1963-10-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement regarding the chairmanship of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Donald Gordon has been today reappointed to that position by an order in council passed pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the Canadian National Railways Act, and in accordance with an understanding referred to by him in an exchange of correspondence with me, which I would like to read to the house.
My letter to Mr. Gordon is dated October 2, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Some time ago, when I discussed with you the question of the expiry of your present appointment on September 30, you indicated that while reluctant to bear any longer than necessary the heavy responsibilities that you have now shouldered for many years, you were also concerned about the completion of certain work to reorganize and strengthen the railway.
The government now invites you to complete that work by accepting reappointment as chairman and director. We believe that this would be not only to the advantage of the railway but also of the country.
In asking you to accept this reappointment to the position which expired last Monday, I wish to express to you the great appreciation of the government for the distinguished and tireless service that you have already given as chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Gordon's reply to that letter on October 3 is as follows:
My dear Prime Minister:
I have received your letter of October 2 inviting me to continue as chairman of the board of directors of Canadian National Railways.
As you mention in your letter, I am anxious to be relieved, when it is possible, of these heavy
and varied responsibilities which, I have learned, go beyond the field of railway management. I am nevertheless also concerned, as I have already told you, with seeing through to completion the work referred to in your letter.
This work should be finished in about a year and a half, in which case I will, in good conscience, ask to be released from the duties which I have always done my best to perform in a way which would be of benefit to the railway and to the country which I have now had the great honour to serve for many years, in war and in peace.
In accepting reappointment on the understanding above mentioned, I would like to recall the exchange of correspondence we have had on certain unfounded charges, which have distressed me greatly, that I have discriminated against or am unfair to French speaking employees of Canadian National Railways.
In this connection, I would remind you of the evidence I have recently sent you which should dispel any feeling that in Canadian National Railways we do not sufficiently recognize the claims of French speaking Canadians to posts of responsibility or the importance of bilingual qualifications in the holding of such posts.
Yours sincerely,
D. Gordon,
President.
I would be glad to table the order in council, this exchange of correspondence and the evidence which Mr. Gordon refers to in his letter to me, namely the letter he has written to me on the subject of certain charges made against him and a memorandum on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister agreed to reappoint Mr. Donald Gordon only on condition that he would succeed him, in a year and a half, when the present chairman will retire?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mandziuk:: You have not denied it. Deny it.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (JoIielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime

Proposed Legislation
Minister. Could he tell the house whether the cabinet has unanimously recommended that the term of office of Mr. Donald Gordon as chairman of the C.N.R. be renewed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I gave a description to that kind of question yesterday, and it certainly applies to this one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a proper question. I take it that you do not want to answer. You are afraid to answer.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the disagreement which preceded the reappointment of the president of the C.N.R., could the Prime Minister assure the house that, pending completion of his program over the next 18 months, the incumbent will see that fair consideration is given to the representations of the two major ethnic groups in Canada in the administration of that important crown corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already made a statement on this matter, and if the hon. member would read the document which was tabled I think he would derive some reassurance on this score.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. Speaker:: I have received a letter from the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) in which he indicates that he must be absent today and requests consent of the house for the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) to move the following motion on his behalf, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet). Does the house give consent accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Maurice Coie (for Mr. Marcoux) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-99, to amend an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Desmond Morton Code: In the absence of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency who had to attend a funeral in his riding,

I am pleased to introduce this bill on his behalf. I shall read the explanations he had prepared himself for the occasion.
Some time ago, hon. members of this house, with no intention whatsoever of playing politics and in all sincerity, had some serious twinges of conscience about the proposal to increase the allowances paid to senators and members of parliament.
The application of the present legislation would enable them to feel free to refuse such an increase. It would be most unfortunate and immoral, in actual fact, that an act should come into direct conflict with their principles and their conscience.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house in order to discuss a matter of urgent national importance, namely the threat to the flow of grain shipments on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway due to a lack of any effective action being taken by the government of Canada which has had its culmination this morning in the strike of longshoremen in the St. Lawrence river ports.
This is a matter of urgency and national importance. The disruption of grain shipments to the U.S.S.R. which will result will mean serious and possibly irreparable damage to Canada's economy as a whole.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ontario, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, has presented a certain motion asking for leave to adjourn the house under standing order 26 on the grounds of great urgency. May I remind the house that "urgency within this rule", standing order 26, "does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of debate, when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately". That is Beauchesne, fourth edition, paragraph 3 of citation 100. Also:
The reason for allowing such a motion... is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way.
That is Mr. Speaker Black in the Journals of the house, March 31, 1931, page 50.
The urgency of debate is something that has to be considered. ...In my experience it has never happened in the house that while the speech from the throne was being currently debated a motion for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance under the new standing order 26 was agreed to.

Perhaps that is a little bit off the rails; nevertheless it deals with the same subject. That is Mr. Speaker Beaudoin, Hansard, January 11, 1956, page 20.
On June 27, 1961, as will be found on page 7105 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker Michener expressed a similar view with regard to a motion made under standing order 26 during the budget debate, when he said:
It seems to me that it is a matter which could very readily be debated in the budget debate.
Later on the same page he added:
"I accept the proposition that this is an urgent and important public matter to which the Leader of the Opposition draws attention. It is a definite matter of public importance. However, that is not the criterion in determining whether standing order 26 should be applied. The criterion is whether there is an opportunity to debate this matter in an effective way."
He concluded his remarks on page 7106 by saying:
.. .1 am not satisfied that there is not ample opportunity to put before the house and the government all the considerations that apply to this important matter in the debate which will follow immediately after the calling of the orders of the day.
Therefore he rejected the request of the then leader of the opposition. For similar reasons, in view of the fact that interim supply will follow within half an hour, let us hope, it seems to me there is ample opportunity today to discuss this urgent and important matter. Therefore I do not feel that the motion is in order at this time.


Michael Starr: May I just say a word on a point of order. I realize there is ample opportunity to discuss any matter one wishes on interim supply. However, it has been said by the members of the Social Credit party, particularly by the hon. member for Lapointe, that they intend to debate continuously the question of their seating in the house and to take up all the time for that purpose. Therefore sufficient opportunity would not be provided to discuss this very serious matter of national importance. It was indicated, rather, that the Social Credit members would continue the debate on interim supply and speak about their seating arrangements in this chamber. Consequently, in view of that statement, we felt that we should move the adjournment of the house in order to give a proper opportunity for discussion of this very serious matter.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify one point that the previous speaker made. He said it has been stated by members of the Social Credit party that they are planning to carry on this debate. The members of the Social
Labour Relations
Credit party have not said so. The hon. member for Lapointe may have made such remarks, but it is not our intention to do that because I believe it is the customary practice that interim supply pass with the least possible debate.
However, in so far as this particular issue is concerned, while we are still discussing the interim supply motion and it is our privilege to speak on any particular subject, it seems to me there is ample opportunity to debate this very important issue relating to the strike which has been called this morning. I feel, therefore, that the arguments which you have made, Mr. Speaker, are the logical ones.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I speak for 13 members, which is a larger group than that which the previous speaker represents. We do not intend, on this motion for interim supply, to speak only about seating arrangements in this chamber, so there will be an opportunity to speak about this strike in Quebec and Montreal. We only intend to prolong the debate on interim supply until a decision has been reached, because we do not believe the house should sit as long as this problem has not been solved.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Your Honour has agreed that this matter is of urgent importance. The only question is whether or not there is an adequate opportunity for discussing this matter on the motion for interim supply. I submit that any review of what has happened in this debate and previous debates on interim supply would indicate that the tendency is for a member to raise grievances relating to his particular constituency or region; consequently the debate is likely to roam over a very wide field. It seems to me that the longshoremen's strike, affecting as it does large grain shipments and our economy, is of such vital importance that this house ought to devote some specific time to debating that subject.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I do not really think there is anything that needs to be said, because Your Honour has said it all.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour has indicated quite clearly that there will be ample opportunity for debate on this subject, and has cited precedents for that statement. Hon. members may choose what they want to debate. There is no restriction, because one speaker has spoken on one subject, upon another member proceeding with another subject. In view of the urgency of carrying on

Labour Relations
the country's business and getting supply voted, I feel Your Honour has correctly interpreted the rules.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: If I may speak to the point of order, I may say that the only way we can debate this point, which is very important, is to have the government give some indication that it intends to take some action. There is no opportunity to debate government action at this time. I suggest this is a matter that should be before the house, and the government should give some indication that it does not intend to abandon its duty to avert this strike.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all hon. members for their views today, and I hope that within a few minutes we can start discussion of this urgent and important matter.

On the orders of the day:


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since we are confronted by a seamen's strike in Quebec city, Three Rivers and Montreal, this morning, and as the minister has already stated that if the mediation board presided over by Justice Lippe could not prevent the strike, the government intended to take other steps, I wish to ask the minister if he could tell the house what steps the government now intends to take to settle the dispute as soon as possible.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to keep this situation in perspective. The strike that began this morning, which has been in effect for only three and a half hours, is fully lawful; it is a legal strike under Canadian law. I want to say further that the mediator is still at work. He is meeting with the parties beginning at ten o'clock this morning, and while he is at work and obviously feeling that progress is still possible I think it would be premature for me to begin to comment in detail on this matter, which comment might affect the successful outcome of this mediation process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A. supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the recommendation of the conciliation board suggesting a 22 cents an hour increase was rejected by both the union and the shipping companies, has any attempt been made to persuade the men to return to work pending the setting up of a conciliation board to review this matter, with the understanding that any increases granted

and accepted would be retroactive to the time of the previous conciliation board recommendation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The mediator, Judge Lippe, has been advancing, as I understand it, various proposals for the consideration of the parties. The meetings were adjourned last night at midnight; they are to continue today. The mediator has these proposals before the two parties, and while there is a willingness on the part of the two parties to meet and to consider the problem it would be premature on the part of the Minister of Labour or any member of the government to make a statement with respect to government policy that might affect his work.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can say whether he has taken any precautionary measures to stop the strike from spreading, through sympathy or otherwise, to Atlantic and other ports.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the situation in Halifax and Saint John has been settled by agreement.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would tell us if he has set a time limit to this mediation, so that failing agreement within that certain length of time government action would be taken. Has he announced or set any time limit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think we have to recognize the dangers to any mediation process in undertaking that kind of action.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I take it the answer is no. Is that the answer?


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Will the strike of longshoremen in the harbours of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal delay the shipping of wheat to Russia?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that question be put on the order paper, if it is necessary.



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether Mr. James Reynolds, assistant secretary of labour of the United

States, had talks with Mr. Jodoin yesterday. Was the Minister of Labour or any representative of the Department of Labour present? What is the present position of the discussions that have taken place between Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Jodoin and representatives of the government or representatives of the civil service in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion yesterday between Mr. Jodoin and Mr. Reynolds. With respect to discussions generally yesterday, I would say that they have not produced any clear conclusions as of this moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. This morning's Globe and Mail carries a story that there is a demand for a system of appeals against decisions of the trusteeship, being composed of two members of the C.L.C. and one member of the A.F. of L., and that a tribunal would be set up to which appeals could be made before Mr. Hal Banks could be removed from his position as president of the seafarers' international union. This is quoted as coming from some fairly informed sources. I wonder whether the minister would deny that any such proposal for a private trusteeship is in contemplation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me at this stage to disclose the details of the exchange of views between the two labour centres, but I assure my hon. friend that on the appropriate occasion I will be very happy to provide him with as full information as is possible on this and other points. However, I do think it is a matter for decision in connection with the congress and the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. initially, and for that reason I do not think I should give details with respect to those exchanges.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Is not this strike the direct result of an ultimatum Banks laid down to the present government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, of course I deny quite categorically that the present government has received any ultimatum, and I ask the house to accept that denial as a true statement.



NORRIS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: May I ask
the right hon. Prime Minister a question?
28902-5-205
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that the legislation concerning the Norris report would be the first legislation brought forward after the resumption of the session, and in view of a statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) that such legislation would be discussed this week, could the Prime Minister inform the house when that bill will be brought forward?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This legislation will be considered immediately there is no hope of a satisfactory private settlement.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the wasteful and apparently illogical decision regarding the Pen-hold jet station, and the well defined rumour that the Minister of Agriculture has taken particular interest in this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I know it hurts. In view of this, is the minister prepared to give consideration to having this matter brought before the defence committee so that witnesses can be called and this whole illogical situation looked into?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I reject categorically the implication that the Minister of Agriculture had anything whatsoever to do with this decision. It was strictly on technical grounds, and once the facts are examined closely the decision is obvious. The decision to commence jet flying training at Penhold was taken by the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and if we followed in his footsteps for a few months I think it is no credit to us. As soon as we reviewed the facts, however, it was obvious that it was an erroneous decision and we acted just as quickly as we possibly could without wasting any more of the taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Following in the footsteps of the previous government has been the course of this government in practically everything in which it has been successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, is he prepared to permit this matter to be placed before the committee on defence so that the facts can be ascertained?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if the defence committee would like to have the technical briefing which demonstrates beyond perad-venture that the decision we have just taken is the correct one, we would be delighted to supply the witnesses.


John George Diefenbaker: And witnesses would be called?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Absolutely.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the United States agricultural attache advised the minister that his country is interested in the Canadian rapeseed crop; and if so, will the minister advise the house of his reasons for not including rapeseed as an alternative crop to wheat for western producers?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I probably neglected yesterday to mention this in my statement as far as growing wheat was concerned. This could also include rapeseed, rye and the feeding of cattle and hogs as well as turkeys.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have members of the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board recently visited him, or officials of his department, asking for a price support on the marketing of the 1963 crop of tobacco? If so, is the government giving consideration to putting a price support on this crop?


Harry William Hays: They were in my office this morning at 8.45, and we are giving consideration to their request.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
is my first opportunity to welcome him back from his grand tour of the Columbia. In view of press reports that the negotiations between Canada and the United States would be discontinued for some time with respect to the Columbia river treaty, would the minister inform the house when he expects they will be resumed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discontinuance of the negotiations between Canada and the United States on the Columbia river treaty. A meeting was held on September 6. The negotiations are under way. There is no delay being encouraged by either side with regard to this important matter.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Gu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question in regard to the Columbia river negotiations. Has the minister reconsidered my request of the early part of this session to give to the house an interim report on the national grid transmission study, and has he now realized that there is a connection between this study and the Columbia river negotiations?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made a request to the house for a briefing on the present situation with respect to long distance transmission. I recall that a statement was made to the house, and I hope it was made when the hon. member was here. I will check that. If it was not a full statement, we will make it tomorrow; otherwise I will draw it to his attention.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. He suggested to us on October 2 that he would make a statement on this urgent problem today. Is he now prepared to advise the house on this matter?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I said on October 2 that I expected to be able to make the statement this week, either on Thursday or Friday. I regret to have to advise the house that I am not able to make it today, but I hope to make it very early next week.



SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On September 30, in answer to a question of mine regarding the possibility of shipments of grain through Churchill, the minister answered in part as follows:
Although the feasibility of using Churchill for shipments to the Soviet union was a matter of discussion between the Canadian wheat board and officials of the U.S.S.R., it was not found possible to use Churchill as a port of exit for the grain recently sold to that country.
Now, in a letter to the minister from the secretary treasurer of the Hudson Bay route association, Mr. J. F. Gray, he reports that he had an interview with Mr. Matveev, who apparently negotiated with the deal for the Russians, and Mr. Matveev stated to him that "had he known of the benefits to be gained by both purchaser and producer-"


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member please state his question or put it on the order paper?


Robert Simpson: My question is that Mr. Matveev stated that had he known of the facilities at Churchill he would have been very anxious to see the wheat shipped through that port. Can the minister assure me and the house that the negotiators were made fully aware of all the facilities at the port of Churchill?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I was present when such assurance and such information were provided.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Who is correct? FINANCE



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN SUBSIDY TO GOLD MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; but in view of his prolonged absence, I shall put it to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to raise the subsidies to gold mines in order to encourage economic recovery in mining areas that are otherwise depressed, such as Abitibi?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a question of this kind was 28902-5-205i
Inquiries of the Ministry asked yesterday, and I now give the same reply. It is a matter of policy and if any action is to be taken it will be announced in due course.



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
Has Canada received a request from the international monetary fund for the purchase, during September alone, of 200 tons of gold, when the I.M.F. bought that amount of gold from Russia?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of reports of continuing conflict of views on the part of participating delegations, could the minister bring the house up to date with regard to the negotiations currently under way in Tokyo with respect to the north Pacific fishery treaty?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.. member I wish to state that I have just received a cable from the chairman of the Canadian delegation in Tokyo to the effect that the conference will adjourn on Monday next and will reconvene at a later date. I think it would be more appropriate for me to give a full report on Wednesday next, after the return of the Canadian delegation to Ottawa.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister inform the house of the stand the Canadian government intends to take in view of the events which occurred recently in the Dominican Republic?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Stale for Exlernal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I did not quite make out the question on account of the noise.


Mr.   Boulin@: Could the minister inform the house of the stand the Canadian government intends to take in view of the events which occurred recently in the Dominican Republic?


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.


ISRAEL-INQUIRY AS TO EXTRADITION TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I do so at the request of a number of people interested in it. Can the minister inform the house whether he or any of his officials have had discussions recently with any representatives of the state of Israel with respect to signing an extradition treaty with that country?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that that is a question for the order paper.


INQUIRY AS TO OFFER OF ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government offered financial and other assistance to the West Indian island of Tobago which was recently devastated by a hurricane?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this tragic destruction at Tobago took place the day before yesterday. No request for assistance has come from the island, but I think we ought to look into it and see if we can help.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My answer to the hon. member for Royal was incomplete. I am informed by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs that steps have already been taken by representatives of our government to inquire what the damage has been and how we can assist.


REPORTED REDUCTION IN EXTERNAL AID BECAUSE OF RUSSIAN WHEAT SALE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.

Is there any truth to the rumours that following its sale of wheat to Russia, Canada will have to reduce its assistance to friendly countries which are in need?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. Those rumours are entirely unfounded.


Gilles Grégoire: This question, Mr. Speaker, will be supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is not a fact that in the press release announcing this sale of wheat to Russia it was mentioned that the sale would have the effect of diminishing the volume of our aid to underdeveloped countries.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): I do not recall anything in the press release on this subject which said anything to that effect. It will be evident to all hon. members, I think, that it would not be the intention of the government as the result of any sale in any direction to diminish the aid which is now being given.
However, the house will recall that some weeks ago I did make a statement to the effect that it would be government policy gradually to increase the amount of wheat which would be made available to countries wishing to make use of it. In the present year the amount of additional aid which will be provided in the form of wheat under that program may be less than it would otherwise be; in other words, it might take a little longer to build up to the $40 million which was mentioned at the time I made that announcement.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you are
asking the farmers to cut back their acreage?


Gilles Grégoire: On the same date that the press release was issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, a press release was put out by the Department of Agriculture saying there was a surplus of butter amounting to 200 million pounds. Could the Minister of Agriculture not give part of that surplus to the Minister of Trade and Commerce so that it might be sent as increased help to underdeveloped countries instead of wheat?


Harry William Hays: Wherever possible we are helping those countries that need aid. I can assure the hon. member we do have in storage about 241 million pounds of butter and butter oil which have accumulated since 1958. This is causing a great deal of concern, and we are doing our best to deal with this unhappy situation.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to the foreign aid program. Did the previous answer indicate that the amount of the increase in our foreign aid which the government is contemplating will depend on the size of our surplus?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. I was talking specifically about wheat, and I was suggesting that the quantities of wheat which would be available in addition to those now being provided might be reduced. There is no suggestion that we should ever permit anything to interfere with the aid program which has now been arranged. All I was suggesting was that the program for increasing the amount of wheat which might be provided under this program would probably not build up as quickly this year as it otherwise would, in view not of the shortage of grain but of the limitation on transportation. However, this has nothing whatever to do with the attitude of the government toward foreign aid as a whole and my colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can give these reassurances to the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. If we do not have the wheat, do we substitute money or other goods?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I might answer that question by saying that wheat is only one element in our foreign aid program and not the most important, since consumer goods are not those normally required in those countries. The government is now considering ways and means of increasing our effort under the foreign aid program.


ALGERIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does the minister know whether Canadian industries or funds are involved in the nationalization carried out at present by Mr. Ben Bella's government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That matter will be looked into next week but, at this moment, I think it should be put on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house whether the air transport board has approved the application by a United States carrier for the right to carry passengers between Los Angeles or San Francisco and Montreal? Perhaps in the minister's absence his parliamentary secretary would take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see any special urgency in this question. Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper. I take it the matter has been under consideration for some time.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT ASSOCIATION MEETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Would he tell me if Canada will send delegates to the Strasbourg conference called by the International Air Transport Association for October 22, in order to set new air rates over the North Atlantic.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I take this question as notice.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Could he inform the house of the nature of the discussions or negotiations which are now taking place, or have taken place, with the government of the United States or the government of the state of Alaska with respect to the maintenance of the Haines cut-off road in the Yukon?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I reported to the house that a group of senior officials had just returned to Ottawa following a study they had pursued in the U. S. Panhandle and the Yukon on all transportation matters. It would certainly be premature to suggest any policy on the part of the government until the report of these gentlemen is studied.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, can the minister inform the house whether discussions or negotiations have taken place or are taking place with the United States government or the government of the state of Alaska with respect to this matter?


Arthur Laing: There have been a great number of studies, our studies as well as individual studies, but I do not think negotiations are taking place at the moment.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; perhaps the hon. gentleman would clarify government policy on this matter. Does the government intend to permit Northern Transportation Company to extend its operations in the north in direct competition with private enterprise?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a question of which I would require some notice. As the hon. gentleman knows, there have been discussions between the Northern Transportation Company and some of the other carriers. We have had this matter under consideration for some time, and I think it would be in the interests of all concerned if I had a little time to prepare an answer which would be as clear and satisfactory as possible.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Is it true that the minister is being advised on this question by a committee composed of his deputy and the president of Northern Transportation Company, although the question being considered is the competition between Northern Transportation Company and private enterprise in the north?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am receiving advice from many quarters, including those he has mentioned.


STATEMENT AS TO RECREATIONAL PARKS PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked me when he might expect a report on recreational parks, and with special reference to winter works therein. I wish to announce that the government has approved a very extensive program of winter works in respect of its national parks that are located near designated development areas. In respect of recreational parks I want to assure him that this matter is under active study and an announcement will be made soon.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the federal-provincial committee on parks be reconvened this fall and will this matter of recreational parks be brought to its attention?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the implication of the hon. member that the best job in respect of recreational parks can be done by understanding and co-operative agreement between the federal government and the provinces, and we will certainly pursue that aspect actively.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brefon North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but I hope his parliamentary secretary will be able to reply. As a result of the many representations I have received from the fishermen concerned and also owners of fishing trawlers, can the minister advise why the Decca navigation chain No. 6, which covers the area of the Atlantic between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, has been discontinued? I understand the discontinuance of the chain is causing extreme hardship and possible loss of fishing gear.
Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house what the government intends to do with regard to the construction of the railway line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, since that legislation was adopted over 18 months ago? Will the project soon become a reality?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I take this question as notice.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: 
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, or in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the minister or his parliamentary secretary tell the house when they intend to call the special sessional committee on railways, in order to allow us to hear what the president of the C.N.R. has to say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, sir, I could answer that question as house leader. The committee will be set up as soon as the house can find time to do it.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: As a
supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think there was a complete answer given by the Secretary of State. However, I will not prevent the hon. member from asking the question.


Georges-J. Valade: I regret having to put a supplementary, but I think it is in order and I do not think it should be disallowed. Can the Secretary of State say whether the president of the C.N.R. wiU oblige the members of parliament in a much better way than he has in the past at committee hearings, since in the past he has refused to answer many questions put to him by members of parliament?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the minister tell me whether a new defence policy is being worked out which would result in the closing in the near future of some radar stations, particularly the radar station at St. Sylvestre, in the constituency of Lotbiniere?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As part of our general review of defence requirements we are taking a look at our radar capabilities to see whether economies can be effected without seriously reducing the effectiveness of the system as a whole. As soon as the review is complete, any decisions which are taken will be announced.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In such an occurrence, can the minister tell the house whether the government intends to take special steps to prevent the non-employment of people who would be laid off following such a decision?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It will be the general policy of the Department of National Defence whenever there are dislocations caused by moving or closing bases to give as much warning as possible and, in addition, to collaborate with other departments of government, including the Department of Labour, to see how we can alleviate any hardship which might be caused to employees on those stations.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE CONSIDERATION OF SECOND TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him, in view of the urgent need for a second trans-Canada highway, especially through northern British Columbia, and the statement made by the minister on July 17 last that he hoped to arrange for a dominion-provincial conference to consider highway matters this fall, whether such arrangements have been made and when the conference will be held.
Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public
Works): No arrangements have been made as yet. As the hon. member realizes, this is a matter of government policy and a decision will be taken in due time.

Interim Supply PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



WEST BLOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: In
view of the wide variety of questions asked this morning, might I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works on a matter which affects all members of this house. Before the one year warranty or guarantee runs out on the elevators installed in the west block, will the hon. gentleman issue an order that the elevators there be corrected so that if a member wishes to go to the third floor he does not have to push the button for the second floor, and if wishes to get down from the third floor he does not have to play bingo with all the buttons in order to arrive at the floor he wishes to reach?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent question, because I was nearly trapped last Saturday in an elevator in the west block.
I can say to my hon. friend that the matter has been reported and I am informed that the engineers are reviewing the whole system immediately.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $747,449,955.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except fisheries item 45, northern affairs and national resources item 10 and public works items 20 and 190 for which the proportion is one twelfth and except atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 107 and loans, investments and advances item L420 for which no proportion is requested, $640,449,276.00;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport item 35, $820,000.00;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of agriculture item 50, $178,833.34;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 25, 100 and 145, citizenship and immigration item 30, transport item 10, of the said estimates, $3,583,608.34;
(e)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except external affairs item 96a, finance item 5a, northern affairs and national resources item 110a, and loans, investments and advances items L13a and L63a, $48,103,070.00;
(f)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117a, $84,240.00;
(g)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 116a, $280,800.00;
(h)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the
[ ratiequajaTa 'JHl
fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,166,666.67;
(i)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $3,333,333.34;
(j)	eight twelfths of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $49,444,457.34;
(k)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117d, $5,670.00;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.
["There being no other private members' business the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue my remarks this morning and deal especially with a statement made a while ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
It is plain that the appointment which the Prime Minister announced this morning constituted a difficult problem for the present government. On the one hand, pressure was brought to bear by the directors of the Canadian National Railways and certain heads of labour movements to maintain the present chairman in office. On the other hand, pressure was also brought to bear to remove him from office or rather not to reappoint him.
In the first place, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for his courage and his boldness in taking such a decision which was not an easy one in the circumstances.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I had sometime earlier the opportunity to question the chairman of National Railways. It also happens that I in no way agreed with him on certain points, but, personally, I never asked for the head of the present chairman of the C.N.R. I asked him to use his head, but I never wanted to see his head chopped off as chairman.
In the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister, the chairman of National Railways today admits that there is a problem of bilingualism within the C.N.R., and that the representation of French Canadians on the higher levels is inadequate. He does take a step forward when he acknowledges existing conditions, and we have always welcomed repentant sinners with open arms.
If the chairman of National Railways is ready to admit that some errors have been committed in the past, if he is ready to admit, as he has done, that there actually is a problem of biculturalism and bilingualism in that crown corporation, I think he has taken a great step forward and that it would be well to give him a chance to do now what he failed to do in the past.

I think that this is the more important because, thanks to his many years of experience, and following all the pressure put on the National Railways administration, he is better able to see that one should actually reconsider all those things, this whole French fact inside the most important crown corporation, that is, the C.N.R.
I seem to understand that his term of office would be renewed for only a year and a half. However, we are not to be fooled, because it is obvious that those two letters have been written by arrangement and that the whole business was concocted so that the chairman of National Railways would himself put a limit to his term, which would more or less be a compromise suggested and accepted by the chairman now in office of the Canadian National Railways.
We understand perfectly well what is behind all that-a year and a half. The president of the Canadian National Railways will come before the committee, and we will be ready to give him a fond welcome and tell him exactly what we want.
We do not wish to confine ourselves to destructive criticism. We want our criticism to be quite constructive. By criticizing in a practical way, by means of realistic suggestions and positive ideas, we want to help solve the problems which may exist within confederation and not try to stir up the two races one against the other. Instead of that, one race must tell the other what it means by confederation and the other one must try to understand the other's point of view.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, that is the only way we can succeed in solving the problems Canada now faces. I believe in confederation, providing we are fully aware of what can happen, that is that French Canadians have to become first class citizens of this country. They want their responsibilities as such and, moreover, they want to be able to say and do by themselves what they want to say and do. And I think that all the civil service and cabinet members know now that the one who is still the most able to ensure the survival of confederation at this time and who carries the heaviest burden is the Minister of Finance since he holds in his hands the ultimatum of the premier of Quebec to the effect that he wants the province to get back 25 per cent of the tax on corporations, 25 per cent of personal income taxes, and 100 per cent of succession duties.
It is a first request but it is the most important and that which comes first place at this time if we really want confederation to survive.
April 5 next will be "D day" for confederation. Will the present government agree to give back to the provinces the sources of
Interim Supply
revenue they are entitled to? I hope so, otherwise I believe that day will see the greatest split within confederation; at that time, we French Canadians will be in a position to say: Well, after all, maybe we are better off alone than in confederation where we are refused our responsibilities and the sources of revenue that would enable us to assume them. Mr. Chairman, that is a determining factor.
The other day, I heard the Prime Minister say on the C.B.C.'s French and English television networks: We agree that the provinces have responsibilities, but the federal government also has its own responsibilities. That is true. But the Prime Minister should seriously tell himself that the present government has assumed responsibilities that did not rightly belong to it.
By entering the fields of highways, education, hospital insurance, etc., the present government has assumed responsibilities which the federal government did not have to assume; and if the federal government had not assumed those responsibilities at that time, it should not have been forced to take away from the provinces sources of revenues which they need. If the provinces had retained their sources of revenues, they could assume their responsibilities in the fields of education, highways, hospital insurance, agriculture, etc. If the federal government has greater responsibilities today, it is because it has entered the provincial field.
During the first part of the session, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamon-tagne) said that where a province wanted to resume its responsibilities in certain fields, there should be no reason why it should not at the same time get back its former sources of revenues.
I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, to note that the government of Quebec has not asked officially to resume those responsibilities, which should be his, as well as the moneys related to them. I hope the provincial government will carry out the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council, that is resume its responsibilities in those fields as well as the sources of revenue to carry out those responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I am slowly coming near my Liberal colleagues. The reason is that I realize that they need to be convinced. I should not say convinced but indeed persuaded. I know they are convinced of what I said today.


Mr. Habel:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is not so much the fact that the hon. member for Lapointe is coming nearer to us that concerns us, but the fact

Interim Supply
that he is standing in front of the Sergeant-at-Arms while he is speaking, and this is altogether out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: There would always be a solution, Mr. Chairman, that is to move the Sergeant-at-Arms.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that these are important factors in confederation-determining factors for the French Canadian race and Quebec Liberals are of the same opinion. I am convinced that it is partisanship that prevents them from saying out loud what they believe down in their hearts, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that for the greatest benefit of all, they will put aside party considerations.
The Prime Minister himself, the leader of the Liberal party, said on television that partisanship must be put aside in order to solve the great problems facing Canada.
I have a suggestion to make that I did not expect to make this morning, it has to do with the reappointment of the president of the Canadian National Railways. We want to prove that we are without bias, that we are willing to help toward the solution of problems, and that we know what they actually are. They have nothing to do with the appointment of an individual, of a president in particular, but they consist in a group of very definite principles the most important of which is to give back to the provinces their sources of income. There are others, such as a greater participation of French Canadians in the federal public service. After what happened in the past, I am sure that the present C.N.R. president has decided to assume his responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, I wish to tell you that the present problem raised in the house could easily be settled by recognizing a group of 13 French Canadian members from the province of Quebec who wish to assert without fanaticism but with determination, the French fact within confederation. And now after a week, nothing has been done and it seems that this group of French Canadian members who wish to be recognized are being deliberately ignored.
It rests with certain members of the government to see that a decision is taken as soon as possible, because it is absolutely illogical and utterly ridiculous not to recognize a group of 13 members of the province of Quebec who have been elected with majorities comparable to that of any of your members.
Certain members have formed a political party and wish to assert the French fact within confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the present government must take a decision in this con-

nection, not in a week's time, but immediately. I think that the problem can be solved before the end of the week. The following fact cannot be disregarded: 13 members who wish to emphasize a definite point in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, what I intend to do on this occasion is deal with some elements of the question that was raised by my hon. friend the member for Ontario, namely the threat to the flow of grain shipments on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway which, as stated in the motion, we believe is due to lack of any effective action being taken by the government of Canada.
I start by a reference to a statement made by the Minister of Labour this morning when he referred to this matter while answering a question. He stated that, after all, the strike had only been on for three and a half hours. This statement, I feel, may well rank with other classic statements that have been made by ministers throughout the years, not losing sight at the moment of the one, "What's a million dollars, anyhow?". This was a most unusual statement for the minister to make, because he is usually a member who chooses his language with great care. No doubt harried by the experiences of the last few days he made that statement, which taken literally does not show that regard for the seriousness of the situation that should characterize a minister of labour.
I should like also to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning in relation to the Banks situation. He said, when asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers when the trusteeship legislation would be proceeded with, "When there is no hope of a private settlement". This answer is one that completely disregards the interests of the Canadian people.
The Minister of Labour has reiterated a denial he made to me the other day, that to his knowledge there has been no threat by the S.I.U. to the effect that if there were a possibility of the legislation for trusteeship being proceeded with there would be trouble and a tie-up of shipping on the St. Lawrence. When he says he has not heard that, I naturally accept his statement in that regard. But I would point out that is not the view of others intimately connected with this matter. I would point out that there has been some correspondence between Mr. J. D. Leitch, president of Upper Lakes Shipping Limited, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. This correspondence consists of telegrams one of which is dated, as I am informed, October 1. In the course of that telegram Mr. Leitch has pointed out that while his company has been directly interested

in what is taking place, in the lawlessness on the great lakes, his company has not been consulted at any time. He says this:
Regret that at no point has a representative of our company been consulted.
Then he says this:
It is my firm conviction that as a question of law and order there is no room to compromise... and the Canadian government must give firm leadership and not be deterred by the threats of *waterfront hoodlums.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the right hon. gentleman from what he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from a telegram about which the Prime Minister should know, he having received it from Mr. Leitch on October 1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the right hon. gentleman how he received it?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I will tell him. Apparently a moment ago the Prime Minister did not know he had received it. I would point out that a copy of the telegram was sent to me. Apparently the Prime Minister paid so little attention to it he did not know from what I was reading.
There was a further telegram sent to the Minister of Labour by Mr. Leitch complaining that there had been no opportunity given to his company to make representations. The other day in the house I suggested that Mr. Wirtz or representatives of his department had warned that no other ships of this company should be allowed to go to Chicago. I will return to that a little later, because I find that a representative of one of the unions quoted the United States labour department as having stated that Mr. Wirtz had informed him that it would be dangerous, if not indeed improper, for a Canadian ship to use the great lakes and continue on its course to the port of Chicago.
This morning we endeavoured to secure some information, and we received the usual brush-oif. Because of the series of evasive replies that have been received, the hon. member for Ontario moved a motion and that motion was not placed before the house by Mr. Speaker. I am not arguing in any way about that, the determination having been made. I would point out, however, that this is a matter of deep concern. It was a matter of deep concern in the month of August when this house adjourned. There was lawlessness and tyranny being perpetrated on the great lakes. A report was made by Mr. Justice Norris, and the government decided to adjourn parliament. Parliament adjourned. The minister had stated that if there was any outbreak of lawlessness, parliament would be recalled. There was a dynamiting. There may
Interim. Supply
have been, in addition to that, other acts of lawlessness to a lesser degree, but a dynamiting took place. I am not going to argue at the moment that therefore parliament should have been called between September 10 and 30, although that is a long delay on the part of a government that was full of determination to protect Canadian interests and the rights of Canadians to the use of the great lakes.
The house convened on September 30. Naturally we expected legislation then. First there was the promise that if certain things were done, this legislation would be proceeded with. Then, finally, the answer of the Prime Minister today indicates that it is now part of the Pearson plan that this legislation will not be brought before parliament until the hope of a private settlement is entirely terminated. That is passing strange. The resolution is here. I am sure the house as a whole would be willing to proceed immediately with it. Why the delay? Why these movements, these pilgrimages back and forth between here and Washington that have become so characteristic in the last few weeks and months, and so devoid of success?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What of these pilgrimages? Why has no action been taken? Why this delay? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ontario this morning endeavoured to bring this matter before the house. Let me point out this. He was minister of labour for a period of five and one half years or more. He gave to this country a degree of amity in labour relations that we had never enjoyed prior thereto. The minister suggested there was no pressure on the government. We realize they have a lot of problems on their hands. We recognize their difficulties. We see their faces showing the disconsolateness that comes from responsibility. We see all that, Mr. Chairman. But surely there has been time to take some action.
I am going to refer particularly now to the longshoremen's strike. I am not going to argue the question as to its legality. The Prime Minister smiles, Mr. Chairman. He does not even know what a legal strike is, judging from his lack of knowledge of a few minutes ago of a wire he received pointing out the great seriousness of the situation that prevails. Here we are with tremendous orders for available wheat that is waiting to be shipped. Apparently 60 million bushels of wheat are ready for shipment at the port of Montreal or are en route there. What has the government done? Why did it wait until the last minute of the last hour before acting? There are 3,800 members of the

Interim Supply
international longshoremen's association in Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec and Sorel. These ports handle an average of 75 ships a day at the peak of the shipping season. Montreal alone can load 3 million bushels of grain per day.
There were long negotiations with the shipping federation. This is not a recent matter. Last March the federation offered the I.L.A. a 12 cents an hour increase, plus 4 cents in fringe benefits. The I.L.A. refused. The executive accepted, but the membership declined. A conciliation board was set up. It unanimously recommended a 22 cents package. Both parties rejected the recommendation. Then came the wildcat strike on the waterfront on September 9 and 10. Then the government, with the Russian wheat deal on the books, saw the need for some action and proceeded to act. The cause of this strike was rank and file dissatisfaction with dragged out negotiations with the shipowners; the members of the union were fed up with the delay. The union leaders persuaded the members to return to work, and shortly after the conciliation board report was brought in.
Why was there such delay after the report? This is just another example of the government's complete lack of decisiveness. It makes plans, but they are mainly theory without action. This is just another example of that. The government apparently saw no urgency in the situation until the Russian wheat shipments were in jeopardy. This is one time they cannot rely on Mr. Wirtz or anyone else outside our country. The attitude to date in so far as the Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec and Sorel situation is concerned has been that of too little and too late. On Wednesday the government appointed as federal mediator Judge Lippe of Montreal. Why all the delay? Why wait until the last moment?
Some hen. Members: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister
laughs. That is the way he tries to laugh off the seriousness of Canadian problems that he is beginning to realize. He laughs; that is his attitude.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has mentioned my name, I may tell him that I am laughing at his suggestion that there was delay in making an appointment which was made immediately after the time it could have been made; and I remind him of the year and a half delay in appointing the chairman of the board of the C.N.R.


Michael Starr: What a comparison that is.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister smiles when he is most annoyed and hurt. There is a guilty conscience there. Why did he mention the C.N.R. presidency? If you could have seen the face of the Minister of Justice today, Mr. Chairman, you would have understood that the Prime Minister has his troubles.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He can make decisions, though.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say in this connection is that the House of Commons breathes more freely today. I do not know how he could have stood the loss of the Minister of Justice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand why the Prime Minister referred to that matter. Nothing has been done. There has been nothing but delay. Smokescreens of that kind do not deter me from placing the facts before the house. Shipping is tied up. Newspaper reports claim that officials hope to divert wheat and flour loading to other ports. I will make reference to that a little later. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert has been endeavouring to secure some consideration for Saint John and Halifax, and the hon. member for Churchill has placed a very strong argument before the house on behalf of the port of Churchill, which for some reason was circumvented under these plans.
What is going to be done about this? We would like to know what is the situation. Why the delay? The government realized it would need the ships and shipping facilities when it entered into this contract. The Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out that at our seaports approximately 640 vessels each of 10,000 tons average would be required to transport the wheat. This house needs from the government a statement, not the evasion of the last few days, setting forth what it is going to do; for the minister must be the first to admit it is imperative that there be no interference with the smooth flow of loading and shipping if there is any expectation of commitments being met.
The house cannot tolerate a situation of this kind, because the prospect of continuing violence and disruption on the seaway and the lakes threatens interference with free movement on these waters. I repeat that the information given to me, despite the fact that it has not come to the notice of the Minister of Labour, is that the S.I.U. threatened that if any action were expected or anticipated under the Norris report, there would be difficulty in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, would the right hon. gentleman give us the source of that very important information?


John George Diefenbaker: I am making the statement, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have to give the source. I am saying that everybody knows it but the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If everybody knows it, why won't the right hon. gentleman tell us the source?


John George Diefenbaker: I might also add that the Minister of Labour was directly asked the question by a member of the press gallery on Saturday last, as to whether this took place, and my information is that his answer was "I am not going to discuss that."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think this point is of some consequence. It is true that last Saturday at the airport a member of the press gallery asked me had I any comment to make on a report that had been issued and put on the air during my absence from Ottawa, to the effect that there was this relationship between the I.L.A. and the S.I.U., and I said I had no comment. I went on to say that I hoped reason would prevail, a bit of advice which I would tender to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no denial that the answer was he had nothing to say about that. In so far as the minister's advice is concerned I say, physician heal thyself.
I shall go on from there. I have mentioned this threat which is common knowledge, and it is also suggested in the wires to which I have made reference. Why has there been the delay in action? It is a strange thing that all through the past Mr. Banks has received the kindest of treatment from successive Liberal governments.
I am going to refer to that because it is strange that here the government says to the House of Commons, "We have a resolution on the order paper and we are going to act on it." Then the government suddenly changes its tone today and says, "We will get on with it only if we do not get a private arrangement."
Many people are involved, including Mr. Meaney, Mr. Paul Hall and representatives of the United States department of labour. It is very obvious there is a difference of opinion, and that what is good for Canada is not regarded by Mr. Wirtz, and those associated with him, as good for the United States. That has been made very clear, and there are many quotations I could give of statements and conclusions to that effect by members of the press gallery following the interview they had with him.
Interim Supply
In behind all these things we have the shadow of Mr. Banks and the solicitude this man has received from successive Liberal governments, this man who Mr. Justice Norris said is of the stuff of the Capones and of the Hoffas. Throughout his career he has been protected by the Liberal party in this country. He was given, after conviction in Canada, the unassailable status of landed immigrant.
What manner of man is this demi-god? When he came to Canada and signed the immigration entry paper the question was not there and was not asked: "Have you a criminal record?" That would have been an embarrassing question because his criminal record would have kept him out.
In those days the minister was Hon. Walter Harris.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the right hon. gentleman say on what date Mr. Banks first came to Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I have got everything and I am very glad that question has been asked. I did not think I would have the opportunity to put it all on the record, and I thank my hon. friend because this is very helpful. I will give him the entire record, because he has asked for it.
I have previously mentioned Mr. Banks' criminal record and I will deal with the items one by one, including the hon. gentleman's question. Mr. Banks lived in the United States and had a criminal record from 1930 until 1947. He faced various charges upon which he was convicted, and I will come to the date in a moment.
After his arrival in Canada a series of charges were preferred against him from time to time and finally, on April 14, 1952, he was convicted at Montreal on a charge of being in possession of smuggled United States cigarettes, to which he pleaded guilty. After that he was immediately subject to deportation, but nothing was done about it. No action was taken to deport him on the basis of his conviction.
I have the order in council here, and it is interesting reading. I will not belabour the committee with it at this time, but I have it for future use.
Mr. Banks came to Canada in January, 1949. He entered as a non-immigrant with a minimum of formality, that minimum of formality consisting of failing to ask him the question that would have kept him out. From 1949 onward his period of stay was extended in six months periods, and on May 8, 1952, he applied for the status of landed immigrant.

Interim Supply
The hon. gentleman who has asked me the question about the date of his arrival did not become minister of citizenship and immigration until July 1, 1954.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman has that fact correct.


John George Diefenbaker: But it is of interest that this order in council was passed during his term of office. In June, 1954, Mr. Jean St. Onge of the Montreal office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, designated as an inquiry officer under section 11 of the immigration act, recommended Mr. Banks' deportation on the basis of his criminal record involving moral turpitude.
In June, 1954 Mr. Banks appealed to the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Mr. Harris, against deportation, and there was an amendment introduced in the House of Commons, and passed through parliament, enabling an appeal to be made to the minister against such orders. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite would say that it was only coincidence-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did you vote against that?


John George Diefenbaker: -but it had a wonderful effect. It enabled the appeal to be heard by Mr. Harris, and in the same month Mr. Harris allowed the appeal and set aside the deportation.
I am glad the Secretary of State asked me this question, because it clears up the atmosphere. I will now refer to the order in council, because it was passed during the period when he was minister. Mind you, I should point out that the determination was made earlier, after parliament ended. Parliament ended near the end of June and the appeal was then allowed, with the order in council being passed, and this order shows a masterful capacity for forgetting the facts. Attached to it is his record, and that order in council is P.C. 1954-1015, dated July 6, 1954, and reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 30th June 1954, from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, representing:
That under section 5 of the Immigration Act, a person who has been convicted of or admits having committed any crime involving moral turpitude is prohibited from admission to Canada;
That notwithstanding this prohibition the governor general in council mayand this was the effect of the amendment passed by the House of Commons-
-upon satisfactory evidence of successful rehabilitation, authorize the admission of such a person to Canada if a period of five years in the case of an adult and two years in the ease of a minor has elapsed since the termination of the imprisonment period or the completion of the sentence; and
That the person named in the appendix hereto appears to have been successfully rehabilitated.

The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,-
That was not the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Twillingate. He had not become minister at the time the recommendation was made. He was just the minister at the time the order in council was passed.
-advise that Your Excellency may be pleased, pursuant to the Immigration Act to authorize the admission to Canada of Harold Chamberlain Banks, of whom particulars are set out in the appendix hereto.
This appendix is really something. It is what you might call an abbreviated appendix. No operation has ever been more complete in removing from an appendix the serious portions of it. All it says is that Harold Chamberlain Banks was convicted on September 27, 1930 by the Los Angeles superior court and sentenced to 14 years in San Quentin. The document goes on:
Twenty years have elapsed since the termination of the sentence. He entered Canada at intervals from 1948 as representative of the seafarers' international union and has resided here since 1952. He has been executive director of the union...
In view of his important contribution to the Canadian shipping industry, it is recommended that authority for his admission be provided under section 5(d) (i) of the Immigration Act.
I said this was an abbreviated appendix. They forgot to mention that he was convicted of having smuggled goods in his possession only two years earlier, an offence for which he could be deported but which, for some reason or other, was not mentioned in the record. This is no attempt to deal completely with the record he has. That has already been dealt with in the Norris report. Look at the situation. Review that evidence, and ask yourselves whether Harold Chamberlain Banks has not got a great deal to thank the former Liberal government for. I wonder whether the solicitude shown in 1952, 1953 and 1954 by the governments of that day will be forgotten by the Canadian people.
That is the picture. Today this man enjoys the status of landed immigrant with established Canadian domicile although citizenship has been refused to him. He applied for citizenship but his application was refused. When we were in office we looked into this situation to see what could be done. We found that as a result of the action taken by the former government under the order in council to which I have alluded there was no action which we could take against him. That shows how complete, how thorough a job was done in assuring Mr. Banks that whatever his lawlessness might be he could not be interfered with as far as his residence and domicile in Canada are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I answered one, and I have not completed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand that the right hon. gentleman does not like the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, and I am trying to answer the hon. gentleman in the detail he asked for.


Miss LaMarsh:: Don't confuse him with facts.


An hon. Member:: You should talk.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask, why the failure of the government to act? Why all this playing around? When I asked the minister the other day whether Mr. Wirtz had tried to stop a Canadian grain ship he said he had no information. All I can tell him is that it was in the press on September 27. I have the clipping here.
Washington (CP)-U.S. labor secretary Willard Wirtz will attempt to use his influence to discourage a Toronto company from sending another grain ship to Chicago, a trade union source said Thursday night.
The informant said Wirtz made this promise in a brief discussion Thursday with Peter McGavin, secretary treasurer of the AFL-CIO maritime trade department.
Earlier, McGavin told a press conference that any move to send the grain ship John Ericsson to Chicago would be considered a deliberate provocation designed to stir up new trouble in the great lakes labor battle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that evidence?


John George Diefenbaker: Why, what manner of work is this?
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["Why, what manner of work is this?\nMay I call it one o'clock?\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have not gone into lengthy detail in answer to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State. There are many more details that could be given and will be given at an appropriate time in regard to Banks' record. I have simply given a general outline and have left out quite a series of events in the Alger story of Mr. Banks' life. I can, of course, deal with these matters in more detail on another occasion. However, I feel I have answered the question asked.
I would point out that various questions were asked in the House of Commons in June of 1954 regarding Mr. Banks, and Hansard records the discussions that took place. I would refer particularly to Hansard of the 26th of June, 1954, page 6825, where reference was made by Mr. Harris, the then minister, to the Immigration Act with regard to an appeal to the minister of an order to
Interim Supply
deport and the exercise of clemency by him on grounds of satisfactory proof of rehabilitation.
The record of Mr. Banks in Canada, apart altogether from the conviction for having in his possession smuggled goods, was sufficient for his deportation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question. Was there any other conviction in Canada? I am afraid I have not made a careful study of the record recently such as the right hon. gentleman has, but was there any other conviction in Canada except the one for being in possession of smuggled cigarettes?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not expect that would be asked. I have the record and I will endeavour to locate it. I may have it here and as I come to it I will deal with that point, because the question is a perfectly proper one. I know that the minister is very much interested in the position of Mr. Banks because it was during his period of office that the order in council was passed; but the direction was made by Mr. Harris a day or so before he turned over his portfolio to the hon. gentleman. You see, parliament stopped sitting on the 26th of June and in those four days-I know the minister will agree that the department works very fast-the department operated at an unusual speed. The minister looked into the whole question and, while he expressed doubts that a decision would be made at an early date, within four days a decision had been rendered.
The decision, of course, must have been a decision of cabinet. Indeed, there are records showing that generally speaking not only did the principle of cabinet solidarity apply but the Secretary of State gave his personal imprimatur to the high quality of Mr. Banks. There is one hon. gentleman in the house who used to take a very firm stand on this question. I refer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who has turned in my direction now. He dealt with this matter at length on a number of occasions but did not receive much consideration.
During the noon hour Maclean's magazine for February, 1955, Canada's national magazine, was brought to my attention. It contains an article dealing with the appeal in question and says:
Banks appealed to the minister of the department, Walter Harris. In his last day of office, before taking over the finance ministry, Harris quashed the deportation order.
Then it goes on to say:
Harris' successor. Jack Pickersgill, says, "I wholeheartedly agree with Walter Harris' decision. I hope that a lot of questions will be asked about it.''
In addition, there were other ministers who decided to add their enthusiastic support to

Interim Supply
Mr. Banks. Among them was the labour minister of that time and, according to Maclean's magazine, again the Secretary of State supported Mr. Banks with his personal judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With what?


John George Diefenbaker: His personal judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I do not understand what that statement means. It does not seem to me to make much sense. But if I may say one word I think it is probably correct, though I have forgotten the article, that I did say I agreed with the decision that Mr. Harris had made.
I am perfectly sure that Mr. Harris made that decision as he made every other decision, in the full knowledge of his duty to this country-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and no man did so more conscientiously.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman said he was rising to ask a question. He just makes the situation that much worse by again giving his support to the course that was followed that was so detrimental to Canada. He now embraces Banks once more.


Mr. Malheson:: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: The degree to which he again embraces Banks indicates that Mr. Banks has friends in government circles.


John Ross Matheson: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: A question was asked of me, and that question referred to any other charges-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I said conviction. I asked the right hon. gentleman if Mr. Banks had been convicted in Canada before June 30 of any other charge except the one he mentioned. I said "convicted", not charged. Whatever the right hon. gentleman may feel about it, I do not feel that a charge is a conviction.


John Ross Matheson: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Another friend of Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: I now want to appropriate the words of the hon. gentleman during an interruption a moment ago. He said, "I am not in the habit of repudiating my friends". The whole story now becomes unveiled-my friend Banks; he is not in the habit of repudiating him.


Mr. Bell:: They are both sailors.


John George Diefenbaker: The seriousness of the situation along the St. Lawrence is shown by the telegram I received a few moments ago from Mr. A. P. Gleave, president of the national farmers' union. He says:

I have sent the following telegram to Prime Minister Pearson. Strike of longshoremen union creates intolerable situation of bringing grain movement through St. Lawrence ports to a standstill thus jeopardizing completion of grain sales to Soviet union and other countries during the current crop year. Resumption of grain movement is of vital interest to western farmers and general economy. Therefore we urge immediate legislative action.
This is an example of how serious the situation is, and of the need for immediate action.
I have already pointed out the tremendous delays from August until now. I am not going to quote Hansard to cite the reasons for the delay in taking action. The undertaking given by the government was clear and unequivocal. It was this: If disorder were to break out, if tyranny were to again ride, parliament would be called back. Days have gone by since, and yet the government continues to fritter away time by meetings, considering, discussing. I said a moment ago that there seemed to be a relationship between the situation that has arisen in Montreal and the action threatened to be taken by the government in relation to Mr. Banks.
It is interesting to go back as far as November 22, 1960 to find a beautiful picture of brotherly love. The Secretary of State said: "I am not in the habit of repudiating friends." Here they are together, the five leaders, attending a union conference at S.I.U. headquarters. They are as follows:	Thomas
Gleason, general secretary of the international longshoremen's association; Hal C. Banks, vice president, seafarers' international union and director of its Canadian district; Paul Hall, who called the conference, president of the S.I.U. and the maritime trades department of the AFL-CIO; Tony Anastasia, vice president of the I.L.A., and Rod Hayes, vice president of the international brotherhood of teamsters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is the aggregation. They are all together there in one picture. The article says they are agreed all legal means of action will be taken to stop the operation of British vessels in competition with Canadian ships. Anastasia is gone, and his son-in-law now runs things. Paul Hall is the man who is telling Canadians what they can do. He wants Canada to fall into line with his ideas. What manner of system is this, whereby Canadians are being told by Paul Hall what they should do? To the credit of Mr. Jodoin, I must say he made it quite clear that he, for one, was not going to take that kind of dictation. I want to emphasize that fact.
Now, we are looking forward to hearing from the government in connection with this matter. I have just touched the fringes. This was in answer to a question, as you know,

Mr. Chairman. I dislike taking so much time to answer a question, but I had to do it.
Now then, can we tolerate the situation, the prospect of continuing violence and disruption on the seaway? Can we tolerate the autocratic interference with the free movement of shipping? Is that not intolerable at any time? Can we allow the perpetuation of tyranny perpetrated by this man Banks who enjoys the position of being the pampered pet of the former Liberal government? Today the Secretary of State said, in effect, I will not desert my friends. This situation must be faced, but I am not going to disagree with the minister that if he can arrive at a system whereby Banks will be out, directly or indirectly, with no control over Canada, it will be welcomed on every hand. In any event, if any settlement which so many across the line are trying to bring about removes Banks from Canada physically but still allows him, directly or indirectly, control over Canada, it will not be tolerated by this parliament and cannot be accepted by the Canadian people.
I will say no more at this time. There is a great deal more in the record. I found that revealing it part by part is always more effective than producing the entire record at once. I now leave it to the government to say why all the delay, why the playing around, why the procrastination? We have had six months of this government. The record has been one of continued postponement, failure to act, much planning, uncertainty and incoherence. There has been a complete denial of unity as between ministers occupying portfolios in the same government. I ask the government, what are you going to do about this? Are you going to instal Hal Banks as the uncrowned king over the rights of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief statement in respect of the two major issues that have been raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. One has to do with the serious development that began this morning at Montreal and which extends to the ports of Quebec and Three Rivers. This morning I suggested that we ought to keep this situation in perspective. The strike that began this morning had been in effect for only three and a half hours when the hon. member for Ontario proposed that the house be adjourned in order that the opposition may belabour the government for failing to take what he described as effective action to deal with this situation.
I stated that this strike is fully lawful; it is legal under Canadian law. The right hon. gentleman thought my statement this morning would be regarded as a classic one. Well, I doubt whether it will ever have that high
Interim Supply
station. But it certainly underlines my belief in free labour, not slave labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It underlines my belief in free collective bargaining. It underlines my belief in the right to strike as a part of that process of free collective bargaining which is fully protected under Canadian labour law and which is one of the fundamental rights of Canadian workers. I am surprised that any hon. gentleman would suggest that at this stage the government ought to have moved to remove this fundamental right from this class of Canadian workers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nobody said that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There can be no other interpretation placed on the intervention of the hon. member for Ontario and the Leader of the Opposition. The alternative to moving rapidly to prevent this right to strike was to follow the course that was followed by the Canadian government, and that was to appoint a mediator in order to bring the parties together.


John George Diefenbaker: Too late.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe this decision was the correct decision in the circumstances. I ought to remind hon. gentlemen opposite that this dispute is not of recent origin. The dispute or the lack of agreement between the shipping federation and the longshoremen is not a development of recent days or even recent months. It began with the termination of the contracts on December 31, 1962. There were two offers made with regard to which the shipping federation agreed and the officers of the locals agreed. These offers were submitted to the membership, and my understanding is that on both occasions these offers were turned down by the membership. The first, as I understand it, occurred in January of this year, and the second in February and March, when the full powers for amity ascribed to the hon. member for Ontario by the Leader of the Opposition could have been fully employed. But the fact is that notwithstanding the best efforts of the hon. member for Ontario, this dispute was not resolved though two sincere efforts-and I believe they were sincere efforts-were made under his direction to resolve them; or at least, there was one effort made under the aegis of the Department of Labour.
The next development was the appointment of a conciliation board, which is provided for under Canadian law. The chairman, Judge Lafleur, was nominated by both parties and he rendered his decision. He secured a unanimous conclusion as a result of his deliberations. The conciliation board report

Interim Supply
was made public on Monday of this week. It had been released to the parties earlier and it was submitted to the membership of the union last Sunday. On Sunday last the membership decided not to accept the unanimous recommendation. Then, in the light of that development, it was up to the government of Canada to decide at what stage a mediator could be most effectively employed. This is a judgment that has to be made in the circumstances, and depends on the judgment of experienced officers of the labour department who have assessed the situation. It would have been easy to rush in on Monday and appoint a mediator, or on Tuesday. Our judgment was that the time to appoint a mediator was on Wednesday. We proceeded to appoint him on that day and he has been working ever since. I suggest that any earlier appointment would have been indiscreet and unwise in the circumstances.
The fact is that the mediator is at work with the parties. He is still in active contact with both groups as of this moment. Surely it is right on the part of the government to say that the mediator ought to be given full opportunity to explore the situation before the government takes further action or considers further action. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the right hon. gentleman did not make any proposal as to what ought to be done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He hasn't any.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was no proposal put forward because in the circumstances the government is taking the only possible and sensible course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We realize this is a serious situation. Of course we do. And we are as concerned about it as any hon. member in the house or any other person. But we intend to take whatever action is necessary in the light of developments in the mediation process.
That is the situation. There has been no delay. The normal lawful procedures have been followed by the Canadian government that ought to have been followed. I suggest it was premature to raise the matter as a matter of debate today. If the desire had been to reach a settlement, then all of us ought to have applied to ourselves a self-denying ordinance until the work of the mediator could have proceeded further.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The farmers of western Canada will not agree with you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Sixty million bushels of wheat.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word about that aspect of the problem, with respect to the imposition of a public trusteeship. The government of Canada received a report of an industrial inquiry commission that had been set up by the former government, an act that had been undertaken by the government only after the St. Lawrence seaway closed. Despite repeated requests by the Canadian labour movement to the government to take some action to deal with this problem, the government refused to take any action until it was forced to do so following the closing of the St. Lawrence seaway by the Canadian labour movement. That was the way in which the government of the day acted. Those are the circumstances in which the commission was appointed.
We received the report of the commission and within a matter of two weeks the government decided to accept the major recommendation of the Norris inquiry, namely to impose a public trusteeship on all the maritime transportation unions. Before making that decision we had consulted with the Canadian Labour Congress. We had secured its co-operation. We had received the full assurance of all affected unions, save and except the S.I.U., that they would accept the trusteeship in the interests of cleaning up what all of us admit is a dreadful situation in this particular segment of the Canadian labour movement on the great lakes. There is no difference between us on that point.
I hesitate to review again the circumstances which obliged the government to delay the introduction of legislation until this particular part of the session. But the fact of the matter is that the officials of the justice department advised the government that it would be impossible to prepare the legislation, to examine each of the constitutions, each of the collective agreements in a short time; that this work would take most of the summer. And that work did take most of the summer. We have a resolution on the order paper. We had a bill ready and it will be introduced if and when this resolution is accepted by the House of Commons. Surely that is sufficient evidence of the determination of this government to proceed along the lines of its announced policy of last July.
When this decision was made it was evident in this house that any person who believed in free labour felt that the house of labour should be given an opportunity to put its own house in order before the government would step in with what each of us regarded as an unprecedented act. That is why the pilgrimages have been undertaken; that is why the travels have been made. It has been in an effort to provide an opportunity for an interunion arrangement that

would be entered into by the Canadian labour centre in Ottawa and the United States labour centre in Washington. If at any time the Canadian labour movement says that the terms that may be under discussion are unacceptable, that ends the matter. It is a decision that must first be made by the Canadian Labour Congress in the light of its responsibilities to its own members. That is why in this past week I have not asked the house to deal with this resolution, because I thought this effort had to be continued until we were all assured that it offered no possibilities.
I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that just as soon as I am convinced, and the government is convinced, an effective alternative is not possible with a private arrangement, the Canadian government will proceed at once with its public trusteeship legislation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the minister permit a question? If I understood him correctly he stated in regard to the longshoremen's dispute that the only possible line of action for the federal government was the appointment of a mediator.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there are two major alternatives, either to stop the normal course of collective bargaining by preventing a strike by law at this stage, or to pursue that other line of reaching a settlement through the mediation process, and surely mediation would be the first step to secure a settlement without the imposition of Canadian law?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I asked the minister that question because the other day, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Ontario, he stated that mediation was only one of several possible steps that could be taken by the government. I wonder if he would now reveal what these other steps might be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think in the circumstances it would be quite imprudent, as I have already stated, to prejudice the work of the mediator by indicating what further lines might be followed.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has used this opportunity to bring before us a matter of grave and urgent importance, and that is the breakdown of law and order as revealed by the Norris report.
I know that my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, is struggling with a difficult situation. I know he has to listen to advice and put up with the pressure of many people and many interests, and I for one do not blame him for seeking consultation with his opposite number in the government of the
Interim Supply
United States; because that government is, and may well be, directly concerned with the matters in question here. Indeed, it is the duty of the minister to keep in touch with his opposite number in the United States government. I share, along with the other members of this party-and I think I dare speak for all hon. members of the committee, or most of the hon. members-and most of the Canadian people, a very deep distaste for any suggestion of government intervention by trusteeship in the internal affairs of a trade union, or indeed of any other voluntary organization.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, reiterate and re-echo one thing that the Leader of the Opposition said, and that is that I do not believe the people of Canada will tolerate any sort of a compromise, or so-called solution, that in any manner, direct or indirect, leaves Banks or his associates in a position in which they can influence in any way the future of the maritime unions of Canada.
Mr. Banks has been described in loving detail, not only by Mr. Justice Norris but, in his own inimitable style, by the Leader of the Opposition. I will not attempt to rival their colourful language, but may I be permitted to summarize in my own way Banks' achievements in this country.
He was able to use a trade union, with the co-operation of shipping companies, to undermine and destroy democracy in an important section of the trade union movement. He was able to establish a reign of terror on the Canadian waterfront. He was able to employ fraud and defamation to achieve his purposes and enrich himself at the expense of Canadian seamen. Above all, he was able to defy the laws of the country openly and repeatedly.
Throughout the long story of violence, intimidation and illegality, the law stood mocked and impotent. The fault was not the fault of the members of the S.I.U. They were cowed and intimidated. Those who attempted to employ the democratic rights conferred on them by the union constitution were victims of violence or were soon without a job. The fault did not lie in the organized trade union movement of this country. Four years ago the S.I.U. was expelled from the ranks of legitimate trade unions in Canada.
The fault lies with Banks himself and his associates, and it also lies with the shipping companies who conspired with Banks to mock and to defeat the law of this country. Furthermore, it lies with the complete failure of law enforcement by those responsible for it. It lies with laws that lack teeth, and it lies with the effective exercise of influence in high places.

Interim Supply
Today the Leader of the Opposition, as is his wont, sought to make great political capital out of the failures of the previous Liberal administration. I must agree with some of his structures; but since he is fond of biblical quotations I will give him one or two to ponder. "Let him who is without fault"-I should say sin-"cast the first stone"; and there is another one about hypocrites casting the beams out of their own eyes. I apologize to the committee for stumbling over biblical quotations but I have not, like many other hon. members, been directly trained in theology.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition-and he does not need to answer me now-what happened in the battle against S.I.U. lawlessness during the years from 1957 to 1963 when the right hon. gentleman headed the government of this country? There are some revealing incidents reported in the Norris commission report. I do not propose to read from them at length, but at page 54 of that report there will be found a brief statement of what the personnel manager of the C.S.L. stated to the head of the union whose rights it was about to tear up at the request of Mr. Banks. He said:
Did you read the statement I made a couple of days ago before our management assocations? There are no teeth in the labour laws. Have a look at the act. First of all you have to go to the minister and get permission to prosecute. That will take you a couple of months. We will kick it around in the courts here for a year and if necessary we will take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. That will take about two years.
Then he says:
We have assurance from Mr. Banks of indemnification. By this time you will be out of business if you do not get your dues coming in, you know that. That is the way of life.
That is the head of the personnel department of the Canadian Steamship Lines speaking to the man whose rights he was about to tear up. The thing gets worse and worse, and this is what I want to test the Leader of the Opposition with, and see if he or his former minister of labour have any explanation.
A Mr. Scott Misener, the president of one of the smaller companies, writes a letter to Mr. Bernard Wilson, who appears to be a high official in the Canadian Department of Labour-the director of industrial relations. In that letter, which is dated 1959, he says this:
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This is to inform you that Scott Misener Steamships Limited and Misener Holdings Limited have signed an agreement with the seafarers' international union of North America-licensed division.
This, of course, we realize is against the Labour Relations Act but, under the circumstances that I have explained to you, we have no alternative but to do so. There is also a copy enclosed of a

letter from Mr. Banks indemnifying our companies from any lawsuits, etc. that may arise out of signing of his agreement.
So, Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of members of the committee to the fact that as early as 1959, when the administration headed by the right hon. gentleman was in power, a high official of the Department of Labour was informed by the president of a steamship company that he proposed to defy the law, to tear up his agreement with another union, and to enter into an agreement with Banks that he knew was illegal.
He informed the Department of Labour of this fact in 1959 and he forwarded a copy of the indemnification agreement in which Banks had the insolence to write and say to the effect, "If you disregard the law of Canada I will indemnify you against the result."
Absolutely nothing happened.


Mr. Jones:: We appointed the Norris commission.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, in 1962, three years later; and the reason for that was because a union, the Canadian brotherhood of transport workers, tied up the Welland canal as a demonstration that the government had to take action; and it was forced to take action in 1962, three years later.
I think the important question which faces the people of Canada is this: how long should we tolerate this sort of lawlessness? I repeat: it will not do to have any solution or so-called solution which involves agreement with those who have broken the laws. I know the Minister of Justice is receiving a report from his legal advisers as to possible prosecutions arising out of the matters with which we are dealing. All I can say is that those responsible for this defiance of the law, whether they be Banks and his associates or whether they be steamship companies, should be prosecuted for their defiance and evasion of the laws of this country.


Michael Starr: May I ask the hon. member a question? May I ask him whether he has acted as solicitor for the S.I.U. at any time?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I could give the hon. gentleman a technical answer; the answer is, no. But I have acted as counsel for Mr. Banks for a short period in a libel action. I should have thought the hon. member for Ontario was sufficiently aware of the legal practices of this country to know that those who are engaged in their duty as counsel are in no way involved in the affairs of those for whom they happen to act, sometimes very briefly, as I did, in a purely technical matter some time ago. I have not been involved with Mr. Banks in any shape or form; neither has this party.

Now I want to ask the former minister of labour a question. Was he aware of this letter which was sent to his senior officials, and why was no action taken? Let the hon. gentleman answer that question. A little less of this "holier than thou" attitude on the part of the official opposition would be helpful in reaching a solution of the issues raised by these serious matters.
I do not think there is anything further I can add except to say that we in this house, without casting stones at each other, should consider very seriously the grave issues which have been raised, and even though it may be necessary to do unprecedented or distasteful things we should make sure we take action which goes to the root of the grave situation disclosed by the Norris report.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, since we have been criticizing a labour leader for the past two hours, I trust that my colleagues will allow me to make a critical review of the past record of the two old parties.
Not so very long ago, and we still remember it today, when the government party sat on this side of the house with us, we often heard them criticize the indecision of the then Conservative administration, the government of indecision, they called it, for the past five years. 1 wonder today, after a few months of administration by the present government, whether the people are not telling themselves: we no longer have a government of indecision but a government of bad decisions.
Mr. Chairman, when one considers the change of attitude and the about-turn effected within barely a year in our country by the members of the two old parties, one wonders if that would not actually be the basis on which the people could pass judgment on them, perhaps more easily than we think.
When we consider especially their about-face, following the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I think that our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) would deserve, in the opinion of the Canadian people, the title of minister of war.
Hardly a year ago, we heard statements for and against nuclear weapons; we accepted them and signed a treaty through the Minister of National Defence. Contrary to the usual practice of the house, the treaty was not approved by the house, but the government made no bones about it and placed us before an accomplished fact.
We were blamed in the past for our indecision, for the failure to produce those very important documents concerning nuclear agreements with our neighbours. The same request is turned down today, and I wonder
Interim Supply
whether the title of minister of war would not be more appropriate than the one of Minister of National Defence.
As for the Department of Agriculture, we were informed recently that from now on the Canadian wheat board and wheat sales to foreign countries would come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I remember that, last year, the then minister of agriculture had succeeded in disposing of a very large quantity of surplus Canadian wheat and the possibility, and there was even some discussion on the necessity of creating a second Department of Agriculture to meet the needs of this country. Today, we see a Department of Agriculture taking out the wheat board from that field in order to transfer it to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Of course I realize that it looks somewhat more commercial, a little more like trade; this happens perhaps because we are used to following in the steps of others and because we are closely linked with the most commercial country in the world which Great Britain was at one time, and because it is hoped that Canada will one day rank second among trading nations.
As far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is concerned (Miss LaMarsh), I think that her case will be dealt with as quickly. The would-be mother of contributory pensions in Canada links the first legislation on pensions to a tax increase, to justify a raise of $10 a month for the beneficiaries of state pensions, those people who have given quite a few years of their lives to build this Canada which we, of this generation, inherit today. I, therefore, believe that it would hardly be wise to look upon her as the mother of pensions, more particularly if we think of the contributory pension scheme mentioned by her. When we look at the result, I wonder whether it is really of interest to sponsor such legislation. It has only led to further misunderstandings and another quarrel between two provinces and the federal state.
In regard to the President of the Privy Council who was made responsible for the survey on biculturalism, I wonder, like all those who are used to reading thrillers, if he is quite certain to be looked upon as agent X-13 in those suspense stories in regard to the promotion of bilingualism, when, in a recently established department, I mean the Department of Industry, we find that among the high officials who are occupying 230 key posts, all they had to say, in respect of the absence of bilingualism among the high officials of that department was: We could not go and take away officials having the required qualifications for those important functions from existing departments. Consequently, there are only unilingual people in charge of

Interim. Supply
the department. I would like to know whether the new agent X-13 is not being taken for a ride, as we would say among French Canadians.
Now let us consider other decisions. We have also a Post Office Department. I still remember and it was not so long ago, hardly six months, the various inquiries made by today's Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) who wanted to know whether the then postmaster general, (Mrs. Fairclough) had not thought of putting some mint-flavoured glue on the back of stamps because, as he said, it had been tried in some countries.
The hiring of additional mailmen was also sought on various occasions or during the Christmas period. In addition, an increase of expenditures by the Post Office Department was asked. I am wondering today if, instead of speaking of mint-flavoured glue on the back of stamps, the Canadian people are not tasting a famous fish glue with the increase of postal rates in the country?
And that is not all. According to a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), I wonder if we should not do as previously proposed in certain provinces, that is establish a department of patronage in the Liberal party.
Let us consider another department, the Department of Finance. I still remember that, during the last election campaign, our hon. friends opposite went around in Quebec making fun of the utopian formula of Social Crediters; I wonder what solutions the economists of the Liberal party have found and especially the Minister of Finance who seeks advice, everyone knows where, to draw up his new budget.
I wonder what the people think of this new 11 per cent tax on materials, which has been withdrawn to be replaced by a 4 per cent tax? I wonder if this action was not taken to enable powerful trusts to purchase and store surplus materials which they will later put up for sale to realize supplementary profits when small contractors do not even have the necessary means nor the credit to promote their own little businesses. In my opinion, those are bad policies and decisions.
The same applies to a chairman of the Canadian stock exchange or a chairman of the Montreal stock exchange.
The 30 per cent tax on foreign investments is withdrawn and the tax on materials against small businessmen is maintained. Taxes against the powerful interests are withdrawn.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the people realize today that the mighty are in a position to defend themselves and that those who should be protected are always exploited and subjected to the increase in the cost of living

on account of a system which has been supported here thanks to the two old parties.
And what about the president of the stock exchange, who today is the Quebec minister of revenue and who, through a feat of strength, succeeded in convincing the Minister of Finance to remove his 30 per cent tax on foreign investments in Canada? I wonder if such an action was not especially designed to neutralize the evolution now taking place in Quebec.
In my opinion, that is something the people once again will be called upon to judge. As a matter of fact, the people may be called upon to pass judgment on the old parties' attitude toward them sooner than we think.
A word now about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) who, early this week, invited us to visit the world fair site during the week end.
Yet, it was only about 15 days ago, following the use of electronic brains and I.B.M. machines, that we were told that the world fair probably could not take place before 1969.
I quite understand the reason for electronic brains and I.B.M. machines when I consider that, in a country as big as ours, and especially in as large a province as that of Quebec, islands have to be built. I wonder whether there was not a special reason for electronic brains to be called upon to decide when the world fair will take place?
Maybe they wanted a way out in case the world fair should not be held in 1967, for fear of something happening like the demonstration which took place recently at the Place des Arts, in Montreal. If such demonstrations keep up, I feel it is because there is a reason for them.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends may keep on interrupting me, their cutting in on me does not disturb me in the least. I am simply reminded of an old saying of the renowned fabulist: "Let men of good will do as they should do, and let others boohoo".
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the heavy load of work which is weighing down our ministers, and more particularly the Secretary of State (Mr. Picker sgill). He attends regularly the meetings of this house, he has a lot of work to do, but in spite of all that his position is rather sticky. Indeed, when one has promised two flags to the Canadian people, it is extremely difficult to choose only one; when one has spoken of giving Canada two national anthems, it is not easy to decide upon a single one.

I realize that the Secretary of State is also tied up with the various problems of the C.B.C., and it pains me greatly to have to chide him, when I think of his tremendous task.
As for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, two bills have been brought in during the present session: Bills C-83 and C-84, both relating to the Northwest Territories.
The purpose of these pieces of legislation seems to be the formation or the creation of two new Canadian provinces. Let us remember, however, that for 97 years our ten provinces, supposedly united by a con-federative pact, have witnessed constant bickering between federal and provincial authorities; I wonder whether it would be advisable today to create two new provinces? Unless, of course, the idea is for them to replace such provinces which are threatening to withdraw?
But the biggest bills introduced in the house during this session are those dealing with the north.
Mr. Chairman, we can also ask ourselves what all the members who hope some day to join the cabinet think, particularly following the election campaign launched in this country on February 7 last.
I wonder what the members are thinking who hope to become ministers or even the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and especially our ultra-nationalist member for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) who had so carefully prepared his speech on bilingualism in Canada. What was his reaction when he learned today of the reappointment of the chairman of the Canadian National Railways, even prior to his appearance before the sessional committee on railway, air lines' and navigation?
What do these hopeful members for a cabinet post think today of their party? During the election campaign the Liberals, and especially the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, talked about the rainfall of dollars that Social Crediters would cause to fall on the Quebec people. However, the people of Quebec did not see any dollar rainfall, but the country inherited a tax storm under the Liberal administration.
I understand that a program known as the 60 days of decision had been prepared. During that period, the economy was supposed to start rolling again, and the Canadian taxpayers' problems were to be settled by the Liberal team during that same period.
I wonder today whether the people are not thinking the matter over and wondering if
Interim Supply
the famous 60 days of decision are not in the process of becoming the tales of the Arabian nights.
I wonder if, after those Arabian nights, we will not have the story of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.
Mr. Chairman, I understand also that, in some quarters, when a vote was taken recently, we were threatened and asked: Do you want an election? I can assure the house that it is not an election, near at hand or far off, that will impress those who represent the voice of the people here, those who had no election fund to wage their campaign. And, at that time, I could hear the voice of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who seemed greatly interested in finding out whether or not we wanted an election soon. I advise him not to worry because, at the next election, I will help him in Lotbiniere the same way he came to my help in my riding of Beauce.


Auguste Choquette: You should come because your candidate lost his deposit.


The Chairman:: Order. The member who is speaking should not be interrupted, unless he agrees.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I say it again, we are here not to represent the private interests of a group nor those of the financial powers of the country, but rather as representatives of the people who elected us to make heard the voice of those who are suffering and who, unfortunately, are forced to remain silent under the threat of patronage, afraid of the masters of finance and patronage.
We also want to make heard the voice of the people with regard to agriculture. There is on the order paper a resolution to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, but we are still waiting for that measure to be presented. However, as head of that department, some bills have already been signed by the minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, and without anything having been done about his appointment.
What is being done about agriculture in the east? The premium on milk was abolished only a short time after the appointment mentioned. A sales tax on building materials, which affects farmers just as much as city workers, was levied.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if those who speak of stimulating the economy to enable eastern farmers to take their rightful place in Canada are truly serious.
If the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) wants to fulfil every function and carry out every task, it seems to me that he should also be concerned with the lot of eastern

Interim Supply
farmers. He should look after families which have lived 25, 35, 50 or 100 years on the same farm, families of eight to ten people who have lived on the income from their farm and who, in 1963, when we have devised means of sending men to the moon, are unable to make a decent living with the income they derive from the family farm.
I can understand that schemes such as ARDA should be established, but do you know how the implementation of that program is envisaged by some people?
In some areas of the province of Quebec, a policy of what could be called decolonization is being practised.
We have an example of that in my own riding and in the constituency next to mine, Dorchester. This is what is being done under a plan of social welfare. Heads of families cannot make an honest living; they are unemployed six months a year because they go to work in the state of Maine. When they come back and find that they cannot live decently from the income of their farm, they submit a request for social assistance.
And what is done? The first advice they get is to leave their farm and to go and live in a village or a town. For, if they remain on their farm, they will not be able to benefit from social welfare legislation. But as soon as this family head leaves his farm, the Liberal party favorites of the community can be seen buying the farm to control it and then probably put it to use under ARDA. Or perhaps they want to establish collective farms? I do not know.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Gérard Perron: After I am through with my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, when we speak about the income of our farmers in eastern Canada, we do not speak through our hat if we say that their complaints are justified today. As a matter of fact, if we look at the figures tabled in the house on June 13, 1963, showing the average income of Canadian farmers, we can see that in 1950 their total income amounted to $1,219,757,000, while it reached $1,630,310,000, in 1962.
Using the same chart, it is noted that in 1950, the Quebec farmers' income was $211,416,000, whereas in 1962 it was only $179,668,000. Whereas there has been an increase in the farmers' revenue for the country as a whole, in the province of Quebec it has decreased from $211,416,000 to $179,668,000.
What is the reason for that situation, if not poor administration, and lack of foresight with respect to the needs of the eastern

farmers? This amply justifies the establishment of this new department of agriculture for eastern Canada, which will be in a better position to understand the needs of our farmers who are operating family farms.
Now, in order to give additional assistance to families, there is among social measures one called family allowances. We hear no more about it in Liberal circles.
I see that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is applauding. I know he spoke about it in his constituency and I know that throughout the province of Quebec the Liberal party promised an increase in the family allowances immediately after the opening of the session.


An hon. Member:: It is untrue.


Gérard Perron: I still have in my desk a folder issued by my opponents. Not only did they mention it in their speeches, but in their written material as well.


An hon. Member:: It is false.


Gérard Perron: Is there a measure which requires more attention and more consideration? We have only to consider the hardship which prevails among large families.
I have here before me resolution No. 67 of the labour congress, which met in Philadelphia in 1947, wherein are clearly set forth the fundamentals underlying family allowances. I quote:
Society should normally co-operate with parents through general assistance measures designed to ensure the well-being of dependant children.
(1)	Public subsidies, in kind or in cash, or in both forms, should be used to bring up children in healthy surroundings, to help support children of large families and to supplement provisions for children who come under the family allowance plan.
(2)	When the aim is to bring up children in healthy surroundings, subsidies should be in the form of advantages such as free or cheap food for young children, school canteens and for families living in low rental housing units or having several children.
(3)	When the purpose is to help support large families or supplement provisions for children, by providing advantages in kind or provisions established under social insurance, subsidies should take the form of family allowances.
(4)	Such allowances should be paid, regardless of parents' income, according to a set scale that would represent a substantial contribution to the maintenance costs of the child and would make allowance for additional expenses required for older children.
That is a principle we should endeavour to follow more and more, because our economy must be increasingly distributive; otherwise we shall fall into collectivism, when individuals lose their personality and the family, the very foundation of society is dismembered. Collectivism will be detrimental to the family, and if we do not act promptly, we might have cause for regret.

So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is high time that we should raise the level of family allowances paid out under the family allowances act-and that as soon as possible-and at the same time set up a bonus system on milk production in order to help milk producers and provide for the setting up of secondary industries in our country.
At the present time, momentous changes are taking place in the province of Quebec, and we see more and more slogans like this one: "Masters in our own house". Such a slogan should not be only an election incentive. We can definitely become masters in our own house and for that purpose, we should first of all start thinking. I am aware of the sovereignty of the house over its own institutions, over the Bank of Canada and if there is one area where we should really use the Bank of Canada to handle new credits and thus increase the purchasing power, this is it. It is not for nothing that those social security acts catch the eye.
Instead of levying a 1 per cent personal income tax to pay for old age pensions, instead of postponing any longer the increase of family allowances, why do we not, on this one occasion, use the Bank of Canada, the same way it was put to work during the war when the time came to launch defence activities for the construction of war plants?
Then surely, it is high time, that we should use that same Bank of Canada; it is time that we should amend the Bank of Canada Act and that the bank should really work in the interest of the house, of the people and of the nation.
The Bank of Canada will be in the service of Canada when, without jeopardizing a sound economy, it will meet the needs of the human person. So long as we cannot satisfy the needs of the people, so long as we accept budgets, we will always be hamstrung by those budgets and we will never succeed in promoting the full flowering of every citizen by following a system which makes the human person subservient to money instead of money being in the service of man.
I wonder whether today we should not view that false philosophy in another light. Instead of moulding men, I wonder whether the government should not respect the yearnings of men and of families, allowing them to live as they should in a country with tremendous resources and a production which can meet the needs of one and all. Everybody needs food, clothing and adequate housing in the country. It is nothing else that is wished for by the Canadian people, by the farmers, the workers on the farm, in the city and in the plants.
28902-5-206
Interim Supply
The small businessman realizes very well that something is not running true within our present system. Most of the time, he is overburdened by taxes.
But come the next election campaign, our politicians will come back before the people and I think that once again, the province of Quebec will live up to its motto: "Je me souviens", which is close to our hearts.


Mr. Drouin:: May I ask a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Beauce's time having expired, he cannot be asked a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this morning an effort was made to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public business. One of the reasons advanced in seeking this adjournment was the suggestion that, as a result of the type of motion now being discussed, we might not be able to concentrate our attention on this very urgent matter. Events of the last few minutes, I think, have indicated that this fear was valid. As we listened to the Minister of Labour making his serious-minded defence of the government today, I am sure it must have passed through the minds of many that here was a man dedicated to his own righteousness putting forward a group of platitudes, the like of which we have not heard in this house for many months.
Who is attacking the rights of free labour? Who is attacking the essential principles of freedom in this motion? There is no intention in our motion except the moving of this grain to the markets. Yet we have this red herring drawn across our path. And worse than that, the minister, by the type of statement he made, blamed for his own ineptness and the ineptness of his colleagues the civil servants in his own department. This was the significance of reading out all the steps he was taking. He was not content with putting the blame on the heads of his own department, but he also put it on the heads of the Department of Justice.
I think it is about time that the men who prowled this country in the years 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 saying they were confident that only they could govern Canada, and only they had the ability and experience to govern, should face up to the fact that they have made a miserable mess of their efforts in the last six months.


Mr. McIntosh:: Amen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I hear a member of a Liberal government speaking about applying force to labour, I ask, who was the government in power in 1950 when the railway unions were forced to their knees by

Interim Supply
legislation passed in this very house by the party which now occupies the benches on the treasury side of the chamber? Our motion this morning was to provide an opportunity to explore the seriousness of the situation that is now before us. It was to give the house an opportunity to hear a statement from the government about what it planned to do to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity that had been given to us. I wonder if we fully understand the significance of this grain movement at this time in our economic history. It is not just a matter of moving 230 million bushels to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is a matter of an opportunity to make sales of wheat to regular customers which, with the big sales to China and the extraordinarily large sale to Russia, would enable us to move this year close to 550 million bushels of wheat into foreign markets. This amount of wheat has a value of over $1 billion. This is the value of this one item of export alone. This means thousands of jobs for Canadian workers. This strike means, as the newspaper reports indicate, a loss of $2 million a day to the harbour of Montreal alone. On the sale of wheat to China alone it has been estimated that the port of Vancouver benefited to the extent of $48 million in wages to the men who worked on the dock, the longshoremen, in wages to the men who worked in the terminals, the railway workers, and so on. This sale surpasses by far even that tremendous over-all movement.
I would like to mention at this stage that the tremendous opportunity we have at the moment is being hurt, and perhaps nullified by the reluctance of this government to plan together, each member of the cabinet, and decide upon a course of action. This negligence on the part of the government is hitting the port of Montreal. That port, due to the economics of moving grain today, is becoming a marginal port. The whole economic tendency is to move grain further downstream and keep it below the ice in order that it may have access the year round to the markets of the world. This is the worst period for Montreal in which to have a strike. I point that out, Mr. Chairman, because this question involves not only the western farmer losing the sale of his grain, but we have a good, hard commercial competitor to the south who has over a billion bushels of grain to sell and who is willing to sell it, if I understand the newspaper reports correctly. Therefore I should like to suggest that this is not an ordinary labour dispute with management in which one should use the tried and true techniques of labour officials dealing with the matter of a strike in the ordinary 
way. This is a type of strike that hits at the vitals of the Canadian economy.
The Minister of Finance sits in his seat. He knows that this government had a heavensent opportunity this year to come close to balancing our international payments. He knows this sale will not only be for this crop year, but will continue in part for next year as well. He knows these markets are going to continue, and we must not endanger them because this very precarious position we have had with regard to our balance of payments for the last 10 or 15 years can only be met by expanding our exports and, as the minister himself has said on other occasions, by producing more in Canada. It was a heaven-sent opportunity to help the Minister of Finance, and because of the bungling and lack of cohesion in the thinking of the ministers over there, this sale is now in danger.
Our purpose in moving the adjournment of the house was not to interfere in any legal strike but to bring to the attention of the government that this was not a picayune question between the longshoremen in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec and the shipping companies; that this was something that hits at the whole economy of our country and is just as serious as was the railroad strike in 1950. The Leader of the Opposition divulged to the house today part of the record in this regard to indicate that this is not just a strike in the narrow sense of the word; that this is not a local strike but is a matter of national importance. Above all he laid before us something which I believe is a fact, that this strike in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec is a part of a struggle between the unions of Canada to preserve their own independence, and the desire of international unions to control labour unions in Canada. That I think is the essence of the problem. This connection between Hal Banks and the longshoremen, Hall and Hoffa is part of a struggle that the United States government as well as the Canadian government has to face up to at the earliest possible opportunity.
This is not just a question of the western farmers moving their grain. It is not a question of the eastern farmers getting enough grain to feed their livestock and poultry this year. It is a matter of great importance to our future as an independent and sovereign nation. Perhaps I am a little biased, but this government strikes me as one that is too fat to fight and too frightened to run. I do not try to go about this country causing difficulties in the movement of grain. I have tried to help, and all we get in return for trying are statements that they do not need advice. "We know everything. We have all the answers", has been their attitude; and today

we heard the most startling of pronouncements when the Secretary of State, when talking about Hal Banks, said he was not one to repudiate his friends. He does not have to go that far to show his loyalty to Hal Banks, because he is holding up the whole operation of this tremendous grain movement.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Somebody says "Nonsense". You will find out how much nonsense it is when you go back and present your record on this to the country. Instead of 60 days of decision this period will become known as the Pearson program for panic. Two weeks ago today I made six proposals which I hoped the government would take into consideration, because they might have helped to move this grain. I did have some experience of difficulties in moving grain in 1961 but, I might say, on a much smaller scale than the tremendous difficulties which now face the government.
In the spring of 1961 it came to my knowledge that there was a possibility of a substantial sale of grain to China, not only for cash but a larger sale that we could arrange for credit. I asked those who are qualified to advise on these matters how much grain we could move through the four western ports. I was told, after due consideration had been given to my question, that the maximum amount of grain we could move through the four western ports was 15 million bushels a month. This was the advice of men who had spent their lives in the grain business. It was advice based on the experience of years in the business. Naturally, as a minister I am elected by the people not only to listen to the advice of my officials but to use the brains that God gave me. When you have an opportunity to sell grain and they tell you that all these difficulties are in the way, you try to find ways around them. So after asking a few questions as to what the difficulties were and finding out that, as is natural when so many organizations are concerned in the matter, each organization blames the other, I did what I thought was the natural thing to do: I called these 17 or 18 organizations to one meeting in Vancouver and put my problems before them.
I did not tell them to which country we were hoping to sell this grain, but I did say this could be done through the west coast ports if they could increase their capacity. Those same gentlemen, who had been telling me for a week before all the reasons for not being able to move this grain, settled this question. They sat down with their opposite numbers in the other groups, put their difficulties on the table, elected their own chairman, and within a week they came 28902-5-206i
Interim Supply
back with suggestions to improve the situation on the railways, grain handling, on the docks, on the prairies of Saskatchewan and so on. They were able to come back to me some weeks later and say, "We now have a capacity of 21 million bushels a month". That was an increase of 40 per cent. This was obtained by a group of men some of whom had told me there was no possibility of moving more than 15 million bushels a month. It was done by working together, and there was no extra capital cost required.
I want to emphasize that among the groups there was the longshoremen's union and the union for the terminal workers. Those labour men gave me their word that they would co-operate. They said they had in their contracts with their employers certain terms with regard to double and triple time, but they did not take advantage of those terms; and they offered to train new men to handle more grain. Those men kept their word, and when their contracts ran out last fall and they asked for a certain percentage wage increase, an increase which the unions at the head of the lakes had received when they asked for it, and they did not get it, they did not go on strike; they honoured their commitment to keep that grain moving because they had made a pledge to the minister, not to me personally but to the people of Canada that the grain would move forward to communist China.
In the light of that experience I suggested two weeks ago that there should be an immediate calling together of all the groups which deal with the movement of grain through the eastern route, through the St. Lawrence; that these groups should include the labour unions not only on the docks but those concerned with the terminals, and not only those at Three Rivers, Montreal, Quebec and Sorel but those in the Atlantic and the downstream ports. I suggested that the government should put before them the fact that in the national interest this was a great opportunity and they should consider these matters in the light of national responsibilities. I think if the minister had gone to the unions directly-because they are Canadians, they think as Canadians and they are not one bit different from the union men in Vancouver and given them an opportunity to see how they fit into the over-all picture, they would have made every sacrifice. The same holds true for the shipping companies.
I gave the minister this experience because I think it has a bearing. However, there was nothing done about this suggestion. There was a meeting between the government and the railways, and a good system of allocation of box-cars was worked out; but this should

Interim Supply
have been done with all the groups associated with the moving of grain to the St. Lawrence area.
I am sorry to say that the second suggestion I made has become a bit of a political football. For the last 40 years there has always been a disturbing thought in western Canada that there are interests opposed to the movement of grain through Churchill, and this disturbing thought never seems to get pushed far into the background.
1 have no doubt in my mind that the Canadian wheat board and the government officials must have told the Russians about the operation of Churchill. I am sure they must have; but unfortunately the Russians were not impressed sufficiently to want to change the shipping which they had already arranged. This was commercial shipping, and the situation as I understand it is that commercial shipping will only be using Churchill until October 20.
Western Canadians, rightly or wrongly, feel that the shipping period from Churchill can be extended beyond October 20. They know there is no difficulty with ice, even though they know that there is a little difficulty with slush along the docks. They know the federal government will also be willing to provide icebreakers and they should know- I hope most of them do-that it is because of the insurance regulations, which are not made in Canada, that ships stop coming into Churchill after October 20.
This is an outstanding opportunity to try and press forward with new ideas. The second suggestion I made two weeks ago was that the government-because the wheat board has nothing to do with this question of insurance on the oceans-should go to the Russians and say, "We know you are hauling most of this grain on commercial bottoms, but if you have any ships of your own that you can collect together and move into Churchill, we will guarantee they will not only get into the docks and be loaded but we will also guarantee they get out with the help of our icebreakers."
I know, from the records of ice in the north, that we could extend that shipping season a minimum of two weeks into November and, if one wanted to take a little bit of chance, right to the end of November and a little longer; but you have to give a guarantee that the ships will get out.
It may be that it was not in the Russians' interests to direct their own ships to Churchill, and if that is the case then a second proposal should be considered. They should have been told, "If you can persuade any shipping companies to bring their ships in there, we will not only guarantee to get them

out but we will pay the loss if any of them are damaged. That is how sure we are of that shipping route. In other words, it will not be necessary for them to worry about insurance from the London source."
I do not know if these two ideas would have been acceptable to the Russians, but I do want to know from the government if they were tried, because the minister's duty is not only to listen to the advice he is handed. A civil servant can only give advice within his experience, and no matter how dedicated and able he is, he only works within that limit; but the people elected as ministers can lift themselves above that level, and they will be judged on the success they have in the difficulties they meet, and not on their performance in coming into the house and reading out all the reports which the civil service gives them about this or that. They will be judged on their ability as ministers.
A third proposal I put forward at that time, two weeks ago, was that the government should go to the St. Lawrence seaway authority and ask them to extend the shipping season to a specified date. I have read in the press that the corporation has announced the shipping season will be extended, but that is completely useless. Men who control the movement of shipping on the ocean shipping lanes do not care for generalizations of that sort. They want to know if they go ahead and ship into the St. Lawrence, and maybe up to the head of the lakes, whether they can get their ships out again.
Shippers know there is no ice problem on the lakes and that it only occurs around the locks. I would say to the corporation, "We will come in and give you people our help to keep your locks free of ice, and we will guarantee those locks will be free of ice until such and such a date. Announce that date to the world and tell ships all over the world, 'if you come in we will guarantee you will get out' ",
That announcement has to be made, and there is no use in making a request to extend the shipping season a little bit. That is useless to the shipping people of the world unless there is a definite date guarantee.
The fourth suggestion I made deals with grain storage on the lower St. Lawrence. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that the economics of the grain market today suggest it is better to have grain-handling terminals on the lower part of the St. Lawrence where they have access to ocean shipping ways all during the year. There has been, of course, an enlargement of plants at Baie

Comeau and Quebec city, and there are requests in for other enlargements.
These matters were before me when I was minister and I recall the discussions we had to make sure-particularly if these terminals were being built by United States interests-that the interests of the Canadian producer in the west and the Canadian consumer in the east were protected in the licence issued for the new space to be set up. That is what we called the 40/60 formula, so that all that the American shippers could get in those terminals was the maximum of 40 per cent, on condition that they requested the board of grain commissioners to get it.
I now suggest that the board of grain commissioners should be asked to consult with the government and terminal shipping operators to make sure that every bushel of space available in those lower river terminals is reserved for Canadian wheat this winter. This is reasonable. All I am asking is that we exercise the rights we have under the licences. This is not only a matter for the producers of the country, and I am speaking now about all the terminals on the east coast, on Georgian bay and the St. Lawrence.
The question that has been in the back of my mind since the big Russian sale was announced, is that it is so easy for us, in our delight and general jubilation over the possibilities which this tremendous sale will have on the economy, to forget that there is a steadily growing market for coarse grains in eastern Canada, particularly for barley and low grades of wheat. This market will develop steadily until 1980, which is as far as we have projected, at which time it will be double what it is today.
The minister knows about this, and he has been making speeches to the farmers in western Canada telling them that they should take advantage of this opportunity. However, I am suggesting that he is not dealing with this in a practical manner. To make it practical you have to do several things.
I am speaking now about the eastern farmer and his need for grain. You have to guarantee him a stable supply, and you cannot do that, even by these new feed grain regulations brought in by the Minister of Agriculture, for the simple reason that the shippers make more money by hauling grain to the export markets, and they get more money out of storing that wheat for export than for storing domestic wheat.
My hon. friends who come from Quebec should be aware of these things because they are of more value to farmers in Quebec than the issuance of bogus money. You must give the eastern farmer feed grain at a price he knows is going to be stable. At present he does
Interim Supply
not know he can be assured of this, and once there is any hesitation in the flow of grain to the eastern market, the shippers know they can get more money moving grain for export and storing it for export.
Mr. Chairman, the following wire reached me at one o'clock today:
Following protest sent government on behalf domestic feeders: vigorously protest discrimination by Canadian wheat board not allowing domestic markets to purchase any feeding grades wheat except immediate use. Now price advanced five and one eighth cents since Monday representing along with increase in water freight rates hundreds of thousands of dollars extra cost to domestic feeders. Captive domestic market treated unfairly in relation to export sales. If CWB uncertain over available grades for feed some provision for purchase at price levels prevailing early September should have been made.
This was signed by Mr. W. D. Dernier of the Maritime Co-ops, and I am simply pointing out to the minister that I was not being facetious when I made these proposals. I know of the considerations and difficulties of moving feed grain from western Canada into the eastern market. I know the attitude of the buyers, that they do not want to take any loss; and I also know the attitude of the farmers down east who want to use this feed grain at a stable price. I suggest to the minister that if he goes into the reports available to him he will find the evidence of what I am talking about.
Something has to be done. There is no use in going out to the western farmers and telling them to reduce their acreage and cut production by 10 per cent, and I would remind the minister that after all this fanciful talk his colleague the Minister of Agriculture recently went to Moose Jaw and said, "Boys, don't squander your money." Hon. gentlemen opposite have separated the wheat board from the board of grain commissioners and from the Department of Agriculture. But it is necessary to work together with the Department of Transport; and the board of grain commissioners has to be brought in, because in addition to its other functions the board has to handle all these elevators, a job which is of vital importance. I know that hon. gentlemen over there have many competent men working for them. These men know what to do, so why not get them all together and tell them you want to make this move forward?
I wish, now, to make a number of other suggestions which may be of less importance individually but which, taken together, may add up to the moving of a number of millions of extra bushels. One of my first memories as minister was a problem we faced because shipping companies on the great lakes had transferred their tonnage to the hauling of iron ore for stockpiling in the United States

Interim Supply
because of an expected strike. I may say that the steel companies in the United States were not as negligent as this government has been; they planned ahead, and made arrangements for these ships to haul the iron into position.
I suggest that now we are in an emergency, even if this strike stops tomorrow, or one week or two weeks from today. We should ask the shipping companies to reciprocate and turn these iron ore bottoms over to us so as to help move the grain. A move of this kind cannot be made by the wheat board. This, ordinarily, is a commercial operation. But let us put on the pressure of the Canadian people and ask these companies to serve our nation, as Canadian companies operating in Canada, by transferring their ships to us for the hauling of grain for the balance of the season. This is one suggestion which should be tried out for size.
The sixth suggestion I have to make deals with floating storage. This is the phrase used to describe the practice of storing grain in ships which have tied up for the winter, usually at their home ports-Georgian bay ports and great lakes ports. I suggest the minister should approach these companies and say: We want to use your space for storage. You will be paid the full rates and you will not lose anything; but instead of your ships staying in their home ports we want them to move into the ice free area of the St. Lawrence. If this were done it might give us twenty to fifty million bushels of extra storage in export position without the necessity of moving grain by rail.
I wish to conclude by making a few observations of a general sort. I have already suggested that in my judgment, because of the great opportunities we now have, it would be of tremendous value to the economy if we could, to use the words of a United States presidential candidate, get the country moving forward again. Ministers have to use some initiative. I know many of them are former civil servants bound together by their habit of fitting into the lock step of the civil service. No matter how brilliant they may be it is hard for them to get out of that lock step; but I appeal to them to forget this attitude of being civil servants and show some initiative.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Lucien Lamoureux: He can carry on, of course, if he is given unanimous consent by the committee. Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman. I am almost finished.
The second suggestion of a general kind that I have to make is that all the ministers concerned should work together. I know how desirable this is from my own experience. It is necessary that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture, besides, if you wish, the representative of eastern agriculture, who also has an important part to play, should come together, make a plan and go forward with it. If hon. gentlemen opposite rely on the advice of individual departments they will get lost in the morass. Bring these departments together and they will come up with answers; it cannot be done separately.
I have said all this, partly, I suppose, because I see such a wonderful opportunity and because I envy the opportunity which presents itself of doing something about it. But I am not over there on the treasury benches. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues are over there, and they have got to make these decisions. I know that what I call the Pearson plan for panic has been bothering them lately. I know that everything they have done has fallen flat on its face. But, I say to them: Do not let this one opportunity fall flat, please. Here is an opportunity for them to take their government out of its automatic shift type of attitude, where they shift every time there is opposition, and change it to one where they choose one gear and ride it for a while.


An hon. Member:: Even if it is low gear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do not let us have any more statements from the Minister of Labour saying he is keeping a careful watch on the situation. That is the same sort of statement as has been given for the last 30 years. We do not want a watch kept on this situation: We want some action.
My final advice, to the government, Mr. Chairman, is: For heaven's sake set a course and follow it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Earlier in the day's sitting, when an attempt was made to adjourn the house I suggested that if the subject matter of that motion were left to discussion in the committee on interim supply the chances were there would be a wide variety of subjects discussed and that we would not be able to debate satisfactorily the topic which was of paramount importance. I think what has happened has proven the correctness of my contention. I think it is regrettable we did not have a debate on the particular subject of the longshoremen's strike, which is a matter of such great importance to the people of Canada. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said about how important it is, not only to the agricultural economy of western Canada but also to the entire economy

of this nation, that wheat should move in an uninterrupted flow from the prairies to the seaports and out into the markets of the world.
All Canadians were delighted at the agreements which were reached with communist China and the Soviet union. However, reaching these agreements and delivering the wheat are two different things and the task which now devolves upon the Canadian people and upon the Canadian government is to see that no obstacle is allowed to stand in the way of these wheat deliveries. That is why this strike is of such tremendous importance and why it could have such serious and far reaching consequences.
I rise for the purpose of pointing out to the government that this question did not arise overnight. The collective bargaining agreement which the longshoremen had with the shipping federation expired on December 31 last. It is customary to begin negotiations at least three months before a collective agreement expires. Yet when the agreement expired on December 31 nothing had been done to bring about an understanding. Negotiations dragged on until March, and in March the shipping companies made an offer which, as the Minister of Labour has pointed out, was accepted by the union executive but turned down by the membership. This was the offer of 12 cents an hour plus another four cents an hour fringe benefits, if I remember correctly. But the amazing thing is that nothing happened between that date in March and the setting up of the conciliation board a short time ago. About five months were lost and it was only when the membership of the union, or some of them at least, indulged in a wildcat strike which threatened to tie up shipping, and did for a day or two, that a conciliation board was established-the board whose findings were brought down at the end of last week.
Well, there is not much use crying over spilled milk, but I think the government should know that if there is any attempt to place blame they must assume quite a share of that blame for not stepping into this situation much sooner than they did. The Minister of Labour said this afternoon that the decision to strike was only taken last Sunday and he appointed a mediator on Wednesday. I am not complaining about that two or three day lapse. I am complaining about the months that went by last spring and last summer when absolutely nothing was done to bring this matter to a head and to try to mediate the dispute, and so have prevented the strike which has now broken out.
I should like to say that I hope the government will use all the influence it can to bring these two parties together. I hope that
Interim Supply
the government through their mediator will make the proposition to the men that if they will go back to work the government is prepared to set up another conciliation board and to let the decision of that board, if accepted by both contracting parties, be made retroactive. I think that under some such arrangement, by which the men are sure that delay does not involve loss of income, they might be prepared to go back to work. Certainly some concrete proposals should be put before these men and the companies as quickly as possible.
I think the government should know that parliament and the people of Canada are not in the mood to allow the dilly-dallying tactics of the companies to bring about a situation which could have very serious economic consequences for the people of Canada. I hope that the government and particularly the Minister of Labour will take notice that members of the house will be expecting not later than next Monday some report as to what type of proposals have been put before the men and the companies, and what response they have received.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I should like to comment on the present discussion concerning the $10 increase in old age pensions. First, I should like to assure the house as well as the people that I am giving my utmost support to this increase although I find it impossible to agree with the government as to the steps to be taken in order to secure the extra money required for such an increase.
The Liberal government's legislation to this effect seems most contradictory and it is rather hard for me to conceive that a government which pretends to protect the people's interest should once again be bold enough, more particularly in view of its notorious record in the field of taxation, including the 11 per cent sales tax, to secure, by means of a new tax, from the already thin budgets of private citizens, the capital required for the new legislation now under consideration.
Although they are attempting, by means of most disappointing economic theories, to prove that the private citizens' contributions will be tiny, not very large in the case of those whose income is low, the fact remains that private citizens pay proportionately more than the corporations and companies and that the burden lies once more upon the people's shoulders.
The Canadian corporations' income tax rate, including the provincial income tax and the old age security tax, is now set at 52 per cent in Ontario and Quebec and at about 50 per cent elsewhere in Canada. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Gordon, having been forced to

Interim Supply
retreat from the requirements put forth by Mr. Eric Kierans, the former president of the Montreal stock exchange, did not want to draw once more the financiers' ire and as the people do not constitute, as the companies, a monolithic financial power except on election day, it was easy, by juggling figures to impose upon them once more a new tax.
According to the government's policy, the companies or the corporations would be too poor to assume the cost of this new tax. The corporation income tax reaches 50 per cent from $35,000 on without any limit as to profits, while individuals have to pay from 50 to 80 per cent on taxable income of $25,000 and up, which affects them more directly. Moreover, individuals have to pay succession duties and are taxed at the source, while companies do not pay succession duties and otherwise, pay taxes only after taking into account depreciation, not to mention the many fiscal advantages which are allowed by legislation.
Moreover, our authorities seem to ignore, in their truly Liberal wisdom, that at least
2.400.000	taxpayers do not earn enough to pay income tax, and that 10 per cent only of the taxpayers, that is about 700,000, are earning more than $6,000.
It is then quite easy to realize that our population cannot assume this new tax. Would companies be able to pay it? Certainly. Here is the proof.
In the financial page of the newspaper Le Devoir of June 16 last, a notice shows that stock listed on local stock exchanges-about 730 corporations-were worth $54,837,791,829 at the end of April 1963, compared to $52,503,742,402 at the end of the previous month. Listed stocks had then increased by $2,334,049,427 during April 1963.
In 1962, on a gross national product of $41 billion, re-invested profits amounted to $10,400,000,000 for prosperous companies, while human beings and families did not have the bare necessities of life. Were you aware of that? Have you thought of that? Do you admit it?
Humans are more important than companies' stocks on the stock exchange of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. Humans should have more influence on your administration than stock listings.
In a country such as Canada, what is more important, prosperity and increase in value of stocks of 730 companies or the economic situation of 18,800,000 citizens? Would stock listings be more eloquent in the eyes of our governments than poverty and complaints of
6.700.000	children under 16 years old who do not have the bare necessities in 2,800,000 Canadian families?
[Mr. Latulippe.l
If we take a look at the assets of the 8 chartered banks in Canada, we realize that from 1930 to 1961, those assets have increased by $1,970,729,464 or 11 per cent. As of January 10, 1962, the Bank of Canada has issued $2,097,659,244, while the credit issued by the eight chartered banks was $17 billion, that is about eight times the actual money in circulation. So, it is obvious that the situation is rosy for the directors of the large financial companies of our country, but the government, blinded by figures and dual sets of books sees only one solution to the problem, to impose taxes upon the people who are already overburdened by the increasing tax load.
In 1962-63 for instance, for old age security purposes, the sales tax yielded $302.2 million, personal income tax $237.6 million, and corporation tax $115.3 million, that is a grand total of $691.1 million. This is to say that corporations pay 16.7 per cent of the total amount, individuals 39.6 per cent, or about 2J times as much as the corporations, and the sales tax absorbs 43.7 per cent of the cost, and who is paying the sales tax? The private citizens pay proportionately much more than corporations. Those figures are indisputable and they show that it is the private citizens who are footing the major part of the bill, not the corporations.
Now, when we analyse this government budget, either the whole budget or the interim budget that the Minister of Finance comes up with regularly, it is easy to see that the interests served are not always those of the citizens in general but of some privileged group. For instance, the estimates for 1963-64 provide for only 19.1 per cent to national health and welfare whereas the defence estimates represent 25.6 per cent. Instead of increasing the estimates of the Department of Public Works, which gets only 2.8 per cent, in order to create more jobs and so that a smaller number of Canadians may live on welfare, we increase the war expenditures. The cost of the service of the debt increases continually and this year it represents 13.5 per cent of the budget and no positive action is taken to change that situation.
We could easily raise family allowances to $30 a month, which would represent only 2 per cent of the gross national product, but no, family allowances remained unchanged, between $6 and $8 a month. From $11,400 million in 1945, the gross national product has reached $41 billion in 1963. Investments, which in 1945 were $1,284 million reached $8,770 million in 1960. Family allowances should have been raised in the same proportion to maintain the economic balance and

to prevent inflation and unemployment. But no.
If the government obstinately refuses to do something along that line, it should at least legislate a reduction in the exorbitant interest rates paid by our people. Because at the rate things are going, with the increasing burden put on the people with all those successive taxes, with this choking of family finances by the finance of great corporations and other companies, the day is coming when we too will have to deal with revolutions such as South America has known these last few days. Why, along with commissions on the civil service, education and public services, not create a monetary commission made up of experts in figures and people with a great sympathy for the poor who would be charged with the task of balancing need and goods, insuring a decent living for all, finding payment and credit conditions with foresight and honesty? If the whole country guarantees our money, would not the people be entitled to benefit from it, to establish the exchange rates which others can upset?
We of the Social Credit do not advocate taking money from those who have to give to those who have not. But since the government finds our economic and financial theories unapplicable and since our political philosophy does not agree with the present leaders of this country, since they obstinately refuse to use the Bank of Canada, we ask them at least to go and find the money where it is and to make the corporations pay proportionately as much as the individuals. We are definitely against any increase in taxation, we are for any social legislation which will alleviate hardships among the people, but not at the expense of the people.
The issuing of new money should be done not by the banks which charge interest, but through work projects, family allowances, pensions to the handicapped, etc., to give those people the means to buy a production which is going to waste. Then everybody will be able to eat one's fill, to produce according to his ability, to establish his family, and to enjoy a minimum of happiness on the road to his reward.
The nation should support itself before looking for foreign markets, before fighting its way in the field of foreign trade which creates depressions, privation, rivalry and war every 20 or 25 years. Let a national money more fairly distributed help us finance production and consumption and then we could import what we need. We would pay for our imports with our production or with that gold the Lord has placed in our soil and which brings no nourishment.
Capitalism is in very bad shape at the present time. It should be tapped in order to 28902-5-207
Interim Supply
relieve the pressure and the barriers preventing the proper flow of riches, just as the Nile waters lower Egypt by means of an irrigation system.
It would be better to consider the means of giving back the money to the people rather than deny and refuse everything, check everything to the point of giving rise to a righteous irritation resulting in unfair take-overs.
We should not be afraid of words, because the facts are actually there, real and obvious. If there is an abundant production and it is properly distributed, everyone will have its share, all needs will be met, the material, spiritual and intellectual needs. Why suffer and go without necessities of life with an extremely abundant production?
I advocate above all the establishment of an extensive national program of social security. If old theories and doctrines provide no answer to present problems, we shall have to find other remedies, other doctrines and other solutions. Thank goodness, the Quebec Social Crediters, who know of other remedies, of other tenets, of other solutions, are breeding another type of men. Democracy will probably be saved by them, and not by politicians who mouth beautiful theories while, at the same time, doing the very opposite of what they preach.
If we are to judge of the efficiency of an administration, let us remember that facts speak louder than books. Let us try to consider where people live, what clothes they wear, if their homes are heated, if they can afford medical care and if they have their share of educational facilities.
Those are, indeed, the real criterions, and they should be the yardstick of the present and future action of any Canadian government, no matter what party is at the helm.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if hon. members would permit me to say just a word? I think all hon. members should be aware, if they are not already, of the fact we are on an interim supply motion. This is the fourth day of October, a Friday, and the next day that the house will be sitting will be the seventh. We are practically at the point where the government will not be able to pay the public servants or make other essential payments unless the business now before the committee is completed with very little delay. It had been the intention of the government, unless some emergency legislation was required, to have a supply motion on Monday, at which time all hon. members would have, as they always have, the greatest possible freedom of debate. I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if there was any possibility of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion

Interim Supply
now and dealing with the supply bill so that it could go to the other place and the ordinary business of the country could go on. It seems to me that if this could be done, anything that might be said on this motion could also be said on another occasion.
I am not seeking in any way to restrict hon. members, but I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was frequently in the position I am now in, is well aware of the urgency of this matter. I am not seeking to suggest in any way that the debate be restricted and I have no fault to find with any hon. member in any section of the house, because some very urgent matters have been discussed today and we recognize that these matters are urgent. But I thought it only right for me to bring the situation in which the whole house finds itself at the moment to the attention of the committee.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Plourde:: I regret I cannot accept that proposal. When we are recognized in the house, we shall then be able to agree, but for the time being I must carry on with this debate on supply.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon, since you know that this country is now faced with several urgent problems. I shall mention only a few, so that my constituents may know that I am here to defend their interests.
When winter is around the corner, you no doubt realize that there is a general uneasiness in trade circles as well as among consumers. What is the reason? I think it is known by all of us in this house: it is the evil of unemployment, which we anticipate for that season. What does the present government intend to do to correct the situation.
In my opinion, this problem is of prime importance and should be before the house at the first opportunity, so that we try to prevent by all means this evil which will result in so much misery for our population, especially in the province of Quebec.
As for me, I make the following proposal pending the others that may be brought forward later. Why does not the government amend the act on family allowances by increasing these allowances so as to make them proportionate to the actual cost of production? This would at least result in preventing our large families, which will be greatly affected by unemployment this year, from being

stricken by poverty, and thus prevent innocent victims from suffering due to want of foresight on the part of our present government.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent the constituency of Quebec West which is known as a workers' district, that is a district where high wages are scarce and income is low. Consequently, when there is a restriction such as the one imposed now in construction, which is caused by this notorious 11 per cent tax, who are the first victims if not the workers and through them entire families?
This poverty spreads and many sectors of industry and commerce are paralysed. For instance, a family whose head becomes unemployed has to rely on temporary credit to feed and clothe the children. Grocers especially are affected, being almost forced to extend credit to those families so that they will not starve. And I repeat that there is nothing to help those grocers to support such credit.
I have already talked about that in the other parliament and I hope that this government will deal with my requests concerning the corner grocer-


Mr. Olson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is now five o'clock and I wonder if I could suggest that we obtain unanimous consent to continuing in committee through the next hour, which would give an opportunity to those hon. members of the house who have a special interest in prolonging this debate to exhaust all their presentations to the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to carrying on after five o'clock in committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understand there is not unanimous consent. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills.



[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-22, to amend the Department of State Act-Mr. Grafftey.
Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member even before he starts, but I have serious doubts about whether his bill is in order. If the hon. member cares to speak to that point, there is no objection. I have an opinion to give on this matter. I do not want to cut the hon. member off without hearing the reasons he may wish to advance as to why the bill is in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since this bill apparently affects my department-and I am ashamed to say that I have not looked at it-I wonder whether the hon. member would agree to letting it stand so that both of us could have another look at it. I would be glad to ask that it stand at the request of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The alternative, Mr. Speaker, would be to allow the hon. member to introduce his bill and then perhaps adjourn the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very acceptable alternative, but I was wondering if, in view of the rather unusual circumstances, the hon. member would be willing to let the matter stand today. Then perhaps the house could go back into committee of supply and public business.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member give consent to letting the bill stand?
Mr. Heward Graff fey (Brome-Missisquoi):
Mr. Speaker, before consenting to my bill standing I would like to reply to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). Had not Your Honour made the suggestion that you have made, for personal reasons I would rather not let the bill stand at the present time. This is because there is a certain degree of urgency relating to my bill that I would have raised during the debate. I think I have some idea of the grounds that Your Honour is going to raise in regard to the bill, but perhaps Your Honour would indicate the grounds upon which you feel the bill is out of order before we proceed any further. Would you indicate the general area, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite prepared to give my views now.


Mr. Graffiey:: I would prefer that, Mr. Speaker.
28902-5-2074
Department of State Act


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) asked for the floor. I do not know whether he wishes to make a short statement.


John Watson MacNaught: No, Mr. Speaker; the Secretary of State has expressed my views.


William Heward Grafftey: Could I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken great care in regard to this bill. I recognized this difficulty in the last session, and I have been exceedingly careful to make sure that this bill in no way whatsoever affects ways and means or the expenditure of money by the crown. If anybody suggests for a minute that my bill will incur any expenditure by the crown and therefore constitutes a money bill-I say this in a general sense-I would say that the effect of my bill would simply enable the Secretary of State to second personnel from other departments. The bill is more or less concerned with straight administrative changes within the department of the Secretary of State and would enable him to second personnel from other departments. By no stretch of the imagination-and I say this in good faith- could this bill be interpreted as being one which would incur the expenditure of money. I took great pains this summer, together with competent officials, to satisfy myself in this regard, Mr. Speaker, because I realized the difficulty in the last session. I am sure that if there were any indication of this my bill would not be here, because I would have been forewarned long before today.


Mr. Speaker:: I can certainly appreciate the emotion with which the hon. member has spoken. He understands fully the personal regard that I have for him as a person, but it is my duty not to allow personal feelings to enter into these matters. It is my duty to give an opinion, which I would like to do now.
This is a bill to change the title of the Department of State to "department of the secretary of state for federal-provincial relations" and to constitute a new department. See clause 2.
The bill also provides transfer to the new department of "any officer from elsewhere in the public service". See clause 3.
Furthermore, the bill vests the Secretary of State with new powers and duties. See clause 4.
I am of the opinion that this bill is a money bill and for that reason it cannot be introduced by a private member. It is inconceivable that the increased function of the department as suggested in the bill could be assumed without a vast expenditure of money. The officers transferred from other departments will have to be paid, probably at an increased rate of pay; they will have to be replaced in the departments from which they

Departvient of State Act have been transferred by new employees, thus creating a number of new employees.
On May 17, 1918, Mr. Speaker Rhodes decided that "A motion to amend a bill so as to provide for the appointment of additional government officials is out of order as it involves an increased grant of public money." (See Speaker's Decision-Beauchesne's third edition, 1943, at page 439).
On the same date the Speaker also ruled that "An amendment proposing to increase the membership of a government paid board involves an expenditure and cannot be moved by a private member." (See Beauchesne's third edition at page 475).
On March 2, 1927, Mr. Speaker Lemieux ruled that "A bill to create a new department of the government .... out of order because it was not introduced by a minister of the crown with the recommendation of the Governor General." (See Beauchesne's third edition at page 475).
On February 21, 1936, Mr. Speaker Cas-grain decided that "A bill providing for the transfer of a government service from one department to another involves the custody of public moneys and cannot be introduced by a private member." (See Beauchesne's third edition at page 478).
In the course of rendering the above decision the Speaker said, inter alia, "Another element which places this measure in the category of money bills is that the adoption of same would mean the transfer of the authority under which appropriated money is to be spent." And further: "When money is voted, the main conditions imposed on its expenditure are embodied in resolutions. All the circumstances concerning its destination form part of the appropriation with which they are considered and if any alteration is to be made it must be by the same process as the original resolution." And still further: ".... the circumstances under which an expenditure is to be made are indivisible from that expenditure. The choice of the minister responsible for paying out the money is a material condition of an appropriation, and in order to change it, the house would have to amend the principal clauses of a money bill."
To conclude with the words of Speaker Casgrain in this last decision:
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed measure has all the earmarks of a money bill and cannot be introduced by a private member. I declare it out of order.
I regret that I must declare this bill out of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Is that a final ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that I do not propose to amend my ruling.


William Heward Grafftey: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, it comes as a very great surprise to me that I am only informed at this stage my bill is out of order. I would have thought in the spirit of parliament, some system would have been devised whereby I would be informed before this, particularly considering the experience we had last session.
Second, I am not creating a new department by my suggestion. I am asking for the renaming of an old department. So far as I can see the seconding of officials from one department to another means that officials can be lent from one department to another. At any rate, naturally I accept Your Honour's ruling, with great disappointment.
Other hon. members will find themselves in the same position if such a fine distinction is going to be drawn in future. It would be convenient for them if they were forewarned, and I think this matter indicates a general situation which should be looked into immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, maybe I might be permitted to say a word. I can understand the hon. gentleman's disappointment in this matter, and I think it is one we would all like to look into when Your Honour's committee is set up. It would be much more satisfactory if some means could be found to avoid having this kind of situation arise. I would like the hon. gentleman to know I think there should be some remedy.


William Heward Grafftey: I should assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have been forewarned of this situation, and many very eminent legal minds got together and tried to draft a bill which was not a money bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member who introduced this bill that I cannot accept his statement that he was not forewarned, because Your Honour made a ruling on July 7 last, as recorded at pages 2092 and 2094 of Hansard, citing the same reasons for ruling another bill of a somewhat similar nature out of order.
I regret, sir, that you had to invoke these citations and rulings because it does, in fact, draw a very fine line between what is a money bill and what may not be a money bill. At the same time I think the house and you, sir, are seized with these precedents, and until the house is prepared to make some ruling to change them, in my opinion almost all of the public bills on the order paper would be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity of telling the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) that I listened to

his remarks very carefully, and if I have anything to do with it they will be submitted to the new committee on procedure.


SWEEPSTAKES
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-24, an act to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board-Mr. Horner (Acadia).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Acadia.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I break the rules by interrupting at this point? We have been proceeding rather quickly. As I understand the house leader, he suggested that if we were not going ahead with the bill recently dealt with, we might stand other public bills and go back into committee of supply if he could have an assurance from this side that we and other members of other parties would stand our bills. I presume our people would be willing to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I may say I appreciate very much the offer of co-operation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). So far as we are concerned, we would be very happy if this could be done, but I would go further and say I would hope today would not be counted as a private members' day, so that this day would not be lost to private members, and would be treated as if private members' time had been forgotten today.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we would be very happy to comply with this suggestion. Progress should be made on the interim supply bill and, if possible, with the old age pensions bill as well.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the group I represent in the house, I object to such a procedure. We have lost enough time as it is. We have now reached the hour set aside for consideration of private members' bills and we should proceed with that business. That is all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the circumstances, it would appear the only thing that could be done would be to call each bill in turn and see if anyone is prepared to speak when his bill is called. If not, we would go back under the rules into committee of supply.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, suppose we take the
Interim Supply
suggestion the house leader has made and do stand our bills, we would lose one private member's day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is clearly understood it would not be lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anyway, this is a Friday. You cannot lose a Friday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand my bill for these reasons, provided all other bills are stood.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot give any guarantee. We can only find out. The hon. member for Acadia is prepared to allow his bill to stand.
Order stands.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no other private members' business the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, I now rise with some sadness in my heart because of what is being done. That is what may be called a trick well played "to attain one's ends". I am confident that the voters of this country will know the facts when the next election comes. I shall now proceed with my remarks which were interrupted at five o'clock.
I now want to devote a few moments to reminding the government that it was fully explained by Social Credit what it should do to apply the financial program we advocate in Canada.
The government may turn a deaf ear to our claims, but the day will come when it will be forced to do otherwise, or the people will take it upon itself to defeat it. Then you will see, for the first time in Canada, a Social Credit government, which will undertake to give to the Canadian consumer enough purchasing power to buy all the goods produced by Canadians. On the other hand, it will see to it that our farmers, fishermen and other actual and eventual producers are able to obtain the required credit to produce more and more goods of an ever increasing variety.
Then you will see unemployment dwindle to the point that our workers will, for once in their lives, have the freedom to find the job they really like. By that very fact, you will see that Canadians will be proud and happy to work for the development of their country because they will realize that their security will be ensured. That is what we, of

Interim Supply
the Social Credit, want-full development for all Canadians.
Meanwhile, I want to say that contrary to the claims of some papers and others, who are adept in wishful thinking, Social Credit is very much alive, and I would even say that, right now, people in general know that it is [DOT]our group which holds the key to this [DOT]country's survival. If freedom is to survive, the Social Credit theories must be spread throughout Canada. Nobody will contend that this Liberal government is leading Canada on the road to liberty. Those who say so would say anything.
The government is reducing us as quickly as possible to a kind of slavery quite similar to the Russian's. The means it is taking may be devious, but the final result will be identical. Nowhere else can you find fear equal to that which is felt in the heart of the average Canadian who wants to keep his family in a country where there is over production. People are worried about losing their jobs and are afraid to be in no position to meet an ever rising cost of living. This has resulted in sorrow and anxiety which can be in the heart of every man whom I have met in any walk of life. This is a very serious situation which condemns the Liberal government.
It is true that the Liberal government has raised old age pensions by $10 but we also know how this will be financed. People in my riding are disgusted with that new tax and they have asked me to oppose it in no uncertain terms.
What does the government intend to do about the disabled and the blind who, like everyone else, are faced with the ever increasing cost of living?
Surely no one can remain forever unaware of that fact. If one fails to understand it, it is because he is totally without any sense of reality.
Before closing, I would like to point out to my friends opposite the main role the Bank of Canada was to play after its creation in 1934, under legislation adopted that same year. When it was established, the Bank of Canada had almost unlimited power to create money, provided it kept certain gold reserves. However, following amendments to the act in 1940, the Bank of Canada is no longer required to maintain gold reserves.
Let our friends opposite take notice, since they still think that our money is based on a gold reserve and that a one million dollar bond of the dominion can be converted into money and then into dollars which can be spent as if those funds were part of our national revenue, so long as an adequate volume of goods are offered on the market.
[Mr. Plourde.l
All this can cost no more than a piece of paper, some ink, a pen and so on. This is an extremely important point.
Social Crediters claim that since the Bank of Canada has all the powers enumerated in the finance acts, why, in the name of common sense and in the interest of Canada does the bank not use them, not only to lend money to the people for production purposes, but to enable them to buy what they need or everything that is for sale. That is what Social Crediters think, and it is quite simple.
Yes, it is simple, because we have behind us the Bank of Canada which must back the value of the country in figures, in pieces of paper. That is what is quite simple according to Social Credit. Abolish misery in the midst of abundance and give the Canadian people a right to live.
As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said so often, the human person must come before the dollar sign. That is what is claimed by Social Credit, that we will respect the human person.
We of the Ralliement Creditiste, elected under the Social Credit flag, have not rejected Social Credit and we are still bound to it.
I hope that no later than Monday, we shall be officially recognized in the house as a separate group. Then, we will respect individuals who were elected in their ridings as such.
My nomination certificate said simply Lucien Plourde, nothing else. It didn't read Social Credit or Le Ralliement du Credit Social, and much less Liberal or Conservative. It was Lucien Plourde who was elected to the house and I hope that next Monday the numbers will be recognized, that is 17, 13 and 11 of Social Credit here.
I say that we should do away with misery in the midst of plenty. There will always be poor people, I know. We cannot do otherwise, because it says so in the Good Book. But it does not say that misery will always exist. It is on behalf of Canadians that we are here and that we want to defend the rights of the worker.
In life, there is a privileged class. They make the laws. Then, there is the other class, the middle class; they always pay for the mistakes of society. And there is a third class, made up of those who live in misery, the working class who can be helped. At present, that class is bled to death.
In my riding, there are 37,000 voters. They all belong to the working class, and they need to be defended. They sent me here to defend their interests and we shall defend those people in this noble chamber.

The day you will see a Social Credit government, you will see that legislation will not be discussed day after day under pretense that such is the tradition. We will know where we are going, we will come here with a precise and detailed program and in a jiffy we will see Canada on the road to progress again.


An hon. Member:: There will be no more strikes when you are in power.


Lucien Plourde: The federal government cannot do without the provinces, but the provinces can do without the Canadian parliament, and they would be very happy about it.
Then, Mr. Chairman, should the house pretend that Social Crediters are unable to do anything whatsoever, are not sufficiently aware of procedure, it errs, for one of my colleagues shall also take the floor till six o'clock. And on Monday, we shall be able to pursue the debate on the subject of interim supply.
As to the recognition of the French fact, we have all found that-


An hon. Member:: Why soil it?


Lucien Plourde: -in the house, there are more French since the Social Crediters came here. We work more for bilingualism, and we know how to put a French Canadian on the same footing as an English Canadian. For the time being, we do not intend to separate, we favour unity, understanding within the ten provinces of Canada with a view to a strong country, a country which should be able to govern itself, without having to bow before other countries stronger than ours.
We are blessed with an immense territory, big enough to encompass, within its borders, a population six or seven times larger than the present one. If, one day, the Canadian government thought of increasing our population by encouraging a higher birth rate, it would become evident that our land can feed many more people. Any measure which would tend to increase births, would give us a larger population. The day would then come when we, Canadians, could say: "As from now, we shall not be imposed on any longer." And we would become a truly independent country, with its own flag and its own national anthem.
For many years all we have been hearing in this house are promises to give Canada a flag. In fact, the man who is elected always has a flag design to submit within the next few years. And yet, after 97 years, we are still waiting for a flag, a national anthem of our own, as French Canadians, so that we would be recognized from one end of our
Interim Supply
country to the other and even throughout the world.
At the present time, what do you see on the ballot boxes when you cast your vote? "Dominion of Canada", that is colony of Canada.
That must change and it is high time it does. We count on the good will of the Liberals who have promised to adopt a flag, as well as a national anthem, within two years. Then the people will know what to do, if they fail to do so.
If it is decided to adopt a flag, I hope we will have enough imagination not to choose a ready-made one, but that we will take the time needed to study the design and that will truly represent French Canadians.
A few years ago, over one thousand flag designs were studied. One of them was selected, and I hope it will not be put aside, that it will be studied again, that its meaning to the people of Canada will be considered.
Mr. Chairman, this will conclude the few remarks I was pleased to make in this house at the beginning of this second part of the session that was adjourned at the beginning of August.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what trick has made it possible to resume consideration of this interim supply motion at five o'clock when we were supposed to examine private members' business.
However, I am pleased to take the floor following my colleagues to discuss problems arising in my constituency, and there are many. That is why I want to submit them to the house, and particularly to the ministers present, as well as to the Canadian population.
Mr. Chairman, last year, I had the opportunity to speak a few times and to make these problems known. But because of the inefficiency of the government, who did not take some of these problems into consideration, I want to submit them once more to the house today.
The riding of Dorchester, one of the oldest on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, comprises, so to speak, two classes of citizens. On one hand, you have farmers, on the other, lumbermen. And it is especially of those two classes of people that I wish to speak, since they appear to be the most dejected.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question of speaking of industry in my constituency, for it is small; wood cutting and agriculture are among the main industries we have.
Moreover, there are two classes of lumbermen. There are those in the upper part of the riding who work in the woods of Maine and New Hampshire, and those in the lower part, who work in Ontario or in the other provinces of Canada during the winter.

Interim Supply
Last year I had an opportunity to raise the problem of the lumberjacks who work in Maine and I notice this year that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) who I must congratulate, at least tried to do something to reach an agreement with the state of Maine to bring those lumbermen under the unemployment insurance.
For 20 years, discussions have been going on with the state of Maine to solve that unemployment insurance problem and we do not seem any further ahead now than in 1944.
Mr. Chairman, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) the other day, the Minister of Labour stated that he went to Maine to take up the matter with American authorities. There seems to be some hope and I trust that before next spring our lumberjacks from Dorchester and the neighbouring ridings who work in those states will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, because, Mr. Chairman, those lumberjacks do not work all year round; they may work six or seven months a year, and that is why, we are asking for them the same rights as the other lumber workers and other workers in Canada enjoy, namely unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work.
Mr. Chairman, the trade of the woodsmen is not a very safe one-


Mr. Pepin:: It is a very good trade.


Mr.   Boulin@: It is a very good trade, as the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) has just pointed out. But it is also a hard one and I am proud to have in my riding many of those hard working people who put their hearts in their jobs and who are paying taxes to the Liberal government, because when a sales tax of 11 per cent was imposed-and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska knows it-the lumberjacks were the first affected since this 11 per cent tax was imposed on their equipment.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of those men I am asking the Liberal government to suppress the 11 per cent tax on wood cutting equipment. They are taxed enough; their income is not too high at the present time and this is why I feel that the federal government should take into consideration the lot of those men who are not making that much money.
And I hope that the Liberal government, which has been elected because it promised to increase everything but taxes, will show the same goodwill it had before the election of April 8 last, and will be pleased to abolish that 11 per cent sales tax on lumberjacks' implements.
Mr. Chairman, we also found a certain anomaly with regard to lumberjacks who are

not going to work in the state of Maine. Everybody knows that for about every trade, when necessary working implements have to be bought, like in the case of a garage keeper, a commercial traveller or any other trade, the cost of those instruments may be deducted from income tax. That is why I ask this government to take action so that our lumberjacks do not pay too much income tax, because they have to buy new implements every year and to travel to their work.
That is why I claim that they should be allowed to deduct the cost of those purchases and the travelling cost which they have to pay each week or every month to go to their work.
Mr. Chairman, I now want to deal with the problem of farmers in my riding.
Ten or 15 years ago those farmers were able to live on the land, but since then they are seen to abandon their farms more and more frequently. And as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) said this afternoon, everything seems to be organized in such a way that our farmers have to leave their farms.
I do not know whether I should call the existing practice patronage, but as the hon. member for Beauce said earlier today, what do we see? When a farmer makes a claim to benefit from some welfare plan, it is suggested to him, as a first condition, to leave his farm to go and live in the city. Today, everything of which we in Quebec were proud before, is being destroyed, which means that the family farm is now rejected.
But, Mr. Chairman, I can very well remember the attitude of the former hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) last year, when he was defending the right of our farmers to keep their family farm, which has always been a source of pride in Quebec. There were, last year, demands to the effect that the government should build storage space for feed grain in the east of the province of Quebec. This would have resulted in greatly lowering the price of grain and also enabled our farmers to make a little more profit, besides enabling them to remain and bring up their family on their own farm.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that such methods are used against our farmers today, to have them abandon their farms, which will enable the patronage people, probably Liberal, to buy those farms and turn them into a sort of collective farms.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point on which I want to draw the attention of the house. A few weeks ago the Minister of Labour designated some parts of the province of Quebec which might be helped financially by the federal government. Now, at that time, they forgot southern Quebec, that

is that part of the province situated south of the St. Lawrence; and yet that area would be fine for the setting up of new industries or manufactures of all kinds, because, as I just said, our farmers abandon their farms more and more, in brief they are unable to get a living out of those farms of which Canada was so proud in the past.
That is why I blame the Liberal government for overlooking the ridings of Beauce, Dorchester, Montmagny, and even the Gaspe peninsula. This last one was not considered because the Liberal member for the Gaspe peninsula had protested and because the Gaspe peninsula should not be considered as part of the country needing the assistance of a central Liberal government.
That is why I would ask also that all the ridings south of the St. Lawrence river be considered as needing federal assistance. Industries are needed there, not only to give work to labour, but also to prevent our young people from leaving the area and swelling the number of unemployed in the cities. Today, it seems that everything should be centered in towns, everything seems to encourage our young people to leave the country for the cities. The solution is not there. The solution consists in preventing our young people from leaving their home town. We can see the consequences of all that.
As a matter of fact, at every election, there are from 200 to 300 and even 500 fewer names on the voters' lists. And this is not due to a decrease in the birth rate, but to the fact that our people are no longer able to make a living in our parishes, in our respective counties, and must leave their homes for the cities where they swell the number of unemployed and small wage earners.
Mr. Chairman, I humbly ask the government to take due notice of the few remarks I have just made, because if the government was able to carry a bill in order to increase the indemnities of members of parliament, it could also pass a measure to increase family allowances, which are sorely needed today since the income in all classes of society is not sufficient to provide for the children's needs.
It is urged more and more that children should get an adequate education, that they be better educated in order to learn a trade and be in a position to work anywhere. This is the reason why I would again urge the government to keep one of its promises made in April, namely to increase family allowances, an excellent social measure. The government had not promised to increase the members' indemnities, yet that was the first legislation to be passed.
Interim Supply
But I urge the government to see that an increase in family allowances should not result in higher income tax. Private individuals are always the ones to pay, they are always singled out, but corporations, whichever they may be, are always favoured by the government. The poor and the lowly must always yield to the government. That is why, Mr. Chairman, as an excellent social measure, I request the immediate adoption this autumn of legislation providing an increase in family allowances. That will not only stimulate our country's economy but it will enable fathers to give a better education to their children.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to speak against the patronage which is spreading throughout my riding just like in every other constituency. There has always been patronage since confederation because it has always been either Conservatives or Liberals who were in power.
As I was saying a while ago, the Liberal government or the Minister of Labour should sign an agreement with the state of Maine so that our lumberjacks who work there may get unemployment insurance benefits. The first advantage of this would be a reduction by half of the number of requests submitted for social assistance in my constituency. You know how social assistance requests work. If you belong to the Liberal party, everything is fine; there is no investigation and social assistance is granted without question. The organizing parties, the parish or the county chiefs have their say in such an organization. In the case of a Conservative, one is a little wary for this method has been largely put into practice by the Conservatives. But in the case of, let us say a private citizen, who will surely vote for Social Credit, there the trouble begins. An investigation is made, he is asked to give away all he has even to the last cent and once he is destitute, completely destitute, then he is given social assistance.
Mr. Chairman, that is how the two old line political parties have always treated the Canadian people, especially the people in the province of Quebec, as patronage in the province of Quebec is ten times worse than in Ottawa. As there is close relationship between the Ottawa and Quebec Liberals, you are aware that it is the same patronage that brews immense troubles for our Canadian families, especially those that are in need.
I should like to protest against abuses in the field of unemployment insurance. It seems that we have all kinds of legislation concerning unemployment insurance. We have unemployment insurance in our area, but one could say that there is a different act governing every unemployment insurance

Interim Supply
office. We submit a case to one unemployment insurance office and there they quote all sorts of acts. In another office, other acts are quoted which are almost in contradiction with what we were told in the first one.
I know that the laws were made for lawyers and by lawyers. One should absolutely be a lawyer to be a member in Ottawa. That is why the people were so much taken in, because we had in Ottawa representatives too far above the people and that is why the Canadian people, at the 1962 election, made no bones about returning to Ottawa men who were not floating in the clouds, but who had their feet on the ground, men who are able to walk along with every class of the society and who, most of the time, took into consideration the cases of the little people.
Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude my remarks now. Since there are only four minutes left before six o'clock-


Mr. Teillet:: That is long, four minutes.


Pierre-André Boutin: Maybe the minister could
suggest a few matters I could discuss.
Just the same, I shall let some other colleagues have the floor until six o'clock so that we can keep on discussing how the government is going to present the interim supply bill now before us.
Since we know so well the Liberal party's underhanded tactics, we were not surprised to find out at five o'clock that there were not enough of us to continue the discussion on interim supply. It was thought that the Social Crediters had gone home. Social Crediters are courageous people, they keep their eyes open, and they decided to defeat the tricks of the Liberals. We have a sufficient quorum to carry on until six o'clock the debate on interim supply. As long as our party, the creditist group, is not recognized in this house, as long as we do not have our own seats, we shall be compelled to tell our hon. friends opposite, who sit on the treasury benches that we are happy to carry on with the discussion on interim supply so as to be able to explain the problems which beset our constituencies.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the floor, for this allows me to put Dorchester county in the limelight. I have been able to ascertain by thumbing through Hansard that since 1867, the year of confederation, very seldom did the members for Dorchester set forth the claims of Quebecers, and more particularly of the electors of the various constituencies. We must indeed remember that the problems relating to woodsmen have not sprung up lately, but have always been with us. The state of Maine was also constituted years ago

and I am surprised that none of the members for Dorchester, either Conservatives or Liberals-indeed a Liberal represented the riding of Dorchester for quite a while-have risen and requested from the Canadian government that the lumbermen who work in the state of Maine be treated fairly.
Yet between 1940 and 1944, 47 American states agreed to negotiate with Canada and to enact legislation concerning the unemployment insurance benefits of Canadians from the English speaking provinces who work in the United States. At that time, there were 75 Tories and Whigs in the House of Commons and not one of them rose once to ask the same benefits for the people of Quebec who work in the states of Maine and New Hampshire. That is why I blame the federal government and all its followers. We should not have to blame again the Liberal government, for if it is well disposed toward those unemployed, it will take as soon as possible the necessary steps to confer with the American states in order that our lumbermen working in those states be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the house leader would like to give us his revised version of the order of business for next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be very wise for me on this occasion to attempt to forecast the business very far ahead, because until interim supply has been granted it will of course not be possible, I am afraid, to do any other business at all. Therefore that will be the first item of business on Monday.
I would hope-as I think the vast majority of hon. members hope

that we might dispose of it fairly quickly on Monday after reflection over the week end. In that case I think we would have to reserve until Monday morning any indication of precisely what would be taken next. If circumstances made it otherwise possible, however, of course we would like to take the old age pension bill first of all. But in the light of the labour situation with which all hon. members are familiar, the situation both in Montreal and on the lakes, the government simply has, I think responsibly to reserve its judgment as to what should be taken after interim supply is concluded if, as I hope, it should be concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we take it for granted that on Monday morning at the latest the government will advise each of the parties what the plans are for that afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour as early as possible on Monday to advise the representatives of the parties what would be taken after interim supply, if it should be concluded, as I hope it will be, on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the house leader definitely rule out a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid we would be depriving hon. members opposite-even if the interim supply was disposed of in half an hour-of time to which they are traditionally entitled. I would not like to ask for that unless there was general agreement in the house that hon. members would be satisfied to do that. The government would like to have these supply motions because, as I have indicated very clearly, we must have five of them
Business of the House
in the next few weeks, and time marches on.
It was our hope originally, as I indicated to hon. members opposite, that we could take a supply motion on Monday, but several unexpected circumstances have arisen since I gave that indication and I do not think anyone would now like to predict what may happen tomorrow and Monday in the field which was the subject of discussion for a good part of today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the difficulties of the house leader. He will be reminded of my difficulties a year ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My recollections are vivid.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 7, 1963