada should take concerning our petroleum industry.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
No serious consideration has been given by the government to the development of a national oil policy and this has certainly caused great concern in western Canada and elsewhere, where the importance of a strong Canadian oil policy is recognized. I hope it will be possible for one of our standing committees to inquire publicly into the requirements of an up to date national oil policy and to call in for consultation representatives of the industry.
On the question of wheat, it was agreed, I gather, that our two countries would press for a meeting of the major exporting countries. Again, this was the obvious decision for Prime Minister and President to take. There is of course a grave situation confronting Canada and our western wheat growers, and I wonder whether as a result of the meetings between the President and the Prime Minister we have in fact agreed on an approach to be taken at such a meeting of exporters and, if not, whether we contemplate coming to some agreement in this regard before the meeting takes place. Our grain exporters and farmers need to know what approach is to be taken, with a view to restoring our position in the world markets. Farmers have experienced a difficult year and they are now trying to make their plans.
The fact that the A.B.M. decision and the meetings in Washington came so close together served to focus attention on the uncertainty which still exists as to the nature of relations between Canada and the United States,


particularly in connection with defence. I suggest the Prime Minister has done nothing so far to reduce this uncertainty. He did not indicate when parliament or the country could expect a definite statement with regard to the decision of President Nixon to proceed with the so-called Safeguard A.B.M. system. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is really running out of excuses to hide behind.
During the discussions in this house on the subject last week, the right hon. gentleman indicated that he wished to remain silent on the question of Canada's stake in this matter, so that he could feel free to condemn the whole policy in the name of humanity and world peace. He also left the impression that the President's decision had been practically sprung upon us and that Canada had been taken almost unaware. I hope we shall be told in due course whether the Prime Minister made it clear to the President of the United States that we expect to be consulted well in advance of such decisions being taken. The fact is, I suggest, that the explanation given by the Prime Minister and the government so far to avoid taking up a position on, the question of consultation and on the question of our attitude toward this decision by the United States is really not very convincing. We are entitled to know when the country will be informed as to the government's decision.
A source of disappointment to me also is the absence of any reference to the Nigerian problem. The concern of President Nixon is well known. Statements during his election campaign, money support given to relief efforts since his inauguration, and especially the making available to church relief agencies of government planes at nominal prices-a policy we urged on this government six months ago-are all concrete evidence of the President's concern that the suffering should end. In addition, the President's personal representative has just returned from that part of Africa to report on the relief situation in Biafra and, incidentally, to condemn Nigerian attacks on non-military targets.
I express the hope that the Prime Minister will use the good rapport he has established with President Nixon to ensure frequent contact with him in connection with this grave problem. I submit that plans should be made jointly to see that the airstrip to be built by Canairelief is in fact made operational. Planning should start now at government level to ensure that the most effective use possible is made of this strip, and joint Canada-United States initiative taken to slow down or halt the flow of arms.1
March 26, 1969

It is our suggestion that the Prime Minister now make up for lost time in this area and use his newly forged links with President Nixon in a constructive way. But above all, I hope that the government of this country will work closely and press forward keenly on the two great sources of economic concern in this country, the restoration of some stability with regard to the international wheat agreement, and the achievement of a satisfactory continental oil policy between our two nations.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back to Canada and to this house. We are all glad that he has established a friendly rapport with the President of the United States, though he probably regrets that the White House had no banisters for the Prime Minister to demonstrate his skills in the art of making a backward descent, without hurting himself. However, we are pleased he made such a favourable impression both on the President and on the people of the United States.
Former President John F. Kennedy once said of Canada and the United States that geography has made us neighbours and history has made us friends, and we all want it to continue that way. However, if friends are to treat each other on the basis of equality rather than of master and servant, then it is absolutely essential that there be the utmost frankness in exchanges of views, and also independence on the part of both parties.
The Prime Minister's statement today disa-points me, since he has said very little about some of the matters that were under discussion in Washington. On Monday last, when I asked the Acting Prime Minister about the evidence given by Mr. Melvin Laird, Defence Secretary of the United States, before the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate, the Acting Prime Minister said that a statement would be made shortly. I do not know whether the Prime Minister's statement today is supposed to be that statement, but if that is so it gives us no information whatsoever.
The fact is that the government has been less than frank with this parliament and the Canadian people with respect to the construction of an A.B.M. system in the United States. In the evidence that Mr. Laird gave before the foreign relations committee, he said in answer to a question about whether or not
DEBATES	7129
Prime Minister's Meeting in Washington the Sentinel and Safeguard systems had been cleared with Canada:
-we did not think it was necessary to clear the change in locations, once we had the agreement on the use ot the Sentinel system.
Further on in his evidence, in reply to Senator Fulbright, he said:
-I can assure you that we have a working agreement with our friends in Canada and I do know that this was cleared.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to tell this parliament whether or not there was an agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to the Sentinel system.
I see the Prime Minister shaking his head. Am I to assume, then, that Defence Secretary Laird does not know what he is talking about?
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Now he is nodding his head.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now the Prime Minister is nodding his head. I want to know if he told the President of the United States that the President's Defence Secretary was making statements before a Congressional committee that are not in accordance with facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am sure he knows the limitations imposed on his comments at this time under the provisions of Standing Order 15. That Standing Order allows a spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government to comment briefly, subject to certain limitations, one of those being that the comments should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was not desirous of provoking debate but merely of eliciting information which this house is entitled to have. When the Prime Minister comes back from Washington, telling us nothing about the commitments if any which Canada has made with respect to the A.B.M. system and, in order to obtain information, we have to read the transcript of evidence taken before a Congressional committee, we face a very sad state of affairs. It is not good enough for us to depend on the Prime Minister's moving his head from left to right or up and down in our efforts to obtain information.
March 26, 1966

Prime Minister's Meeting in Washington
On the question of the A.B.M. system the Prime Minister said these words during a press conference in Washington:
I have more Information, but the moral and political questions are no closer to being settled than a week ago.
The question of whether the construction of an A.B.M. system will trigger a nuclear arms race is of vital importance to the people of this country and of the world, and I hope the Prime Minister will be prepared to make a statement fairly soon on this matter. The matter is being discussed in the United States Congress and I think the people who are making decisions in this momentous field have a right to know where the Canadian government stands.
To turn to other matters, we have not had much information yet about any oil policy that was discussed. I notice that Senator William Proxmire of the United States referred to a secret agreement. As far as we are concerned, it was secret until a short time ago. We need to know more about this oil policy. Our present oil policy means that we are completely at the mercy of the whims of the United States and the United States oil industry. I hope we will have a full scale debate on oil policy and that the government will give us some idea of where it stands.
I am sorry the Prime Minister was not able to give us some assurance with respect to the International Grains Arrangement and tell us whether the President of the United States is prepared to give an undertaking that the United States will observe the price ranges set out in the International Grains Arrangement, and whether the United States will join with Canada in exercising all the influence it can upon other wheat exporting countries to try to make sure that they, too, will abide by the terms and conditions of that arrangement.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by expressing the hope that as a result of these discussions in Washington, Canada and the United States will be able to resolve some of these problems, and to work out harmonious relations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I trust there have been no under-the-table deals and that we will not get concessions on our oil policy and wheat marketing policy by agreeing to the establishment of an antiballistic missile system on this continent.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is back from his trip to the United States where he met the President of the neighbouring republic. We are also happy to note that he has acquired some experience from that trip.
From the little he told the house today, I believe that this exchange of views with the President of the United States has been as fruitful as we could hope.
We venture to think that the Prime Minister has expressed the desire of all Canadians to become more and more economically self-sufficient, while keeping friendly political and trading relations with that nation, the political, economic and military power of which cannot be ignored.
We also believe that the meetings of these last two days must have dealt with commercial and defence matters, defence not only of the United States, but of the whole North American continent.
The Prime Minister told us that relations had been strongly initiated and that in a few days, after he has reported to his Cabinet- the logical way to proceed I would say-we will get the chance to discuss the matter openly in this house.
I hope the Prime Minister was determined and confident enough to make that Southern giant understand that we would reluctantly accept that such a highly civilized country use its power to impose its views.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that any action of the American government aimed at defending its territory should be taken with Canada in mind, because it has its own importance for the United States.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
We have often heard, but more so in recent years, some flamboyant statements at the United Nations, NATO or at interparliamentary meetings, that >a country should not interfere with another country's business.
The United States are just one of those who made such statements, but unfortunately they often interfere in other countries' business without consulting them in advance.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech on the results of the discussions which took place these last few days, as the Prime Minister's statement was rather brief. When the time comes, we should have the
March 26, 1969

opportunity to express our views on the subjects discussed with President Nixon.
However, we hope that this arms race undertaken by the two great powers and other countries will come to an end, so that Europe and America will no longer be under threat of destruction.
I believe that the means of defence contemplated will protect us from such a disaster, and if Canada could be useful in contributing to defensive measures in order to avoid a conflict, we should do so Above all, it would be very useful, I think, if Canada could be one of the first countries to start negotiations with a view to preserving peace and allowing us to keep on developing means for a decent living, instead of means of destruction.



FINANCE


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in English and in French of the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968. As the house is aware, the Financial Administration Act requires that the report of the Auditor General be laid before the house on or before the 31st day of December or, if parliament is then not in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. The Auditor General has asked me to express his apologies to members of the house for the delay.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I would like to table copies in English and in French of the report of the task force on labour relations. I would also point out to the house that I prefer not to make a detailed statement at the same time in view of the fact that the opposition parties, and in particular their labour critics, have not had an ample opportunity to study this report in depth. However, I would like to take advantage of Standing Order 41(2) to table along with the report a very short and non-controversial statement which does not deal with the recommendations of the Woods report.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: 


Mr. Speaker-Questions  Mr. Speaker@: Order. My understanding is that the Minister of Labour was not making a statement. I am not sure whether he presented a non-statement to the house, but if my interpretation is correct, under our Standing Orders there should be no statement by any member of other parties.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I will not trespass on your ruling, except to point out that I did receive a copy of the report and that I was ready to reply to the minister today. However I shall reserve that for a later date.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Which Canadian groups of classical and popular entertainers were sponsored by the Centennial Commission on national tours during 1967?
2. Which of these paid their way, in gate receipts, and which were subsidized by the Treasury, and in what amounts?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1.	Les Feux Follets, Anne of Green Gables, Holiday Theatre, Don Messer Jubilee, National Ballet, National Youth Orchestra, Neptune Theatre, Theatre du Nouveau Monde, Theatre du Rideau Vert, Stratford Festival, Best of Barkerville, Ian and Sylvia, Monique Leyrac, Gordon Lightfoot, 100 Year of Musical Comedy, Les Chansonniers, Jean-Pierre Ferland, Ginette Reno and Donald Lautrec, The Travellers.
2.	The Centennial Commission, through its Festival Canada Agency, paid travelling expenses, productions costs and a portion of the ticket subsidy for groups and individuals on national tour during 1967. The ticket subsidy was shared with the provinces and was intended to provide this entertainment to as many people as possible at popular prices. As the ticket prices were much lower than the normal commercial rates for each performance, no off-setting revenue was expected or received.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY PERSONNEL
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, what are the total annual number of employees of the Department of Industry and what is the total expenditure for salaries and wages?

March 26, 1969
Questions
2.	For the same years, what are the total annual number of employees of the Aerospace Branch of the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry and what are their expenditures for salaries and wages?
3.	For the same years, what are the total annual number of employees of the International Programs Branch of the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry and what are their expenditures for salaries and wages?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the departments of Industry and Defence Production as follows: 1. Personnel:
1963-	64, 125; 1964-65, 363; 1965-66, 424; 196667, 489; 1967-68, 846. Salaries and Wages (Excluding Minister's Salary): 1963-64, $443,367;
1964-	65, $2,578,454; 1965-66, $3,813,066; 196667,	$4,829,006;	1967-68,	$6,988,424; Total,

2.	Personnel-Aerospace Branch, Department of Industry: 1963-64, 0; 1964-65, 31;
1965-	66, 33; 1966-67, 36; 1967-68, 42. Salaries and Wages-Aerospace Branch, Department of Industry: 1963-64, Nil; 1964-65, $228,491; 1965-66, $290,602; 1966-67, $384,035; 1967-68, $455,126; Total, $1,358,254.
Personnel-Aerospace Branch, Department of Defence Production
	No. of	Expenditures for Salaries
Calendar	Employees at	and WagesYear	December 31	$1963	168	1,191,1441964	175	1,257,0011965	172	1,302,2921966	181	1,387,8751967	176	1,427,5361968	178	1,508,670Total 8,074,518	3.	Personnel-International	Programs
Branch: 1964-65, 140; 1965-66, 156; 1966-67, 166; 1967-68, 169. Salaries and Wages-International Programs Branch: 1964-65, $1,275,720; 1965-66, $1,311,483; 1966-67, $1,413,338; 1967-68, $1,442,268; Total $5,442,809.
Note: The International Defence Programs Branch was formed on April 1, 1964 and transferred from the Department of Defence Production to the Department of Trade and Commerce in July, 1968 by Order-in-Council, PC 1968-1307.


EXCHEQUER COURT RULES OF PROCEDURE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the revision of the rules of procedure of the Exchequer Court completed and, if not, when will it be completed?
2.	When will the official versions, French and English, of the said rules of procedure be available?
3.	When will the reform of the Exchequer Court be completed and when will the resulting bill be laid before Parliament?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes, but the rules are under continuous revision.
2.	The material is now being prepared for printing but it is not possible at this time to forecast a definite date when the rules of procedure will be available.
3.	It is hoped that modifications in the federal courts' structure may be brought before Parliament either late in the present session or during the next session.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Thomson: 1.	How many full time employees does the Department of Justice have?
2.	How many of these employees are in the (a) Yukon (b) Northwest Territories?
3.	In reference to employees stationed in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, how many of them are administrative officers and/or how many in a judicial capacity?


John Napier Turner: 1.	423.
2.	(a) 12 full time; (b) 10 full time.
3.	In each of the Yukon and Northwest Territories there are one magistrate and two administrative officers. Acting in a judicial capacity but not considered to be employees of the Department of Justice are the Judge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory and the Judge of the Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories.


POST OFFICE BOX RENTALS
Mr. Downey: 1.	How many postal boxes were available for rental by the public from the Post Office Department during the year 1968?
2.	What was the total annual rental received from this source by the Department?
3.	What were the rental rates prevailing during 1968?
March 26, 1969

4.	What is the annual estimated cost, total and per box, of maintaining these postal boxes?
5.	How many rural mail delivery routes does the Post Office Department maintain in Canada?
6.	How many residential letterboxes is it estimated that the Post Office Department services in Canada?
7.	How much is the annual cost to the Department of maintaining rural mail delivery?
8.	How much is the annual cost to the Department of maintaining residential mail delivery?
9.	What is the unit cost of delivery to (a) a postal box (b) a rural route mail drop (c) a residential letterbox?
10.	What percentage of revenue from stamps is accounted for by mailings within Canada?
11.	What is the estimated number of postal boxes that will be rented by the Department during 1969?
12.	What are the new rental rates applicable in 1969?
13.	What revenue is estimated for 1969 from rental of postal boxes?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. 1,016,369 as of March 31, 1968.
2.	$2,497,670 for the fiscal year 1967-68.
3.	Lock box rental charges are based on the size of the lock box rented and the type of Post Office where the lock box is rented. Rental charges for 1968 were:
Non-letter Carrier Letter Carrier
Style Delivery Office			Delivery Office
A	$ 2.00	$ 6.00B	3.00	8.00C	5.00	10.00D	8.00	15.00E	10.00	18.00Bag Service	10.00	18.004. $4,624,000	in	total for	the fiscal year1967-68, $4.45	per	box.	5. 5,561 for	the	fiscal year	1967-68.6.	Approximately 3,827,000 for the fiscal 1967-68.7.	Approximately $13,561,000-for the fiscal year 1967-68.8.	Approximately $101,502,000 for the fiscal year 1967-68.9.	(a) $3.50; (b) $14.45; (c) $16.82. These estimated costs do not include costs of mail sorting.10.	98.9 per cent.11.	931,000.12.	Lock box rental charges are based on the size of the lock box rented and the type
Questions
of Post Office where the lock box is rented. Rental charges are-
Non-letter Carrier Letter Carrier
Style	Delivery Office	Delivery OA	$ 4.00	$ 8.00B	6.00	10.00C	10.00	15.00D	15.00	25.00E	20.00	35.00Bag-Service	20.00	35.0013.	$4,232,000.


ATLANTIC SUGAR REFINERIES-SEINER SUBSIDIES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the total amount of the federal subsidy paid on the five tuna seiners owned by Atlantic Sugar Refineries and what was the total cost of these ships?
2.	What was the total amount of the federal development grant paid to Atlantic Sugar Refineries for establishing its plant at St. Andrews, New Brunswick?
3.	Which department of the federal government is responsible for overseeing this company's operations in order to determine that the taxpayer is receiving value for his money?
4.	How many Canadians are employed on these ships and what is the total crew complement of the five ships?
5.	On what date did these ships start fishing operations and what is the total landed value of all tuna caught by these five ships to date?
6 Has the Atlantic Sugar Refineries complied with all the regulations to date covering federal grants and subsidies?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Industry, Fisheries and Forestry and Rural Development as follows: 1. Total amount of subsidy paid $6,130,647. Total cost of these ships is not known. However, "approved cost" for subsidy purposes was $12,261,294.
2.	Nil.
3.	Specific areas or projects in the company's operation which involved the interests of a government department would be monitored by the department concerned.
4.	The Department of Fisheries has no information on the crews of the five tuna seiners owned by Atlantic Sugar Refineries.

March 26, 1969
Questions
5.	Ship
Atlantic Gairdner Atlantic-J.A.G. Ocean Maid (ex-Atlantic- John Park) Atlantic Gennis Atlantic Paton
First Fishing Trip November 19, 1967 January 25, 1968 January 29, 1968
February 2, 1968 February 26, 1968
The total landed value of all tuna caught by these ships to date is $1,081,000.
6.	Yes-insofar as shipbuilding subsidies are concerned; not yet determined insofar as grants are concerned.


TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has a committee been appointed to study the locations available for an additional site for the Toronto International Airport?
2.	If so, have any meetings been held?
3.	When will the Department of Transport be able to advise as to the selection of the additional site and the anticipated construction schedule?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1.	No committee has been appointed but an informal working group has been established with the Province of Ontario to identify areas of primary interest and responsibilities.
2.	Yes.
3.	The substantial research and analysis of all aspects of the subject may require a year or more before a site can be selected and construction scheduled.


WINNIPEG-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION POSITIONS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Are there a number of positions in the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in Winnipeg which have been or are about to be declared redundant?
2.	If so, how many positions are involved?
3.	How many of those affected have had (a) over five years' service in the Public Service (b) over ten years' service (c) over fifteen years' service?
4.	What is the general reason attributed for the redundancy of the positions and will alternative employment be found for each of those affected?
Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: 1. Yes.
2.	As of February 24, 1969, there was a total of 23 employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Winnipeg who were

being declared redundant. Four were at the Prairie Regional Office and 19 at the Winnipeg Area Office.
3.	In the Regional Office, one of the four redundant employees has over five years of service. In the Area Office, (a) two; (b) eight; (c) six.
4.	Six employees in the Area Office are redundant because the functions of Limited Authority Officer and Special Interviewer have been discontinued. The remaining 17 employees are redundant because of new methods and procedures which have been instituted and the decentralization to area offices of the Adjudication, Audit, and Investigations functions.
The Commission is making every effort to locate suitable alternate employment. A Job Search Program has been established at each Region and contacts are made regularly with prospective employers, the Public Service Commission, the provincial Civil Service, the Canada Manpower Centres, and other government departments concerning possible employment opportunities.
A number of positions within the Unemployment Insurance Commission are available or will be available to redundant staff if the employees are willing either to transfer to some other location (with the usual relocation expenses being provided) or, in some cases, accept a lower grade position. While it cannot be guaranteed that all 23 redundant employees will be placed in other employment, the placement results of the past several months would give reason for some optimism in this regard.


QUEBEC-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER CABLES
Mr. Dumont: 1.	Since 1965, have telephone cables between the North and South shores of the St. Lawrence River in the Port of Quebec been damaged by ships and, if so, on what occasions?
2. For the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, does the National Harbours Board have any record of the claims by the Bell Telephone Company against the owners of these vessels and, if so, what amounts has the Company claimed?
3.	Does the National Harbours Board consider that such communication cables between Levis and Quebec City are a serious obstacle to vessels mooring or manoeuvring in the harbour, particularly in the bad ice conditions and strong westerly winds prevailing in spring and fall and, if so, what steps will the Board take to have these cables removed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes, on two occasions. On December 3,
March 26, 1969

1966 by the vessel Texaco Oregon, and on December 11, 1968 by the vessel Salamina.
2.	No.
3.	No. Chart 1321 of the Canadian Hydrographic Service indicates the location of submarine cables and the prohibited anchorage area over the cables. The official anchorage area is located southwest of the cables, and when correctly attended there should be no accidents between ships and submarine cables.


TORMENTINE-BOEDEN CAR FERRY
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the price paid for the car-ferry purchased in Sweden to be put into service on the Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick-Borden, Prince Edward Island run?
2.	Has a name been selected for this vessel and, if so, what is it?
3.	What is the age, length, beam, vehicle capacity, passenger capacity, speed and power of this vessel?
4.	What type of power plant does this vessel have?
5.	How many propellers does she have, and does she have any special equipment for manoeuvering and docking?
6.	What is the estimated cost of modifications and/or installation of special equipment, if any, to be installed in this vessel before it goes into service?
7.	Is this vessel capable of carrying railway cars?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Purchase price $3,972 million.
2.	No.
3.	Built in 1965, 261 ft. 9 ins. long, beam of 53 ft. 2 ins., vehicle capacity of 100 autos, and a passenger capacity of 500. Service speed of the vessel is 174 knots and the engines develop 6,000 brake horse power.
4.	Deutz diesel engines with direct drive.
5.	Two controllable pitch propellors and a bow thruster for manoeuvering.
6.	$300,000.
7.	No.


MRS. SICOTTE-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lewis: 1.	Was Mrs. Giles Sicotte a passenger on any trip on a Department of Transport plane between September, 1963 to the present?
2.	Was a Department of Transport aircraft provided for Mrs. Sicotte alone at any time during this period?
Questions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Flight records of the Department of Transport, which are only retained for a three-year period, indicate that Mrs. Gilles Sicotte was a passenger, on a "space available" basis, on the following three flights since April 1, 1965: November 14, 1967, Ottawa to New York; May 25, 1968, Ottawa to Montreal; September 21, 1968, Ottawa to St. Hubert.
2. No.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT PAYMENTS
Mr. Anderson: For the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, what are the estimated costs associated with basic fiscal transfer and adjustment payments made to each province for post-secondary education, under terms of Part II of Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967?


Gérard Pelletier: The accompanying table shows present estimated costs associated with payments to the provinces under terms of Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967.
The Act, which became effective with the 1967-68 fiscal year, provides for federal transfers of fiscal resources to assist the provinces in meeting the rising costs of postsecondary education. It made provision for a province to receive for 1967-68 the higher of $15 per capita of population or 50% of eligible operating expenditures for post-secondary education incurred in the province. The Act also provided that, for the years 1968-69 to 1971-72 inclusive, each province originally on the per capita basis (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) would have its basic (i.e. 1967-68) transfer increased from year to year at the national rate of increase in eligible post-secondary education operating costs until the 50' per cent basis became more advantageous. Any province on the 50 per cent basis continues on that arrangement and cannot switch to the per capita (escalated) formula.
The total of the transfer of fiscal resources is made up of three elements: (i) tax abatements of 4 per cent of the individual income tax and 1 per cent of corporation taxable income; (ii) that portion of the general revenue equalization payments which is related to the special tax abatements for the post-secondary education program; and (iii) a cash adjustment payment.

March 26. 1969
Questions
Thus, the total of (i), (ii) and (iii) is equal to a province's entitlement under either the 50 per cent or the per capita (escalated) formula. Note that (ii) is applicable only in those cases where provinces receive payments under the general revenue equalization formula authorized in Part I of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
As final figures for eligible provincial postsecondary education operating expenditures will not be available before April, 1969 for 1967-68, before 1970 for 1968-69, and before 1971 for 1969-70, the figures in Column 1 are
based on provincial estimates as noted in footnote 1.
Periodic estimates of the value of income tax abatement and equalization payments are made by the Department of Finance and the totals shown for them in the table (Column
6)	are the latest available. Further changes in these estimates would, of course, alter the value of the adjustment payments which are made by the Department of the Secretary of State (Column 7). Final payment adjustments for all years will be made when final eligible post-secondary education operating expenditure and fiscal transfer figures are available.

Estimates of Post-Secondary Education Basic Fiscal Transfer and Adjustment Payments Under the Terms of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967 Fiscal Years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70
Fiscal Year and Province	Estimated Total Eligible Post- Secondary Operating Expenditures1 1	Estimated Population April 1, 1967 2	50% of Eligible Post-Secondary Operating Expenditures 3	Per Capita Alternative* 4	Estimated Value of Transfer of Fiscal Resources (Greater of 3 or 4) 5	Estimated Value of Fiscal Transfer Portion (tax abatements and equalization)3 6	Estimated Value of Cash Adjustment Payments Portion (5 minus 6) 7($000)	(000)	($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)1967-68	Nfld	6,742*	500	3,371	7,500	7,500	5,521	1,979P.E.I	2,123	109	1,062	1,635	1,635	427	1,208N.S 	31,397	756	15,699	11,340	15,669	8,465	7,204N.B	16,231*	619	8,117	9,285	9,285	6,941	2,341Qu6	212,800	5,854	106,400	87,810	106,400	02,639	43,761Ont	304,414	7,115	152,207	106,725	152,207	97,343	51,864Man	35,826	961	17,913	14,415	17,913	10,704	7,209Sask	36,540	955	18,270	14,325	18,270	7,370	10,900Alta	75,604	1,483	37,802	22,245	37,802	15,846	21,956B.C	67,803	1,938	33,902	29,070	33,902	24,881	9,021TOTAL	789,483	20,290	394,743	304,350	400,583	240,137	160,446s1968-69	Nfld	8,090*	-	4,045	9,398	9,398	6,185	3,213P.E I	3,077	-	1,539	2,049	2,049	995	1,054N.S	39,346	-	19,673	-	19,673	9,363	10,310N.B	19,480*	-	9,740	11,634	11,634	7,678	3,956Qu6	266,100	-	133,050	-	133,050	73,129	59,921Ont	391,400	-	195,700	-	195,700	113,789	81,911Man	43,905	-	21,953	-	21,953	11,953	10,000Sask	42,708	-	21,354	-	21,354	8,426	12,928Alta	91,967	-	45,984	-	45*984	17,476	28,508B.C	82,931	-	41,466	-	41,466	28,943	12,523TOTAL	989,004	-	494,504	-	502,261	277,937	224,324March 26, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	7137
Questions
CMr. Pelletier.]
Estimates of Post-Secondary Education Basic Fiscal Transfer and Adjustment Payments Under the Terms of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1867 Fiscal Years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 (concluded)
Fiscal Year and Province	Estimated Total Eligible Post- Secondary Operating Expenditures'	Estimated Population April 1, 1967	50% of Eligible PosL Secondary Operating Expenditures	Per Capita Alternative2	Estimated Value of Transfer of Fiscal Resources (Greater of 3 or 4)	Estimated Value of Fiscal Transfer Portion (tax abatements and equalization)3	Estimated Value of Cash Adjustment Payments Portion (5 minus 6)1	2	3	4	5	6	7($000)	(000)	($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)1969-70 Nfld	10,113	5,057	11,748	11,748	6,759	4,989P.E.I	3,846	-	1,923	2,561	2,561	1,456	1,105N.S	49,183	-	24,592	-	24,592	10,082	14,510N.B	24,350	-	12,175	15,543	14,543	8,286	6,257Qu6	332,625	-	166,313	-	166,313	78,677	87,636Ont	489,250	-	244,625	-	244,625	122,569	122,058Man	54,881	-	27,441	-	27,441	12,888	14,553Sask	53,385	-	26,693	-	26,693	9,074	17,619Alta	114,959	-	57,480	-	57,480	18,855	38,625B.C	103,664	-	51,832	-	51,832	31,174	20,658TOTAL	1,236,256	-	618,131	627,828	299,820	328,008
'Eligible post-secondary education operating expenditure estimates for 1967-68 and 1968-69 were submitted by most provinces in 1968. For the initial 1969-70 estimates shown, which will be revised shortly when more precise provincial estimates are available, the 1968-69 figures were increased by 25 per cent.
"For 1967-68: $15 multiplied by 1967 population. For 1968-69, the total transfer for each of the three original $15 per capita provinces was increased in proportion to the national increase in estimated expenditures from 1967-68 to 1968-69 (i.e. by just over 25 per cent). For the 1969-70 estimates, a 25 per cent increase over 1968-69 was used.
3The figures for 1967-68 include final Department of Finance estimates of the tax abatements (made in March 1969) and preliminary estimates of equalization payments (made in July 1967). The 1968-69 values shown are March 1969 preliminary estimates made by the Department of Finance. The 1969-70 preliminary estimates were made by the Department of Finance in December 1968.
'These are not provincially-submitted estimates.
6$108 million was paid during the 1967-68 fiscal year. An estimate of the balance required for 1967-68 is included in the 1968-69 Estimates and is expected to be paid before the end of the 1968-69 fiscal year.
7138	COMMONS DEBATES	March 26, 1969
Questions
March 26, 1969

713?


GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES IN EACH PROVINCE
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How much money was paid by the federal government to each of the provinces of Canada by way of grants to the universities situated in those said provinces?
2.	In 1968, did any province refuse to accept federal grants to universities?


Mr. Robert Slanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: 1. By the
terms of part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, the federal government began in the 1967-68 fiscal year to transfer fiscal resources to the provincial governments to assist them in meeting the rising costs of post-secondary education generally. These transfers replace the University Grants program which was terminated after 1966-67.
The latest estimated values of these transfers (consisting of tax abatements of 4 per cent of individual income tax and 1 per cent of corporation taxable income, and cash adjustment payments) for the 1968-69 year are: Newfoundland, $9,398,000; Prince Edward Island, $2,049,000; Nova Scotia, $19,673,000; New Brunswick, $11,634,000; Quebec, $133,050,000; Ontario, $195,700,000; Manitoba, $21,953,000; Saskatchewan, $21,354,000; Alberta, $45,984,000; British Columbia, $41,466,000; Total, $502,261,000.
The extent to which these transferred resources are used by the provinces for the support of universities is, of course, a matter for provincial authorities to decide.
2. In 1968-69 all provinces received these transferred resources.


PRINTING OF &quot;SENTINEL&quot;
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many copies of the March 1969 issue of "Sentinel", the Canadian Forces magazine, Volume 5, Number 3, were printed?
2.	How many paid subscriptions were in effect as at publication date (a) inside North America at $2.50 per year (b) outside of North America at $3.50 per year?
3.	How many copies of that issue were distributed free of charge?
4.	What were the costs of production of that issue as to (a) editorial content (b) paper (c) printing (d) other?
5.	What category of mail is "Sentinel" classed as, by the Post Office and what was the total charge levied by the Post Office for mailing that issue (a) in North America and (b) outside of North America?
Questions


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1.
56,500.
2.	(a) 1,708; (b) 80.
3.	52,268. The Canadian Forces' magazine "Sentinel", and its French counterpart "La Sentinelle", is an internal information medium and the majority of these free copies are distributed to bases, stations and to units wherever Canadian Forces personnel are stationed. Approximately 22,000 copies go by mail, the balance being shipped through Canadian Forces distribution channels.
4.	(a) The editorial staff of these magazines consists of: two majors, one captain, one lieutenant, one master warrant officer, two civilian clerks, and one typist.
Some copy is contributed by others than the staff. As the content for a particular issue is prepared well in advance of its publication at the same time as other material is being prepared, it is not possible to provide a cost for the editorial content of the March issue with any degree of accuracy.
(b), (c) and (d) Commercial printers do not detail costs regarding paper, composition, printing, etc., on their invoices. Total cost of production was $12,220.63. This figure includes the cost of paper, printing and other manufacturing costs.
5.	The "Sentinel" is in the "second class mail" category. Postage for all publications mailed from Public Printing and Stationery Department is paid for quarterly, in bulk. The cost of postage for an individual issue is therefore not available.


FURNITURE RETAILER BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Latulippe: Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to take steps to determine the reason for the number of bankruptcies among furniture retailers during the first nine months of 1968?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Bankruptcy Act requires that a bankrupt be examined under oath by the official receiver in order to determine, among other things, the causes of the bankruptcy. Also, the trustee is required to file a confidential report with the Superintendent of Bankruptcy informing him of the causes of the bankruptcy and if, in his opinion, the deficiency between the assets and

March 26. 1969
Questions
liabilities of the bankrupt has been satisfactorily accounted for.
If, as a result of the examination of the debtor by the official receiver, or the trustee's report, or again complaints received from creditors, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed to the Bankruptcy Act or to any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, an investigation is immediately initiated to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges before the courts.
tEnglish]


TRAINING OF NATO STUDENTS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How many NATO students have been trained during the following years: 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 at all Canadian Forces Bases in Canada?
2.	Has this training program been cancelled and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Are countries that formerly used Canadian Bases for training NATO students now sending their students to the United States for training?
4.	What did Canada charge for the training of each NATO student for each of the following years: 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: "NATO students" are assumed to mean members of the armed forces of NATO member countries except Britain and the United States who have separate reciprocal agreements with Canada concerning training.
1.	By Calendar Year: 1964, 98; 1965, 81; 1966, 66; 1967, 61; 1968, 55. In addition, a few vacancies for foreign officers to attend the Staff College at Kingston were offered to NATO countries. Pay and allowances, clothing, transportation to Canada and other personal expenses of a similar character were borne by the home country, with Canada providing transportation within Canada, normal hospital and medical services, as well as the cost of training. The numbers involved were: 1963-65, 2; 1965-66, 2; 196667, 3; 1967-68, 4.
2.	The agreements concluded in July, 1964, providing for training of aircrew personnel from Denmark and Norway, expired on 30 June, 1968, and have not been renewed. The reasons are a matter for the Danish and Norwegian governments.
3.	Not known.

4.
Calendar Years
Type of	Charges/
Training						Student
	1964 1965 1966 1967 1968					
Pilot Wings						
Standard	62	53 63	52	46	$44,000.Navigator	10	5 3	7	5	23,500.Sabre Transition Pilot	26	19	10,000.Helicopter Pilot	(a)	4	9,500.Helicopter Pilot	(b)	2	2	42,500.Albatross	2	24,000.Note: Pilot	Helicopter	(a)	is transition	
training from pilot wings standard.
Pilot Helicopter (b) includes basic pilot training and helicopter transition.


ELLIOT LAKE-C.M.H.C. SALES
Mr. Fosier: 1.	How many single family houses have been sold by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Elliot Lake in each of the past six years?
2.	What was the average initial cost of the houses sold in each year?
3.	What was the average cost of rehabilitating the houses sold in each year and what was the average selling price of the houses sold each year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	1963, 2; 1964, 2; 1965, 63; 1966, 162; 1967, 342; 1968, 273.
2.	These houses were financed under the National Housing Act and were subsequently acquired by reason of mortgage default. Corporation records do not show initial cost of the houses. However, before a loan was granted a valuation was placed by the Corporation on each house specifically for setting of the loan amount. This value is considered to be a fair approximation of initial cost. The average original lending value for the houses sold in each year follows: 1963, $11,750; 1964, $11,925; 1965, $12,681; 1966, $12,405; 1967, $12,559; 1968, $12,377.
3.	As Corporation records for Elliot Lake are maintained on a project basis, it is not possible to accurately relate rehabilitation costs to a specific house. It is, however, estimated that rehabilitation costs for the houses sold in each year averages as follows: 1963, $200; 1964, $200; 1965, $200; 1966, $500; 1967, $2,100; 1968, $3,900.
The progressive increase in costs is due to the fact that the units in the best condition
March 26, 1969

were sold first and those which had been vacant for prolonged periods, or those which required extensive repairs were held from sale until the later years.
The average selling price of the houses sold each year is as follows: 1963, $10,125; 1964, $10,125; 1965, $11,000; 1966, $10,590; 1967, $10,840; 1968, $11,470.


KENT, ONTARIO, POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. McCuicheon: Under the government's reorganization plan involving the closing of small post offices, what post offices are scheduled for closing in the County of Kent, Ontario, and on what dates?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office is concerned: The following Post Offices are being studied for possible closing: Bear Line, Becher, Croton, Dover Centre, Duart, Kent Bridge, Mitchells Bay, Muirkirk, Mull, Northwood, Walpole Island, Wilkesport.
No decision has been made on any case as yet.
Records are not maintained in such a way as to be readily available by County, therefore, the above list is for the constituency of Lambton-Kent rather than the County of Kent.


MRS. SICOTTE-INDEBTEDNESS FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES
Mr. Lewis: 1.	(a) Does Mrs. Gilles Sicotte or Stoa Galleries Limited, of which she was President, owe the Department of National Revenue a sum of money for customs duties or other charges (b) if so, how much does the said Mrs. Sicotte or Stoa Galleries Limited owe and since what date (c) what steps have been taken to collect such debt?
2.	(a) Is the government aware of any outstanding criminal charge or charges against Mrs. Gilles Sicotte laid in Switzerland (b) if so, what was the nature of such charge or charges (c) were extradition proceedings commenced arising out of such charge or charges and, if so, what was the disposition of such proceedings?
3.	(a) Is there any information available about charges laid against Mrs. Gilles Sicotte in Middle-burg, N.Y. (b) if so, what were the nature and disposition of such charges?
4.	(a) Was Mrs. Gilles Sicotte threatened with deportation from Mexico in 1954 and did she leave that country under such threat (b) was Mrs. Gilles Sicotte deported from Mexico in 1956 and, if so, what were the grounds for such deportation (c) did Mrs. Gilles Sicotte return to Mexico between 1954 and 1956 and were any representations made to the Mexican authorities by any officer in the External Affairs Department or any other department of the Canadian government with respect to
Questions
her return to that country (d) if such representations were made, who was the officer who made them (e) was any inquiry or investigation made into Mrs. Gilles Sicotte's activities in, and the reasons for her deportation from Mexico and, particularly, were inquiries made of Mr. Arcadio Ojeda, Chief of Mexican Immigration at the time?
5.	What steps has Air Canada taken to enforce the court order obtained on or about May 13, 1968 against Mrs. Gilles Sicotte with respect to a debt of some three thousand dollars owed by her to Air Canada?


Yves Forest: 1. (a)
and (b) An aggregate net amount of $711.86 is owed to the Department of National Revenue by Stoa Galleries Limited for customs duties and excise taxes; (c) Normal collection procedure was followed up to the time Stoa Galleries Limited was declared bankrupt on November 28, 1966. Proof of claim was filed on January 12, 1967 with the Trustee in Bankruptcy. No funds were available to reimburse the Department of National Revenue.
2.	(a) and (b) Available information indicates that Mrs. Sicotte was charged in Switzerland in late 1966 or early 1967 with alleged fraud involving the issuance of a cheque for the purchase of certain antique articles; (c) The Swiss authorities have not instituted extradition proceedings, but information received in late 1968 indicates that Mrs. Sicotte is still the subject of an inquiry for fraud committed in Geneva and that the case remains open.
3.	The government has no information about charges laid against Mrs. Gilles Sicotte in Middleburg, N.Y. Available information indicates that Mrs. Gilles Sicotte was indicted by the June 1967 Term of Grand Jury of Herkimer County, N.Y. "for the issuance of a fraudulent cheque and grand larceny in the second degree". Full restitution was made on behalf of the defendant to an antique shop in Middleville, New York. The indictment was dismissed.
4.	(a) Mrs. Sicotte was asked by the Mexican authorities on or about May 17, 1954 to leave Mexico because she was in the country illegally. She agreed to leave. No deportation order was issued against her. According to oral information subsequently received by the Canadian Embassy in Mexico, the basis for declaring her to be in the country illegally was that she had violated immigration rules by working as a nurse; (b) Mrs. Sicotte was asked by the Mexican authorities in 1956 to leave Mexico. She agreed

March 26, 1969
Questions
to leave. The Canadian Embassy in Mexico was orally informed at that time that a deportation order had been issued against her on July 27, 1956. She was escorted to the border by Mexican officials, and entered the United States on July 30, 1956. The Canadian Embassy was subsequently informed orally that, although the official grounds for deportation were violations of Mexican immigration and labour laws, action to deport Mrs. Sicotte was also based in part on allegations that she had been trafficking illegally in drugs and smuggling medical instruments; (c) and (d) No official representations were made to the Mexican authorities by any officer of the Department of External Affairs or any other Department of the Canadian Government with respect to Mrs. Sicotte's return to that country. In March of 1954 Mr. Gilles Sicotte, then an officer of the Department of External Affairs, wrote a personal letter to a Mexican immigration official seeking clarification of Mrs. Sicotte's status as a visitor to Mexico. Some months later Mr. Sicotte telephoned the same official, again in a personal capacity, requesting permission for Mrs. Sicotte to reenter Mexico for continued medical treatment in that country; (e) Yes. Investigations were made into Mrs. Gilles Sicotte's activities in and the reasons for her leaving Mexico. In particular, inquiries were made of Mr. Arcadio Ojeda.
5.	The following information has been provided by Air Canada. "On June 19, 1968 Air Canada's legal agents in Ottawa were instructed to initiate judgment debtor proceedings against Mrs. Sicotte. They were not successful in serving her. Again on October 7, 1968 our legal agents in Ottawa were given further instructions to serve Mrs. Sicotte with the process. Although they have not yet been successful, the amount of the judgment has been reduced, through partial payment, to a total of $2,411.88 plus $78.00 costs and interest. Legal proceedings are continuing."


CASHING OF INTEREST COUPONS BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Caouette: During the last two years, what were the amounts paid to each of the chartered banks to cover the cost of cashing interest coupons from savings bonds and redeeming Canada Savings Bonds?


Edgar John Benson: Amounts paid to the chartered banks to cover the cost of cashing interest coupons from Canada Savings Bonds are not recorded

separately from these amounts in respect of all Government of Canada issues. Payments to chartered banks to cover the cost of redeeming Canada Savings Bonds are made quarterly in arrears and the amounts paid in
1967	and 1968 for this purpose were $1,050,253.88 and $1,111,921.70 respectively. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to detail these amounts for each chartered bank.


INCOME TAX FROM TELEPHONE COMPANIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the last three years, what was the total amount of income tax received by the federal government from telephone companies in Canada?
2.	Has any province requested the transfer of income tax paid by telephone companies?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the departments of National Revenue and Finance as follows: 1. For the last three years for which the information is available, the total amount of federal income and old age security tax declared by telephone companies in Canada, as tabulated from tax returns, was: 1963 taxation year, $62.1 million; 1964 taxation year, $72.2 million; 1965 taxation year, $82.0 million.
2.	No.


BRANDON-SOURIS POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many rural post offices have been closed in Brandon-Souris the constituency since April 1,
1968	and what is the location of each of these post offices?
2.	How many will be closed in the next fiscal year and what is the location of each of these post offices?
3.	What rural post offices are under study with a view to closure in the future?
4.	How many rural post offices have been closed in the four Western Provinces since April 1, 1968 and what is the total saving?


Eric William Kierans: 1.	(a) Two; (b) Whitewater, Regent.
2.	(a) At this time only one Post Office at Mountainside is scheduled for closing during the fiscal year 1969-70. However, there may be others closed during that period if studies reveal that such action should be taken.
3.	Belleview, Coulter, Dand, Deleau, Ebor, Elva, Fairfax, Findlay, Harding, Hargrave, Kemnay, Kirkella, Lauder, Lenore, Rounth-waite, Scarth, Sinclair, Woodnorth.
March 26, 1969

4.	(a) Manitoba, 38; Saskatchewan, 35; Alberta, 53; British Columbia, 17. (b) $94,696.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON PILOTAGE
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the cost of the Royal Commission on Pilotage?
2.	When was it appointed?
3.	When did it report?
4.	What action has been taken on it's report and recommendations?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Offices of the Prime Minister and Privy Council and the Department of Transport as follows: 1. $1,049,870.
2.	November 1, 1962.
3.	Volume I-July 17, 1968; Volume II- December 20, 1968.
4.	A task force has been established within the Department of Transport and it has proceeded to study those Parts of the Report that have been received. It has also held discussions with representatives of shipping and pilots' associations on the implications of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission. It is now engaged in drafting a recommended plan of action for the reorganization of the pilotage service throughout Canada.


HUNGARIAN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Hungarians were allowed to immigrate to Canada after the Hungarian revolt?
2.	In what provinces and what large cities did they locate?
3.	Was there any screening of the immigrants to determine previous criminal records?
4.	How many have been convicted of criminal offenses in Canada and what were the offenses for which convictions were registered and what was the penalty meted out in each case?
5.	How many have been convicted of criminal offenses in (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. From November 1956, when the first of these people began to arrive in Canada, up to May 31, 1959 when the Department ceased to identify them separately in its statistical records, 37,096 Hungarian refugees were granted landed immigrant status in this country.
2. The distribution by province of intended destination of these refugees was as follows: Newfoundland, four; Prince Edward Island, 29180-453
Questions
11; Nova Scotia 1,315; New Brunswick, 988; Quebec, 9,634; Ontario, 12,245; Manitoba, 3,467; Saskatchewan, 989; Alberta, 3,635; British Columbia, 4,806 and the Yukon and Northwest Territories, two. No figures are available showing the city of intended destination of these refugees.
3.	Initially, Hungarian refugees were subject to full immigration screening. However as the flood of refugees increased, the situation became acute and the Canadian Government decided to waive its normal immigrant security checks for these refugees except where the examining officer abroad had reason to suspect that such checks should be carried out. This was done in order to speed up their arrival in Canada since the task of caring for them was far beyond the capacity of the countries in which they sought haven.
4 and 5. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no statistics concerning the incidence of crime amongst these people in Canada.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF NATIONAL DEFENCE PERSONNEL
Mr. Forlin: 1.	In the Department of National Defence, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


David Walter Groos: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question, and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.
Attention is directed to Hansard, page 2402, dated 25 September, 1967.
7144	COMMONS DEBATES	March 26, 1969
Questions


FACE VALUE OF COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What is the face value of the commemorative postage stamp being issued on March 14, 1969?
2.	How many stamps of this issue are being printed?
3.	What is the price of each stamp to the general public?
4.	Are orders being taken by the Post Office Department for these stamps and, if so, what price is being charged?
5.	Is there any limit to the number of stamps of this issue that can be purchased by one customer?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. The Aurele de Foy Suzor-Cote commemorative stamp has a face value of 50 cents.
2.	Six million stamps of this issue were ordered, but with the usual overrun total printing should approximate 6,300,000 stamps.
3.	50 cents.
4.	The Philatelic Service located at Headquarters accepts mail orders from stamp collectors and all sales both from post offices or the Philatelic Service are at the face value of the stamp.
5.	There is no limit to the number of stamps of this issue that may be purchased in post offices by one customer. However, the Philatelic Service makes every effort to ensure that all collectors have an equitable opportunity to obtain each new issue stamp through its facilities and the Philatelic Service would not knowingly allow one collector to obtain excessive quantities of any new issue stamp before the stamp has been available to all collectors for a reasonable period of time.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND HOSPITALS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What amount has the Government of Canada contributed in each of the past ten years towards hospital renovation and expansion in the Province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Has the government advised the Prince Edward Island Government of its intention to discontinue such grants and, if so, what is the date of such discontinuance?
3.	Has the Government of Prince Edward Island made representations on this matter and, if so, on what date?


Yves Forest: I am

informed by the departments of National Health and Welfare and Finance as follows:
1.	(a) Under the terms of the Hospital
Construction Grants:
1958-59	$141,713
1959-60	132,196
1960-61	169,579
1961-62	17,583
1962-63	133,667
1963-64	80,498
1964-65	38,554
1965-66	201,835
1966-67	197,730
1967-68	14,504
*1968-69	107,181
* as of February 15, 1969.
(b) Fiscal years 1959-60 to 1967-68 inclusive -Nil; Fiscal year 1968-69: A portion amounting to $112,468 of a loan under the Municipal Development and Loan Act was forgiven under the terms of the Act.
2.	(a) Yes, March 31, 1970; (b) March 31, 1966 was the last date on which new loans could be approved under the Municipal Development and Loan Act.
3.	No.


RETIREMENTS FROM FORCES BECAUSE OF LINGUISTIC QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Have there been any early retirements of members of the Canadian Forces because the individual was not bilingual and, if so, how many (a) officers (b) N.C.Os. (c) men, were involved?
2.	How many officers of the rank of Major and above are (a) bilingual (b) speak French only (c) speak English only?
3.	Have any officers of the Canadian Forces been promoted over other officers because they were bilingual and, if so, how many and from what rank to what rank were they appointed and does their present employment necessitate the equal use of both the French and English languages and, if not, to what extent is the language required?
4.	Have any members of the Canadian Forces been released from the services because of their refusal to learn (a) French (b) English?
5.	Is bilingualism now a prerequisite to becoming an officer in the Canadian Forces and, if not, is there a program to provide French and/or English instruction to the applicant on admission to the Canadian Forces?
6.	What was the cost of the bilingual program in the Canadian Forces in the year 1968 and what is the estimated cost for 1969?
Mr. D. W. Groos Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence): 1. None, insofar as compulsory releases are concerned. It is possible some who have left the
March 26, 1969

Forces voluntarily may have done so for this reason.
2.	(a) 1,497; (b) none; (c) 2,951.
3.	The criteria used for selecting officers for promotion are merit and the potential for the higher rank. Promotions are made to meet service requirements, which in some cases require the ability to speak both English and French, as vacancies in the rank and occupational group occur.
4.	No.
5.	No. Language training in the Canadian Forces is consolidated at the Canadian Forces Language School, CFB St Jean, Quebec which conducts: (a) a 23 week Basic English Language course for French speaking members who require English language proficiency before undertaking trade training in that language, or before occupying a position which requires proficiency in that language; (b) two 15 week Advanced English Language courses a year to a variable number of French-speaking junior officers and non-commissioned officers who require such training. Selection of candidates is based on proficiency tests. Men are selected prior to non-commissioned officer training and officers prior to attendance at Staff School; (c) two 24 week Formal French Language courses a year for English speaking officers and noncommissioned officers. This training is voluntary and candidates are normally selected prior to being appointed to a position requiring a bilingual capability or where future employment indicates the need; and (d) occasional special French and English language terminology and/or refresher courses to meet particular needs and specialized requirements.
6.	The cost of the bilingual program in the Canadian Forces cannot be accurately determined at this time as records are not maintained in a manner which would provide this data.


CANADIAN FORCES BILINGUAL PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government have a bilingual program in the Canadian Forces and, if so, how many members have taken the program?
2.	To what extent is the Canadian Forces bilingual at the present time?
3.	Is it the governments intention that all members of the Canadian Forces become bilingual?
4.	What percentage of (a) officers (b) N.C.O.'s (c) men, are bilingual at the present time?
5 Is bilingualism a prerequisite to promotion in (a) officer ranks (b) N.C.O. ranks?
Questions


David Walter Groos: 1. and
2. Yes. In the past, on enlistment, recruits signified what languages they had knowledge of, but there was nothing to indicate their fluency in such languages. However, the Canadian Forces have recently embarked on a French and English language proficiency testing program. When this program gains more momentum and is fully under way the Canadian Forces will possess a reliable and scientific tool which will not only determine the number of bilingual personnel but also their levels of proficiency in the second language.
3.	The Canadian Forces program is based upon the Government's policy on bilingualism as stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 6 April, 1966, at page 3915-18.
4.	(a) 18.8 per cent; (b) 16.7 per cent; (c) 25.5 per cent.
5.	See reply to part 5 of your question number 1745.


ECONOMIC EXPANSION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Orlikow;: 1.	How much money has the federal government agreed to contribute to implementing the Agreement with the Province of Prince Edward Island covering the Agreement for the Economic Expansion and Social Adjustment of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Does the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island provide for a major restructuring of the provincial system of education, to improve the quality of education, to increase the number of students who complete high school?
3.	If so, does the Agreement provide for the development of highly qualified teachers, through up-grading, in-training and higher salaries, the provision of comprehensive schools with a combination of academic and vocational training, the establishment of a college of applied arts and technology?
4.	How much money will the federal government contribute under the Agreement towards the construction of technical schools, primary and secondary classrooms, colleges of applied arts and the cost of operating and maintaining the new school program?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. $125,000,000 for the first phase, contingently $100,000,000 for the second phase.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.

March 26, 1969
Questions
4.	Nil directly, but the province's capacity to finance these programs is related to the federal contributions to the plan as a whole.


MANITOBA INTERLAKE AREA DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has the federal government agreed to contribute to implementing the Agreement with the Province of Manitoba for the Rural Development Plan for the Interlake Area of Manitoba?
2 Does the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba for a,	Development Plan for the Interlake Area
of Manitoba provide for the improvement of educational facilities and opportunities in the area?
3.	If so, does the Agreement provide for the improvement of school facilities in the area, the construction of a technical vocational high school in the area, and the provision of funds to meet the increase in the cost of operation and maintenance of the school program?
4. How much money will the federal government contribute under the Agreement towards the construction of a technical vocational high school, the construction of new primary and secondary classrooms, and the cost of operating and main-taming the new school program?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. $49,562,000 (See Schedule "C", page 51 of Agreement).
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	For construction of technical vocational high school $2,250,000; for construction of primary and secondary classrooms-nil; for operating and maintenance of new school program-nil (as outlined in Schedule "C" of Agreement).


LOWER ST. LAWRENCE AREA DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has the federal government agreed to contribute to implementing the Agreement covering the implementation of a comprehensive rural development plan for the Lower St Lawrence, Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine area?
2. Does the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec provide for extensive public investment in education tc raise the basic level of education of the population in the designated area?
3.	If so, does the Agreement provide for the extensive consolidation of schools and of school districts, the investment of substantial amounts of money in improving secondary schools, increased teacher training programs, the improvement of an enriched curricula for an improved educational system?

4.	How much money will the federal government contribute under the Agreement towards the construction of technical schools, new primary and secondary classrooms, and the cost of operating and maintaining the new school program?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. $212,295,000, as set out in Schedule "C", Summary of Cost Sharing Under the Agreement.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	None.


NORTHEASTERN NEW BRUNSWICK RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has the federal government agreed to contribute to implementing the Agreement with the Province of New Brunswick covering the Rural Development Plan for Northeast New Brunswick?
2.	Does the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick provide for extensive public investment in education to raise the basic level of education of the population in the designated area?
3.	If so, does the Agreement provide for the extensive consolidation of schools and of school districts, the investment of substantial amounts of money in improving secondary schools, increased teacher training programs, the improvement of an enriched curricula for an improved educational system?
4.	How much money will the federal government contribute under the Agreement towards the construction of technical schools, new primary and secondary classrooms, and the cost of operating and maintaining the new school program?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. $62,136,000 (see Schedule "C", page 39 of Agreement).
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Nil directly, but the province's capacity to finance these programs is related to the federal contributions to the plan as a whole.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the existing federal advisory committees and under what Act was each appointed?
2.	Who are the members of each of these advisory committees?
March 26, 1969

3.	What are the terms of reference of each of these advisory committees?
4.	What was the operating cost of each of these advisory committees for each of the last five years?
Return tabled.


KATES, PEAT, MARWICK AND COMPANY- CONTRACTS AND PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Is there any one on the staff in the Office of the Prime Minister who was a member or partner or employed with the management consulting firm of Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company?
2.	Is there any member or partner of the above firm presently on the Science Council of Canada?
3.	If so, what criteria was used in the selection of this individual?
4.	How many contracts has the Government of Canada assigned to the above consulting firm in the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and in what areas?
5.	For the above years, how many were assigned on the basis of competitive tendering?
6.	For the above years, how many were assigned without competitive tendering and for what reasons?
Return tabled.


WOMEN-NUMBER EMPLOYED AS MAGISTRATES OR JUDGES
Mr. Anderson: To the knowledge of the federal government (a) how many women are employed as magistrates or judges in Canada (b) what is the total number of magistrates and judges in Canada (c) how many women are employed as magistrates and judges in British Columbia (d) what is the total number of magistrates and judges in British Columbia (e) what is the percentage of women judges in Canada at each level of the judiciary?
Return tabled.


BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY-COST OF OPERATION
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the total cost of construction of each of the rail or car ferries placed on service in the Borden-Cape Tormentine run?
2.	Since the SS Prince Edward Island was placed in service until the present time, what was the annual operating deficit (or surplus) on the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service?
3.	For the same period, what was the annual expenditure on terminals, land equipment or any other cost incurred in connection with this ferry service apart from (2) above?
4.	What is the total cost of the ferry recently purchased in Sweden for the P.E.I.-N.B. service?
Orders for Returns
5.	What is the total projected cost of improvements currently planned at both terminals?
6.	What is the projected cost of the ferry service for the next ten years?
Return tabled.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, how long do we have to wait for answers to questions placed on the order paper? My question No. 1,054 has been on the order paper since last December, and I just wonder how long it takes to get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's wonderment is not a question of privilege.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am past wondering but I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see whether my question, No. 1,298, tabled on January 31, could not be answered soon, since the information is easily within the availability of members of his department?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what happened with respect to starred question No. 1687 in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert? It would appear to be very easy to answer. It was listed to be answered today, and I think it should be answered today.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that this question calls for an estimate, and I presume the estimating is still under way.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There is a very easy question in my name, No. 1200, which has been on the Order Paper since January 20. To this date I have not received an answer.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 83, 85 and 87? I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand?

March 26, 1969
Motions for Papers
MOUNTAINEER MOTEL COMPANY AGREEMENT Motion No. 83-Mr. Woolliams:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement (lease agreement) between the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which said agreement was disclosed in and referred to in answer to Question No. 1,271.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), I wish to state as follows:
As mentioned in the Minister's answer to Question No. 1271, tabling this lease agreement without written consent of the lessee would constitute a breach of confidence between landlord and tenant. If the hon. member can obtain such written consent from the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited, then he will be pleased to tabled the document. Otherwise it must be treated as a privileged document.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I think this will need to be transferred for debate because the liberal patronage of the Liberals is certainly not going to give me consent in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.



DISCONTINUANCE OF CHURCH AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General from churches, professional organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions and private organizations, indicating that as a result of the increase in postal rates they intend to discontinue or curtail their publications.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion asks for a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General from churches, professional organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions and private organizations that indicate that as a result of the increase in postal rates they intend to discontinue or curtail their publications. If this motion were adopted, it would be necessary to make a review of hundreds of files because letters were not segregated on the basis of whether or not they suggested that an increase in postal rates would result in either the discontinuance or

curtailment of the publication. Such a review would be costly. In view of this fact, perhaps the hon. gentleman would be willing to withdraw his motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that newspapers have been filled with reports of various organizations which have announced they have told the Postmaster General they will have to curtail their publication, I am sure, if the minister cannot find the information, I can do it when we discuss the matter at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking that the matter be transferred for debate?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate
according to Standing Order 48.



APPLIANCE INDUSTRY REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Howe:
That, an Order of the House, do issue for a copy of the document entitled "Report on the Canadian Appliance Industry in Comparison with the American and European Appliance Industries" prepared by the Departments of Industry and Trade and Commerce and dated December 30, 1968.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that discus^ sions have been held with the hon. member for Wellington-Grey in regard to this motion. The document referred to is not a departmental report but a compilation of information which is the property of the appliance industry, and therefore cannot be made public by the Department. The motion is not acceptable to the government and the minister hopes that the hon. member for Wellington-Grey will withdraw his motion.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand how this report, although marked confidential, was made available to the trade. However, in view of the circumstances the parliamentary secretary has stated I will be willing to drop the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. 88 in my name asks for the tabling of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents with regard to the proposal that Canada extend diplomatic
March 26, 1969

recognition to the Vatican. I wonder whether Your Honour would call this so that we might determine whether there is any real good reason not to proceed with the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member inviting the Chair to call the notice of motion?


Frank Howard: I would enjoy that, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this notice of motion be allowed to stand. It requires inquiry from all aspects of government and obviously this is not yet completed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and give him an opportunity to make some of the answers he is anxious to give to the house. I would ask him whether there was an agreement between the government of Canada and the United States regarding the Sentinel A.B.M. system. If there was not an agreement, was there in fact acceptance by Canada of the United States going ahead with the Sentinel system or was any protest filed with the United States regarding the Sentinel system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was neither agreement nor acceptance by the government of Canada concerning the Sentinel system. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and I have all stated in this house on different occasions, the United States has a working arrangement under which it does keep us informed in a general way of its progress in continental defence.
The United States government has from time to time given us information regarding the Sentinel system. They at no time sought our agreement to their intention to pursue the implementation of that system nor did we give them any such agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to answer the latter part of my question. Did Canada at any time protest
Inquiries of the Ministry against the United States planning to proceed with the Sentinel system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; we did not at any time protest against the plan of the United States to progress with that system. It was entirely within their own territory and within their own jurisdiction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Prime Minister tell the house and the country when we may expect a definite statement of position by his government either in acceptance of or the taking of a position against the decision of the President of the United States to proceed with the Safeguard A.B.M. system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not immediately, Mr. Speaker. It will now be part of the input into our review of defence and foreign policy. We will still proceed with our plan to take a position on NATO and other aspects of foreign policy. When we reach the point where we will want to make an announcement of a policy in respect of NORAD we will then go on to state our position on the A.B.M. system. I do not think it will be a matter of days or even weeks. I do not think the urgency for the government to take a position on it can be stated in terms of days or weeks. I believe the Leader of the Opposition knows that the plan as announced by the United States with regard to two sites will only become operational, if it ever does, around 1973. This gives us, as I say, more than a few days or weeks to take our position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it rather sounds as if the Prime Minister is hoping everybody in Canada will forget about this matter. Will the Prime Minister say what attitude he took in Washington concerning Canada's right to be consulted on a matter such as the Safeguard A.B.M. system. Did the Prime Minister insist upon the right of Canada to be consulted, or did he take the stand he took in this house last week that Canada has no right to expect to be consulted unless it is prepared to participate in the A.B.M. system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the matter of continental defence I repeat what I said in the answer to the first question: there is a continued consultation for the imparting of information to Canada on what the United States is proceeding with in general terms. Whether the United States should consult with Canada before deciding to proceed with a particular form of continental defence within its own territory is a question I did not raise with the President.
March 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister says there is no agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the Sentinel A.B.M. system may I ask whether the discussions which took place were merely the passing on of information between the United States government and the Canadian government, and whether this constitutes, to use Mr. Laird's words, an agreement cleared with the Canadian government? Were we merely informed, or was Canada consulted and asked to approve.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I stated in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, we were not consulted in the sense that we were asked to agree or disagree. Certain information was conveyed to us and we were told of developments within the United States. We were not asked whether we agreed or disagreed with it, nor did we state whether we agreed or disagreed with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister. Did the government of Canada express any opinion with respect to the advisability of proceeding in this regard, or the danger that such a step might escalate the nuclear arms race?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In discussion with the President, the Secretary of Defence and other officials we did express our deep concern as to the consequence and effect of the decision announced by the President. This was very much along the same lines that the two ministers and I pursued in this house a few days ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Canada apparently was only informed and not consulted, does this mean that we accept the position which Mr. Laird took, to the effect that he did not think the United States should give Canada any veto power or, as Senator Fulbright summed it up, the Canadians could either like it or lump it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously the United States does not consider that we should have a power of veto over its decision to proceed or not with an A.B.M. system. Before the government takes a further position in this respect we will, of course, be welcoming any input from the house on these questions. When the parliamentary committee makes a

report on this subject there will be occasion, I am sure, for parliament to take a position on this question and many others. We will be looking forward to hearing the position of the opposition parties on this precise point.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does he consider that the statement by the Secretary of Defence of the United States, Mr. Laird, is correct, when he says that Canada has been kept informed of all decisions taken in connection with the setting up of an ABM system on the American territory?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question that was put a few moments ago.
[English^


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he was informed where the intercepts by the projected A.B.M., sites in the western United States would take place. For the interception of incoming missiles, would the intercepts be over western Canada or over American territory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, according to the information we received, this system will employ two types of A.B.M.'s, the Spartan and the Sprint. In the case of the Spartan the interceptions will occur outside the atmosphere of the earth. They will not be in our air space. They will be in the outer atmosphere. In the case of the Sprints, because of the location of these two sites in the midwest and because of the short range of the Sprints, it appears that the interceptions would be entirely over United States territory.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the intercept, as far as the Spartan is concerned, be in the outer atmosphere immediately above Canadian territory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it would be outside the earth's atmosphere. It would be in that part of the universe which belongs to no one, except perhaps the angels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has "heavenly" avoided my question.
March 26. 1969

Would it be horizontally, straight up from Canadian territory-I mean vertically?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question concerning the North American defence system. I would like to ask him whether Canada is committed or has agreed to allow the American government to use the Canadian bases located in the Canadian Far North, in order to establish an emergency airborne system? Did the government pledge itself to supply those bases or to allow the United States to use such bases on our territory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the matter. I might ask the Minister of National Defence to answer some day.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Following the cabinet meeting announced for this weekend, will the government's position on this subject and on the other matters of defence be announced whilst the house is sitting, or will this be done during the adjournment period when the house will not be able to comment on such a decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That depends, I suppose, on the agreement which will be reached among the leaders of the various parties as to when the house will adjourn. But it is obvious that if the announcement can be made while parliament is still sitting, we will do it. If not, if it has to be announced during the Easter recess, the house will certainly be given an opportunity to discuss this whole matter at a later date.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A week ago the Prime Minister told the house that he did not have sufficient information, or the government did not have sufficient information to reach a decision whether to approve or disapprove the position of the United States on the A.B.M. program. Since his visit to Washington, has the Prime Minister acquired sufficient information to make up his mind on this vital issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do have more facts in our possession. It will make any deliberations we have in cabinet more
Inquiries of the Ministry informed. I have more information; cabinet will have more information. I repeat, however, that we are not yet in a position to announce the policy which will flow from this recent acquisition of information.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the apparent difference of viewpoint between the Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of Defence, has the Prime Minister made any inquiries as to whether any of our senior, or junior for that matter, diplomatic or military people in Washington have given any assurances to senior United States officials which will lead to a settlement of this difference of viewpoint?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker. But I believe I could repeat what the Acting Prime Minister said on Monday, I think it was, when he said that if there is any difference it is more a matter of semantics than of substance. We have repeated constantly the same position. Secretary of Defence Laird, I believe, stated publicly on television a position which was compatible or in conformity with ours, in which he explained in greater detail what he meant when he had talked about agreement with Canada in his testimony before the senate committee. He was referring, as I understand it, to this ongoing arrangement of continental defence whereby the United States does give Canada information. He was not referring to any agreement under which we might have said: O.K., you can proceed with the Sentinel system.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the Prime Minister is this: Why should the cabinet hold any deliberations on the A.B.M. system, if it becomes operational, when the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for Calgary Centre a few moments ago indicated that under no conditions would Canadian air space be involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because we believe that the Canadian government should have a policy with regard not only to its own interests but the interests of humanity at large.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since this question involves Canada's policy, will the Prime Minister give to the Canadian people that to which he says they are entitled, and announce that policy, which is what everybody is asking for?
March 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will announce that policy. I indicated in reply to a question asked by the hon. member's leader that this would be done as part of the various stages of our review. But I added that we would be very happy to know, of course, the Conservative policy on the A.B.M. system.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a supplementary question which I would like to put to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether any discussion took place between him and President Nixon as to additional sites in northern Canada for the protection of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion on that particular aspect of defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the house would agree that we might have one last supplementary question, and then go to another subject.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it arises from the minister's answer in this house on March 19, as recorded at page 6814 of Hansard. The minister said it would be accurate to state that discussions had been held between Canada and the United States relative to the A.B.M. question. My question is: In the light of the Prime Minister's statement today that, although Canada was never consulted in this regard it was informed about the decision, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs look carefully at his answer to see whether he may not wish to correct the mistaken impression that he left with the house on March 19.


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I will do so, Mr. Speaker, but I see no reason to go back and look at anything I said before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and I have all said the same thing. There have been consultations between the United States and Canada in which the United States did not ask us to agree, nor did we take any position. This is very simple and there is nothing more to be said.


Mr. Speaker:: May 1 remind hon. members that there appeared to be agreement in the
[Mr. Maclnnis

house that there should be one more supplementary question. However, if the house agrees perhaps the hon. member for Selkirk might be allowed a further supplementary question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I pose this supplementary question only because the minister has responded facetiously to the question I put to him. My question is: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs look very carefully at his answer at page 6814 of Hansard, which gives the wrong impression.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the further supplementary question is very much like the original supplementary.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlefon-Char-loiie):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and it is on another subject. It arises from the statement made by Premier Robi-chaud of New Brunswick that the Prime Minister would be making a statement in the house Thursday or Friday concerning financial assistance to the poorer provinces. Will the Prime Minister say whether any such statement is planned, and whether the government is working on any new policy announcement with regard to the poorer provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of this announcement by Premier Robichaud, but the answer is yes, we are working on regional development along new lines. I believe the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has spoken extensively of the government's plans in this area. Of course, they will be important for the less developed and less favoured regions of Canada, including New Brunswick.


Hugh John Flemming: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance aware of any negotiations between the premier of New Brunswick and his department concerning special federal assistance?


Edgar John Benson: did not see the statement of Mr. Robichaud, and I would not like to comment on it until I have seen it.
March 26, 1969


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: King Louis is in trouble.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any approaches been made in recent days to the Minister of Finance or to the government on behalf of the province of New Brunswick concerning the dire possibility of that province's immediate financial bankruptcy?


Edgar John Benson: I think that my hon. friend is seriously exaggerating the position of the province of New Brunswick. Continuous consultation is going on at both the official and ministerial levels between the government and the various provinces in Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister himself been approached within the last few days about the particular problem resulting from the recent budget in New Brunswick?


Edgar John Benson: If my hon. friend asks whether I spoke to the premier of New Brunswick or to the provincial minister, then my answer is that I have not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Finally, the minister gave a straight answer.



DISCUSSIONS WITH PRESIDENT NIXON AS TO EXPORTS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasf-ings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his discussions with the President of the United States during the last two days, did he ask for and receive an assurance from President Nixon that Canadian exports of oil to the United States would be allowed to increase progressively year by year, as was guaranteed in the first national oil policy established in 1961?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What the President and I agreed upon was that the across-border movement of energy between Canada and the United States should be discussed at full length at the meeting which will be held in a couple of weeks time, on April 2. All aspects of our oil policy and of the oil policy of the United States will be considered at that joint meeting.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will those conducting the discussions at the time of the meeting press for the same kind of progressively increasing
Inquiries of the Ministry allocation of oil exports to the United States as was agreed to in the original oil policy, an assurance which is so necessary to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will impress upon the United States the importance to them of buying as much good, secure Canadian oil as is possible.



IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA-CANADIAN MARKET IN NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I, through you, ask the Prime Minister a question. He said everything went very well, yet today there is no firm agreement between Canada and the United States on a settled continental oil policy, on the grounds that we continue to permit Venezuelan oil to come in as far as the western Ottawa valley. At the same time, Canada does not have a guaranteed market in the northwestern United States, in Chicago or Toledo.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question has been dealt with at various times by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At this time, I merely want to say that the President and I reviewed the existing arrangements under which the policy of the United States and Canada with regard to oil and to other forms of energy are devised for the mutual benefit of both countries. We did realize that there was a necessity to review these policies and to improve them if necessary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Speaking metaphorically in this regard, and having listened to his statement, may I ask the Prime Minister what kind of elephant he was sleeping with in the United States.


An hon. Member:: It was not an oily one.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Lewis: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Is his department preparing any legislation to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and, if so, when might such amendments be expected to be presented to the house.
March 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we have been preparing amendments for some time but we have been holding them in abeyance until we have an opportunity to digest properly the Woods report. The tabling of the Woods report does not mean that these amendments will be brought forward in the very near future. In fact I see no possibility of these amendments being brought before the house in this session.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. I hope that digesting the Woods report will not do the minister any harm. I should like to ask him whether his answer means that the amendments which are being prepared by his department are not related to the Woods report, do not stem from it or do derive from the suggestions made in the report.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The report was authorized by the prime minister of the time to provide the department with some guidance and with the observations of the task force which, as hon. members know, is basically and essentially comprised of experienced intellectuals in the field of labour. The legislation proposed may or may not reflect the view of the task force. Certainly, in view of their exhaustive report, their findings should at least be taken into consideration.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can he assure the house that the building, by 1970 as announced, of two destroyers by the Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., in Lauzon, will not be postponed?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Bernard Dumont: The question is urgent, Mr. Speaker. Ten o'clock.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to all the questions on guided missiles today, I have a question for the Solicitor General on certain misguided
[Mr. Lewis.)
missiles. Can the minister say on what authority and on whose orders members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are conducting detailed house-to-house searches in the communities of Freshwater, Dunneville and Placentia, three Newfoundland communities adjacent to the U.S. naval base in Argentia.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member might not agree that his question should be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Walter C. Carter: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of great urgency and importance to the people of these three Newfoundland communities. They are being subjected to R.C.M.P. searches and their homes are being entered by members of the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that there is no point in debating this matter. If there is urgency, which is not apparent to the Chair, perhaps the minister will reply to the question.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Not having received notice of this question, I have no information about the searches to which the hon. member is referring, but I will be glad to inquire into the matter. I would remind the hon. member that in addition to their duties as a federal police force, the R.C.M.P. also perform on a contract basis the police functions which are the responsibility of the provincial government. However I will be glad to look into the matter and see whether I can bring forward an answer. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me any information he has on the subject.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister inform the house whether it is the policy of the government to utilize general search warrants and, in this case United States servicemen, in connection with the enforcement of customs excise regulations, and whether the government approves placing Canadian citizens in the position of having to prove their innocence when a police search turns up goods of United States manufacture for which no bill of sale is available?



BANKRUPTCY


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I directed two questions to the Minister of Consumer
March 26. 1969

and Corporate Affairs. At that time the parliamentary secretary took them as notice. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to answer them now? The first question was as follows:
In view of the importance of protecting Canada's good name abroad, what action is the minister considering to investigate the financial situation in British Columbia of Commonwealth Trust Company and its associated companies?
And this was the second question:
Has this matter been discussed with the premier of British Columbia?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Three of the companies in what is known as the Commonwealth group have become bankrupt, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Act and of my department. They are: Commonwealth Savings Plan Limited; Commonwealth Acceptance Corporation Limited; and Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Limited.
A meeting of creditors of Commonwealth Savings Plan Limited was held in Vancouver on Monday last to affirm the appointment of a trustee, to appoint inspectors and to give the trustee instructions in connection with the liquidation of the assets. Meetings of creditors of the other two companies will be arranged as soon as possible.
Some two weeks ago, I met personally with the Official Receiver in Vancouver, who is an officer of my department. These bankruptcies are receiving the close attention of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, and should he have any reason to suspect that any offences have been committed either under the Bankruptcy Act or under any statute, the situation will be thoroughly investigated. I am sorry to take so long, Mr. Speaker, but this is an important matter. There have also been discussions between officials of the provincial government of British Columbia and officials of the Department of Finance with regard to the Canadian deposit insurance scheme, any questions about which should be directed to the Minister of Finance.
As to the second question, whether I have discussed this matter with the premier of British Columbia, the answer is, no.



UNITED ACTION OF CANADA AND U.S. AT I.G.A. MEETING

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his meetings with the President of the United States and having to do with wheat sales and our trading picture generally.
Inquiries of the Ministry Would the right hon. gentleman say that, as a result of the talks, the United States and Canada are prepared to present a united front at the April meeting to discuss the maintaining of the International Grains Arrangement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We did reach agreement to seek respect for the International Grains Arrangement in every way possible, and we agreed to ask whatever friends we have to take this position, too. We want to work as far as at all possible within the framework of that agreement. The Prime Minister of Australia will be in the United States next week and he will also be coming to Canada; both the president and myself intend to bend his ear on this subject.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We can assume, then, that the positions taken by this government and by the United States government at this April meeting will be identical?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Since the United States is a signatory to the International Grains Arrangement may I ask the Prime Minister whether the President of the United States indicated to him that the United States would immediately adhere to the conditions set out in that agreement and decline to sell at prices below those set out therein.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, one cannot answer yes or no to a question of that kind. Perhaps, I should say that it would be unreasonable to ask the United States to adhere to the terms of an agreement, when we ourselves have said we would not do so. The hon. member is aware of the situation in which other countries began to break the letter and the spirit of that agreement, thus obliging nations such as ourselves to follow suit in order to preserve our competitive position. It is this whole problem that the President discussed with me, and which we indicated we would try to solve within the framework of the International Grains Arrangement.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health
March 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry and Welfare. In view of the fact that Manito- Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is asking ba will be entering the medicare plan on for a statement which should be made on April 1-	motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Simpson: They will be sorry.
-can the minister assure the house that medical services available to the Indian people of that province will in no way be adversely affected?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was surprised to hear the comment made by the hon. member in view of the fact that his party voted for the legislation. I would hope that the medical services available to the Indians would be improved.


Robert Simpson: Bearing in mind the fact that a number of doctors in that province have indicated they will be practising outside the medicare plan, will the Indian people have the services of these doctors available to them, in addition to the services of those who are within the plan?


John Carr Munro: I should like to check into that situation a little further. However I can assure the hon. member that as a result of the tremendous improvements which have taken place in Manitoba, improvements of which I am sure he is well aware, including the participation of the medical school of the University of Manitoba and so on, it seems that the future holds great promise for vastly improved medical care for the Indian people of that province.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and I wonder whether we might return to the hon. member for Mackenzie who has a supplementary question on the subject about which questions were asked a few moments ago.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wonder if I might address a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as senior minister from beautiful British Columbia. Can he tell us the situation at this time with respect to the talks between the United States and Canada on the subject of the internationalization of the United States area of Point Roberts?


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Surrey and is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the question of Point Roberts, and a special treaty between Canada and the United States to resolve some of the problems connected with that subject, a matter for discussion with United States officials yesterday, especially in view of the meeting of the House of Representatives in Washington and members of the legislature of British Columbia in the west?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no specific mention of this in any of the discussions I had with the secretary of state. The Prime Minister, of course, had a general talk about certain areas, such as fishing zones and territorial waters, but did not specifically raise that point.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if, during his visit with President Nixon, any reference was made to the constitutional problems of Canada, and, in particular, to the possibility of independence in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we had other fish to fry.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Howard Russell MacEwan: have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Could he advise us whether he intends to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act during the present session, which are not tied to the Woods report?
March 26, 1969	COMMONS
Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour: The estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be before the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration tomorrow. I am sure the hon. gentleman could satisfy his curiosity there.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Can't wait.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: However, it is not my intention to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act this session. When I do bring them in, I intend to make them all-embracing and, perhaps, to change the policy of the commission entirely.


WHEAT-STORAGE FACILITIES IN IMPORTING COUNTRIES
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: This is another question to the Prime Minister on the subject of wheat. Having regard to the problem which Canadian producers seem to be experiencing in selling wheat for export at a reasonable price, and realizing the value of providing service to customers, would the government consider setting up Canadian storage facilities inside the borders of importing countries so that wheat could be readily available whenever such countries decided to buy some.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the minister will answer the questions asked yesterday by my leader, and also my supplementary question, taken as notice by the Acting Prime Minister and concerning attempts by Nigeria to destroy Canairelief aircraft?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I returned this morning my attention was drawn to these questions. The position is as follows:
The Nigerian government has often made it clear that such flights would be entirely at the risk of those who made them, since arms deliveries continue from Sao Tome into the same airstrip at the same time as the relief aircraft. It is to avoid these risks and to permit an effective relief operation that the government hopes Colonel Ojukwu will agree to daylight relief flights into Uli and Obilago. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to
DEBATES	7157
Inquiries of the Ministry justify a protest on their behalf to the Nigerian government.
Concerning the second part of the question, we have received expressions of concern from the Nigerian government as to the reported intention of Canairelief to establish an airstrip in rebel territory which, according to its promoters, is to be used exclusively for relief flights. With three known airstrips at least-[DOT] Uli, Obilago and one near Uli/Ihiala-in the rebel area or a few miles away, none of which are now being used by day for relief deliveries, the Nigerian government obviously finds it difficult to see the justification for yet another airstrip to be built at great cost while present alternatives are ignored by the rebels.


DISCUSSION OF INITIATIVES AT TALKS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT NIXON
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister regarding some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can inform the house if conversations were held with President Nixon about initiatives that the United States government has taken regarding relief shipments, and possible initiatives that the Canadian government might take with regard to relief.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of Nigeria was discussed by the President and myself but in rather general terms. As regards the United States position, I do not think I am in a position to make any comment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question. With regard to the second part of my question, could the Prime Minister indicate whether the President expressed to the Prime Minister any particular steps that our government might take with regard to assisting in the relief effort?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, there was no such
suggestion of any such steps.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he still plans to live up to his assurance that the prices commission will be appointed before the end of March, or has he decided
7158	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry that April 1 would be a more appropriate date for such an announcement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be in Ottawa on April 1, so I will not be making any appointments on that date.
I am trying to have the commission appointed as quickly as I can, but whether we meet the end of March deadline or not remains to be seen.



PRIVILEGE


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to raise a matter that has just come to my attention. Yesterday I made a speech in this house and was followed by the hon. member for Davenport. As reported at page 7093 the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said:
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) developed certain generalities. He has also disappeared immediately afterwards.
I should like to state that I was called to the telephone on constituency business and was absent from the house for about four minutes. I returned and listened to the hon. member, and then the hon. member for Selkirk. The hon. member's statement is completely erroneous. At five minutes after six I discussed with the Solicitor General a matter regarding my constituency. This is a deliberate distortion of the facts by the hon. member for Davenport. In other words, he has been most careless with the truth.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. John's East rising on a point of order?


Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to put this in the form of a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader.
My point of order is this. In view of the very serious difference that exists between the government house leader and the hon. member for LaSalle, who is a very successful and outstanding chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and in view of the very serious consequential effects this difference is having on
[Mr. Stanfield.)
DEBATES	March 26, 1969
the work of the committees of this house, would the government house leader agree to call government order No. 54, which is the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections? Then this whole matter could be debated in the house and the future work of committees of the house cleared up once and for all?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no difference between the hon. member for LaSalle and myself. I am glad to hear that the hon. member is supporting the very able work of my colleague, rather than attacking the chairman, as has happened in the past.
With regard to changing the order of the business of the house, I take it that the hon. member for St,. John's East does not think very highly of the subject chosen by the hon. member for Peace River in his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for St. John's East that his intervention is not a proper point of order. Actually, he has used the device of a point of order to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council. It seems to me that if we were to allow the matter to go further we might spend the afternoon on this very touchy subject. I understand a motion will be moved by the hon. member for Peace River about which the house is very anxious to hear, so I suggest that at this point we go on with government orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved:: That this house should give consideration to television and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the house and/or its committees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order before I commence the remarks I have to make. In view of the time, and the fact that a number of members have indicated an interest in this subject and would like an opportunity to make their contribution, I would be prepared to propose a self-denying ordinance, of which I would be the first victim. I suggest that we might well limit our speeches during the course of this debate to 15 minutes. This would then permit
March 26, 1969

a larger number of members to contribute to the debate. Since the subject is of great interest and concern, we might do well to limit ourselves to 15 minutes in order to bring in other members, with no extension being granted on either side.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that could be made a special order of the house right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to adopting the order suggested by the hon. member for Peace River?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Gerald William Baldwin: The house will note the terms of the motion:
That this house should give consideration to television and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the house and/or its committees.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The wording of the motion is the time honoured wording used when this house has discovered a problem with which it has not yet determined how to deal but feels that the subject matter should be dealt with, debated and discussed. For that reason when the opportunity arose to move the motion it was introduced as a motion not involving confidence. Nor was it put in more positive terms which would indicate that the members of this party specifically are in favour of having in this house radio and television broadcasting. Unquestionably, we are all concerned, we are all involved and we are all interested. I have every reason to believe that there run through the house a variety of opinions on this matter. Some believe radio and television to be necessary here; many are convinced it is not necessary and others are convinced it may be harmful. Variations of those views are entertained in varying degrees on all sides of the house. For that reason, I took the opportunity of putting down this motion and having it debated today, the idea being that hon. members following me can make their contribution.
My position is very simple. Until 18 months ago I was categorically opposed to any suggestion that radio or television ought to be brought into the house. There was no hesitation on that point in my mind. However, circumstances which developed during the last 18 months, and particularly during the last 12 or 15 months, have brought me to adopt, with some measure of reluctance I might say, a
Business of Supply
different point of view. I wish to give the house the benefit of my views so that hon. members may debate the matter after I have finished.
One particular instance which drove me to change my mind was that which occurred about one year ago last February when, after the government had been defeated on a measure which in all other commonwealth legislative bodies would be considered a matter of confidence, the Prime Minister of the day, utilizing the time which had been granted to him to consider his position, left this chamber, and over the radio and television facilities which were available, made a statement which completely distorted and misrepresented what had taken place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: After all, Mr. Speaker, so long as our parliamentary system continues, the Prime Minister holds his position by virtue of being the leader of the largest party in this house to whom the Governor General will entrust confidence. In short, the Prime Minister enjoys the largest measure of support within the house. Until we have adopted a presidential system, something I will never accept, it is to this house that the Prime Minister and members of the government must come for support. Reports must be made to this house, because this house is the source of power which the government exercises. Consequently, since what happened previously has in varying degrees been repeated over and over again, I have been persuaded to change my mind. Subsequent events that have occurred in and around the House of Commons have convinced me, and other hon. members as well, that an attempt is being made to diminish the role played here by the representatives of the people of Canada.
I was not sent here to participate in liquidating or weakening the processes of democracy as constituted in this parliament and in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am, of course, referring to the fact that immediately outside this chamber are microphones and television cameras which, I would hazard, are being used at this moment by certain hon. members of the house and members of the government.


An hon. Member:: They are.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister is probably supplementing the very meagre report he

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
made to this house. He completely omitted any reasonable explanation with respect to two economic problems that the people of the country and hon. members of the house are deeply concerned about, the question of oil policy and its ramifications vis-a-vis the United States, and our participation in the international wheat agreement. We obtained from the Prime Minister nothing at all; yet I would hazard that he and some of his colleagues are at this moment outside this chamber busily engaged in expanding, varying and changing what was said and saying what was not said but ought to have been said in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: From our mass media we obtain too often only an abridged, distorted and frequently illusory version of the proceedings of this chamber. In saying that I am not faulting the members of the media, who must carry out their work. We have been dragged into our present position through our failure to come to grips with a serious and difficult problem. I think it is about time we looked at it, decided to debate it and, as civilized people, decided what to do about it. Although some of us may want to, we cannot abolish radio and television. They are here and we must learn to live with them. The chamber may have to learn to live with them. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to initiate the discussion on this matter and to obtain the views of other hon. members.
Other countries have met and overcome similar problems, Mr. Speaker. One problem of course has to do with physical conditions. There is the question of placing cameras and lights, but I have every reason to believe that those technical difficulties can be overcome. It has also been suggested that there will be too much grandstanding, and that the people here will feel they are always on display. Well, we are always on display, even now. During the question period the press galleries and public galleries are filled. I suppose no man in public life ever took great exception to a little grandstanding. If I may be pardoned for using unparliamentary language, it is part of the nature of the animal.


An hon. Member:: You mean, we are all hams.


Gerald William Baldwin: Another problem is connected with all the empty seats in this chamber. Many hon. members are not present in the chamber. I think it is about time the people of this country learned that hon. members work diligently in committees of this house.

Yesterday we had 11 committees. If those committees are to function hon. members must attend them. My motion is wide enough to consider the possibility of televising the procedures of our committees, or of broadcasting over the radio what happens. Our people ought to know that a great deal of detailed work, such as the studying of estimates and legislation, now takes place in committee rooms outside this house. The fact that from time to time the house is not filled, as I hoped it would be filled today with hon. members eager to hear me speak-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: -is not of great consequence.
I wish to conclude by placing on the record the remarks of Mr. Speaker McLeay of Australia, contained in the "Report of a Conference of Commonwealth Speakers". This problem has arisen in other jurisdictions and has been considered to some extent in Australia. Mr. Speaker McLeay says:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Parliamentary debates are broadcast daily in Australia and the broadcasting arrangements are not under government control. The matter is controlled by a joint committee of the two Houses, which makes the final decisions as to what debates will be broadcast and how the broadcasting time will be divided between the two houses. In all cases the committee ensures that the Opposition receives equal coverage with the government. There is continuous broadcasting of debates on Thursday from 10.30 in the morning until 11.30 at night, and at 11.30 broadcasting is cut off.
In other words, debates are broadcast all day Thursday and during the week as decided upon. I continue quoting:
According to the experts parliamentary debates command the widest listening public in the whole of Australia From time to time we hear objections being registered, but the majority of the people want the broadcasts and there is no chance that they will ever be discontinued. The broadcasting of debates has become a very important factor in keeping Australians informed of what is going on in parliament. The broadcasts are made over the national network and the debates are broadcast live from the floor of parliament. The listener hears the proceedings as they are taking place-they hear the news as it is being made.
In response to a question to Mr. Speaker as to how the members of the press gallery were affected, Sir John McLeay made the following statement:
The press are there to report good headline material. They do not report a complete account of what takes place in parliament but only those parts which have the required news value, or which can be used to promote the editorial opinions of the newspaper concerned. In my experience the greater part of the proceedings of parliament do
March 26, 1969

not seem to reach the ears of the press gallery, and if a system could be devised for assuring authentic press coverage, I should like to hear of it.


Mr. Jamieson:: Is that just radio?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, it is radio and television. What takes place in this house is not always of major importance, but it is essential that we be here as a mirror to reflect the aims and aspirations of the people we represent. We must consider ways and means of entering into a complete dialogue so that the people of Canada know what is happening. They can then tell us what they think about it and what they wish done.
For that reason, I am glad to make this final suggestion that this house should give some thought to this matter. There will be many debates and some time will elapse before a decision is made, but we might consider some experimentation by improvising with committees. An excellent choice would have been the justice committee which was dealing with a very important subject of great value, concern and interest to many Canadians. I read the transcript of the proceedings of the justice committee and I feel television and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of that committee would have been most useful.
The public would also be very interested to know what is going on in the public accounts committee. This committee receives very good press coverage, but I think this would be an excellent committee for radio and television broadcasting. Having done that with the aid of experts, consideration could be given to bringing into the house on an experimental basis, cameras and microphones to see what needed to be done technically and the degree of inconvenience that would be caused. Possibly a committee should be set up to study this matter.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I have some reluctance about this position but while I am sorry I had to change my mind, I have done so. In my opinion, this house can no longer afford not to deal with the problem facing us at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member for York South and the President of the Privy Council. I might point out the practice has been to recognize first the speakers of the opposition parties on allotted days. I recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: I am not
sure my contribution will be as entertaining
Business of Supply
as that of the President of the Privy Council, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleagues, I want to say we unequivocally support the idea that this parliament be brought up to date. I am a little disappointed at the degree of caution which the hon. member for Peace River exhibited in making his suggestion. He seemed anxious that we go through some experimental period of introducing radio and television into the chamber. I think we are out of date in our caution on this point. Obviously, radio and television are as important a media of information as is the printed word.
A primary media of information such as television should not be excluded from this chamber. Every day we are chased out to the rotunda by representatives of radio and television networks and asked to say something in 30 or 45 seconds, which is then edited to 15 or 20 seconds. A practice such as that is not useful and is not representative of parliament As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, we have had experiences with members of the government saying something to the house which was not very clear, often a non-answer, and then in the rotunda they make their position clear to the people of Canada. I do not blame them for doing that. If the people can get clarity from some of the remarks which are made, they are much better at it than I am. The people of Canada should have an opportunity of hearing what these ministers say in the House of Commons, not outside in the rotunda. The cameras and radio receivers should be in this chamber to record what is said.
We are all amateurs in this area, Mr. Speaker. But I think there are three areas of concern with regard to the use of television or electronic media to report the events of this house. What is sent across the air waves and recorded by the camera screens should be important and relevant information. It is easy for the camera to pick out members who have closed their eyes because they are in profound contemplation to give the impression outside that there is another reason for their eyes being closed. It is easy for the camera to catch members, who because of their seniority in this house have developed a capacity for reading a newspaper, listening to the speaker and following what they read in the newspaper without one interfering in the slightest with the other. It is also easy to pick out members writing something, although this may be the only opportunity to draft a letter; but these are not the things in which the

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
people of Canada would be 'interested. These are mot the details that should be sent across the networks. The people of Canada are interested in what we say, how we say it, the behaviour of the house, the relationship and the seriousness of our work. That is the first concern, that what goes over the air and on to the screen be relevant and important information, not the kind of titillating detail that a smart cameramen or a smart reporter might consider it clever to get across.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The second concern we would have with the system is that what goes across the air and goes on the screen be fairly representative of this chamber. Not only the government's views should be reported to the people of Canada, as in some instances is too often the case, and not only one party's views should go over the air, but all the various views represented in this chamber should be presented through the media of television and radio to the people of Canada.
The third matter that concerns us is that every broadcast ought to have some entertainment value-


An hon. Member:: No problem there.


David Lewis: You know, Mr. Speaker, I was a member of a committee that pranced all over Europe having its brains washed about NATO. My brain was washed so thoroughly I was afraid I could not find what was left of it when I came back home, but I did find what was left. Since we came back, we have been sitting in camera writing a report with which I thoroughly and violently disagree. But since I learned about this motion today, I have been wracking my brains to find out how we can give the broadcasts some entertainment value. The only thing I could think of was to get the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) to sing some songs which I once heard him sing-those that would not get the networks into trouble, I might add. Perhaps we can find other things that could be done by some members of the house with acting and entertaining capacities to make the presentation a little lighter than it might otherwise be.
Seriously, however, I speak of the entertainment value in the sense that what is presented on the screen and over the airwaves about the issues have some dramatic impact. This means the right choice of issues to get the full dramatic impact from an exchange of views; it means the right choice of spokesmen

exchanging those views. That is part of the entertainment value of these things.
One is concerned about these three aspects of the problem, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the House of Commons, indeed any part of parliament, should not set itself up as a censor. Therefore, we have to take it for granted that the choice of whether or not something is of news value, including the information and entertainment value as I have called it, must be left to the media. We do not want to set ourselves up as censors of what they do.
We do not want the people of Canada to get the impression that the members of parliament are so worried about what they say, and how they say it, that they are going to make sure they pick every word and every image that goes across. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of the propriety in which this job is done, the way in which it is imposed upon our debates, and the way in which spokesmen are chosen for presentation to the people so that there is a fair reflection of the various representative views in this house, justifies the establishment of a small committee of spokesmen for the parties under the leadership and direction of Mr. Speaker. In this way, the broadcasting which can be done from the chamber can be organized. We can order where the cameras and radio receivers are to be located, at what hour they are to be used and what debates are to be used for the purpose of broadcasting. We can make sure that what goes across the air is fair, just, and representative of this house.
I, therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, well within my 15 minutes, by saying that I am not quite satisfied with the suggestion that we discuss this matter and that we be cautious about it. I would like to urge parliament, to urge Mr., Speaker, to urge representatives of all the parties to get going on this thing right away. I urge the setting up of the necessary committee to discuss the details of doing it, to decide as quickly as possible that this will be done, and as quickly as possible set up the machinery for having it done always-and I emphasize this-always so far as the fairness of distribution is concerned under the aegis, direction and control of Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of a committee representative of all parties in the house. This to make sure that what does go across the air is not merely a matter of entertainment in the lowest sense of the term, not merely a matter of titillating the people of Canada, of poking fun at parliament which can easily be done as all of us
March 26, 1969

know, but a matter of giving the people proper information, a sense of the real debates that take place, a sense of the issues with which we have to grapple, a sense of the urgency with which we grapple with matters that are urgent, and a sense of the real way in which their representatives in parliament and the institution of parliament itself, serve them, so that if they form an opinion it is not based on something unrepresentative but on something that is truly representative of parliament.
They may then tell us to do our job a great deal better than we do it now, and I hope they will; but at least they will be doing it based on an accurate and representative presentation. We support the idea, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, we agree in principle with the motion asking the house to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting the debates of the house; but when we try to figure out how this can be achieved, a whole series of questions come to mind.
In theory, of course, this might be one way of upgrading the role of the member of parliament, because unfortunately, as we know, at the present time the people often have a very distorted view of his work and his role in the House of Commons. The people have often been given the impression that the member of parliament comes here to sit, wait, and leave when all is done. Most of the time he is absent, which is really quite improper in view of his role as a legislator.
Fortunately, since I have come to this house, I have noticed that this is not really the case; the members take their role as seriously as possible, and really serious and at times efficient work is done here. I say at times, because it is not always so, due to the system which is inadequate.
This makes one wonder what will happen if we try to realize this project. To do so, certain factors will have to be taken into account. The first on which will depend the efficiency of the programs will be the necessity of being objective which cannot be achieved merely by focussing the cameras on all the parties in the house. But how can the role of each one be determined? How are the essential parts of a debate, which should be made known to the public, to be chosen? That is the initial difficulty we run into at the very start.
In addition, who will decide what interventions deserve the attention of the Canadian people and what criteria will be used?
Business of Supply
If we succeeded in doing that, it would be a very good thing, of course, since the people could see that members are playing their part in the best way they can. But I believe it is impossible, on account of our parliamentary system.
I assume that should such a project materialize, the party that would get the worst of the bargain would precisely be the party in power since-this is another thing we have noted-most of the government members are scarcely allowed to express their opinions and should the broadcasting reflect their work, it would not be a good omen for the next election campaigns. I cannot stand up beyond measure for the party in power, but the fact remains that this is what would happen.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the government party could approve of such a thing since its role, considering the present parliamentary system, is limited as we noticed last evening, to that of a voting machine. There would not be anything spectacular in showing the people how the voting machine is working. I believe it would be a disaster for the party in power, considering the great regard we have for all members.
We expect to be in power also one of these days and we would be pleased with such a system since it would give everyone greater freedom of speech and would enable the people to note how objective we strive to be.
Mr. Speaker, how could we also avoid discrimination? How could we avoid the star system? The broadcast time would therefore have to be divided evenly.
Perhaps I forgot to point out, Mr. Speaker, that should such a project materialize, there would have to be a half-hour or an hour of television broadcasting per day, which would give a summary of a day's debates.
The producers will then have to draw objectively from the debates their very essence and to illustrate it with the contributions of the members. This is the way I see it in view of the fact that otherwise what is said in the House of Commons can sometimes lead to utter boredom. In fact, it would be unthinkable to impose such torture all day long to the Canadian viewing public.
That is why I think that we should rather present a program which would summarize what has happened during one sitting of the house; but how to distinguish what is important, how to determine who has made a real

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
contribution to the debate, and how to illustrate it through television or radio? The question certainly calls for consideration but I do know that the solution will be a very difficult one.
The party in power, perhaps in view of the fact that it already has quite an unusual star in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr Trudeau), might think that it would be advisable. However, the program should be divided into parts. One part of the program would be devoted to the young people, another probably to the space travel on which the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) would appear.
In fact, the most popular portion of the program and which would certainly have the highest rating, would be that reserved for the remarks of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette). Then we are sure that other members would be discriminated against since the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste would get the highest rating.
So, taking all this into account, it is very difficult to say what we can do at the moment. It is worth considering so as to do justice to all hon. members.
As I said earlier, we are all doing our best according to the limitations set by the rules.
Just imagine, for instance, television cameras covering the house at this very moment. The people would say: Where are all the members? What are they doing? The television public would suspect the members of taking it easy, whereas some of them are working in their office or attending committee hearings. In fact, the day is by far too short for us to complete our task.
So, when we come to think of all these details, I suggest we should seriously consider the possibility of having the debates of the house on television. Everybody seems to agree. However, we would not want to remain under the spotlights all the time of the broadcasting period.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have congratulated the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) more unqualifiedly in bringing forward this motion were it not for the narrow, petty partisanship with which he began his remarks. I will say only that I do not think anyone, even the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seriously thinks that by bringing the television cameras
[Mr. Matte.1
in here we will prevent members both of the government and opposition appearing on television or radio outside the house. He sounded like a latterday Luddite who wanted to destroy the machines and the methods that are being used. I do not think we should try to put any kind of gag on the press.


An hon. Member:: They will be a little more careful outside.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) knows-


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would like the courtesy of being permitted to continue my speech.


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not know if there is any courtesy but-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) referred to the fact that ministers go outside 'and make remarks. But so do opposition members who state their own version of events. This has happened before and will happen again even if television is brought into the house.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was going to address a remark to the hon. minister but he cut me off absolutely. I do not think he would be in favour of television in the house because-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose if one were to televise a kindergarten, the hon. member would be a prime candidate for it.
It seems to me that the proposal brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River is quite reasonable. Broadcasting, by television and radio, of our proceedings is a possibility that frankly we ought not ignore. It would be my view that this is a question which can and should be discussed by the new standing committee on procedure and organization. I think the hon. member for Peace River would agree, however, that there are and have been other matters of greater priority for consideration by that committee, particularly the matter dealing with the procedures of the house. It must be the first concern of the house, and the committee on procedure and organization, to ensure that our procedures are enabling us to do our work as well as possible. Thereafter, I expect that the house will want to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to
March 26, 1969

make a preliminary study of the question of working out appropriate procedures for broadcasting in the house. I repeat, however, that I believe we should let the committee complete the work we have given it. This debate provides a good opportunity to place before the house a number of problems which arise from the proposal to televise the proceedings of the house. I think we all agree that televising the proceedings would have a very strong influence on the way the house works.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Dr. Marshall McLuhan has indicated that house proceedings now are essentially a linear medium. Of course, if television comes into the chamber it will very much change the manner of our proceedings. Indeed, presenting our proceedings on television will make as much change in the proceedings of the house as was made to the procedures of the British house when Mr. Hansard first commenced his work of reporting its proceedings.
I share the concern of the hon. member for Peace River, and will not repeat his observations, with regard to the misunderstanding that could take place on the part of the public as to the work being done by the house, particularly with regard to the question of all hon. members not being present at all times. All hon. members are not present at all times, just as all the members of the press gallery are not present at all times because they are engaged in other activities elsewhere in the house with respect to their responsibilities. So are members of the house engaged in other activities elsewhere. We will have to make it perfectly clear, if and when television comes into this chamber, that there are many and multifarious activities in which hon. members engage. This was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River. We will have to make it clear that the business is being carried out effectively and carefully.
There are a number of purely technical questions which arise. For example, there is the question of the clutter of wires, cables and equipment necessary to televise the proceedings in the chamber. Much of this equipment will be located in the chamber. The discomfort created by the glare of lights and the great heat from them at the start of this session will be recalled. These technical problems would have to be solved.
Probably the most serious question is the one already touched upon by hon. members. I refer to the question as to what would be
Business of Supply
televised and what would be broadcast. First, who would direct the cameras? Who would decide what member and what view of the member would be selected? Second, who would decide what part of the film would be broadcast? The second of these two questions, namely, who would decide what things on film would be broadcast, could be answered if we broadcast all of the proceedings of the house all of the day. However, I think there would be general agreement that such nonselective treatment of the proceedings of the house would be favourable neither to the house nor necessarily favourable to the viewer. There would be, of course, the matter of the extra cost involved if we had, for example, an educational television channel and the proceedings of the house were carried on it.


Gerald William Baldwin: You could get a sponsor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. member's remark. I think we could draw some interesting conclusions from the examinations made of this question by the two houses of parliament in Westminster. The select committee on broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Lords, in June, 1968, recommended that both the actual act of televising and the selection of the material to be broadcast should be left to the broadcasters themselves. In this way, as the Lords pointed out, it would not be necessary for the house to maintain its own staff and it would be left entirely to the broadcasters as to what they presented on the air.
I think it is interesting to contrast this with the view set out by the select committee on broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons at Westminster. I quote from its first report:
In the view of your committee, the most interesting, informative and shapely programs would consist of edited extracts from the proceedings of the house. For this purpose a recording of the whole of the proceedings should be made available to the broadcasting organizations. Many different types of program, making use of such material, could be produced-
The report goes on to suggest the kind of material that could be used. On the question of control, the British Commons' committee, unlike the Lords' committee, was not prepared to let the broadcasters decide. I quote again from the report of the British House of Commons committee:
Your committee consider that the house should retain control of the preparation of the full television and sound transmission which would be "piped'* from the house.

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
At a further stage the report reads:
Your committee are of the opinion that the task of providing the full television and sound "feed" should be in the hands of a special unit to be known as the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit.
The committee of the British house was quite prepared then to let the broadcasters decide what parts of the material fed to them should be broadcast. On that point they commented in this way:
-the broadcasting organizations are under an obligation to present political matters with accuracy and with due balance and Impartiality
I am sure that every effort would be made by the media here to do the same. This drives us to the question, with regard to broadcasting our proceedings: Is the house ready to undertake, first, to produce the tape or film and, second to prepare the programs from the tape or film? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, this house would then be deeply involved in the business of broadcasting.
I would like to refer to another matter en passant. Serious thought would have to be given to this question. I refer to the effect of broadcasting our proceedings on civil and criminal liability, due to the fact that in effect what we broadcast would be privileged material. Hon. members no doubt would have parliamentary privilege regarding what they said in the house. But with the current state of the law, I think it is likely that the broadcasters would not. We might have to introduce legislation like the Australian legislation, giving the broadcasters some form of immunity from suit arising out of such broadcasts.
I have not dealt specifically with the broadcasting of the proceedings of the standing committees, but it seems to me that very much the same considerations would arise. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to give the impression of dwelling too much on the difficulties. I believe it would be a positive step if we could find some judicious and generally acceptable way of presenting the proceedings of the chamber through broadcast by radio and over television. I hope that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has dealt with the proceedings of the house and its committees to the satisfaction of hon. members, we might proceed to the question of broadcasting the proceedings of the house. Then, we could ascertain the view of the committee and the house on this question and what specific arrangements we should make.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the proposals
regarding the use of television and radio in connection with the House of Commons are not new in Canada. Discussion in this respect has certainly not been restricted to Canada. I suppose the arguments for and against the proposal really have been pretty thoroughly made, although not in the house. Therefore, I think it is an excellent idea to have an opportunity today to talk among ourselves about the pros and cons of this question.
I agree with the house leader-I am happy to find myself in agreement with him from time to time-that it is clear that the use of radio or television in this chamber would certainly effect some changes in parliament. I think it would be misleading to pretend anything else.
The use of these media here would bring about substantial changes. I suggest that our discussion today has to be on the assumption that there would be such changes, and any decision we make must be based upon a consideration of the nature of these changes and their exact effect upon parliament. Some of the effects of these changes have already been discussed.
I have personal reservations in this respect, in so far as I am a member of the House of Commons, where my own comfort is concerned and choice of working conditions. I would far sooner continue the way we are and not be subjected to the glare of lights, which would be the case if this proposal were put into effect. I appreciate the concern of other members about the effect these changes would have upon us workers, as people doing a day's work. I appreciate their concern about the effect that the introduction of television or radio would have upon the kind of chamber this is.
As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, there is certainly a wide difference of opinion among Progressive Conservatives on this whole subject. I think this also applies to members of other parties.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I approach the question from this point of view, and this is why I am speaking in this debate. I think it is important that we recognize the effect that radio and television are already having upon this institution. It is just as important, and indeed very in-gent, that we consider the consequences that would probably ensue for this institution if we continue to go on as we do in our present circumstances.
March 26, 1969

One of the important facts about our debate today is that, for all intents and purposes, we are already being televised in a certain sense. Of course, the television cameras are kept outside the doors of the chamber or they are in studios downtown. I am certainly not suggesting for a moment that the use of radio or television for the purpose of interviewing members outside the house should be restricted in any way. I want to make that very clear. I do not suggest that, even if we had television and radio in here, this should prevent the members of the house from appearing before the television cameras outside the house, nor would it be desirable to try to prevent them from doing so.
My point is that we should consider whether there would not be a more accurate representation of what goes on here if radio and television were allowed into the house, because sometimes, of course, radio and television outside convey the opinions of hon. members of unquestioned probity and judgment like myself and at other times a minister is televised giving a different answer than the one he gave in the house. I have no intention of criticizing anyone when I suggest that, in the corridors of the house, television and radio interviews are often so condensed and selective that they convey perhaps a false impression or a caricature of what goes on here. This is perhaps in one sense an abuse of television as a medium of communication because of the special capacity that television has to convey an event rather than to convey a report of an event. As a result of what is going on, parliament is made to seem more hectic and more partisan than it actually is.
I am participating in this debate because I am concerned about what is happening to parliament. I am concerned about the fact that in the minds of the people of Canada the discussions they know about, and the discussions that have their impact on them, are not those that take place in the House of Commons or in parliament but those that they see or hear on television or on radio. In other words, I am concerned about the fact that what is going on now is downgrading parliament. I think that parliament has been downgraded in other ways, but I also think that the way in which radio and television is being used now is downgrading parliament. I think that we, as members of parliament, have to recognize that if this continues, parliament will become less and less important to the people of this country. All the members of my party agree and are concerned
Business of Supply
about parliament being downgraded for this or other reasons. We are certainly not all agreed on the solution, but I am convinced that if what is going on now is allowed to continue, it will kill parliament as an effective deliberative institution in this country.
I say with all the emphasis I can that, although 1 recognize that there may well be differences of opinion as to what is the proper solution, we have to find a solution because it is essential to the continuing vigour of this institution.
The question we are discussing now also involves to some extent the right of the public to know and to follow, in as direct a way as possible, the conduct of public business. We should at least consider the prospect that, with proper safeguards, radio and television might well improve public understanding of our Canadian institutions and our political processes and might very well allow Canadians to be better informed about the public business. It will encourage them to become more involved in public life and in the discussion of public questions. I like to think at least that parliament would become more respected if it were better known. I suggest that there might very well be less criticism of parliamentary debates if there were more opportunity to hear this house debate important measures. We might very well reduce the suspicion that parliament is isolated from the country if there were a better opportunity for citizens to hear their representatives speaking in parliament.
We have in this medium a potentially great instrument of education and information, a medium which has to be treated with great respect because of its great impact. I emphasize that this is not a matter into which we would want to rush. Other hon. members have referred to some of the matters that would have to be considered, and I certainly do not propose that we should suddenly open all of parliament to television. However, I suggest that we should begin experimenting, either by using radio or television in a committee or in some other way. I think also the whole house would certainly want to consider very carefully, perhaps through a committee, the best way to begin. We are having this discussion today to give hon. members an opportunity to express their concern.
I will not take more of the time of the house because I really have only one major point to make, which is that if we allow radio and television to be used outside the house only, parliament will be diminished and

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
eventually killed. I do not want to see parliament further downgraded. Therefore, I think it is very urgent that each member of the house consider very carefully whether the danger is great, as I think it is, and what is the most appropriate solution. I agree that this is a matter that has to be approached with considerable care. I am not suggesting that we should go from the frying pan into the fire, but I would very much like to help the house get out of the frying pan which, I am afraid, will cook parliament to death unless we do something about it.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate today and I am glad to have the company of so many more members in proposing a study of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings since the opposition members have joined our ranks. I have been in favour of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings since I came to this chamber more than three years ago.
I beg to differ respectfully with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he says that there is a danger that television will kill parliament or even downgrade it. I believe only those who sit in this chamber can do that. What people generally lack is an insight into the processes of parliament. I was happy to see the advent of television into parliament on September 12 last on the occasion of the opening of parliament. People were able to get a glimpse, at least, of the process.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not suggesting that television in the house would kill it. I was suggesting that what is going on now would do so. I do not want the hon. member to misunderstand what I said.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I think I understood the hon. gentleman. I am suggesting that television coverage either inside the house or outside parliament will not kill parliament; if it is killed it will be the fault of those who sit in it, not the fault of the news media, electronic or print. As an experiment, the televising of the opening of parliament was not, in my opinion, an unalloyed success. Members of Parliament perspired and squinted under the extra illumination which brought more of both heat and light to the house than the members had ever been able to generate. Sunglasses sprouted from parliamentary brows, eyes smarted, heads ached and shirts

dampened. The relief was unconfined when those lights finally went out.
But the walls of parliament did not fall; the institution was not noticeably undermined; its members survived the experience' unscathed except for a few scorched retinas. It was a quiet, tentative step, but in the parliamentary context it was a precedent of almost monumental proportions. It may have been accepted calmly by the viewing and listening public, who now take for granted that everything, or almost everything is televised. It may have looked like a modest gap in the electronic barrier around parliament, but I believe it was an historic step in the campaign which some of us have been waging to give democracy new visibility in Canada.
The party conventions of the past two years, brought as they were into the living rooms and even the taverns of the nation by radio and television, gave millions of Canadians their first real insight into the political process. With the help of a few fresh and fascinating personalities, the electronic media ignited a popular interest in politics and gave them a new relevance for the average Canadian. He was there at those conventions and he probably saw more of them than we who were physically present. Where does he go from here? He has chosen his leaders; he has picked his parliament. Now, he wants to see and hear them and it in action.
Will he be able to do so? I am sure we shall have to do something about those lights, but I have a feeling that broadcast coverage of parliamentary committees at least cannot be held back.


An hon. Member:: There would have to be a quorum.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: After that, it is surely only a matter of time before parliament recognizes radio and television fully as information media, with all the rights and privileges of the other, older media.
Some parliamentarians shudder at the thought of television or broadcasting. I have heard some of them today express feelings of this kind, though they have not yet got up to speak. I think the introduction of television would encourage a more responsible approach to debate. Why should not the most modern media be used to strengthen communication between parliament and the people? If we want mass involvement in our politics, what better means could there be? More than ever our democratic institutions are important to us. We crave involvement and we need it. But
March 26, 1969

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
printed and circulated through all Parts, both of the Town and Country ... if you do not either punish them, or take some effectual Method of checking them, you may soon expect to see your Votes, your Proceedings, and your Speeches, printed and hawked about the Streets, while we are sitting in this House.
Thomas Winnington, Esquire, said:
-if we do not put a speedy Stop to this Practice, it will be looked upon without Doors, that we have no Power to do it, for the public will very justly think that if we had such a Power, we would exercise it. And then, Sir, what will be the Consequence; why Sir, you will have every word that is spoken here by Gentlemen, misrepresented by Fellows who thrust themselves into our Gallery. You will have the Speeches of this House every Day printed, even during your Session. And we shall be looked upon as the most contemptible Assembly on the Face of the Earth.
Sir Robert Walpole made this contribution:
I have read some Debates of this House, Sir, in which X have been made to speak the very reverse of what I meant. ..had I been a Stranger to the Proceedings and to the Nature of the Arguments themselves, I must have thought this to have been one of the most contemptible Assemblies on the Face of the Earth. What Notion then, Sir, can the Public, who have no other Means of being informed of the Debates of this House than what they have from these Papers, entertain of the Wisdom, and Abilities of an Assembly, who are represented therein to carry almost every Point against the strongest and the plainest Argument and Appearances.
A crack of light appeared, though, in the remarks of Sir William Windham, the leader of the opposition:
I don't know but they may have a Right to know somewhat more of the Proceedings of this House than what appears upon your Votes; and if I were sure that the Sentiments of Gentlemen were not misrepresented, I should be against our coming to any Resolution that could deprive them of a Knowledge that is so necessary for their being able to judge of the Merits of their Representatives within Doors.
Before the end of the 18th century that view, so gingerly advanced in 1738, was to prevail. Although the rule of secrecy was never formally rescinded, reports came to be tolerated. In 1803 reporters were assigned the back row in the Strangers' Gallery, and a special press gallery was built in 1831 at Westminster. Parliament, now opened to wider public view and criticism, was forced increasingly to recognize its responsibility to the electorate.
Today parliament's resistance to the modem, electronic news media seems as difficult to budge as was the bar against the dangerous print media of centuries past. And the need to sweep it away seems to me as great. Once again parliament needs to be more
IMr. Stanbury.]
effectively exposed to its electorate; our means of democratic choice needs to be broadened by the freedom which knowledge gives.
To my colleagues who are fearful of this exposure I would refer the great parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, who said this:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest communication with his constituents.
Since democracy began the key to its success has been participation. In the Greek city state, the people could see their government being carried on. In our burgeoning societies since, this has become increasingly difficult and government increasingly remote from those who choose it and whom it serves.
In my view, the electronic media offer the golden means to bring the people back into intimate contact with their institutions and their leaders, stimulating an awareness and a crackling circuitry between them which will ensure that our institutions are responsive to our needs and wants. That may be, indeed, the only way to save, or even justify saving, the institutions on which rests the future form, even the existence, of our country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house appreciates this opportunity to discuss the subject of televising or broadcasting over the radio the proceedings of this house. It is only natural we should have this opportunity because this question has been discussed outside the house in many places across Canada, and I think this is the forum where it should be discussed.
It is high time we had the opportunity to air some views on this very important question in view of the fact that the New Zealand parliament has been broadcasting, either by radio or by television, its proceedings since 1936. The first broadcast of the proceedings in any Canadian parliament was in the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan in 1946. The Australian parliament has been broadcasting and televising its proceedings since 1946. On October 15, 1958 the opening of the parliament of Canada by the Queen was broadcast for the first time. So, as time moves on it seems only natural we should come to this point in our history and discuss this important subject.
When you go back in history, Mr. Speaker, you find debates were held in the British House on the subject of even allowing the
March 26, 1969

press to come into the House of Commons and report. There was a debate on whether any of the happenings in the house, the debates or arguments, should even be published. There was a great and fiery debate on that subject. There was another great debate in the United Kingdom about whether to have Hansard in the House of Commons. We now come to the use of the news media of television and radio in our own Canadian Parliament.
There is little doubt, from the individual point of view and more particularly from the point of view of individuals in political life, that an opportunity to appear on television is attractive. We are all human in this regard. One of the dangers of the question we are now debating is that this attractiveness makes it very difficult for members to look at this proposition objectively. It is all too easy to accept the argument that televising the proceedings of this house will bring parliament to the people raw and unedited, thus overcoming the distorted picture of us that some members claim is given out daily by newspaper, radio and television commentators.
It is natural for any member to see himself as the continuing star of a national television show with a captive audience of millions. Despite its attractions and despite all the ready arguments in favour of televising house business on a daily basis, I must confess that I personally have begun to have second thoughts about this question. As I speak I cannot say that I have definitely made up my mind on this matter. However, this is the sort of airing that will give each and every member of the house an opportunity to make up his mind. I do not think for one moment that all of the members of my party are going to say that they are in favour of television, or likewise on the other side of the house.
I have no criticism of the principle of televising our proceedings. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the principle of the voters' right to know, to see and to hear all aspects of public business. For that reason I ignore the arguments advanced in an earlier day in the United Kingdom and here in Canada regarding coverage of house business by the daily press. Those arguments centred largely on quite another point. They were mainly concerned with the basic question of the public's right to be informed and, conversely, the right of elected representatives to keep secret the manner in which they did the taxpayers' business.
Business of Supply
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
How things have changed since then. This point is no longer relevant. The right of the public to be informed about our business was conceded long ago. What we are concerned about here is an amplification of the means by which our proceedings are brought to the public and whether providing for additional coverage of house business by an additional information medium will confer more benefits than drawbacks it might create. It is in this area of discussions that I have reservations. As I have said, I uphold the principle of television coverage of the house but have serious misgiving as to whether it can achieve all or any of the things its proponents promise for it. I wonder whether it will not actually damage the quality of parliamentary business.
For instance, it has been argued that television coverage of the house itself is necessary if we are to do away with the daily interviews before television cameras in the rotunda. If hon. members look outside the chamber they will see three or four television cameras, floodlights and all kinds of equipment. That degrades the dignity of the rotunda and of parliament. If we are to televise house proceedings, let us do it properly and give the public the original viewpoint instead of the second hand version they obtain from the media in the rotunda. If we are to have television here I think the public is entitled to see the actual proceedings taking place in the house. For instance, if television had been present in the house today the Prime Minister would have made a much longer, more explanatory and more informative report on his trip to Washington. I think that other hon. members who spoke after the Prime Minister, including the Leader of the Opposition, would have been listened to throughout the country with great interest and the public would have been delighted.
We face tremendous technical questions in this field if we agree to permit house business to be televised. We should all ask, on what basis will we permit television? Will proceedings in their entirety every day be televised? Will they be televised on a selective "great occasion" basis, or on a limited every day basis. For example, would each day's question period be televised? Would budget night be covered or would supply days be covered? On what basis would there be coverage?
Then, too, we face the problem of what programs to bring to the public. Who is to say how much will be given to the public, and at

March 26. 1969
Business of Supply
what times of day and on what television stations? A great variety of schemes have been advanced. One is that television cameras should be installed in the house and roll continuously throughout all sittings of the House of Commons. This, it is argued, would provide a sort of videotape Hansard that television editors and reporters could resort to for the particular bits and pieces they might find of interest to their own small areas. Another suggestion is that only one restricted period of each sitting, such as the question period, should be televised. Yet another idea is that only grand occasions such as budgets, etc., should be televised.
There are simply a few suggestions. Yet another suggestion is to have a continuous telecast of house business carried on a special channel that would be free of other programs. All these ideas, I believe, have merit; the advantages of each can be persuasively argued, but all of them carry within them great problems.
For Instance, just as soon as we introduce any element of selection to any method of telecasting parliamentary procedures we will raise the very difficult question of who will be authorized to make that selection. The main problem in this regard will concern the chief officer of the house, Mr. Speaker, and those who operate the television networks and stations. Beyond that is the question of selection as between the government and opposition, as between the various political parties represented in the house and, last but not least, the problem of selecting performers from the same party. All these questions will involve problems. For instance, if the question period only were to be televised, party leaders and members of the so-called shadow cabinet would quite naturally appear on television a disproportionate number of times. If we were to seek to overcome this difficulty we would run the risk of making such appearances appear contrived and unnatural. If a continuous videotape record were kept of proceedings, television editors and reporters undoubtedly would secure clippings of the performance of the member representing their locality to be used in local television stations. But, I ask what about the many hon. members in whose riding there is no television facility or only one station that is enmeshed in network programming commitments? Consider the number of homes without T.V. sets. It may be that under the present system a third or less of hon. members in this house will obtain extensive television coverage in their own ridings; all other hon.

members will not appear ora television in their home ridings.
It is argued that parliament has fallen into disrepute with the public in recent years and that people tend to ignore and belittle this time honoured institution. Those who advance this argument say that whether you like it or not television is the modem method of communication and parliament must adapt to it if it is to survive as a meaningful institution. I must admit that I agree with a great deal of this argument. My reservations1 are based more on the apparent impossibility in the present state of things of making television coverage of the house do what we expect it to do. I have no wish to labour either my agreement with the principle of television or my reservations with regard to the actual practice of televising house proceedings. I simply wish to close my remarks by advising the house how important it is to consult responsible television people about every phase of televising our proceedings. In my limited discussions with responsible television people I have discovered that their objectives in securing television coverage of parliament are not necessarily the same as those of hon. members of the House of Commons. In fact, in some cases those objectives are diametrically opposed to ours. Yet, these television people would be the most important single element in any beneficial scheme of television coverage. I think the most important thing to be borne in mind is that under most of the schemes suggested for televising house business those in the television medium will retain the right of selection and editing. This presents a problem for those of us who see in the televising of house affairs a means of bringing the true picture to the public free of distortions resulting from selection and editing.
I wish to say a word about the cost factor involved, because we will be putting the burden on the taxpayer and he musrt be kept in mind. It is a major factor. It appears obvious that the televising of the house can not and will not be undertaken on a strictly commercial basis. This means there would be subsidized coverage, and subsidized coverage means expenditures of great amounts of tax dollars. We shall have to consider the question of whether the benefits of television coverage are worth the money required to sustain that coverage.
The only figures I have on the cost factor were submitted to the British house. A study of this matter was undertaken in Great Britain and the British Broadcasting Corporation
March 26. 1969

as well as independent television authorities provided some cost figures. They showed that one day's coverage would cost approximately $33,000; two days would cost $42,000 and three days, $51,000. I took the average of three days, which works out to about $17,000 a day. During the present session the house has been sitting for 121 days. If house proceedings this session had been televised for the entire period so far the cost of that coverage would have been slightly more than $2 million. Clearly, we are looking at a very costly operation when we consider televising the proceedings of this house.
In' conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it might well be worth our while to ask Your Honour to set up a special committee to look into this entire matter before we debate it further in this house. It is a highly technical and highly controversial matter. If you could set up a small committee that would include principal operating executives of various television networks and independent television stations I am sure we could obtain a much clearer view of what is possible and what is impossible with regard to this question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have just one more sentence and I shall be finished, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It was understood there would be no extensions.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: I just have one more sentence, Mr. Speaker, and I will be through. I am sure we would be able to get a clearer view of just what is possible and what is impossible with regard to this question. We would also get a clearer view as to just what it is we seek to achieve through television coverage of the house and what it is that the television people are looking to attain. We could start our discussion of this1 problem on much surer ground if we had some hard facts before us. Having those facts, I am sure hon. members would be in a position to take a stand and vote on this very important matter.
Business of Supply
In conclusion, I would again say that I think it is wonderful that we in this house have had the opportunity to give our views on this subject. I hope consideration of the subject will continue through the formation of a committee. In the meantime I would like to see committees televised. We can continue from there when all the facts are available.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with members opposite when they say this has been a most useful discussion. It has been doubly so because we have all recognized that this is not in any sense a partisan issue. There are many different points of view in all parties as to whether we should proceed along the lines some suggest, namely to televise parliament. To me that is a very grave over-simplification.
What we have really been talking about today, Mr. Speaker, and what will become more obvious as time goes by is that we are talking about an explosion in communications and the difficulty at present, despite the new means of communication, that we have in getting the full story of developments within our country, and indeed within the world, across to the general public. Because of this fact, those who advocate wrack and ruin if television is not brought in are probably overstating the case. By the same token, I think those who anticipate enormous improvements and benefits if it is brought in are probably being a little too sanguine about the likely results of this development.
Perhaps it will be accepted by hon. members that I have some experience in this field. With that background, I say hon. members should be aware that nothing which goes on outside this chamber will be changed significantly by televising proceedings inside the chamber. I am quite satisfied that what we are discussing here is the addition of another dimension. I suppose we could pass regulations prohibiting the jungle of microphones and television cameras in the rotunda, but it is well beyond our competence to prohibit members from going to television studios or being interviewed in their offices and other places. We must accept the fact of the multiplicity of sources outside. This will go on and probably expand if the proceedings inside the house are televised.
There is a very good reason why that will happen, apart from those raised this afternoon. That is each medium wishes to be as distinctive as possible. If we simply made one record of events in this house available, it

March 26. 1969
Business of Supply
would mean that each station or outlet would appear to be precisely the same in so tar as the viewer is concerned. I feel quite certain we can anticipate in the event that station "A" or network "A" choose to take the taping, filming or whatever the process is in the house of a particular speaker that station "B" or network "B" will be anxious to get him so that they will be able to get a different point of view and different point of presentation. I re-emphasize this point because members should not be under any illusions that televising the house will in any sense cut down on the so-called confused state that many of us deplore on the outside.
We are embarking on a very complex kind of operation. I do not say this in any negative fashion, but merely to let hon. members see the complexity of what we are approaching. Ideally, we ought to have a television hookup through a series of stations from coast to coast in Canada that would carry the proceedings of this house from beginning to end. This in itself is not a very satisfactory way of ensuring that the so-called fairness doctrine is maintained. In other words, if a Canadian citizen wants to be sure of getting all points and is satisfied to sit for approximately 27 hours per week, then he might be able to get a comprehensive assessment of parliament. That would be theoretically ideal; however it would be too expensive for this country to contemplate at this time. It would require, in effect, the duplication of every existing station now in the C.B.C. network which covers most of the country. It would be necessary to parallel those services. I, therefore, think it is an unreasonable expectation.
I studied this matter as a broadcaster and as a member of an earlier committee of this house a season or so ago. We discussed this informally on a number of other occasions. The real nub of the problem is, how does one ensure that the end result of our efforts is a better informed public? How do we ensure that it will not add to the distortion? The difficulty of course comes in the editing process. I wish there were more time to speak on this subject because it is a most intriguing development.
With regard to the whole concept of the role of a documentary, we are hearing some of the best and most qualified producers in Canadian television arguing it is not their responsibility to present a balanced viewpoint in a particular program.


Mr. MacLean:: Like seal hunting.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Like seal hunting, if my friend wishes to use that example, or on pollution, as recently occurred in Toronto. This house would have to be quite prepared to assume that out of the plurality of sources which would be using this material, the end result would be a balanced presentation and not result in major distortions.
Newsmen being what they are, I haven't the slightest doubt that if access to this house were granted to the media, the news which would get the most attention would not be the sober and dispassionate speeches which make up a very substantial part, albeit a dull part in terms of public interest, of the proceedings of this house. What would happen would be that the highlights of the question period would be presented. Is this in fact comparable to a written Hansard? It is an over-simplification to say that it is necessary because there are no other elements which are introduced. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message".
There is so much that can be conveyed that it would be up to members to decide whether, over the long haul, what came out of the chosen excerpts would be representative of a fair presentation. Would it add to the totality of news available to the public?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Having said all these things which may appear to hon. members to be negative, let me say that my own conviction is that you cannot turn back the tide in this matter. Radio and television are here to stay, and it would be very wise for this house at the appropriate time to refer this matter to a committee, as has been suggested. But I think that when that is done we ought not to be under any illusions that there is any simple or short answer.
We should realize too, that certainly the control of the mechanism within this house ought to be under the direction of the Speaker, that is, that the media themselves should not be permitted to put their own cameras, microphones and the like into the chamber, and that the actual taping of what takes place in the Chamber should be done by staff of the House of Commons, staff of parliament under the control of the Speaker. That is a fairly simple thing to determine and one on which I think we could all agree.
The second matter is the one to which I referred just a few moments ago. Is it then simply a question of any representative of any medium coming in and saying, "I want
March 26. 1969

that particular segment. I want what the Minister of Defence Production said about this, and I don't want anything else." Is that going to be adequate and in fact satisfactory to us in terms of the fairness doctrine? This, I suggest, is the thing to which we ought to apply ourselves.
Let there be no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, unless broadcasting our proceedings gets the respectability which Hansard now has, which is something we all accept because through trial and error we now know that this is a good and accurate report of our proceedings-we ought not to forget that this was not always the case, and that in the early days there were many arguments about the printed record of this chamber and of many other parliaments throughout the free world-then it will not be satisfactory.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other hon. members that this will be the real question to which we will have to apply ourselves. I do not doubt we can find solutions, but I think we would also have to bring the media people in to ask them for their ideas. But in the last, analysis, if we can get past that hurdle of ensuring that we are not just simply providing partisan, if you like, or a very limited kind of partial coverage, we will overcome that kind of confused situation to which the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier this afternoon. But I do suggest and agree totally that the answer lies in appointing a committee, and there let us see if we could resolve some of these serious matters because television is not going to go away. I hope we can employ it in a manner which will achieve the results that we want for the people of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very pleased to listen to the hon. members who have participated so far in the debate on this subject. I am sure anyone sitting in the galleries would come to the conclusion that we are going to put in television right away, and that nobody in the chamber is opposed to it. However, obviously there are still some objections to it, and some decisions will have to be made.
It is interesting to note that when the province of Ontario tried television for the first time this year in the provincial legislature it was a total disaster so far as that parliament was concerned. It was a total disaster for those who participated in it. Instead of the budget message being only a few minutes 29180-455
Business of Supply
long, as has been usual, the provincial minister of finance had to engage in a long discourse on how to collect taxes, what they were for, the ultimate goal of taxation, and how the government would go about achieving it.
The viewers very quickly became bored. The extent of their interest was that which is satisfied by the newspapers with the information that cigarettes were going up two cents, tobacco up four cents a pound, whisky up seven cents, and income tax to be increased. Once the public received information on seven or eight points like that, their interest was satisfied.
As has been mentioned, experiments have been conducted with television in parliament. The first experiment was during the Queen's visit when some of the news media were allowed to enter the Senate chamber and televise the proceedings. Anyone who watched that operation must have been struck by the crudeness of it, by the total lack of decorum on the part of the people who were involved,
This, of course, is not displayed to the viewing audience. I remember the first time I went to a television studio in Timmins and saw the backdrops for two shows, papier-mache settings. I was shocked because I thought that these were big programs. In my opinion, television in this place could be a disaster in an esthetic sense.
On the other hand, the televising of our proceedings could be conducted with a certain amount of decorum. I endorse the remarks of the previous speaker that Mr. Speaker should be in total control of the mechanism. That is a nice word to use, mechanism, meaning all kinds of machinery. I first learned it when studying French. The mechanism in parliament will have to be under the Speaker and he will have to hire the people who operate it. We will have to supply the film. The film used in this chamber may have to be a special type because we do not want to increase the lighting capacity here by more than double. For that reason, a specific type of film could be used for continuous filming in this chamber, without depending on the temporary type of lighting required to make normal film useful indoors.
I remember when we first talked about installing simultaneous translation in the chamber. When I first became a member of this house wires were stretched across the chamber with microphones dangling from them. One got used to them after a while, but I must say I am very pleased that the

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
Speakers of the day provided us with the type of equipment that we have for our simultaneous translation service.
I am sure many new members do not notice the facilities for our simultaneous translation. I remember when there were no rooms or booths at the end of the chamber, but now these have been fitted in to suit the decor of this place, and are taken for granted. We are not affected by them at all.
I was interested in the remarks of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who discussed how much broadcasting our proceedings would cost. Somebody must consider the cost, but it is my opinion that if we instal the best, up to date television equipment, all automatically remote controlled, and placed at four fixed locations in this chamber in surroundings that will fit in with the decor of the room, we will be able to carry out television operations without any visible disruption of our proceedings.
I have never seen people so ignorant as cameramen who have to get into the middle of a celebration to take pictures. I realize that they have to do this, but the way they do it leaves a great deal to be desired. Under no circumstances, even on a temporary basis should we allow the television outlets, whether it be C.T.V., C.B.C., or some other private agency, to come in and set up television facilities. If a committee can be established to consider this matter and it reaches the decision that television facilities be installed, then I suggest that these facilities must be under the control of the Speaker. He must control them. We must hire our own officials to operate our television programming. A room should be provided where they can screen the film, where they can cut it, and where the agencies can buy it from us, or we can give it to them. It really does not make much difference. In that room prints can be made, and the original film should remain under control of the House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
_ It we really think it out and make a decision to do this, then I suggest we must consider two other things that have been mentioned. I would like to see some television stations asked to carry a separate channel, possibly in conjunction with the C.B.C. in every area, but particularly in the more remote areas, which would carry full daily coverage of the happenings of parliament. I would think this would be an excellent method to make people aware of some of the

things which happen here. I do not know what other members think of the question period, and I should like to know what the government thinks of it. I do not consider the question period to be representative of the workings of parliament. 1 do not consider the new media do a very good job in covering parliament because during the question period the press gallery will be jammed, and then as soon as the question period is over out they go. There are many other happenings in parliament which have a great effect on the lives of people and which have nothing to do with the question period. I would hope that it would not be the intention to televise only the question period. As one who does not ask too many questions during the question period I am sure that if I knew there would be an opportunity to appear on camera while asking a question I would ask one, even if it should be one given to me by a newspaper man. I am sure I would do this as I am sure would many others who, like myself, normally are not too interested in asking questions.
If we had the opportunity to grandstand, I believe we would grandstand. I believe we could do better than use the question period as a forum for television. I should like to thank the Speaker for finally having made a decision in respect of the wiring in the rotunda outside the chamber, so that now we are not so likely to trip on wires which are running along the floor into member's offices. Although I do not consider this to be the proper type of facility, in my opinion the public should not be deprived of it entirely. I believe there would be interest in having this in a controlled environment such as a room set aside where interviews could be conducted in a much more formal way, with better acoustics and better camera work than is now possible out in the rotunda.
My opinion is that if television is to be installed in this house it should be of a permanent nature and disguised in such a manner that it would not destroy the decor of the house. I am not so much of a conservative that that really bothers me, but I do not particularly want to know that I am being televised anymore than I am particularly interested in knowing that my words are being translated. I do not think about it anymore. It does not bother me, but I do not want to be inhibited by the fact that something I may say is violent enough, wild enough or crude enough that it would be covered on television, because it would certainly
March 26, 1969

have an effect on me as I am sure it would have an effect on other members.
I hope that Mr. Speaker would take control of the televising of the debates of the house, the same as he now has control over the Journals, Hansard and other facilities which affect this chamber. I hope that the type of media we provide for the public will help them regain their lost ability to participate. I believe it is desirable that the public be able to see what is going on in parliament on a continuous basis rather than be fed, as we are now through the news media, fragments and sections which do not seem to have any beginning or end. Mr. Speaker, I believe, would be the agency best able to protect our rights as individual members and also our rights as a parliament, as well as the right of the public to make a fair evaluation of what was said.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in- a position to make any great contribution to this debate. The subject has been kicked around for some time. Many different views have been expressed. I believe it is a good idea to air this subject in this chamber today without any great amount of party discipline or any great amount of acrimony. It is a subject which at this point can be freely and openly debated. Some people have suggested it is not an important subject at this time. I disagree. I believe it is an important subject, indeed a very important one.
Television I suppose has become the most powerful single effective means of communication today. This is the parliament of Canada and a few hours spent in determining the relationship between parliament and television, in my opinion, should be a few hours well spent. At this point I believe I should say that with very few exceptions, I personally would be opposed to allowing a television camera or television cameras in this chamber. The exceptions to my mind should be confined to such events as the delivery of the budget speech and perhaps other noteworthy and newsworthy events.
Television has many possibilities in the field of education; but at the moment I regard it primarily as a source of entertainment, although up to a point it is also a source of information and education. I speak for myself, although I believe many hon. members feel the same way. We are not here as entertainers, and the majority of us did not come here as educators. Here again, I speak 29180-4551
Business of Supply
for myself. I certainly did not come here to make like an Ed Sullivan or end up as a national exhibit of some kind. I do not think this should be one of the prerequisites of becoming a member of parliament. Undoubtedly it will be if television eventually is allowed in the chamber. I think it would naturally follow that the greatest television performers in many cases would probably end up as members of parliament. I do not think television can necessarily be considered an honest media. As an example of what I mean I might refer to the occasion a few years ago when the late John F. Kennedy, who was campaigning for election, engaged in a great television debate with Mr. Nixon. I think it is conceded all over the world that it was not what the gentlemen had to say but their appearance on television which was the winning factor in the campaign. I do not think that should necessarily be the situation. I do not think the best material is necessarily selected in that manner.
I had a little parliamentary experience in a provincial legislature, and in the short time I have been here I have watched what I would refer to as the fragmentation of this parliament; it has been chopped up in little pieces. An example of this was seen the other morning when four very important committee meetings were scheduled for the same time, 9:30 in the morning. We all remember the house leader saying that we would have plenty of opportunity in committee to voice our opinions on matters. Where are the opportunities? And now the suggestion is that we televise this fragmentation, that we televise what is left of this parliament. I might have been a little more kindly disposed six months ago when this parliament was in fact a parliament and when the business of the country was conducted right here in this chamber. I could very well have been more kindly disposed then, but I am certainly not kindly disposed toward giving television coverage to the fragments that are left.
a (5:30 p.m.)
I would not for a moment recommend the closing of the galleries any more than I would recommend the closing of the galleries in our courts of law and Supreme Court. By the same token, I would not agree to allowing television into our Supreme Court. They are separate matters, and I do not think one has anything to do with the other.
The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Halest) gave some pretty alarming estimates

March 26, 1969
Business of Supply
of the cost of covering our procedures by television. Every time I have had occasion to approach the C.B.C.-and no doubt the C.B.C. would be the ones who would cover the proceedings if we had television in the chamber-and1 ask them to provide very basic coverage for part of my riding, the answer has been that they could not do it because their budget did not allow them to do so. In one instance a large area of my riding could not be supplied with the local news for the simple reason the C.B.C. could not provide the 30 cents a minute it would cost. It was not in the budget and the C.B.C. could not transmit this news to the Labrador part of my riding. Therefore, the very thought of spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to televise the proceedings in this chamber is alarming to me, when so many parts of Canada do not have even the basic radio and television services. Under no circumstances could I agree to this proposal until such time as those areas lacking radio and television facilities have been serviced.
We must remember that we have 264 members in this house. They were sent here at very great expense to the Canadian taxpayer. Hansard is produced, again at very great expense to the taxpayer. We have newspapermen sitting up in the gallery-a bevy of them.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Do
you call that a bevy?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Let us not kid ourselves, they are here at the expense of the taxpayer because they work for newspapers. Newspapers are supported by advertisers, and advertisers are supported by their customers. So, eventually again, it is the taxpayer who pays. We have television and radio coverage of parliament at the present time. They broadcast newsworthy items, and so on, or what these gentlemen regard as newsworthy items. Even the private stations are supported at the expense of the taxpayer. In my humble opinion, before we give any further thought to increasing the burden on our taxpayers, television and radio coverage should be universal in this country.
I suppose it is only natural that politicians should be conscious of their image. I know some politicians who spend most of their waking hours devising means to get before the bright lights. There are others who cringe at the very thought of it. I think I come somewhere in between; I could live with it or without it. But I do not think it would do this parliament or the people of the country any

good if our proceedings were televised. I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that these are just initial reactions. I like the idea of a study in this field if it would not cost too much. My opinions are subject to revision and change. However, at the moment this is how I feel.
When I think about television, I always think in terms of sponsors. A few amusing things come to mind in this respect. In order to offset the cost of televising our proceedings, perhaps we could have sponsors who would sponsor different speakers on different days. For instance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is responsible for housing, might be sponsored by the Ottawa Valley Lumber Company which would give a special discount of 11 per cent this week on all building materials. This would offset the 11 per cent sales' tax on building materials which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stubbornly refuses to remove.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) might be sponsored by Belvedere cigarettes-"I smoke them because I like them". This is the type of thing we might encourage. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might be sponsored by Flower Shops Incorporated-"Flowers around the corner or around the world". On alternate days perhaps he might be sponsored by Max Factor, the kiss-proof lipstick people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not want to make light of this matter, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot restrain myself. These are the sort of things that come to my mind. I think the suggestion at this point in time is rather ridiculous.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important and purposeful debate. I have listened to all hon. members who have spoken and it seems to me that the consensus of the house is that television and radio should be allowed in the house, with certain restrictions, I particularly noted the fact that virtually every speaker who supported our eventually allowing television into the house insisted that certain restrictions be placed on it; that is, that the office of the Speaker or some other office would determine what would be allowed to be shown to the viewers of the country. In my opinion, televising the proceedings of the house would be of lasting and significant benefit to parliamentary democracy in' Canada. Indeed, it might be the very life blood of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
March 26, 1969

There is throughout the country a growing dissatisfaction with parliament and politicians. I suppose we could generalize and say that the people of the country do not appreciate the work of parliament, they do not understand the work of parliament. I suppose that we as parliamentarians have failed in educating the people in this regard. I think it is high time parliament was called upon to assist in this educational process. The people of Canada want to feel involved in government at all levels. If we had television in the house I am sure they would have this vicarious involvement. In establishing this sense of involvement, television would contribute to the strength of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
I am concerned about this aspect of the question. Some hon. members do not wish television in the house, and those who do ask that there be some sort of censorship in regard to it. They were really suggesting a censorship, no matter what you wish to call it. I am of the opinion that we have iru Canada a responsible press. Our television and radio media are responsible. We must not forget that we in this house have the ultimate power, if we allow these media into the chamber and they do not conduct themselves in a responsible manner, to refuse further privileges to television and radio in the house. It would be simple for us to do this.
The motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) deals with allowing televison into the House of Commons and includes the televising and broadcasting of committee meetings. This is important, because in my opinion committee meetings are to a great extent stripped of the politics which take place in this chamber. I refer to the type of thing which leads to great cynicism on the part of the people of Canada with regard to parliament and politics in general Also, it happens that sometimes questions raised in committees are more serious than those which are raised in the House of Commons and members of parliament tend to be much less verbose than they are here. It is important that the cynicism toward parliament be not increased and, in my opinion, the best way to do that would be to allow television into the house, regardless of whether it is controlled by the office of the Speaker or uncontrolled except by the sense of responsibility of the media. It is important to convey to the people of Canada the type of work that is being performed in the house, the idea that democracy lives here in this chamber, and
Business of Supply
that through their members of parliament they are involved in the democratic process.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am concerned about the possibility that there may be some grandstanders among us and the impression which this will create on television, but at the same time I am also sure that the radio and television people have a sufficient sense of responsibility to minimize this effect. I am sure that those people who have a tendency to become grandstanders here will not add to our debates as they are televised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please., It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty to inform the house that pursuant to paragraph 10 of Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion are now considered to have expired.
The house will now proceed to the next order of business, which is the consideration of the motion to concur in interim supply.