1962-12-17

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the house might be interested in a brief report on the NATO ministerial meeting which took place in Paris last week and which I had the privilege of attending along with my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness), who has gone on to visit Canadian troops in the United Nations emergency force and so is unable to be in the house today.
In the background of this particular NATO meeting was the Cuban crisis; and by the way, may I say that this crisis should not be regarded as having been finally settled as yet. It is true that big steps have been taken toward a settlement, but this has not yet been concluded. The Cuban crisis has had quite noticeable effects on the alliance. One is that as a result of the crisis the diplomatic position of the alliance itself has been considerably improved. Then in my opinion the crisis has served to draw the allies much closer together than they were previously and in the case of the government of each country-and certainly this is true of Canada-it has increased the value we place on this defence organization.
The meetings in Paris lasted for three days and were very harmonious. In fact they were the most harmonious meetings of NATO that I have attended. Great credit, of course, was given to the United States for the firmness yet moderation shown in the Cuban crisis. Some question was raised with regard to methods of consultation in a crisis like this, but no real complaint was made against the United States for the manner in which the allies were consulted or informed.
I think we in the alliance face a new position with regard to consultation. Many threats are of global nature, and furthermore one can 27507-3-171J
never be quite sure in what part of the world the next threat is going to come. Then there is the question of the rapidity with which a crisis may arise. That, of course, was true in the case of Cuba, and it made consultation difficult. The permanent council will be studying from now on methods by which consultation can be improved. There is no doubt that we could have a better system, and an attempt will be made to work one out.
On the first day of the conference there was an extensive review of the international situation dealing primarily with east-west relations. On behalf of Canada I took the position that NATO now has the initiative as a result of the Cuban crisis, and that every effort should be made to retain that initiative rather than getting into the position of always waiting for the communist world to make the first move with NATO then acting in response to communist initiatives.
It was agreed that the alliance must be kept strong, and we believe as well that it should be prepared to negotiate at all times. I think that is a sound policy provided there is no letting down of the guard. We also suggested that there should be an attempt made now to do some contingency planning, as it is called, in the political and diplomatic fields. There has been such planning in the military and economic fields but not sufficient in the diplomatic field. For example, I think there should be several plans worked out which would cover what the alliance should do in case the Russians sign a peace treaty with East Germany. This is the type of contingency planning I think should be done in the political and diplomatic field.
Then we went on to point out that there is a contact with the communist world in the disarmament negotiations which are going on in Geneva. I did not deal with this subject at any length, but Canada is one of the four NATO countries represented on the disarmament committee and, of course, it is a very good field in which to negotiate.
We also dealt with the relationship between NATO and the United Nations. In days gone by there has been a tendency in NATO to write down the United Nations, for quite frequently NATO nations have been criticized in New York. Canada has felt that more importance should be placed in NATO on the activities of the United Nations. For example,
2700	HOUSE OF
Report on NATO Meeting we pointed out several ways in which NATO's position had been improved by activities at the United Nations within the last year, and perhaps the house might be interested in these six examples which I gave.
1.	The increasing support which U Thant is receiving and which indirectly undermines the prospects for the troika approach.
2.	The determined current effort to find a solution in the Congo and to reduce United Nations operations and costs. These are all examples of how United Nations activities have been of great help to NATO.
3.	The satisfactory outcome of Belgium's transfer of power in Ruanda and Burundi.
4.	France's brilliant achievement in bringing independence to Algeria.
5.	The decision of the international court on the sharing of the peace keeping expenditures of the United Nations.
6.	The gain in prestige for the United Nations as well as for the west which has taken place as a result of the outcome of the Cuban crisis. As hon. members know, U Thant has played a significant role in these negotiations, and there can be little doubt that Soviet prestige has fallen in the United Nations and in the eyes of the uncommitted nations of the world.
In this international review I also dealt briefly with the Chinese attack on India. Here again, NATO is vitally concerned with all the developments arising from that unfortunate conflict. Canada feels that India must not be expected to rush to align herself with the west-or, for example, to make application to join NATO. Some people may think that would be very nice, but if India were to give up her unaligned position she would certainly lose a great deal of her standing in Asia and in Africa. We have quite a good understanding of India; there is not only the commonwealth relationship but we serve with India in the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip and in the Congo forces, as well as on the supervisory commissions in Indochina. We believe India's position should be viewed with a great deal of sympathy by the members of the NATO alliance.
In the military field the second day was devoted to a consideration of military questions. I think the most significant feature of that discussion was the suggestion by the United States that there is now ample deterrent capability on the western side. Of course there is great deterrent power on the communist side, as well, with the result that it is very unlikely that either of the great nuclear powers would wish to precipitate a nuclear war and the resulting terrible destruction that would ensue. Thus it follows


that the crises are likely to be of a nature not quite serious enough to precipitate a nuclear war. In other words the communists may go just so far that they do not actually precipitate a nuclear war.
There is a realization that NATO forces could be improved considerably to deal with that type of situation. In Europe there are, of course, some proposals for a European nuclear deterrent in the shape of medium range ballistic missiles. This question was not decided. It will be studied further by the council. It involves great expenditures; these missiles cost a great deal of money, and I think the European nations would be expected to provide a good deal of the cold, hard cash for such a deterrent. There would also be the question of control, how they would be handled and so on. The Europeans seem to favour land based medium range ballistic missiles, while the United States is more interested in having such a force at sea.
With regard to the conventional forces, there was a plea made by the United States for strengthening them, but this would not apply to Canada; in effect the proposal was made to the European nations. As hon. members know, Canada strengthened her conventional forces a year ago at the time of the Berlin crisis. We were very pleased to have it pointed out, not by ourselves but by the military authorities and the United States, that Canada had lived up to her commitments and, for example, that our brigade was the only combat ready unit in the NATO forces other than those of the United States. In spite of rumours which I have seen in the press at home since my return, there was not a word of criticism of Canada's military efforts in NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: There was also a discussion on research development and production. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in NATO Canada has always been in favour of sharing arrangements for this type of development, and the Minister of National Defence made a statement to that effect in the course of the discussions.
Finally there was a discussion about special aid to Greece to help her with her defence expenditures. She is unable to continue the heavy expenses to which she is committed, and all the nations, or most of them in any event, are now arranging to give her some help with her defence costs. For example, Canada in 1963, subject to parliamentary approval, will provide $1 million in the way of spare parts for planes which Canada supplied to Greece at an earlier date, and

also $1 million in the shape of foodstuffs for the Greek army. Greece is a strong, close friend of Canada, and is very grateful to us for taking this position.
It was agreed that the next meeting, which takes place in the spring, will be held in Ottawa on May 21, 22 and 23. I am sure that had hon. members of the house been in Paris they would have been very gratified if they had been attending the meetings-I am not looking at anybody in particular, Mr. Speaker-with the reaction of the delegates from the other member nations. They were simply delighted to be coming to Canada for this meeting, and I am sure we will all see to it that they get a warm welcome and that they leave Canada with as good an impression as they have of our country at the present time.
It might be of interest to hon. members if the communique which was issued at the end of the meeting were printed as an appendix to Hansard and, Mr. Speaker, if that is the wish of hon. members I have it here.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, the minister
wishes to have the communique issued at the end of the ministerial conference printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house join other hon. members in welcoming the minister back from the NATO council meeting. We knew, as it was put in another place, that he would be safe in Paris. We also knew he would be busy.
The minister's statement, as well as the communique of the council meeting, have been received with much interest but, Mr. Speaker, as so often happens in these matters they are perhaps more interesting for what they do not reveal than for what they reveal. The minister said that in his view this was the most harmonious meeting of the NATO council he had attended. There are two ways of ensuring harmony at meetings of this kind. One is to avoid making decisions on important matters; the other is to face important matters and try to come to agreement in respect of them.
It seems to me from what the minister has said that there has been one important decision-certainly one, and no doubt others- that has not been made, and which has been under consideration by the NATO council for a long time now. That is the question of whether or not a tactical nuclear deterrent should become part of the NATO defence
Report on NATO Meeting system. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that until a decision is made in that regard it is very difficult indeed to make a decision with regard to the build-up-and it is important that they should be built up-of the conventional forces which will relieve NATO's dependence to the maximum possible extent on the use of nuclear weapons.
The minister has mentioned with satisfaction that it was agreed at the NATO council that Canada has fulfilled all her commitments. It seems to me, though this may not be a NATO commitment at the moment in the narrower sense, we cannot discharge the role we have undertaken in the air defence division without equipment to carry out that role. That equipment, it is at present agreed, requires nuclear warheads for the strike reconnaissance role. This is a commitment which seems to me to be an important one and which should be carried out or altered.
The minister also said that the question of consultation was again raised. It is raised, I am sure, at every NATO council meeting. It is going to be studied again. I cannot myself see what additional study can add to the studies that have been made in the past with regard to the necessity for consultation. The machinery for consultation surely is there. It is the will to use that machinery in an emergency that is important. While I share with the minister and others who have spoken in the satisfaction the council must have felt over the way the Cuban crisis was resolved by strength and restraint on the part of the United States, it also exposed, as I am sure the minister will agree, this fundamental weakness in consultation before a crisis takes place.
The minister talked about the necessity for emergency planning, contingency planning he called it, in order to avoid a sudden unilateral decision-and I understand contingency planning has been going on for many months now-as to what the coalition should do in case of certain eventualities in Berlin. Surely we have some right to expect that as a result of this kind of discussion and consultation the alliance has agreed what to do in these circumstances. The minister talked, and quite rightly so, about the interrelationship of all problems that confront NATO, whether they cover the NATO area or otherwise. Cuba has certainly underlined the importance of that.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, how glad we are that the NATO council has decided, because of the emergency of an election in the Netherlands, to meet in Ottawa in May. I hope the same sort of emergency here will not require a postponement on this occasion. May I remind the minister that of course the NATO council met in Ottawa before-I think

Report on NATO Meeting it was about ten years ago-when some very important decisions were made. I hope the meeting, if it takes place in Ottawa this May, will be as successful as the one that took place here ten years ago.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, time hardly permits us to enter into a full scale debate on external affairs and defence policies at this time, even though it is regrettable that we in this house seemingly so studiously avoid discussion of these two topics. I often feel that we who are members of this house do not have sufficient concern for matters within the realm of external affairs, and the question of defence relates to that. I trust that before long we may be able to have a full scale debate on these topics.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that it is good to have him back. I am sure that his role and his presence in NATO help to restore and re-establish the confidence of Canadians in regard to NATO. He has mentioned that the NATO council will be meeting in this country in the spring. I congratulate him for making this possible, as I am sure that he had a great deal to do with it. However, I remind the house that it would not be too good to have an election campaign during such a meeting, and I wonder whether we might be informed if we could have this election either before or afterward. Perhaps the leader of the official opposition could help on this. If there is any trouble about making a decision, perhaps some of us could consult together and make our leaders' recess meeting more effective than was the meeting to arrange some of our program before Christmas.
We have noted with much interest the remarks made by the minister. I believe they are constructive. To hear him speaking for Canada at large in this way gives us, particularly at this season, some hope that we can have peace in our world. Without going into any of the details of the matters he mentioned I note particularly his confidence, which I think is felt across the country, in what the United Nations has done. I also note his reference to disarmament, and I trust that Canada shall continue to play her important role in trying to lead to some settlement of this question. The objective that we had hoped might be reached before the end of the year has not been attained, nevertheless, as long as we are working constructively toward it and making some progress, there is hope. I was also interested in his remarks with regard to aid being given to Greece. I think this is an aspect of assistance that we in Canada have not yet fully exploited. Prevention is far better than cure, and here is one way in

which we can put the tremendous potential which we have in Canada to some constructive use in avoiding that which I am sure none of us want.
So, Mr. Speaker, we would just say that we are pleased to hear the report of the minister about the progress which has been made. Again, I trust that we in this house will not shirk our own responsibilities in relation to defence, which we think of as being related to NATO; because certainly we cannot continue with the indefiniteness and ambiguity which so many Canadians feel we have toward this very important matter.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group would like to join all members of the house in saying how glad we are that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned safely from his visit to the NATO conference, and to say how interested we were in the statement he has just made. I was somewhat surprised when the minister said there were no complaints regarding the lack of consultation during the Cuban crisis, because I am sure that most people in Canada and throughout the western world were disturbed that unilateral action was taken without consulting the other members of NATO. When we realize that in a world situation such as ours no conflict could be limited to one area but would, in all probability, spread throughout the world, it seems to us imperative that there be consultation. It also seems idle to talk about improving the techniques of consultation. The techniques have been well established, and surely they are there. What is lacking is the will to use those techniques. When one considers the very serious situation in Berlin, which may flare up at any time, it seems to us imperative that there be some definite understanding that the fullest possible consultation will be held before any action is taken by any of the powers.
I should like to express our agreement with the statement of the minister regarding seizing the initiative at this time. It seems to us in this group that this is an excellent opportunity for the western powers to seize the initiative, not in a military sense but in a diplomatic sense, to promote the chances of extending disarmament and mutual understanding. This might be an excellent time to advance once again the idea of military disengagement in central Europe, and to do in Berlin and in central Europe what has already been done in Austria; that it might be possible to get both the east and the west to withdraw from certain areas and thus lessen the possibilities of tension.
Mr. Speaker, I would have been pleased if the minister had been able to tell us more

about this question of making NATO a nuclear power. The minister made some reference to the desirability of medium range missiles and the problems of control. I would have hoped that the Canadian government would have made some fairly positive statement in this regard. Before the minister left to attend the conference I asked him whether he could give an assurance that Canada would resist any attempt to make NATO a nuclear power, because I agree with the minister's statement that the deterrent on both sides is now so massive that the likelihood of a nuclear war has diminished. Canada can probably play its most effective role by supplying conventional weapons, and in our opinion we would lessen our moral authority by agreeing to NATO becoming a nuclear power.
Mr. Speaker, I think the statement made by the minister and the statements made by the leaders of the other political parties simply help us to point out the need for a debate on external affairs, or for a meeting of the external affairs committee, or for the setting up of a defence committee, so we can have an opportunity to debate and discuss some of the very important problems facing the human race and having to do with the survival of mankind.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made at the beginning of this afternoon's sitting. Were the actions of Portugal in her west African colonies discussed at the NATO meeting, and particularly the use there of equipment supplied under NATO?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the foreign minister of Portugal made a statement dealing with the situation in Angola, but I think that was the extent of the discussion.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house whether the resolution which was passed at the plenary session of the United Nations last Friday, in respect of Portugal's behaviour in its colonies, was discussed at the NATO council meeting? If so, were any plans made to implement the request that the sale and supply of arms and military equipment to the Portuguese government be stopped?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I happened to be sitting next to the foreign minister of Portugal
Private Bills
at one of the dinners and we had quite a long discussion on this Angola subject. I might add that it is not as one sided as it sometimes looks from here.
In so far as the resolution is concerned, it contained a provision that would have meant none of the NATO countries could supply any arms to Portugal. Of course Portugal is a member of NATO. Canada, as a matter of fact, has not supplied any arms to Portugal for approximately two years but we could not support a resolution containing a provision of that kind in fairness to our other NATO partners, so Canada abstained on that resolution.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move:
That divorce Bills SD-28, an act for the relief of Marie Claire Roland Dubois, SD-36, an act for the relief of Hale Calvin Reid, SD-446, an act for the relief of Daisy Emily Dorothy Pearl Ryan, and SD-447, an act for the relief of Elizabeth Peck, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders, together with the reports of the examiner of petitions for private bills thereon tabled on Friday, November 16, and Friday, December 14, for any recommendation the committee deems advisable.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, was unanimous consent given for this procedure?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It was not asked for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it was not asked for. The hon. gentleman just said "by unanimous consent".


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as putting the "agreed" is concerned may I say that I was anticipating an indication one way or another if there should be dissent or consent. There seemed to be no dissent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that we follow the customary practice of asking the house whether there is unanimous consent in each of these cases.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for drawing that matter to my attention. The motion should have been preceded by the request for uanimous consent. Is it agreed? Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagot) moved:: That the special committee on food and drugs appointed on December 7, 1962, be composed of

Questions
Messrs. Baldwin, Enns, Fairweather, Haidasz, Harley, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Marcoux, Martin (Essex East), McDonald (Hamilton South), Mitchell, Nicholson, Orlikow, Patterson, Rynard and Valade.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. McNulty: 1.	To date, in 1962, what is the name or type of each fruit or vegetable respectively for which a request was made for a "fair value for duty"?
2.	On which date was each request received, and the date "fair value for duty" implemented in each case respectively?
3.	Was the request for "fair value for duty" in each case respectively received, prior to the season, during the season, at the height of the season, or at the end of the season?
4.	Was implementation of "fair value for duty" in each case respectively made, prior to the season, during the season, at the height of the season, or at the end of the season?
5.	In each case respectively, what reason or grounds did the person or body give for asking for "fair value for duty"?
6.	On what grounds was the request refused or delayed?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: 1. (a)
Frozen red pitted cherries; (b) Fresh prune plums; (c) Fresh potatoes.
2. (a) Request received May 1, 1962-not implemented; (b) Request received September 11, 1962-not implemented; (c) Request received September 11,	1962-implemented
October 16, 1962.
3 and 4. Answered by 2.
5.	(a) Low prices tor frozen red pitted cherries prevailing in the country of export. As substantial stocks were on hand, due to the considerable carryover from the 1961 Canadian crop, importations in large quantities would cause serious consequences to the Canadian industry.
(b)	Low prices of fresh prune plums in the U.S.A. Heavy imports would cause hardship to the B.C. fruit growers.
(c)	Low prices of imported potatoes constituted threat to Canadian growers.
6.	(a) and (b). Frozen red pitted cherries and fresh prune plums-following investigation it was determined that the circumstances did not warrant implementation of fixed values.
(c) Fresh potatoes-delayed only for the period required for investigation to determine whether the request warranted action.


CRAWLEY-MCCRAKEN COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,024
Mr. Marcoux:: Have there been any transactions between the Crawley-McCraken Company, the Canadian Prepack Company, and the Canadian National Railways and, if so, who are the directors of the Crawley-McCraken Company?


Mr. Halpenny:: Yes, with Crawley-Mc-
Craken Company. Since Crawley-McCraken Company is not a federally incorporated company the identity of the directors is not known.


CANADIAN PREPACK COMPANY
Mr. Marcoux: Have there been any transactions between the Canadian Prepack Company and the Canadian National Railways and, if so, who are the directors of the Canadian Prepack Company?


George Ernest Halpenny: There is no record of any transaction.


SONS OF FREEDOM, B.C.
Mr. Laing: 1.	Since October 1. 1962, has the Minister of Justice had any correspondence with the attorney general of British Columbia dealing with the Free-domite sect?
2.	Has the attorney general of British Columbia formally sought any assistance of the government of Canada in dealing with the Freedomites since October 1, 1962?
3.	How many Freedomites are now in prison, and what is the sum total of years of sentence imposed?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The number of Freedomites now in prison is 147. The sum total of years of sentence imposed is 887 years and 8 months.


BRUSSELS FAIR-CANADIAN TRADE COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Addison: What are the names of the two Canadian trade commissioners who manned the booth for six months at the Brussels world fair?


Mr. Nesbitt:: The following trade commissioners were on duty at the Brussels world fair in 1958 on the dates specified:
B. I. Rankin, April 17-22; R. Campbell Smith, April 17-22; W. J. Millyard, April 2126; W. R. Hickman, April 22-May 5; D. A. B. Marshall, April 29-May 5; S. G. Tregaskes, May 6-12; A. P. Bissonnet, May 13-26; G. H. Rochester, May 20-26; E. H. Maguire, May 27-June 2; H. Leslie Brown, June 3-9; W. Gibson-Smith, June 3-16; J. A. Stiles, June 17-23; J. C. Depocas, June 24-July 2; T. F. Harris, July 1-7; H. A. Gilbert, July 8-14; S. G. MacDonald, July 15-21; R. K. Thomson, July 22-28; A. W. Evans, July 29-August 4; J. H. Bailey, August 12-18; K. F. Osmond, August 19-25; W. J. Jenkins,

Questions
August 26-Sept. 1; R. Grew, Sept. 8-15; J. G. Ireland, Sept. 16-22; B. C. Butler, Sept. 23-29; M. T. Stewart, Sept. 30-October 6; B. Horth, October 7-15; J. M. T. Thomas, October 16-19.
Additionally, L. H. Ausman and J. R. Roy, trade commissioner and assistant trade commissioner respectively at Brussels during 1958, were in attendance on a semi-permanent basis from April 17 until October 19. K. G. Ramsay was on permanent duty from April 17 to July 11.
(Translation) :


TRACADIE, N.B.-CARETAKER FOR PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has a caretaker been appointed for the federal public building at Tracadie, New Brunswick, and, if so (a) was the appointment made following the calling of tenders, and (b) what were the names of the applicants and the amount submitted by each?
2.	Were any of the applicants qualified for veterans' preference and, if so (a) was any consideration given for military service in making this appointment (b) what is the name of the person selected for this particular service (c) if selected after the calling of tenders, was the service awarded to the lowest tenderer and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. McCleave:: 1. The caretaker's work at Tracadie will be done under contract;
(a)	A contract was awarded following a call for tenders.
(b)	The following tenders were received:
Alex F. Lavoie, $1,200 a year, (assistant postmaster); Reginald Basque, $1,200 a year, (postmaster); B. B. Losier, $1,400 a year; Edgar Landry, $1,800 a year; Arthur Savoie, $2,496 a year; Eutrope Basque, $2,850 a year.
2.	Yes, although veterans' preference does not apply in the awarding of contracts of this type, unless there is more than one tender in the lowest amount.
(a)	No.
(b)	The contract was awarded to Mr. B. B. Losier, for the price tendered, i.e. $1,400 a year.
(c)	No, because it is not department policy to award contracts to crown employees, unless it is impossible to do otherwise.
(Text):


MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND, N.H.A,
Mr. Scoil: Under the provisions of the National Housing Act, in each of the years ended December 31, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 (a) what was the total amount of the mortgage insurance fund (b) in each province, what was the number of claims against the fund, and what was the aggregate amount of the claims (c) how many of the said claims were in respect of (i) single family dwellings (ii) apartment projects (iii) limited dividend projects (iv) low rental projects?


Robert Jardine McCleave: (a)


TOTAL ASSETS OF THE MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1958, 1959, 1960 AND 1961
[Stage Direction]
1958	1959	1960	1961S 45,680,766	$ 61,081,653	* 72,595,971	t 86,768,574
(b)

[Stage Direction]
1958	1959	1960	1961	1958-1961Province	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount No.	AmountNfld	1	$ 12,336.42	$	1	$ 11,785.23	1	* 9,264.48 3	$ 33,386.13P.E.I	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-N.S	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	24,147.64 2	24,147.64N.B	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Que	1	10,760.79	8	79,345.01	35	353,516.64	66	691,687.58 110	1,135,310.02Ont	3	30,088.76	17	184,325.00	81	905,238.65	684	7,290,212.85 785	8,409,865.26Man	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	12,823.13 1	12,823.13Sask	-	-	1	9,539.49	-	-	2	21,298.24 3	30,837.73Alta	1	7,984.70	-	-	3	30,175.60	13	144,435.85 17	182,596.15B.C	-	' 	-	-	8	96,602.36	63	723,713.40 71	820,315.76Canada	6	61,170.67	26	273,209.50	128	1,397,318.48 832	8,917,583.17 992	10,649,281.82
27507-3-172
Questions
[Stage Direction]
(i)	Single family dwellings	 990
Duplex dwellings	 2
Total claims	 992
(ii)	Apartment projects-nil.
(iii)	Limited dividend projects-nil. Limited dividend loans under section 16 of the National Housing Act are not covered by the mortgage insurance fund.
v) Low rental projects-nil. Low rental projects under section 36 of the National Housing Act are not financed by way of loans but by capital investment by the federal-provincial-municipal partnership. They are not covered by the mortgage insurance fund.

Mr. Laprise: On what dates were the following technical memoranda published (a) No. 18 entitled "Grading Hardwood Logs for Factory Lumber" (b) No. 34 entitled "How to Evaluate the Quality of Hardwood Logs for Factory"?


Hugh John Flemming: (a) December 22, 1960.
(b)	October 18, 1962.


DOWNSTREAM POWER BENEFITS, COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Davis: 1.	Did the Canadian government arrange for a competent engineering firm or firms to evaluate the amount of downstream power and flood control benefits created in the United States by the proposed Columbia river treaty project prior to the signing of the treaty?
2.	What is the estimated amount of the downstream prime power benefits which are returnable to Canada under the present Columbia river treaty in the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000?
3.	What is the principal reason, or reasons, for any change in these annual benefits during the life of the Columbia river treaty?


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1. A competent international group of engineers who had assisted in the preparation of the terms of the treaty evaluated the approximate downstream benefits obtainable under those terms. These engineers represented the following agencies:
Canadian Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; Canadian section, international joint commission; British Columbia power commission; British Columbia department of lands, forests and water resources; United States corps of engineers; Bonneville power administration (United States department of the interior).
2.	The treaty, in accordance with international joint commission power principle No. 4, does not call for the division of prime power benefits. However, Canada's share of the increase in average annual usable energy produced in the United States by Canadian storage is to be returned to Canada in equal amounts each month and is therefore a prime power resource to Canada. Estimates of quantities are available for the years 1972, 1985,

and 2010 and are as indicated below: It has to be emphasized that these are estimates and may not occur to the extent indicated at the various dates.
Prime	Capacity	AvailableEnergy in	in	LoadYear	Megawatt Years	Megawatts	Factor1972	768	1375	56%1985	400	1230	33%2010	210	0	-
These benefits are exclusive of downstream benefits generated at Canadian plants on the Kootenay river in Canada through storage operation at the Duncan lake and Libby dams.
3. During the initial years of the treaty period, Canadian storage will be called upon to provide three services:
(a)	Release stored water over a critical streamflow period and thereby increase primary energy production at the United States generators (Canada's capacity credit is equal to one half of this primary energy benefit divided by the critical period load factor).
(b)	Conserve water which existing United States generators could use to produce secondary energy, but for which no secondary energy markets are presently available. This water is then released at times when firm or secondary loads require it.
(c)	Conserve water which would presently exceed the hydraulic capacity of existing United States generators and later release this water at times when the generating facilities could use it and when firm or secondary loads require it.
(Canadian energy credit is one half of the increase in usable energy developed by (b) and (c)).
By approximately the mid point of the treaty period it is expected that the thermal-electric component of the United States system will have developed to the point where all secondary energy generation at hydroelectric plants will be usable as thermal replacement energy (to conserve fuel at thermal plants). The regulation service outlined in section (b) above would, if this happened, no longer be necessary and Canada's energy

credit would reduce accordingly. Regulation to produce maximum primary energy would still be required and therefore no substantial change in Canada's capacity entitlement is expected.
Towards the end of the treaty period it is expected that the United States thermal-electric development will have increased to the point where the ultimate hydroelectric installations at the United States plants will be usable on the United States load without the assistance of primary energy from storage operation. Canada's capacity benefits would, if this happened, decrease to zero. At the same time the added facilities at the United States hydroelectric plants would be capable of producing more and more power from unregulated flows of the river and as a result the need for Canadian storage for average energy generation under (c) would also decrease. Once the maximum feasible number of hydroelectric units have been
Questions
installed at United States plants (assumed for the year 2010), Canada's remaining energy benefits should remain relatively constant for the balance of the treaty period.
Whether or not the above mentioned set of conditions will ever occur cannot be known in advance. Therefore, the treaty is designed to measure benefits under any conditions that may actually occur in the future.


COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Davis: Of the total amount of prime power created as a result of the construction of the Columbia river treaty projects in Canada, what proportion is returnable to Canada, and how much is estimated as remaining in the United States in the year 1970?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The following table sets forth the increase of both primary and average annual energy benefits from the treaty for estimated load conditions in the period 1970-72 (all data expressed in megawatt years):
		Saleable	Total Usable Energy
Primary	4- Secondary	- (Primary -)- SaleableU.S. system with	Energy	EnergyU)	Secondary)Canadian storage:	9063	939	10,002U.S. system without Canadian storage:	6861	1606	8,467
The increment of primary energy after the introduction of Canadian storage is thus 2202 MW years, of which 667 are the firming up of saleable secondary energy already available in the U.S. The increment in average annual usable energy (which is the product to be divided in accordance with I.J.C. power principle No. 4 and under annex B paragraph 1 of the treaty) is thus 2202-667 = 1535 MW years. Canada would receive 50 per cent of this gain, or 768 MW years of energy.
* Assumes the Hanford atomic energy works operating as a single purpose development for the production of thermal-electric energy and therefore providing a substantial thermal replacement market for secondary hydroelectric energy. With this plant operating as a dual purpose project (plutonium and
thermal energy production) it would operate continuously and therefore not provide a secondary energy market. Under this latter condition Canada's energy benefits are presently estimated to be 820 megawatt years rather than the 768 megawatt years indicated in the table.


REVENUE OF BANDS, MIRAMICHI INDIAN AGENCY, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: What revenues have been derived by each of the Indian bands of the Miramichi Indian agency at Red Bank, Eel Grounds, and Burnt Church on the sale of gravel, sand, logs, pulpwood, and Christmas trees, and for any other revenue producing transactions, for each year from 1955 to 1961 inclusive?


Mr. McGee:: Red Bank	1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60	1960-61 1961-62Timber dues	
613.38	1210.16	782.53	826.16	1668.35	1637.20	414.63Gravel and sand	
97.34	329.20	
30.46	100.00	46.90	100 00Gov.t int	
715.37	697.37	689.14	724.98	758.57	812.49	695.84Fishing rights	
37.50	
Rentals	 25.00	62.50	62.50	37.50	

 

27507-3-172J

Questions
Eel Ground	1955-56	1956-57Timber dues 	. 279.44	494.91Rentals 	,. 125.00	25.00Gov.t int	. 236.39	264.74Burnt Church	Rentals 	. . 100.00	100.00Gov.t int	, . 124.09	111.95


BALSAM WOOLLY APHID
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	Does the balsam woolly aphid pose a serious economic threat in Canada?
2.	What is the Department of Forestry doing to reduce the effects of this insect in eastern Canada, especially in Newfoundland?


Hugh John Flemming: 1. The
balsam woolly aphid is a foreign pest that reached the maritime provinces several decades ago and Newfoundland in the late 1940's. It is also well known in northeast and northwest United States and was found in southwest British Columbia in 1958. In the maritimes, the distribution and population level of the balsam woolly aphid have been static in recent years; unusually cold winters are a major controlling factor. However, a great deal of tree mortality has occurred over the past 30 years and normal stand development has been prevented or delayed over wide areas. In Newfoundland, outbreaks near St. John's on the Burin peninsula, and particularly along the southwest coast are causing considerable tree mortality and deterioration. Recently the aphid was found in central Newfoundland and intensive surveys are establishing just how widespread it is. In British Columbia, the outbreak is still restricted to an area in the lower Fraser river valley but many thousands of trees have been killed or defoliated. The balsam woolly aphid is unquestionably a serious forest pest and the Department of Forestry is studying biological, chemical, and silvicultural methods of control.
2. The Department of Forestry has long been interested in the balsam woolly aphid problem in eastern Canada. The biology and habits of the insect are reasonably well understood and the distribution and status of the pest are under continuous surveillance. The results are regularly communicated to provincial authorities and interested industries in publications and reports. A concerted ground and aerial survey was organized in 1962 in central Newfoundland where the aphid was first observed in 1961.
The cryptic habits of the insect make control with conventional chemicals difficult except on individual trees. However, recently developed systemic insecticides offer some

1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	1961-62659.14	119.27	522.95	500.97	197.04612.00	62.50	37.50	175.00	285.20	296.20	287.58	292.04	264.3660.95	304.50	14.00	867.65100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	120.27	127.53	128.73	138.55	141.45hope of	controlling the	aphid	with aerial
sprays. Their effectiveness is being tested in carefully devised laboratory experiments and small scale field trials may be conducted in Newfoundland next year.
Past efforts have been directed mainly toward biological and silvicultural controls. Potential predators are being studied in several countries and a number of species have been released in Canada with modest success. At least four are now established in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland but the degree of control is not yet satisfactory. This program is continuing with the major emphasis in Newfoundand in the hope that better predators will be found or that the present efforts become more effective with the passage of time, as often happens in biological control programs. Research is in progress on means of converting forest stands to a high proportion of non-susceptible species by controlled burning, by reducing natural fir reproduction, or by planting exotic tree species.
In summary, the Department of Forestry is exploring all reasonable prospects for controlling the balsam woolly aphid as actively as possible.


NEWFOUNDLAND OVERSEAS FORESTRY UNIT
Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs received representations from the chairman of the Placentia branch of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit concerning this unit's inclusion under the veterans charter and, if so, what answer has been given?


Mr. Churchill:: The Minister of Veterans Affairs has received such representations and the following answer has been given:
When the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act was amended last year, the Canadian government recognized that the Newfoundland foresters, along with a number of other groups, had aided materially in the war effort.
A comparison has been made between the services of the forestry unit and those of the Newfoundland forestry unit of world war I, which formed part of the imperial forces, and the Canadian forestry corps of world war II, which was a corps within the Canadian army.

These latter units formed part of the armed forces and were subject to military discipline in all respects. However, members of the Newfoundland forestry unit of world war II were not recognized by the Newfoundland commission of government as members of the forces, and they served as civilians under contracts willingly entered into with specified rates of pay, length of service, etc.
With regard to the restriction contained in part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act concerning the length of contract entered into, I am pleased to advise you that the war veterans allowance board, after securing legal opinion, has been able to modify its ruling in favour of those foresters who, although they did not sign contracts for the duration, actually served until the end of world war II and received discharge certificates dated after May 8, 1945.
The basic definition of a "veteran" is a former member of H.M. armed forces and consequently cannot apply to former members of the Newfoundland forestry unit of world war II or to the other civilian groups covered under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


STUDY OF AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to the advisability of an examination of the problem of air pollution so that steps may be taken to protect Canadians against the detrimental effects of same?


Mrs. Casselman:: During the past four years the Department of National Health and Welfare has been developing a national air sampling network in co-operation with the provinces and large municipalities for the purpose of measuring levels of air pollution and determining the influence of community sources on diurnal and seasonal factors. Advisory, consultant and laboratory services are being supplied, as requested, to provincial health departments and municipalities in the organization of air pollution surveys, the assessment of control measures and the analysis of samples.
In addition research in a number of universities is being assisted under the national health grants. Research is also being carried on in the laboratories of the department to develop better methods of determining the small amounts of pollutants found in the air and studying their effects on health.
To supplement this program, close contact is being maintained with all other countries having advanced programs in this field.
Questions


RESEARCH PROGRAM IN PHYSICAL FITNESS, U.B.C.
Mr. Mather: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare received any requests from the British Columbia division of the Canadian Medical Association to assist in the establishment, at the University of British Columbia, of a research program in physical fitness?


Arza Clair Casselman: A letter was received on November 9 from the executive director of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Medical Association, in support of an application which he understood would be made by the University of British Columbia for a research grant for 1963-64. No formal application has been received from the University of British Columbia.


* AIR TRANSPORT REPORT BY STEPHEN WHEATCROFT
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	When was Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft engaged to make a study for the Minister of Transport of the desirability and economic consequences of competition in Canadian transcontinental air services?
2.	How long did it take to prepare his report and when was it made?
3.	What was the total cost to the government of this report by fees paid, travel expenses, secretarial and stenographic assistance, and miscellaneous?


Mr. McBain:: 1. February 4, 1958.
2.	(a) Four months; (b) May 30, 1958.
3.	$7,971, as follows: Retainer, $3,500; travel expenses, $1,686; living allowance, $2,375; secretarial, stenographic and miscellaneous, $60; printing and distribution of the report, $350.


MARITIME COMMISSION VESSEL CONSTRUCTION, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Fairweather: Have any vessels been assigned to shipbuilding facilities in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia by the maritime commission under the recent subsidy program and, if so, (a) where are the shipyards located (b) what is the total amount of money paid or authorized under the subsidy program in each location in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?


James Alexander McBain: Vessels being built under the ship construction subsidy plan are not assigned to shipbuilding plants by the Canadian maritime commission but are built in yards of the owner's selection. Up to the present subsidy agreements amounting to $2,397,261.10 have been signed in respect of four ships at Bathurst and Saint John in New Brunswick, and in respect of 16 ships, amounting to $2,052,458.17, at Day Spring, Lunenburg, Meteghan River and Shelburne in Nova Scotia.

Questions


REGULATION OF SALE OF ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
Mr. Tucker: Does the government intend, in the interest of public safety, to regulate sales of electrical equipment and appliances not certified for safety requirements?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The certification of electrical equipment and appliances for safety requirements, and the regulation of sales are responsibilities of the respective provinces.


CANADIAN MILITARY COMMITMENTS
Mr. Wahn: Is Canada committed in any way to any other country or countries to take any military action or to provide armed forces and, if so, by what convention or other means has each such commitment been created?


Howard Charles Green: As a signatory to the North Atlantic treaty, Canada has agreed in article 5 that an armed attack against one of the members of the alliance in Europe or North America constitutes an attack against them all, and has undertaken to assist the party or parties attacked "by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the north Atlantic area".
The Canada-United States region is an integral part of the north Atlantic area. The air defence of the region is provided for in the NORAD agreement under which a Canada-United States integrated command was established and to which both countries contribute air defence forces.
By virtue of article 43 of the United Nations charter, Canada has undertaken to make available to the security council such assistance, including armed forces, as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.


UNIVERSITY AVENUE ARMOURIES, TORONTO
Mr. Wahn: 1.	Who owns the property known as the University avenue armouries in Toronto?
2.	Have any of the reserve regiments using these armouries requested that other armouries be provided for their use?
3.	Has any decision been made to discontinue the use of the University avenue armouries and, if so, (a) what are the reasons for this decision (b) what are the locations of the armouries which will replace the University avenue armouries (c) what is the total estimated cost of replacing the University avenue armouries by such other armouries?


Mr. Sevigny:: 1. The property is owned by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and is under the administration and control of the Department of National Defence.
2. No.

3.	Yes. (a) In 1958, an agreement was made with the municipality of metropolitan Toronto to sell this property to it for the sum of $2,000,000 for a new court house to accommodate the courts and administrative offices of the supreme court of Ontario, the county court of the county of York, and courtroom facilities for the Exchequer Court of Canada and the board of transport commissioners.
(b) and (c) An armoury has been constructed in the township of North York, adjacent to and immediately south of Downsview airport at a cost of $989,867. This provides approximately one third of the replacement accommodation required. The site or sites of the remaining accommodation have not been finally settled. The estimated costs of such accommodation will depend on the location and whether one large or two smaller armouries are built.


PENITENTIARIES, INMATES AND STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the total number of inmates in federal penitentiaries as of the last date for which the annual report was prepared?
2.	What is the total staff employed in these penitentiaries and, of these, how many are guards, teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.?
3.	What qualifications are required for the professional staff?
4.	What are the minimum qualifications for guards employed in penitentiaries?
5.	Is there a compulsory training course for people hired as guards and, if so, what type of course, and how long does it take to complete this course?
6.	How many penitentiaries are there in Canada?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1.	7,039.
2. Total staff establishment for the federal penitentiaries is 2,953 comprised as follows:
Custodial	1,488
Teachers	43
Vocational training	instructors 68
Psychologists	19
Psychiatrists	8
Physicians	11
Dentists	8
Chaplains	19
Hospital staff	99
Farm staff	19
Service and maintenance officers 631 Industrial instructors	135
Administrative and clerical
officers	405
Total	2,953
3. The professional staff are required to be graduates from universities of recognized standing with specialization in their own particular field. Teachers are required to be graduates of a recognized high school and have had normal school training with a teacher's certificate for the province concerned and some practical teaching experience.

4.	The minimum qualifications for guards in the penitentiaries are at least grade X education or equivalent, age 23 to 40 years, satisfactory physical condition, at least 5'8" in height, additional credits for military or police experience.
5.	Every person hired as a guard in the Canadian penitentiary service must undergo probationary training, which begins at the initial appointment and continues to the end of the probationary period (6 months under penitentiary service regulation 1.36), before he is considered for permanent employment. This probationary training includes an initial orientation program and an induction training program of formal and on the job training. This probationary training is conducted at every institution.
6.	25.


FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRISONERS SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR OR MORE
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government yet decided when they will implement the recommendations of the Fauteux committee, that the federal government assume the responsibility for prisoners sentenced to one year or more?


Thomas Miller Bell: No.


PORT DE GRAVE, NFLD. BREAKWATER
Mr. Tucker: Has the government decided to construct a breakwater at Hibb's cove, Port de Grave, Newfoundland and, if so, when will work commence?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, not at the present time.


INSTALLATION OF SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What time was required to instal the simultaneous translation equipment for the second world conference on adult education held in Montreal during August, 1960, and what was the cost of such installation?
2.	What time was required to instal the simultaneous translation equipment for the world meteorology conference held in Toronto during July, 1962, and what was the cost of such installation?
3.	Aside from the North American forestry commission meeting scheduled for June, 1963, will the simultaneous translation system owned by the Department of National Defence be used again?
4.	Would it be feasible to instal such a system in a suitable room for use by parliamentary committees and, if so, how long would it take to complete such an installation and what cost?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: 1. Three days were required to instal the equipment at a cost of $795.
2. Three days were required to instal the equipment at a cost of $829.79.
In both instances these costs covered living expenses for technicians and transportation
Questions
of equipment only. No charge was included for the use of equipment nor were the salaries of the technicians included.
3.	To the present date, this simultaneous translation equipment is committed for use as follows:
(a)	North American forestry commission at the N.R.C. building on Montreal road, Ottawa, from 24 to 27 June '63.
(b)	Defence research board conference at St. Jean, P.Q. during first week of July, 1963.
(c)	Dominion bureau of statistics for the 34th session of the international statistical institute at Carleton University, Ottawa, 20-29 August, 1963.
4.	The simultaneous translation equipment owned by the Department of National Defence consists of heavy equipment connected by cables and is not suitable for permanent installation in rooms with movable furniture. The cables would have to be fixed to the floor which is most undesirable. The equipment is designed for large conferences with up to 400 persons using it. It is far too big and unnecessarily complex for a conference of 50 to 60 people only. The equipment is capable of handling four languages simultaneously. Much simpler equipment would serve for two languages only.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, MONTREAL   EMPLOYEES LAID OFF
Mr. Lachance: 1.	Since June, 1962, have any casual employees been laid off by the dominion bureau of statistics in Montreal as part of the government's austerity program and, if so, what are their names?
2.	Does the government intend to re-employ those persons when the austerity measures are removed?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. The services of the following casual employees who were hired from time to time on an hourly basis in the Montreal regional office of the dominion bureau of statistics have not been employed since the date indicated:
Bayard, M. A., August 2, 1962; Bourgeois, S., August 7, 1962; Pinsonneault, B., August 1, 1962; Garardi, E., August 31, 1962.
These are the only casual employees whose services have been terminated as a result of the limitation of funds available. All of these employees were casual clerks employed in the Montreal regional office.
2. Cannot be determined. Decision would depend on the volume of work requiring temporary assistance.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, MONTREAL   CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lachance: Since June 1962, have any new casual employees been taken on by the dominion bureau of statistics in Montreal and, if so, what are their names and what are the duties of each?

Questions


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes. The following casual employees were hired in Montreal for varying periods since June 1, 1962, by the Montreal regional office of the dominion bureau of statistics:
Amadori, I., Arbique, M., Barrot, A., Bazi-net, G., Beaudry, C., Bellavance, B., Bleau, G., Bergeon, M., Bourgue, F., Cofsky, G., Dage-nais, P., Dupont-Hebert, J., Gaoust, G., Gerardi, H., Hebert, G., Kemp, J., Labrie, M., Lamarche, J., Landry J. B., Laurencelle, A., Lavigne, T., Merizzi, J. C., Payette, J., Paquin, P., Prevost, M., Quinn, M., Samson, S., Thibeault, G., Thibeault, J., Vannelli, I.
The duties of all but two of these employees were to interview households assigned to them in order to obtain information relating to employment and unemployment of the members of the households. These enumerators usually work from 3 to 5 days in each month. The duties of the other two employees were to interview business establishments and to obtain reports concerning their operations. (Translation):


RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE.    CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF
Mr. Gagnon: Did the Minister of Public Works receive a delegation or petition from Riviere du Loup on the subject of the la Pointe quay and, if so, has a decision been made to begin work in the spring of 1963?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes. This project is still under consideration and we hope to undertake it in 1963. However, nothing has been decided as yet.
(Text):


MIRAMICHI INDIAN AGENCY, N.B.  BAND FUNDS
Mr. McWilliam: What are the present amounts of the funds held by each of the Eel Ground band and the Burnt Church band of the Miramichi Indian agency, New Brunswick?


Frank Charles McGee: Eel Ground band: Capital, $5,208.84; revenue, $99.29. Burnt Church band: Capital, $2,076.99; revenue, $2,832.13.


TRADE COMMISSION OFFICES, EUROPE AND CANADA
Mr. Badanai: 1.	In what countries of Europe has Canada established commercial or trade commission offices, and how many in each country?
2.	Have European countries established commercial or trade commission offices in Canada and, if so, which countries, and how many offices?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. The Department of Trade and Commerce has trade commissioners stationed in the following countries and cities in Europe:
Austria, Vienna; Belgium, Brussels; Britain, London, Liverpool, Glasgow; Denmark, Copenhagen; France, Paris; Germany, Bonn, Dues-

seldorf, Hamburg; Greece, Athens; Ireland, Dublin; Italy, Rome; Netherlands, The Hague; Norway, Oslo; Portugal, Lisbon; Spain, Madrid; Sweden, Stockholm; Switzerland, Berne; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow.
2. The latest edition of "Canadian Representatives Abroad and Representatives of Other Countries in Canada" lists the following European countries as having commercial representatives or trade commissioners in Canada in the cities indicated:
Britain: Ottawa, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg; Czechoslovakia: Montreal; Denmark: Montreal,; France: Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto; Germany: Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto; Italy: Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver; Netherlands: Ottawa; Poland: Ottawa; Spain: Ottawa; Sweden: Toronto, Vancouver; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Ottawa.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many municipal centennial projects, such as parks, concert halls, civic buildings and other community facilities of a significant and lasting nature, have been approved or undertaken since the government's announcement in September 1961?
2.	What is the location of each, and the amount of federal assistance involved in each?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


R.C.M.P. CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMUNIST PARTY
Mr. Fisher: Did the R.C.M.P. provide funds to the communist party of Canada through (a) membership, and (b) contributions, during each of the last five years and, if so, what was the amount in each of the said years?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have to advise the hon. gentleman that it is considered contrary to the public interest to give specific answers to his questions.


U.S. MARKET VALUE FOR DUTY
Mr. Clunis: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware that the application of the "fair market value foi duty purposes" clause in American import tarifl legislation is injuriously affecting many Canadiar exporters and, if so, will the government take immediate steps to assist the adversely affected Canadian exporters?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. As hon. members will be aware, there has been improvement in recent years in U.S. valuation law and practice. In 1958 the U.S. moved to accept freely offered export prices as the basis for duty over a broad area of trade. Unfortunately, however, anomalies remain, inasmuch as some goods are still subject to what are, in effect, penalty values. The Canadian government is very conscious of the effect this situation has on

many Canadian exporters, and has placed its views on the matter before the U.S. authorities. As for the particular valuation problems being encountered by individual Canadian firms, my department is always anxious to learn of them and to do what it can to help resolve them.


TELEVISION RECEPTION, ST. LAWRENCE NORTH SHORE
Mr. Maltais: 1.	Is the board of broadcast governors aware that television reception is very poor and often nonexistent in localities situated on the north shore of the St. Lawrence from Sept lies to Blanc Sablon?
2.	Has the B.B.G. taken any steps, or does it intend to take steps, to improve this situation?
3.	Has the B.B.G. received an application for permission to instal a television station at Sept Hes in Saguenay county?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. Yes. The board's advice is that there is reasonably good television reception in Sept lies and for a short distance east along the coast. As the distance from Sept lies to Blanc Sablon is about 400 miles most of this sparsely settled coastal area has no adequate television service.
2.	The initiative for the establishment or improvement of broadcasting service rests in the first instance with licencees or applicants for licences. However, the board did recommend for approval an application for a change of facilities of the television station at Ma-tane, P.Q., which provides service to the Sept lies area.
3.	Yes. The board received such an application and recommended it for denial following a public hearing in August 1961 giving the following reasons:
"In its announcement of March 3, 1961, the board recommended for approval an increase in power of station CKBL-TV, Ma-tane, and is now recommending the establishment of a new AM radio station in Sept lies. In view of the extension of service to be provided by these facilities, the board is not prepared at this time to recommend an additional rebroadcasting service from Rimouski, P.Q."


INTEREST PAID ON NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the amount of interest paid on the national debt in the fiscal year 1961-62?
2.	What was the amount of interest paid on the national debt in the period 1952-1962?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. The amount of interest paid on the public debt* in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962 was $802,919,207.
2. The amount of interest paid on the public debt* in the period fiscal years 1952-1962 (11 years), inclusive was $6,291,589,344.
Questions
*Public debt consists of unmatured debt (bonds and treasury bills) and other liabilities (deposit and trust accounts; annuity, insurance and pension accounts; and miscellaneous).
Source: Public accounts of Canada for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1952 to 1961, inclusive, Part I, appendix No. 5 in 1951-52 and appendix No. 6 in 1952-53 to 1960-61, and the financial statements for 1961-62 appearing in the Canada Gazette.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Cote: 1.	How many members are there on the board of directors of the industrial development bank?
2.	How many of these directors are French Canadians?
3.	How many of the 13 top officials of the I.D.B. in the office of the general manager in Montreal are French Canadians?


Mr. Grafftey:: 1. 16.
2. 2.
3. 1.
(See industrial development bank report for 1962, pages 20 and 21.)


INVESTIGATION INTO QUEBEC FISHERMEN'S COSTS AND REVENUES
Mr. Sauve: Have the investigations and other specialized studies regarding the Quebec fishermen's costs and revenue, as mentioned on page 10 of the 15th report of the fisheries prices support board, been completed for Hes-de-la-Madeleine constituency?


Mr. McPhillips:: Records kept by fishermen for the year 1962 are now being completed in the field. These will be summarized and available for distribution about April 1, 1963.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. Sauve: Has the government taken the appropriate measures to enforce the law concerning use of territorial waters by foreign boats doing fishing operations near the Magdalen islands and, if so, (a) what departments are responsible for such enforcement (b) how many ships and planes are at the disposal of such service?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Yes. (a) The Department of Fisheries of Canada in co-operation with the department of game and fisheries of the province of Quebec which, by agreement, is responsible for the enforcement of fisheries laws within that province; (b) (1) Quebec department of game and fisheries-1 patrol vessel; (2) Department of Fisheries of Canada-3 patrol vessels; aircraft chartered as required.

Orders for Returns


SEAL FISHING, GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Sauve: Does the government intend (a) to control harbour seal fishing in the gulf of St. Lawrence and (b) to propose an international agreement in order to protect the species which intensive fishing threatens to render extinct?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Assuming that this question was meant to refer to harp seals rather than harbour seals, on the basis of the reference to intensive fishing and the need for international agreement, the answers to the question are as follows:
(a)	Yes. Regulations designed to control harp seal fishing in the gulf of St. Lawrence during the coming season are being developed and will be announced in due course.
(b)	A Canadian proposal to bring the conservation of harp and hood seals found in international waters off the Atlantic coast of Canada under the provisions of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries received unanimous approval at a meeting of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries held in Washington, D.C., early in 1961. Although most of the member governments have indicated their intent to sign the new sealing protocol to the convention, there are still two or three countries which have not done so and final ratification of the protocol must await an expression of intent from these countries.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the federal government, directly or Indirectly, subsidized the production of any books or works by P. A. Taverner with special reference to "Birds of Canada", and, if so, how much money was contributed, by whom, in what years, and to whom, for the production of each such book?
2.	How many copies of each were printed, and are the books still being printed?
3.	What has been the demand for these books?
4.	Is there any intention to resume the printing and production of these books?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.


* FRENCH EDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Cole: Are the following publications available in both of the official languages of Canada and, if not, is the government giving consideration to their printing in the French language: "Statistical summary supplement Bank of Canada"; "The Canadian Balance of International Payments 1960"; "International Investment Position"; "Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments"?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CHANNEL, WOLFE ISLAND
Mr. Benson: 1.	What was the total cost of dredging in the Canadian channel of the St. Lawrence seaway at the foot of Wolfe island during the past two years?
2.	To what company was the contract given for this dredging?
3.	Is the contract now entirely completed?
4.	What is the ordinary depth of the St. Lawrence seaway channel?
5.	To what depth was the Canadian channel dredged at the foot of Wolfe island?
6.	Did the Minister of Transport issue instructions that only ships proceeding to Kingston were to use the Canadian channel when passing Wolfe island?
7.	How many ships, other than pleasure craft, proceeded to Kingston harbour upstream through the Canadian channel during the 1962 navigation season?
8.	How many ships, other than pleasure craft, proceeded downstream through the Canadian channel during the 1962 navigation season?


FORESTRY DEPARTMENT RESEARCH
Mr. Dube: 1.	Since its creation, what amount has the forestry department spent for research?
2.	What research projects have been undertaken?
3.	What action has been taken as a result of such research projects?



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY


Mr. Davis: Does the Columbia river treaty, as it now stands, permit Canada to finalize a price for the sale of surplus power prior to the ratification of this treaty by Canada?



REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND VISITORS, NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Whelan: What were the operating and capital expenditures and revenue for each of the following national parks, and number of visitors for each of the following years, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 to date:	Banff, Cape Breton, Elk Island, Fundy,
Georgian Bay islands, Jasper, Kootenay, Mt. Revel-stoke and Glacier, Point Pelee, Prince Albert, Prince Edward Island, Riding Mountain, St. Lawrence islands, Terra Nova, Waterton lakes, Yoho?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Return tabled.



* SUPERNUMERARY EMPLOYEES, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

Mr. Deschateleis: 1.	How many supernumerary employees are at present on the staff of the various offices of the unemployment insurance commission?
2.	How many persons male and female are now employed as supernumeraries?
3.	How many hours do they work each day?
4.	What is their hourly rate of pay?
5.	Is any increase in pay for this particular class of employee contemplated in the near future?


Mr. Starr:: Return tabled.



* VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE, QUEBEC

Mr. Beaule: 1.	Has the federal government made any contribution, under the assistance act for technical and professional training, to apprenticeship centres under the department of works of the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what sums have been paid and for what particular projects, for (a) construction of centres (b) equipping of centres (c) help to apprentices (d) training of monitors and teachers, and (e) training of the unemployed?
3.	If not, has the federal government received requests about this from the provincial authorities in Quebec, and what has been the reply of the federal government?


Michael Starr: Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit the President of the United States on his return from his visit to Prime Minister Macmillan?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, not at the moment.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister consider immediate removal of the tariff surcharges on British and European automobiles, which have been so disastrous both to the trade and to the dealers in this country?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East. Has the minister received any representations from the trade pointing out the serious losses they are suffering under the present circumstances in respect of these surcharges?


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the Minister of National Revenue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -please put on a hearing aid?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister has not answered I have some difficulty in seeing how there can be a supplementary question. There may be a related question later on.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I do not carry around with me the information contained in every letter I have received since June 24. I would be glad to get the information and supply it but I certainly cannot do so now.
(Translation):


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I would like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Is the minister acquainted with the statement in which the Canadian Association of Air Pilots complained that he made a statement in the house on the causes of the recent accident at Bagotville without having first become acquainted with the investigation made by the Department of Transport? Has he any comment to make on that?


Mr. Speaker:: I am extremely sorry but the hon. member is putting his question in a way that invites the minister to engage in a controversy with individuals or an organization outside this chamber. It may be that his question is in order but he will have to reword it.


Lionel Chevrier: My reason for asking this question is that there seems to be duplication between those two departments. I will therefore rephrase my question.
As I stated a moment ago, did the minister make that statement in the house without first inquiring about the decision taken by the Department of Transport?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement to the house concerning the accident without reading the request submitted by the pilots. Indeed, I was unaware of the existence of that request. Neither did I read the article mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier, but I will read it and report to the house.

(Text):


Mr. Charles M. Drury (St. Antoine-West-mount):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in relation to the airplane accident between a Viscount and an

Inquiries of the Ministry R.C.A.F. aircraft at Bagotville. Has the minister been provided with a report on the accident by his department, and if so does it correspond with the statement made by the Associate Minister of National Defence in the house a few days ago?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: So far as the report made by my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence is concerned, a copy of this report was sent to me prior to the time it was made in the house. In so far as the investigation of the Department of Transport is concerned, it has not been completed as yet. I have not received this report.
(Translation):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell me whether I may expect an answer to my question No. 1,108 before December 20, 1962, since I have to prepare a talk for an organization of Montreal and Three Rivers businessmen?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, my departmental officials are at the hon. member's disposal to help him prepare his talk.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me whether I had received a brief about the Dorval airport from the Montreal chamber of commerce.
Since then I did receive this brief and I want to tell him that the officials of the air transport division of my department are now giving the fullest consideration to the various suggestions submitted by the chamber of commerce.
However, I would like to add that, with regard to passenger transportation between the Dorval airport and downtown Montreal I had various talks with the mayor of Montreal on the matter, in order to see whether it would be possible to serve the public either by extending the underground railway which

is now being built in Montreal, or by establishing a monorail or some other system. I shall soon meet Mayor Drapeau with regard to this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister be so kind as to return the brief to me, as it is my only copy.
(Text):



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
alleged continuation of procedures

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of which I have given him notice. I have reminded him that on November 16 he indicated that certain interrogations in respect of the Chinese community were being abandoned and I indicated that in so far as my own area was concerned, I had been informed recently that the R.C.M.P. had no notice of this government policy. I should like to know from the minister whether what he said as recorded on page 1693 of Hansard, to the effect that we have reached a point where there cannot be any further interrogation in respect of Chinese immigration was conveyed to the Department of Justice and from that department down to the ranks of the R.C.M.P.?


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minisler of Citizenship and Immigration):: This is perhaps a question more appropriate to my colleague the Minister of Justice. I would say that the statement which I made on November 16 has been very widely distributed, as my hon. friend will see from what I show him. It was undoubtedly one of the most eloquent statements I have ever made. Ignorance of this statement on the part of any public official, I think, would not be excused.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. How would it be possible, as late as December 9, for officials of the R.C.M.P. investigating the Chinese community in my district, under similar circumstances, to have an official of that force say to the person interrogated that he had not had this information conveyed to him which I had conveyed to the Chinese community by sending Hansard after the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made his speech?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: The hon. member, under guise of asking a question, has made a statement. Now,

I am not prepared to accept that as factual, just coming without any notice off the end of the hon. member's tongue.


William Moore Benidickson: I rise on a question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will do the proper thing, and put his complaint forward, with notice, of course it will be looked into.


William Moore Benidickson: Because of the nearness of the Christmas adjournment, as a matter of privilege I rise to say that this statement was made in November on motions when the government policy I have indicated was announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, yet the Chinese community continues to be harassed in this way by the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some difficulty in seeing the question of privilege the hon. member raises. He is attempting to argue the question on the basis of privilege, and I think he has put his point forward.


William Moore Benidickson: May I explain the matter of privilege?


Thomas Miller Bell: In raising his question of privilege the hon. gentleman makes the statement that the Chinese community continues to be harassed and that, sir, is quite untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount; I think we have gone far enough.


William Moore Benidickson: On the matter of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of privilege?


William Moore Benidickson: My point of privilege is that I have communications which indicate that in my riding now at least a government policy is not being enforced and that one department is not carrying out what has been announced in this House of Commons by a minister of another department last month.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is hardly a point of privilege.



REPORTED DESIRE OF U.S. MENNONITE GROUP TO COME TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have given him notice. I may say, Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency about it in
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the television broadcast on the subject. Have inquiries been received by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on behalf of a community of Amish Mennon-ite farmers in the state of Iowa indicating a desire to emigrate to western Canada?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the simple and direct answer to the hon. gentleman's question would be no but inquiries and applications in some few instances have been received from individual Amish Men-nonite farmers in the United States indicating an interest in emigrating to Canada. No inquiries have been received from or on behalf of a community as such.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I gave him notice. Would the minister inform the house whether he or someone in his department has sent inquiries to any business firms, organizations or persons requesting recommendations for amendment of existing legislation or for new legislation in the field of combines and mergfirs?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but I must say at the same time that in the course of replying to letters I have indicated, as I have orally in the house and elsewhere, that if there were any suggestions on the part of anyone with respect to the legislation or the administration we shall be glad to receive them and study them carefully.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house whether, in these letters he has just referred to, he has invited those organizations to send in recommendations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just said that in responding to letters in my replies, and in statements in this house and outside it, I have extended an invitation to anyone who has any suggestion of that nature to bring it forward and we will examine it.



OIL-ANTICIPATED EXPORTS TO U.S. IN FIRST HALF OF 1963

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the statement

Inquiries of the Ministry he made in this house on Friday last on the subject of Canadian oil exports to the United States, in which he said:
The two delegations discussed estimated trade in oil and oil products in the first six months of 1963-
-and further based on an article in today's Globe and Mail headed "United States indicates sharp cut in oil imports".
Will the minister advise the house as to the expected amount of Canadian exports of oil to the United States in the first half of 1963 as compared with the first half of 1962?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that will be impossible. It is not possible to forecast accurately exports of oil from Canada in a period of that kind.


George James McIlraith: As a supplementary question, would the minister agree with the United States estimate that this year's increase will be 7.2 per cent as compared with 45 per cent for the corresponding period last year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would have no way of agreeing or disagreeing with that information.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I have
a further supplementary question. I wonder would the minister be prepared to say to the house whether, in the opinion of the government, the U.S. president's recent proclamation affecting oil imports in the United States does in fact place a limit on increases in the exports of Canadian oil to the United States?


George Harris Hees: I would like to repeat to the hon. member, in answer to that question, part of what I said in the house on Friday last. I said:
The two delegations noted that no change has been made in the overland exemption for oil which permits sales of Canadian oil in United States markets without licensing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Are we getting into debate?


Hazen Robert Argue: -whether the 12.2 per cent quota established by the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into debate on this question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer, and I apologize for not seeing him earlier.


Robert Norman Thompson: I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house whether there is any useful role for the Voodoo aircraft or for the Bomarc missile other than being equipped with nuclear warheads?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is in the nature of an argumentative question and reply, and I think it should be asked on another occasion than orders of the day.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order. I asked a very legitimate question and I expected a yes or no answer. I may point out there was no ulterior motive behind my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not suggesting there was an ulterior motive, but in the way the question was put I felt it was leading to controversy. Certainly the answer would be controversial, and perhaps the hon. member may be able to recast his question. The Chair is the judge.


Robert Norman Thompson: There was nothing argumentative about it at all.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports of mounting pressure being put upon Canada to get her to accept nuclear weapons, will the Prime Minister assure the house that before any commitment is made to adopt such equipment the matter will be referred either to the public or to the parliament of Canada for a decision?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no pressure being placed against the Canadian government. Therefore the operative portion of the question does not apply.


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the one asked a moment ago by the hon. member for New Westminster. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has reached a decision to refer the matter to the public or the parliament of Canada before Canadian forces are equipped with nuclear weapons?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the presumption inherent in that question is that the government has decided upon such a course.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question I asked of the Prime Minister a moment ago. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government has decided to acquire nuclear weapons or not to acquire them?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government have been brought to the attention of the house on a number of occasions in connection with this and other matters. That policy, when and if changed, will be brought to the attention of the house as usual.


Thomas Rodney Berger: What policy?
(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. A. Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Does the minister intend to have the needed transformation project of the St. Simeon wharf, in the riding of Charlevoix, started in the near future so that the new ferry which was built with government grants and is now ready to start operations between St. Simeon and Riviere du Loup, may actually do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to point out to the hon. member that he could speak of ferries, bridges and wharves until-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the boat is ready, but the wharf is not.


Mr. Speaker:: This is like a litany, endless. (Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA  REPORTED LEGAL ACTION RESPECTING OFF-SHORE RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question of national importance and interest to the Minister of Justice. Has he received any official word from the government of British Columbia that that government intends to take legal action to prove its title to off-shore oil rights?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) :



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Cook (Monlmagny-L'IsIei):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Can the minister tell us whether he would have a talk with the chief of personnel, or the official responsible for the information office at Dorval air terminus, so that his employees may give better information than I received this morning, which caused me some serious inconvenience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not think that the trouble any hon. member may encounter while travelling can be made the subject of a question asked at this stage of our proceedings.


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, this could have happened to anybody, even to you.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Since the government took the commendable action of issuing bilingual cheques, would the Minister of Transport ask the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon, to follow suit as far as that crown company is concerned?
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would the minister consider the advisability of allowing the regular mailmen to deliver the mail on their respective routes at least once or twice during the Christmas period so they might not be deprived of Christmas gifts, which they deserve for their faithful and efficient services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel sure the hon. member has made his representations, and this hardly forms the subject of a question on orders of the day.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I think my question is urgent, since it deals with several thousand mailmen who will be deprived of hundreds of dollars, more particularly because they are included in the group of civil servants who have not yet obtained any salary raise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his representations.
(Text):



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the recent concern of wheat producers that they may be called upon to pay certain losses on credit sales of wheat. My question is, can the minister inform the house of his reasoning in making the statement, as reported in the press, that the government has taken precautions against default and that when it makes credit sales there is no possibility of default in those sales?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will
realize as well as I do that this is the type of question that should not be asked on orders of the day. I should be glad to take the hon. member aside and explain the simple facts of life to him.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that this is not a proper question, the urgency and importance of this question arises out of the fact that there is a widespread report that there may be losses on certain credit wheat sales. The minister is reported as having said there is no possibility of a loss, and I think that should be explained to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot comment on the nature of a reply. Certain personal allusions made by the minister may be questionable, but on the other hand the hon. member cannot comment and there is no point of order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the disillusionment experienced by many civil
IMr. Denis.]
servants for whom no increase was announced a week ago, can the minister indicate to the house whether steps will be taken to complete the job?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the job will be completed, as I said, as required under the act, the regulations and the practice.
(Translation):



TRANSLATION INTO FRENCH OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In reply to an inquiry I put to him at the beginning of this session, relating to the French translation of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, he stated that he would take all the necessary steps in this regard. I now wish to ask him if there is any further information which he can give the house on the feasibility of this translation? (Text):


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40. legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40. 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225 loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.

(Translation):
["Order. The time allotted to the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.\n(Translation):", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, following the few remarks I made last Friday, I should like to deal once more with a matter of concern to at least some of us who are sitting here, that is to say the French speaking members of this house.
I have known for a long time that the English speaking Canadians constitute a great nation which can be fair and respectful of the rights of other racial groups, particularly when the latter know how to respect themselves and command the respect of others; the fact remains, however, that we sometimes meet a few rare individuals who may destroy that desire for perfect harmony and good understanding between the two nations forming this country.
When we hear, for instance, a man who has left school at the age of 15 say that the educational system of the province of Quebec is inadequate and cannot train competent men, we cannot help but think that this man is a victim of his own incompetence and that, to correct such a situation, he is simply trying to gather around him men who are more competent than himself.
In fact, if we excluded those few individuals, those few fanatics, we would then have two great races living side by side, that is to say English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians. Our country would then have two racial groups able to live in harmony with one another, commanding the respect of one another and respecting the rights of one another, both participating in the achievement of what may become one of the greatest countries in the world, Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we French speaking Canadians do not suffer from an inferiority complex when it comes to entering this struggle to develop our country and make it one of the greatest in the world.
We have survived for more than four centuries in our country. You can be sure, Mr. Chairman, that we shall not only continue to survive but to live as a nation here in Canada.
We have fought for the survival of our nation. That might be why we are all the more proud to be French speaking citizens.
Mr. Chairman, before I came to Ottawa as a member of the House of Commons, I had been warned that I would be treated as a stranger in a city where one can hardly expect to be understood in French and where we would not be considered as full' Canadian citizens.
Interim Supply
I do not know what was the situation before, but since my arrival I believe, on the contrary, that it is possible for the two great nations of the country to reach a perfect understanding.
Mr. Chairman, French Canadians have always been knocked about and crushed by politics in the past. Today, the tendency is to deal with all questions without regard to politics and indeed politicians.
Since the beginning of this session, we have constantly made representations on certain points concerning bilingualism, and we have obtained satisfactory results from this government on several occasions. But then, we have invariably been dealing with specific points.
Today, we want a general understanding on all points, a complete policy statement on bilingualism and on the participation of French Canadians at all levels of the civil service.
Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that this purpose may be achieved, for I have had the opportunity to realize, since I came to this house, that there are, in all parts of parliament, Canadians who are sincerely hoping for complete co-operation so that the two great nations of our country can live side by side, respecting the rights of one another.
Mr. Chairman, I have met in this house some of those Canadians who are really hoping for a full understanding between our two nations. I have had talks with members from all the parties in this house, who want to see this co-operation between the two nations.
To name only a few of those who have shown this hope for a perfect understanding between the two nations, I shall mention the Prime Minister of our country as well as some members of his cabinet, like Mr. Nowlan and Mr. Fleming.
I met English speaking Liberals, also, like Messrs. Walter Gordon, Turner, Paul Martin, as well as members of the New Democratic party, like Mr. Maclnnis, Mr. Peters and others, and in our own party, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Leboe-[DOT]
(Text):


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would inform him that it is not the practice to mention hon. members by name either in committee or in the house. If he refers to them again I wish he would refer to them by their constituencies.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I used their personal names because I did not know the names of their constituencies.

Interim Supply
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity of meeting some English speaking members of this house and after talking to them, I found them sincerely anxious to foster a spirit of co-operation between the two great racial groups which form our country, this Canada of ours.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is time now to set up a royal commission on bilingualism and on French Canadian participation in the civil service at all levels. Many individuals and organizations have asked for the establishment of such a commission.
Mr. Laurendeau of Le Devoir has taken the lead and other papers have followed suit. I have personally been asked, as well as several other members of this house, that a royal commission on bilingualism be established. St. Jean Baptiste societies, chambers of commerce, social clubs, student groups and many individuals are among those who are asking for the setting up of such a commission.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question here of threatening or blackmailing, but we feel it is time to review the situation. French Canada will survive whatever happens, it will develop in the whole of Canada in full recognition of its rights, or it will go towards a separate existence.
I think the time has come to study the matter seriously, to consider the situation as a whole, and that is why we take the opportunity of claiming, even of demanding of the government positive action in the form of this commission which has been insistently requested these last several months.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we are now considering interim supply which, when passed, will have provided for ten twelfths of an expenditure of $6 billion, no single dollar of which has been passed by this house as an estimate. This fact has been pointed out by other hon. members and it will be pointed out again. At this moment I do not propose to spend any more time on that subject, but I should like to say something about a matter which, even in a technical sense, is covered by interim supply, because it is a subject which does involve intervention by the federal government in provincial-federal relations, and in other ways which bring the whole question to our attention; the question of provincial-federal relations, which has been dealt with in the last few minutes by my hon. friend who preceded me. I propose to deal with one aspect of it shortly and I hope in an entirely non-partisan way.

Mr. Chairman, our country is now preparing to celebrate the centenary of our confederation. We have a bill before us, at least certain proposals are before us, which make us conscious of this fact. It should be an occasion for thanksgiving and for hope. And yet, as we prepare for this centennial celebration, we in Canada are anxious, indeed uncertain, about our future. We seem doubtful and confused about our place and our role in a rapidly changing world. Our wealth and our resources, both human and material, are great. Our standard of living is high. But we worry, and in my opinion rightly, about inadequate economic growth and the unemployment which results from that, about our unfavourable international balance of payments, and about other things which may affect our future. We worry because we are becoming more and more dependant instead of less and less dependant upon the United States economically, culturally and even politically. This leaves us with a feeling of frustration and irritation. Recent events have shown clearly that we are going through another serious crisis of national unity, and I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it this. Not only have we been unable in this country to agree on all the symbols of nationhood long after we have become a nation, but in some quarters the very foundation of our confederation is being questioned. Professor Frank H. Underhill, a perceptive if somewhat astringent commentator on the Canadian scene, said the other day in a speech:
The unpleasant fact is that we seem to be drifting without a compass. We have lost that conviction of positive national purpose which inspired our forefathers in 1867 .. . We are fumbling for that lost sense of impending greatness which once buoyed us up... What the times demand of us is a higher degree of sustained intellectual effort, a more courageous imagination, a more experimental spirit than has ever been before required in our history.
Confederation was our declaration of faith in the destiny of a united Canada. It was also our declaration of independence from the United States. We would go it on our own on this continent from coast to coast, first as part of the British empire and later as an independent nation of the commonwealth of nations. We knew at that time that such a declaration, based on such a faith, would involve an economic price. We were ready then in Canada to pay that price-and I hope and believe we are still ready to do so- namely, the price of being Canadian.
Confederation, however, also involved another price which too many of us either forget or do not wish to pay because perhaps

it is inconvenient for us to pay it. Confederation meant the rejection not only of political and economic annexation by the United States but also of the American melting-pot concept of national unity. Confederation may not have been technically a treaty or a compact between states, but it was an understanding or a settlement between the two founding races of Canada made on the basis of an acceptable and equal partnership. That settlement provided that national political unity would be achieved and maintained without the imposition of racial, cultural or linguistic uniformity.
I sometimes think that the understanding was more academic than actual. Outside Quebec, and as Canada grew from coast to coast, this understanding was more often honoured in the breach than in the observance and for reasons which any of us who know about the development of Canada can understand. As a result, there has grown up in this country two different interpretations of confederation. It is this difference in interpretation of confederation itself which has created and is creating today confusion, frustration and indeed some conflict.
To French speaking Canadians confederation created a bilingual and bicultural nation. It protected their language and their culture throughout the whole of Canada. It meant partnership, not domination. French speaking Canadians believed that this partnership meant equal opportunities for both the founding races to share in all phases of Canadian development.
English speaking Canadians agree, of course, that the confederation arrangements protected the rights of French Canadians in Quebec, in parliament and in federal courts; but most felt-and I think it is fair to say this-that it did not go beyond those limits, at least until recently. This meant that, for all practical purposes, there would be an English speaking Canada with a bilingual Quebec. What is called the "French fact" was to be provincial only.
Mr. Chairman, this difference over the meaning of confederation was obscured for many years after 1867 by other considerations, other considerations which I have not time to go into now. However, it is the basic source of present misunderstandings and difficulties in relations between the two founding Canadian races.
The first important clash perhaps between those two different interpretations occurred when the school question was raised in Manitoba. Then, during and after world war I, French Canada and indeed English speaking Canada too-French Canadians and English
Interim Supply
speaking Canadians-were perplexed and disheartened by the conflicting interpretation of the obligations of Canada in her participation in that war. French speaking Canadians also, and increasingly, felt they had failed somehow in their attempt to secure the acceptability of their culture in other parts of Canada. Hence they tended to withdraw, with their frustrations, into what has been called at times the Quebec reserve. This tendency to withdraw did not, of course, prevent important changes in Quebec, especially in the twenties, brought about especially by rapid industrialization.
I think it is fair to say that French Canadians were often slow to adjust themselves to this new industrial environment. Most of their leaders were trained in law, theology or in medicine. They saw Quebec's future in terms of political autonomy, decentralization and a mainly agricultural economy. There was fear of the new industrialization as something that would break up French Canada's cohesion and weaken its special values, special traditions and special culture. I believe that fear was increased, as I think the record will show, by the fact that the capital, management and skilled personnel required for industrial growth were largely imported from English speaking Canada or from the United States of America. These managers, these financiers, these technicians from outside rightly felt that they were helping to bring wealth and material progress to Quebec, and they were. It was hard for them to realize that, often through no fault of theirs, French speaking Canadians were being excluded from the direction of and even from satisfactory participation in the economic development of their own province. Changes, then, which brought economic advantages to Quebec suffered from the political disadvantage of being so often imported from outside and of often being alien to the spirit of Quebec.
There was ample room for misunderstanding here. We English speaking Canadians ought to be able to appreciate this because we often react critically to American financial control and management of industrial growth and resource development in the English speaking parts of Canada. In the English speaking provinces the barriers, when they existed, were national, not racial. In Quebec they were primarily racial but they tended also to become national when the English speaking Canadian managers, engineers and technicians made no greater effort to adapt themselves to a Quebec cultural and linguistic environment than did Americans who had come there.
This, Mr. Chairman, was bound to bring about political strains and stresses in Quebec's

Interim Supply
economic progress. In spite of much sincere and conscientious effort on both sides, and I think that effort has increased in recent years, to reduce and remove these strains, "The Two Solitudes" developed side by side in many of the cities and industrial areas in the province of Quebec. In earlier years after confederation this state, if I may call it that, of bicultural co-existence did not raise many or obvious problems. In those days there were only marginal contacts between the two groups and English had become the language of bilingualism. Even after world war II, when things began to change rapidly in Quebec, the Union Nationale regime helped to hide what was taking place in French Canada from the English speaking community.
This Quebec industrial revolution was accompanied, as revolutions of this kind nearly always are, by parallel revolutions in other fields. Perhaps it was most apparent in the arts and in literature. But the structure of society was also changing in other respects as well. Co-operatives, labour unions, credit unions all grew rapidly in that province. Even more important were the changes taking place in the system of education there. Engineering, commerce, the natural sciences and the social sciences began to attract a greater and greater number of students.
People in English speaking Canada were aware, of course, that something was happening in Quebec. We were becoming more and more conscious than we were before of Quebec's importance as a partner in confederation. We were not lacking in good will and in a desire to understand the special situation of Quebec. But perhaps we needed shock treatment to make us appreciate the full significance of what had happened, of Quebec's social revolution. That shock was given in recent years by separatism, by the agitation in some quarters, which got so much publicity, for what was called political liberation. That was an extreme reaction to what had been going on for at least 15 years in industrial and social change. Less extreme reactions, however, were perhaps even more significant and quite as sincere as a reflection of Quebec's impatience with her present position in confederation. In any event, for Quebec the period of rural isolationism was over and the prospect of mere survival, even industrial survival, in confederation was not good enough.
It is now clear to all of us, I think, that French speaking Canadians are determined to become directors of their economic and cultural destiny in their own changed and changing society. They feel that in doing so they are not being isolationists but that, on the contrary, only in this way can they make

their rightful contribution to the true development of Canadian confederation. To this end they also ask for equal and full opportunity to participate in all federal government services, in which their own language will be fully recognized. This right flows from the equal partnership of confederation.
Are these objectives of full participation in the discharge of national responsibilities along with the full enjoyment of rights and opportunities attainable for all French speaking citizens in our country as it is at present organized in confederation? I submit that the answer depends in part on French speaking Canadians themselves, on their willingness to continue the effort they have begn making, on a large scale since 1960, to develop educational facilities and to ensure that there will be enough qualified French speaking Canadians to exploit the opportunities and fulfil the responsibilities that develop.
But the answer also depends, and I believe in greater degree, on English speaking Canadians because we are in the majority. In managerial levels in industry, for instance, and in the federal public services it is the English speaking Canadians who must accept the changes which are required to make a reality of full partnership. Are we willing to do it? Are we prepared not only to accept those long term objectives of partnership but, perhaps more important and more difficult for us, to take immediate and concrete steps to achieve them?
If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, then we can be confident of the future of our united country and we can look forward to a new era of strength and unity which will enable us to overcome any economic, cultural and political differences and to go forward together as Canadians. But if the answer is negative, not so much the answer in words but the answer in fact, and if we become unaware or careless of the obligations and opportunities of true partnership, we will continue in this country to drift from one difficulty to another until a majority of people on both sides will have had enough of this unique Canadian experience. The final result of that would, indeed, be separatism. I am sure we are all in full agreement that this course would be only a desperate and despairing solution, for it would mean the end of our united country and the betrayal of a great national heritage. It would be a loss, an indescribable loss to us all.
Today, when the greatest need of free men and free nations is to come closer together politically, economically and culturally, to accept and act on the compulsions and opportunities of interdependence; at this time of all times it would be a tragic thing for Canadians

to have to admit their failure to unify their own country in any real and meaningful sense, which means unity without sacrificing special and separate values. No Canadian, surely, could contemplate with anything but bitter regret the weakening, let alone the failure, of confederation, especially when Canada has grown so much in stature and achieved so much respect in the world.
But we cannot afford to be complacent about this. The world around us shows that nations, when reasonable and acceptable compromises are postponed or are offered too late, will resort to desperate solutions which earlier had appeared to be unthinkable to them, anc against their own best interests.
So, Mr. Chairman, we should be careful not to be complacent about what is happening. We should also be careful not to let emotions created by immediate controversies or special incidents warp our judgment or distort our perspective. We should not assume that cracks mean the wall is falling. On the other hand, we will never restore strength merely by papering over the cracks as they occur. It is a time, Mr. Chairman, not for extremists and their passions but for a deep, responsible, and understanding examination of basic situations.
This means, I believe, that we have now reached a stage when we should seriously and collectively in this country review the bicultural and bilingual situation in our country; our experiences in the teaching of English and French, and in the relations existing generally between our two founding racial groups. In this review there should also be in my view, every opportunity and every encouragement for Canadians, individually or in their associations, and organizations, to express their ideas on this situation. If they find it unsatisfactory they should suggest concrete measures to meet it and to reach a better, more balanced participation of our two founding groups in our national affairs.
Are we ready, for instance, to give to all young Canadians a real opportunity to become truly bilingual? If the answer is yes, as I am sure it would be, what concrete steps should be taken at the different levels of our educational system to bring about this opportunity, having regard to the fact that constitutional responsibility for education is, and must remain, exclusively provincial? What further contribution to this end have we the right to expect from radio, from television and from films in both languages? How can we encourage more frequent contacts between young Canadians?
Then, there is the question which has already been mentioned in this debate, one of specific and inescapable federal responsibility. What are the reasons why there are
Interim Supply
relatively so few French speaking Canadians in the professional and administrative jobs of the federal civil service, including crown corporations and federal agencies? How can that situation be improved as it must be improved? Would it be desirable, for instance, to have a bilingual school of public administration operated by the federal government in Ottawa?
There are a great many more questions that we might ask ourselves. These questions are now very much in the minds of Canadians, more so I believe than ever before in our history. They deserve concrete answers because they are vital to our future as a united country. They should be thoroughly examined and Canadians should be given an opportunity of expressing their views about them. There could not be any better preparation for the celebration of the centenary of confederation than to seek and find these answers. The federal government, as I have already stated and as is obvious :o us all, has a special and exclusive responsibility to do something about the federal service and the crown companies. But an inquiry here, Mr. Chairman, and even necessary changes, will not in my view go far enough. Many of the most important problems to be solved fall within provincial jurisdiction, especially those arising out of the teaching of both languages. Therefore, if this wider inquiry into the means of developing the bicultural character of Canadian confederation is to be undertaken, the provincial governments would have to be associated with it.
I suggest that to this end the federal government should consult with the provincial governments without delay. If these consultations-I hope this would not happen and I cannot see any reason why it should-do not result in a positive response or if they are delayed, then of course any federal government would have an obligation to go ahead with the inquiry into matters which fall within its own jurisdiction. One additional advantage, Mr. Chairman, of the joint inquiry, that is with the provinces, is that it would show the importance of the contribution to our national development made by Canadians other than the founding races, which has been of special and indeed exciting value since world war II. This contribution of new Canadians from old races has added strength, colour and vitality to the pattern of our national life. It has enriched Canadianism by qualities inherited from old and noble traditions and cultures of other lands.
What better way could we prepare for our centenary than by taking effective steps

Interim Supply
now to deepen and strengthen the reality and the hopes of confederation so that all Canadians, without regard to race or language or cultural backgrounds, may feel with confidence that within this nation they can realize, without discrimination and in full partnership, a good destiny for themselves and for those who follow them. In that spirit of hope and confidence we can all work together and build up a greater and more united Canada.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, we have heard two remarkable speeches this afternoon. The first one by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), and the second one by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
Of course, I am in agreement with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he says that it is essential to have a better understanding between the two great racial groups forming this country.
It is quite obvious that our country will reach the full scope of its magnificent destiny when the two great racial groups in this country will live in a climate of mutual understanding and full co-operation.
This good understanding is now facing obstacles, the first of which being, it seems, a mistaken view of the educational system in the province of Quebec. As a result some people in the other provinces and even in our own province think that the graduates of our secondary schools and of our universities are not qualified to occupy important positions in nearly all spheres of Canadian activity.
It is unfortunate that such publicity should be made at this time about certain incidents and statements involving businessmen or company heads who, perhaps in order to excuse their regrettable omissions, try to put the blame on a lack of education in order to excuse the faults of their own administration.
Mr. Chairman, as several members of this house, I am a graduate of our secondary schools, and I have studied a few years in our universities. I have had the opportunity of talking with graduates of secondary institutions or university establishments of other provinces, and I have been in a position to realize that the graduates of Laval or Montreal universities, of the Quebec school of commerce, of the Montreal school of higher commercial studies, of Polytechnique, and of our other schools, are as qualified as graduates of any other similar school or university in Canada to occupy commanding positions in any sphere of activity.

That is why I do not hesitate to say that if, in private industry or elsewhere, French Canadians could not be found to fill important posts, it is mainly due to the fact that no effort has been made to find competent people where they could be found.
The other day I made the following suggestion: let the heads of big corporations carefully examine the list of graduates of our secondary and university establishments for the last ten years, let them pick the first ten in each year, and they will have immediately a reserve of qualified men among whom they will be able to select the French Canadians they need, not only in order to give French Canada its fair share, but in order to improve the quality of their own concerns.
Mr. Chairman, our English speaking fellow citizens have their own faults too, just as we have ours in French Canada. Those faults must be eliminated. Any act done on the spur of spontaneous anger which deeply hurts not only our English speaking fellow citizens but also our French speaking ones constitutes a stumbling block which may destroy the hopes of those who see in the existence of harmony and unity between both races the solution to the main problems of the country.
I condemn those who allowed the war memorial in Ottawa to be desecrated. I also condemn those who were responsible for the taking-down of the red ensign on Place Ville-Marie or who allowed this thing to happen.
I long with all my heart for the day when, united at last, all Canadians will rally behind one clearly distinctive flag which every patriotic Canadian will salute as the emblem of national unity.
It is precisely with that purpose in mind that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) announced recently that early next year the government would call a conference of provincial and federal statesmen to promote the adoption of a symbol around which all Canadians will rally and which will permanently identify our Canadian sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, a while ago, I was asking our English speaking fellow citizens to show better understanding and to make a better study of the undeniable qualifications of our university graduates, but I think it is also necessary to ask the children of French Canada to realize that too stormy public protestations are not likely to bring our fellow citizens in other provinces to understand that we must go ahead in a conciliatory spirit.
I approved most of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), but I regretted a statement that we hear all too often at the present time in every speech of

those who adopt the Liberal philosophy or support the Liberal policy in Quebec or elsewhere. In fact, it is suggested that nothing was done in Quebec before the present provincial administration took over in 1960. To deny that projects were carried out prior to 1960 is simply to deny the truth. Those who studied what happened before 1960, in the province of Quebec, are in a position to note that under the provincial administrations that were in office before the present one, all our schools and our education system made tremendous progress. More than 4,000 schools were built in the province of Quebec, and it is absolutely false to say that nothing was done in our province before 1960. People who say that are simply giving those who claim that we are not qualified one more reason to refuse us key posts in our industries.
If, in fact, nothing was done before 1960, those who claim that we are not entitled to key posts in industry or elsewhere, because of our lack of qualifications, would be right. But a lot was done and I repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks: the graduates from our universities, our secondary schools, are just as qualified today to hold those key posts as they were before the present government, that is the Liberal government, took office in the province of Quebec.
I commend the present Liberal authorities for the impulse they are trying to give to education in our province. I believe that all those who take an interest in the vital question of education will encourage any party that seeks to improve the training given our young people and advance the cause of education. But the cause of education has not progressed to a satisfactory level. The programs of our schools and colleges have not been modified sufficiently during the last two years for anyone to claim that before 1960 our education system was nil in Quebec and that at last today perfection has been attained for the sole reason that there is a new political regime in Quebec city.
Intellectuals who are anxious to acquire culture would have occupied as high a rank before 1960 as they do now under the present government.
But to say that intellectual activity has existed in the province of Quebec only for two years is, unfortunately, using political arguments for the sole aim of convincing
Interim Supply
voters that they are better off with one party instead of the other, but that is not so, actually.
A few moments ago, the Leader of the Opposition suggested in most convincing terms that a federal-provincial conference should be called for the consideration of this problem of applying integral bilingualism and giving a fair share to our people in the civil service and in crown corporations. There is merit in that suggestion and, as I said before, a federal-provincial conference will be called at the beginning of the year in order to determine, in a spirit of co-operation and understanding, what is needed and should be done in order to endow our nation with the symbols of its sovereignty.
All those steps should be taken and all those problems studied most carefully, in a spirit of good will, as mentioned earlier by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) when he said that he had noticed among his English speaking colleagues in the house a desire for Canadian unity, similar to that which exists in the province of Quebec.
Such an atmosphere should prevail during this conference when all those other steps will be taken jointly by Canadians called upon to settle this most important question of national unity.
I feel that it would now be proper to ask all Canadians to write to their members of parliament and send suggestions on matters pertaining to the emblem of unity that we want, to that sovereignty which is so essential, because as long as the Canadian people will not rally around those symbols, the principle of a bi-ethnic and bilingual culture will not be fully respected. Unfortunately, we shall witness demonstrations similar to those staged following the incident which involved the president of the C.N.R. We shall see other such incidents multiply and give rise to all kinds of uneasiness which far from bringing us together, will draw us apart, thus almost justifying those who see in false theories an answer to our problems.
No, Mr. Chairman, far from separating, we must unite more than ever, here in Canada. Far from separating, we must understand the necessity of joining around the symbols of sovereignty I mentioned earlier.
At a time when the nations of the world, having understood at last, after so many

Interim Supply
wars and sacrifices, that it is definitely essential to unite if we want final peace, would it be logical for a country like Canada, which is only at the beginning of a wonderful destiny, to disunite because of pointless quarrels which could be settled with a little goodwill and mutual understanding.
Mr. Chairman, those who advocate separatism are working against the best interests of Canada. They forget in particular the sacrifices made during the two world wars by Canadians who went to the battlefields to defend not a foreign cause but the cause of freedom, the cause of Canada which some of them cherished even more than their lives.
Canada has to be united. It is essential for Canadians to find, through the representatives they have elected to parliament to give them guidance and unity, formulas which will bring about mutual understanding. Canadians must unite, and that objective will be achieved only when Canadians will have understood that the role which is reserved for French Canadians, in this Canadian land, must have the same importance on the federal scene as well as in private enterprise, as the one which is entrusted to English Canadians or other racial groups living in this country.
Our English speaking colleagues must understand not only our problems, but also the fact that we, French Canadians, are here to stay, that we are deeply attached to our French traditions and that we wish to keep on speaking this language which is our mother tongue, and one of the most beautiful in the world. English Canadians must understand the need which French Canada has of maintaining its cultural tradition, because it is only through the maintenance of that cultural tradition that the citizens of French Canada will fully develop.
On the other hand, French speaking Canadians must understand that there exists among their English speaking colleagues a desire to understand them, to be conciliatory and to sit down with them around a conference table, in order to find the formulas which may bring about good understanding between all groups.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that this debate is necessary.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I think it behooves us-
[Mr. Sevigny.3
(Text):


Rémi Paul: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper, namely the notices of motion which appear on page 28.



[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motion:
That a special committee be appointed to carry out a survey of all aspects of commercial advertising on Canadian television and radio, in certain newspapers and other fields of mass communication, for the purpose of recommending what steps, if any, should be taken to prevent the distribution of fraudulent and misleading advertising to Canadian consumers;
That the said committee consist of fifteen members to be named at a later date, nine of whom shall constitute a quorum;
That the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting; to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. MacRae:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member requests that this motion stand, but it was called for the first time on December 12. If it is not proceeded with today it will disappear from the order paper pursuant to standing order 48, subparagraph (1). Is the hon. member still requesting that the order stand?


John Chester MacRae: Stand.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to be known as "The Canada Full Employment Act", and that consideration should be given to including in the said proposed measure, inter alia, the following provisions; (a) a clearcut recognition by parliament of the importance of full employment as a national policy; (b) a declaration that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps that are necessary to provide and maintain a full

employment economy; (c) the establishing of a council of economic advisers, empowered to make regular reports containing economic analyses and projections based on objective research, such reports to be made public; and (d) a requirement that there be an annual report to parliament, by the minister responsible for the administration of the act, on measures taken under its provisions, with opportunity for scrutiny and debate, so that parliament might make sure that the purposes of the proposed act are fulfilled.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion, as its terms indicate, asks that consideration be given to the enacting of a statute to be known as "The Canada Full Employment Act". I believe that this is the first time such a proposal has been formally placed before the House of Commons. If one has in mind the batting average of private members' motions and private members' bills, I suppose I should not be too hopeful that it will pass in the hour allotted to it. However, hope does spring eternal, and because of the great importance of the subject matter of this motion I dare to hope that the house might give its approval to it. If this does not happen today I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that it will happen some day; that the day will come when there will be on our statute books an act of this description. When that day comes a full employment act, or a guaranteed employment act, will rank with what I hope by that time is a proper bill of rights, and with other such pieces of legislation as amongst the most important items on our statute books.
Mr. Speaker, when Canada first came into being in 1867, and when the parliament of Canada was created by the British North America Act of that day, it was felt that the role of government was somewhat limited. It was the job of parliament and of the government to arrange for the administration of essential services, to provide for the defence of the country, to organize the postal services, and things of that sort, but it was the feeling of that day that the functions of the government should be limited. In the 95 years since confederation the picture has changed considerably. The number of responsibilities which fall to parliament and government has grown, and will continue to grow in the years which lie ahead. In particular we have multiplied the services, the organization and provision of which we recognize as the responsibility of government. We have gone a great way, even in the political lifetimes of many of us in this chamber, in the field of social security in the enactment of measures which were visionary and idealistic a generation or two ago. Things which are thought to be beyond the responsibility of government are now on our statute books. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that 27507-3-173
Labour Conditions
one of the next areas into which we must move, and move with determination, is the question of seeing to it that full employment is provided for our people. The fact that this sort of thing is happening is, of course, supported by certain pieces of legislation which are before this parliament. The rules prevent me from referring to them in any detail, but I think it would be in order for me to say in passing that the very fact that we are discussing such items as an Atlantic development board and a national economic development board is an admission by the government and this parliament that there is a job now for both government and parliament to do in the economic field.
Mr. Speaker, we feel that what is required is far more than is suggested in these other pieces of legislation which are before this house. We think that something comparable to a bill of rights, something comparable to the assertion that there are basic things which belong to the people of this country, should be done in the field of guaranteeing full employment. That is why we suggest in the terms of this resolution that this house should ask the government to give consideration to the advisability of bringing such a measure before parliament. As suggested in the resolution, we propose that such a statute should include a number of things. In the first place, it should include a clearcut recognition by parliament of the importance of full employment as a national policy. When we reach the point where we accept that responsibility as a parliament, we will be able to do something about it, rather than just hoping that private industry, under benefits and arrangements made by the government, will do the job for us. I suggest this becomes just as important a responsibility and as important a function for the parliament of Canada now as the social services we provide, as the defence of the nation, as our diplomatic policy, and as our basic human rights. In fact, one of the things missing in the discussion which took place in this house during the last parliament on the bill of rights was the question of the important economic and social rights which belong to our people. Therefore, we feel that parliament should declare quite clearly and in forthright manner that we do not leave this responsibility to private sectors of the economy, that we do not leave it to chance. We accept it as parliament's responsibility to maintain a policy of full employment.
A second recognition which we feel should be in a full employment act or a guaranteed employment act should be a declaration that it

Labour Conditions
is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps necessary to provide and maintain a full employment economy. Here again it will be noted that we are asking for a good deal more than that which is proposed in other items of legislation before this parliament at the present time. We ask not just for boards or committees to discuss these things; we ask for recognition in a statute of parliament that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the necessary steps which will provide full employment for our people.
A third proposal which we think should be in a statute of this kind would be one for the setting up of a council of economic advisers. This is something far more than is proposed with regard to a certain board being discussed under another item. We feel that this council of economic advisers should be empowered to make regular reports containing economic analyses and projections based on objective research, and that all these reports made by the council of economic advisers should be made public.
The fourth of the items which we suggest should be in such a statute would be the requirement that there should be an annual report to parliament, by the minister responsible for the administration of the act, of measures taken under its provisions so that there would be an opportunity for scrutiny and debate, to the end that the House of Commons will be able to make sure that the purposes of the act are being fulfilled. In other words, what we are suggesting is that concern for the economy or concern that the economy produce full employment be put at the very centre of our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the people of this country. If the House of Commons will take this responsibility and if we will get down to business and do the things which are necessary in terms of economic planning, enlarging the public sector, and greater public ownership, in order to provide full employment, on that basis we believe we can do just about all the things we feel we should be doing for our people.
For example, we know that we have a long way to go in this country in terms of providing adequate housing. We know that we have a tremendous way to go in terms of providing health care for all our people. A moment ago I spoke about the progress we have made in the field of social security. However, we have a great deal to do yet in that field. We cannot do these things as we should do them while we are suffering from unemployment and while we are failing to produce the wealth or the goods and the services which we have the capacity to bring into being.

However, if we provide full employment, if we make that responsibility a major concern of the parliament and the government of Canada, we can really fill the bill in terms of housing, health, security, education and all the things our people need.
There is one other area which concerns us greatly today, namely our contribution to building up the economies of the underdeveloped countries of the world. We know that in this way and in this way only can we achieve and maintain permanent peace. In order to do this, in order to make a significant contribution-and I suggest that it should be a massive one-to the development of underdeveloped countries, it will be necessary to have full employment and to have people at work producing goods and services on a scale far beyond anything in existence in Canada at the present time. In other words, we are concerned not just with taking up the slack so that there will not be unemployment and the suffering that goes with it; we are concerned about the kind of full, effective and efficient employment that produces goods and services which will provide a good economy and a good standard of living for our people and which will enable us in Canada to make a significant contribution to improving the conditions of life for people the world around and in so doing will enable us to make a significant contribution toward the peace of the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize as I did at the start the fact that this is the kind of statute that would put concern for full employment at the centre of our parliamentary responsibilities; it is comparable to a bill of rights or to those thinks that belong in the basic constitution of a nation such as ours. This kind of statute is one that sooner or later we must have. Because of the present need for action in our own time we hope that something may be done about this matter at an early date.
By the very nature of things this resolution cannot put the proposed statute on the statute books; it is put forward as a private members' resolution which asks that the government give consideration to the advisability of taking this course. Because of its importance I hope that there will be a reasonable amount of discussion of this proposal but that the house may see fit to endorse the motion and ask the government to consider this extremely important matter.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who just spoke, I noted one of his remarks in which he indicated, if I may paraphrase his words, that this was the first time something of this nature had been brought before this house. I would suggest that this is not really the first

time something of this nature has been before us. Back in 1945, in a somewhat different form, the Liberal government of that day brought down a famous white paper on employment and income which laid out the chart for Canada's progress in the post-war years until 1957. In that white paper it was set forth as a matter of government policy that full employment was an aim of government for the Canadian people. I quote from page 1:
The central task of reconstruction in the interests of the armed services and civilians alike, must be to accomplish a smooth, orderly transition, from the economic conditions of war to those of peace and to maintain a high and stable level of employment and income. The government adopts this as a primary object of policy... In setting as its aim a high and stable level of employment and income, the government is not selecting a lower target than "full employment".
In summarizing, at page 23, the various policies set forth in this famous white paper, it concluded as follows:
In this paper, the government has stated unequivocally its adoption of a high and stable level of employment and income, and thereby higher standards of living, as a major aim of government policy.
In this white paper were set forth policies which stimulated the expansion of the Canadian economy and created jobs for hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning from the war. They included policies with regard to low interest rates, incentives for private investment, public investment, the stimulation of housing and slum clearance. When we look at the record of Canada between 1945 and 1957 we can see the record of achievement which resulted from this clear statement of policy in this famous white paper in 1945. We had a rate of growth that made us the envy of the world. We had a rate of employment that certainly ranked with the best in the world either before or since.
I do not think I need to dwell at this time on what has happened since 1957. The Canadian people know only too well the differences between the years before 1957 and the years after, the lag in economic growth, in fact the outright decay and stagnation of our economic life, the startling increase in our rate of unemployment which, unfortunately, at times put us among those countries with the highest rates of unemployment in the world.
It is true that the time has come once again for a further clear cut and definitive statement of policy that full employment shall once again be a major aim of the government of Canada. But if once again we adopt this as a policy, I suggest that we must make sure that the policy is carried out in ways which continue to provide freedom of choice 27507-3-173i
Labour Conditions
for workers in going from job to job, freedom of movement for those workers who want to move. As a basic aim, however, this aim of full employment is still as valid today as it was in 1945. Unfortunately, in spite of the manner in which this has been brought most forcefully to the attention of the people of Canada and the manner in which the people of Canada have brought their dissatisfaction with this state of affairs to the attention of the government, a dissatisfaction expressed most forcibly in the rather startling decline in seats now held by the government compared with after the previous election, we still see, in looking at the dominion bureau of statistics publication dealing with the labour force, that the unemployment rate in November of this year was 5.2 per cent compared with 5.4 per cent in November, 1961.
I mention this not only to draw to the attention of the house something which is all too obvious to all too many people in this country, but also to point out that statements of policy, whether in a white paper or in an act of this parliament as suggested by the last speaker, are really not enough. There has to be the will and desire to carry out and implement policies based on the basic policy to which I have referred. The bill of rights, to which reference was made by the hon. member who just spoke, is a good example of this particular point. It is on the statute books and reads very well, but we still do not have the achievement of all the basic rights that are supposed to be embodied in it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say it even appears from time to time that the present government, which seems to take such pride in the passage of that act, ignores its precepts in carrying on their activities. Therefore I suggest that if you have an act of this type on the statute books it must be accompanied by the will and desire to carrry out the appropriate policies foreshadowed in a piece of legislation of this type.
I do not think it is necessary to discuss in detail the various parts of the resolution. Some of them are now before the house in other forms. In passing, however, I must say that I was interested to note the remarkable similarity of this resolution to the employment act of 1946 of the United States. I do not say this by way of criticism particularly. Certainly we have not reached the stage of perfection in this country that we can afford not to get good ideas from other places in the world, but I thought I should remark upon that in passing. In any event, Mr. Speaker, measures of this type are already before the house in other forms in one way or another.

Labour Conditions
But I do want to conclude my remarks by pointing out that full employment remains and even more than ever is a basic policy of the Liberal party today. Full employment in an expanding economy will be the first aim of the new Liberal government. So we stated during the last election, so we stated previously; and I do not think we can reiterate this basic principle of policy too often because I am sure we will have the first opportunity to put this policy into effect.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton Norih and Vicloria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to speak briefly on this motion. At the outset let me say that there is reference to such an act in the submission presented to the cabinet by the Canadian Labour Congress in March of 1962. It is in substantially the same terms as the resolution now before us in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, there is no reference to such an act in the latest brief of the Canadian Labour Congress presented to the government last week. Perhaps in the interval they have had second thoughts about the efficacy of such a bill, or perhaps its omission from their latest brief may be connected with the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is no longer executive vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress. In any case, although the motion leaves a lot to be desired it is all we have to go on at the present time and the present discussion must, therefore, be based on the terms which the hon. member has seen fit to place before the house.
In a general way, before examining in detail the terms of the proposed bill, it is perhaps useful to consider the general principle of a bill to legislate full employment. It is, of course, in line with socialist thinking that by simply waving a legislative wand, as it were, all problems of the economy can be cured. Perhaps this is what they mean when they talk about planning, that it is merely a matter of putting legislation into effect to bring about those desirable objectives which we would all like to achieve and to eliminate all problems which are currently the lot of troubled humanity. Would it were that easy.
There are some problems that cannot be solved simply by saying "let there be light". At least, in the past they have only been solved in that manner through the possession of those divine faculties which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not yet given satisfactory evidence of possessing. In effect this bill, if passed, would simply say, "let there be full employment", and the minister would be in the position of reporting from time to time on the extent to which this injunction was being realized.

I have strong doubts, Mr. Speaker, that simply by passing a bill of this nature full employment can be created. If it were only that simple then, of course, all our problems would be over. If the bill obviously cannot accomplish what it sets out to accomplish, then what is its purpose? I am afraid that it would become simply another case of window dressing.
When you examine the resolution closely, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the hon. member has included a number of provisions which he would like to have in the proposed bill. They are in summary: First, clearcut recognition by parliament of the importance of full employment as a national policy. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is not an hon. member in this house who does not favour full employment as a national policy. The only possible exception might be the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) who, I believe in the course of some of his writings, has stated that a certain level of unemployment "helps to keep the economy flexible". That statement can be found on page 421 of the Gordon commission report. With that possible exception every member of the house, I am sure, has favoured the principle of full employment.
This is a proposal that, when looked at closely, will not provide one single job for one single Canadian, and from that point of view simply reduces itself to a form of legislative wishful thinking. I do not think parliament should be asked to approve legislation dealing with wishful thinking. I would suggest that if the hon. member has some definite and positive, some concrete and practical proposition to provide jobs, then he should bring it forward. Were he to do so, I feel he would get quite a bit of support. I do not think it can be done by the embodiment of a pious platitude in the form of parliamentary legislation. When the time comes that parliament indulges in this sort of phraseology as a substitute for hard, legislative action, then we will have gone a long way towards losing our effectiveness.
The second provision would require a declaration to the effect it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps that are necessary to provide and maintain a full employment economy. This is another of those vague generalizations. I would have been far more eager to support the hon. member's motion if he had told us specifically what those necessary steps are. I would contrast this with the program of the present government which, right from the beginning, has accepted fully the fact there was an unemployment problem in this country, has accepted fully its constitutional responsibilities, and has evolved specific measures to

deal with the problem. I would say that nine out of ten of those measures receive the unanimous support of this house when brought before parliament.
I would point out to the hon. member that the responsibility in this field is not solely that of the federal government. The federal government can act and has acted. Under our constitutional system, there remains a substantial field of provincial jurisdiction. I believe it was the present Liberal premier of Quebec who maintained during his 1960 campaign that unemployment was the responsibility of the province. I do not know what his stand is now since, unfortunately, unemployment in Quebec under that government is considerably higher than it is in Ontario and on the prairies. I believe it was the late Mr. King who, on one occasion, made the classic statement that there would not be one five-cent piece for those provinces which did not have Liberal governments in office. Presumably this is an example of classical politics, Liberal version. In any case, there are different viewpoints on this question of responsibility.
The hon. member's next suggestion relates to the establishment of a council of economic advisers whose only function apparently would be to make reports. Surely, the national economic development board would make this suggestion obsolete, even before it gets off the drawing board.
The final suggestion made by the hon. member relates to an annual report. In summary, therefore, the suggestion before us boils down to this; a declaration of full employment policy by parliament; a declaration by no one knows who to the effect that the federal government is responsible; regular reports from the advisory board and an annual report by a minister. No matter how I look at this bill, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see it as a vehicle to provide jobs. It is not in a class with the municipal winter works program; the vocational school program, which is providing training facilities on a national scale; the manpower adjustment measure recently introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr); the Atlantic provinces development board which opposition members from the maritime provinces have been praising with such faint damns in the last few days, or the various other incentives and encouragements provided to industry and labour by this government.
As I say, it is a measure couched in vague generalities, embodying pious aspirations and hoping for the best. All I can say is that if we pass this bill at this time it would not result in one additional job for one single Canadian. Surely, that is the test. Let us not try to provide the public with window
Labour Conditions
dressing. Let us either put forward the kind of practical, positive steps as the government has been doing, and which the house has supported, or let us refrain from taking up time.
I commend the hon. member's idealism, but certainly I cannot commend his realism in the matter. In conclusion, may I also commend to the hon. member the views expressed by Dr. Eugene Forsey at the founding convention of his party on full employment and regimentation.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to make a few observations on the measure now before the house. At the outset, I should like to say that the objective I believe is in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is indeed very commendable. His objective is to realize the desirable goal when everyone will be assured the opportunity of gainful and productive employment. As we consider that objective I am sure, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, everyone in this house would agree with it. However, as we look at it there are a number of criticisms I should like to make, and I would make them I trust not in the spirit in which some criticisms have been levelled this afternoon. I want to make them as constructive as possible. I should like also to raise some questions with regard to the various sections that are in the motion.
The problem that faces us at the present time, a problem that has faced us over the years, causes us to consider the best methods and means by which we can assure the people of Canada the opportunity of gainful employment, to assure to them the possibility of meeting their own needs and the need of their families from an economic point of view. There are those who can look back to the years when this objective was far from possible even for the majority of Canadian citizens. Those were the years when dire poverty stalked the land, when the morale of the people was broken down because of their inability to provide for themselves and their families. I am sure that none of us anticipate a recurrence of the situation that faced us back in the thirties. Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation where, year after year, a considerable percentage of our people are unable to find productive and gainful employment.
I believe that this is wasteful when we consider the tremendous possibilities and the potential of this nation of ours. When we consider the needs of our people and the needs of other people, as has been pointed out by the hon. member who introduced this measure, we would say it is wasteful when people are unable to find an opportunity to

Labour Conditions
employ their time and their energy in productive enterprise, and make their contribution to society in the way they would like to make it. Not only is it wasteful but it is demoralizing as well, because I am still convinced that by far the greater percentage of Canadian people would rather provide for their own needs than have agencies, organizations or governments provide for them.
They are only asking for an opportunity to use their skills, their brawn and their brain to provide for themselves and for the needs of others. So I say that this bill before us now is commendable in that it points forward towards the realization of that goal when everyone will be assured of the opportunity of gainful and productive employment. However, I would raise a number of questions concerning the measure put forward to deal with the situation.
In the first clause, it suggests that there must be a clearcut recognition by parliament of the importance of full employment, in other words a national policy of full employment. I should like to ask the hon. member, what is full employment? What does he mean by full employment? In order to have full employment, is it required that everyone work so many days a week or so many hours in a day? Does full employment mean adequate work, sufficient work to enable a person to provide adequately for himself and others who are dependent upon him? Sometimes we refer to what we call the problem of automation. Unfortunately, so far as information is concerned at the present time, it would almost seem as though automation is the problem. I suggest that it should be a blessing when people can be relieved of the drudgery of manual labour and can spend at least a certain percentage of their time in cultural and other pursuits, developing their personalities, and making contributions not only in the field of economics but in the field of arts and so on. It seems to me this is a very desirable objective to attain.
In connection with the question of full employment I would like to ask what is full employment? As I said, is it so many days a week, so many hours in each day, or is it sufficient labour to produce the goods and services that are required with the workers receiving for themselves adequate returns commensurate with their contributions?
The next clause speaks about the role of the government and suggests-
-a declaration that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps that are necessary to provide and maintain a full employment economy.
I do not know just how far the hon. member would go in applying this particular

clause. He states that it is the responsibility of the government, but I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to give everyone a job. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the government to expand its services and engage in projects and all these different activities in order that it can employ more and more of the Canadian people. In contrast, I suggest the responsibility of parliament and of the government is to create a climate in this nation that will enable industry and business to move forward and produce the goods and services that are required in abundance sufficient to meet the needs of the people of Canada and of other nations. The responsibility of the government is to create an economic climate where business, industry and commerce can work and thereby provide gainful opportunities to the people of the nation.
The next clause in the motion speaks about the establishing of a council of economic advisers. The hon. member has indicated that he does not believe there would be any overlapping of responsibility between this and other activities that have already been considered in this house; but I would suggest that, in view of the fact we have so many other matters under consideration for setting up boards, commissions, committees and so on to consider these various factors, this would be a duplication of those other bodies. I just refer to one, the industrial change and manpower adjustment measure. The appointment of a council of advisers, such as indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be a duplication of activities and interests that will' be considered with respect to that measure.
Once again we raise the question as to how many of these boards, commissions and committees we are going to have in order to get our economy moving and meet the changing situations of our nation. I do not think this council would be necessary in order to achieve the desirable objectives we have in mind.
So, Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of adequate employment for our people. We support the idea that everyone who desires it should have the opportunity and privilege of engaging in gainful employment. We agree with that; but so far as some of the measures that are proposed to reach that objective are concerned, we have some questions in our minds.
I come back once again to one of the basic proposals of our group. I know it has been raised on a number of occasions and so far it has not gained universal support, but we

still maintain that if we are to meet the challenges and problems facing us at the present time the government must accept responsibility to introduce measures to bring into being a financial system adequate to meet the changing situations as we find them today. That would require that adequate means be provided whereby purchasing power will be placed in the hands of the Canadian people, supplementary to wages and salaries, and that will bear a proper relationship to our production.
We believe and insist that if this were done, and goods and services moved to the people who require them, then we would achieve the objectives outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; because if this is done, then the wheels of industry and production will continue in motion, more men will be employed, wages and salaries will continue to rise and all our people will share in the national prosperity. I do not raise these questions or issues in any critical manner. We believe the objective is good, but we have reservations with regard to the means that are being proposed to remedy the situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have read with great interest the motion by the distinguished hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think one might safely say that this is really an over-all attempt to legislate full employment in one fell swoop, so to speak. This motion is very much like being against sin. It is something we are all in favour of in principle and I do not think any member of the house could possibly oppose it.


Mr.   Palierson@: In favour of sin?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Against sin. I am sorry if the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) did not understand what I meant. He is very much against sin and likewise I am sure are most other hon. members. But I would say, as I have already mentioned, that while I am sure every hon. member would agree with the principles behind this motion, I feel that it suffers a little bit from being vague and rather generalized, and because it fails to set out any positive recommendations.
I also think the motion is redundant because there are a number of pieces of legislation now before the house, indeed some that have already been passed by the house this session, which cover to a considerable extent what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has in mind.
Labour Conditions
There are one or two other points I would like to deal with specifically. Some hon. members have already touched on them. One is paragraph (b) of the motion which suggests-
-a declaration that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps that are necessary to provide and maintain a full employment economy.
I cannot help feeling that this particular section of the motion could not avoid running into constitutional difficulties at some time or another. It reminds me very much of a case back in the thirties, a very famous case before the Supreme Court of Canada, the labour convention case, where Canada agreed at an international convention to carry out certain reforms in the field of labour in Canada and then found, when the delegates came home, that they did not have the constitutional authority to do it because that power, of course, lies with the provinces. For this reason I feel that any catch-all bill, no matter how well intentioned it may be-and as this one undoubtedly is-dealing with the question of employment purely on a federal basis would run into that type of situation sooner or later, and very probably sooner.
There is another matter in paragraph (b) of the motion which has been discussed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and that is the question of what is meant by full employment. Full employment is one of those catch-all terms that has become coined and used in our vocabulary in modern times. It is like "disarmament". Nobody can explain exactly what disarmament means, and likewise I do not think anybody can explain what full employment means. Full employment means one thing to one person and another thing to another. For instance, I think the idea of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who is so frequently quoted in this house one way and another, is that we have full employment when 4.5 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. Another person- I believe it was Mr. Claude Jodoin, but I may be mistaken and no doubt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will correct me on this-stated to the trades and labour congress-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am sure the hon. member for Davenport did not say that unemployment of 4.5 per cent of the labour force would constitute full employment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not really think the hon. member for Kootenay East believes that is a point of order at all. However, Mr. Speaker, I qualified my remarks-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think what he said-

Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot take the floor. He may only rise on a point of order or to seek to ask a question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is misquoting the hon. member for Davenport when he says that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Davenport wishes to appear in the debate, that is up to him. For an hon. member to suppose that there may be a misquotation hardly raises a question of privilege. It is a point of argument.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It being near Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member would like to be a little more charitable.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least interested in the viewpoint of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I would point out, however, that I qualified my remarks; I said that I believed this was the figure stated by the hon. member for Davenport. I have not the slightest desire to misinterpret the hon. member, but I believe that is the figure. I was speaking off the cuff; it may be a little more or a little less, but I think it is approximately that figure. I notice that the hon. member for Kootenay East, in trying to be so helpful did not make any attempt to offer information as to what the figure might be.
To get back to where we were before the interruptions, I would like to say that this question of full employment is a matter of opinion or interpretation. Some people feel that when 2 per cent of the labour force is unemployed, this constitutes full employment, and some people think it is more. No two people seem to agree exactly. I hoped that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking on his resolution he would give us some idea of his interpretation of the percentage.
Mr. Speaker, I see that time is getting on and I know other hon. members would like to express their views on this resolution. Therefore I will conclude my remarks by saying that I think the problems of unemployment must be dealt with by measures that are realistic and positive, and where we can see some results in the immediate future. I would commend to hon. members some of the legislation that has been presented to this house by the present government over the last few years, and in particular during the current session. I refer, of course, to the Atlantic development board measure, which has been passed, and particularly to the national economic development board measure, which is now before the house. This development board must certainly

encompass some of the suggestions that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has in his resolution. Then there is, of course, the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) dealing with manpower adjustment in the face of automation. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to impress upon hon. members of the Liberal party in particular that if they were to stop conducting the filibuster in this house and get along with the legislation, something positive might be done about this problem.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) a day or two ago said outside the house-if I may be permitted to refer to this question-in speaking to the Conservative women's organization, that the Liberals read speeches prepared in another office. I am not sure who prepared the speech for the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) but I must say that he read it well.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has again come forward with one of those resolutions that would give the impression that the socialist party has the elixir for all national problems. That, of course, is not true. The Liberal party, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), has had a full employment program throughout the years. In 1956 we had very close to full employment. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) that the important thing, after all, is production and the amount of goods and services which can be purchased by a minimum amount of work.
Even the Soviet union, the nation that is truly socialized, has come to this conclusion. At the present time Mr. Khrushchev is advising his people to go to the free enterprise system to find out how production can be increased and maintained. Socialist planning does not have all the answers; this is the point I want to get across before sitting down, to give us time to vote on this matter. The socialists do not have all the answers, despite the "holier than thou" attitude, which they adopt in respect of almost all questions that arise in this house. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will resume my seat in order to give the house an opportunity to vote on this question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my remarks outside this house are read by old women of both sexes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I meant to say, by women of both sexes; and now I am really in hot water and I make my apologies right, left and centre. If I ever come back to Ottawa again, sir, it will probably still be too soon for my own safety.
I believe this is the first time that a resolution of this nature has been debated anywhere in Canada since the founding convention of the New Democratic party, in which Dr. Eugene Forsey, one of our most respected economists, disagreed violently with the thesis that underlies this resolution, that is, a state program for full employment. I think in making his remarks to that convention Dr. Forsey pointed out that if such legislation were to be enacted by a socialist parliament, the members of that socialist parliament would find a line up of job applicants stretching from outside their doors in Ottawa all the way to the St. Lawrence river. The weakness, as I say-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
(Translation):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of
the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180,	190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted
Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
27507-3-174
Interim Supply
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
(Text):

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, when you called it five o'clock, I had almost concluded my speech.
In the course of my remarks this afternoon, I insisted on the positive need for the two great races of our country to try to understand and know each other better.
It seems it would be relatively easy to find an answer to this dilemma if we could, through the setting up of a body, either here, within parliament, or outside this house, call upon experts in this field, both in the federal civil service and in the management of crown companies, to look carefully into all aspects of the participation of the two main racial groups of Canada in the administration of the country. The important thing is to find a simple formula which would enable us, precisely because of its simplicity, to settle this matter promptly and definitely from all points of view.
In my opinion, the whole matter should be considered immediately, because the uneasiness resulting throughout Canada from the differences that separate us, we of French Canada from our fellow citizens of English Canada, threatens to grow rapidly to disastrous proportions for our way of life.
Mr. Chairman, during the campaign which preceded the election of June 18 last, it was easy to realize that a feeling of concern existed among the people in general. Through interviews on radio and television, the public was consulted in relation to that problem, because it was of interest to all voters. To the questions "What is your interest in this federal election? What do you expect from the party that will be elected on June 18 next?" Quebec voters answered three times out of five and perhaps more often; In the first place, we want national unity to become a reality; we want a distinct national flag under which we can unite; we want a national anthem about which we can become enthu-

Interim Supply
siastic; we want some way to get along better, to understand each other better.
In fact, this only confirmed a personal opinion I have had for some time because some ten months before the general election I had a fairly thorough survey of public opinion made by very responsible friends in my own riding. In that survey, I asked the question: "What do you expect from the federal government?" And most voters in my riding, who represented more or less all classes of voters to be found in any urban riding, had in fact answered that what interested them most of all was the adoption of distinctive symbols which could give the Canadian nation its sovereignty and at the same time provide for that better understanding which is asked for nowadays.
That is why I believe that the solution to this problem is that we, the federal government, must consider it with the provincial authorities. Furthermore, it will have to be studied through a simple body to be established here by the federal government and which will find the necessary formula to study all its aspects in order to find the formula so much desired and so desirable. In that way, we shall learn to know each other better and thereby we shall have more consideration for each other.
Mr. Chairman, there is in Canada something incomprehensible. As a matter of fact, if we take a look at what happened to our mighty neighbour to the south, we find that Americans, whatever their ethnic origin, whether they be of English, French, Italian, Jewish or other descent, have all rallied around the symbols of national sovereignty and to everybody who asks, they say: "I am an American." That does not mean that they have lost the characteristics one relates to their respective origins. But one thing is certain. They have all assembled around those symbols, whatever part of the country they may come from. Indeed, they are Americans first and foremost, that is before being loyal to their land of origin.
It is essential that this extraordinary unity and this national pride which exist among our neighbours to the south, both of which have made them so powerful, be found here in our country. It is worthy of note that, at this moment, all members of this house, be they from the government party to which I belong, from the Liberal opposition to which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) belongs, or from the Social Credit opposition to which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) belongs, are trying to unite, to

join forces and to find a formula which, by going above and beyond political partisanship, will indeed become a formula for national patriotism, a formula which will enable all Canadians to develop and prosper; in short, a formula which will perhaps do away, once and for all, with each and every one of those unfortunate dissensions which have hurt us in the past, which threaten us now and which must be eliminated for the best interests of the Canadian nation.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of us in this House of Commons cannot but welcome the statement made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. He dealt with a very important issue. He dealt with it in a thoughtful and constructive manner. I would say that we also welcome the response which has been made by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I dare to hope that, as a result of this kind of thoughtful discussion of an important problem, we can make some headway in dealing with it.
We, as members of the New Democratic party, support wholeheartedly the proposition that every effort must be made to establish mutual respect and equality between the two great races that brought this country into being. We feel that it is not only a matter of according rights and adjusting certain grievances that have grown up, but that it will add to the richness of life in this country if we can further the binational, bieultural and biethnical heritage which is already ours. This was the position this party took at its founding convention in the summer of 1961. I am happy to remind hon. members that a few months later the leader of the New Democratic party, my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, called for the appointment of a royal commission to study all aspects of this feature of our national life.
I say again that we welcome speeches of the kind made this afternoon. We hope this indicates we are turning a bit of a corner with regard to this problem and that instead of its being one about which nasty things are said, it might be one to which we shall apply our constructive efforts.
I rose to take part in this debate, however, intending to base what I had to say mainly on the words used by the Minister of Finance when he opened this debate on December 12. The words in question are to be found at page 2590 of Hansard of that date, at which time the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, I can give the usual assurance which all ministers of finance give at this time,

that the passing of this hill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
Let me read again the last few words of that undertaking given by the Minister of Finance:
-such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
I am fully satisfied that the Minister of Finance gave that undertaking in good faith. I am fully satisfied that when he gave it he meant it. I am equally satisfied that this undertaking will not be kept. I make the flat prediction that this fiscal year 1962-63 will pass without our having the opportunity to deal with the estimates, a portion of which we are now being asked to vote by way of interim supply. I suggest that this is more than just a procedural point. This is something which is leading into a crisis, so far as the operations of the parliament of Canada are concerned.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in an opening sentence this afternoon we are, in this interim supply bill, being asked to vote the tenth twelfth of the revised and supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1962-63. At this point, however, we have not voted in committee of supply a single one of the main, revised or supplementary estimates. This money we are now voting is for the month of January.
This Thursday night at ten o'clock we are supposed to adjourn for a Christmas recess. We do not meet again until Monday, January 21. By that time we shall be approaching the month of February and it is inevitable that, within a few days after we return, the Minister of Finance will come down with another interim supply bill in which he will seek money for the month of February, 1963. In that instance he will be asking for the eleventh twelfth of the estimates before this House of Commons, and in all probability at that point we shall still be exactly where we are now in that not a single item of the estimates themselves will have been passed. On that occasion no doubt he will again give us the assurance that the passing of that interim supply bill will not curtail or restrict our right to discuss the main estimates.
However, Mr. Chairman, even if the House of Commons is not dissolved and an election is not brought on, even if we stay here, the weeks of February will come swiftly
27507-3-1744
Interim Supply
and before we know it we shall be approaching the end of that month, and we shall be faced with the question of whether or not we are going to give the government its twelfth twelfth of the year's estimates.
At that point other questions will arise. At what stage shall we be with respect to the estimates as a whole?
As hon. members are aware, the rules of this House of Commons require that in each session of parliament there shall be six supply motions with Mr. Speaker in the chair. Unless all six of those motions are put, debated and carried, it is not possible to get all of the main estimates opened in committee of supply. Thus far we have had only one supply motion in this session of parliament. It will take five more supply motions, each of which can be debated for two days, just to get the departments of the government opened in committee of supply. It takes no expert calculation to realize that, in the light of that situation, it is utterly impossible to get the estimates passed before the end of February in order to vote the supply bill, or before the time will come when the minister will want his twelfth twelfth.
What is this house going to do when that point is reached? I hear noises from across the way that this is the last time the Social Credit group is going to vote for an interim supply bill unless, of course, the government does certain things in the meantime. But I say to my hon. friends across the way, despite their saying that they are not going to vote further money, I say this to the Liberals and I say to all of us that the point gets reached where parliament is boxed in. The point gets reached where the administration of the affairs of the country has to carry on. Salaries have to be paid and the withholding of the actual money to carry on the essential services of the government is something that this parliament may find it is impossible to do.
So what happens when that point is reached? I suggest that either one of two things will happen. Either the government will come before us with some kind of omnibus bill asking us to vote all the estimates in one swift action because by then the government will argue it is time to start talking about the estimates for 1963-64, or because parliament stands on its feet and because parliament seeks to debate these items there will either be prorogation of the session so the government can use governor general's warrants or there will be dissolution and an election. I do not know which of these various courses is going to be followed, but I do know that no matter which one of them is pursued we are going to witness the fiscal year 1962-63 as one in which parliament and

Interim Supply
the House of Commons in particular did not have its traditional, its constitutional right to discuss the items in the estimates as the Minister of Finance on December 12 assured us we would have. Not because there was anything lacking in the assurance he gave, but rather because of the time that has been taken with a long summer interval when there was no session of parliament and the failure of the government to organize the business of this session, we are going to be in the position where one of the main rights that is supposed to belong to parliament will have been lost.
That main right to which I am referring is parliament's control over the purse strings. That is what we are supposed to have, not the kind of government in which the executive makes all the decisions and spends all the money but the kind of government we are supposed to have is one in which, whatever else the executive may be able to do by order in council, by executive action, control of the purse remains with parliament itself. We are going to lose that control in this fiscal year 1962-63 either by the passage of time or by dissolution and an election.
I submit that this is more than what some people sometimes call just a procedural question, and it is more than just a political question with regard to whether or not there is going to be an election. I submit that this is a serious situation which points up that the authority and the rights of parliament are being downgraded, are being whittled away, by the way in which things have been going in the last little while, particularly in this session.
I have taken the trouble to spell out what is happening to us in terms of the estimates to portray what I believe to be the situation we face, in that we are getting to the point where the government of this country is entirely an executive operation rather than something in which the authority of parliament really plays its part. This, Mr. Chairman, is just one phase of this session which points up the fact, but I submit it points it up very dramatically. If we go on, if we get another of these supply bills for an eleventh twelfth and another for a twelfth twelfth, it will be pointed up so that everyone in the country will be able to see that parliament's control of the purse strings has been taken away.
This is not the only thing that has happened in this session. We have had difficulties regarding a budget, and just as I said that we would go through the fiscal year 1962-63 without a full discussion of the estimates-in fact, we may go through without finally voting any estimate in committee of supply-so we shall go through the year 1962-63 without

a formal budget debate, without an opportunity to discuss in the traditional way the budgetary policies of the government of this country. I need not spell it out at length because we have done so on other occasions when we have had the opportunity, but some of us feel that even the power to impose taxation has been taken away from parliament and exercised by the executive because of the way in which customs surcharges were imposed on June 24 by an order in council.
What I am underlining in all of these things, Mr. Chairman, if I may use the same language again, is that it is not just a matter of a point of order being got around, but rather that what is happening is that the authority of parliament, the place of parliament in the government of this country, is being downgraded. This very debate is one that is bringing out the frustrations that this session of parliament has experienced. We had a very interesting speech the other day by the hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount on the subject of national defence. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusions is another thing, but the point is he had to choose this debate on interim supply to have a discussion on this subject, and no doubt before this debate is over others will make a contribution to that subject. This simply turns the searchlight on the fact that in this critical time in our nation's history, in this critical time in the world's history, the parliament of Canada has been given no proper opportunity to discuss defence policy or external relations.
This afternoon on motions we had a bit of a discussion when the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke on his trip to NATO and there were comments from the leaders of the other three parties. Then we had attempts on the orders of the day to get certain information about nuclear policy and other aspects of external policy. But here we are, Mr. Chairman, in the third month of this session of parliament without parliament itself having had any opportunity to discuss these terribly important questions of defence policy and external policy. Even the chances we have to question the ministers are very limited and the answers that we get, for example the answers the Prime Minister gave today, suggest that somehow or other this government feels that this is an executive preserve. The government will make the decisions and when announcements are made, be they announcements of policy or changes in policy, they will be made known to the house and to the country.
We are not in the kind of state, Mr. Chairman, where a small group is elected to run things. We have a parliamentary form of

government. This country elects 265 people to be their representatives, to be their parliament, to which the government is responsible. Yet opportunities tor discussion of important matters such as I have just named, estimates, a budget, taxation, external affairs, defence, have been completely denied to this first session of this twenty fifth parliament. Rumours that are flying around suggest that anything could happen, that parliament itself could end without anything of this sort having been discussed. Even if parliament does not end, to come back to the prediction I made earlier, we are going to see ourselves going through the fiscal year 1962-63 without parliament really being in the picture so far as these issues are concerned. Oh, we have a government and the government is making decisions. The government is passing orders in council. The government is staying in power. The government is keeping things going. But this, Mr. Chairman, has the effect of downgrading parliament, robbing parliament of its authority, of the role it is supposed to play in the life of our country.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this issue is bigger than the question of which party is in power. My hon. friends of the Liberal party do not need to sit back and enjoy the fact that perhaps I am roasting the present government a bit, because when they were on the government side their record was not too good on the subject of maintaining the authority of parliament. When they had something they wanted to put through their motto was, who can stop us? What I am complaining about is that the damage the Liberals did to parliament is not over. This attitude, who can stop us, is still with us. We still have a government that is acting by executive authority and treats parliament as a nuisance, a debating society that has to be called into session but which has to be kept from making any decisions on major matters such as estimates, the budget, external policy, defence policy and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And taxation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I included taxation before.
Let me go on. During the last four or five years some of us believe this government made significant and serious changes in policy regarding two crown corporations, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Trans-Canada Air Lines. We do not like the changes in policy that the government made during the years 1957 to 1962. On June 18, 1962, there was an election and the government that had been in power for the last four years with a clear majority received a minority of the popular vote. I do not suggest
Interim Supply
that everybody who voted against the government disagreed with it on every matter of policy that was before the country at that time. I do suggest that the policy pursued by the government in at least those two areas, the question of what is being done to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the question of what is being done to Trans-Canada Air Lines, should not continue to be pursued wtihout being discussed in parliament.
Have we had any opportunity of discussing questions relating to radio and television broadcasting? Have we had any opportunity of discussing questions relating to the air policy of this government or to transportation policy in general? Oh, questions have been asked on orders of the day. The reports of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines have been before the committee on railways, air lines and shipping. There have been one or two little bills regarding branch lines; but in the main, so far as policies affecting these two areas of our national life are concerned, there has been no opportunity to discuss them at all.
We think what is being done to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is bad for Canada. We think it was one of the things which, before it was interfered with by the recent changes, was something of which we could be proud as a nation. It was something distinctively Canadian. It was something that added to our sense of national unity. The extent to which recent changes of policy have changed that picture alarm us. At this point I am trying to debate the issue, Mr. Chairman, or any of these issues. I am simply making the point that no opportunity to discuss these matters has come before this house.
My hon. friend who interrupted me, if I heard him correctly, says that we can discuss them now. Of course, we can discuss anything now, and that is what is happening in this debate. This is the reason this debate on interim supply which was started last Wednesday, the kind of debate that sometimes takes a couple of hours, is already now in its fourth day and may go two or three more. We have had no opportunity to discuss these things in the way in which parliament can express itself in terms of making decisions. The Columbia river situation has been brought into the debate because the government has failed to bring the treaty before parliament. Hon. members have had to take advantage of this debate to discuss that subject. The question of investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been raised because we have had no chance to discuss it in a formal way so that decisions could be made. We have had to discuss that subject in this debate on interim supply.

Interim Supply
I do not know how many other questions may yet be raised before this debate on the granting of the tenth twelfth of interim supply is completed. All of this, Mr. Chairman, as I say could be classed as a procedural complaint. People may say, as some member did a moment ago, we can talk now if we want to do so. What it points up is that this is a sterile session of parliament in which we can talk the number of hours that are allotted to us but in which we are being denied the right to make decisions on matters that are of real concern.
One of the matters that is concerning Canada today is the whole question of health and health services. I know there are some members who thought that at the time a certain battle was taking place last summer interest in this whole question would subside. However, interest in it has grown since then, instead of subsiding. The fact of the matter is that in this session of parliament we have had no chance to discuss health insurance or the related subject of social security. I have tried on orders of the day to raise the question of what is happening in respect of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act to provide for contributory pensions. I think I have the record for monosyllabic answers; I get yes or no to this or that. We have had correspondence tabled, but it all adds up to a pretty clear indication that nothing is going to be done at this session in the important field or social security. We have a motion on the order paper which will not be reached. After all, only eight of the provinces have agreed to it and at least one of the provinces, perhaps more, suggested that if you cannot get this amendment through at least do something about raising the old age pension from its present level to $75 per month or some such figure as was promised in the election campaign.
Do we get a chance to discuss this? Do we get these things brought before us? No, we get the stock answer from the Prime Minister and other ministers of the government, if and when government policy is decided upon it will be announced in the house. It all adds up to this body of 265 men and women elected by the people of Canada to represent them here, the body to which the government is responsible, being just a debating forum. The newspapers are doing that; radio and television are holding their forums. These things are taking place. Indeed, the same job is being done that we are doing here.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I should like to come back later. Meantime, I hope something will be done to restore to parliament its authority.
(Translation):


Mr. Caouetle:: Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, we could not help thinking that he was just repeating what we have been saying in the house since last September. He took half an hour to do that.
Before coming to the point of my remarks, I feel it is my duty to express, oni behalf of the members of this group and of all hon. members, our most sincere condolences to the families of the two policemen who were shot down in Ville St. Laurent. Notorious bandits, disguised as Santa Claus, cold-bloodedly shot down at close range officers Claude Marineau and Denis Brabant while they were on duty. It will be a sad Christmas indeed for the wives and six children of the two murdered policemen.
After such barbarism in a Canadian city, namely Ville St. Laurent, I wonder what some hon. members think now of the abolition of capital punishment.
On many occasions, we have heard urgent pleas for the abolition of capital punishment for murderers. And yet, in Montreal, a few days ago, that is last Friday, December 14, four notorious bandits killed two policemen on duty.
I congratulate the federal authorities as well as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) for maintaining the death penalty in Canada, to punish that kind of people, those despicable individuals who go about not only in the city of Montreal, but also in Toronto, and elsewhere in Canada, and against whom there is no protection. The government is well-advised to protect society against such individuals.
The murders committed last week are of a kind to rouse to indignation the whole population, and we should of course take steps to prevent the recurrence of such crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I have said enough on this matter. I believe the members of this house are unanimous in their desire to offer their condolences to both bereaved families and particularly to the children who will always bear in their mind the picture of Santa Claus killing their father. Let us have a thought for them and let us hope that such

terrifying things will not occur again within our borders or in any of our provinces.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, I listened to the magnificent contributions of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), who reiterated in this house what has been said in many instances over the years.
I commend those who contributed to the discussion this afternoon, because they kept the debate free of any partisan and political considerations.
The Social Credit group in this house will do all it can to help achieve any measure of Canadian unity-that understanding between the two great Canadian cultures-without using it as a political football.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, members of all parties have kept the discussion, this afternoon and tonight, above those partisan and political questions. Indeed, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition delivered this afternoon his best speech since he went into active politics.
In recent months, I had the opportunity of visiting all Canadian provinces. I was surprised to find as much among my Anglo-Saxon and English Canadian fellow citizens as among French Canadians, a wish, even a need, to feel joined and united together. I went to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and especially in the province of Ontario, which was described throughout Canada as an inaccessible province, I was able to meet 2,000 students of the University of Toronto. I also met members of the Ontario junior chamber of commerce, in Toronto more exactly, who were tactful enough to introduce me in French to an all-English audience. How pleasant it is for a French Canadian to go to Toronto and to be introduced in his mother tongue to his English speaking fellow citizens who do not understand perhaps a single word of French. I also had the opportunity of meeting 300 or 400 young engineers in Toronto. Last week, I met colleagues from Sales Advertising, in Guelph, about 60 miles from Toronto, and there again the master of ceremonies was glad to introduce me in my own language, in French.
As a colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe said this afternoon, French Canadians are looking for and want a real understanding in Canada. They are not French Canadians, no, they are Canadians. They are Canadians who recognize the existence of the two cultures which enabled Canada to be
Interim, Supply
what it is today, what it will be tomorrow, what it will be in the future if this understanding between the two cultures exists in this country of ours.
I would blame myself if, at this stage, I did not congratulate the government of Ontario from the bottom of my heart, for introducing a bill which provides for the teaching of French in Ontario schools at a higher grade than was the case only a few weeks ago. Recently, I met people from western Canada-people of 45 or 50 years of age who told me quite frankly that, if 30 years ago somebody had suggested they learn French, they would never have done so, but who today regret not having learned it. Well, even at that time, we, in our own province, were glad to learn English from the second or third grades, that is from the time we were seven or eight years old, so that, at the age of 20, 25, 30 or 35, we could go anywhere in Canada and express ourselves in the mother tongue of other Canadians in any province.
We are proud of this achievement and we are convinced that English Canadians would get exactly the same satisfaction if they had done the same, and my own conviction is based on the reception given me all across Canada.
We want a united Canada and the closer we are together, as this great country of ours pursues its destiny, the better can this mutual understanding on a national scale become a reality.
As the Leader of the Opposition was saying this afternoon, we have been misunderstood by English speaking Canadians. French Canadians have been misunderstood.
In the province of Quebec, as we all know, the Anglo-Saxons, the English speaking Canadians receive exactly the same treatment as the French Canadians, in every respect: education, church, public assistance to schools, etc.
In the city of Montreal, English speaking Canadians are treated exactly the same as French Canadians, and it is the same in Quebec city, or in Rouyn-Noranda, where I live.
That is what we are asking for: that same understanding all across Canada. To that end, we suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) indicated this afternoon, the setting up of a department of federal-provincial affairs which would allow provincial authorities to meet and to know each other better.

Interim Supply
We realize that in this very House of Commons, because when French and English speaking Canadians meet here, they get along perfectly well together. The same thing could be carried out on a national basis for the welfare of the whole Canadian population, and not only in one particular part of the country.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, the Social Crediters want to do their share without playing politics. I repeat what I said at the outset of my remarks, not to play politics. I repeat that all parties have kept above partisan considerations because we recognize that before being Liberals, Conservatives N.D.P.'s or Social Crediters, we are Canadians and it is as Canadians that we are responsible to the people we represent here in this House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, national unity and friendly understanding can come true. All we need is good will, and my deep conviction is that we shall succeed.
We had our failures in the past. True, we have played politics instead of trying to understand each other. However, we were not so successful in achieving the purpose of our existence as Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, there have been internal divisions in the past between one racial group and another. That was mostly due to our economic system which prevented one group from developing and progressing at the same rate as the other. Both groups suffered from exactly the same misgivings, made the same mistakes and lacked the same things.
It is no use talking about unity which cannot be realized, but there is one sphere in which we can achieve unity, that is the economic sphere. Everyone including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed, all members of parliament, have heard it said throughout the Canadian provinces that 80 per cent of our economy is in the hands of foreigners while we control the remaining 20 per cent.
Yet, it is the Canadian people who are working and building. Canadian materials and products are being used for the development of our country and no solution is being found. We have solutions for practically any problem. We tackle all kinds of problems but we are doing nothing about the most important problem of all, that of money and credit in Canada.
A few days ago, an hon. member of this house set out to attack Social Credit, as if

one could expect anything else. I am speaking about my friend, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who accused the Prime Minister of acting-
-in complicity, now with the Social Credit party mostly, now with the New Democratic party.
He added:
It is shameful all the same, Mr. Chairman, to act in collusion with a political party which merely wants to lead our country to ruin-
There, he wanted to name Social Credit, but he was a bit shy.
Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) applauding, without quite knowing why. It is a habit of hers.
-without its having the courage to inform the population sufficiently on its policy of crazy money-
Mr. Chairman, I underline the words "crazy money", because the hon. member refused to do it.
-its system of dividends for all-
That is funny. A system of taxes for all, that is more serious, of course. A system of money, enough money to kill, that is logical. A system of money to enable everybody to make a living, that is funny, that makes people laugh, especially the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. He will have the people in his own riding laughing at him with that.
-its system of dividends for all, as long as the money machine holds out.
The money machine must be allowed to keep on working.
Everybody thought it was funny to hear about the monkey in the banana tree, the worm in the apple, the hare or the rabbit in the hollow log.
That was funny-to watch a monkey die from hunger.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I just want to thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for repeating my speech. I appreciate it very much.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it was not a point of order but rather a question of privilege. I am satisfied because he may not remember what he said.
Mr. Chairman, to see a monkey die from hunger in a banana tree, because there are too many bananas, that is funny. But, on the other hand, to see children, human beings, adults, in some lanes in the city of Montreal, and maybe even in the riding of my hon.

friend from Beauharnois-Salaberry, going through the garbage pails, behind restaurants, to pick up scraps of food because they do not have the right, like the financiers, to go and buy in stores, that is not funny. It is serious, and no doubt that happens in my hon. friend's riding.
But to speak of a monkey that dies from hunger in a banana tree, of a rabbit that runs from one end of a log to the other, that is funny.
And I continue:
It was funny to hear about the stomach of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and that of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), without forgetting the head of the member for Port Arthur which should be cut off for the sake of better planning with regard to the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).
And a little further down, the hon. member stated:
Do you think those people are serious? Is the hon. Prime Minister himself serious? The people of Canada are surely not being fooled. The Social Crediters must hide their real selves under the cloak of nationalism-


Prosper Boulanger: Quite apt.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I just heard the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) who said "Quite apt". He saw me in my own constituency when I met businessmen. At that time, we were discussing Social Credit, we were discussing monetary reforms. Now, the reforms which are a must at present are as important as the replacement of some hon. members. The monetary reform is still of the utmost importance throughout the country, and that is why the Social Crediters believe in it and preach it across the province and the whole of Canada.


Gérald Laniel: You were not elected on the Social Credit platform.


David Réal Caouette: You bet I was.


Gérald Laniel: Not at all.


David Réal Caouette: It is a fact that we explained Social Credit. If the hon. member had listened to the radio and television, he might have understood a few things. Maybe he does not have the possibility of understanding, but his constituents in Beauharnois-Salaberry understand very well.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Villeneuve says that the Social Credit members were elected after they explained the Social Credit doctrine. That was not the way they were elected at all. They promised $100 a month.
Interim Supply
They knew they could never succeed in giving such an amount, because they will never
be called upon to form the government.


Gilles Grégoire: He sounds like a drum. (Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. There really is not
a point of order there; it is a matter of debate. The hon. member for Villeneuve.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I like to hear my friends in the Liberal party tell me: Go ahead Real. It sounds good coming from Liberal members.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Beau-harnois has stated:
The Social Crediters must hide their real selves under the cloak of nationalism-
Mr. Chairman, I shall not say that the hon. member was being dishonest when he made that statement, but he knew that it was not true when he said it, and he still knows it.
The hon. member went on:
-in order to secure the acceptance of a small group of people-
A small group of people, indeed-550,000 voters in the province of Quebec alone and close to a million in Canada voted Social Credit. How can the hon. member speak of "a small group of people".
He can be sure that there are a great number of Social Crediters in his own riding and he will see for himself when the next election comes around. I do not know when, however, but I shall give him an advance notice of one month.
Who soon realized his mistake of June 18-
Enough of this speech. I shall now read a letter I have just received from the citizens' league of Malartic, in the riding of Villeneuve. It is not from a Social Crediter. It is dated December 11, 1962.
Dear Sir,
We should like to extend to you and to your courageous members our sincere congratulations on your fine work in the house for the French fact.
You can be assured, dear sir, that we follow your parliamentary activities with great attention and interest and that we are pleasantly surprised at the results achieved.
That is exactly along the lines of what was reported in the press throughout the country about the Social Credit party. It is acknowledged today that Social Crediters from Quebec and from all Canada are a real asset to parliament as a whole.


Gérald Laniel: Come and say this in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry.

Interim, Supply


David Réal Caouette: I can go there anytime. Mr. Chairman, our group is accused of not having any economists. I have here a report published in the newspaper Le Soleil of December 9, 1962, and it is a known fact that this Quebec paper is friendly to our party. In true Social Credit fashion, it reports on the brief submitted by Mr. Jacques St. Laurent, an economist-
A third of the population of the province of Quebec will be unemployed in 20 years if-
In his findings that may appear revolutionary at first sight, Mr. St. Laurent states that because of technological progress, Canada, like all highly industrialized countries of the world, will soon have an economic system unable to provide enough job opportunities for everyone.
That means automation. Full employment advocated by the Liberals and by our friends of the New Democratic party. And the economist goes on:
Mr. St. Laurent states that we will have to find public or private means, of paying people to do nothing.
Our growing capacity to absorb workers and the fact that the necessity of work is eliminated without new uses for that work being found immediately, confronts us with the necessity to find something other than work to allow everbody to participate in consumption if they cannot participate in production.
Stating that people are already being paid to do nothing, through unemployment insurance or supplementary benefits to the unemployed, Mr. St. Laurent says that we may have to continue along the same line by establishing the 20-hour week, retirement at 50. education up to 25 and even salaries out of public funds for unproductive workers such as artists and students.
In conclusion, Mr. St. Laurent says social justice requires that we invent new ways to give purchasing power to the permanently unemployed. We must develop a basis for revenue unrelated to work as a standard. That is why respect for law and government should be restored so that they may become instruments of general well-being.
As for public works and territorial development plans, says Mr. St. Laurent, they are useful means for improving the present situation, but they do not go to the heart of the problem. They are makeshift solutions. No planning, whether capitalist, socialist or communist, can do away with economic factors.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said a while ago that, during the election campaign, we had promised $100 a month to Canadian citizens. Well, just three weeks ago, at Laval University, the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce (Mr. Hees) told representatives of the Canadian economy that the purchasing power had to be raised so that Canadian products could be sold on the domestic market.
His suggestion was: spend more. Now, it is easy to tell Canadians to spend more, it is easy to say to a Canadian who has $10 in his pockets to spend $10, but it is far from easy for him to buy $50 worth of products when he does not have a cent in his pocket.

If the government really wants to stimulate the Canadian economy and to get Canadian prosperity rolling again, let it distribute, through the Bank of Canada, a $100 bond, not $100 a month, as mentioned by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), not $100, as the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) was saying, but a $100 bond invested in the Canadian economy.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Mercier is rising on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: As he is wont to do, the hon. member for Villeneuve is misquoting me. They have said $100 a month, but the Canadian people know very well that they will never make up the government. Therefore, it will never be able to give anybody anything.


Rémi Paul: In my opinion, the hon. member is merely replying to the hon. member for Villeneuve. He will have ample time to do that later.


David Réal Caouette: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness. When I referred to this $100 bond, I never mentioned $100 a month. If this is what the hon. member for Mercier understood, it is because he never understands anything.
If the government really wants to get the Canadian economy moving again the way I suggest to them is to issue $100 bonds to every Canadian citizen, to all men, women and children.


An hon. Member:: Rich or poor.


David Réal Caouette: I know my hon. friend is quite rich and does not need that. So, he could give it to the poor.
Mr. Chairman, that $100 bond should be made valid only if spent on consumption of Canadian products to encourage our own industry so that no one could say: "If you have five children, you will get $500 and spend it in the United States". That bond would be valid only for the purchase of Canadian commodities and so it would boost consumption. That $100 bond would open new jobs in industries which would have to get new equipment and produce more, and then we would witness a business recovery or upsurge. I believe there is no other way-


An hon. Member:: It would be temporary.


David Réal Caouette: I hear my friend say it would be temporary. We have been starving temporarily for 25 years. Has it not been going on long enough?
Let us try to give a little prosperity to the Canadian people. And the way to do it is to increase the consumers' buying power. There is no other way. We have the industry, the equipment and everything. We have manufacturers among us and they are quite willing,
I am sure, to double or triple their production. In order to increase that production, we must in the first place finance our first market, our domestic market. When the needs of that market, the domestic market, are met, if we still have a production surplus, very well, let us then go into the international market.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to inform the hon. member for Villeneuve that his time has expired. Would there be unanimous consent of the house to allow the hon. member for Villeneuve a few minutes more?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Rémi Paul: There is not unanimous consent.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this has been a rather historic day for this house. It began, in fact, with the masterly speech made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and with those of the four speakers who followed.
I feel that the house had the opportunity, on this occasion, to hear several excellent speeches on a very important question that is of particular interest to all of us, not only with regard to national unity but also and especially in connection with practical ways to attain that national unity we are all seeking in Canada.
This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition made not only a far reaching but also a very important speech for the country. He suggested some measures to bring about a solution to two forms of extremism that exist in our country at the present time. I should like to comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition as well as some other remarks made in the course of this debate.
I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who have taken part in this debate and also my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), whose contribution was excellent.
In connection with the five speeches which have been delivered today, what impressed me was the absence of politics, the
Interim Supply
fact that the debate was put above politics. That is why I say to the Associate Minister of National Defence that he did the right thing in taking the position he took this afternoon. I wish to make a reservation, however, with respect to that part of his speech when he said that the Leader of the Opposition did not do justice to the former government in the province of Quebec.
If the minister had carefully listened to what was said then, I believe that he would not have made such an assertion because what the Leader of the Opposition said, was this: The future of the French Canadians rests with themselves, depends upon their willingness to carry on the efforts already made-and this includes the former governments-to improve their educational system, in a large part, since 1960, to make sure that there will be "qualified" French Canadians to hold the positions referred to.
There was also a reference a while ago to a provincial-federal conference to deal with the selection of a flag. Without wishing in any way, to belittle that suggestion, I wonder whether a conference of this type is necessary to select a flag, and whether it is not rather the responsibility of the federal parliament to make that selection. I am not making that comment by way of criticism, I am simply asking the question.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to come back now to what the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon.
As he stated so well, Canada is presently going through a crisis of national unity, a crisis which seems to become more serious as we are getting closer to our country's centennial.
We have reached a point where we seem to be at the mercy of events and where the smallest incident could unleash most violent outbursts and cause breaches which it would be almost impossible to close.
For those of us who believe in national unity it is high time to intervene, to examine, as the Leader of the Opposition did so objectively, the deep causes of that crisis and to recommend long term and short term remedies which will enable our country to survive such a crisis and to prevent its recurrence.
Right now, two extremes, two intolerable forms of separatism are facing us in Canada. On the one hand, some English speaking Canadians are strongly against the

Interim Supply
expansion of French culture beyond the frontiers of the province of Quebec. They are dead set against learning French because they feel that they would thus be degrading and lowering themselves. At the other extreme, some French Canadians would like to do away completely with English influence in the province of Quebec; they refuse to speak English even if they can. Both extremes meet. One keeps the other alive.
The manifestation of one form of separatism is bound to provoke the other and to contribute to its development.
Both clearly lead to the extinction of Canada as we know it today, and sooner or later to assimilation in the American melting pot. Mr. Chairman, separatism would be suicide for English speaking Canadians, but also, perhaps a little later, for French Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition has analysed very clearly the reasons of the present crisis. On the one hand, French Canadians are long in adapting themselves to industrialization, with all that implies from the standpoint of technical and professional know-how in the private as well as in the public field.
Professor Leon Dion, of Laval University, noted that delay in a remarkable study recently published in Le Devoir.
On the other hand, English speaking Canadians take time in acknowledging the bicultural phenomenon in our country and getting used to it in practice.
Mr. Donald Gordon, for one, so admitted in the interview he gave La Presse a few days ago.
I think we have there the deep-rooted reasons for the frustrations and inequalities which, more and more, are degenerating into differences, conflicts and crises.
The only enduring solution to such maladjustments is at the educational level. French Canadians have, for several years now, undertaken to reform their educational system. For the past two years in particular, and without ignoring what was done before, the province of Quebec has made quite remarkable efforts. This endeavour, which exacts a high price in sacrifices, has already shown some results. A great many young French Canadians have all the competence required by our industrialized society, and they are now getting the experience and maturity which will enable them to reach the highest levels both in crown corporations and in the various departments.
In a way, it is the very revolution now happening in Quebec which caused this dead-

lock. As a matter of fact, French Canadians, realizing that they are in the professional as well as the technical field, more and more prepared to take an active part in public administration and industrial development also notice that, in order to give a concrete expression to such ambition, they have to learn English, because only a few of their English speaking fellow citizens have sufficient knowledge of French.
The attitude of English speaking Canadians with regard to the French language has changed considerably. There was a time when a great majority considered that learning French was an inacceptable political concession rather than an intellectual enrichment enabling them to come in contact with one of the finest civilizations and greatest cultures in the world. Fortunately, this attitude is only that of a minority today. At the other extreme, it has been noted that an ever-growing number of English speaking Canadians are learning French sometimes at great sacrifice, for, unfortunately, the older people get, the more difficulty they have in learning a second language, and the less time they have for doing so.
In our time it is probably true-though we lack information to confirm this-that the majority of English speaking Canadians are not opposed to French any more, but they believe they cannot acquire even a working knowledge of that language without sacrificing other essential elements of their programs. For my part, I am convinced that this is a mistake.
First of all, what are we trying to accomplish in this field in Canada? The aim is not to make every Canadian perfectly bilingual. Such an aim would be quite impossible to attain. It is not even desirable.
Our purpose should be to have as many Canadians as possible speak a second language, either French or English, the knowledge of which would vary according to the educational level of the individual. We are also aiming at a practical rather than a scientific knowledge of the second language, at least for children, at the primary school level. In other words, we must first of all stop teaching a second language as if it were a dead language, because this is what is unfortunately happening in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We should teach children how to speak rather than stress the teaching of grammar.

Is it impossible and unrealistic to seek such practical knowledge of a second language in this country? Dr. Penfield and other well known experts do not think so. Besides, the experience of the world around us points to the contrary. A great number of citizens, in most countries have mastered a second language, even when the ethnical or political structure of the countries they live in do not prompt them to do so. This is true for Europe, South America, Asia and even Africa. For well-known, historical reasons, the United States is an exception. I, for one, am satisfied that the young English Canadians are as intelligent as children in other countries and that they will easily acquire a practical knowledge of French if given the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Chairman, in this morning's Globe and Mail, I came across an article under the heading "On Teaching French", which indicates very well the attitude of the Toronto school board. In fact, the members of that board have decided to have French taught in the elementary schools, not as a dead language, but as a modern one. For the information of hon. members, I should like to quote a paragraph from this editorial, which runs as follows:
(Text):
By embarking on a program of French instruction in the elementary schools, the board of education has taken the first step toward teaching French as a living language.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, it is therefore possible for a great number of Canadians to acquire such a knowledge of a second language. This is also extremely desirable, not only as a personal achievement, but because it enables us to benefit from the two greatest cultural media of the western world and because it is a factor of unity in this country. As stated by all previous speakers, I would even say that it must become one of our national purposes, for without it, it will be more and more difficult to maintain internal harmony and political stability in our country.
It has now become a matter of selfexamination and we should ask ourselves whether we are mature enough honestly and wholeheartedly to accept this form of bilingualism as a long term national aim and whether we are ready to take positive steps, including especially the reform of our educational system in order to begin working on this together immediately.
Interim Supply
That is a vital and really essential question. I realize that in asking that question publicly and collectively we run certain risks; but we can no longer avoid that question. Furthermore, I have confidence that we shall be able to answer it on both sides, with serenity and lucidity, fully conscious of the gravity of our answer and the consequences it can have.
That is why I enthusiastically endorse the suggestions made to the house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). The federal government must take the initiative at once, and try to obtain the co-operation of the provinces in order to undertake a study of bilingualism and the means to achieve it. Such an enquiry could not be complete without the approval of the provinces, because the means at the disposal of the federal parliament in that field are limited. In fact, until we have undertaken the reform of education which comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, we may be able to improve the situation temporarily and apply certain remedies, but we will not have found the final and permanent solution to the fundamental issue.
It is not a case, especially in that delicate field, of imposing anything to the provinces.
In order to better pave the way, and in view of the fact that the leaders of the federal parties have already given their opinions on the matter, I would ask the other members, who will no doubt wish to participate in this debate, to tell us whether they are in favour of such an investigation and of its objectives. I do not want to challenge anyone; it is rather a wish on my part. If, as some previous speakers have stated, we could agree unanimously in this house on the general objectives to be achieved, we would immediately remove any political partisanship from this delicate issue, we would set an example to all provincial premiers and to all those who have any influence on public opinion in this country.
Canada is now at a cross-roads. We are preparing to celebrate an historical event: the centenary of confederation.
That is why I now appeal to all Canadians of good will. If we wish to celebrate that centenary simply by erecting monuments and by organizing festivals and exhibitions, we are in for bitter disillusions, because the unity we shall then celebrate, if it still exists, will only be artificial and transparent.
If we wish to celebrate confederation together and in a united spirit, we must begin at once a spiritual retreat, we must reflect

Interim Supply
not only on what we are, but on what we want to become. We can no longer be satisfied with mutual respect in isolation. We must prepare to remake, so to speak, confederation, and especially redefine its spirit.
We must learn, on both sides, not only to remain ourselves and better to live our own culture, but also to become a little like the other, and to participate more actively in the culture of the other. We shall then become better citizens, and we shall form a richer and more united nation. We must seize this opportunity, which is offered to us and which is perhaps the last one, to renew concretely our collective will to live together on a really equal footing.
Otherwise, there may not be a second centennial of confederation, which would be, I am quite sure, a great disaster for all Canadians. Because, after all, as I attempted to explain earlier, this question is beyond the competence of parliament. It concerns every Canadian citizen.
There is a great deal of good will in Canada today; we should take advantage of it. If there seems to be unanimity in this house on a question of such scope and of such importance, it is time to take action. Without entrusting this responsibility to anyone in particular, it seems to me, as I said earlier, that the federal government should take the lead in making this inquiry and in consulting the provinces. There are various methods of consulting the provinces. In reply to a question put to him, the Prime Minister has already shown that such a consultation is possible, and can promptly take place when good will prevails. I am convinced such is now the case, and now is the time to act.
Indeed, it is very important for the two main racial groups of our country to live together on equal terms, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a good thing to preach national unity, as everybody did so well in the house today. All that is very fine, but it is not enough, Mr. Chairman. Much more must be done; action must follow.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition suggested that an inquiry should be made into the fields under our jurisdiction, namely into crown companies and various departments, and as concerns all fields not entirely under our jurisdiction, let us consult the provinces and obtain their approval so that French Canadians would feel at home throughout Canada, from coast to coast.
So I invite the house to support the suggestions and proposition of the Leader of the

Opposition and to act. If the house does that, I am convinced that it will help to place on an indestructible basis the future of this beloved country of ours, Canada.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, we should be pleased, as some hon. members have mentioned, that this debate has been maintained above partisan considerations.
Mr. Gordon's statement will have contributed to national awakening. As far as I am concerned, I had the opportunity, on June 8, 1961, to give my opinion on Mr. Gordon. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Gordon's statement has, as I said, contributed to national awakening.
We stopped to take a look at what has been done and to appreciate what remains to be done to improve relations between the two main ethnic groups in Canada, with a view to closing gaps and being able to celebrate the centenary of confederation in national unity and not to see it break up.
I think that this uneasiness resulting from bilingualism and the disproportion in representation of French speaking Canadians has existed not only in departments-and for a long time, although the situation has improved in recent years-but especially in crown corporations.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, taking advantage of the announcement made in the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session, of convening a federal-provincial conference, that is a general assembly of our nation, to give Canada national emblems, it should be important to place on the agenda a royal inquiry on relations between the two ethnic groups, as well as a review of or an inquiry on the constitution.
The problem between the two ethnic groups has reached an acute phase at present. Well, I believe that this problem has existed for a long time.
I remember that in the province of Quebec, the report of the Tremblay commission outlined the gaps which existed and also the solutions that could be resorted to.
That is why, if we refer today, for instance, to the Tremblay commission report, I believe that we shall see what causes the troubles because for a number of years the constitution has been undermined and the taxation fields have been mixed up. I believe that if we included as I said a while ago, in the agenda of the federal-provincial conference, regarding the choice of a national flag, an inquiry on the constitution or a complete review of it, it would be a useful step. I

really believe that this question would be appropriate as, in these last few years, there has been a development towards the undermining of taxation powers. For example, the Canada Council interferes in the field of education which belongs to the provinces; the federal government is even giving grants to universities; and some members, without consulting the provinces involved, like Quebec and Newfoundland, would like to bypass the provincial authorities in order to regulate the question of divorce.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should take advantage of the federal-provincial conference to be held soon and which was announced in the speech from the throne-the convening of the states general-to make a complete review of the situation and to stop to devise the means to achieve a better understanding between the two ethnic groups.
Mr. Chairman, I think it was fitting that a debate such as this one should have taken place in this house. It was kept above petty politics and all members are to be congratulated. I say again that a stock-taking should be done on the occasion of the general meeting to be held shortly, in order to select national emblems, so that we may all take the time needed to consider a complete review of the constitution and, if possible, to graft upon it a royal inquiry on the relations between the two ethnic groups, for the best interest of the Canadian nation, so that in 1967, we can all celebrate the centenary of confederation together instead of crying at its funeral.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let a debate as important as this one go by without congratulating all those who have taken part in it. They have kept it above political partisanship. I feel that a member from the Beauce area must be heard in the course of a debate of such magnitude, since the question of bilingualism in Canada was raised this afternoon.
Since one of my predecessors who sat for 12 years in this house asked on many occasions that the French fact be recognized in the public service in Ottawa and, through his motions and his bills also asked many times that cheques be made bilingual, I am glad to congratulate him and to mention his name. I am quite sure he will be most happy tomorrow when he sees the newspaper headlines on this question of bilingualism. I refer to the former member for Beauce, Mr. Raoul Poulin.
Interim Supply
It will do his heart good to see that today, in this house, putting aside all political partisanship, members from all parties have taken part in this debate and proved to the Canadian people that we are their representatives before being members of a political party.
I know that my predecessor will be comforted when he reads the report of today's debate. He will realize what headway has been made since he made his requests in this chamber. He will also find that the constituency of Beauce has made it a point to take part in this discussion and that there is an increasing awareness of the need for national unity.
This debate will not only bring about the recognition of the French fact throughout the whole country of Canada, but also a glimmer of hope as to the possibility of giving the entire population social justice, social security. Moreover, let us not forget that it will surely enable one and all to consider the debates from an economic and financial point of view.
Mr. Chairman, I was just thinking about the well-known fable of the cat and the mouse. Some were wondering, at a certain moment, if they had not clung to the cat's neck. You will note that all those who took part in this debate have done so with a generosity full of understanding for those who do not speak the same language. I am sure that today we took a great step towards national unity.
During the election campaign, we pointed out the need to review ministerial representation. Since the problems of eastern farmers are different from those of western farmers, we advocated representation of both ethnic sectors of the country in the Department of Agriculture.
We also advocated representatives from the east and west as regards the many economic difficulties in order to promote a better understanding between the eastern and western producers and to provide for an easier disposal of western farm products which would at the same time encourage eastern producers.
On several occasions since the beginning of this session, we asked questions about bilingualism, about the French fact. We did not do that with any intention to hide-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member for Beauce permit a question? Is he aware of the

Interim, Supply
fact that recently the Minister of Agriculture appointed a French language deputy minister in order to improve relations between east and west?


Gérard Perron: I am perfectly aware of that and I take this opportunity to congratulate the government for that move.
I was just saying that we demanded and advocated that kind of representation in several federal departments.
Of course, the Gordon incident took place. The hon. member who just spoke before me referred to that. The reasons underlying that situation are due to the maturity of the whole Canadian people. The people want national unity, economic stability and good understanding throughout the country.
We shall celebrate, in a few years, the centenary of confederation. We must take that opportunity to act as wisely and as quickly as possible to give our country a national emblem, a national anthem, that is to say national symbols, so that all may rally round that Canadianism about which we heard so much this afternoon from French speaking as well as English speaking members. I hope that these discussions will bring about the possibility of giving our country all the national symbols that will mark the one hundredth anniversary of life within the confederation and that, all together, we shall sing the praise of this country where life is so good.
I would also like during this debate to deal with economic matters. In my riding, the producers, farmers, workers, small industrialists and shopkeepers are grateful to bilingualism, but they also all want an economic policy that will give justice, in Canada, as much to factory workers as to farm workers. All those classes of society want a policy that will enable the consumers to obtain the goods they need.
It seems that people accuse us of hiding behind bilingualism during the last election campaign. Well, we believe in bilingualism but we conducted that election campaign under the banner of security, and freedom, because we believe in that security and freedom for the whole of Canada.
That is why, since the door has been opened on budget matters, it is normal, in my opinion, that we deal with them a little more closely and that we study the reforms that must be made in the financial system.
Earlier an hon. member said in this house that 80 per cent of the natural and

industrial resources in our country were controlled and managed by foreign corporations. That is a problem of tremendous importance that we must put above politics, that we must consider in our discussions on the budget. The monetary situation towards which we are leading today is in the process of taking away from the Canadian people its opportunities and its natural resources.
Last week we talked about the establishment of the Atlantic development board and we shall discuss, at the first opportunity, the establishment of a national economic development board. In reading the newspapers and the editorials every day we note the importance given to that measure which provides for the establishment of a board which may advise and help financially the development of our natural resources in the interests of all Canadians.
That is an obvious sign of the fact that our financial policy must be overhauled in such a way that the working class and all other classes may contribute to the economic development of our country.
As the hon. member for Villeneuve stated, the best solution would be to teach the matter under a new angle which would be more in accordance with the twentieth century so that the abundance of products we have in Canada may be put at the disposal of everybody thanks to progress, automation, applied sciences and the know-how of past generations. It would be easy to put that production at the disposal of the Canadian people and to give them the security they are seeking.
Lately I have been receiving hundreds of letters from my constituents. I am told of fathers and mothers who have lost a social security pension or allowance in the last two or three months, of wives whose husbands have been out of work for the past six months, who are living on nothing but family allowances and are worried on the eve of Christmas and New Year.
As long as under our monetary policy money is not put at the service of the people, and the fundamental freedoms of the individual are not respected, fathers and mothers will have to go without the basic necessities of life.
Let us give the Canadian people the security to which they are entitled, let us follow the march of time and look at our financial problem the same way as that economist who is not a Social Crediter and who wrote in

the newspaper Le Soleil, last week, that we must absolutely give new orientation to our possibilities and that we must get away from the beaten track.
Our task is to give to our people, to our citizens, a social security that will allow the development of the human personality and the fulfilment of our liberties.
I hope that following a debate so auspiciously started and above petty politics, we shall be able to glance upon the economic apparatus in our country and should a revision of our monetary policy prove necessary, we will be able to make a contribution free from party politics.
We have had a foretaste during the discussion on the budget when we heard hon. members opposite say that it was not possible to create interest-free money in this twentieth century, for the development of our municipalities and of our natural resources. These remarks have been printed in Hansard.
Some speakers from the Liberal party have admitted, in this house, the need for revising our monetary policy so as to enable the Canadian people to expand by developing its natural resources in the interest of the whole nation, which is groaning under the present burden of social insecurity and asking for this security as well as for the respect of freedom.
We have set up various boards since the beginning of this session. There will be another important discussion concerning the national economic development board. Shall we have to ask many questions to know if this achievement is physically possible? Have we not heard, during a whole week, the claims of hon. members of the Atlantic provinces about the Canso strait, and a thousand other important projects to be carried out as soon as possible? Have we not heard about a steel plant in Quebec, so that all Canada can develop its natural resources in the interest of its people? And is the same not true in the western provinces?
Why are those plans not being carried out? Is there any great shortage of manpower? Is it not a fact that there are more than 500,000 unemployed in this country? What do we need to put the economy back on the rails?
I suggest that the best way to do this is to support the suggestion made earlier by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I am of the opinion that it is through those new methods that we will give the Canadian
Business of the House people the purchasing power it needs and which will enable our economy to progress according to the rate of possibilities of Canada.
If we had set up so many commissions when the war started in 1939, I wonder if in 1945 the government would not have still been at the stage of commission setting. But instead, the Canadian economy was allowed to boom in 1939 through a mushrooming of plants across the length and breadth of the country. As a matter of fact, in a jiffy we succeeded in creating for 10 years a production for this country which was dying of hunger in the midst of plenty. The Canadian economy was pushed forward for political reasons, for wartime purposes.
Today we must give our economy and our national development a new orientation, but in doing this we must take into account the tremendous possibilities in the field of natural resources development, as far as available labour is concerned, in the field of science, and learning. It is time that we launch across the country, through legislation brought forward by the federal government, a broad program which will permit our people to regain some confidence in the future and in the possibilities of Canada.
But as long as we do not consider an expansion of the purchasing power of the consumer through means other than those tried so far, and until we adopt, as was suggested by the economist Jacques St. Laurent, other means of financing purchasing power, even for those who cannot at present participate in production, we will not be able to give our people security and freedom, while fully respecting the dignity of man, an opportunity to choose his occupation according to his ability.
Mr. Chairman, today's discussion gave us evidence that when we wish to we can raise ourselves above politics. We saw it, we felt it, and it was a heartening experience for the English as well as the French speaking or even the new Canadian members of this house to see that at last Canada, through its parliament in Ottawa, wants that national unity which will enable us in 1967-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.
(Text):
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire
what the house will do tomorrow?

Business of the House Mr. Churchill: I hope we will finish interim supply tomorrow, and then carry on with the national economic development board.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the house leader indicated that he had a number of small bills which he was anxious to put through. I should like to tell him that so far as we are concerned we would facilitate the passage of those bills tomorrow, if that is the wish of the government and they would like to get them along. So far as we are concerned we would be prepared to interrupt
this debate-provided these bills will not take too much time, and so far as we are concerned they will not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that might be arranged; but to interrupt this debate and not get interim supply through would be rather a bad thing for all the employees of the government. I will phone around tomorrow morning and perhaps we might make some arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
The regular ministerial session of the North Atlantic council was held in Paris from 13th to 15th December, 1962.
2.	Ministers reviewed the international situation. They noted that the alliance is sound and vigorous, and that the dynamism of free societies continues to demonstrate its advantages in promoting world progress and well being.
3.	The recent attempt by the Soviet union to tilt the balance of force against the west by secretly stationing nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the world to the verge of war. The peril was averted by the firmness and restraint of the United States, supported by the alliance and other free nations.
4.	Ministers also discussed the grave implications of the recent communists actions in Asia.
5.	The aim of the Atlantic alliance remains what it has always been-peace, freedom, and security based on the rule of law. However, the alliance is determined to respond appropriately to any hostile action affecting the security and freedom of countries of the alliance subjected to threats and pressure. Regarding Berlin, the council recalled and reaffirmed its determination, as expressed in its declaration of the 16th December, 1958, to defend and maintain the freedom of West Berlin and its people.
6.	In the light of their discussions, ministers concluded that constant vigilance and unity of purpose in a spirit of interdependence, as well as readiness to examine any reasonable possibility of reducing international tension, must continue to guide the policies of the alliance. It is a prerequisite of any progress toward equitable settlement of outstanding international issues that the alliance should maintain its defensive strength.
7.	Ministers emphasized the value of close political consultation in regard to the constructive tasks of the alliance, as well as in preparing to deal effectively with contingencies which may arise. They agreed that this consultation should be intensified.
8.	The council reaffirmed that general and complete disarmament, under effective international control, continued to be a question of major concern. It emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement which would step by step bring peace and security to the world. It expressed the hope that the Soviet
attitude, which has so far frustrated concrete agreement on any of the key questions at issue, would change.
9.	Ministers took careful stock of the threats which face the alliance and the resources available for defence against them as established in the course of the 1962 triennial review. They agreed that it was necessary to increase the effectiveness of conventional forces. They further agreed that adequate and balanced forces, both nuclear and conventional, were necessary to provide the alliance with the widest possible range of response to whatever threat may be directed against its security. They recognized that a sustained effort will be required to provide and improve these forces. Ministers invited the permanent council to review procedures in order to secure closer alignment between NATO military requirements and national force plans as well as an equitable sharing of the common defence burden.
10.	The council also reviewed the work done over the past six months in the exchange of technical information on nuclear weapons and the study of various suggestions for the further development and co-ordination of NATO nuclear capabilities. They decided to pursue and intensify exchanges in this field to facilitate the continuing review of NATO defence policy.
11.	Ministers also noted, in accordance with the resolution taken during the Athens meeting, that in a spirit of solidarity and interdependence, measures had been decided on to assist Greece in solving the special defence problems with which she is at present confronted.
12.	At their separate meeting on 15th December, defence ministers reviewed the report of the high level group established to seek means of obtaining improved co-operation among member nations in research, development and production of military equipment. In approving this report ministers reaffirmed their will to co-operate and their intention to translate it into positive action at all levels.
13.	Ministers noted that the free world had continued to advance toward an ever greater degree of prosperity. Only on the basis of continuing economic expansion can the alliance foster the well being of its
[Stage Direction]
peoples and provide a sound basis for a defence effort equitably shared among the allies and commensurate with their economic potential. Furthermore, economic expansion in the west, by facilitating the provision of increased aid and stimulating world trade, is essential to steady economic progress and a rising standard of living in the developing countries.
14.	Ministers emphasized their determination to intensify measures to sustain the ef-orts of those countries of the alliance which,
while making an important contribution to the common defence, at the same time are faced with the urgent problem of speeding up their economic development.
15.	Ministers examined a report on national and international civil emergency plans, which are an essential complement to the defence effort.
16.	The next ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic council will be held, on the invitation of the Canadian government in Ottawa, 21st-23rd May, 1963.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 18, 1962