April 26, 1967

LIB

Mr. Goyer

Liberal

To the knowledge of the government, has the legislature of the province of Quebec established an administrative procedure for dealing with other governments and, if so, what is the policy of the government toward it?

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC-PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Prime Minister)

Liberal

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):

The government is aware that Bill 33 entitled "An act to amend the federal-provincial affairs department act and certain related acts" was adopted by the Quebec legislature on April 13, 1967. In answer to questions raised in this house at the time when that bill was read for the first time in the Quebec legislature, I stated on behalf of the government, that to the extent that this legislation purported to set up the administrative machinery which the Quebec government felt it required for the performance of the functions assigned to its competence, this was a matter for the Quebec government to decide.

Since then, however, the government has had occasion to see the legislation in question, and to follow the debates on it in the Quebec legislature. Due note has been taken of statements made on that occasion that the sole purpose of this legislation was to effect an internal transfer and reorganization of existing administrative functions and responsibilities. However, a certain ambiguity of wording in parts of the legislation has resulted in interpretations by the press and elsewhere as possibly having the effect of entrusting this new department with responsibilities in the

[Mr. Gregoire.l

external field such as for relations between Quebec and foreign countries, and for the negotiation of agreements with foreign governments or bodies.

There should be no ground for any such misunderstanding.

The constitutional position in Canada with respect to the division of powers as between the federal and provincial governments clearly gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for the conduct of the country's external affairs. This cannot be altered by legislation adopted by a provincial legislature. Quebec legislation cannot confer upon the government of Quebec any of the powers which are now assigned exclusively by the constitution to the federal government for the conduct of Canada's relations with foreign countries and for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements with these countries in all fields. The government of Quebec is of course aware of these constitutional requirements in the field of external affairs and there is no reason to believe that the manner in which the new Quebec department will carry out the functions assigned to it by this bill will not be fully consistent with the constitutional position in Canada.

With regard to Quebec provincial agents abroad, whose responsibility is assigned by this new legislation to the department of intergovernmental affairs, it is a well known fact that provincial agencies abroad-which have existed for many years-do not form part of the Canadian diplomatic and consular establishment in foreign countries. Thus they are not empowered to exercise abroad any of the functions which, within our constitutional framework and in accordance with international practice, it is the exclusive responsibility of Canadian diplomatic and consular missions abroad to perform on behalf of all of Canada. Consequently the role of these agencies does not consist in transacting with foreign governmental authorities official business affecting Canada or any part thereof in any field unless agreement has been reached beforehand through diplomatic channels between the Canadian government and the foreign government concerned on the matters to be transacted with provincial authorities and the manner in which this is to be done.

April 26, 1967

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC-PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Permalink

WHARF EXTENSION, BEACH POINT, P.E.I.

PC

Mr. McQuaid

Progressive Conservative

1. Was a contract awarded in 1966 for the construction of an extension to the wharf at Beach Point in King's county, Prince Edward Island?

2. If so, to whom was the contract awarded?

3. Was the contrat for this work later cancelled and, if so, for what reason?

4. Is it proposed to call for another contract In the immediate future?

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   WHARF EXTENSION, BEACH POINT, P.E.I.
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):

1. Yes.

2. Norman N. MacLean, Murray River, P.E.I.

3. No.

4. No.

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   WHARF EXTENSION, BEACH POINT, P.E.I.
Permalink

NEW BRUNSWICK SECTION, NORTHUMBERLAND CAUSEWAY

PC

Mr. Macquarrie

Progressive Conservative

1. On what date did tenders close for the New Brunswick causeway section of the Northumberland crossing?

2. What firms or individuals submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender?

3. Why has a contract not been awarded?

4. When is it intended to award a contract?

5. What is the anticipated completion date of the Northumberland crossing?

6. Has the delay in awarding this contract necessitated a change in the anticipated completion date and, if so, what is the extent of such delay?

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   NEW BRUNSWICK SECTION, NORTHUMBERLAND CAUSEWAY
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):

1. March 30, 1967.

2. Inspiration Limited, Dumex (Canada) Li-mitee Societe Dumex, Simard-Beaudry Inc. $42,980,000.00; Kiewit-Northern-Mannix, $43,391,060.00; The Foundation Company of Canada Limited and Miron Company Limited, $50,952,896.85; Causeway Constructors, $53,035,700.00.

3. As reported on April 21, 1967, at page 15179 of House of Commons Debates, the tenders are being studied and analysed and this has not been completed.

4. Decisions cannot be made or anticipated prior to the completion of the study and analysis.

5. No attempt to state a completion date is being made. As has been previously stated in the house, on a project of this size and complexity, at this stage it is impractical to forecast a completion date.

6. There has been no delay. As stated on April 21, 1967, it may well be that when the analysis and study have been completed some

Motions for Papers

adjustments or modifications may prove desirable. The rate of construction might be influenced by such adjustments or modifications, but this cannot be anticipated now.

Topic:   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   NEW BRUNSWICK SECTION, NORTHUMBERLAND CAUSEWAY
Permalink

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

LIB

Albert Béchard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 223 and 229?

I ask, sir, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

[Englishl

Topic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink

FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM


Motion No. 223-Mr. Orlikow: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government in respect to the decision of the federal government to withdraw from the technical vocational training program.


LIB

Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept the question in its present form since we have never withdrawn from occupational training as implied by the question. The agreements came to an end, normally, on March 31 last without any withdrawal on the part of the government, and we are studying, at the present time, a new bill concerning occupational education.

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is the motion dropped or transferred for debate?

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. Orlikow:

I wonder if the minister would agree to table the correspondence which has taken place as a result of the decision? I know the province of Manitoba is going to agree to the tabling in its area.

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Is the motion dropped?

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
NDP
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Transferred for debate.

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
LIB

Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Mr. Marchand:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon.

member wants to redraft the motion and not imply that we have withdrawn from vocational training, I will agree to it.

Topic:   FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Permalink
NDP

April 26, 1967