January 22, 1969


Summary of Expenditures ($000's) Fiscal Year No. of Projects Min. Max. 1962-63 0 651963-64 60 841964-65 79 1101965-66 105 1401966-67 122 1511967-68 122 1591968-69 138 177(to 21 Nov. 1968) TOTAL 262 Total Contribution Total Grants Reported Approved Expended by Industry843.9 537.3 918.82,093.1 1,603.6 2,503.83,010.0 2,171.3 2,975.84,088.0 3,306.3 4,564.65,293.6 4,199.0 6,262.76,361.6 5,086.9 6,828.27,212.1 6,100.0 9,264.3(Est.) (Est.)28,902.3 23,004.4 33,318.2(41%) (59%)1. Eight additional projects have been approved as of 21 November 1968 but were deferred for lack of funds.2. Projects may be approved and start at any time during the fiscal year. Generally, they terminate at the end of a fiscal year. Hence, the minimum and maximum number of projects in effect have been given for each year.3. Companies are not always able to spend the full grant due to recruiting difficulties or construction delays.4. Industry's contribution covers only the reported funding during the period of IRAP support. This does not include funding to complete the research project if it must extend beyond five years, or to develop products from the research results.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

CROWN CORPORATIONS-LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

RA

Mr. Caouette

Ralliement Créditiste

1. In each of the proprietary Crown corporations, who is presently in charge of collecting information on language proficiency of the staff and what position does each hold at the present time.

2. Who is responsible for recruiting staff in each of these corporations?

3. Is he (a) bilingual (b) French-speaking only

(c) English-speaking only?

Return tabled.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CROWN CORPORATIONS-LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
Permalink

HOSPITAL GRANTS, TORONTO

LIB

Mr. Robinson

Liberal

1. Has the federal government made any grants to hospitals in the Metropolitan Toronto area in

January 22, 1969

Motion for Adjournment the past five years and, if so, how much and to which institutions was it paid?

2. Does the federal government have any commitment to provide grants for hospitals in the Metropolitan area and, if so, how much and to which institutions are they to be paid?

Return tabled.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   HOSPITAL GRANTS, TORONTO
Permalink

GRANTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

NDP

Mr. Broadbeni

New Democratic Party

1. What are the terms and conditions for grants provided under the Department of Industry's Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology?

2. For each fiscal year since the program's inception, what have been the annual number of projects and expenditures of this program, shared by the federal government and Canadian industry?

3. What is the total federal government expenditure commitment to this program in the current fiscal year?

4. Are changes presently contemplated in this program regarding either cost-sharing and repayment provisions or rate of interest provisions?

Return tabled.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   GRANTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Permalink

MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26


[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

PC

Stanley James Korchinski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):

I ask

leave, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin, in accordance with the terms of revised Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the virtual bottleneck and paralysis of wheat movement in Vancouver Harbour, due to the failure of the government to work with the railways in scheduling box cars, leading to a situation which has already resulted in the loss of a 17,000 ton contract and which may result in the loss of others; which has caused damage and economic loss, since some ships have been tied up for as long as a month, paying demurrage charges as high as $2,500 a day; which has brought about stagnation in the movement of wheat at a critical time for western farmers; and in connection with which the government, yesterday, in the person of the minister, refused to take action.

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Mackenzie has given notice as required by Standing Order 26 of his intention to move the adjournment of the house to discuss the matter raised in his proposed motion.

An hon. members know, the provisions of Standing Order 26 have been radically altered in the new rules of procedure of the House of Commons. Under the terms of paragraph (5) of Standing Order 26, in determining whether a matter should be given urgent consideration, the Chair takes into account the extent to which the proposition concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or would come within the scope of ministerial action, and also the probability of the matter being brought before the house within a reasonable time by other means. Additionally, the Chair must have regard to other considerations, many of which have been established as the practice of the house in previous years, before the enactment of the present Standing Orders.

The question raised by the hon. member, it seems to me, does concern the administrative responsibilities of the government.

As far as the opportunity for the question being raised before the house within a reasonable time by other means is concerned, the Chair must have in mind the fact that in the present state of its business the house is not likely to have available certain opportunities which on previous occasions would have provided a vehicle for a debate on this question. As an example, there is no current debate in respect to the Speech from the Throne. We learned from the Minister of Finance yesterday that there is some uncertainty whether or not there will be a budget debate within the near future, and the estimates are not likely to be tabled until some time in February.

There is another matter which I think may be of some importance, and that has to do with the alteration in circumstances surrounding emergency debates before the enactment of the current Standing Order 26. Before the present order was brought into force, in considering motions to adjourn under Standing Order 26 the Chair always had to weigh the importance of the proposed motion against the necessity of setting aside government business for the day and it was much more difficult to justify the granting of a motion under Standing Order 26 when that would have the result of delaying current important public business. To a considerable extent the revised Standing Order 26 reduces the relative significance of this factor.

January 22, 1969

In deciding whether or not to allow the motion the Chair must, of course, take into account the actual problem sought to be discussed. Is it of national importance and is it urgent?

In my opinion the new circumstances indicated by the questions asked in the house yesterday, by the concern expressed by the minister himself when replying to these questions, and by the hon. member's statement, indicate that a strong case can be made in favour of the proposed motion, on the ground of urgency of debate.

Therefore I am inclined to put the question to the house in accordance with the standing order for the reasons stated, that the matter is important, that there is urgency of debate, that the opportunity for debate within a reasonable time is restricted, and that public business is not impeded.

The question before the house is the following one. Has the hon. member leave to move the motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him?

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Discussion of the proposed motion shall therefore stand over until eight o'clock this evening, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 26.

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink
PC

Donald MacInnis

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as I understood your ruling you set the motion over until eight o'clock this evening. As I understand it, we do not sit on Wednesday evenings.

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

If the hon. member will read the Standing Orders he will notice that this is a provision of Standing Order 26. When a motion of this sort is moved on a Wednesday we sit at eight o'clock.

Topic:   ALLEGED PARALYSIS OF WHEAT MOVEMENT THROUGH VANCOUVER-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Permalink

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

LIB

Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 35, 36, 40 and 53?

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

NOISE LEVELS, TORONTO AIRPORT EXPANSION Motion No. 35-Mr. Diefenbaker:

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any maps and diagrams in the possession of tile

Motions for Papers

Department of Transport which show what changes will result in noise levels in the surrounding inhabited areas should plans for the expansion of Toronto International Airport be carried out.

Topic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government. I think it should be pointed out, however, that the sketch desired by the right hon. gentleman refers to the major expansion proposed for Toronto International Airport in the Parkin report, and in that respect is no longer relevant. But as I say, the motion is acceptable.

Topic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink

January 22, 1969