1960-03-24

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE  CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fifth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1959 of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, auditor's reports to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, the budget for 1960 of the Canadian National Railways, the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1959, the auditor's report to parliament on Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1959, tabled this day, and the budget for 1960 of Trans-Canada Air Lines tabled on March 1, 1960, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping; and that items numbered 420-Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit 1960, 421-Newfoundland ferry and terminals deficit 1960, and 429-Maritime Freight Rates Act, as listed in the main estimates of 1960-61, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the said committee, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister
resumes his seat could I ask him a question. Would the minister say whether the budget for 1960 of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited is included?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think even
the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows that question is nonsense.


Mr. Pearson:: Meaning that the hon. gentleman cannot answer it?


George Harris Hees: The hon. gentleman does not have to answer nonsense.
79951-0-150


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is the following. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the motion passes, I should like to remind hon. members who may have forgotten that last year the minister asked the leave of the house to amend his motion to include the budget of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. Apparently at that time he did not think it was nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the radio news report that there was a loud explosion over Montreal at two o'clock this morning caused by two United States jet planes passing through the sound barrier, breaking windows and alarming Montreal residents, can the minister inform the house whether or not these planes were given permission to carry out this annoying and disastrous exercise over Canadian territory?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question which I received just before coming into the house. I should like also to mention that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) had a similar question.
I have received complaints during this morning from various residents of Montreal, but I have not received any reports of damage done. Apparently an air defence exercise was being carried out to test electronic countermeasures of the warning system. I have asked for a full report as to the occurrence and the reasons for the breaking of the sound barrier in the vicinity of a metropolitan area. Apparently the pilot did not realize, owing to the overcast nature of the weather, that he was over Montreal, nor did he know when he was making a quick descent that he was breaking the sound barrier.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Instances of a similar nature have been reported previously in other areas and steps are being taken to explore means and procedures to prevent their recurrence. I sincerely regret the annoyance which has been caused to the residents of Montreal.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked the minister if the planes in question had permission to undertake this exercise. I take it that they had permission. Is the minister now giving Canadians the assurance that this occurrence will not be repeated?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I said, I am investigating ways and means of preventing a recurrence. I have had an investigation going on for some weeks already.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is to say, the planes had the permission of the Canadian government?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Randolph Pearkes: It was a duly authorized flight.


Hon. Paul Hellyer:: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the minister say that these planes which had caused the sonic booms over Montreal were F-101 planes? Were they flying from United States bases? The third part of my question is this. Is this plane now under consideration by the government as a replacement for our air defence squadrons?


George Randolph Pearkes: This is a rather involved question. In the first place I did not say it was an F-101, but I understand it was. I understand the aircraft came from a United States base in the northeastern states.
Regarding the third question which was asked, I would ask the hon. member to repeat it; it was so mixed up with the others that it did not seem related.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the F-101 being evaluated by the R.C.A.F. or the government as a possible replacement for our nine air defence squadrons, or some of them?


George Randolph Pearkes: The R.C.A.F. continue to evaluate aircraft, but there has been no decision to replace the CF-100 with the F-101 or any other plane.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question: Has there been a decision not to?


George Randolph Pearkes: I said no decision had been taken to replace them.



INQUIRY AS TO THE PRODUCTION OF NERVE GASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to comment on the statement in the Financial Post of March 26, attributed to James M. Minifie, in which it states that Canada is producing nerve gases which are perhaps even more deadly than H-bombs?


George Randolph Pearkes: I really could not say whether Canada is producing this gas or not. I know there is a defensive chemical warfare investigation establishment at Suffield in Alberta. I do not think they are experimenting with nerve gases which are more deadly than H-bombs.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the minister's assurance on other occasions that such a thing was not happening, I would ask him to make a thorough inquiry also, in the light of the fact that such production is prohibited by the 1925 Geneva protocol.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can assure the hon. member that we should not go against that protocol.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Prafi (Jacques Cariier-Lasalle):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a telegram from Mr. George Mooney, executive director of the federation of mayors and municipalities, in which he requests, on behalf of the federation, to have the municipal winter works program extended from the end of April to the end of May, in order that the municipalities may have an opportunity to conclude their programs of winter work? If so, has the government given any consideration to this request?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have received such a telegram. I have submitted this request to the government and, after careful consideration, it has been decided to accept this suggestion. An announcement of this extension to the end of May will be made this afternoon by telegram to all the provinces.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister now give the figures we asked

for yesterday which will have a bearing on the importance of acting on a request that was made in this house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)?


Michael Starr: Yes. The figures asked for by the hon. member for Essex East are as follows: active claimants, the latest figure, 783,686; unplaced applicants, latest figure, 827,512.


Mr. Renidickson:: What date?


Michael Starr: For which one?


William Moore Benidickson: Each one.


Michael Starr: Active claimants, February 29; unplaced applicants, March 10.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether any progress has been made in the setting up of a committee to determine more realistic measures with regard to figures on unemployment in Canada today?


Michael Starr: Yes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and I have set up a committee which consists of the following persons: A. H. Brown, deputy minister of labour, as chairman; Walter E. Duffett, dominion statistician, dominion bureau of statistics; Simon A. Goldberg, assistant dominion statistician, dominion bureau of statistics; V. J. Macklin, director, economics branch, Department of Trade and Commerce; James McGregor, director, unemployment insurance; W. Thomson, director, national employment service, unemployment insurance commission; G. V. Haythorne, assistant deputy minister of labour; W. R. Dymond, director, economics and research branch, Department of Labour; and G. Schonning, chief, employment and labour market division, economics and research branch, Department of Labour.


An hon. Member:: Not Paul Martin?


Michael Starr: This committee is established with the following terms of reference: (1) to consider the most appropriate basis for an official national measure of unemployment in Canada and to recommend accordingly; (2) to review the adequacy of existing statistics for this purpose; and (3) consequent thereon, to consider changes required in the joint Department of Labour-dominion bureau of statistics monthly employment release. The committee is requested to submit its report to the undersigned ministers-that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself- as soon as reasonably possible.
79951-0-150J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Will the minister explain how the government is only now announcing the appointment of this committee, when, in the face of the urgency facing the country in terms of unemployment a request for such action was made sometime ago and the minister announced several weeks ago his intention to establish this body?


Michael Starr: The body mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East was established last week. It met yesterday in their first meeting. I am sorry that consideration could not be given to including the hon. member for Essex East on this committee.


George Harris Hees: And we will not use his figures.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that his department's only pamphlet on diabetes is now out of print in the French version; and can he say whether any steps are being taken to remedy the situation?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My attention was called to this matter recently and I find that stocks of both the English and the French versions are exhausted. With the end of the fiscal year approaching it was not possible to reprint these immediately, but the question of producing a fresh supply, with or without revision, in both French and English, is under consideration.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a press dispatch attributed to that very alert gallery scribe, Mr. Bruce Phillips, bearing yesterday's date, from Ottawa. Mr. Phillips writes:
Rapid agreement on Columbia river development is expected following hush-hush talks here Monday between Canadian and United States negotiators.
"We're getting an agreement, and we're getting it damned quick," said an official.
Then later the dispatch goes on:
They were clothed in the strictest secrecy, and cabinet ministers refused to comment on the substance of the discussions.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Unofficial and unconfirmed reports say the United States came up to tell the Canadians it is willing to drop its demands for the Libby dam on the lower Kootenay river in Montana.
This dam-


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it was on Friday last week that we had quite a discussion in this house on a point of order which certainly seems to me on all fours with the point which arises at once as a result of the method being followed by the hon. gentleman in asking his question. He is reading a newspaper report of comments reported to have been made by persons outside the house, and I anticipate that he will ask a minister for comment on that statement.
The point of order X raised last week was that this was improper, that it was not permitted by our rules. If an hon. member has a question to ask he should ask his question and take responsibility for the statement he makes or the basis upon which he rests his question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite true the point was taken on a question introduced in a similar way, and I have been giving rather careful review to the practice of this house with respect to the use of newspaper reports, which review I have not yet completed. But I am not satisfied at this present time that newspaper accounts have not been and cannot be used as a foundation for a question I think the hon. member goes too far in reading long statements, as he has. Surely he needs only to refer to the report in order to found his question, which is presumably a question to ask for information, rather than to read lengthy reports which obviously give information, and give information which may be quite unnecessary to his question. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question and we shall see whether it is in order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question and started to read this report I was aware of the fact that you had not yet made your decision. The Minister of Justice having satisfied his ego, I shall now ask my question.
Were secret talks held in Ottawa last Monday, and is there any substance to this report or would the minister care to comment?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the first question that the hon. member asks is in order, but I think the last two are not in accordance with our practice. The second one is the simple question: "Is the report which I have read true or not true?" It has always been decided, where issue was taken, that that is not a
[Mr. Herridge.)

proper way of putting a question, to read a newspaper report and ask for verification of its truth.
The third question asks for the expression of an opinion on the report, and that is one of the rather difficult issues which has been raised by the point taken by the Minister of Justice. I think if the hon. member would limit himself to his first question, that is, as to whether there has been such a meeting, we might deal with the other one later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do my best on behalf of the country. Was such a meeting held, and has the United States given up its demands for the Libby dam? Is consideration being given to the building of the Mica creek dam and the dam at the lower Arrow lakes?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should answer this question, inasmuch as I am the chairman of the Canadian delegation which has met with the United States delegation on several occasions.
The answer to the question is that it would not be in the public interest at this stage to report on the progress of these talks. It has been well understood, and it is still the intention, that when the talks are concluded and there is something to report a full report will be made to this house and the fullest opportunity for discussion will then be given. While these talks are still in progress it would not be in the public interest, in my view, to comment in detail on what is being discussed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any comment to make on the attack made yesterday by Premier Frost of Ontario on what he called Canada's premium dollar policy and on his advice that the federal government should throw away some of the economic books and get down to common sense?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the

minister say if, as reported in La Presse yesterday, permission was refused for the holding of a religious service after working hours in the Department of National Revenue building, Youville square, Montreal. If so, would the minister inform the house if such a refusal was decided on by the minister or by the cabinet?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: My attention was drawn this morning to a story which appeared in La Presse yesterday. As a matter of fact, it was called to my attention last night by the representative of La Presse in Ottawa. My recollection of the circumstances is that some time last week the deputy minister informed me that there had been discussions going on with regard to this matter between the collectors of customs at Montreal and a representative of the cardinal. The deputy minister informed me that the policy throughout the years had been that government buildings should not be used for denominational purposes. I recalled at that time that there had been a decision by the cabinet last year with regard to an application by a Protestant organization to conduct a religious service on parliament hill. As it was to be a denominational one, permission was refused. I suggested to the deputy minister that the policy which had been carried on, as he said, throughout the years, should be maintained, and he advised me afterward that a satisfactory discussion had taken place between the cardinal's representative and the collector as a result of which an arrangement was made for the cardinal to call upon the collector and senior officers and after office hours they moved to a nearby church where a mass was said.
I am certainly very glad to see customs house officers getting religious instruction whenever possible because I am sure they need it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General? Has the Postmaster General, for once, any recent mail robbery to report to the house?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: As is the case on the great majority of days, I am very glad to report that I have none.


Azellus Denis: Is the Postmaster General aware that recently in Thurso, Quebec a few miles from here, an attempted robbery occurred. Though it did not succeed, the attempt was
Inquiries of the Ministry made. Would the Postmaster General, if he has nothing to do-


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that the administrative responsibility of the Postmaster General is to report on those robberies which have been prevented, not on those which have succeeded.



NATIONAL HOCKEY PLAY-OFFS    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR COMPLETE TELEVISION COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday, the hon. member for Renfrew South asked me a question with respect to the possibility of having complete hockey play-off games televised by the C.B.C. rather than only the last two periods now contemplated. I am very glad to advise the hon. gentleman and the house that the corporation, as always attempting to please, has arranged to televise all the final games from the opening face-off to the end.
Also, the corporation, with its well-known desire to economize, has arranged, in so far as the semi-finals are concerned, that they will be telecast generally from the start of the second period to conclusion. This will allow the C.B.C. to observe certain commitments and to provide a good share of its regular programming for those who may not appreciate hockey games all the time. Should a seventh game be necessary in either of the semi-finals, it will be telecast in its entirety.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On March 22 the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me a question with respect to the policy of the C.B.C. in buying sports events for telecasting. I am informed by the corporation that its policy is to bid for the rights to sports events as and when this is necessary as a public service. The corporation does not now compete for the purchase of rights when it can adequately serve the public through other arrangements. Consequently, it does not believe its policy is in conflict with the recommendation of the 1959 special committee on broadcasting.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be visiting President Eisenhower shortly will our Prime Minister indicate whether any invitation has been extended to Mr. Macmillan to visit here so that we may be honoured with a visit from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister
Macmillan will be in Washington the day after tomorrow for discussions with the President of the United States. I communicated with him and advised him that if it were possible for him to include Ottawa in his visit to North America he would be most welcome, as always. He advised me that the circumstances were such and the time available to him was so short that it was with regret it would be impossible for him on this occasion to visit with us.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the establishment of the urban military housing project in North Bay be dependent in any way upon the success or failure of the Bomarc missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: Very probably, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that there is at least one member on the other side who shares my hopes that the Bomarc B will prove a success.



NEW ZEALAND


[Stage Direction]
,	AGREEMENT
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government given any consideration to entering into a new trade pact with the government of New Zealand covering new commodities not now included in the 1932 agreement, as suggested by Mr. Morrell of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and reported by the Canadian Press recently?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: We have had a very satisfactory trade arrangement with New Zealand over the years and we are prepared to discuss any method of improving those relations.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the remarks he just made, and to ask him now whether the government intends to enter into negotiations with the government of New Zealand, with a view to entering into a new trade pact with that country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is quite a possibility, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he is yet in position to table the correspondence regarding flood control on the Red river? Perhaps he has tabled it today? If not, when does he expect to table it?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I inquired into this the other day and I expect it to be ready for tomorrow.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Is the
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources still sponsoring the 1960 conservation conference? If so, what are the date, the place and the scope of the conference?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; the objective is to have this conference some time toward the end of 1960 or very early in 1961. There have been two meetings of the steering committee; that is, of the 11 governments. A subcommittee on policy has been set up, composed of five provinces. It meets on April 27, next month. In addition, there is a series of six meetings on specific resources across the country. Of those six meetings, two have been held.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $603,488,902.52, being the aggregate of (a) one sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $593,558,978.34;	(b) seven
twelfths of the amount of item 212 of the said estimates, $904,166.67; (c) one third of the amount of item 36 of the said estimates, $216,666.67; (d) one sixth of the total of the amounts of items 176, 183 and 184 of the said estimates, $615,247.00; (e) one twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 62, 263, 367, 394, 460 and 463 of the said estimates, $8,193,843.84; be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961.
He said: Mr. Chairman, this resolution asks the house to make provision for two months interim supply in the new fiscal year 1960-61, to make provision for the needs of government for the months of April and May. The resolution asks for the equivalent of one sixth of all items in the main estimates be granted, and also certain additional fractions of 11 named items be granted. With respect to each of these 11 items there are common features in the sense that these relate to programs which do not work out evenly month by month throughout the year. In every case the program involves additional expenditure in the early part of the year. That, in each case, is the reason for asking an additional fraction of each of these 11 items. In no case will the additional fraction involve the commitment of the entire item.
I give the committee the usual assurance that the passage of this resolution and the bill to be founded upon it will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any items in the estimates when these are reached for consideration in the committee of supply in due course and such rights and privileges of hon. members will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure. I may say that the bill to follow is in the usual form of interim supply bills as passed at the last session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have had during the present session of parliament some discussion on unemployment. Some hon. members sitting opposite have felt that too much discussion on this subject has taken place during the present session. However, whatever may have been the views of some hon. gentlemen with regard to this serious problem in our country, little doubt can now exist as to the propriety of the former discussion and the justification for projecting this question once again on the floor of this chamber particularly in the light of the release yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the figures on employment in Canada during the month of February.
From that release we learned that the unemployment situation continues to become more and more serious. We learned that the
Interim Supply
number of persons with jobs was estimated to be 5,663,000 in February, down 36,000 from the previous month, January, 1960. We know that almost three quarters of the decline, was in agriculture. Nevertheless there was a non-farm employment decrease by 10,000 to an estimated 5,095,000.
We are further told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who reports for the bureau of statistics that the number of persons without jobs and seeking work was estimated to be 555,000 in February, 51,000 more than in the previous month of January. We are told that most of this increase occurred in the province of Quebec. We are also told that the number of job seekers represented 8.9 per cent of the labour force compared to 8.8 per cent in February of 1959 and 9.4 per cent in February of 1958. We are told, in addition, that the workers on temporary lay-off were estimated to number 43,000, about the same as the month before, and 10,000 more than a year earlier.
The release of the minister also indicates that employment declined more than seasonally in the Quebec region between January and February, that employment in Ontario decreased by an estimated 10,000 between January and February, just about usual for this time of the year, that employment in the prairie regions declined between January and February, a decrease of 5,000 from the estimate of persons with jobs of
986,000	or 11,000 higher than a year earlier, and that in the Pacific region an end of the seasonal employment decline was apparent.
We are therefore face to face with the fact that on the lowest figure available, 555,000 persons in Canada are designated as being without work. In the previous release for the month of January the figure was 504,000. Hon. members will want to compare these figures which are referred to in table No. 1 of the release with the figure of 537,000 for February 21, 1959, the corresponding period in the year before the present one. In other words, the increase in this particular period as compared with the previous month a year ago is 18,000 and the total number of men out of work as compared with January, as I indicated, is 55,000 more.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. I have been following the hon. gentleman in what he has to say. I take it that he is embarking on a speech on unemployment. Whether he is raising this under the guise of a grievance is not clear but it seems to me that it must be quite obvious now that the hon. gentleman is treating the present proceeding as the equivalent of a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply, the kind of motion

Interim Supply
we had the first two days of this week which affords hon. members an opportunity of airing grievances in the house. But this is not that proceeding. We are now in committee of supply. We are here not on a specific item but on a resolution contemplating a vote of interim supply, a fraction of all the items in the estimates.
It is because of this situation that it has been customary over the years for the Minister of Finance to give the committee the assurance I gave this afternoon. All hon. members are well aware that the provision of interim supply will not abridge the right of any hon. member to raise any question on any item that is properly relevant to that item when it is reached in due course in the annual review of the estimates in the committee of supply.
With respect, it seems to me this is not a proper use to make of the present proceeding. This certainly has not been customary in the past. These motions over the years with few exceptions have gone through in a matter of just a few minutes, sometimes with hardly a mention.
I raise the point because if it is in order for an hon. member to embark on a speech on unemployment it is equally open to him or to any other hon. member, I suppose, to embark on a speech on any subject at this time and that would mean just a duplication of the debate that the rules provide for being held under proper circumstances when the items are called seriatim in due course. There is little point in a minister when introducing such a resolution giving such an undertaking to the committee if some hon. members are simply going to go ahead and debate items. I suggest that the hon. member is proceeding as though this were a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. It is clearly not that kind of proceeding. I do urge, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member confine himself to matters that are relevant to the resolution, and that are within the practice of this house on such proceedings, that is where we are in committee of supply on the resolution to provide interim supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on the point of order raised by the minister. I would draw Your Honour's attention first of all to the fact that on March 29, 1957, I believe the last time Mr. Harris asked for interim supply, the present Minister of Finance spoke long enough to cover six pages of Hansard, which I think perhaps is the most eloquent possible reply to the argument the minister has just made. On that same day, Mr. Knight spoke; Mr. Knowles spoke; Mr. Stewart spoke;
fMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]
Mr. Hees spoke; Mr. Hamilton, the present Postmaster General, spoke; and the present Prime Minister also spoke. There is no record of any exception having been taken by Mr. Harris who was the leader of the house and minister of finance and who, perhaps, knew a great deal more about the rules than any person sitting in this house at the present time.
Moreover, I should also draw your attention, sir, to the fact that on June 11 and June 22, 1956, there were also debates on interim supply. There was a considerable debate that took place on June 22 on a subject very closely related to the subject which was then before the house. I am sure the minister will have some recollection of a debate on pipe lines.
What is really all but outrageous in the minister's point of order is this: Here is the Minister of Finance, Her Majesty's minister, coming here and asking for supply. As you know, sir, the most ancient of the rights of the commons is the right to grant or to refuse supply. Here is the minister, a suppliant, telling those of us who may or may not grant his request that we have no right to talk about it.


The Chairman:: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is not speaking to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: I sincerely believe he is not. Because the minister has raised that point, it does not change the rules of the house and I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to stick to the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall do my utmost, but I was pointing out that what is before the house is a request for interim supply, and that nothing will be found in the rules to curtail the rights of hon. members to speak on such a motion, any more than is the case on any other request for supply.
I admit, sir, that it has been customary, when there was a particular grievance that could otherwise be conveniently aired, not to speak on this motion. I do not think anyone would argue that. Ordinarily, common sense would indicate this was a desirable practice, habitually. I would go that far with the minister. I want to be reasonable. But this is a very exceptional situation. We had information brought into the house yesterday, information which cannot be debated on the very next item that is to be called, supplementary estimates, so the only convenient opportunity that anyone can see for this debate is at the present time, regardless of what the subject might be so long as it is within the administrative competence of the

government. So long as there is any grievance involved I submit that we are quite in order in airing that grievance before supply is voted. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Essex East will have no difficulty whatever in convincing you, sir, he has a grievance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the Minister of Finance raising a point of order at this time. As has been pointed out already, very ably, this is a question of granting supply to Her Majesty. It is a well known and fundamental right of members of parliament to control supply and to speak on the subject or subjects for which it is being voted. The fact that the minister says to the House of Commons that the passage of this item does not breach the rights of hon. members to raise questions at a later date has nothing to do with the fundamental right of members to control votes of money, including interim supply.
The minister says that if this course were followed of speaking on this matter it would be a substitute for the grievance procedure. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked to vote one sixth of each item in the estimates, and if we have to vote money for the items that are in the estimates, surely it is in order to make these comments at this time. I would point out, too, that this is no routine motion; this is no trivial motion. We are being asked to vote $603,488,902.52. On the basis of the historic rights of members of parliament, on the basis of the practice, namely of raising questions on these various items when members have seen fit, I think it is absolutely impossible for Your Honour to contemplate a ruling which would gag the House of Commons and which would be a closure procedure. The minister himself, in the past, has exercised his fundamental right of free speech on these votes, and I claim for members in the opposition today the same rights that have been exercised by the minister on former occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I
am obliged to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate for making reference to the discussions on the voting of interim supply in March, 1957 because it gives me an opportunity to remind him, and to remind hon. members, that at that time we were on the eve of dissolution prior to a general election and the minister of finance was in no position to give assurance to anybody that his rights would be preserved. As a matter of fact, that parliament did not vote the final supply for that year at all. It simply voted interim supply designed to carry on the business of the government pending the election over the 79951-0-151
Interim. Supply
summer until early fall. The situation, therefore, was completely different. That was the last opportunity hon. members in the house had, indeed, their final opportunity to discuss supply, because there was to be no review or voting of the items of supply in the committee of supply in the ordinary way, and that was the reason there was a discussion at that time.


Mr. Winch:: If the minister uses that
reference, does that mean he is contemplating an election after this interim supply? If not, his argument has no basis in fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the six pages the minister took in 1957?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the rules of the house?


Mr. Creslohl:: Certainly a point of order raised in this house should be based on a standing order of the house or on some precedent. There is no standing order of the house that would' interfere with a debate on this point. If there is, will the minister tell us about it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would point to the long standing practice of this house which went on for years and years, until hon. members reversed themselves and crossed over to that side and then they began discussion on interim supply motions as though they were motions resolving the house into committee of supply. I am asking that in your consideration of this question, Mr. Chairman, you do pay attention to the fact that this is not a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. It is on that kind of motion that the time-honoured right of the house is exercised to raise grievances. This is not that proceeding at all. We are now in committee of supply. This is quite a different situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I seek to justify the course which I have taken and which was so ably defended by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Cartier was certainly in full possession of his rights when he asked the minister to indicate what rule in the standing orders or what citation in Beauchesne or in any other authority warranted the minister in making the sweeping generalizations he made, particularly in view of the fact that he himself is the embodiment of one of the strong precedents for the very course I have taken today. The Minister of Finance nods his head.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shook my head.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, a nodding of the head is not in any way a valid

Interim Supply
argument, as the minister so well knows. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, the Minister of Finance, the present Prime Minister and others did take advantage of a motion to go into interim supply in order to air grievances. What the minister should have done is to refer to the rules. Citation 234 of Beauchesne is quite explicit on the point. As the hon. member for Assiniboia has pointed out, what the Minister of Finance is asking us to do is to vote him the sum of $603,488,902.52. Yet the minister says that he is not asking us to vote supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister distinguishes by saying that this is a request to go into interim supply. It does not matter whether or not it is interim. The fact is that this is a motion to go into supply.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Read the citation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance and his erudite parliamentary secretary who make their contribution with interjections while sitting down would perhaps profit by reading citation 234.


Richard Albert Bell: Read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It states as follows:
The ancient doctrine-
And it is an ancient doctrine that when the crown asks for money, it is the privilege of the representatives of the people to air grievances as we are doing today and as my hon. friend did on the occasions referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Citation 234 reads as follows:
234. The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada
(1) Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" must be proposed, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as provided by standing orders 56 and 58. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion-


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman contain himself or ask a question?


Richard Albert Bell: Is it not clear from the citation read by the hon. member that the motion which may be discussed is that the Speaker do now leave the chair? The

Speaker has left the chair and the chairman of committees is in the chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is simply saying something that any hon. member with eyes can see.


Richard Albert Bell: Except, of course, the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He really does not address himself to the point at issue. The citation states:
-it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed-
And so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is completely irrelevant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, today we were given a report by the government that indicates the seriousness of the unemployment problem in Canada. I do not know of any question which warrants discussion at this time and under this procedure with greater justification than does this one. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that you do not take seriously the intervention of the Minister of Finance and that I may proceed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure it is quite unnecessary for me to point out that the citation read by the hon. member for Essex East has no bearing whatever upon the present situation. It applies, of course, to a motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply or into committee of ways and means. That is the point on which I distinguish the practice which the hon. member is seeking to set up now from what is the proper course now that we are in committee of supply. The citation has no bearing whatsoever on the situation in which we now find ourselves in committee of supply with the chairman of committees in the chair.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry that I am not in the position to quote any citations or references. However, I am just going to ask the chairman, in considering the matter which is now before us, to consider it on the basis that we are being asked of necessity by the Minister of Finance for the granting of interim supply. Irrespective of the amount, although it is a very high amount-it is one sixth of the entire estimates-of necessity that is the amount the minister is obliged to bring in. But it involves every department and every expenditure of government. I cannot oiler citations and references, but strictly on the

basis of a democratic parliament, I cannot conceive of the Minister of Finance, having said so much about democracy and the rights of parliament, telling us that parliament must accept that without discussion or right to speak on all phases of the expenditures. It has-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what I said at all.


Harold Edward Winch: It has always been our right to discuss all estimates under the interim supply motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what I said at all.


Jacques Flynn: I must say first that the standing orders, Beauchesne or May, are not really specific on the point of order. However, I will draw the attention of the committee first of all to rule 59(2) which states as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
In respect of the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East and citation 234 from Beauchesne, I will draw his attention to rule 56(1) which states as follows:
On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without question put-
Grievances can be raised before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair.


Murdo William Martin: Oh, no.


Jacques Flynn: If I understand rightly the system of the six supply motions which are provided for in the rules, these are exactly the six special occasions on which grievances may be raised. It seems to me that it is a general rule that we can draw from the practice and tradition of the House of Commons of Canada and of the British parliament that there should be in general no repetition of debates, that only matters may be discussed which the several occasions provide for and when they do. If I were to accept the view of the hon. member for Essex East, I can hardly see where we could draw the line between the debate on which we seem to be embarking and the budget debate. It would be as wide and it could even take more time than the budget debate which, by the rules, is limited to eight days.
I do not wish to draw any definite line as to what can and cannot be discussed at this stage. But I would certainly think that when we are considering interim supply the most important question would be whether or not these supplies should be granted. Of course, if there is any reference to the policies of 79951-0-1511
Interim Supply
the government in order not to vote the supply, I would think that general reference can be made. But I think the hon. member for Essex East was going into too much detail on the question of unemployment, because if I were to let him discuss this item, anybody could choose any item of the administration and we would never finish.
May I also point out to the committee that opportunities have offered themselves up to now for discussion of the question of unemployment, and we shall also have occasion to discuss it when the budget debate starts and when the estimates of the Department of Labour are before the committee of supply.
Therefore, I do not feel that I deprive any hon. member of his right to discuss this question in ruling that I consider out of order at that time references in detail to the unemployment situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to a situation which is almost exactly parallel to the one we find ourselves in now and which must be very much in the mind of the Minister of Finance because he was present and took part in the debate. I refer to Hansard for June 22, 1956, pages 5288 and following. The leader of the opposition of that time, Mr. Drew, on a motion for interim supply which aroused some discussion, is reported as having said:
Mr. Chairman, every subject which can be dealt with by this parliament can now be properly dealt with on the motion for interim supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That view was not upheld.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That view was upheld by the chairman of that day, and Mr. Drew went on to talk about the position of the Speaker of that time and everything else under the sun. He was followed by Mr. Hees, Mr. Dins-dale and Mr. Diefenbaker, and their remarks extended for some 15 or 20 pages in Hansard. No one on the government side at that time questioned their right to do that.


Jacques Flynn: Was there a ruling made at that time by the Chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was a ruling made, and Mr. Drew was permitted to proceed.


Jacques Flynn: But in what terms was the ruling made? I do not consider, if debate occurred on a previous occasion but no ruling was made, that this is a precedent which would tie us at this time, because silence in such case is, to me, not very helpful.


William Moore Benidickson: May I speak to the point of order?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it is probably the best established rule in British parliamentary tradition that members have the right

Interim Supply
to discuss supply and the granting of a supply to Her Majesty. This is what we are doing-


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Hazen Robert Argue: I am speaking on a point of order and there cannot be two points of order at the same time.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am hearing the hon. member for Assiniboia on the point of order, and I will hear the hon. member afterwards if he has a point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that this was probably the best established right of the House of Commons in its parliamentary tradition, namely the right to debate and consider the question of granting a supply to Her Majesty. I would think it would be a very sad day in our democratic society when any move was made to curtail the breadth of discussion and the application of this fundamental democratic ruling.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the statement you yourself have made, I suggest that in the absence of rules that is the very best argument there is and that in this case there cannot be any ruling made by Your Honour which would restrict debate.
You have brought forward two propositions, two rules, which should apply in this debate, and with those rules I agree, namely that speeches should be relevant. They should be relevant to one sixth of the items raised in the estimates. The sum of $600 million is the item which is dealing with countless subjects in the estimates, and therefore to be relevant one must only relate one's remarks to a sum of money and an item for which the government is asking parliament for its approval.
Mr. Chairman, you have said that there should be no repetition of debate. That is a correct and a proper ruling, but that certainly does not mean that once parliament has had a debate on a given subject in a given session, it can no longer debate that subject. In my opinion, that is not what that rule means at all. It means that a member cannot repeat the words of a previous debate, that he cannot quote from previous debates, and that he certainly is not allowed to repeat at this time a speech that he has made on a former occasion. The fact that we have had one discussion on the question of unemployment, which arose because of a unanimous consent of the house to broaden the discussion of this particular item, I suggest does not make any statement today on the question of unemployment when discussing these new estimates fall within the rule that there cannot be repetition in debate. If the hon. member for Essex East proceeded at this time to pick

up a manuscript of a speech that he had already made in this session, it would be a case of repetition and Your Honour would very properly rule him out of order. But to say that one-sixth of the item for the winter works program makes it impossible for us to discuss winter works is certainly, I suggest, a travesty of the rules which could not be tolerated.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, the point I tried to raise before was that you have already given a ruling from the Chair.


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask if a ruling has been made from the Chair?


Jacques Flynn: I think it is obvious that the Chair had made a ruling, but I gave permission to the hon. member for Assiniboia to discuss the point further if he so wished, and that was done.
I would just like to say that when I referred to repetition I was not referring to the rule of repetition on the part of one hon. member. But to me the standing orders are so drafted that the house will be able in its normal time to go over all the problems of the administration, and therefore to be able to do that we may not, as a general rule, repeat the same debate. As I have said, there will be several occasions on which to discuss this same problem, but we should not multiply them indefinitely. As I said, I do not think that my ruling deprives the hon. member of any right, because there would be other occasions on which to discuss the matter. We have had occasions previously and we will have in the future.
I say that on this question there may be general reference to the administration. That is how I understand the rule relating to relevancy. It should not be considered in a subjective way. Hon. members should not think that because they feel that it is the best occasion, in their view, to discuss certain problems, that this is the time when they should discuss them, and that if the Chair prevents them from doing so, that their rights are endangered. Therefore I rule that references generally to the administration are in order to decide whether the committee should vote these interim supplies or not; but I do not think that I could consider in order any discussion of one problem in particular. That is my ruling.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether you would enlarge a little on that? I am just seeking clarification. Are you, in your ruling, also admitting that since this is an interim supply motion anything which deals with policy, and all subjects covered

by an interim supply motion, are eligible for discussion? Would you please clarify your ruling as to that?


Jacques Flynn: I thought I had made myself clear. I cannot make speeches for hon. members. I said that general references to the administration and policy of the government would be in order provided the speaker did not go into details of any special problem. If the general policies of the government are a justification for criticizing the motion before the committee, very well, but I do not think any such discussion as is now proceeding would be relevant; otherwise, we would be opening a debate wider in scope than the debate on the speech from the throne or the debate on the budget.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I refer again to the situation in January, 1956 when this matter was discussed and when the leader of the opposition of that day took strong exception to limiting in any way the right of discussion on such occasions as this. I quote again from what Mr. Drew said as recorded on page 5285:
As will be realized by every hon. member in this house-*
Every hon. member did realize it, because a discussion was permitted.
-any item included in the estimates can be discussed-
Such a discussion did take place on that occasion. Furthermore the excuse given by the Minister of Finance that this was a motion for interim supply just before an election does not apply to this case at all. If the discussion of a motion for interim supply is limited in the way you have suggested, Mr. Chairman, we are introducing something into the procedure of the House of Commons which has not been there for centuries. As the present Prime Minister so very well said on one occasion in this house:
Parliament lives because of the opportunity it gives to members to debate the issues of the day untrammelled and uncontrolled and unfearful of an overwhelmingly powerful government.


Jacques Flynn: If no ruling was made on that occasion mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, this cannot be a guide for the Chair. Then, as I said, the chairman will decide as the debate proceeds. The only ruling I make now is that a special debate on unemployment, or detailed references to unemployment, is out of order. We have now discussed this question sufficiently, and I trust the hon. member for Essex East will continue his speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The release which I was discussing and which came to us for
Interim Supply
the first time yesterday indicates the seriousness of the problem. It seems to me that the growing unemployment in our country is a reflection on the administration of this government in this particular field. The fiscal and other policies of the government have contributed considerably to the serious situation which now confronts us. The release indicates that whereas on January 14 some 755,000 people were designated in the unplaced applicants list of the unemployment service offices, as of February 18 that figure had risen to 800,000, and today the Minister of Labour has pointed out that as of March 10, 827,467 individuals are enrolled in the unplaced applicants list of the N.E.S. registration offices. That figure of 827,000 is to be compared with the figure in the same month of the previous year, 1959, when it stood at 803,494.
Today the Minister of Labour, giving & further indication of maladministration on the part of this government, established that for the month of February there were, using his figure, 783,000 live claimants, that is to say, 783,000 people who are actually receiving unemployment insurance. This reflects a serious situation, a growingly serious situation, and one more serious than in any previous month in 1960, and more serious than in the comparable period of 1959. No wonder we refer to this problem as a continuing one possessing characteristics which are either seasonal, or as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, cyclical or technological.
Statistics prepared by the international labour office reveal that Canada, in proportion to its population, has the highest measure of unemployment in the western world at the present time. I have compared our situation with that of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom labour force in the month of February amounted to more than 23 million. There were registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom only 450,000, and of these, 431,000 were wholly unemployed and
19,000	temporarily stopped from work. That unemployment figure in Britain of 450,000 represents 2 per cent of the labour force of that country. Our labour force in Canada is 6,218,000-


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is certainly not abiding by the ruling of the Chair. I do not know if I can convince him further of the validity of the ruling or its meaning, but I have here for his guidance a reference in May which has just been brought to my notice:
The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee of supply.

Interim Supply
This is for the guidance of the committee. The hon. member for Essex East is discussing the subject of unemployment. As I say, there may be some reference made to the action or inaction of the government on this matter, but it is certainly not relevant to put on the record all sorts of statistics or other information, since the only subject matter of this debate is interim supply. Therefore, I again ask for the co-operation of the hon. member for Essex East.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not think-


Jacques Flynn: I do not think I should discuss this question further. I made my ruling previously.


Harold Edward Winch: I am going to ask you a question as to your reference that it has no application as to what is now before the committee. I asked you two questions a while ago and I appreciate the fact that you answered them. There is a third point to which you did not refer; if you did, I did not get it. I should like to ask your opinion whether, in this committee which is dealing with interim supply of one sixth of the items for the year we are now entering and covering every operation of government, we can speak on any phase of the estimates. When we are considering the granting of this money, why can we not speak on any phase of these estimates? I should like you to explain that, sir, because we are not discussing legislation or policy; we are discussing the money to be voted, and why can we not discuss any item of government expenditures?


Jacques Flynn: I will make a ruling when this situation arises, but the hon. member will realize that this is not the situation at the present time. The remarks of the hon. member for Essex East were not in reference to any special item having to do with the money which the government is asking this committee to vote. I do not think I need to make a ruling on that before it arises. When the hon. member speaks on that question, if he chooses to do so, I shall then decide whether his references are in order or not. The only ruling I am making now concerns the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East, and that is all. Again I must point out to the committee that I cannot tell hon. members how they should prepare their speeches.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood that the hon. member for Essex East was discussing unemployment, which comes under one sixth of the vote for the Department of Labour. Employment, unemployment insurance, unemployment, winter work, and so on come under
[The Chairman.]
the Department of Labour vote, and we are asking for one sixth of it at the present time. Is that not correct?


Jacques Flynn: That is not the point on which I made my ruling. If the hon. member for Vancouver East wants to have my opinion at this time I will say I cannot accept his view that because the motion which is before the committee refers to all phases of the administration hon. members can discuss everything in detail.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Jacques Flynn: My ruling was to permit
general references and not to detailed references.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In order to avoid appealing from your ruling, because we do not desire to do that, may I refer you to the ruling made by a predecessor of yours in a similar situation, the terms in which that ruling was made and which, I respectfully suggest, you are reversing now? It was on the date I mentioned before, June 22, 1956, when the leader of the opposition, on a motion to go into interim supply, was discussing the pipe line, the conduct of the Speaker, and all sorts of things. There was an intervention at that time by a member of the government side to the effect that in discussing a motion censuring the Speaker, which had been made previously in another debate, the leader of the opposition was out of order. In reply to that intervention the leader of the opposition made the statement which I have already quoted, defending his own position, and then the chairman was asked to give a ruling and he did. This was his ruling, as reported at page 5288 of Hansard of June 22, 1956:
The hon. member for Rosthern has raised a point of order and perhaps I should deal with it following the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have looked at the motion which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition several weeks ago with regard to Mr. Speaker-
-which the leader of the opposition was discussing again at that time on an interim supply motion. This might have been considered out of order but the chairman ruled it was not and he went on to say:
-and I find also that in the estimates there are items dealing with the allowances to Mr. Speaker, to myself and to other officials. Under those circumstances-
Merely because interim supply included items which covered the office of the Speaker and the chairman of the committee.

1 am unable to find that a discussion of those offices at this time is out of order.
In view of that ruling, which was very precise and definite and which permitted a discussion of a motion of censure on the Speaker, followed later by discussion by the

present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Transport of other aspects of a general nature, surely the hon. member for Essex East, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, is entitled to discuss a report from the government made yesterday on the unemployment situation.


Jacques Flynn: I appreciate the ruling which the Leader of the Opposition has quoted, but I would have to read the whole debate which took place at that time to fully appreciate the circumstances. The only point I wish to mention is that the chairman at that time said that he was not able to decide the other way. I am convinced today that the general lines of debate I have indicated are in order and therefore I would ask the committee to follow them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the total amount requested by the Minister of Finance be reduced by the amount requested for the administration of the Department of Labour.
I believe, sir, that once this motion is before the committee we can certainly discuss anything within the purview of the Minister of Labour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point with regard to the motion. I realize the hon. member has drafted his motion somewhat hurriedly. The point I wish to raise may be one that is capable of correction on his part. In his motion he proposes a reduction in the amount asked for. A motion for reduction is normally in order. I have not, of course, a copy of the motion, but he refers to the amount generally, as I understand it, without naming any item; he simply refers to the total amount requested by the Minister of Finance and that it be reduced by the amount requested for the administration of the Department of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would put in the words required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentleman must be specific in his amendment. If he is referring to a particular item, then I think his motion is out of order unless he names the particular item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will name the particular item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He must name the particular item so that we will know precisely what we are called upon to deal with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has a point. I perhaps leaped to the conclusion that the administration of the Department of Labour was the first item of the estimates,
Interim Supply
the general administration of the department. I see that the item is labelled "Departmental Administration".


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had better put the number on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not got the estimates in front of me. Perhaps the minister will help me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman thinks I should help him in this. If he is referring to the first item of the Department of Labour, that happens to be item 164. It reads:
Department administration including a grant erf $10,000 to Frontier College and the expenses of the international labour conferences.
If the hon. gentleman relates his amendment to a reduction in an amount related to a particular item, then I think his amendment is in order; but I think he has to specify the item and it has to be in a somewhat different form from the one he has introduced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I am quite willing to amend the wording. I am afraid I have not my copy; perhaps the minister can give it back to me. I will amend it, sir, to read as follows. I move:
That the total amount requested by the Minister of Finance be reduced by the amount requested in the motion now before the committee for departmental administration, Department of Labour, item No. 164 in the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest that the hon. member put his amendment in writing and distribute it.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the hon. member has made a correction in his amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that to be in order the amendment should specify an exact amount. The motion does not refer to any specific amount but only to a portion of the whole budget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I thought that was well covered by my general language. In order to simplify the matter I will move:
That item No. 164 of the estimates be reduced by $10,000.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me the Chair cannot now accept the amendment because it refers to the estimates and not to the resolution before the committee. I do not see how I can relate the amendment to the resolution. If the hon. member, for instance, had called for a reduction in item (a) of

Interim Supply
the resolution it might be in order, but it refers to something which is not before the committee at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this would meet the point Your Honour has just raised. I move:
That the total amount requested by the Minister of Finance be reduced by one sixth of the amount specified in item No. 164 of the estimates.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think I made myself clear. What I was suggesting to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was that he attempt to tie his amendment to the resolution which is before the committee. In the wording of the amendment he has just read the hon. member refers again to the estimates and not the resolution before the committee. If it were one sixth of the amount requested in paragraph (a) of this motion, for instance, it would be in order. I can hardly make myself clearer than I have now.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Chairman, in order to follow your suggestion may I move the amendment in this wording-


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking to a point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -we have one point before the committee at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to move, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think it should be indicated that I have ruled the proposed amendment out of order. Therefore, if the hon. member for Laurier wishes to move another amendment he is free to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I propose to do, Mr. Chairman, in trying to follow your suggestion. I move:
That the amount requested by the Minister of Finance in the first item of interim supply now before the committee, namely (a), one sixth of all the items in the amount of $593,558,978.34 be reduced by $10,000.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to this question.


Jacques Flynn: I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton West has raised a point of order.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this amendment is out of order to the extent that if this were accepted and disposed of then it would be open to any hon. member to move an amendment to any item-
[The Chairman.]


William Moore Benidickson: Why not? That is what we are here for.


Norman Platt Lambert: It would then be in order for any hon. member to move seriatim through all the estimates and that would occupy the whole time of this committee until the expiry of the interim period, and then we would go through the same thing again throughout the whole of the year. That was never in the contemplation of the rules of the house nor was it in the understanding of hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat on this side of the chamber or sat where they sit presently.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member is 400 years out of date. One of King John's councillors.


Jacques Flynn: I cannot accept the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West because it is clearly stated in citation No. 242 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
242. (2) The only motion allowed, when a resolution Is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair-
I therefore rule the amendment in order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in support of this motion I state that we are face to face with government figures which show an alarming increase in the unemployment picture in Canada. When I was dealing with this matter a few moments ago I indicated that so serious is our situation that Canada tops the list of countries in the western world with regard to this problem.
In dealing with the situation in the United Kingdom, I pointed out that in a country of 50 million people with a working force of 23 million there were only 450,000 people representing 2 per cent of the labour force-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I would point out to him that the amendment does not refer to labour or unemployment but to the general estimates and calls for a reduction of $10,000.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I bring to your attention the fact that the amendment has to do with the "(a)" part of interim supply, namely, one-sixth of all the items, $593 million odd, which covers all of the items. This is a reduction of $10,000 in all of the items and, therefore, I think that the hon. member is in order in discussing one of the items in that over-all picture.


Jacques Flynn: In my opinion the amendment does not change the picture from what it was before the amendment was moved. The view I expressed then is the same that

I hold now. There may be general references to the administration but I do not believe that the motion itself or the amendment refers to any specific item which would permit the discussion of any specific problem in detail.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I understand it, and I am just asking for clarification, you take the position that we should not refer to any particular department. While I am asking that, this very suggestion is being followed so that we could do, in a few minutes, what I am sure if we had done an hour ago would have brought progress in this debate. The Minister of Finance, however, in his great love for the rights of parliament and free discussion, has prevented us from discussing at this time perhaps the most important domestic problem in our country. I regret that the Minister of Finance, who himself took this method, should seek to deny to another hon. member in this house the opportunity of discussing something which not only affects his policies and the policies of this government, something that is very vital to thousands of people in this country who will watch the attitude of the government in breaching our right to discuss this matter.
The hon. gentleman talks about the rights of parliament, talks about closure. We have it today.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. gentleman did not want to speak in those terms because I am sure, indirectly, his comments were a reflection on the Chair. The Chair seeks only to apply the rules as they are and to interpret them. I do not believe the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East should be left there. I am sure he will wish to make it clear that he did not intend any reflection on the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say, since you are asking me for comment, that in a matter so important as this we, as private members in the opposition, have a right to take a course within the rules of this house which we regard as essential for the preservation of free discussion in this house.


Richard Albert Bell: Within the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If there seemed to be any reflection on the Chair, it was never intended. What I am seeking to do is to establish that the Minister of Finance, by the course he has taken today-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "Order". My hon. friend from Wetaskiwin says "Order", and only because it is he I will make no comment. However, I will
Interim Supply
say to the Minister of Finance that the reason we are discussing this matter today lies in the policies of the government of which he is the Minister of Finance. There was no reflection on the Chair. It is a reflection on the administration which is rapidly losing the confidence of parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: The motion before the committee is one to reduce the item that is requested by way of supply by some $10,000. This item does not relate to the Department of Labour specifically; it does not relate specifically to any of the departments of government but, as an initial move at this time, I would think that this is a good way of protesting the general attitude and policies of this government. This motion does not highlight the question of unemployment which is an important issue in Canada today and with which the government refuses to come to grips. We are prepared to support the motion asking for a reduction of the item by $10,000 because this is a well known method by which members of the opposition can protect the policies and attitudes of the government. I would think that the government would be interested in expediting, within the framework of free discussion, the business of the house. However, the intransigent attitude of the Minister of Finance in refusing to allow members to discuss this item fully is not going to assist in the progress of the business of the house but will merely serve to slow the progress and the efficient conduct of parliamentary business.
This $10,000 reduction is, in fact, a much more serious motion, I suggest, than one that might have related merely to the Department of Labour. This is a suggestion that the general policies of the government are a total failure, that the government has failed to keep faith with the Canadian public, that it is refusing to deal with burning public questions. Instead of the minister coming here and being prepared to discuss in a frank way the policies of the government, he has attempted to use points of order as a smokescreen for a policy that is a complete flop.
This hon. member for Essex East has said that progressively this government is losing the confidence of parliament, the confidence of the people of Canada. I do not believe that in the history of this country a government has ever lost prestige and support more rapidly than has this administration. This government is prepared to play loose with the rules of parliament. This is most inadvisable on the part of the Minister of Finance, who has introduced this item, when he has clothed himself with such glory, and quite rightly so, even to wrapping himself in the

Interim Supply
Union Jack a few years ago in an attempt to show at that time that he was a defender of the rights of parliament.


Jacques Flynn: I will ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to discuss the amendment. I think he is out of order in discussing a decision or whatever took place on a point of order that has been decided. It is not relevant to discuss it again.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not talking about a point of order. I do not believe a point of order has arisen on this particular motion. I took Your Honour's statement to mean that this motion to reduce the item by $10,000 was in order. I was saying that this is a well known method to show a general want of confidence in the government. There are great reasons for want of confidence in this government. The basic problems of the country are not being solved. Unemployment is higher now than it was a year ago. There is the government's failure to deal with farm prices, the government's failure to keep faith with the agricultural producers of this country, the government's failure to meet with the provinces and to deal with the financial questions with which this government is pledged to deal. This government is losing the confidence of the country so fast that even provincial governments of the Conservative stripe are protesting the policies followed by the government. Not only is the government losing the confidence of the house and the confidence of the country; it is losing the confidence of vast sections of its own political party.
We have further amendments, Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the democratic rights of members of this house, that we intend to move at a later stage. At a later stage, after this motion has been dealt with, I intend to raise some other extremely important questions that I think will be in order at that time. But because this is a move to protest the government's failure to meet its commitments to the Canadian people, I think the amendment is very much in order and is very much in keeping with the obligations upon the opposition to expose the failures and shortcomings of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree
with the hon. member for Assiniboia on every question but I must say that he has expressed succinctly what I am sure is and will be the feeling of the people of Canada with regard to the attitude taken by the government today in precluding, in the face of yesterday's disclosure, a full discussion in this chamber on unemployment. I referred, as an indication of the seriousness of the problem, to what the situation is in certain
[Mr. Argue.l
parts of Canada. What is the government prepared to do in order to meet the particular situation that confronts us in Canada at the present time?
The other day the hon. member for Laurier placed on the records of the house proposals by which we thought one phase of the administration of the affairs of this country could be rendered more efficient. We asked the government to call the provinces together in order to discuss the problem that reflects itself in the disclosures which were presented yesterday. This was a proposal made by hon. gentlemen when they were sitting on this side of the chamber. Why is the government not prepared to set up a parliamentary committee to discuss the problem involved in the increase of unemployment in our country? Why does the Minister of Labour not explain why this procedure should not be followed? Are we to be denied the right of doing what today he announced is being accorded to certain distinguished individuals in this country? Are members of parliament on all sides completely bereft of any power to try to assist the Minister of Labour in arriving at standards of measurement of unemployment in this country? Why is the industrial relations committee not being called?
When that committee met last it was proposed that that committee, not having anything to do, should examine the problem of unemployment and should assess the long term and the short term factors. There is actually pending before that committee an amendment in the name of one hon. member of this house for leave to give that committee power to discuss the very problem assigned by the Minister of Labour to others. Why should that committee not be called?
Why should not the government encourage the calling of that committee? I know the government can hide behind a technical defence by saying that the responsibility for the work of a committee is a matter for that committee and not for the government. But let us unmask the situation. Let us look at the realities. If the Minister of Labour were to say to the chairman of that committee now, "In the opinion of the government it would be desirable for the industrial relations committee to meet to examine unemployment, to deal with the motion that is now pending", there would be no difficulty. Since the government is so dedicated to the principle of committee work, what possible justification can the Minister of Labour have for not assigning to that committee the opportunity of trying to see why unemployment in Canada is becoming increasingly so serious?

Would it not be advisable tor us to ascertain why Canada's unemployed population in relation to the working force is so high compared with the situation in Great Britain where, as I indicated a moment ago, it is but 2 per cent? Would it not be advisable for us to ascertain why the unemployed of Germany represent only 2.2 per cent of the working force of that country or why in Sweden, in the month of January, the unemployed in that country represented only 2.8 per cent of the working force of that country as compared with 8.1 per cent in Canada? Would it not be a help, would it not provide at least some understanding that might be of some encouragement to those people in Canada now out of work, if they knew why, in the month of January, our unemployed represented 8.1 per cent of the working force as compared with 2.2 per cent in the Netherlands? These are problems the answers to which we would all be greatly interested in knowing.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I point out to the hon. member for Essex East that he is not following the ruling and that he cannot, by delivering his speech in instalments, go around the ruling of the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not in the
habit of going around the ruling of any chairman. May I say, Mr. Chairman that I would hope that you will give some care to what I am now going to say. I believe that in a matter involving the welfare of thousands of the people in our country-


An hon. Member:: You said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; and I am going to say it again because there are thousands of people in this country who want us to say it. I would say this, Mr. Chairman. On a matter of this importance we have the right to expect the Chair to give the most liberal interpretation to acts of those who sit on the opposition benches. That is the tradition of this chamber. To suggest that to compare unemployment figures in Canada with unemployment figures in other countries is outside the rules of debate, even as limited as this one is, is an argument with which I would find it extremely difficult to agree. Surely it is possible for us, in dealing with the request of this government to ask for further moneys, to question the competence of the government in terms of situations that are reflected in the unemployment problem that now confronts Canada.
I say this to the Minister of Labour. This party put forward certain views or certain proposed solutions. The Minister of Labour promised that he would give consideration
Interim Supply
to those proposals in the last statement he made in this chamber. The minister has not yet replied. The only indication we have now of an interest on the part of this government or of a concern on the part of the government with regard to this problem is the announcement today that, pursuant to a request received from the secretary of the association of mayors and municipalities in Canada, the government has decided to extend the winter works program one month. That proposal was made by members of the opposition weeks ago. It was made by some hon. members sitting to Mr. Speaker's right and who are supporting the government. But the Minister of Labour, I am sure, does not for one moment argue that to extend this weak program of winter works for one month into the month of May is going to take care even of the additional unemployed we have in our country now compared with the previous month. The most that can be put to work, the Minister of Labour said by way of estimate, under the winter works program is some 40,000. Since we had the last figure there are 55,000 more unemployed. Is this the only program the government is going to offer in order to try to meet the situation?
The Minister of Labour has not dealt adequately with our suggestion that this problem ought to be taken from the Department of Labour and transferred to the government as a whole. Particularly after the comments made the other day by the governor of the Bank of Canada, I think it will be generally agreed that this is a problem which rests not in the hands of the Minister of Labour but which resides with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Defence Production, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the governor of the Bank of Canada, and others.
Why should we not have, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, a council on economic development, automation and employment? I ask hon. gentlemen when they come to consider this problem to examine what has been done in the United Kingdom. I hold in my hand a little book called "All the Answers", 1959 edition. This book is produced by the Conservative party in Great Britain, and it is the program of the party that bears the name formerly employed by hon. gentlemen opposite when they sought the support of the Canadian people. I ask them to listen to what is said on page 31 with regard to total employment in industry. Here is what the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan, whose name was referred to today on orders of the day, and his government say about the way they tackled the problem of unemployment. In Great Britain

Interim Supply
they have only 2 per cent of the working force out of work. I quote:
Even during the height of the largest post-war trade recession, when unemployment in other countries went up to 10 per cent and more, unemployment in Great Britain never passed 2.8 per cent.
I wish the Minister of Finance were able to make that kind of boast instead of our having to refer to the fact that unemployment, on the basis of the lowest figure, is between 8 and 9 per cent.
I ask hon. gentlemen to listen to what the Conservatives in Britain say, and it is to be contrasted with what the Conservatives in Canada cannot say:
Conservatives have always believed, however, that apart from maintaining a high general level of employment in the country as a whole the government has a special responsibility to combat unemployment in particular areas where unemployment persistently remains above the national average.
As the Minister of Labour knows, we have particular areas of surplus workers. We have areas where this has been continuing for some time, as the Leader of the Opposition said. In Great Britain they dealt with it by a series of what they called areas acts. There were the areas acts of 1934, 1936, 1937, and the main act in force today is known as the distribution of industry act, 1945.
What has this government done? It brought forth its winter works program, and now they are going to show how interested they are in trying to curb unemployment by extending this anaemic and weak program for another month.
Let us look further at page 31 of this interesting booklet put out by the Conservative party in the United Kingdom. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance, who usually follows all these agencies of political propaganda, has not seen this document that is coloured, as he can see, in light blue and white. The booklet goes on to say, and I ask hon. gentlemen to listen to this:
When it was clear in the early months of 1958 that the world recession of that year might well have a special impact on these areas of high and persistent local unemployment, the government promptly introduced the distribution of industry (industrial finance) act, 1958. This act-
I ask the Minister of Finance to note what it says.
-enables the government quickly to give financial assistance anywhere-*


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend not want to hear good Tory doctrine?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the committee has been very patient with the hon. gentleman, I think, feeling that sometimes it is better to let him get these things off
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
his chest because he may feel better afterwards. But the fact is that, even with all the generosity extended to him and the opportunity to range widely even at the expense of the rules of the house, the matter which is now under discussion is whether there should be a reduction by the sum of $10,000 of a sum of money which the committee is being asked to approve. What is being done in Great Britain, in my respectful submission, has absolutely nothing to do with this question as to the $10,000. It may interest the hon. gentleman to go into questions applying to the economy of the United Kingdom, but with great respect I say that that has nothing, even by the greatest stretch of the imagination, to do with the question of the $10,000 under discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the motion
before the committee is to reduce the vote by $10,000, a traditional parliamentary device to give opposition members or any other hon. member a chance to indicate their lack of confidence in the policy of the government. That is why this motion was put forward. In doing that, my hon. friend, the member for Essex East, surely has the right to contrast what has been done in other countries with what has not been done in this country in this particular field so as to give an indication of what the government could do if it so desired. Surely, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Finance to try to tell us now that we cannot talk about these things even under this motion because it only mentions $10,000 is the very ultimate in parliamentary arrogance.


Jacques Flynn: I have already related my views, and I think the ruling I gave as to the debate on the general motion is applicable to the amendment before the house because there is only reference to $10,000. I would think the hon. member for Essex East has not shown up to now much co-operation with the Chair in complying with the ruling it has made which, although it may not be to his liking, should be abided by unless it is appealed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, if you felt I was not co-operating with you, I would have thought you could well have pointed that out to me some ten minutes ago. I suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, that in trying to point out the reasons why we have no confidence in this administration we should be allowed to show the way that this problem has been dealt with in one other country. I find it difficult to appreciate this reasoning.

But since Your Honour has taken that position I can only say that in the recommendations we have made as to the corrective measures which might be taken to deal with this problem we have urged, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, that there should be a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment to help deal with the long term problems of production and employment.
Now, we have not had from the administration any reaction whatsoever to this particular device, and I hope you are not going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I am now out of order when I say that in dealing with this problem in the United Kingdom, that is exactly what they have done. There they appointed a body known as the development areas treasury advisory committee consisting of people with industrial, commercial and financial experience who advise on the commercial and financial aspects of applications received under the acts for grants and loans to provide a mitigation of unemployment.
I hope it will not be suggested that in calling on the government to explain why they will not call a conference of government, industry and labour to deal with this problem I am violating the interpretation of the motion now before the house. Why does the government not call such a conference? The Minister of Labour, in defending himself with regard to this problem some months ago, said that the Canadian Labour Congress had commended the government's policies on unemployment. I ask the Minister of Labour to recall the statement made yesterday by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress when he referred to the unemployment figures released' yesterday as reflecting a disgraceful situation in Canada. Why is such a conference not called? What has the government to fear from seeking such a conference? One could go on to ask: Why does the government not intensify its vocational training program; why does it not establish an Atlantic provinces capital assistance fund to assist an area where unemployment is the worst in Canada, save for the province of Quebec?
How are we to justify the mandate which has been imposed on us if we do not take every means at our disposal to bring home to the government the seriousness of this problem which cannot now be denied in the face of yesterday's figures? How can we in the opposition say that we have discharged our responsibilities if we do not press the Minister of Labour for a response to every one of the 25 proposals put forward by the
Interim Supply
Liberal party? How can the government justify its position in relation to the people of Canada in the light of the assurances given by the Prime Minister unless it replies to the various proposals which have been made? Let the government indicate what is wrong with any one of these proposals, and then we shall at least have some appreciation of the attitude which is being taken toward them. But for the governmnet to sit here day by day and refrain from dealing with these proposals on their merits is to place us in a position, in the opposition, where we can do no more than seek to exhort the government to take steps consistent with policies which its supporters said in two general elections they would introduce.


An hon. Member:: While at the same time using closure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While at the same time, as my hon. friend said, using methods which amount to closure.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Essex East has been in this house for a good many years and I have not been here as long, but he has repeated this afternoon on three or four occasions the very statement which he has now made and which I consider to be a direct reflection upon the ruling of the Chair. He seeks to blame the ruling covering the debate on the Minister of Finance. Time after time he has returned to the same point, namely, that the government is seeking to impose closure or to cut off debate. A point of order was raised and it was settled by you, Mr. Chairman, and I think it should not call for any further comment this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for his very helpful intervention. I am sure he has displayed a great interest in this urgent problem which face the people of the country. All I can say, if the government does not respond by giving some indication whether it is prepared to embark on any of these steps, it is not worthy of the confidence that it is seeking under the procedure which it has brought forward at this time.
I remind the senior minister present in the house, the Minister of Finance-the Minister of Labour is now out of the chamber-that his Prime Minister told the people of Canada in two general elections: "Deficit or no deficit, no one in Canada will suffer because of unemployment as long as I am Prime Minister". That was a solemn commitment. I say now to the Minister of Finance, who is the senior minister present, though he has

Interim Supply
not been here as long as the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is also present, that the Prime Minister has changed his tune. No longer does he now say: "No one will suffer because of unemployment"-


An hon. Member:: Who is suffering?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is suffering? Five hundred and fifty-five thousand people out of work are suffering. That is the lowest figure. And if it were not for the fact that the former administration had brought in unemployment insurance and other social measures, their suffering would be much greater still. I say that the Prime Minister has now changed his tune. Now, according to the television broadcast he made on March 3 when he gave us his very penetrating examination of this serious social problem, he says: "No unnecessary suffering, but suffering if necessary". That was the paraphrasing of the words of the Prime Minister by my hon. friend, the member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
The Prime Minister in his television broadcast said: "There will be no unnecessary suffering". That is not what he told the people of Canada. He said there would be no suffering, deficit or no deficit. Well, there is suffering, there is unemployment, and because there is unemployment and because the government is not taking any steps to deal with this problem it does not deserve the confidence of hon. members of this house or the confidence of the people of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: The motion we are now considering is strictly a motion of a policy nature to reduce by $10,000 the total amount of the vote sought by the Minister of Finance. I think the minister knows-it has already been pointed out-that this is the only method which a private member has available to him to indicate his objection to government policy or to reprimand the government because needful action has not been taken to meet the problems which face the people and the economy of this country.
I want to go further and say, after the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, that it is also the only method which can be used by a private member or by the opposition to express our disgust with the Minister of Finance and the government with regard to their effort, intentional or otherwise, to remove from parliament the greatest power that it has, namely, the right to full and complete discussion of all expenditure. We are dealing with an interim supply motion, and the amendment which was moved calls for a reduction in the total sum to be provided under the interim supply motion which asks for a sum sufficient to meet one sixth

of the estimates for the coming year. It is an authorization by parliament, by the people's representatives, for an expenditure which concerns every phase of the economy as far as the federal government is concerned. For any endeavour whatsoever to be made by any minister or any government to say that members of parliament should be asked to authorize the expenditure of one sixth of coming total expenditures without having the right to discuss every item, every policy and every grievance is the greatest denial of the rights of parliament. As you know, Mr. Chairman, and as I have heard the Minister of Finance so often say when he was on this side of the house, the greatest and the real authority of parliament is the control over the expenditure of money.
I wish to say to you, Mr. Chairman, sitting as I do in the opposition but having sat in the opposition formerly with a great many members of the Conservative party who now sit on the other side, that when I hear them speak as they did this afternoon and when I remember how they spoke when they were on this side of the house it is a nauseating experience. It is nauseating to find that those who, when they sat on this side spoke from principle, speak now from tactics and expediency when they are in power and deny what they stood for when they were on this side. I mean this, and I mean it most sincerely. The Minister of Finance knows it very well. One of the most bitter experiences that you can undergo in a democracy is to find that people change when they are the ins and not the outs.
You have ruled the amendment in order, and rightfully so, Mr. Chairman, and this gives us an opportunity to maintain the rights of members of parliament, those who sit on the government side and those who sit on the opposition side, to control the expenditure of money and to question all phases of the expenditures before we vote one sixth of the money required in the coming 12 months. It gives us an opportunity to ask the government what its policy is, to draw to its attention the problems of the day and to offer suggestions as to how the money should be expended, in so far as we are concerned, in the next few months.
The official opposition is quite correct in the stand they have taken that before one sixth of the coming expenditures are authorized we should not only tell the government that they have flunked on the job, they have fallen down on the job, they are evading their responsibilities but that they do not know where they have been in the past and they have not the darndest idea where they are going now.


Mr. Graffley:: What righteous pomposity.


Harold Edward Winch: Before we grant them one sixth of the money required for the coming year we must ask them whether they will outline their policy in regard to unemployment. We must ask them to tell us why there have been changes in unemployment insurance and a tightening up of the regulations. In asking for one sixth of the money for the coming year will they tell us why there has been no increase granted to civil servants? What is their policy with regard to the complaints, the requests and the recommendations of the civil service?
At a time when they are asking for interim supply for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, will they tell the committee and the people of Canada, as well as the veterans of Canada, why although in the veterans committee the minister made a very definite commitment-it cannot be interpreted in any other way-that a revision of the veterans act would be brought in during this session-


Mr. Brooks:: I ask the hon. member to tell us what definite commitment the Minister of Veterans Affairs made?


Harold Edward Winch: I am speaking from memory now. The statement was made before the veterans affairs committee last year that there would be a revision of the act and that the position of veterans was being most carefully considered and action would be taken at this session of parliament.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No such statement was made.


Harold Edward Winch: All I can say is that in my estimation the minister has completely reneged on the very clear statement made in the committee last year. I refer the minister to his own statement, which will be found in the transcript.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I remember my own statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will relate it to the hon. member. I said it was our plan to consider the Pension Act this year, just the same as it has been the plan of a good many people in this house to do a great many things. However, this was not possible. For instance, the opposition planned to be the government at this time. This was not carried out in 1957.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a very bright comment by the minister. All I am going to say is, it is possible for me to be wrong, but I not think it is possible for the entire Canadian Legion, the army and the navy to be wrong in their understanding of what was said and what they expect from the minister at this time.
The estimates before us cover the field of trade, unemployment, pensions, security
Interim Supply
for all the people, and so forth. Up to now answers have not been forthcoming from the government. The motion before the committee gives hon. members a real opportunity to exercise their power to vote or to withhold money. It gives the government the opportunity to explain its policies, to give us answers to the questions and to answer the grievances that have been raised and are being raised by hon. members who are elected to represent the people.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact you have ruled that this amendment is in order and that you are now allowing a discussion on all phases of government expenditures. We expect that the members on the Conservative side who prate so much about the rights of parliament, who prate so much about the rights of hon. members, will see those rights maintained, although they have been somewhat negated in the past and up until now. I am going to say this and I say it because I sat with many of the Conservative members when they were on this side of the house. Will they change from being Christians only on Sunday and be Christians seven days of the week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurier is now before the committee. It is an amendment to reduce the estimates of interim supply that the minister is asking for by the sum of $10,000. I want to make it quite clear that I do not intend to talk about that $10,000 because, as the hon. member for Assiniboia said when he spoke and as the hon. member for Essex East said when he spoke, this is a time-honoured device in parliament to enable the opposition, or indeed even members who are normally followers of the government, if they have any spunk and any independence, to object to the way the government is behaving.
I wish to object to the way in which the government has treated one of the most urgent problems, indeed, in my opinion and in the opinion I think of everyone on this side of the house, the most urgent domestic problem before the country at the present time, as was underlined yesterday by the statements which were released with extreme reluctance and are released from month to month with the most extreme reluctance by the administration.
Now, sir, what I think is the most objectionable thing of all is that the government not only has no policy to deal with this problem, but they pretend the problem does not exist. Not only do they pretend the problem does not exist, but they use all the means of propaganda at their disposal outside this house, and I emphasize the fact,

Interim Supply
"outside this house". They will not even bother taking part in the proceedings of the house and state their views to the house, but they go outside the house and express views that are not in accordance with the facts. The most recent example we had of that, of course, was that incredible performance the other evening-and I hope most of the Canadian people with television sets saw it-by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was something that I think we on this side of the chamber would be happy to pay the cost of having repeated for the benefit of the Canadian people because it would give them tangible evidence of the way in which the present administration approaches the problems of this country and the kind of consideration the present government brings to those problems.
There is one thing in particular I wish to mention and I asked a question about it yesterday. I asked the minister whether he was aware of the statement his department was going to put out yesterday morning when he made the statement he did the evening before. I have a transcript of the words he used on "Press Conference" and this is what he told the Canadian people-
Mr. Pallet!: The statement was completely accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the minister said
was completely accurate? Well, we will look at it and see how accurate it was. That is precisely what I was going to do. These are the words the minister used:
Canada is plagued with seasonal unemployment which does not affect certain other countries in the world, but nevertheless we are making great progress and the figures for unemployment this year are lower than they were a year ago.
The minister the next morning had to issue a statement showing that the figure was higher by 37,000. That is the extent to which we can rely on statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite. That is the way they talk to the people who have not the ready access to information we have in this chamber. I am not saying the minister did it deliberately. He said he did not take the trouble to find out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I said no such thing and the hon. member is now distorting the facts. I said that that issue of the dominion bureau of statistics publication was not placed in my hands until yesterday morning. I did not see it before then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to be in any way fair to the hon. gentleman, or rather I do not wish to be unfair to him.


Mr. Ricard:: You had it right the first time.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Leave that on the record. Do not change Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not take it off the record. The hon. gentleman who represents the constituency of Saint John-Albert and who rarely utters a word in this chamber except when I am speaking may be assured that I have never been ashamed to admit my slips of tongue or any other mistakes I have made, and I have made a good many.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But also, on occasion I have been right, and the other evening when the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to figures on the television broadcast he was not right once. Every figure he gave was wrong. I do not have time to go into that now.


Mr. Pallelt:: That statement is completely wrong.


William Moore Benidickson: We are paying one sixth of his salary here, so just let us carry on.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member is distorting the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read it again for the benefit of the hon. member for Peel, who finds it difficult to understand anything the first time it is read. These are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Canada is plagued with seasonal unemployment which does not affect certain other countries in the world, but nevertheless we are making great progress-
We are making great progress, all right; a higher figure every month and a higher figure this year than last year.
Mr. Pallet!: More people employed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
-and the figures for unemployment this year are lower than they were a year ago-
The minister said they were lower but in fact the figures are higher. And now we come to the punch line. I did not read this the first time. The minister went on to say:
-and, after all, a year ago we were just emerging from a recession.
A year ago when we were emerging from a recession we had 37,000 fewer people out of work, according to the minister's own department, than now when we are in the midst of a boom. What a boom. As a matter of fact, this is just on a par with that performance the Prime Minister put on. No doubt the Minister of Finance will regard this as another of those personal attacks, but I am going to stick strictly to what the Prime Minister said in that speech on March 3, 1960.


Mr. Bigg:: Another dead horse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are a lot of dead horses. The hon. member may be more accurate than he knows, but I would not describe the Prime Minister as a dead horse.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Hee-haw.


An hon. Member:: I could describe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as a certain part of a horse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was in this house a debate on the subject of unemployment, a discussion which the Minister of Finance thought should not take place and which the Prime Minister described as a waste of time, and in which neither hon. gentleman took any part. And then the moment that debate was over or within two hours-that is perhaps a pardonable exaggeration even in the view of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert-within two hours of the time that debate ended the Prime Minister went on the air and said the following things about unemployment. I think we ought to have these statements put on the record here in parliament so that we in parliament will know and so that the public will know the kind of statements the Prime Minister of this country makes when he goes on the air and cannot be called to order by anyone. He said:
Our population is increasing-
Well, that is true, but it is not increasing nearly as rapidly as it was when we had a government that managed the affairs of this country well and carried out its promises. I continue:
-and the percentage going into the labour force is also on the increase.
That is also true, in a sense. The percentage that want to go into the labour force is increasing but their capacity to go into the labour force is unhappily not increasing at anything like as rapid a rate. I continue:
We have reached the peak of 6 million Canadians employed for the first time in our history.
We have passed that peak and are below it today, unfortunately, and we were below it when this speech was made, but the Prime Minister did not bother to say that. I continue:
The problem that faces us is that every day we must provide more jobs than were available the day before, and also provide jobs for all who desire to work.
The people of Canada certainly wish the government would provide more jobs. Just imagine, when the Prime Minister made that statement at least 555,000 Canadians, according to the latest figures, were out of work and 782,000 Canadians were drawing unemployment insurance and therefore, by definition, were unemployed. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said:
Interim Supply
-we must-also provide jobs for all who desire to work.
Why does the government not do it? What is the government going to do about it?
Hon. gentlemen opposite come in here and pretend to be managing the affairs of this country. They come to parliament and ask for a huge sum of money totalling $650 million or almost that sum to manage the affairs of Canada for the next two months. But how are they managing? That, sir, is what concerns me here. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Now, what is the answer to this problem?
When the Prime Minister is in this chamber he asks the opposition to tell him the answers and when he goes on television he apparently asks the public. He went on to say:
Surely it is to develop our natural resources-
Listen to this, sir:
-which are capable of providing additional employment and additional income for all Canadians.
Well, why are they not providing it? I continue:
And this is at the essence of the problem and the policies which I enunciated as a new national policy for Canada, just over two years ago.
Just tell me, Mr. Chairman, one single development of natural resources of this country that has been started by the present administration? Oh, they have finished lots of things that were started by the previous government and when those things were finished there was nothing to put in their place. They have started nothing. As the hon. member for Villeneuve pointed out the other day, we built up these developments and they are destroying them.
This is the kind of statement the Prime Minister makes to the people of Canada:
When we look at what has been achieved in the short space of time, we can only regret that this policy had not been put into effect a good many years ago.
Well, I do not think the majority of the Canadian people are going to share that particular regret for very long. I can tell you, sir, that I do not often make predictions but I do make this one, that the vision of 1957 is going to turn out to be the worst nightmare the Canadian people ever had.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was a nightmare for you in 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was no nightmare for me at all. The only nightmare I have is when I have to look at the hon. gentleman on television. I can assure him that is a nightmare that is widely shared.

Interim Supply


Thomas Miller Bell: You dropped Mr. St. Laurent fast enough in 1957; you did not even go to the station to meet him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For whom the bell tolls, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman's intervention does not appear to have very much to do with interim supply which the Minister of Finance is so anxious to get through.
Here is what the Prime Minister is telling us:
And we shall never be satisfied to see one part of the country develop and another lag behind.
Well, what do these figures show? These figures show that practically the whole of that increase between January and February in the number of unemployed was in the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Are they not lagging behind, or what do these words mean? It is a case of just words, words, words.
That was allowed to happen in the past-
I remind the hon. member for Saint John-Albert of these great promises they made to increase coal production and the complaints that were made because Mr. St. Laurent refused to promise to increase it. What has happened to coal production? It has gone down every year and three more mines are going to close as soon as the Rand commission has concluded its hearings.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about coal production in New Brunswick? Coal production in New Brunswick is up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Production in New Brunswick may be up, but production in Nova Scotia is down many, many times any small increase there may have been in New Brunswick.
That was allowed to happen in the past, and it created regional problems which it will take great efforts to solve.
It certainly will. It will take great efforts to solve them. I should like to remind the Minister of Labour that it will take efforts, not just words.
The new national policy demands that the development of the future be carried out so as to remove inequalities of opportunity for Canadians living in various parts of our nation.
I say today, sir-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Any objection to that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly have no objection to it. There was a great deal done when we were in office to remove these inequalities. In the three years the hon. gentlemen have been in office, the condition of the eastern part of the province of Quebec and the condition of the Atlantic provinces has lagged much more behind the rest of the country than at any other time in recent history.


Azellus Denis: Because they had three Tory premiers instead of one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. Then, he goes on to talk about the miracle of confederation, but I do not think I will read that because the Minister of Finance would object and I think, sir, it would be out of order. It is the usual distortion of history, I might add.
Then, we come to the Prime Minister's pronouncement, the solution for the problem of unemployment. He could not bother to tell us here in the house. That did not matter. This is what the Prime Minister had to say over the air.
And as you know, there was the unemployment problem which we inherited.
What did they inherit? Here are the figures, sir. Here are the figures for January and February of 1957, the last year we were in office. The dominion bureau of statistics figure for January was 305,000; February, 326,000. What are those figures today? They are almost twice as high. Now, that is the problem. They were supposed to have inherited a depression from us and they claim now they are out of the recession and in a boom. Yet the boom brings them twice as many unemployed as the so-called depression that they inherited. The plain fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and all the distortions of the Minister of Finance will never change it, that the economy of this country was in a boom condition on June 21, 1957. The decline did not begin until two or three months after the hon. gentlemen took office. The unhappy part of it is that this figure of 555,000 unemployed is only 8,000 less than it was in February, 1958 when the hon. gentlemen said they were at the depths of this recession. The dominion bureau of statistics figure in February, 1958 was 563,000 and today it is 555,000, only 8,000 less. It really means there is clearly no difference at all.
Mr. Pallet!: There are a quarter of a million more people employed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, there are not. There are some more employed than there were two years ago but not a quarter of a million. There are 37,000 fewer than there were a year ago, and this is very worrying because a year ago-


Michael Starr: There are 116,000 more employed than a year ago February. Look at the figures in the dominion bureau of statistics release.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The percentage of the labour force that is unemployed today is higher than it was a year ago.


Michael Starr: I am talking about the number of people working.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The number of unemployed is greater than it was a year ago.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The rules of the committee allow only one speaker at a time. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I come back to the Prime Minister's television speech of March 3, 1960. He said:
And as you know, there was the unemployment problem which we inherited.
I have dealt with the inheritance, sir, and the mess they have made of the wonderful inheritance they received. Then the Prime Minister came to his great pronouncement. This was the revised vision, the vision of 1958 revised and brought up to date in 1960.
I do not want to see a single day of unnecessary suffering.
Well, sir, in 1958, when the people were on the verge of voting, they were told there would be no suffering from unemployment. Now, it is "no unnecessary suffering". I do not know what necessary suffering is, but I do know that this is not the bill of goods that was sold to the Canadian people. I use that term advisedly. The Canadian people are beginning to find that out.
Then, the Prime Minister went on to state:
Neither do my colleagues. And the result was we had to spend-
I would ask the Minister of Finance to reply to this because it deals directly with what we are dealing with right now. This is the Prime Minister's statement of policy for unemployment for 1960.
And the result was we had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide jobs through housing and public works and other projects. We have planned for a deficit.
Whether they planned for it or not, they certainly got one and it was a whopper.
We had to borrow money.
They certainly did. They have borrowed nearly $2 billion since they came into office and they have sent interest rates up to such a height that other people cannot afford to borrow at all. That is what they have done.
We were, of course, criticized for this, but when I thought of the families of the unemployed, I knew for me there was no other course, deficit or no deficit.
Then, after a pause for tears, the Prime Minister went on:
In the same circumstances, I would make exactly the same decision again.
Well, here are the same circumstances, sir. Here are precisely the same circumstances. As I pointed out, according to the dominion
Interim Supply
bureau of statistics figures there were 555,000 unemployed in February of this year and
563.000	in February, 1958. Has the government made the same decision? I ask the Minister of Finance who finds this to be a great joke-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not find it a great joke.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the Minister of Finance, who seems to find the plight of the unemployed, over half a million of them, a great joke-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has just made an intentional reflection on another hon. member. He said I was taking mirth out of the unemployment situation. That statement, of course, is utterly untrue and he knows it perfectly well:	I happened to be engaging
in a mirthful expression at the time but it was not with regard to unemployment or because I regarded unemployment as a joke, as he suggested. If he wants something to provoke mirth, I could say something


An hon. Member:: You had better not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I think I will refrain from referring to him. His reflection is highly improper and he knows it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I was addressing certain remarks to the Minister of Finance who was doing me the great courtesy of listening to them most attentively, as he himself has attested. I repeat them to him now. I say that the Prime Minister told us that they were criticized for planning for a deficit and for borrowing money for what the Prime Minister described was the purpose of relieving unemployment. I do not believe it was for any such purpose, but that is what the Prime Minister said. Then he went on to say this:
-but when I thought of the families of the unemployed, I knew for me there was no other course, deficit or no deficit.
That is what he said. Then he went on to say this in this broadcast. He did not say it in this chamber; he did not do us the courtesy to come into the house and tell us what the government policy was; he took no part in the debate but right afterwards he went on the air and he said this:
In the same circumstances, I would make exactly the same decision again.
The circumstances are the same. We have
555.000	unemployed in a time that hon. gentlemen opposite say is a time of recovery as opposed to 563,000 unemployed in the depths of the latest recession. Are the circumstances, so far as unemployment is concerned, not the same? Are the families of

Interim Supply
the unemployed today not in just as much need as they were two years ago, and in most cases in more need because ot the state of their unemployment insurance and other factors?
I ask the minister whether this decision has been made. Have the government decided to have another deficit, to do a great deal more borrowing, as the Prime Minister told the public they would do if the circumstances were the same? Have they decided that or have they not? Surely no question could be more related to the subject before us right now than that question and I think the Prime Minister ought to answer it. I think the public of Canada deserves an answer. When the Prime Minister of this country uses words like that, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the public are entitled to know whether they mean anything or whether they are like his pledge before the election in 1958, that no one would suffer from unemployment, and are just words.


Mr. Robichaud:: In rising to say a few
words on the motion now before the committee, I feel that I do not have to beg for the generosity of the committee as was suggested a few moments ago by the Minister of Finance. The few remarks I wish to make at this time are based on a principle which is the basis of English parliamentary law. As Bourinot so aptly stated:
The principles... are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time;-
My remarks will be brief, Mr. Chairman, but I wish at this time to question the administration of the unemployment insurance commission. Decisions which are being rendered lately by the unemployment insurance commission are unjust and are creating discriminations in certain cases. It is true that the Minister of Labour may be worried by the present standing of the unemployment insurance fund. When they took power they were left with a fund of over $900 million and as at February 29 it was down to $408 million. Having regard to the number of unemployed now receiving unemployment insurance benefits, as at March 31-that is a week from now-the unemployment insurance fund will be down to a figure in the vicinity of $350 million.
I wonder whether it is because of the unfavourable conditions of the unemployment insurance fund that certain decisions, which to me are too severe, are being enforced by the commission. I wish to give as an example the decision which was rendered in the

case of a logger in Madawaska county who was refused unemployment insurance benefits because he could not afford to buy a $200 chain saw. It is true that the minister, in a letter I received from him under date of March 15, says that the facts are that the logger in question had worked six and a half months at the rate of salary of $15 per day and was unemployed only three days prior to the offer of employment and that it did not seem to justify his action in not keeping his equipment in good shape, the necessary tools of his trade in working order. But what the minister failed to see was that in order to earn $15, this man was obliged to work from 12 hours to 14 hours a day; that he was obliged to cut four cords of pulpwood at $3.50 a cord; that out of the $15 he was obliged to pay $1.50 for board and the acknowledged rate of $1 a cord for the operation and maintenance of his chain saw. This father of a large family was left with less than $8 net salary per day.
When this man was laid off late in November, he immediately went to the unemployment insurance commission and asked for more work. He was assigned to a certain lumber camp. When he went to that camp on December 3, they insisted that he had to secure for himself a chain saw which would have cost him $200. How can a logger afford to spend $200 to purchase a chain saw when he was guaranteed, at the most, only five weeks to six weeks of employment? It was then early in December. Notwithstanding all those facts, the unemployment insurance commission decided that he would not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I feel that this is pure discrimination and injustice with respect to loggers. I have here the submission to the board of referees when this man reported to the unemployment insurance office. He went a distance of 40 miles to the lumber camp where he was assigned work and on his arrival, when he found out that he had to secure for himself equipment costing $200, he decided that he just could not afford to do it when he was guaranteed only a few weeks' work.
I hope it is not because the unemployment insurance fund is down to a figure under $400 million that such decisions are arrived at by the commission. If we need a bill of rights in this country, I think we definitely need it to protect the labour class of this country when such decisions are taken.
I also want to bring to the attention of the minister the policy of the unemployment insurance commission relating to family employment or the insurability of relatives. I have had brought to my attention some 30 to 40 cases of this type since the first of the year.

I cannot understand the attitude of the unemployment insurance commission when the father of a family, a man 24 years old and with two children, although employed by his father who operates a lumber camp, is deprived of unemployment insurance benefits for the only reason that he is living with his father. This man I have in mind, as I said, is 24 years old, married, with two children, and he has put aside his savings for the last two years to buy lumber to build himself a house. But when he applied for unemployment insurance benefits he was told, "No, you cannot qualify because you are living with your father. If you want to qualify, all you have to do is to go and live elsewhere". Such decisions are not warranted and should not be allowed in this country.
I know of another case of a man who was refused unemployment insurance benefits because he was driving his father's truck. I know that there have been abuses by certain applicants for unemployment insurance benefits, but it is the duty of the officials of the commission to see to it that these abuses are prevented. This does not mean that in clear-cut cases a man should be refused the benefit of unemployment insurance, to which he has the right, just because he is living in the same house as his father. Officials of the commission should not be allowed to tell these people, "If you want to qualify, go and get yourselves a room elsewhere".
I could quote case after case, Mr. Chairman, where unemployment insurance benefits have been refused under similar circumstances, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will see to it that these cases receive not only due consideration but the consideration which they deserve and that these cases will be rectified without delay.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Minister of Fisheries is not in his seat because the few remarks I intend to make deal with a problem which comes under his department and which is related to vote 127 in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
The problem I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and to hon. members of the house concerns the application of certain regulations for the conservation of salmon as these regulations are applied in certain parts of my riding. I should like to make it quite clear at once that I am not criticizing the department or the departmental officials, because I understand that the purpose of these regulations is to conserve the salmon fishery and that is a worthy object. I also want to make it plain that I realize that the
Interim Supply
officials have been very lenient in the way they have tried to apply these regulations. However, I should like to point out that, despite all their efforts in this regard, the effect of these regulations is to cause a great deal of hardship to certain salmon fishermen in my riding.
The way in which these regulations are applied is as follows. As hon. members know, the coastline of Newfoundland has numerous bays, and a line is drawn across each bay at a point where the bay is five miles in width. Outside this line fishermen are permitted to put out their nets and fish without interruption, but inside this line the fishermen are required every Saturday night to go out, tie up their nets and keep them tied up until Monday morning. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is unfair to fishermen in adjacent communities, because those who may be just a few yards outside this dividing line can fish during the week end while those inside of the line are not permitted to do so. That is one aspect of the regulations which causes a great deal of discrimination between fishermen in the various settlements within the same general area.
There are other and more serious aspects to it than that. It is very often impossible to get out on a Saturday evening to tie up these nets because weather conditions will not permit. When the fishermen do get out and tie them up, and leave them tied up in long bundles over the week end, whether there is a storm or not they are subject to the action of the tides. As a result the twine in these nets rub and chafe against each other, which causes a great deal of damage to the net itself and involves a great deal of expense by way of repairs and maintenance. Also, should a storm occur over the week end while these nets are in this bundled up condition, they accumulate a great deal of kelp and driftwood which makes it impossible for the fishermen to use their nets on Monday even if they can get out to attend to them. Therefore on the Monday they must take their nets in and spend two or three days cleaning them out, which means that their whole week's fishing is lost.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr.   Carier@: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Did I understand the hon. member to say in introducing his remarks that he has no criticism of the minister?


Mr.   Carier@: No, I am not criticizing the minister.


An hon. Member:: Then why are you
talking?

Interim Supply


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then I would ask a second question.


Chesley William Carter: Can an hon. member not describe a problem to a department without involving criticism of the minister? It is not a criticism at all. I think they are doing the best they can and I agree with their objective, but I am trying to show that in spite of their good intentions it is working a hardship on the fishermen and that some other method should be used rather than the one being employed at the present time.
The salmon school in many parts of Newfoundland at its peak lasts only for about 14 days, and if the fishermen have to lose four or five days because they have tied up their nets for the week end and in addition have to lose other days because of stormy weather and also have to take in their nets for repairs or cleaning, then it adds up to half of their fishing season being lost. This constitutes a very grave and serious problem to the fishermen in my riding, and in particular to those fishermen of Hermitage bay, which suffer more than other parts of Newfoundland from these regulations because, although there they are inside the five mile limit, their nets are set in what is called rough water. The nets in this particular area are not protecting very many salmon rivers. There are far more salmon rivers in other areas where the fishermen are permitted to set their nets and fish over the week end.
Therefore, I would ask the minister and the government to try and find some other method of dealing with this problem of conservation and to rescind this particular regulation or apply it in some way which would be fair to all and would not result in disadvantages of the sort our fishermen are now experiencing.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the house ready for the question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put I should like to have a question answered by the minister. The charge was made in this house that the document that I have in my hand, which happens to be the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada and is the property of this house, is a squandering of the people's money. This is the first opportunity the Minister of Finance has had to answer this charge. Would he now care to offer any comment on the charge which has been made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Therefore, since the minister has no comment to make, he agrees with the charge that has been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the government has considerable gall in asking for interim supply at this time. I say this because they are asking for supply to carry on the administration of government without at the same time bringing forward policies to deal with the serious problems which face the Canadian people at the present time.
One of the gravest of these, and one which has been discussed at some length this afternoon, is the matter of unemployment. I do not believe any thinking Canadian could fail to be disturbed by the situation which exists in Canada in March, 1960. The figures which were announced a short time ago are alarming. They show a total of 550,000 people unemployed. That total, moreover, is the figure supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics and it is the least of the three figures published. It has been pointed out this afternoon that this means we have the highest percentage of unemployment of any comparable country in the western world with one in 12, at least, of our working force unemployed. This is something which cannot rest lightly on our consciences. Something must be done about it and for that reason we are dismayed that the government should come to the house and ask for interim supply to carry on its administration without at the same time bringing forward policies to deal with the present situation.
If the unemployed were concentrated in one place, it would mean that in a city the size of Montreal or Toronto, every man and woman who is presently gainfully employed there would be without employment. If the percentage of the labour force in these cities compared with the population is the same as the relation of the labour force of the country to the population of the country as a whole, then approximately 500,000 persons are gainfully employed in each of the two great Canadian cities I have mentioned, the largest in Canada with regard to population. Imagine a city the size of Montreal or Toronto without one single man or woman, self-employed or employee, with any gainful work of any kind whatsoever. How can the government refuse to deal with a situation as grave as this? How can the Minister of Finance sit there and try, if he can, to choke off debate when he knows that more than 500,000 Canadians are this very night wishing that they had some work to go to in the morning?
What does the government propose to do about it? In effect, nothing. My hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate has said that the Prime Minister told the Canadian people on television: What we did last time was to enter into an era of deficit financing. Then he added that if the same conditions arose

again he would make the same decision. In effect, no decision was made on the first occasion and, similarly, no decision was made this time. The government allowed itself to drift into this hopeless financial mess which has caused much of the existing unemployment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is so hopeless about it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member would know what was hopeless about it if he did not have a job, and he may find that out in the next few months. The hon. member should talk to some of the men and women who have accumulated debts on the mortgages of their homes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You
were referring to the financial position.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am referring to the financial policy of this government which is responsible for much of the unemployment in this country. I am speaking of the way in which the government allowed itself to drift into a situation of deficit financing; the way in which it boosted interest rates to an all-time high; the way in which we are faced at the present time with the tightest money in the history of this country. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that he was willing to accept responsibility for this policy. Is he willing to accept responsibility for the tight money and the high interest rates or is he trying as he said his predecessor did, to hide behind the governor of the Bank of Canada-


George Harris Hees: Be careful. You may be telling the truth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister's predecessor did not do so. But the hon. gentleman said of nis predecessor that he could not hide behind the governor of the Bank of Canada with respect to the monetary policy of this country.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


George Harris Hees: Did you run out of steam?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all. I am waiting to dart on another subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are going to keep it going ill night, now.


An hon. Member:: Is that so?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Minister of Finance bears *esponsibility for financial policy, if you can :all something a policy which is incompre-lensible to any financial expert in the country. Why, for example, did the minister embark m this reconversion loan when it was bound o have repercussions which would unfor-unately be felt by Canadians for a decade
Interim Supply
at least-the establishment of a new plateau as far as interest rates in this country are concerned?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was explaining that this government is responsible for much of the excessive unemployment existing in the country today because of its failure to introduce positive policies to alleviate the situation. Just this afternoon the Minister of Labour told us that he was establishing a committee of able men. The job of this committee will be to work out a method of providing a single figure for unemployment in this country. This, of course, is a worth-while objective and one with which we agree. What is more important, however, is to find jobs for the unemployed. We wish the government would press its most able advisers to come forward with solutions which will deal with the urgent problem of finding employment for the hundreds of thousands of men who are seeking work at the present time.
This is a matter of urgency. It is not as urgent to juggle figures as it is to find jobs for the unemployed. There are three suggestions, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to put forward in respect of this matter. The first is one that I made in the house last spring and which was well received by the government at that time. It is a system of massive rehabilitation and training of unemployed workers. It would be far better for unemployed persons to attend technical schools or other schools during the winter months than to be completely idle. As I have said before, during the war years and the immediate post-war years a great many young people entered the labour force with inadequate training. Now, when some of these people are without work, would be the time for them to supplement their training, and this should be a governmental project.
In addition, there are many people in the unemployed force at the present time who have been displaced by automation. Here again the government should accept its responsibility and provide technical or other training for these men and women. Some of their skills are no longer required in the labour force at the present time. It is necessary that they have new skills. It would be a valuable investment and one which we feel the government should undertake. This will

Interim Supply
have to be done on a very large and impressive scale. It is not enough to trifle with the problem and the solution, as the Minister of Labour has done. This is obvious when one looks at his estimates for the current year. We feel that the government must face the problem realistically. It has to gauge its magnitude and then do something which is capable of effecting a significant reduction in the number of unemployed.
The second suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that at the earliest possible opportunity the government introduce a system of national portable pensions. This is, of course, a complicated undertaking and one which requires a great deal of thought, but certainly it is a development which is inevitable. The Minister of Finance can appreciate the fact that many of the industrial pension schemes existing at the present time prohibit the hiring of persons over 40 or 45 years of age. It is a form of insanity that men and women in the prime of life, at the peak of their capacity as far as contribution is concerned, should be prohibited from obtaining employment owing to pension schemes now in existence. Those industrial pensions were not designed to prohibit the employment of people in the prime of life; they were designed to fill another function. But in the solution of one problem they have created a new one, and it has to be faced. This is most apparent, and we urge the government to look at it squarely before more damage is done.
I do not think there is anything more humiliating for a person in his 40's or 50's than to knock on the door of one employment office after another and be told the same story: We would like to have a younger person.


Mr. Chown:: What is your answer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I just gave it, a system of portable pensions, a system of pensions which would allow any person to take not only his own contributions but his vested rights from one employer to another. It is true that this would have to include all existing industrial pensions, all existing governmental pensions, and it probably would have to be compatible with and would likely include the present system of old age pensions, and perhaps the proposed system of social security for old age. But all these things should be melded together in such a way that they would effect the necessary solution, a solution which would permit people in any employment to leave, either voluntarily or otherwise, and take up employment in another industry or in another place. They should not be rejected because of the terms of an existing pension scheme in effect in that particular industry.


Gordon Campbell Chown: How do you legislate that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a problem for the administration. Surely the administration and its advisers are competent to deal with the situation. If they are not, let me suggest to the hon. member that those of us on this side of the house would be more than willing to take over and we are quite competent to cope with this problem.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It would be easier that way than to go through an election.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are quite competent to cope with this very important problem. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we fully appreciate the fact that during the 22 years we were in office-


An hon. Member:: You did not do very much.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Why did you not do it then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -it was fortunate that we were able to put into effect those dreams and aspirations of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and-


Mr. Mariineau:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be delighted.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the hon. member suggest that the opposition should now make the same motion as their leader did a few years ago?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not understand what the hon. member means by "the same motion".


Paul Raymond Martineau: If I may explain, Mr. Chairman, a few years ago the Leader of the Opposition proposed a motion of nonconfidence and suggested that the government should resign and they take over.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is the same thing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All I can say is that, regardless of whether the motion passed in this house or not, if we were to refer the matter to the electorate at large there would be no doubt about the result. It would be an entirely different result.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have another guess coming. You said that in 1958.


Michael Starr: There was no doubt about the result.


An hon. Member:: You will not live long enough to be in power again.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not realize my hair was quite that grey. This is not a matter for levity. I hope the government will take seriously the proposal that it should at the

earliest possible opportunity put into effect a comprehensive national system of portable pensions because within this group of unemployed persons there are probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed simply because they are too old to obtain employment in those industries which have pension schemes in effect.
One does not have to conduct much of a survey to determine that. All that is necessary is to inquire of the people standing in line at any unemployment insurance office and it becomes immediately obvious that many of those persons do have skills and training and are anxious and willing to work but they are prohibited from working because of the present system of pension schemes.
My third suggestion is that the government should put its financial house in order. It has received many suggestions to this effect. Unfortunately, I suspect that some of them have gone unheeded. It is not yet too late, however, for the government to pay some attention to the advice it receives from authoritative sources both in its own backyard and farther afield in the country. If the government would curtail some of its unnecessary spending it could make available funds for investment in productive industry. If there is any one thing which the government should encourage it is investment in growth industries which would provide job opportunities for Canadians.
The government has unfortunately diverted far too much of the national output into interest charges and into frivolous spending and has robbed the available supply of investment capital without which our dynamic economy is unable to grow and provide job opportunities for those hundreds of thousands of Canadians seeking employment. This is a most serious matter.
Perhaps for a moment I could refer back to the suggestion that a system of instruction in trades be set up. I have here an advertisement which appeared in one of the Irish newspapers. It lists three whole columns of jobs which it describes as immediate job opportunities in Canada. There is no doubt that there are job opportunities in this country at the present time. One can find these by looking in the want ad columns of the daily newspapers. There are job openings but at the same time there are shortages of skilled labour to fill some of them. Surely it is only a question of good management to provide the training which would permit young Canadians to take the jobs at present available to them.
I saw an article in a Canadian newspaper recently in which a firm-I believe it was the Tamblyn corporation-complained that their 79951-0-152
Interim Supply
growth was slowed by the fact that they could not obtain sufficient skilled help. Surely this is a function that could be filled by our government. The government could train and assist Canadians to develop the skills required for this particular group. Surely we do not have to advertise abroad for these skills while at the same time making no effort whatever to train our own people at home. The Minister of Labour has a special responsibility in this regard and we would urge him to accept it without further delay.
In conclusion I should like to read a portion from an editorial entitled "Unnecessary Suffering" which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail under date of March 8, 1960:
Canada's reputation suffers from reports of massive unemployment; such reports discourage people from emigrating here or investing their money here. The Canadian people suffer from the uneasy feeling (justified or otherwise) that large numbers of their fellow citizens are in want.
Those of us on this side of the chamber urge the government to accept its responsibility in this matter. It is not enough just to seek a new figure. What is required is immediate action to meet a most urgent situation. For this reason we feel the government should at the same time it comes to parliament and asks for interim supply to carry on its routine business give us at least some indication of policies designed to cope with this great Canadian problem.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as a dimly glowing parliamentary asteroid surviving among a galaxy of scintillating stars, I wish to say a few words upon a question that is very important to many of my constituents and many unemployed persons in Canada at this time.


An hon. Member:: The hon. gentleman is out of orbit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding I must compliment the hon. member for Trinity for such an excellent C.C.F. speech, one that has been made in this chamber over a period of 25 years. We are very pleased to see that our speeches are having some effect. I think the hon. member's speech was a conclusive and interesting illustration of the osmosis of ideas from the roots of the C.C.F. to the new and recent buds of Liberalism.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Canada's great reform party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As I said, I want to deal with a matter of considerable importance to my constituents and many unemployed Canadians. That is the necessity under the present regulations of declaring as earnings holiday pay during the week or weeks following unemployment. I will not speak at

Interim Supply
length because I know that others wish to bring up their grievances before ten o'clock.
I commenced to receive complaints on this matter shortly after the order was given effect, I believe early in October. Upon receiving them I took them up with officials of the national employment service. They wrote telling me they were very much aware of the difficulities in administering the existing regulation and were aware as well of the hardships encountered. The local officials are close to the people, those making application for unemployment insurance, and see the hardships at first hand. It is easy for us living at some distance from our constituencies, and I should say easier for ministers who live in a more rarefied atmosphere than most members of parliament, to lose touch with the problems of the people, but the local officials see these problems and I found those whom I contacted sympathetic, particularly those whom I approached with respect to the lumbering and manufacturing industries in my constituency.
I have received many letters since coming to Ottawa and have read them all with interest. It became obvious to me that a serious problem existed for an increasing number of people as they became unemployed. I will read one letter I received from the British Columbia provincial council of carpenters. Of all the letters that I received, this is one of the best drafted. I think they have faced up to the issue clearly, their argument is well arranged and they hammer home their facts very well. This is the letter I received:
I am writing you on behalf of the carpenters of British Columbia in regards the change in the unemployment insurance regulations 172 and 173. These changes were printed in the Canada Gazette, volume 93, Saturday, September 26, 1959, under statutory orders and regulations.
The effects of the amended regulations are that construction workers who have holiday pay accumulated and become unemployed through lack of work, must declare this holiday pay as earnings for the week or weeks immediately following severance of employment.
That condition is general.
This is, of course, absolutely incorrect. The accumulated holiday pay, in the case of construction workers, is money earned while they are working in addition to their regular wages. It then becomes money saved for a holiday at some suitable time during the year. To class this as money earned after separation from employment is the same as saying to every worker who becomes unemployed: "Have you any money in the bank in a savings account? If you have, then you must declare it as earnings and after it is exhausted you will be eligible for unemployment insurance."
I think that point is very well taken, Mr. Chairman.
Let us consider the case of a worker we will call X. Worker X earns $80 a week in wages. He

takes his holidays in August, getting back to work the first week of September. On December 12 he is laid off. He has worked since his holidays, 15 weeks at $80 per week. His earnings were $1,280, plus 4 per cent holiday pay of $48. On the date of December 12 his earnings stopped. His holiday pay was not earned in the following week. The worker registers at the unemployment insurance office. He is a married man entitled to $30 per week unemployment insurance. It is reasonable to assume after putting in one week's waiting period he should receive his unemployment insurance. Such is not the case. The $48 holiday pay is considered his week's wages for the first week following his termination. After that he puts in a second week's waiting period, and only then is he eligible to receive unemployment insurance commencing the third week of his unemployment.
1 think this is a matter of considerable concern to the workers.
Let us suppose worker X gets a job again the first week of January. He works until the 22nd of April and the job is completed and he is again laid off. He has put in 16 weeks and made $1,280 plus $51.20 in holiday pay. Again he registers for work at the national employment office and to draw unemployment insurance if no work is forthcoming. As his claim is already established and the waiting period put in he should receive his unemployment insurance immediately. Such is not the case. Again the holiday pay of $51.20 is considered earnings for the first week he is off work.
Supposing no work is available to the 6th of May. Worker X gets a job and works through May and June. It is now July. His children are out of school; it is good weather for holidays but he has no holiday pay to speak of. Once again another construction worker is deprived of an opportunity to enjoy a holiday with his wife and children because of financial reasons. This is the very thing labour was trying to circumvent when they presented briefs and sent delegations to the provincial government requesting them to bring in a holiday pay act.
Needless to say the carpenters of British Columbia are absolutely opposed to regulations 172 and 173.
We request you to do everything possible to have these regulations changed whereby accumulated holiday pay will not be considered earnings when a worker is laid off either for lack of work, climatic conditions or for cause.
Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance.
Yours very truly,
E. T. Staley Executive Secretary
I quoted that rather long letter, Mr. Chairman, because it does, as I say, hammer home the facts surrounding regulations 172 and 173. This matter was first mentioned in the house by an hon. member on the other side; I think it was on January 28. At that time, the minister replied to the effect that the matter was being referred to the advisory board of the unemployment insurance commission which would review the matter and no doubt give it every consideration.
Then, the last time it was brought to the attention of the house was by the hon. member for Vancouver East, as recorded on page 2210 of Hansard for March 18, 1960. He said:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to report

on the consideration and the advice given by the unemployment insurance advisory board on the question of the regulations covering pay and gratuities which, I understand, have been reported upon?
The minister replied as follows:
The unemployment insurance commission have not advised me that they have received that report as yet.
Then, as usual in matters concerning labour, with his usual agility of mind and capacity the hon. member for Essex East intervened and said:
Since the meeting took place on March 4, notwithstanding a request that it should take place earlier, could the minister not ascertain by his own initiative whether or not the advisory committee has come to a conclusion?
Then the minister replied:
I expect that when the chairman and members of the committee have come to a conclusion and are prepared to make their report they will do so.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver East felt the urgency of this situation, as do all members of the opposition, and he said:
In view of the urgency of the matter could not the Minister of Labour make inquiries to ascertain whether or not a report has already been received?
The Minister of Labour replied:
I make inquiries on this matter each and every day, and what I said earlier is the information I receive.
My point in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee is that it is a serious matter to a very large number of working people in Canada. The unemployment insurance advisory board has dallied along with this since last October. It is not a question of spending large sums of money, so the government cannot hide behind financial reasons. It is simply an administrative problem which could be settled without a large expenditure of the taxpayers' money or any drain on the consolidated revenue fund or the unemployment insurance fund.
I am advised by hon. members behind me that the report was filed with the Minister of Labour about 10 days ago. The minister will tell me if that happens to be so.


Michael Starr: I must say at once that is not true.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Or with the unemployment insurance commission?


Michael Starr: I am speaking about the same thing that the hon. member is.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize if I made an incorrect statement. Can the minister tell the house whether or not it was with the unemployment insurance commission 10 days ago?


Michael Starr: No, it was not, and I checked on that just this morning.
Interim Supply


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his information. This matter is a serious one. Since last October there have been months of delay which, in the opinion of hon. members in the opposition, is causing an increasing number of unemployed persons some anxiety. We cannot see why there should be this delay in view of the fact, as I say, that the total expenditure involved is not great. It is our opinion and the opinion of many members that the present regulation is distinctly unfair and is against the principles of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We do urge the recognition of the validity of the complaints, and that a decision on this matter be made at the earliest possible date.


Michael Starr: I should like to assure the hon. member that I am just as anxious to get this report as any hon. member is. I have been inquiring each and every day and urging them to get this report in.
Mr. V/inch: May I ask the Minister of Labour, what was the final date of the meeting of the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: The hon. member knows. He just repeated it. I think the meeting was on March 4.


Harold Edward Winch: You have not got the report
yet?


Michael Starr: There is no need for me to repeat. The report is going to be made to the unemployment insurance commission. I have been inquiring each and every day because of my anxiety to see this matter settled. They have not made a report yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear the minister's reply in this connection. Would the minister inform the house as soon as the report is received?


Michael Starr: I will.


Mr. Howard:: Before the motion is put, there is a rather important matter I should like to draw to the attention of the committee, especially on the resolution for interim supply, in order that whatever corrective measures may be taken as a result can be taken before we deal with the main estimates. In the estimates of expenditures for this year there is an item of $294,500 as a subsidy or subvention for steamship services on the west coast. The company which is operating that steamship service and in receipt of the subsidy is Northland Navigation Company. Last summer one of the unions, a certified union which had been in negotiations with that company, namely the national association of marine engineers, undertook to merge with another union, namely

Interim Supply
the Canadian brotherhood oi railway and transport workers or the C.B.R.T.
At the time of the merger between the two unions the N.A.M.E.-the marine engineers union-had been in negotiation with the Northland Navigation Company and two other shipping companies on the west coast and had reached agreement in principle upon the terms of a collective agreement that was to exist between the union and Northland. However, the agreement itself was not signed because of the pending merger. Subsequent to that time, in meetings which were held actually to consummate the collective agreement and to sign what had already been agreed upon in principle, Northland Navigation Company, the company which is recipient of this $294,500 which we have authorized and payment of which for the coming year we shall be considering today, decided that it had changed its mind and did not want to enter into the agreement which it had agreed to enter into previously. This event, of course, was rather disconcerting to the national association of marine engineers, naturally, and they wondered why this was so.
Events two or three days following the particular meeting to which I have just referred showed why Northland Navigation Company, to whom we pay a subsidy of almost $300,000 a year, did this or what that company had in its mind. From subsequent events it was quite obvious that it had reached some understanding with another union, namely, the seafarers international union, that the S.I.U. would apply, as they did some two or three days later, for certification of the same group of employees for which the national association of marine engineers had been previously certified.
We know that in the days just following the second war, the seafarers international union entered labour-management affairs in Canada in a sort of back-door way and participated quite extensively in smashing the then Canadian seamens union. Some charges were levelled that this was done with the connivance of the Liberal government or with its acquiescence. The history of the
5.1.	U., in so far as its dealings with companies are concerned, is not the best in the world. That fact is generally recognized. In any event, there was some evidence here that the Northland Navigation Company, to whom we have authorized payment of a subvention of $294,500, was entering into or wanting to participate in the signing of, let us call it, a back-door agreement with the
5.1.	U. to replace the national association of marine engineers as the certified bargaining agent for certain employees working for Northland.

As a result of Northland Navigation changing its mind and as a result of the S.I.U. having applied for certification, the marine engineers, thinking that it was the only way in which they could exert some influence upon Northland to continue its negotiations with them, undertook to call a strike and they did. When the strike was called on the waterfront of Vancouver, the following events were troublesome and there was a good bit of difficulty in the attempt of the national association of marine engineers to establish a picket line. The seafarers international union, obviously as a result of its desire to replace the N.A.M.E. and obviously because of its close relationship to Northland Navigation Company, in this instance attempted to break through the picket line and to herd scabs through it in order to load the ships. I give this information only as some sort of a background to indicate the close relationship which existed between the Northland Navigation Company and a particular union, to connect it with our payment of a $294,500 subsidy to that particular company and to wonder whether some of that money is not being channelled into an area that promotes and foments industrial disharmony and jurisdictional disputes and is and was being used to attempt to bring in a union with a record like that of the S.I.U. to replace a decent, honest union like the N.A.M.E. That is what I am asking the department or the Minister of Transport to look into.
In this waterfront dispute, or the jurisdictional question which arose, in attempting to break the picket line through the use of strong-arm tactics and goons and thugs and people of that nature, a number of them were arrested by the police and charged. As to some of those who were arrested and charged, in the car in which they were riding during this waterfront dispute I understand that baseball bats, bicycle chains and a shotgun were discovered. I have in my hand a transcript of the evidence arising out of this trial or at least part of it before Oscar Orr, Esq., Q.C., police magistrate, in the city of Vancouver, B.C., on July 20, 1959. With your permission I should like to relate some of the evidence given in order to show conclusively that this is another instance of collusion between a company to whom we are paying a subidy and a particular union in order to promote the interests of that particular union to the detriment of others. I do not think that public funds should be used in this way. They are for the purpose of providing a service to the coastal points or upcoast points of Vancouver island and for the people who live there and they should not be used for the purpose of promoting gang warfare on the waterfront or to bring in goon

squads in order to settle industrial disputes. According to this transcript, one of the gentlemen who was accused, in direct examination by his counsel, Mr. Kirk, had this to say. There is some preliminary questioning about what he was doing that night and so on but I should like to read the relevant part relating to those things which they discovered. The questions are asked by Mr. Kirk of one of the accused, Mr. Kenneth Dawson and they are as follows:
Q. Now, all these items that have been entered as exhibits, do you see them?
A. Yes, I see them.
Q. Did you see any of them prior to that night when the police pulled them out of the car?
A. Yes, I have seen some of the bats-
Meaning the baseball bats.
*-not all of them, and the gun, and the jacket, of course, is mine.
Q. Now, where did you see those?
A. Well, the gun I put in the car earlier in the evening myself, because George was driving Norman David and myself out to his farm that night. We were going hunting the next day.
Q. This is the gun, is it?
A. That is the gun, yes.
Q. Now, where did you get that gun?
A. I got that gun from the Northland dock, I borrowed it from a Frank Terry.
Then the court intervened and asked:
Got it from whom?
A. Frank Terry.
This is the important part I wish to get to in addition to the other evidence of collusion, because Frank Terry is the son of Captain Terry, the owner of Northland Navigation Company and the person to whom we are paying this subsidy. I suggest that it is bad enough that some of the subsidy money is being channelled into Conservative campaign funds, but when and if money we are paying as a subsidy to provide services to upcoast and Vancouver island ports, where we would not get such services were it not for such a subsidy is being used by some of the people in receipt of the money in order to foment and foster gang warfare on the waterfront, or indeed anywhere else, or they are attempting to use it for the furtherance of the S.I.U.-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the Chair has been very lenient with the hon. member so far, but I think the things he is discussing now are not under the jurisdiction of the government. I ask him to come back to this particular item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The things I am discussing, I submit with deference, are under the jurisdiction of this government, the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Maritime Commission. If I may make reference to page 562 of the 1960-61 estimates, there is listed there:
79951-0-153
Interim Supply
Steamship Subventions for Coastal Services Western Local Services
Service between-
Vancouver and northern British Columbia
ports	 $194,500
Vancouver and west coast of Vancouver
island, B.C	 $100,000
That is money which parliament is being asked to approve at this session and it is being used-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair is not arguing with the hon. member about the amount to which he is referring, $300,000 odd; but the question of crime on the waterfront is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then it comes under the Minister of Justice. Someone is responsible for it. We are providing money in the amount of almost $300,000 which is paid to a particular company for the purpose-there is an agreement to this effect-of providing coastal services to certain ports on the coast of British Columbia on a regular basis, and there is a contract which says they can only make so much profit. If they make more, then we can recapture some of this $294,500.
The question which I raise is this. Is that money being put to purposes which the agreement between Northland Navigation Company and the Canadian Maritime Commission intended? I ask that because of the record of collusiveness and arrangements between Northland Navigation, who received the money, and the seafarers international union. According to the court evidence the son of the owner of Northland Navigation had his gun involved in one of these goon squads, and therefore I ask whether this money is being put to the purpose the agreement said it should, or is it being used to foment jurisdictional disputes to eliminate legitimate unions and to bring baseball bats, tire chains and shotguns into play in an effort to bring scabs through a picket line?
If that is the case it is an illegitimate use of this money and I draw it to the attention of the Minister of Transport because it is under his jurisdiction that this payment of money is made, and under his jurisdiction that the agreement between Northland and the Canadian maritime commission was made. I ask that a thorough investigation be made of the use to which the money with which we are subsidizing this company is being put.
Mr. Chairman, if I have wandered away, as I think you have indicated I have, from the point under discussion to the question of the jurisdiction or responsibility of the minister or any member of the cabinet I apologize, but with all due respect I think I have

Interim Supply
not. I think this is a clear-cut case of a matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, and I raise it now so that an investigation, if it is deemed necessary, can be made of this question in order that, when the final estimates come before the committee of supply later on this session, the Minister of Transport may be in a position to announce the result of such investigation and will be able to make sure that money which parliament provides is not being misused or channelled into various uses for which it should not be so channelled.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas 29; nays 85.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I had anticipated making these remarks earlier in the afternoon and I was quite certain I would be in a position to do so. I think that probably would have been the situation had not the Minister of Finance raised so many objections to discussion of a given item in these estimates.
I should like to raise at this time the question of the delay, certainly the refusal on the part of the government, in dealing with the question of the disallowance of the controversial legislation passed in Newfoundland more than a year ago. I do that, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the privy council vote in the estimates, the fact that this matter comes under the privy council, and that this is the first opportunity that a member of the house has had to discuss this question under the rulings which have been made over the past year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has indicated that he intends to discuss the fact that the government did not disallow certain Newfoundland legislation, and he is proposing to relate this to an item in the estimates of the privy council.
May I recall to his mind, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we are here dealing with a proposal to vote certain sums out of the estimates for the fiscal year 1960-61. We are not dealing with something in the fiscal year 1959-60, and there is nothing in these estimates anywhere for the fiscal year 1960-61 which has any bearing whatsoever on this subject of the disallowance of certain Newfoundland legislation. The legislation, we were told, became effective by royal assent over a year ago, and the time for disallowance

passed some days ago. It is nothing which affects the fiscal year 1960-61 in any way, shape or form.


Harold Edward Winch: Just how nasty can the government get? Up until a certain date this question could not be considered at all. I refer the minister to Hansard. Three times the ruling of the Speaker was that this matter could not be raised until the period for disallowance had run out. The time has now run out and we have these estimates before us. Just how and when can this subject be raised except at this time? I ask the Minister of Finance whether he cannot be just a little bit fair to the hon. members on this side of the house.


Mr. Regier:: One of the oldest, if not the
oldest, of the rights of parliament in the British commonwealth is the right to debate and discuss the proposals for taxation and expenditure put forward by Her Majesty's advisers and to deny the supply of funds if parliament thinks fit. We are now engaged, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has stated, in discussing whether or not we feel that the government and, more specifically, the office of the privy council are worthy to obtain the right to expend additional moneys and when we are debating whether or not we consider the government to be worthy of this continuing vote of supply it is, I submit, in order to review the record of the government in the past. I should like to repeat the appeal which has been made to the Minister of Finance to measure up to his responsibilities once and for all and to recognize the importance of parliament and not to delay the committee by his nonsensical-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, I think this is perhaps one of the most illogical points of order which the minister has ever raised. He said this adverse decision had been made in the past and that these estimates have to do with the coming fiscal year. On this ground, because I wish to discuss something which has taken place in recent days, and in very recent days, he argues that because this estimate, together with the others, would come into effect on April 1, it would be out of order to discuss the question to which I have referred. If that were taken to be the ruling, Mr. Chairman, parliament would be silenced on these estimates until April 1. However, the government needs the money and therefore the estimates must be discussed at this time. If the minister's view were the correct one, the debate which has just concluded with reference to unemployment at this time could not have taken place. It would have been necessary to wait

until April 1 when the estimates come into effect before any debate could be allowed.
I would also suggest with great deference, Mr. Chairman, that the voice of parliament has been silenced on this issue in accordance with citation 161, a citation which, I think, might well be changed. Nonetheless, in accordance with citation 161 the voice of parliament on this important question of human rights and fundamental freedoms has been silenced for a year. I suggest that this silence should no longer continue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could I have a ruling on the point of order which I raised, Mr. Chairman? The hon. gentleman is not discussing that point of order at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. minister cannot rise on a point of order while a point of order is being discussed. I should have thought that a man so well acquainted with the rules would know that it is improper to interrupt with a point of order while a point of order is being discussed.
I have asked you, Mr. Chairman, with deference, if you would consider the position in which parliament is placed with regard to the discussion of this important question, and I have said that in accordance with citation 161 the voice of parliament has been silenced for the period of one year, and that although this rule provides for the silencing of parliament during that period, parliament should not be silenced tonight with regard to dealing with this subject which, according to the rules, it is now proper to discuss. I suggest that this matter is on all fours with the discussion of unemployment, the Unemployment Insurance Act and any other matter which can be related to the items included in these estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is, of course, quite clear that in the past a great deal of latitude has been given in the discussion on requests for interim supply. As I have previously mentioned, there is a very good precedent recorded in Hansard for 1957 to illustrate the latitude which has customarily been given. The practice of that time has gone on for many years, and many hon. members have spoken on a variety of subjects. Toward the end of the debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert, now Prime Minister, got up and introduced a subject, and these are his words-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Page 2845. He said:
Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which X wish to bring to the attention of the Department of National Revenue-
The hon. gentleman spoke on this for some minutes-
Interim Supply
-and that is the need for action to be taken to keep open the port of West Poplar, Saskatchewan, from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What bearing has that on this point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely it makes you look ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It shows you the kind of things you did when you were over here.


Jacques Flynn: The ruling I gave this afternoon when I was dealing with the references by the hon. member for Essex East on the subject of unemployment should apply in the present case. I understand that one point raised by the hon. member for Assini-boia was that until the expiration of the one-year period the matter of the disallowance of the Newfoundland legislation could not be discussed in parliament. It can be discussed from now on, but at the appropriate time, and I do not think this is the appropriate time. It may be that the rules which concern us here have not always been applied in connection with motions for interim supply. There is, of course, the practical problem of applying the rules, and also the application of the rules in principle; and what the Chair is called upon to do is to apply the rules in principle.
As I said this afternoon, I think that reference to special matters-not general matters that would be arguments for refusing to vote interim supply-are not relevant, and therefore I rule that this question cannot be discussed at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we have gone over this ground all afternoon in connection with another subject and I cannot for the life of me believe that you would be endeavouring to apply one particular rule this afternoon and another rule tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: The only thing I can say is I hope I will have more success in applying my rulings tonight than I had this afternoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think that is the greatest admission one could have that there was a great deal of leeway allowed this afternoon in discussing questions covered by this vote. I believe that the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which comes within the purview of the privy council and therefore within the purview of this parliament, can be discussed. In order to bring that discussion about-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as I understand it you have made your ruling and that concludes the matter unless the hon. member chooses to

Interim Supply
challenge the ruling. He has not done so. The ruling has been made but the hon. gentleman chooses to disregard it and go right on talking as though it had never been made.


Jacques Flynn: Yes. Of course, the Chair has made a ruling. I should hope that the hon. member for Assiniboia would co-operate and try to conduct an orderly discussion in this debate. As I said, we can discuss reasons why interim supply should not be voted, but I do not think we can go into details. The hon. member will have other occasions-in fact I am sure he will have several other occasions-to discuss the matter he wishes to discuss now.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are asking that this appropriation, as it applies to the privy council, be not passed. We ask that it be not passed for the particular reason that we feel the privy council has failed to do its duty as far as basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country are concerned.
I should like to move, Mr. Chairman:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end of paragraph (a) the following words: "save and excepting one sixth of vote 309 as contained in the main estimates".


Jacques Flynn: Does the hon. member for Assiniboia not realize that such an amendment would not be in order because it does not refer to the motion before the committee? If it referred to any item mentioned in the motion before the house it might be in order but I will have to rule it out of order.


Harold Edward Winch: How is it that the estimates of the privy council are not before the committee when one sixth of the entire estimates are before the committee?


Jacques Flynn: What I said is that all the estimates are before the committee but not with reference to a particular vote. It is one sixth of the estimates. I might try to explain to the hon. member that there must be a reference in the amendment to the main motion before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you whether during the dinner hour you pursued this matter further? I have and I could not find in four different parliaments any ruling along the lines which you are now making and which you made today. I would ask you, in a matter of this importance, to consider the far-reaching implications of the ruling you are making and which you say you made earlier.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on this amendment because I had something to say on it this afternoon. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate proposed certain amendments and the hon. member for Laurier
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
proposed a third. At that time I raised the issue and it was stated then that the previous two had been ruled out of order. That was accepted and the amendments were then dropped. I see no reason why, if the amendments at that time were accepted as being out of order, there should be any difference now.


Harold Edward Winch: I have asked for an explanation on three different occasions.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly this one is in order.


Jacques Flynn: I will say in reply to the hon. member for Essex East that, although he may not have found any precedents, I am not so much worried about making a new decision as about not making a decision contrary to other decisions that have been made before. If the hon. member for Essex East has any special authority to refer me to which would be in accordance with his view I will certainly give it my fullest consideration, but I think I have explained sufficiently the reasons why I took this view this afternoon. It seems to me, even if there is no precedent, it is logical even if there are no precedents against it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that there are no precedents one way, but there are precedents showing what has been the practice. A few moments ago the Leader of the Opposition read a statement which established what the practice was. I say I have not been able to find in the record of four parliaments any contrary practice, and practice certainly has the force of custom and regulation in this house unless there is something explicit to the contrary in the standing orders or in the citations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a specific ruling on this point made by the chairman of committees, which I have already quoted. On June 22, 1956, the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, brought this matter to the attention of the chairman of the committees. Mr. Drew said, as reported at page 5288 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, every subject which can be dealt with by this parliament can now be properly dealt with on the motion for interim supply.
The chairman agreed with the leader of the opposition that that was correct and made a ruling to that effect, and that ruling has never been challenged since that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point of order was on a different matter entirely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Here is the chairman's ruling:
The hon. member for Rosthern has raised a point of order and perhaps I should deal with it following the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition. I have looked at the motion which was

2425 moved by the leader of the opposition several weeks ago with regard to Mr. Speaker-
The leader of the opposition was then talking on another motion for interim supply about the conduct of the Speaker. The chairman continued:
-I find also that in the estimates there are items dealing with the allowances to Mr. Speaker-
And therefore he was permitted to bring up the whole question of the conduct of the Speaker.


Jacques Flynn: This afternoon I dealt with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think it would be practical to review or to repeat what I said this afternoon. To me, this ruling of the Chair was not specific at all. The chairman ruled simply that he did not know how he could object to a certain subject being discussed. If hon. members will recall, this afternoon I indicated that it would be proper to make general references to the administration to come to the conclusion that interim supply should not be voted. What I am afraid of is that the debate might take the same form as the debate on a supply motion, when any hon. member is entitled to bring up any grievance he wishes. If the Chair were to allow such a debate, hon. members will realize that it would be completely disorderly, and it would go much further and be a much wider debate than any other debate provided for under the rules in which hon. members can air all their grievances, I am thinking of debates such as the budget debate, the throne speech debate, debate on a supply motion or on item one of any departmental estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we in this group are opposed to the privy council item being passed. We are opposed to it being passed because we think there has been an abrogation of the power that should have been exercised by the government on a previous occasion. Mr. Chairman, I desire at this time to move:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end of paragraph (a) the following words: "save and excepting $83,861.84, being one sixth of vote No. 309 as contained in said main estimates.
Obviously that is in keeping with your admonition that if a motion is moved it should state a specific reduction in the total estimate and relate to a particular item. What we are moving relates to the privy council item and indicates our strong protest about the way the whole question has been mishandled by the government.
I tried to discuss this subject somewhat less than a year ago. I recall very clearly your predecessor at that time feeling that the question could not be discussed because it was then before the privy council and he threatened this group with expulsion from the
Interim Supply
chamber. I believe it was an error on his part to go that far and I would hope that after having waited with great patience, and I may say to the detriment of the rights of Canadians, until a full year elapsed there will be no endeavour at this time to close off debate and impose closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Closure apparently occurs only when it is applied by a government to the Conservative party. When the Conservative party applies it to someone else it is to ensure orderly debate.


Richard Albert Bell: Irresponsible nonsense.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I will ignore the temptation of the hon. member for Assiniboia and put the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a point of order on this amendment. This day has seen some extraordinary things. Indeed, we have seen a travesty made of the proceedings of the committee of supply on an interim supply resolution. The kind of debate in which hon. members opposite have engaged today could only be relevant if at all on the basis that the procedure in committee of supply at this stage is somehow to be treated as assimilable with the procedure which the house has established on motions to resolve the house into committee of supply.
On such motions only one amendment is permitted. An amendment to an amendment is permitted, but only one original amendment is permitted. If this kind of proceeding has anything to justify it whatever under the rules it could only be on the basis of assimilation with such motions. On that basis a second amendment or further amendments are not permissible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I cannot endure that. I mean to say that of all the absurdity that has ever been uttered in the House of Commons this is the most absurd. If there is one thing we still have a right to do in British parliament, it is to move to reduce any item. While I have not the faintest sympathy with this silly amendment, it is perfectly in order.


Michael Starr: Silly amendment is right, and yours was just as silly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the point is that we are not dealing with a succession of items. That is where the hon. member is wrong. If we are in committee of supply and dealing with an item, yes, you can have a succession of amendments to reduce, but that is not the situation before us now. We have a resolution. Hon. members opposite

Interim Supply
have sought to treat it as though it were the equivalent of a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. If they are right in that, then they must take the consequences.


Hazen Robert Argue: The point of order the minister has raised is most ill-founded and illogical. The hon. gentleman merely said that the government by adopting this device-and it is only a device to meet a temporary condition -could choke off the possibility of hon. members moving the reduction of items in the estimates. I believe Your Honour had already ruled in a fair manner.
The minister changed his ground from this afternoon entirely. He said this afternoon you cannot move an amendment but now he says you cannot move to amend twice even though the second amendment has nothing to do with the first.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that this afternoon at all.


Jacques Flynn: I do not consider it necessary for the hon. member to continue. I have accepted the validity of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I will therefore give the benefit of the doubt and rule it in order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can understand the impatience of my hon. friends opposite. Their tremendous majority makes them ill-tempered. They no longer wish to listen to hon. members. They want to babble like the trained seals the former leader of their party, Mr. George Drew, referred to in characterizing the Liberals when they were in office. They want to raise their voices in one loud chorus.


William Heward Grafftey: Is the hon. member being sincere? I doubt it very much.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The item should be reduced and deleted, in our submission. In view of the fact that the privy council has used its well-defined constitutional prerogative to set aside provincial legislation we ask that this vote be set aside as a means of protesting an interference with the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadian citizens resident in Newfoundland. We are protesting this vote not in the interests of trade unions as such or of any given organization.


An hon. Member:: No, just for the sake of talking.


Hazen Robert Argue: We do so in the belief that it should be the fundamental right of any Canadian citizen to band together with other citizens to associate in the organization of their

choice. This is all that was done in the case of the I.W.A. in Newfoundland.


Mr. McGraih:: Why not pronounce it
correctly?


Hazen Robert Argue: I had an opportunity to visit Newfoundland not long ago. During the course of my visit my genial friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, and his famliy had me at their home for dinner and I enjoyed myself immensely. All I can say publicly is "thank you". I am sorry if in that short period of instruction I was not able to acquire the pronunciation that would allow me consistently to use the proper inflection that my hon. friend feels the name of this important Canadian province deserves.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you very much.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the union that was concerned in the province of Newfoundland was established under the laws of that province. It was established legally. It was set up on the basis of having obtained a favourable vote, after which it was certified. The vote was favourable by 86.4 per cent of the membership-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you dealt with this matter once. You ruled this type of speech out of order, and the hon. member completely ignores your ruling and goes right ahead making the speech. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that the ruling which you have made, and which has not been challenged, should be adhered to.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that we had a very long discussion this afternoon during which many points of order were raised as to whether or not it was possible to discuss the question of unemployment. Your Honour ruled that a discussion on unemployment could not take place. However, the moment the motion to reduce the estimates had been placed before the committee Your Honour allowed that debate to proceed. The motion we have before the house is to the effect that the money available for these items should be reduced, and it is to that motion I am relating my remarks. I am endeavouring to show that the union in question, which had been decertified, was properly organized under the laws of the province of Newfoundland.


Jacques Flynn: Order; I think the hon. member has completed his comments on the point of order. I ruled this afternoon that the rules of debate are the same on the amendment as on the motion itself. I said that it is correct to make general references, but the hon. member is dealing with one question and is dealing with it at length.

I had hoped he would be able to conclude his remarks in a few minutes, but as I see he is continuing to discuss the problem of the disallowance of certain Newfoundland laws in detail, I have to ask him to follow the general rule I indicated before.


Hazen Robert Argue: I moved this motion because I think the government made a great error. The Minister of Finance is in his seat. The Prime Minister is not in his seat this evening. I wish he were. He came into the house this afternoon and graced us with his presence. What I should like to know from the government is why they failed to deal with this question within the one-year period, within less than the one-year period.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is not following my ruling. I ask him once again to do so. If I am to understand that the rulings I have given are not followed, then I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am at a loss to know why it is in order to move for the deletion of a certain sum of money from the estimates and yet be unable to advance reasons why this should be done. I have been a member of this house for 15 years. I believe that the record will show that I have adhered to the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Never before have I run into so much interference while trying to discuss a motion before the committee which the Chairman himself has said is in order. You can move a motion in this committee, but apparently you dare not say why you are moving it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know they are shouting "Sit down". I know that. This government, with its tremendous majority, with its steamroller majority-


Michael Starr: You are the only steamroller in this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now here is an interruption from the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: I say you are the biggest steamroller this house has ever seen.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Labour lost his temper one night in this house.


Michael Starr: I have not lost it tonight.


Hazen Robert Argue: He has suffered for it. He had his knuckles rapped and he had a change of heart. The next day he started smiling, just as he is starting to smile now.
Interim Supply
The Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, has been a great defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms over the years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: By his own statements-


Michael Starr: He always will be.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister has made statements in favour of human rights, but he has failed to act. He talks one way, but by his actions he shows that he is not a defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Michael Starr: That is only your opinion.


Hazen Robert Argue: He forgot about the rights of citizens in the province of Newfoundland.


William Heward Grafftey: Get off your soapbox.


Hazen Robert Argue: These estimates include a statutory item for the Prime Minister's salary and department that is under his jurisdiction. We have moved this motion in the hope that the Conservative government will do more than pretend it is in favour of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These have been dark days for Canada. The United Nations organization, the international labour organization, has had to bring it to the attention of the privy council that fundamental rights in this country have been interfered with and the government has failed to act. The name of Canada has been hurt in international affairs because human rights and fundamental freedoms have been abrogated and damaged in our country.
I have said, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a plea on behalf of any group or any organization. This is a plea that, within this nation, the right of people to join organizations of their choice, whether it be a trade union or a farm organization or a church organization-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member certainly does not show any indication that he wishes to follow the ruling of the Chair. I have had occasion to speak on this question more than once. I ask him for the last time to please co-operate with the Chair for the sake of orderly debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask just in what way one can discuss a motion before the committee without saying anything about it. For the life of me, I do not know how it can be done.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I know the hon. member is able to give a correct interpretation to the rules and I am sure he does not wish me to doubt his capacity to understand them.


Lionel Chevrier: He has a right to speak.

Interim Supply


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, you have not been helpful in this last statement. This motion is designed as a motion of condemnation of a government that mouths its alleged interest in human rights and fundamental freedoms but by its inaction allows them to be torn asunder in our country.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a few words on the amendment that has been moved to the motion.


An hon. Member:: Let us take a vote.


William Arnold Peters: When hon. members are calling for a vote without time being given for discussion, are they not doing exactly what we are accusing them of doing in respect of a number of other things? They are calling for a vote because they know they have a large majority in this chamber.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member has the floor and he can continue without discussing the interjections.


William Arnold Peters: I believe we should reduce this vote for the privy council to nothing. I think on interim supply we have a right to discuss these things. I have not been here too long but to me this would appear to be the situation. If we have not these rights, then why is this debate taking place at all? Why does not the government just pass this one sixth of the votes and we will discuss the whole matter on the estimates?


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is certainly not discussing the amendment when he is discussing the ruling of the Chair. I would ask him to come to the amendment under the guidance of the rulings of the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: I did not intend to discuss the whole matter, Mr. Chairman, but it would appear to me that this amendment is a condemnation of the government's handling of a particular matter and that this has reference to and can be related to the estimates under the privy council.
We are not at all satisfied, we are not happy, and I have not been for some time, with the actions of this government, and I think that is true of the Canadian people or at least a large number of them. I should like to point out that these members of the privy council, these leaders of this large majority here, have and should have an obligation to see that democracy functions in the best possible way. That can happen only if there is an opposition and if that opposition is given the opportunity to speak at some length.

Looking at the government and at the record of some of the members of the privy council, may I say this? The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who is not present is a member of that privy council. Over the years I believe he has done his share to make parliament an effective organization. The same is true of the next member of the privy council, namely the hon. member for Greenwood. I have listened to him and I have read speeches of his for years. I was always greatly impressed by the ability shown by the hon. member for Greenwood in his functions as a member of the House of Commons. Certainly his understanding of democracy has been advantageous to the Canadian people. This is more than can be said for a great many of the back benchers that now sit behind him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is refreshing indeed to hear these complimentary remarks with respect to very distinguished members of the House of Commons, but actually this has nothing to do with the amendment before the house. We are dealing with an amendment to item 309, which is an item in relation to the privy council and has nothing whatever to do with the individual members of the privy council.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think I need to hear the hon. member. I have made a number of rulings today and the hon. member knows very well that, in accordance with the rulings I have already given, he is out of order.


Erhart Regier: Speaking on that point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the hon. member was beginning to discuss the present privy council and the amendment has to do with the present privy council. I fail to understand how you, Mr. Chairman, can make the statement that the hon. member was obviously out of order.


Jacques Flynn: I have made it because I have said at least 20 times today that the motion before the committee does not allow discussion of any special problems but just general problems and whether or not interim supply should be voted.


Murdo William Martin: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the present privy council is a general problem.


An hon. Member:: And a continuing problem.


William Arnold Peters: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member insists on defying the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member for Assiniboia has chosen to introduce an amendment which he has related to item 309 of the estimates. Item 309 of the estimates has nothing to do with the members of the privy council. It has to do with certain officers of the privy council. All this talk is a waste of the valuable time of the committee and is just a defiance of the ruling you have made, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: I should be greatly surprised at this particular ruling, Mr. Chairman. It would appear to me that the privy council has something to do with the memers of the privy council and the operation of that privy council must have some relationship, even though remote, to this particular vote. If it does not have some relationship, I would suggest that the Minister of Finance has hoodwinked the Canadian people and the members of the House of Commons for some time. If we cannot look through the estimates and, under the privy council, be able to discuss the privy council and the privy councillors, I would ask just what this vote is for.
It would appear to me that the members of the privy council are officials of that organization. Certainly the chairman of that privy council is the Prime Minister of this country. I would assume that the other 79951-0-154
Interim Supply
cabinet ministers also are officials of that organization. If they are not, I think that is something the Canadian people will be greatly interested in finding out. If the Minister of Finance does not think that the ministers of the crown have anything to do with the privy council, I think he has an obligation to tell the Canadian people right now that that is so.


Jacques Flynn: I intervene at this point because nothing has changed the ruling I previously gave the committee. The estimate referred to in the amendment does not refer to any member of the privy council but only to officers, as the Minister of Finance has indicated. Therefore, if we are to discuss this particular estimate, the only relevant fact would be the salaries of the officers which are mentioned. However, that is only incidental. I do not think it changes anything in the general rule of debate which I indicated before. The hon. member has asked what he can discuss. As I said, I cannot make his speeches for him, and if he does not find anything relevant to say he should not have the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, that would please some who want to use their huge majority in this vote. It would appear to me that this afternoon and this evening we have been discussing the rules, about which I certainly do not claim to be any expert. The Minister of Finance has been using these rules-


Jacques Flynn: Order. Will the hon. member discuss the amendment, if he can. If he cannot, then I ask him to resume his seat.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like some information from the Chair. I should like to ask what we can discuss under this amendment.


Jacques Flynn: I thought I made myself clear. I am sure that if the hon. member for Timiskaming wishes to co-operate with the Chair he will understand what was the meaning of the ruling I gave. Again, I cannot tell him what he can say, but I have told him what he cannot say.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not think that in this house we can only carry on business if, so to speak, we play the game with each other? Then may I ask him whether he does not think that this amendment to do away with this whole item is not a resolution to be taken seriously but is merely for the purpose of causing delay? Coming back to my first question, may I ask the hon. member whether he does not agree that in this house.

Interim Supply
if we reach the stage where we are not cooperating with the Speaker, and if we reach the stage where we cannot really co-operate with each other within the rules, we are drifting into a very serious and dangerous position?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In reply to that question I would say we are drifting into a very serious situation.
It is true that this amendment is only an effort to enable us to accomplish an aim, but this has been the practice over the years in dealing with matters in interim supply which are related. I would suggest that if all the amendments presented to this committee had been voted on this afternoon there would have been very little in the speeches of hon. members and we would not have taken very long to dispose of this subject.
In the amendment we have now moved, what we are interested in discussing is the situation that has developed because of this question of disallowance, and this is only in my opinion a method to enable us to discuss it. I agree with the hon. member that we are coming to a very sad impasse when we have to move amendments which are not really meant and we do not really want to accomplish what the amendment seeks. As I say, it is only a method to enable us to talk about something else.
I honestly think it has been very foolish of us to get into this position of having to move an amendment which we do not want to support as such, because we certainly do not want to eliminate the privy council. It is part of the institution of our parliament, but we wish to have an item before the house which will allow us to discuss something which the privy council is, or was, able to do. It is a matter on which we think wrong action was taken and the amendment is only to enable us to bring it before the house.
I agree we have reached a sad impasse when the Chair is put in the position of having to rule out of order matters which I think are very relevant. In reply to the hon. member's question, I know he is an ardent supporter of parliament and I have read his speeches over the years, but I wish he would talk to the Minister of Finance. If the minister had been more quiet in the first place, this debate would probably have been concluded a long time ago.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why don't you give your colleagues a chance to vote on this?


Harold Edward Winch: If hon. members will give me the floor, I should like to say this is an unusual situation. I should like to say a few words which to me are important, even though they may not be important to my hon. friend directly across from me. Mr. Chairman, if there were a greater understanding of the real meaning of democracy, and if there were a greater application of it, then this session of parliament might be a lot shorter than it appears it will be. There should be a greater understanding between all members and all parties.
Will you allow me this one remark, Mr. Chairman, that if all of us-I mean all parties, government, official opposition and the C.C.F.-would realize our responsibility is not to discuss the past but to work on the present and the future, we would be doing a darned sight better than we have for the people we represent. Unfortunately the government cannot recognize that they are now in government. They have to go back to the past. The opposition cannot recognize that they are not now the government, and now they are in opposition they have to go back. Each and every one of us should say, "Okay, let us put a closure on the past and work for Canada from this day on, recognizing all our responsibilities".
Mr. Chairman, the main reason I rose was because I wish to raise a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I ask you to accept my rising on a question of privilege because this afternoon when I spoke I made reference to veterans affairs, and I said during the course of my discussion on veterans affairs that the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the veterans affairs committee last year gave the commitment that at this session he would be introducing a redrafted veterans bill. The minister challenged my statement, though in very nice words. So, because my honour and reputation for veracity mean so much to me, I should like to inform you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee that I now hold in my hand the transcript of the proceedings of the committee on veterans affairs of 1959. As reported on page 187, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said on March 23, and I quote:
I might tell you, as I told the president of the Canadian Legion when he visited our office, that it is not our intention to make any amendments this year to the Pension Act. We plan to have it before us at the next session of parliament, at which time we will go very thoroughly into all phases of it.
That was last year, 1959, before the committee on veterans affairs. My veracity was

Business of the House
questioned by the Minister of Veterans Af- position, if any, it intends to take with regard fairs. There is the record. There is the quota- to giving leadership in a situation which is tion, and we ask the hon. gentleman to live so volatile that it could mean a revolution in up to the commitment given a year ago. the Afro-Asian countries.
Amendment (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 110.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


Harold Edward Winch: Under this vote, which concerns all departments of government, and with the Minister of Finance asking for one sixth of the estimates for the coming year, there is one phase in particular which must, I think, be discussed and understood before the vote is approved with regard to the Department of External Affairs.
The Department of External Affairs is one of the most important departments of the government. It is a department which is the voice of Canada outside our country. Within the last few days a situation has occurred which is so disturbing, and whose implications are so great, that the position of the Department of External Affairs not only should be known but must be known before this motion is passed. I refer to the apartheid situation in South Africa.
I am proud to have been born an Englishman, proud to be a Canadian, proud to be a member of the British commonwealth, and because of this I think we have to accept the responsibilities of our birth, our citizenship, and our membership in the commonwealth. We in Canada have a responsibility not only to the white people within the commonwealth but to the hundreds of millions who are not of our colour. I believe we all feel in this party that before approval is given to the vote of the Department of External Affairs there must be a more definite, more militant and more explanatory statement by the government as to what
May I call it ten o'clock and move the adjournment?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow? The leader of the house has already indicated what we will be doing on Monday. I wonder if he could tell the house what the business will be prior to budget day, March 31? That is for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would gladly have given a forecast of the business for next week, and would do so now if we could get some clear indication as to what progress we are likely to make this week. But I confess that at the moment I am not able to state more than I announced last night. We have three items here, interim supply, which we were discussing today, the final supplementary estimates, and the resolution dealing with federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements, which should receive urgent treatment by the House of Commons for the orderly dispatch of the business of the country.
Tomorrow we shall carry on with the order of business that I outlined last night, and if we do not finish interim supply in good time I may have to ask the house to drop that subject and deal with the final supplementary estimates in order that the various payments which have to be made to officials serving the government and the people of Canada can be made promptly, as is the habit, every month.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
79951-0-154J
2432	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: What is the name of each Indian band in Canada and with respect to each band what was, as of February 29, 1960; (a) the amount in the band fund capital account; (b) the amount in the band fund revenue account?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. (a); (b).
Band Funds
Agency and Band


BRITISH COLUMBIA-
[Stage Direction]
Babine Agency-
Glen Vowell	
Hazelton	
Kispiox	
Kitsegukla	
Kitwanga	
Kitwancool	
Moricetown	
Tsitsk	
Bella Coola Agency-
Bella Bella	
Bella Coola	
Kitasoo	
0 weekano	
Burns Lake Agency-
Burns Lake	
Cheslatta	
Lake Babine	
Omineca	
Cowichan Agency-
Beecher Bay	
Chemainus	
Cowichan	
Cowichan Lake	
Esquimalt	
Halalt	
Lyackson	
Malahat	
Nanaimo	
Nanoose	
Paquachin	
Penelakut	
Qualicum	
Songhees	
Sooke	
Tsartlip	
Tsawout	
Tseycum (Saanich)....
Fort St. John Agency
Fort Nelson Slaves...
Fort St. John Beavers...
Hudson Hope	
Saulteau, Moberly Lake
Kamloops Agency
Adams Lake	
Ashcroft	
Bonaparte	
Deadman's Creek	
Kamloops	
Little Shush wap	
Neskainlith	
North Thompson	
Oregon Jack	
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account
$	$
395.98	243.20
1,112.25	578.03
3,492.02	188.29
1,126.00	142.21
8.36.93	1,056.31
563.09	167.67
5,721.84	1,484.18
43.17	9.89
2,159.94	2,093.35
63,409.94	1,315.80
6,311.16	848.58
33,358.42	32,511.16
22,470.39	4,076.46
20,899.76	3,309.21
6,956.48	2,438.96
2,229.72	873.98
11,357.37	3,550.30
19,041.70	3,037.59
101,973.26	13,981.34
452.31	977.42
2,139.90	11,349.63
7,685.70	2,386.93
79,609.50	13,370.74
30,659.20	4,663.44
1,150.58	1,498.13
9,281.61	1,690.95
30,407.74	1,639.74
40,486.12	2,664.89
4,735.56	2,710.92
8,398.35	3,108.36
7,119.97	2,355.90
19,209.67	708.85
2,889.06	901.32
2,629.46	309.45
14,162.24	768.00
65,943.92	870.34
52,378.63	47,081.28
49,074.82	13,220.22
27,226.68	2,630.92
9,024.76	1,824.48
1,592.67	594.42
24,206.98	821.27
132,298.09	11,584.87
37,360.79	3,907.96
12,040.28	1,509.72
10,103.59	1,629.83
461.66	68.69

Questions
Agency and Band
BRITISH COLUMBIA-Continued
Kootenay Agency
Columbia Lake	
Lower Kootenay	
St. Mary's	
Shuswap	
Tobacco Plains	
Kwawkewlth Agency
Campbell River	
Cape Mudge	
Comox	
Gilford Island	
Kwawkewlth	
Kwawwawaineuk	
Kwiakah	
Mamalillikulla	
Nakwakto	
Nimpkish	
Nuwitti	
Quatsino	
Quawshelah	
Tanakteuk	
Tsawataineuk	
Tumour Island	
Lytton Agency
Boothroyd	
Boston Bar	
Bridge River	
Cayoose Creek	
Clinton	
Fountain	
High Bar	
Kanaka Bar	
Lillooet	
Lytton	
Pavilion	
Scuppah	
Seton Lake	
Siska	
Spuzzum	
New Westminster Agency
Douglas	
Cheam	
Chehalis	
Coquitlam	
Hope	
Katzie	
Langley	
Matsqui	
New Westminster	
Ohamil	
Peters	
Popkum	
Scowlitz	
Seabird Island	
Semiahmoo	
Samahquam	
Skawahlook	
Skookum Chuck	
Sumas Kilgard	
Sumas Lakehahmen	
Tsawwassen	
Union Bar	
Yale	
Atichelitz	
Kwaw-kwaw-a-pilt	
Skwah	
Skway	
Squiala	
Skulkayn	
Soowahlie	
Tzeachten	
Y ak weakwioose	
Band Funds
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account
[Stage Direction]
25,893.99
1,224.15
20,495.27
11,004.77
18,933.26
25,311.12
36,617.97
24,036.09
7,805.14
18,534.99
12,950.91
5,936.13
16,408.81
2,544.47
27,159.61
3,889.83
29,415.67
2,109.68
18,542.87
11,390.73
2,524.61
17,339.44
21,778.88
15,585.53
4,538.16
6,674.68
4,417.81
24.16
13,233.70
30,613.84
3,114.87
13,002.56
5,875.85
25,684.66
20,828.43
41,765.30
69.313.57 6,491.29
21,319.85
24,302.20
58,565.61
11.791.33
19,688.40
3,833.56
5.273.24 42,015.36 11,471.99
11.247.34 2,523.06 3,478.70
87,149.13
14,887.75
32,748.48
74,031.55
25,011.83
15,726.17
3,074.53
1,231.97
26,948.33
22,730.60
6.968.24 2,742.81
24.722.58 6,578.86 2,125.68
[Stage Direction]
3,473.36
6,167.00
396.82
2,203.10
3,023.75
1.085.84 6,144.47 1,334.57 1,187.08
1.815.89
1.903.85 1,106.71
499.66
947.95
94.67
1,378.16
1.567.90 87.80
205.52
770.45
312.60
2,622.44
1,593.19
601.93
1,237.42
1.484.04 8.37
4,954.37
627.89
3.276.04 11.83
813.92
36.67
2,488.08
2,224.58
366.66
4,013.52
244.56
15,127.61
645.55
3,228.29
1,521.32
10,645.57
2.152.98
6,356.04
5,210.38
4,870.14
12,003.54
7,385.47
6,411.85
1,987.72
6.677.19 11,278.53
8,370.76
2,209.64
6,893.51
8.266.19 14,631.31
501.52
1.783.99 3,451.75 4,178.31 1,192.09 3,490.54 5,602.44 3,521.60 1,726.16
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Band Funds
Agency and Band
BRITISH COLUMBIA- Continued
Nicola Agency-
Cold water	
Cook's Ferry	
Lower Nicola	
N icomen	
Nooaitch	
Shackan	
Upper Nicola	
Okanagan Agency-
Lower Similkameen	
Okanagan	
Osoyoos	
Penticton	
Spallumcheen	
Upper Similkameen	
Queen Charlotte Agency
Masset	
Skidegate	
Skeena River Agency
Hartley Bay	
Kincolith	
Kitkatla	
Metlakatla	
Port Simpson	
Stuart Lake Agency
Finlay River	
Fort George	
Fraser Lake	
McLeod Lake	
Necoslie	
Stellaquo	
Stony Creek	
Stuart-Tembleur Lake....
Takla Lake	
Terrace Agency
Canyon City	
Gitlakdamix	
Greenville (Lakalzap)..
Kitamaat	
Kitselas	
Kitsumkalum	
Vancouver Agency
Anderson Lake	
Burrard	
Homalco	
Klahoose	
Mount Currie	
Musqueam	
Sechelt	
Sliammon	
Squamish	
West Coast Agency-
Ahousaht	
Checkleset	
Clayoquot	
Ehattesaht	
Hesquiaht	
Kyuquot	
Nitinaht	
Nootka	
Nuchatlaht	
Ohiet	
Opetchesaht	
Pacheenaht	
Sheshaht	
Toquaht	
Uchucklesaht	
Ucluelet	
Capital
Account
[Stage Direction]
42,171.84
33,590.43
33,536.91
994.30
9,643.74
18,260.16
36,636.14
14,083.94
48,072.32
16,623.21
115,298.38
25,624.98
6,859.67
559.47
57,826.02
4.07
2,592.03
1,696.64
17,608.75
4,607.15
26,834.51
3,376.23
1,572.92
743.50
4,148.34
605.36
15.63
761.70
122.55
19,452.24
74,966.43
107,267.92
933.99
9,558.27
14,285.76
40,535.25
98,673.59
43,622.35
35,029.92
85,345.04
302,750.05
14,428.10
15,051.94
12.833.39 942.62 658.80
17.286.40 7,085.40 7,974.83
32,869.48
42,864.65
26,156.18
38,401.07
27,936.51
21,510.75
11,014.22
Revenue
Account
[Stage Direction]
1,225.57
971.34
2,333.54
3,153.23
1,887.39
2,252.25
4,130.09
4,212.31
7,798.73
3,729.70
4,133.47
724.63
7,556.92
1,046.52
1,748.73
2.55
626.45
999.54
1,922.37
1,801.50
50.00
8,063.18
451.86
795.57
1,304.46
710.45
425.19
6.51
679.47
105.38
14,502.87
13,027.12
20,616.65
1,200.74
301.55
1,786.03
5,531.84
3,197.43
38,374.78
8,976.89
4,769.49
89,068.73
2.129.07
2,346.19
2.378.13 675.97 727.39
2.628.13 1,807.73
521.87
2,176.41
2.690.14 2,688.59
956.89
2.172.07 1,887.75 1,793.30

Questions
Agency and Band
Band Funds
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account
[Stage Direction]
BRITISH COLUMBIA-Concluded Williams Lake Agency-
Alexandria	
Alexix Creek	
Alkali Lake	
Anaham	
Canim Lake	
Canoe Lake	
Kluskus	
Nazko	
Nemaiah Valley	
Quesnel	
Soda Creek	
Stone	
Toosey	
Ulkatcho	
Williams Lake	
20,027.44	2,621.17
128.89	145.95
25,456.29	3,159.31
6,196.71	506.36
27,757.05	4,064.30
17,064.01	4,365.76
14,136.95	7,302.12
67,675.47	3,540.64
3,555.71	343.53
107.13	1,857.05
6,210.39	2,131.14
Yukon Agency
Atlin-Teslin	
87.37	94.07Casca	
-	-Liard and Francis Lake	
205.23	4,141.85Nelson River	
-	-Tahltan	
-	76.10
YUKON TERRITORY Aklavik Agency
Old Crow	 -	-
Yukon Agency
Aishihik	
-	-Bur wash	
-	-Carcross	
-	-Carmacks	
-	-Champagne	
-	-Dawson	
87.32	1,059.90Frances Lake	
-	-Mayo	
-	-Ross River	
-	-Selkirk	
-	-Teslin	
-	-Watson Lake	
-	-Whitehorse	
-	-White River	
-	-

[Stage Direction]
Aklavik Agency
Arctic Red River (Loucheux No. 6)...
Fort Franklin (Hare No. 4)	
Fort Good Hope (Hare No. 5)	
Fort Liard (Slave No. 8)	
Fort McPherson (Loucheux No. 7)	
Fort Norman (Hare No. 4)	
Fort Simpson (Slave No. 2)	
Fort Wrigley (Slave No. 3)	
Yellowknife Agency
Chipewyan, Resolution (Chipewyan "C")
Dog Rib Rae	
Hay River, Slaves (Slave "D")	
Fort Providence (Slave "E")	
Resolution "A" (Yellowknife "A")....
Yellowknife "B"	
Fort Smith Agency
Chipewyan, Fitzgerald & Smith	
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Band Funds
Agency and Band
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account

[Stage Direction]
Athabaska Agency
Cree	
Chipewyan (Fort Chipewyan)... Fort McKay	
119.56 5.99 41.82 2.10 25.25 43.76
Blackfoot Agency Blackfoot	
1,737,728.62	61,545.16
Blood Agency Blood	
956,568.79	916,580.95
Edmonton Agency
Alexander	
Alexis	
Enoch	
Fort McMurray (Cree-Chipewyan)
Heart Lake	
Janvier	
Paul	
Beaver Lake	
208,382.82
190,780.17
896,841.59
529.34
13,752.33
.43
203,827.19
2,277.23
10,120.99
7,059.51
68,549.34
4,281.98
3,251.79
1,639.30
208,646.90
320.99
Fort Vermilion Agency
Boyer River (Ambroise Tete Noire)	
Fort Vermilion (Tallcree)	
Hay Lake and Upper Hay River (Slave) Little Red River (Cree)	
2,890.21	62.13
3,376.76	8,376.23
50.45	17.43
Hobbema Agency-
Ermineskin...
Louis Bull...
Montana	
Samson	
799,864.09	71,021.28
358,778.24	22,406.49
204,204.04	14,019.62
1,256,547.94	50,268.20
Lesser Slave Lake Agency-
Beaver of Horse Lake and Clear Hills
Driftpile	
Duncan	
Grouard	
General List	
Lttbicon Lake	
Sawridge	
Sturgeon Lake	
Sucker Creek	
Swan River	
Wabasca (Bigstone)	
Whitefish Lake	
100,508.53
38,810.68
47,232.57
32,182.20
718,266.50
53,578.54
31,069.43
10,972.94
16,461.56
67,323.69
12,682.22
15,668.38
5.75
4.75 14.00
10,426.45
72,402.53
10,960.61
7,309.19
16,250.42
15,702.30
Peigan Agency-
Peigan	
Saddle Lake Agency- Cold Lake (Chipewyan)
Frog Lake	
Kehewin	
Saddle Lake	
156,093.69	59,331.61
2,308.91	1,827.15
5,085.99	8.02
3,622.16	1,578.87
118,549.32	28,615.63
Stony-Sarcee Agency-
John O'Chiese	
Sarcee	
Stony	
Sunchild Cree	
124,649.98 73,975.70 677,862.53 42,619.61 392,184.59 94,713.30 57,332.98 25,100.61
SASKATCHEWAN Battleford Agency
Little Pine	1	1,150.96	582.51
		 76,772.92	5,136.89
		 45,859.37	786.00
		 7,289.64	2,505.06
		 2,786.82	72.41
		 365.58	2,056.11
		 2,126.02	7,672.88
		 58,690.86	5,346.77
	MARCH 24, 1960	Questions	2437
		Band Funds	
Agency and Band		Capital Account	Revenue Account
		$	$
SASKATCHEWAN-Continued Carlton Agency			 112.08	548.55
		48.40	4.94
			30,409.83
			 49,702.68	3,776.31
		88.58	10.72
			 5,538.16	639.57
			 6,163.14	2,368.12
			8,293.13
			 24,062.11	3,286.67
			
Crooked Lake Agency			 88,799.16	3,344.65
			 131,416.24	7,759.89
			 47,289.33	3,775.66
			 21,747.52	3,888.93
			 64,224.91	8,581.64
Duck Lake Agency			 1,501.85	9,132.65
			 44,936.55	5,151.18
			29,336.24
		-	1,267.60
			 561.72	5,028.11
File Hills-Qu'Appelle Agency			 30,471.27	1,820.64
			 45,691.29	3,994.22
		25.71	4.75
			 113,125.25	11,249.35
			 114.99	1,284.05
			2,615.36
			1,184.48
			 58,606.97	12,146.09
			3,523.43
			 673.33	79.58
			 6,555.67	5,244.20
Meadow Lake Agency			 1,667.95	145.86
		'		157.21
		-	-
			 2,901.23	544.42
			 1,871.62	426.20
			 9,126.52	2,890.72
			20,989.18
			 22,012.74	17,360.04
			 79.28	28.34
		-	-
		-	-
			 33,114.48	3,707.84
Pelly Agency			 85,316.97	6,247.47
			3,096.93
			 37,524.71	8,008.62
Shellbrook Agency			 302.56	2,996.36
			 64,922.03	2,289.69
			 46,408.89	453.19
			 365.11	330.15
			 4,390.87	774.75
			 54.01	587.19
Touchwood Agency		.. 3,877.41	2,970.41
		.... 123,971.87	6,779.49
		... 18,947.38	5,375.05
			
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Band Funds
Capital Revenue
Agency and Band	Account Account
[Stage Direction]
SASKATCHEWAN-Concluded Touchwood Agency-Continued
Muskowekwan	
5,579.02	9,028.23Poorman	
51,642.71	5,882.85Nut Lake	
3,358.87	1,845.88Kimstmo	
5.4S3.70	222.04

[Stage Direction]
Clandeboye Agency
Berens River	
Bloodvein	
Brokenhead	
Fort Alexander	
Hollow Water	
Little Black River	
Little Grand Rapids	
Dauphin Agency
Crane River	
Ebb and Flow	
Pine Creek	
Sandy Bay	
Shoal River	
Valley River	
Waterhen	
Fisher River Agency
Fairford	
Fisher River	
Jackhead	
Lake Manitoba	
Lake St. Martin	
Little Saskatchewan	
Peguis	
Island Lake Agency-
God's Lake	
Island Lake	
Oxford House	
Nelson River Agency
Churchill	
Fox Lake	
Shamattawa	
Split Lake	
York Factory	
Norway House Agency
Cross Lake	
Norway House	
Poplar River	
Portage la Prairie Agency
Birdtail Sioux	
Gambler's	
Long Plain	
Long Plain Sioux	
Keeseekoowenin	
Oak Lake	
Oak River	
Rolling River	
Roseau River	
Swan Lake	
Waywayseecappo (Share with Gambler's in same account)
5,685.20
1,480.98
10,738.62
25,206.08
6.840.68 5,877.52
3.101.69
3,349.94
2,382.39
7,221.67
5,137.33
14,574.06
3,759.28
1,730.91
758.99
18.977.60 6,342.66 2,426.97 2,989.31 1,015.63
26.644.60
4,849.51
13,744.04
4,215.66
1,954.87
812.74
1,773.70
4,877.86
1,699.29
4,870.95
7,178.28
1,089.66
12,798.30
14,565.67
15,571.00
877.35
2,935.52
10,114.71
28,220.19
1,507.83
68,947.82
37,865.69
547.36
18.00
2,699.49
799.67
629.53
288.73
161.08
475.78
375.19
890.29
1,055.30
964.00
1,383.79
128.36
589.86
448.42
80.40
905.36
276.14
1,957.92
1,198.87
360.81
1,996.87
420.58
86.73
3.57
122.01
229.57
84.44
485.34
1,163.52
287.16
19,503.25
7,382.42
3,691.66
882.37
2,534.88
16,447.87
15,394.85
3,066.17
3,607.59
7,088.85
MARCH 24, 1960	Questions	2439
	Band Funds	
Agency and Band	Capital Account	Revenue Account
	$	$
MANITOBA-Concluded		
The Pas Agency		 2,096.94	101.73
		 1,900.19	338.45
		 1,497.83	267.40
		 4,455.05	604.01
		 7,772.20	1,956.77
		 5,330.92	1,314.45
		 62,662.73	3,190.11
ONTARIO-		
Abitibi Agency	
13,907.90	3,748.55Brtjce Agency	
207,624.32	434.22Chippewas of Saugeen	
127,514.71	10,496.41Caradoc Agency	
9,204.17	4,389.74
1,817.66	246.33
1,315.23	1,795.65Chapleau Agency	
90,195.49	257.96-	-
2,586.45	1,150.13
33,828.53	6,276.59
27,618.92	532.52Michipicoten (See Sault Ste. Marie Agency)	Mississauga (See Sault Ste. Marie Agency)	
6,285.42	1,865.99-	-Christian Island Agency	
41,472.30	1,516.69Fort Frances Agency	
52,515.39	1,410.59
132,793.62	10,357.20
46,032.63	6,586.36
44,384.41	1,965.31
24,527.60	1,883.69
46,160.81	3,449.38
65,310.42	2,286.21
11,696.44	3,821.77
Golden Lake Agency		 73.90	1,667.49
James Bay Agency		
	-	-
	-	-
		 113,772.92	11,132.36
	-	-
Kenora Agency		 6,012.12	1,463.93
		 61,645.90	224.51
		 35,344.54	2,393.79
		 3,171.49	1,654.89
		 382.30	32.50
Northwest Angle No. 33	
14,163.72 	
16,255.72	398.80 694.82Rat Portage (Share with Dalles band in same account)	
10,662.59	1,791.31Khrtal T.oli-P IVTn 40 	
15,387.72	573.02
29,917.29	2,018.82
13,584.43	2,411.55
30,287.17	2,294.33Manitoulin Island Agency	
21,456.06	7,693.58
66,928.99	1,560.17
9,197.27	459.722,981.97
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Band Funds
Agency and Band
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account
O NT ARIO- Continued
Manitoulin Island Agency-Continued
Sheshegwaning	
South Bay	
Spanish River No. 3 (See Sault Ste. Marie Agency)
Sucker Creek	
West Bay	
Whitefish River	
Mobavian Agency
Caldwell	
Moravian	
Nakina Agency
Constance Lake	
Fort Hope	
Long Lake No. 58	
Long Lake No. 77	
Martin Falls	
Nipigon, V.P	
Whitesand	
[Stage Direction]
48,621.92	2,194.89
11,663.56	3,573.85
24,215.41	2,223.74
88,194.55	1,234.54
35,735.29	6,698.84
63,330.91	3,684.85
-	1,758.40
27.24	1,055.71
2,779.17	984.22
50,770.69	21,925.05
Nipissing Agency-
Dokis	
Matachewan	
Nipissing	
Temagami...,	
Wahnapitae	
Whitefish Lake	
Pabby Sound Agency-
Gibson	
Henvey Inlet	
Magnetawan	
Moose Deer Point	
Parry Island	
Shawanaga	
Pobt Abthub Agency-
Fort William	
Gull Bay	
Lac des Milles Lacs	
Pays Plat	
Pic Heron Bay	
Red Rock	
Sand Point	
PoBTAGE LA PBAIBIE AGENCY-
Buffalo Point	
Rice and Mud Lakes Agency-
Mississaugas of Alnwick	
Mississaugas of Mud Lake	
Mississaugas of Rice Lake	
St. Regis Agency-
Iroquois of St. Regis	
Saknta Agency
Chippewas of Sarnia	
Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point
Sault Ste. Mabie Agency
Batchewana	
Garden River	
Michipicoten River	
Mississauga	
Serpent River	
Spanish River No. 1\
Spanish River No. 2/	
Thessalon	
Simcoe Agency
Chippewas of Georgina Island	
Chippewas of Rama	
Mississaugas of Scugog	
404,939.03
22,262.73
165,633.08
5.90
3,250.94
35,764.27
66.783.03
61.802.03 2,596.74
85,305.27
48,318.06
53,160.24
12,573.56
11,340.32
1,421.81
1,080.32
951.38
78.82
3,101.67
57,341.31
71,099.97
16,017.06
185,601.86
1,571,583.60
56,391.56
47,267.09
222,029.69
11,842.42
14,325.85
26,426.88
42,936.05
18,095.24
28,467.54
100,221.18
12,405.30
30,963.42
2,917.62
25,655.97
1,859.13
1,072.46
913.89
3,050.82
99.63
1,234.71
541.54
410.37
3,013.17
5,470.90
2,541.54
1,966.16
983.31
638.93
1,150.33
58.66
2,162.55
10,463.99
2,527.25
6,302.63
51,589.00
34,790.66
658.79
927.13
2,650.97
1,423.78
865.67
789.60
1,666.37
6,584.44
29,539.33
4,936.55
2,940.82

Questions
Band Funds
Capital Revenue
Agency and Band	Account Account
ONTARIO-Concluded
Sioux Lookout Agency
Caribou Lake	
31.49	10.79Deer Lake	
5.64	11.44Fort Severn	
-	.-LacSeul	
132,994.30	6,172.44Osnaburgh	
16,959.36	1,567.10Pikangikum	
1,450.21	2,341.61Trout Lake	
785.33	862.44
Six Nations Agency
Mississaugas of the Credit	
32,748.97	2,699.79Six Nations	
706,736.71	62,540.83
Tyendinaga Agency
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte	 36,715.68	1,758.99
Walpole Island Agency
Amalgamated Walpole Island	 125,018.76	67,398.29
[Stage Direction]
Abitibi Agency
Abitibi Dominion	
Grand Lake Victoria	
Manowan	
Mistassini	
Obedjiwan	
Simon Lake	
Waswanipi	
Wey montachie	
Berstmis Agency
Bersimis	
Les Escoumains	
Caughnawaga Agency
Caughnawaga	
James Bay Agency
East main	
Fort George	
Great Whale River	
Namiska	
Old Factory	
Rupert House	
Jeune Lorette Agency
Hurons of Lorette	
Maniwaki Agency
Barriere Lake	
River Desert	
Oka Agency
Iroquois of Oka	
Pierreville Agency
Abenakis of Becancour....
Abenakis of St. Francis..
Points Bleue Agency
Montagnais of Lake St. John
Restigouche Agency
Gaspe	
Maria	
Restigouche	
St. John River Agency
Isle Verte and Viger	
Seven Islands Agency
Fort Chimo	
Montagnais of Mingan	
Montagnais of Natashquan.. Montagnais of Seven Islands.
Romaine	
St. Augustine	
45,333.57	9,528.84
3,133.20	227.70
4,264.64	794.91
129,994.25	5,807.23
165,830.19	2,012.83
179.70	127.67
150,628.07	4,560.74
13.78	3.81
869.54	295.26
111,554.06	1,929.89
22,569.45	4,272.03
2,386.83	1,334.29
3,533.09	67.02
10,024.32	3,335.41
18.91	281.87
13,804.04	1,021.91
5,000.61	3,567.20
1.26	44.10
417.75	15,248.91
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Band Funds
Agency and Band
Capital	Revenue
Account	Account
QUEBEC-Concluded
Temiskaming Agency
Argonaut	
Brennan Lake....
Hunter's Point..
Kippewa	
Long Point	
Temiskaming	
Wolf Lake	
[Stage Direction]
2,694.71	277.53
29,122.77	205.44

[Stage Direction]
Mibamichi Agency
Bathurst (Pabineau)..
Big Cove	
Buctouche	
Burnt Church	
Eel Ground	
Fort Folly	
Indian Island	
Red Bank	
Restigotjche Agency Eel River	
St. John River Agency
Edmundston	
Kingsclear	
Oromocto	
Saint Mary's	
Tobique	
Woodstock	
844.27	1,867.41
454.45	629.63
156.45	1,940.50
1,956.26	789.48
4,868.90	1,230.52
15,444.52	1,347.16
1,890.91	1,385.05
4,598.80	1,447.23
4,305.04	84.24
6,340.77	118.53
833.02	936.86
3,759.57	440.55
1,084.07	724.98

[Stage Direction]
Eskasoni Agency
Chapel Island	
Eskasoni	
Middle River	
Sydney	
Whycocomagh	
Shubenacadie Agency
Afton	
Annapolis Valley	
Bear River	
General Membership List
Millbrook	
Pictou Landing	
Shubenacadie	
1,644.32 3,107.24 12,629.12 87,032.33 2,590.27 2,466.30 3,169.58 3,525.60 3,187.90 4,517.33
2,379.15 4,739.27 1,659.55 3,319.78 1,209.30 2,419.07 3,290.27 6,552.95 3,035.22 6,305.38 2,572.72 4,325.27 7,744.89 29,558.17
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AGENCY Lennox Island	
2.35	483.71
Sixteen Ontario Bands also share in a total of $532,400.10 held in a separate account representing annuities payable to the Indians of Ontario capitalized at the time of confederation as part of the debt of Canada, as indicated in the following table:
Band
Amount
[Stage Direction]
Chippewas of Beausoleil	 34,334.80
Chippewas of Nawash	 58,652.49
Chippewas of Rama	 36,120.00
Chippewas of Sarnia	 34,427.52
Chippewas of Saugeen	 50,000.00
Chippewas of Georgina Island	 16,892.80
Chippewas of the Thames	 48,000.00
Mississaugas of Alnwick	 51,399.91
Mississaugas of the Credit	 41,800.00
Mississaugas of Rice Lake	 19,235.17
Mississaugas of Mud Lake	 32,126.93
Mississaugas of Scugog	   7,838.00
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte	 36,000.00
Moravian	   12,000.00
Amalgamated Walpole Island	        36,000.00
Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point	 17,572.48

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	With what retailers, if any, and at what locations have bonded warehousing arrangements been entered into since June 1, 1957, under the provisions of sections 64 to 79 of the Customs Act to facilitate the sale to tourists of goods on display by sample in retail shops for eventual delivery outside Canada, on a duty free basis?
2.	What warehousing fees are payable respecting each such arrangement?
3.	Are goods sold under such arrangements exempt from Canadian sales tax?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
1.	International Resort Facilities Limited, Lansdowne, Ontario, and Sol Margies Limited, Cobourg, Ontario, are two firms known to be utilizing their facilities for in bond sales to United States tourists. There are however 356 bonded warehouses across Canada, any one of which could be used to handle such sales at retail.
2.	Bonded warehouse licence fees are $50 per annum. In addition, these operators are assessed the normal $2.50 per hour special service fee for the attendance of a customs officer during the period the bonded premises are made accessible to the warehousekeeper.
3.	Goods sold ex-warehouse for export are not subject to customs duties, excise and/or sales taxes.


MARINE INSTITUTE, QUE.  VESSEL REGISTRATION
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Was a vessel to be used by the marine institute of the department of youth of the province of Quebec, registered in Canada? If so, on what date?
2.	Was an inspection of this vessel made by inspectors of the Department of Transport?
3.	If so, when was the inspection made and were any repairs or modifications required to meet the departmental requirements, and if so, what was their nature?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes. Motor yacht Torlundy, U.K. registry, transferred to Canadian registry at Quebec on March 11th, 1959. Name of vessel changed to Le St. Barnaby on April 15, 1959, under Canadian registered owners, represented by the hon. the minister of youth, Quebec.
2.	Yes.
3.	Inspection commenced June, 1959, and still in progress. Repairs and modifications required as follows:
Strengthening of hull structure and alterations to the accommodation and general interior. Reconditioning of propulsion machinery. Life saving and fire extinguishing equipment to be brought up to the standard of a marine school training vessel engaged
Questions
in home trade voyages class II (Canadian ports only) for a total ship's complement of 49 persons.


HOUSING
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	To what municipalities in (a) 1958; (b) 1959, were grants made by the federal government to assist in carrying out studies to identify areas of blight, or to investigate housing requirements to prescribe solutions to these problems and how much money was contributed to each municipality?
2.	At the beginning of (a) 1959; (b) the beginning of 1960, in what cities were blighted areas actually under redevelopment with financial assistance from the federal government, and how much money had been paid out in cost-sharing by the federal government to each said municipality in the previous year?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
(1)	Answered by Schedule 1 below.
(2)	Answered by Schedule 2 below.
With the approval of the governor in council, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made arrangements with the following municipalities to contribute to the cost of urban renewal studies in the amounts shown:
In 1958:
Corporation's
contribution
to the cost
Municipality	of studies
Hamilton, Ont	 $ 9,000.00*
Kingston, Ont	 15,000.00
London, Ont	 18,750.00
Moncton, N.B	 11,250.00
Ottawa, Ont	 36,375.00
Prince George, B.C	 9,000.00
Regina (North), Sask	 5,500.00
Saskatoon, Sask	 15,000.00
Trail, B.C	 7,387.50
Windsor, Ont	 15,000.00

In 1959:
Dawson Creek, B.C	$ 7,500.00
London, Ont	 3,000.00*
Montreal, P.Q	 15,000.00
Quebec City, P.Q	 30,000.00
St. John's, Nfld	 21,750.00
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont	 19,125.00
Sudbury, Ont	 17,625.00
Sydney, N.S	 10,500.00
Vancouver, B.C	 7,125.00
Victoria, B.C	 18,750.00
Province of Manitoba	 23,400.00
(Greater Winnipeg and Point Douglas area)

*Additional contributions to studies to which contributions had been made in earlier years.
Questions


SCHEDULE 2 CITIES WHERE BLIGHTED AREAS UNDER REDEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
City
St. John's, Nfld. Halifax	
Halifax	
Montreal	
Toronto	
Toronto	
Toronto	
Windsor	
Project
Under redevelopment 1st Jan. 1959 1st Jan. 1960
Paid by Fed. Govt, in 1958
Paid by Fed. Govt, in 1959
Central area	,. yes	yes	Nil	15,002.50Jacob street	,. yes	yes	61,147.00	240,743.00Maitland street	yes	yes	Nil	NilJeanne Mance	,. yes	yes	2,208,879.00	254,905.00Regent Park north	.. (completed)	-	-	12,912.00Regent Park south	,. yes	yes	Nil	735,930.00Moss Park	-	yes	Nil	NilCentral area phase 1	.. -	yes	-	122,237.152,270,026.00	1,381,729.65

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were expenditures made on the construction of a causeway to Caribou island, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, in the year 1959?
2.	If so, what was the total amount expended and what amounts were spent for (a) labour; (b) fill; (c) trucking?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Total expenditure-$6,538.53.
(a)	-$399.54.
(b)	and (c)-$6,114. The fill and trucking were included in one price delivered to site. Repairs to culvert $24.99.



END OF VOLUME II


[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 19, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fifth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.