1. How many employees in the Research Scientist classification were on strength in (a) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (b) Department of Forestry and Rural Development (c) Department of Agriculture, on April 1, 1967?

2. Are these Research Scientists subject to an annual salary review on the basis of merit and scientific productivity?

3. What percentage of the Research Scientists in each of these three departments received salary increments with effect from April 1, 1967?

4. Were such increments awarded solely on the basis of merit and scientific productivity?

5. What percentage of the Research Scientists in each of the three Departments did not receive an annual increment with effect from April 1, 1967?

6. Why did the Research Scientists referred to in Part 4 not receive an annual increment with effect from April 1, 1967?

7. What percentage of Research Scientists in each of the three Departments receive salary increments with effect from April 1, 1967, of $500 per annum or over?

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

Insofar as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. (a) 388; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable.

2. Yes.

3. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-64.8 per cent.

4. Yes.

5. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-35.2 per cent.

6. Their relative salary positions in relation to research scientists in other departments in the government service, based on

an assessment of productivity, did not indicate that an increase was supportable at that time.

7. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-17 per cent.

Insofar as the Department of Forestry and Rural Development is concerned: 1. 237.

2. Yes.

3. 84.4 per cent.*

4. Yes.

5. 15.6 per cent.

6. Research scientists not receiving an increment in 1967 were judged to have insufficient productivity to warrant a merit increment.

7. 19 per cent.

* Includes 14 persons promoted into the research scientist class from other professional classes, retroactive to April 1, 1967; all such persons received a salary increase on promotion.

Insofar as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: 1. (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) 682.

2. Yes.

3. Approximately 99 per cent.

4. Yes.

5. Approximately 1 per cent.

6. 8 research scientists failed to receive an annual increment on April 1, 1967. The reasons were: lack of merit; at top of grade; leave of absence without pay; retirement leave.

7. Approximately 33J per cent.

1. What Is the number of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation staff employed in the following cities: New York, London, Paris, Washington?

2. Of these, how many are news or broadcasting personnel, how many are technical staff such as cameramen, and how many are administrative and secretarial staff?

3. In each of these cities, are the heads of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Bureaus, members of the administrative or broadcasting or news sections of the staff?

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:

1. New York, 10 including 5 hired locally; London, 24 including 16 hired locally; Paris, 23 including 18 hired locally; Washington, 6 including 2 hired locally.

March 4, 1968

2. New York, Broadcasting personnel-6; Technical staff-Nil; Administrative staff-4. London, Broadcasting personnel-13; Technical staff-4; Administrative staff-7. Paris, Broadcasting personnel-9; Technical staff- 5; Administrative staff-9. Washington, Broadcasting personnel-4; Technical staff- Nil; Administrative staff-2.

3. In New York, London and Paris the heads of bureaus, or C.B.C. representatives, as they are called, are administrative staff, as is the case in other broadcasting organizations. The Washington bureau is a branch of the New York office, and is administered by New York.

1. Have Canadians attended plenary meetings of the Inter-American Indian Institute?

2. If so, at what times and who were the personnel in attendance?

3. Is it the intention of Canada to join the InterAmerican Indian Institute?

4. What Canadian organizations or individuals have urged such a course of action?

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

1. Yes.

2. The 1949 congress in Cuzco, Peru, was attended by the secretary of the Canadian embassy in Peru, and the 1964 congress in Quito, Ecuador, was attended by the director of Indian Affairs and the director of citizenship, of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

3. This question is still under consideration.

4. In addition to a few individual requests the following organizations have urged Canadian membership: Indian Eskimo Association of Canada; National Indian Council; Canadian Indian Youth Council; Miss Indian Canada Pageant.

1. Has the Government of Canada held discussions with the Government of Newfoundland regarding construction of a tunnel under the Strait of Belle Isle?

2. Does the Government of Canada intend to participate in this project and, if so, to what extent?

27053-454J

Questions

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.

2. Not applicable.

1. Has the Government of Canada held discussions with the Government of Nova Scotia regarding nationalization of the Dosco steel works?

2. If so, what have these discussions involved?

3. Have any undertakings been made by the Government of Canada in this connection and, if so, what are they?

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):

I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not applicable.

1. What are the appropriate standards of competence in the two official languages required by the Public Service Commission prior to qualification of a public servant to receive a seven per cent bonus?

2. What examinations or other tests are held to assure (i) attainment (ii) continued retention, of such appropriate standards?

3. What audit or other supervision is conducted by the Public Service Commission of certificates which may be given by Deputy Heads of compliance with required conditions?

4. In how many instances, if any, by departments, has the Public Service Commission disagreed with the certificate of a Deputy Head and with what result?

5. What amount of use of a second official language is required for qualification for bonus?

6. What audit or other supervision is conducted by the Public Service Commission to ensure the actual continuance of such minimum use of a second official language?

7. Has the payment of the bonus been cancelled in any instances for lack of continuance of minimum use of a second official language and, if so, in how many instances?

8. Of the 1,780 persons shown in the answer to question No. 784 as receiving the seven per cent bonus, how many, by departments, are persons whose (a) mother tongue is English and are paid the bonus for competence in the French language (b) mother tongue is French and are paid the bonus for competence in the English language?

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. (a) An

March 4, 1968

Questions

employee is deemed to meet the appropriate standard of competence in the two official languages if, at the time of appointment, the essential qualifications included a knowledge of both official languages and he or she had been tested by the Public Service Commission and found to meet this requirement, (b) In all other cases employees are required to submit to a test of competence by the Public Service Commission in the other official language in order to qualify for the differential.

2. (i) (a) Candidates at all levels are required to take or have taken a standard typing test in both official languages at a minimum speed of 35 words per minute with a high degree of accuracy, (b) Stenographers and junior secretaries (St 3, 4 and 5) are required to pass or have passed a shorthand test in both official languages, three minutes in length, at 80 words a minute, (c) Senior secretaries (St 6, 7 and 8) establish competency through a typing test and the certification by the department that they actually compose, type and sign a variety of correspondence and memoranda in both official languages, and have frequent contacts with senior persons outside and inside the Service which require verbal skills in these languages. (ii) No employee, who has qualified by examination for appointment to a position, is given a later test by the commission to determine that he has retained the skills he possessed upon appointment to that position. Therefore, once it has been established that an employee is eligible to receive the bilingual bonus, no further examination or test is given by the commission.

3. The employing department is in the best position to know the extent to which one of its employees is required to use and is actually using a second official language. Once the commission is satisfied that the employee meets the appropriate standards of competence, no audit or other supervision is carried out.

4. See answer to No. 3.

5. The minimum amount of use of a second official language required for qualification for the bonus is 10 per cent of the employee's time in the performance of his or her duties.

6. As this responsibility rests with the deputy head, the Public Service Commission conducts no audit or supervision to ensure the actual continuance of the minimum use

of the second official language. However, departments have been requested to review the situation at periodic intervals.

7. The Public Service Commission records do not provide this information. There have been, however, 97 cases in which the allowance was terminated. Termination of the bonus may result because (a) an employee moves from a position requiring the use of the second official language to another which does not; (b) an employee moves to another category in which the bonus is not paid; (c) an employee leaves the service; and (d) an employee fails to continue the minimum use of the second official language.

8. This information is not available.