1963-10-18

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege involves the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. May I preface my question by quoting from the order in council establishing the commission as follows:
-to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races-
This is the important part.
-taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada-
And so on. I have just received this morning a document from the royal commission. It is a memorandum regarding the procedure to be followed in hearings before the commission. On page 2, under the heading of "nature of briefs", part (e) reads as follows:
Briefs must be written in either French or English, or in the two languages, according to the preference of the persons who submit them.
It is my contention that it is not possible to take into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada by so restricting the language in which briefs must be written for presentation to the commission. Accordingly, founded on my question of privilege I move:
That this house declares, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, that briefs to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism may be written and presented in any language.
My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask if there is any hon. member who would like to speak to this question of privilege before I try to give a decision. If not, then I may say that questions of privilege are extremely important matters. The Speaker has to be convinced that there is a prima facie case. This is one of the elements. In the present circumstances I do not believe there is a prima facie case for a question of privilege. It is rather in the nature of a complaint. Having had an opportunity of studying this motion I And that 28902-5-237
it does not take on the character of a substantive motion. I regretfully must come to the conclusion that in my opinion there is no question of privilege.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Wahn.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion. Having regard to the course of the debate yesterday I should think that we would not have too much hope of getting through with the motions that will be before the house. There are a number of questions of importance to the Canadian people which I feel should be asked. I am wondering whether the house would give consideration to going into orders of the day, and then returning to motions on the conclusion of orders of the day. Today is Friday and we are trying to co-operate in every way, but it will be impossible to get answers to questions unless this is done.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse that suggestion. There are a number of very vital matters that have come up on which the government might want to make statements, and about which hon. members will certainly want some information. There would be some merit in having orders of the day now, and later reverting to motions.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that while the right hon. gentleman's proposal is an understandable one, and in a sense a very reasonable one, I should have thought that perhaps the debate we were having yesterday would be concluded very shortly, because I would think everything that could be said for or against the report of the committee has been said.

Privileges and Elections
We have had one vote, and if we could have the other two votes this morning we could dispose of it. Perhaps we could go on until lunch time and see what developments take place, and then if there is no possibility of finishing this debate today perhaps we could go on to orders of the day after the luncheon recess.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent I am obliged by the rules of the house to follow those rules.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caron for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a few words about the amendment under discussion at the present time. I realize that nothing I might say will change much for at this stage questions are pretty well settled. I say this openly and publicly, because it reflects my firm belief, and probably that of the public as well.
Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter and speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I wish to say that I apologize for my fellow French Canadians who, yesterday, have shown to the nation what stuff they are made of.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I feel that yesterday you got in this house a fair sample of the political views of some French Canadians.
This day will remain forever in the annals of parliament as a typically bitter fight between French Canadians which simply made me sick.
I think we could blame the Speaker for not having put a stop with a firm hand to this brotherly slaughter, because he allowed some members to stray completely from the subject.
But, on the other hand, I think that the Speaker deserves to be thanked, because he wanted to give us a sample of what some of our fellow French Canadians can do and say. I shall never forget it as long as I live.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the conclusions of the committee on privileges and elections because its members have not dealt with the case in point. You should be mindful of the fact that the committee was asked simply to reach a decision as to the recognition of the party. Yet, sidetracking the issue


completely, the committee set themselves to the task of determining the order of precedence of the various opposition parties in this house, which was precisely the task assigned to the Speaker, following the conclusions reached in the committee's report on the recognition of the different opposition parties.
And as a final conclusion to its work, the committee is asking counsel to settle the one and only question on which the committee was supposed to make a decision.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect the members of the committee on privileges and elections were badly informed. And to substantiate that impression, I submit that the most important piece of evidence in the matter was almost intentionally put aside. I refer to the statement signed by the 12 members who are giving their support to the new leader in this house, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and repudiating the former one, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
Great efforts were made at all the meetings of the committee to produce a letter from our present leader in the house, the hon. member for Villeneuve, in which he was just stating the results of the various steps taken by the 13 members since the Granby convention.
The hon. member for Lapointe, the only representative of our party on the committee-whereas the party of the hon. member for Red Deer had two representatives, although it has fewer members than our group-did try to produce that essential proof, but he had great difficulty-in fact he was nearly prevented from giving evidence by the committee chairman himself-to say anything about it.
We suspect that everything was done so that the situation would not be clarified before the committee. That is why it is our duty to say to the house what really happened, so that all those present may still believe in the rights of the members in this chamber and judge the matter impartially.
Mr. Speaker, I read with great attention the minutes of proceedings and the evidence given to the committee on privileges and elections. I did not attend regularly the proceedings of the committee, except for five or six minutes at a time. When I saw the absurdity of these proceedings, I left in a hurry.
There are some good points, some less good and some bad in these reports of the committee on privileges and elections. After sifting all its verbosity, and leaving out all the unnecessary words and evidence, there remain three facts that may serve my argumentation.

I want to speak of the basic argumentation held by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I shall use also the evidence, given by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), to refute the proposal made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) in conjunction with the Liberal members.
All day yesterday there was mention of the legal rights of the parties. Some petty French Canadians even cried in the house that it was our duty not to grant the rights and privileges our group is entitled to because that was against the law. Well, let those people show us beyond any doubt that legally third parties do not exist in the British parliamentary procedure. The whole matter is definitely based on that point.
Mr. Speaker, if one reads carefully the statements and information, especially the one presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as well as the other statements, one realizes how ridiculous is that petty political fight, which I shall denounce throughout the province.
They say that as a group we are not entitled to our privileges. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is not filibustering or the worst kind of muzzling ever seen in this parliament, I wonder what it is.
What did the hon. member for Labelle say, he who claims to be the champion of the rights and laws of parliament? On page 24 of the same report he is quoted as saying:
As Mr. Girouard said, there are in the constitution, in the British North America Act, or in law no precedents anywhere which lay down criteria, standards, definitions and conditions as regards parties.
When the hon. member for Labelle claims that there is nothing to determine that and then pretends to defend the law and legal principles here, I wonder on what kind of an argument he can base such an idiotic statement as the one he made to the committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre goes on:
Parties are national organizations formed by Canadian citizens. They do not exist in the House of Commons. They exist in the House of Commons as members of parliament, as groups.
And not as a party. Such is the law. Those who try to evade the law do so to play politics. But to promote justice, one must comply with the law and this is the last point I wish to make today.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre continues:
I suggest that the most dangerous thing we could do would be for the House of Commons by a ma.iority vote to decide that parties A. B and C are official parties in Canada and parties D, E and F are not.

Privileges and Elections
That is just what you did, and what you are doing now; you want another party to decide what only your party has the right to determine.
And the member for Winnipeg North Centre says:
No need for me to quote historical examples for that kind of thing.
Then, he pursues his argument by saying, as you may see on that same page 24 of the report:
The group supporting Mr. Caouette is actually asking the House of Commons to take a decision as to who of the two is the party leader.
Please note that in the request of the hon. member for Villeneuve, the latter addresses himself to Mr. Speaker, advising him of the fact that we are a group, and asking him to be so kind as to recognize us, which is the object of his letter.
And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre adds:
In internal matters-
If the Conservative party asked the House of Commons to decide who is the leader, Mr. Diefen-baker or Mr. X, or if the Liberals or ourselves asked such question, we would be told that it is none of our business-
The internal business of Social Credit has been explained to us. It is not up to us to take any decision in this matter. It is not for us to decide whether a federal Canadian party is official or not.
It seems to me that we have here a rather clear interpretation of the law, so that each hon. member may intelligently and, more particularly, legally decide for himself.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also said:
We have to decide, on the evidence, how many groups or members there are in the house and then, having made a decision on that, we will have to decide on the recommendations to be made to the Speaker concerning the precedence of each group and the seating arrangement.
Although there are no citations supporting the contention that parties exist in the House of Commons on any official basis, there are a couple of citations that support the fact that we are various groups. I have here a citation from Beauchesne which, I hope, Mr. Beauchesne will let me read in one of the official languages of the country.
In section 20, page 17 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, there is a judgment which was made a long time ago, and in order to tell the whole story I had better read it. He says:
The members who do not support the government and do not belong to the opposition party should all be considered as Independents.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is the very crux of the matter. A thorough examination of the rules and regulations allow one to realize that, actually, there are only in this house two official groups which can really be called parties, that is to say the party in office and the official opposition. The other so-called parties are merely groups which are reconized through the courtesies of parliament. That is how we should really interpret our rules and regulations.

Privileges and Elections
It is all very well to fool around with the term "party", but actually, one may only speak of a third party by extending the courtesies of this house to the second, third and fourth opposition groups. It is a question of courtesy, and nothing more.
That is why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) added:
When I first came to the House of Commons, Mr. King used to quote this often and he was very reluctant to grant to the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties of that day the courtesies which he granted them later on. Even Mr. Beauchesne had to admit certain facts... I think... we have to decide... but, let us not commit the folly of deciding by a majority vote of the members, which are official parties and which are not.
In regard to what constitutes a party, I believe, in view of the interpretation of the English law, that there is no use for the three minor groups, on this side, to use the word party as a legal word; it is extended to them only as a matter of courtesy.
This is the reason why I was saying a while ago that the main argument that could be raised is that if the Liberal party, if all the Liberal members, had stopped playing politics in order to treat this situation strictly from a legal point of view I really believe that they would not have been so hasty in reaching a decision.
Mr. Speaker, the second point to which I would like to draw the attention of the house is a statement by the member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe). The hon. member upheld the theory in regard to the protection of the electorate. The member for Cariboo said, as shown on page 34 of the same committee report:

I think we here must protect our electorate in regard to anything we have before us.

A little further he added:
1Text]
The rights and privileges of the electorate must be protected.

If we want to protect the rights and privileges of the electorate I wonder whether we should not start by protecting the rights and privileges of those whom this same electorate has chosen. My electors voted for Social Credit, through the Ralliement du Credit social. I owe it to myself to respect the views of my electors. I am convinced that my electors would never have forgiven me, after I was elected under the label of the Raillie-ment du Credit social or the Social Credit, if I had associated with the Liberals in the house in order to form a compact entity.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote part of the resolution submitted by a Liberal member; that resolution does not stand up

once it is explained, but I should like to quote a brief passage of what was said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner). He stated, as found on page 36 of the same report:
Mr. Chairman, I will follow the example of Mr. Drouin, if I might, who said that we are acting here as a jury.
That is quite an interesting little passage because the committee claims for itself the role of a jury.
If you wish, Mr. Speaker, let us find out together how a committee can be officially considered to be a court of inquiry when it does not carry its assignment further. If it is to be a jury, as suggested by Mr. Drouin, first of all it should have at least the basic attribute of a tribunal made up of a jury and a presiding officer. All members of the jury should meet certain essential conditions such as integrity and the absence of any family or political ties with the accused.
Above all, the jury should not be at the same time prosecutor and judge. I am asking myself whether this committee, this little tribunal, is not fundamentally wrong? I still wonder whether the majority of members of this committee do not have preconceived ideas, whether they have not prejudged the case? Why have they strayed from the right road throughout the whole inquiry and then, out of breath, decided to pass the burden to somebody else?
I believe that those who have voted for us in that committee were those whose sole purpose was to unearth truth, so that justice might prevail. And I thank them from the bottom of my heart for, though few details were available to them, they have succeeded in unearthing the truth.
Are you led into that frantic dance of lost pains by your national conscience or by fear of the electorate?
Who is acting most ridiculously in this hullabaloo? Well, take a good look at yourselves, gentlemen. You are merely the shadow of yourselves and the people who elected you to represent them here will never forgive you your political dictatorship.
If we consider the political status-


Mr. Loiselle:: What a fine written speech.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I can write my speeches but you do not seem to be able to, since you have not spoken yet.
If we consider the political status of our opponents in that committee, we note that when the question was put, all the Liberals- please note that, Mr. Speaker-all the Liberals, plus two Thompson supporters, denied the right of representation and consequently the right of speech to the hon. member for Villeneuve's party.


An hon. Member:: How come you are speaking at this moment?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am asked why we are speaking.


An hon. Member:: You have been speaking for two days.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am speaking as an individual but what we are demanding is the right of speech for our group. I know that some Liberals have not yet been able to make that distinction, which goes to prove that there are still in this house people with narrow views because of partisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I forgive the first Thompson supporter, the hon. member for Cariboo. I realize that being born an English speaking person and being a member of the other group which all along tried to overwhelm the hon. member for Villeneuve, he drew the normal conclusion from his yearnings.
But when I see the hon. member for Lebel-


Mr. Girouard:: Labelle.


Mr. Gauihier:: The hon. member for Labelle, a man for whom I worked myself, I am greatly disappointed to see that he has stooped so low; I cannot understand him. When I see that alleged French Canadian, conscious or not of organized injustice and even voluntarily taking part in that anti-French Canadian dispute all I can logically feel towards him is aversion.
The hon. member for Lebel-


Gérard Girouard: Labelle.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The hon. member for Labelle takes exception to the name the Ralliement des creditistes, even though he knows that his argument is unfounded and untrue. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the hon. member for Labelle knows beyond any doubt that his argumentation is false and that he is playing upon words, because Bill C-91 does not impose any condition upon house leaders of the various groups.
Why then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hon. J. P. Deschaieleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to make a comment at this stage, I should like to call your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Roberval has claimed that we wanted to restrict his right to speak. Now, he has been talking for more than 30 minutes, and I am of the opinion that the house would be willing to grant him all the time needed to pursue his remarks.
Privileges and Elections


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not think it was worth while but, since the hon. member still has a few minutes left, I would ask him to withdraw the words "the hon. member knows beyond any doubt that his argumentation is false". I feel that is overdoing it.


Rosaire Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to withdraw them, since I just thought he knew it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the Minister of Public Works-


An hon. Member:: Friend?


Rosaire Gauthier: Yes, my good friend. Have I any enemies in this house?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, but I should like him to know that it is as one of its members that I am granted by this house the right to speak, and that is something I never denied.
As members of parliament, we have our liberty, and I have said it a while ago to your friends. However, how can you establish that difference; it is our liberty and our rights as a group that we want. Can you rise to that level?
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the group of the Ralliement des creditistes is certainly superior to a group of 11, and I have heard the younger members of the group saying that they only claimed their rights; but they were never denied their rights; they have their rights as a group. But why do those men whom we started in politics and are now trying to beat us refuse to grant us our rights? And the hon. member for Labelle is the first one to do so.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: I went to Roberval.


Rosaire Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) saying that he was campaigning in my riding. Let me say no more, since everybody knows the respect I have for him. Besides, it is better that I say nothing, and he knows it.


Some hon. Members:: You had better not talk about that.


Rosaire Gauthier: Yes, it is better, in order to protect him. In fact, I even protect my enemies.
Mr. Speaker, why does the committee refuse to recognize the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve and impose conditions to them? I see only one reason, and that is that the hon. member for Lebel-


Gérard Girouard: Labelle.


Rosaire Gauthier: It is that the hon. member for Labelle is a member of a group that is willing to make every concession to the

Privileges and Elections Liberals, provided the present government refuses the right to speak to the only French Canadian group legally representing the French Canadian voters in this house. It is disgusting, but that is what that group has given evidence of, by systematically uniting with the others to muzzle us.
Mr. Speaker, I ask of all those who consider the small trips which were granted to our fellow citizens, I am of the opinion that this is too high a price for a few moments of glory.
Mr. Speaker, I ask of all those who consider justice above their partisanship to have a human thought.
You, former creditistes, have always been told that in the Social Credit party, principles should rank higher than people. The first of those principles is that a true creditiste holds that his very first responsibility is to the people who have elected him.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against-


An hon. Member:: It is the Ralliement.


Rosaire Gauthier: Yes, it is the Ralliement not Social Credit that got you elected, and that is what we have been trying to have you understand, but it seems that as far as the hon. member for Labelle is concerned, that is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I do not bear any grudge against the hon. member for Red Deer. He is an excellent man, a nice guy as we say back home. In fact, he is such a nice guy that he gives himself and ourselves to everyone.
I have to reprove seriously my fellow citizens. We have been fighting for the recognition of the French fact for months. Looking at certain French Canadian jokers who take pleasure in knocking their brothers because they were bold enough to demand their right to speak, I am sometimes ashamed of my race.
Mr. Speaker, we have been lowered to that level by politickers who have always used us. And to think that they are ready to revise our constitution. What a bunch of jokers. They should go and hide elsewhere to perpetrate their contemptible actions. They should no longer profane this house by their servility. As a French Canadian fellow citizen I say to them: return to your water-carrying chores. It is not with people of their kind that we will have a bilingual country, a constitution which will guarantee the rights of the two great races, and that we will succeed in shaping a strong Canada based on two great cultures.
And, in order to be fair to everybody, I now want to commend not only those who voted, but those who had the courage not to vote in order to prevent one of their

French Canadian fellow citizens from speaking in this house. I commend them for having had this courage as I shall blame those who had the cheek, under the pretext of an inexist-ing law, to deprive a group of fellow citizens of their right of speech in the house.
It would certainly be of interest to the house to know what the committee could not know.
We are a political party-and when I say political party, I always mean it in a legal sense, and not the way other opposing parties see it: a political party by courtesy- because we were elected as Social Credit members through the Ralliement des creditistes, which is a provincial organization interested in federal politics. As a matter of fact, this is the case for each of the provinces, and the Alberta and British Columbia groups are no exception, because their members were also elected by their respective provincial organizations. To the contrary of other parties, with us, it is the provincial organizations which see to the election of their members. Each provincial organization is autonomous. That is why those younger Social Crediters who say that they have been elected through the Ralliement des creditistes are completely mistaken.
In short our federal party is a national party comprising all provincial organizations, as it has always been maintained throughout Canada with regard to the two ethnical groups.
It is somewhat difficult for members of the old parties who have experienced only the melting pot to understand. Someone will say:	but there was a split. Well, that,
again, is true. It happened after a legally convened meeting at the Granby convention, on the unanimous recommendation of nearly 1,500 delegates, when we had 19 members from Quebec who had been elected through the Ralliement des creditistes. I want to stress that the reasons for our acting in this way are connected with the administration of our party, and I do not care to discuss those reasons here, as some hon. members did yesterday. Those reasons are, as I say, of an internal nature. We acted legally and that is why we are asking Mr. Speaker to do what he has to do when there is a majority vote.
We found, to our regret, that we had to depose our former parliamentary leader, and I repeat "former parliamentary leader" because our opponents are always playing on the words "national leader" and "parliamentary leader". We had to depose our parliamentary leader in order to replace him by a new one, the hon. member for Villeneuve.
Please note that I do not question the right of the hon. member for Red Deer to

affiliate himself with another party, but when he makes commitments on behalf of the whole party, then I cannot go along with him. And I say to him, in a quite friendly spirit, as
I	say to those French Canadians whose confidence and respect he has kept: Stop that game, stop trying to usurp other people's property. After all, it is our group, the group from Quebec, which has created the present Social Credit movement.
We say: "Go on, but leave us our clothes." You see, we do not ask much, leave us our rights as a group.
You have more to do to find someone to your own image and likeness. Why not cross to the other side of the house; go back to your Liberal brothers. The chance of survival for your group is on the other side, although it will cause some small inconvenience to those who will accept you, because some are so much tinted in blue that they will stand out a little.
We feel no bitterness against anyone and we want only one thing: that each member enjoy fully his rights and privileges as concerns his group.
You recognized the rights of the group of
II	and you refuse the same rights to a group of 13, therefore a majority group.
All responsible papers shout fallacy and injustice. Throughout its history, Canada has never witnessed such a gag being imposed on a group of French Canadians in this parliament by a Liberal government. For us, we shall never-and please pay attention to those words-we shall never dare deprive another group of its rights to speak in this house.
Through the doubtful doings of the committee, under cover, to hide the truth to which several still sincere members of that committee were entitled, a purely political purpose was achieved, that of killing a potential political enemy. In fact, for the old parties, the member for Red Deer represents no danger at all, but the member for Villeneuve is a man to beat. I doubt that the Liberals have been deceived, and that, you know it very well. The battle is fought for that sole purpose.
I claim that this ridiculous situation has lasted too long already, as shown by your behaviour in the house. We might think this is a perfect Babel.
One day you vote for one thing, the other day, you vote precisely for the contrary. In this house, a strong majority vote imposes a gag on us, so as to stop us from speaking, to deny our political party the right to its privileges, and, two days later, in this same house, remorsefully, a unanimous vote restores to us the rights which had been so arbitrarily
Privileges and Elections taken away. Through partisanship, you vote for a blatant injustice. But the next day, fearing public opinion, which shows its disgust in all the newspapers, as well as over the radio and on television, you are forced to back down.
They give the impression that Canada suffers from paralysis.
It is not by shouting at the top of their voice "I am a French Canadian, I am of French Canadian descent", that they will be useful to their race but rather by working in close co-operation with their brothers.
It is not by using the whip on their brothers that they will become great Canadians. It is rather by taking all the means at their disposal to defend them, in spite of their faults and whatever their party.
It is not over the dead body of their brother, knocked down without pity, that they will be able to proclaim themselves the champions of French Canada, but rather by fighting unswervingly and legally beside him until victory is achieved.
As far as we are concerned-and the people are with us-we admire all Canadians of both ethnical groups who have built this Canada of ours, so long as both groups hold themselves upright, with their heads high.
I despise servility in anybody.
All possible weapons have been used in the past few months. The latest one is the famous English formula: Take your time. I have always seen in that formula a lethal weapon against the aspirations of French Canadians, both in the federal parliament and throughout Canada. In French, we have another formula: Le temps vient a bout de tout- confederation of 1867 is a striking example of that.
Indeed, if you take a close look, what is left of the rights which were guaranteed to us by the constitution? There remains so little that we are wondering whether it would not be better to write an entirely new constitution. The "take your time" formula has worn away everything.
Mr. Speaker, we are a group of 13 French Canadians who were duly elected as Social Credit members, it should not be forgotten, by supporters of the Ralliement des credi-tistes.
Go throughout Quebec and people who are the least bit sincere will tell you that that is the honest truth.
Consequently, our election is just as good as that of the 11 followers of the hon. member for Red Deer. We are in greater number and we have seniority over them through our leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve.

Privileges and Elections
We demand the same rights and privileges as members of other parties in the house.
We do not recognize the present committee's authority to determine whether or not we form a party, whether we are black or white.
We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use the authority of your office to recognize us as such. I do not believe that any Speaker has ever required that someone be bom again in order to be recognized in this house. This new procedure only exists under the present government.
I shall publicly accuse the Liberals of denying freedom of speech to those entitled to it under the constitution. I shall accuse them of playing petty politics by interfering with matters of no concern to them if they do not correct our situation right away.
We ask for the last time the support of all our French Canadian fellow citizens, regardless of their political party, as well as the co-operation of every sincere and fair English speaking member.
This matter is much more far reaching than you think. This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. This might be the first step towards national understanding, just as it might be the last step towards final disunity.
The province of Quebec and all French speaking Canadians follow closely what is going on in this parliament where, for the first time perhaps in our history, such a large group of French Canadians decide to speak out in this house, the heart of the nation, to insist on their rights that would not even be denied to coloured people.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I say that this is our own business and not that of other parties. If we, a group of French Canadians, have decided to change our parliamentary leader, it was also our right. We are the founders of this party which had not one member left since the wash-out in the west.
For the reasons I have just stated and many more still, of which the committee should have been aware before submitting the report now before the house, we were forced to depose our previous leader. I rightly say that we have deposed him by means of a majority vote. I do not think that at that point we had to seek the advice of all parties in the house. We chose a new parliamentary leader and I do not believe that any member in this house had anything to say in the matter.
What prompted us to take such action? After taking the vote. Bear in mind that it was after taking the vote, and this is what the committee did not understand. After tak-
(Mr. Gauthier.]

ing the vote to change our leader, we decided to choose a new name.
We informed the Speaker of our new situation, so that he may indicate to the house our present status.
I am even quite surprised that the Speaker did not think that he should assume his responsibilities. It is obvious that he should have assumed them because, the matter having been referred to the committee, the latter shows by its report that it was quite unqualified to render a decision and proves by referring the whole matter to the internal economy commissioners.
Are you not of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that you should have referred the matter to that committee yourself? In so doing, you would have avoided all that petty politics which only gives a further opportunity to the older parties to sharpen their swords.
You can surely see that the responsibility for the loss of time does not lie with us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -but rather with those who refused to assume their responsibilities and also with those who did not mind their own business.
I am telling you all this, Mr. Speaker, without any preconceived idea, but rather to confront you with the facts which are so often altered by some politicians. This way, I hope that with the help of the legal counsel, you will be able, Mr. Speaker, to redress the immeasurable wrong caused to this party by treating it fairly and granting it the protection of the law.
I agree that one may value his party, Mr. Speaker, but to let partisanship create such an illegal situation is above all reasonable thinking.
We recognize, once again, to all the parties in the house the right to exist and that is why we simply request reciprocal consideration. Who can accuse us of demanding too much when we claim that right?
Mr. Speaker, we hold no grudge against our colleagues who have followed the hon. member for Red Deer. We will not even banish them, since they will be judged by the voters. But we are accusing them of joining those who refuse to acknowledge the rights and privileges of French Canadians, who deprive them of their right to speak, the right to organize and group themselves, in short the right to speak in the name of that group to other French Canadians.
It is solely on that point that I blame my fellow countrymen and I ask all French speaking people in Canada to judge them in the proper light.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, further to some remarks I made yesterday, I should like to say a few words in answer to certain assertions that were made yesterday by a few hon. members, especially by those seated to my right.
The Liberal party thought it wise yesterday, as the hon. member for Lapointe pointed out, to call on their own backbenchers to deal with the problem relating to Social Crediters. At no time has a government or a political party assumed such an uncompromising, such an arrogant attitude toward a group of members duly elected by the voters of their respective counties.
Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the Liberals assert strongly throughout the country their deep respect for the individual rights of Canadians, and their attachment to freedom and security. Today, it is the same Liberals who refuse to recognize the rights of a group of 13 members. They admit in private that we are right. They go even further as was shown by those who spoke yesterday, including the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner). They are convinced that we are right to demand official recognition of our group in the house.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe in what I said last night.


David Réal Caouette: He sticks to his beliefs outside but I say that he defends them here only as a matter of form because we have discussed the matter together.
Mr. Speaker, in support of my claim that those people are arrogant and that they have two attitudes, one within and one without parliament, I should like to quote an extract of the report submitted by the standing committee on privileges and elections under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). On page 76, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) is reported as saying:
I might go on with my other point, and then I will be glad to answer questions, because I think that the two points are related. My second point is that, in my mind, at any rate, and I think in the minds of many other people, the group under Mr. Caouette is very well organized. It is not simply a group of independents. They have their own leader, their own whip and their own house leader, I suppose. They have become a very well organized group.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was present.
The group under Mr. Caouette is a very well organized group.
I thank her for that consideration. It is well organized in the house and especially well organized outside the house.
It is not simply a group of independents. They have their own leader, their own whip and their
Privileges and Elections own house leader, I suppose. They have become a very well organized group.
This was before the vote yesterday.
They should be allowed.. .certain rights and privileges in the House of Commons as a fairly numerous and organized group. I would argue, for example, whether or not they should be invited to speak on the usual round of speeches, time consuming though this is, in the address in reply and so on. I do not think that, in this case, there are any rules for us to go on.
A little further on, she states:
I think that to be realistic, practical and fair we should treat the members of parliament under Mr. Caouette's leadership as an organized group and they should therefore be allowed to speak in turn and to enjoy certain other privileges in the house.
Those are the words of the hon. member for Northumberland in the committee on privileges and elections, but once the hon. lady was in the house yesterday, she voted against that assertion, that decision. Such is the prevailing mentality at the present time.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that I said that, and I believe still that it is an organized group. However, we are now discussing the amendment, which is the seating problem. The hon. member has not referred-and this is my question of privilege- to what I said also in committee on the matter of seating. I then enunciated the theory that many of us have adhered to, namely that his group was a breakaway group and should sit at the bottom of the table, I think the phrase was.
We are now discussing the seating order, and this is the matter raised by the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, not the question which is now being raised. I should like it brought to the attention of the house that further on in those same remarks I said that I thought the organized group then under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve should sit in fourth place on the other side of the house.


David Réal Caouette: May I thank the charming lady, the hon. member for Northumberland, for the statement she has just made. I agree that in her statement before the committee she said that she wanted us to sit at the end of the house, but at the same time-and I now go on in French again-she said:

In case any doubt should remain, I am personally in favour of deleting section 4 from Mr. Girouard's proposal and keeping the first three sections, while dealing today with a separate amendment pertaining to a question of privilege.

Privileges and Elections
That is what we voted on last night-precisely on the subamendment requesting the withdrawal of part 4.


An hon. Member:: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was accepted.


David Réal Caouette: No, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not put to a vote. And, by the way, since the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) is rising to take part in the debate, I will say that if the committee came up with such a decision, it is precisely because the hon. member for Hull, who was the chairman of that committee treated the movement I represent in the house with exceptional arrogance.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, if I may again raise a point of privilege, it seems to me that this is a misrepresentation and that we should have the record quite straight. The subamendment introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry; the subamendment introduced yesterday-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously not a question of privilege. This is argument, and the hon. member will have the opportunity to speak in the course of the debate. She cannot present an argument at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said yesterday, the committee's terms of reference were not to decide where we should sit but rather whether our group of 13 members should be recognized as such or not. That is all the committee had to do. Well, they decided to have some fun, to hold a trial. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) were asked by the committee to run down the group to which I belong and which I lead in this house. It was said that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) had been invited. That is correct, but as an observer, and he was denied the right to vote. He was allowed to speak but he was deprived of his right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, we have-


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Villeneuve has just said that the member for Lapointe did not have the right to vote in the committee. That is wrong. Recorded votes were taken and he was given the right to vote in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, in my opinion, there is no question of privilege.
I suggest that the hon. member for Villeneuve be allowed to proceed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks, I maintained yesterday that the press in general, in Canada, is wondering why such unfairness is shown one group in the house. We are not denied the right to speak; but on an official or important statement by the government, is it not true that I was denied an opportunity to speak here, supposedly because our group was not recognized. We even asked that the question be put to the house on that occasion and the Liberal members voted against my being allowed to speak in this house. Two days later, out of courtesy, the member for Lapointe and myself were allowed to speak. What was the reason for this change of attitude? I do not know. One thing is certain, and the hon. members opposite know it, the electors in our ridings, not only mine, but the Canadian electors are shocked to see the flippant way in which a group of 13 creditistes of the province of Quebec are treated in this house.
I will quote the Montreal Star, which is not a creditiste newspaper, but one which favours the existence of only two parties in Canada. This is what the Montreal Star of October 10 had to say:

The privileges committee of the House of Commons has probably settled nothing by its decision about parliamentary seating of the splinter parties. On the one hand they have declared that because the Social Credit split took place between elections, it should not be recognized. Mr. Thompson's group therefore remains the official parliamentary Social Credit party even though it contains fewer members than the creditiste wing. On the other hand, though not recognizing the split for one purpose, it accepts it for another: the committee elevates the New Democratic party to No. 3 place, above the split Social Crediters.
Where is justice in that?
It is impossible not to wonder what would have been decided if the split had been in either the Liberal or Conservative party, and on a much bigger scale. Let us suppose, for instance, that the Conservatives had split up, with Mr. Diefenbaker leading 40 members while Mr. Harkness led a group of 50. Who would then be Leader of the Opposition? Would the committee have decided that, because the split took place between elections, Mr. Diefenbaker got the nod?
Much of the argument about the credentials and reality of a political party in which the committee indulged was probably beside the point. Mr. Thompson became national leader of the Social Credit party at a time when the party's hope ran high that it would elect members all over Canada. In the event, it was Mr. Caouette in Quebec who delivered the goods at the polls, not once but twice. Without the creditistes, the parliamentary Social Credit party would have amounted to nothing but a tiny handful.

![Translation]
And a little further:

More will be heard of this dispute, for the unruly temper of the House of Commons is likely to become worse before it gets better. This newspaper does not like Social Credit theory.

He does not like Social Credit. But such is not the case for my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who likes it.

In so far as Mr. Thompson and Mr. Caouette believe and advocate this theory, we don't like either of them. If they fall out, it weakens the Social Credit case in the country, which is all to the good.


David Réal Caouette: At least, no one would contend that it is a creditiste newspaper.

But so long as Mr. Caouette has a faithful parliamentary following bigger than that of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Caouette is entitled to believe that he has been ill done by in the committee on privileges.

That is an article which appeared in the Montreal Star. There is also a Toronto newspaper, the Telegram, which is not a supporter of the Social Credit doctrine, as the Liberals know very well. It keeps describing me as a demagogue everywhere, in Toronto and across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) might, at least, be serious. I understand that the hon. member is most intelligent, but at this time he is like a two-year old child. Mr. Speaker, let him not behave like this in his riding, because he would certainly never come back here. Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Telegram, says this:

It is fun to bait and thwart a demagogue like Real Caouette; no doubt the Liberals and Conservatives in parliament are enjoying it immensely. But it is a stupid game dangerous to parliament and the nation, when the demagogue has a good case.

Mr. Speaker, I do not admit being a demagogue, but I admit I have a good case.

Mr. Caouette has a good case for the recognition of his creditistes as a parliamentary party. Indeed, the Liberals and Conservatives appear to be violating the spirit if not the letter of a law passed
Privileges and Elections only last July, which implies that a group with 12 members or more is entitled to party status in parliament. Mr. Caouette has 12 followers, and with him they form a party as distinct from the others as anyone could wish. But the government, backed by the official opposition, goes on according precedence to Robert Thompson and his 10 Social Crediters.
This does not accurately state the situation, but this article was written on October 9. We do appreciate the support we received yesterday from both the other opposition parties in this house.


An hon. Member:: They may change it.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Medicine Hat may join our group in the house, so there may be a change. The article goes on to say:
This injustice gives Mr. Caouette a grievance which rural Quebec will easily understand.
Not only rural Quebec but urban Quebec also.
To the inflamed eye of a French Canadian nationalist, the sight of the non-French majority denying full rights to this group of Quebec M.P.'s may well look like another example of "Anglo-Saxon arrogance".

Mr. Speaker, those are not my words; they are the words of the Toronto Telegram.

Are the Liberals and Conservatives trying to create a French Canadian martyr at this time of strain between the founding peoples of our country? If not, they will cut short their foolish vendetta against Mr. Caouette and give him his deserved recognition immediately.

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to foster an internal struggle between French and English Canadians. As Canadians, we are trying to get the recognition to which we are entitled. When I hear the Liberals talk over and over again of their respect for liberty, the human rights, the Canadian bill of rights-


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Villeneuve permit me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A moment ago, the hon. member quoted a newspaper report saying that the Conservatives were in agreement with the government, that they were not for the recognition of his group. Well, in my opinion, this article is altogether wrong, because we believe in democratic freedoms; in other words, we do not want to act towards the opposition as they did behind the iron curtain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for drawing my attention to a fact which began to exist only yesterday.

Privileges and Elections
As I said a moment ago, the writer of the report in question was probably not aware at the time of the Conservatives' attitude. Today, we can say quite frankly that the Conservatives have certainly given evidence of respect for democratic principles, which is much more than what the government did yesterday.


Mr. Knowles:: They changed their minds since the committee met.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I was saying a moment ago that the Liberals were boasting throughout the country of their attachment for democratic principles. In this connection, I would like to give you an example.
We have been accused of washing our dirty linen in public. If it had been possible to wash it among ourselves, in the Social Credit family, we would have done it.
In other words, we are accused of changing our stand. Well, what are the facts? Yesterday, I mentioned a letter sent by the member for Red Deer to the national executive of the Social Credit association. In the second paragraph, page 6, we can read this:
Consideration should be given to changing the name of the national party.
Mr. Speaker, who is changing the name or wants to change the name? We, or the other organization?
I continue my quotation:
In order to attain our purpose we shall probably have to find new means, without changing however our basic tenets. In that way, the public at large might find our purpose more acceptable.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Nothing has been changed yet.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) exclaim: "nothing has been changed yet". He at least has changed in the last few weeks, and we shall put things straight in his own county, with his constituents.


An hon. Member:: A painful reception, indeed.


David Réal Caouette: The operation will not be in the least mysterious.
I quote:
In order to attain our purpose, we shall probably have to find new means, without changing however our basic tenets. In that way, the public at large might find our purpose more acceptable. These affiliations of provincial associations of Social Crediters would show quite clearly that we are broadening our outlook, without sacrificing any of our basic principles. In so doing, we would obtain many new members, who might feel embarrassed today by the mere mention of the words "Social Credit" and by the false interpretation they were given of our financial program.


Mr. Speaker, we are able to support- [Text]


Mr. Macdonald:: On a point of order, I believe it would be in accordance with the rules of the house if the hon. member were to file or table the letter from which he was reading.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I am required to make public all the contents of this letter. I wish to use a letter that was addressed to me and quote some excerpts. However, for the guidance of my hon. friend, if he wants to read the whole letter, he may come and see me anytime, today or next week, and I shall be happy to show him the whole letter.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to draw attention to the fact that during the 1961 convention, when Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta, was present, I was told by Mr. Manning, and the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was present, that the movement would never accept a Catholic French Canadian as leader. Mr. Speaker, at that time, we could not fall into step.
In fact, I may say that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives would have uttered such words as regards a Catholic French Canadian. For their consideration, I bow to the Liberals, since they had, as head of their party and of the Canadian government, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the right hon. Mr. St. Laurent, who were both Catholics. They were not chosen particularly because they were French Canadians. No. But because they were Canadians. No consideration was given to the religious aspect, were they Catholics, Protestants or something else. People simply looked to see if they were true Canadians.
Consequently, such discrimination on the part of the premier of Alberta could not be tolerated. I believe that the Liberals, French Canadians as well as English Canadians, would not have tolerated such a situation in their ranks. On the other hand, the Conservatives would not have tolerated it either,
We could no longer stand such a situation within the framework of Social Credit in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Nevertheless, you campaigned twice.


David Réal Caouette: Not under his direction, and this for your information.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to quote an article published in the newspaper Le Devoir, on October 12, 1963. I believe it is recognized that this is not a Social Credit newspaper, for in it have appeared numerous articles against the theory of Social Credit and

against our organization. However, here is what it said:
Real Caouette is defending himself against an unfair treatment.
Whatever may have been the mistakes of the Caouette partisans, they are today perfectly justifiable to protest against the unfair treatment they are receiving.
When the Social Credit group, divided, came back to parliament on September 30, the Speaker, Mr. Alan Macnaughton, omitted, as was appropriate, to decide on the respective status of the Thompson faction and of the Caouette faction. He asked for instructions from the house, which referred the matter for consideration to one of its committees. That committee on privileges and elections was to determine the seating arrangement of the parties in the house and to define the status of the Ralliement des creditistes, the name taken by the 12 members faithful to Mr. Caouette.
The committee had only sat once when Mr. Caouette's followers, in order to speed up their party's recognition, decided to paralyse the business of the house. The move was premature, to say the least, and this they realized themselves two days later. Monday, they agreed to put an end to their obstruction, provided the committee would speed up its proceedings and reach a decision, which was done the following day. But for reasons which are hard to explain, the committee decided, 14 votes against 8, to grant precedence in the house to the Thompson group, which is smaller by two members than the Caouette group, and not to give recognition to the Ralliement des creditistes, because they had not withstood the test of a general election. Conservatives, N.D.P. members and the Caouette group opposed that decision, but Liberals and the Thompson group were in sufficient numbers in the committee to have it passed.
Since when do the members of parliament not have the right to interpret their mandate in the way they see fit after an election? Let the voters reject them at the next election if they are not satisfied


Mr. Habel:: That will be their lot after the next election.


David Réal Caouette: Those are questions to which the committee did not seek an answer, the precedents being as scarce one way or the other. But we remember recent days when the Liberals had less scruples: when Mr. Hazen Argue or Mr. Ross Thatcher crossed the floor to join them or even when Mr. Marcoux quit the Social Credit at the beginning of the session.
Besides being unexplainable, the decision is quite unfair, since it deprives Mr. Caouette, although he leads a more representative group than Mr. Thompson of the right of speech on several occasions and of the right of representation on parliamentary committees. Therefore, the Caouettists are now justified to stand in self-defence and, if need be, to hold up the business of the house in order to obtain justice.


Some hon. Members:: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: It is to be hoped that the house will support them and repeal the committee's decision when the report is considered next week.
That report was by J. P. Fournier, of the newspaper Le Devoir.
Privileges and Elections
Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for is absolutely legitimate. We will be blamed and held responsible again for the public business delays in the federal parliament-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: -when the whole fault is with the government in power, the Liberal government, since September 30.
I am saying and I am convinced that the whole thing was hatched and worked out underhand even before the committee made its report to the House of Commons.


Gérard Girouard: Remember Senator Drouin.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Labelle mention Senator Drouin. The hon. member is dishonest, because he has no right to talk here about things that do not and did not exist.
Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat that the hon. member for Labelle would not be sitting in the House of Commons, had it not been for the Ralliement des creditistes of the province of Quebec which chose him as its candidate and had him elected in the April 8 election.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: His Majesty Hitler.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member of Cochrane (Mr. Habel) say: "His Majesty Hitler". His brain seems to have frozen in that northern Moosonee area on James bay, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve a question.


David Réal Caouette: Do ask your question by any means, if you can formulate one.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He who only mentions the remote area of Moosonee, he himself-


David Réal Caouette: What is your question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, this is my question. Did you not run a Social Credit candidate in that remote spot you mentioned, and was he not soundly beaten, as I hope you will be in the next election?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you just heard the sort of question the hon. member for Cochrane can ask.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Would you answer my question?


David Réal Caouette: Grasp all its portent.
That question is no question at all.
Your question should rather be asked of the national organization. Mr. Speaker, if the question of the hon. member for Cochrane were intelligent, I would answer it. But I might, nevertheless, answer my excellent friend that the Liberal candidate in my own county lost his deposit. It is true that in the riding of the hon. member, the Social Credit

Privileges and Elections candidate lost his deposit, but he was not my candidate. I have no candidate.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make all the interjections he wants; that is all the brainwork he is able to do in the house.
The newspaper Le Droit in Ottawa-


Mr. Boulanger:: I suppose that you have a monopoly of brain?


David Réal Caouette: No, I have no monopoly of brain, but I like to give credit to those who have brains. But when somebody else has risen in the house, one should keep silent and let him talk.
Mr. Speaker, the paper Le Droit of October 10 last, said, in an article signed by Mr. Maurice Huot:
A single paper, i.e. the Toronto daily Star, settled the discussion with the firmness of those who never have heard the word "doubt". In its October 8 edition, the paper wants the creditistes to be recognized under the act which defines political parties in the House of Commons and which was recently clarified by an amendment duly passed by the House of Commons and the Senate.
That amendment provides an additional sum of $4,000 for the leader of each separate group. As Mr. Caouette heads a group of 13 members, whereas Mr. Thompson only has 11, it seems rather clear to the Toronto daily Star that there should be no useless shenanigans and that Mr. Caouette's group ought to be recognized.
There are several hon. members in the house who have some doubts with regard to that additional $4,000 indemnity, which, according to them, caused the division between the Thompson faction and ours.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say here, before all assembled members-in order to show that the additional indemnity of $4,000 has nothing to do in this matter-that I am ready to leave this amount at your disposal, to be distributed to charitable works in Canada. It is as simple as that. There is no question at all in this dispute of this additional indemnity.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: And the hon. member for Ville-neuve will continue to collect funds.


Gérard Girouard: May I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve if he would mind to add the $8,000 against which he voted to this amount of $4,000, and also donate it for some charitable purpose, which would make a tidy little sum of $12,000?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as far as the additional $8,000 are concerned, the hon. member for Labelle may sleep in peace, I know how to use it. In the past, I unfortunately did use similar amounts, not only of $8,000, but much higher than that, to have some people elected like the hon. member for Labelle, for instance, which I deeply regret.
Those people-and the hon. member for Labelle will not contradict me, as he came to see me, in the house, every two or three

days to ask me how he could become a convinced candidate of the Social Credit in the federal election. I supported him, and asked the members of his organization in his constituency, who did not want to support him, to accept him anyway as candidate at the forthcoming election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


David Réal Caouette: Do not say oh. The member for Labelle is well aware of that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve that he return to the subject he was dealing with in the early part of his speech.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here is the point-


Prosper Boulanger: That's it, go ahead and tell him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I can hear my learned friend opposite, and that reminds me of the little Chicago of 1946-48, whose job it was to always interrupt those who had the floor. It is a contest to find out who can utter the greatest nonsense. Those characters are holding such a competition to prevent members of the house from speaking.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say that we are of our times and we wish to take a stand, in this chamber, for the small nations of the world, and that in the name of democracy and the rights of man, the right of all people, as well as all groups and individuals, to be free.
What do we say about Russia, for instance, which does not recognize the existence of small parties? We do not want communism. We do not want a Cuban-type organization. We do not want Castroism in Canada. Are not the Liberals acting toward us now exactly like that good man Khrushchev is doing in Russia and Castro is doing in Cuba? So much so that last night I told newspapermen: "I think it is becoming more and more obvious: red is as red in Moscow as it is in Ottawa and red is as red in Ottawa as it is in Moscow." That is the situation we find ourselves in when we are subjected to a kind of treatment like the one we now have to put up with in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) are in the house at present. I regret the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) but I urge the federal leaders to remember the present position of their party and to stop telling hon. members, through their whip, how they should vote.

Let there be a free vote in the house to determine whether or not we care for democratic principles and whether or not in Canada men have the right to associate and to look after their own affairs. Let us recognize today man's right to form a party and be acknowledged as such. By doing that, the Liberals would be better accepted in Canada and all hon. members would have the respect of the Canadian electorate but, above everything else, they would command the respect of democracies throughout the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready to vote on the amendment to the main motion?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: If no
hon. member, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If no other member intends to address the house, Mr. Speaker, then I will forgo my right to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At least two hon. members, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) and the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), have indicated by rising that they wish to speak.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosthern is rising, indicating that he wants to speak.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If that is so, I should like to exercise my privilege by speaking for approximately two minutes. I was a member of the committee on privileges and elections. I had no intention of speaking in this debate. My views were fully and, if I say so, admirably expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I do desire now to take two or three minutes of the time of this house in making an appeal. Mind you, and I know there can be other views, in my view the report of the committee was politically unwise, logically indefensible and quite inconsistent with the best traditions of parliament and the rights of individual members.
However, Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that the members of the Liberal party, with admirable unanimity, have made up their minds and no amount of eloquence, no amount of argument, is likely to change their minds. We have had eloquence galore. We have had arguments ad nauseum on this subject from both sides of the house. I am not in collusion with the Secretary of State, but as an individual and quite unofficial member of this house, for the sake of the country,
Division
for the sake of parliament, I urge that we get on with this matter and deal with the serious business that is facing this country. I heard only a few minutes ago that the S.I.U. I imagine in defiance of the expressed will of parliament, is out on strike. If that is correct, then this is the sort of problem crucial to this country with which we ought to be dealing. We have heard enough; for God's sake let's vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Rouleau:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Granger:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired with the hon. member tor Middlesex East (Mr. Millar). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McCulcheon:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that it is one thirty. As certain members of this group want to speak on the main motion, I should ask you to call it one thirty.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Unless someone rises to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me you have no option but to put the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker, certain members of the Social Credit want to speak on the main motion.

I am sorry that this burns up the Liberal party, but we have decided to continue burning it up a little more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In this house surely each member must speak for himself.
It being 34 minutes after one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Ottawa, October 18, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th of October, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler,
Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I was asked at the opening of the session this morning by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party whether it would not be desirable to interrupt the debate which had been going on in order that certain questions on matters of urgency could be addressed to the government. I said, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we could proceed and see what happened during the morning.
We have dealt with a subamendment and an amendment, and if the hon. gentleman who has the floor could give the house the assurance, provided he is in a position to do so and other hon. members do not object, that his will be the last statement on the matter and we can proceed then to the vote on the main motion, then I think we should do that and go ahead with orders of the day right after that. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could give us that assurance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think we would accept the proposition of

the Leader of the Opposition to proceed with questions on orders of the day because we feel it is our duty to do so; but in order to try to solve the problem before us we have prepared an amendment to the main motion which we desire to bring forward this afternoon with a view to solving the problem. Therefore we will agree to having the question period now and then returning to motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member agrees to taking questions now and then wishes to go back to the debate in which we have been engaged. It was my proposal that we should suspend this particular debate, go on with orders of the day, proceed this afternoon as indicated last night and then return to the matter we are debating at the earliest possible date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Lapointe has stated that he intends to move a further amendment, which apparently will result in further discussion, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would agree now to proceed to the orders of the day so that an opportunity would be provided to ask necessary questions at this time. It seems clear to me that on the basis of what has been stated by the hon. member for Lapointe the Prime Minister's hopes for the conclusion in a short time of the discussion on the seating arrangements are more sanguine than the facts warrant.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable, but we are also anxious to proceed with certain urgent business; not that the business we are talking about is not urgent, but I am thinking of the setting up today, as we indicated we would try to do, of the committee on procedure so it could get to work next week. We are all aware now of the importance of procedure. Therefore if the debate on this other matter drags on indefinitely we will have to reconsider the situation at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to proceed to orders of the day?


Gilles Grégoire: Under the provision that we go back to motions after questions on orders of the day.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can bring the house up to date on any communications between the government and
Inquiries of the Ministry the President and secretary of labour of the United States in connection with the trusteeship legislation. Also, is the government aware of the fact, as I suggested when I spoke in the house on October 1, that if this legislation is proceeded with there is danger of a mass walkout of the S.I.U. workers? Furthermore, is the government aware of the threats made by the S.I.U., both in Montreal and Vancouver, to march on Ottawa by way of protest which, of course, will mean the holding up of shipping in those two ports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be able to deal with all the right hon. gentleman's questions, which are very important and of immediate urgency. The first question he asked, perhaps not the first but the one I have in my mind at the moment, was whether the government was aware of the danger that might be caused by the putting into effect of the government trusteeship legislation in view of the possibility of certain unions, or one union and the members of that union, taking exception to that legislation and attempting to destroy its effect. The government is very much aware of that danger, Mr. Speaker, and has been for some time. The danger would have been even greater if we had acted precipitously last July before we had attempted to bring about a private trusteeship.
The right hon. gentleman also asked whether I was aware of the development that had been reported today, namely a possible march on Ottawa by members of the S.I.U., and the action reported by their leaders in calling the seamen away from work and holding up shipping in that way. I have seen these reports, which must arouse not only great interest but great concern on the part of all members of the house and indeed of the country as a whole. The call to strike, if that is the right expression, and if it is not a strike it is a threatened strike, seems to have been issued in a bulletin called "Instruction Bulletin No. 1." I received this bulletin just before lunch. It is issued to members of the seamen's union by what is referred to as the seamen's rights committee of the seafarers international union of Canada. The instructions seem to be based on the assumption that the trusteeship law is in effect.
This, Mr. Speaker, of course is not the case. The law has passed all the stages of discussion in this house and has been approved by the Senate. It has not yet received royal assent, though I expect it will receive royal assent this afternoon. It will then not be in effect until it is proclaimed by the government. Although the law is not yet in effect, the

Inquiries of the Ministry government certainly does not intend to defer action in this regard because of the pressure that might be exerted on it, or attempted, by a strike or the threat of a strike. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, under certain circumstances that pressure would have the opposite effect.
I think the action called for by these instructions contained in bulletin No. 1 issued by this committee is especially to be condemned at this particular time when negotiations for a private settlement, and one that would be satisfactory to the Canadian government and the Canadian Labour Congress, have been resumed. They were resumed last Saturday and they give hope-I can certainly go that far-of an early and successful conclusion. To have this action taken by the union concerned when so much progress has been made in these resumed negotiations for a private settlement which would be satisfactory to both sides of the line and to the labour union organizations concerned, I think is a deplorable development. Certainly this kind of threat does not in any way facilitate these negotiations.
We are in touch with the United States at the government level, and I understand the union organizations are in touch with each other. I do not need to tell the house how difficult and delicate these negotiations are. I do not want to say anything at this time which would interfere in any way with a very early and successful conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a further question. In these discussions that are taking place, I take it at government level, is the United States insisting that on this trustee board there shall be United States labour representation? Is that the condition upon which the question will be determined as to whether or not a private arrangement can be concluded?
I should like also to ask the Prime Minister, since he has gone into quite a bit of detail, does he think that having legislation passed by both houses of parliament and negotiations thereafter has a weakening effect on the authority of parliament to pass this legislation? There still has to be royal assent given, but when royal assent is given does the government intend to proclaim the legislation, or simply to use it as a means of pressure to gain a trusteeship settlement that apparently is being considered at the moment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it would be very unwise for me to make public now the terms of the negotiations that are being conducted. I can give the right hon. gentleman the assurance that in any trusteeship arrangement that would be acceptable to this government, and I am sure to the people of this country,

the determining voice in any board of trustees would have to be Canadian. There is no doubt about that.
I want to assure the right hon. gentleman we are proceeding in the normal way with our legislation. I understand that royal assent will be given to it this afternoon. If within the next day or two or over the week end there is an assurance of a satisfactory private trusteeship, the act will not be proclaimed until that assurance is removed. However, we are not going to suspend the operation of this act for long during these negotiations. I hope we will reach a successful conclusion within the next day or two. If that is possible, and I think it is possible, then surely it would be a great mistake to proclaim this act tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask one more question. Is the determination of the personnel on this trustee board to be made at the direction of the United States?


An hon. Member:: Stop that.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest to the hon. member that he read the editorial in the Financial Post today to see whether there is some justification for what I am saying. Is the government of the United States pressing for a trustee board that will have United States representatives on it for the determination of a Canadian question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadian Labour Congress has been primarily concerned with the negotiations on the membership of the trustee board. The labour congress, as indeed the government of Canada, will make absolutely certain that the interests of Canada in connection with that board, in membership and everything, will be overriding.


An hon. Member:: That is no answer.


Hon. Michael Sfarr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour confirm or deny Washington press reports to the effect that he has been in communication with the secretary of labour of the United States, Mr. Wirtz; and were those telephone conversations initiated by the secretary of labour of the United States or by himself?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: First of all I am not obliged, as is abundantly clear under the rules of the house, to confirm or deny any press report.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, were these conversations that have been going on between the minister and the secretary of labour initiated by the secretary of labour of the United States or by himself?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the conversations that I have been conducting with the secretary of labour have gone on for a long period of time, and I just cannot recall now who put in the first telephone call.


Michael Starr: We realize they have been going on for a long time, but new conversations have been initiated since the trusteeship bill was introduced in the House of Commons. Those are the ones to which I am referring.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the conversations which I have had with the secretary of labour of the United States have been continuous conversations. They have not been broken off at such a point that there are several stages or chapters. This is not the case at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the matter that is concerning the house most acutely is the possibility of the seamen walking off the ships and preventing the transshipment of wheat at this very critical stage before freeze up. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what steps the government is taking now in anticipation of this happening, and what the government intends to do if there is a stoppage of shipping on the great lakes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, every possible step that can be taken is being taken to prevent this happening.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he intends to meet with Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Meany and Mr. Jodoin before proclaiming the trusteeship act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans on my part to meet with either or any of the three gentlemen mentioned.


Léon Balcer: As a supplementary question, has the minister received any request from the S.I.U. to have an interview here in Ottawa with representatives of that union before the trusteeship act is proclaimed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such request.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, concerning the negotiations for a private trusteeship to which he alluded a moment ago, are the negotiations going on now or have they been concluded?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The negotiations are going on now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry indicated that in the event of a private trusteeship being set up, Canada's interests would be overriding, does the minister not feel that his place should be with the negotiators in order that Canada's interests will be overriding? Further, as the government has a vital interest in this, is it not logical that he himself should be present at the negotiations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is doing the negotiating?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the comments of the Prime Minister can be interpreted to mean that as of this moment there are a group of men, composing a negotiating team, actually in session. That interpretation cannot be drawn from the Prime Minister's statement.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister indicate to the house just what "negotiations going on at this time" does mean? The Prime Minister has indicated to the house that the negotiations are going on at present. I would like an interpretation of what "at present" means?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member realizes that if the Prime Minister does not care to answer he is not obliged to do so under our rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, is the house to accept now the interpretation given by the Minister of Labour of the answer which the Prime Minister gave me a few moments ago? Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that the Minister of Labour's interpretation is correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: How silly can you get?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could I ascertain from the Prime Minister whether he has been in communication, on the telephone or otherwise, with the President of the United States during the last few days with reference to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are going on at all levels.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not answer the question.


Mr. Chevrier:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Has he received the consent of the President of the United States to the plan that the government has in mind for the settlement of this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question, of course, Mr. Speaker, is asked in the kind of offensive manner which indicates that a reply is not expected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the fact that a reply is not given indicative of the fact
3734	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the hon. gentleman is waiting for the consent of the President of the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Jack Kennedy and Jack Pickersgill.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what new steps are intended by his department to avoid a strike by the national harbour board police in Montreal; or is he going to wait until he has had an interview with Mr. Wirtz before making any decision in this case?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Or President Kennedy.



NORRIS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice which I have asked previously, and which I think one other hon. member has inquired about since then. What progress has been made in the study of the special report made by the special counsel appointed by the Minister of Justice, regarding the Norris commission findings?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, that question has been asked almost every other day-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us have an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: -since I have received the preliminary report, and all I can say at this time is that the report is still under study.


Michael Starr: Since the Minister of Justice has referred to this as a preliminary report, does he expect other reports to be presented by the special counsel in respect to this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: It may very well be that another report will be forthcoming after this one has been under study by the legal officers of the department and the two counsel who have been appointed.


Michael Starr: In view of the interest of every hon. member of the house in what could be done in this area, would the Minister of Justice consider tabling the preliminary report?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is a preliminary report for the information of the


minister, and I do not think it has been the practice to table such reports under these circumstances.



WHITE PASS AND YUKON RAILROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that railroad and shipping operations of the White Pass and Yukon route have now been tied up for 14 days, can the minister indicate whether he or his officials or anybody else in the government is going to do anything to assist in alleviating this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise my hon. friend that I have nothing to add to what I told him several days ago in this connection.


Erik Nielsen: I wish to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. It is related to the question I asked the Minister of Labour. I do so for two reasons to which I have already referred, namely the possibility of a rail and shipping tie-up, and the impending closing of the Haines cut-off in the next two or three weeks. Can the minister say whether he has decided to accept the offer of the Alaska authorities to keep the Haines road open?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: All these questions are under intense study.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether the Department of Transport is planning, or has made arrangements, to take over the operation of the airport at Churchill, Manitoba, from the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT SECRETARIAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether there will definitely be discussions relating to the establishment of a permanent secretariat or secretarial organization for federal-provincial affairs, at the forthcoming November meeting with the provincial premiers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is not a matter of immediate urgency, but it was announced previously that this would be one of the subjects to be discussed.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by Premier Robarts that Ontario will proceed with its portable pension plan if the Canada pension plan is shelved or delayed, and in view of the further statement that persons have been appointed to confer with the federal government on merging these two plans, would the Prime Minister take the opportunity provided by this question to give the house the assurance that the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with at this session of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that that answer has been interpreted as meaning the plan is to be put off until a later session? Can he not give a definite answer with respect to this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for other people's interpretations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister aware that it is the premier of Ontario who apparently interprets the Prime Minister's statement as meaning the Canada pension plan will not be proceeded with at this current session, and that if it is not proceeded with at this current session it is the intention of the Ontario government to proceed with its own pension plan? Surely in the light of this understanding by the premier of Ontario some clarification is necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not seen the statement, but I will be glad to look into it. However, any interpretation of that kind that the plan will not be proceeded with at this session would certainly be premature.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to ask a supplementary question has sort of slid by. However, I would ask the Prime Minister this question. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he said he is not responsible for the interpretation which other people put on remarks. Does this include the answer I received a short while ago from the Minister of Labour?


An hon. Member:: No answers today.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question arising out of a certain discussion in public with regard to the broadcasting industry, and the report of the three men suggesting that the broadcasting industry needed to be stabilized for a period. I would ask the Secretary of State whether the government has given any indication to the members of the board of broadcast governors, whose terms of appointment are almost up- they will be within a very short time-that they shall be reappointed, in the interests of stability?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, no indication of any kind has been given.



LEAKAGE OF INFORMATION AFFECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I would like to direct it to the acting minister. Does not the minister consider the recent leak of confidential data in the United States relating to wheat board sales of wheat has resulted in the cancellation of a proposed second sale of wheat to Japan, as reported in several daily papers in Canada and the United States during the past several days?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to a second sale of wheat to Japan, we have been advised by the Canadian wheat board that there has not been a second sale to Japan, neither was one contemplated.
3736	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



EFFORTS TO REVIVE TRADE BETWEEN ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND CARIBBEAN AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When he was speaking at Milford Station prior to the April 8 election he called for a revival of the West Indian trade between the Atlantic provinces and the Caribbean.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If hon. gentlemen opposite will be patient, I am coming to the question. Would the Prime Minister tell the house what efforts he has made toward bringing about a revival of this trade between the Atlantic provinces and the Caribbean, and would he also tell the house whether he would use his good offices to help establish a direct air service between the Atlantic provinces and the Caribbean?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do this on a suitable occasion, but orders of the day is not a suitable occasion.



REPORTED THREAT OF U.S. COUNTER MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about a matter concerning the integrity and self-respect of every Canadian. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the threat made by United States officials regarding our export wheat sales to the effect that strong counter measures against Canada may be taken in 1964? What is the government's attitude toward this interference in Canadian affairs, and Canadian wheat sales in particular?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the hon. gentleman is referring, unless it was the statement reported in the press of some unnamed official in the department of agriculture in Washington who talked about possible counter measures in 1964. I do not think that kind of statement by an unnamed official in the U.S. department of agriculture bears the interpretation my hon. friend has given to it.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, they were officials of the United States department of agriculture.



BULGARIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on October 14 last, the hon. member for Chicoutimi asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the use of French during negotiations with Bulgaria.
I made an inquiry in this connection and this is what I found out.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Bulgarian delegation itself which asked that English be used during the negotiations preceding the signature of a trade agreement with Bulgaria. These negotiations were therefore held in English, except during talks between the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself and the principal Bulgarian delegate when the services of an unofficial but comparatively qualified interpreter, namely the parliamentary secretary, were used at certain moments only.
The final document itself was drawn up in English only and this on the request of the Bulgarian delegate, because since Bulgaria has no diplomatic mission in Ottawa it did not have its own translation facilities.
If the Bulgarian delegation had chosen French, the original documents would have been drawn up in that language.
The documents dealing with the agreement will be tabled in both languages as usual.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I am sorry that I have not been able to give him notice, but it has just been brought to my attention, as usual. In view of the statement made by T. C. Higginson, president of the engineering institute of Canada, in Vancouver yesterday that government agencies, including the dominion bureau of statistics, are giving away important statistical information that helps foreign investors take over Canadian industries, would he consider looking into this charge and letting the house know what substance there is in it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have this question looked into and, if there is any

Inquiries of the Ministry
substance in the charge, to make a report to [Text]
the house.	HOUSING



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the present abnormal practice in Washington of allowing secrets to leak out, would the minister take this house into his confidence and review the plans by which he intends to secure for Canada a larger share of the anticipated growth of the North American automobile industry so that we may learn of those plans from him rather than from the United States newspapers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As soon as a plan has been worked out and has been approved by the government, the house will be the first to know about it.


Michael Starr: Is the minister saying that he went to the United States and revealed to them a plan which had not been worked out or approved by the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I just indicated that the plan had not yet been worked out, and that is correct. It was, therefore, not possible to reveal in the United States a complete plan.


Michael Starr: What were you talking about, then?



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PEUGEOT PLANT IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Could he tell
the house whether his plans in connection with the automobile industry also take into account a statement published in the Montreal Matin of October 17, 1963, where it is claimed that a subsidiary of the Peugeot industries would prefer to establish a plant in Ontario rather than in Quebec provided the federal government would grant it a preferential treatment if they established in Ontario rather than in Quebec.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and I will answer it tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: The house is not sitting tomorrow.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Monday, then.



REGULATIONS RESPECTING BONUS ON WINTER CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Labour and it is a very urgent question of concern to all builders of my area and of Canada.
It is about the incentive program to promote home building during the winter. Why is a person who builds a six unit home between December 1 and March 31 denied the $500 bonus, when a $2,000 bonus is awarded to the one who builds a four unit home during the same period?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest this is a question for the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
Could the minister tell the house whether he intends to get at the truth of certain press reports to the effect that some officials of his department are putting pressure on Eskimos of northern Quebec or are blackmailing them so that they will refuse and protest against the wish of the province of Quebec to take over the management of their affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this question, if not asked in precisely that form, has been referred to previously. May I suggest it is a question for the order paper in any event.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a question of this kind has been asked in this house in the past. I think it is an urgent question, for the good reputation of the civil service and the department conducted by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that it be put on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the rules of the house, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Is it true that the officials of his department are exerting pressure on the Eskimo population of new Quebec as I stated a moment ago in my previous question?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am rather happy that the hon. member has reworded his question which you earlier disallowed, because if it had gone unanswered there would have been a pall upon the officers of my department.
For some two years the province of Quebec has been sending its officials into nouveau Quebec to conduct the development of resources there, administer police affairs and so on, and in that period our officials have enjoyed a very fine degree of co-operation with them. As a matter of fact their officials have been invited to get in contact with ours to discuss affairs. We have rented several houses to the department of les richesses naturelles of the province of Quebec, and relations have been the very finest.
Therefore I can attach no measure of truth to this rumour at all. I know it is not so. Our officials there are under instructions to work as closely as possible with the officers of the province of Quebec who are now coming into the area.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on business, and in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, might I ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would communicate with the wheat board in order to ascertain whether it is possible to increase the two bushel and three bushel quota per specified acre both in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which is so much less this year in both provinces than it was a year ago?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, of which I have sent him notice. Is the government aware of the case of Mr. Wayson S. Choy, a Canadian born citizen who was refused admission to the United States on the ground that half his ancestry was Chinese; and will the government make representations to the government of the United States that such discrimination is inconsistent with the universal declaration of human rights, and offensive to Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question and also for having given me a little time to do the research which was required to get the information. I am answering him at some length because I know there are some questions of principle involved in his question. This matter was brought to my attention by Mr. Choy and others, and in view of the interest that it has aroused in the house and in other parts of Canada I would like to explain it.
At the outset I should like to make it very clear that as for Canadian law and policy, the present government, like its predecessor, is firmly opposed in principle and in practice to racial discrimination. Mr. Choy may rest assured that as far as Canadian law and policy are concerned, his Canadian citizenship is the same as that of every other Canadian born citizen.
With respect to the United States law relating to immigrant visas-and this is the matter immediately under discussion-it has since 1924, with some exceptions, been based on a national origins system. There are quotas, however, based on country of birth for most countries of the world. A separate- and this is the exception-and very small quota, based on ancestry and not place of birth, was provided for persons whose ancestry lies in what that law calls the "Asia-Pacific triangle". If persons born in Canada and Latin America fall within the rules relating to ancestry in the Asia-Pacific triangle, they come under this particular quota.
The result of this law in Mr. Choy's case was that when he applied to the United States consul for an immigrant visa in order to work in the United States, he was told that his application could be considered only under the Chinese quota, which is filled for several years ahead. Mr. Choy considered that the effect of the United States law is to discriminate on racial grounds, in the

matter of immigration visas, against him and a particular category of Canadian born citizens.
While it may not be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for the Canadian government to make official and formal representations to the United States government against the racial origins features of United States domestic immigration law, this does not mean that the Canadian government favours the inclusion of racial origin provisions in the immigration laws of the United States or any other country. These provisions, however, are not directed against Canada. A prospective immigrant of Chinese ancestry would find himself up against the Asia-Pacific quota provisions regardless of what country he was born in.
An additional reason, Mr. Speaker, for not making formal representations to the United States government is the fact that on July 23 of this year President Kennedy sent a message to congress proposing important changes in the quota system. He described the national origins system as "an anachronism, for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth". He specifically proposed the repeal of the Asia-Pacific ancestry formula, which is the part of the law that affects Mr. Choy. The President's proposals are now being considered in congress.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not feel that it might aid the President if the view of the Canadian government on this matter, which I suggest is more than just a domestic matter, were conveyed formally, rather than unofficially, to the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Canadian government as I have expressed them in the House of Commons will certainly be brought to the attention of the United States government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell us what steps the government intends to take to provide work for the 250,000 unemployed we have at present in Canada?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Forty per cent of whom are in the province of Quebec.
28902-5-238
Inquiries of the Ministry


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


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have said before, where there is no urgency to a question and the question is referred to the order paper I do not see how there can be a supplementary question to such question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, you have stated that this is a matter for the order paper, but you will remember that last year the hon. member for Essex East in particular asked such questions once if not twice a day.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you mentioned that a question has to be in order to receive a direct answer from the minister; that it should be urgent, and should also indicate a solution to the problem. I submit that the question put by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is in order, because the papers this morning reveal that 40 per cent of the unemployed in this country are in the province of Quebec. If that is not an urgent problem I would ask Your Honour to tell me what is. The Minister of Labour should tell the people of Quebec and the government of Quebec what he intends to do in order to alleviate the unemployment situation in that province.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This question apparently has no urgency for the government.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. He seemed earlier to consider as not urgent the fact that there are 40,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec.
Following the statement made by Lieutenant-General Stevens before the defence committee where he suggested that compulsory military service in Canada would constitute an excellent way of checking unemployment, does the minister consider this solution suitable for present needs in order to solve the unemployment problem in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I do think this is a question for the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Since the number of unemployed has reached 40 per cent in the province of Quebec, does the minister feel there is an emergency there and that his department should deal with it immediately?
Does the minister think this situation is urgent? That is a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member must realize that we have dealt with this question many times. The whole subject of unemployment is, of course, very serious and urgent, but it does not conform to the rules of the house under the heading of urgency. If the hon. member will consult Beauchesne and other authorities I am sure he will find that is so. Is the house ready to proceed with its business?


Georges-J. Valade: The minister is afraid to
answer.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is now ready to make the statement that he was going to make on Wednesday about the extension of the winter works program for the city of Toronto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to make this statement yesterday, but as my hon. friend knows there was not much opportunity for statements on orders of the day yesterday. But I am glad to reply to him now.
As the Minister of Labour stated in this house on June 10, the municipal winter works incentive program for 1963-64 will operate from November 1, 1963 to April 30, 1964, inclusive. It has been found that under the seven and one half month period during which the program was in effect in recent years, many municipalities commenced their projects in the fall, discontinued work during the real winter months, and resumed construction in the spring. This, of course, defeated the purpose of the program to a considerable extent. The objective, as hon. members know, is to have municipalities carry their projects through the winter months when seasonal unemployment is at its highest.
The effective period of the program already announced for next winter covers six months of the year, which should permit municipalities to do some preliminary work in the

fall and carry projects through to completion during the month of April.
A number of representations have been received regarding the effective period of the program for the coming winter, but it is not the intention to extend the period of the program beyond the six months, November 1 to April 30.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the mayor of the city of Toronto to meet with him and the board of control to discuss this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge I have received no such request, though I have read in the papers that such a request is coming. If it does, I shall be glad to meet with them.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks this change will increase winter employment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the intention of the change which was recommended to the government by officials who have had experience in the past of this program.



FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Labour in view of today being the announced date for the lay-off of 530 workers at Falcon-bridge nickel mines. Can the minister say whether he intends to take any action on the brief submitted to him and to others of his colleagues by the representatives of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be aware that the suggested remedy for this lay-off as proposed by the delegation depends primarily on action to be taken by the company involved, in co-operation with the union. We have assured the delegation that within a decision of that kind the government will co-operate, and the unemployment insurance commission will be in a position to co-operate as well.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether he will publish his proposed white paper on defence

immediately, or alternatively give the house a full statement of his defence policy, rather than provide leaks to the press of bits and pieces of the policy such as appeared in the Globe and Mail and Gazette yesterday.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to compliment the press on their interest in keeping abreast of defence matters; I think this is very worth while, and that they should be commended for so doing. Second, as I have already announced, it is my hope that we can present a white paper to the House of Commons some time early in the new year before the next year's estimates, those for 1964-65, are considered. In the meantime we are still working on our long range plans and no decisions have been taken in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The minister has not answered the question. May I ask him specifically to comment on the statement contained in yesterday's Globe and Mail that the government plans to switch half the Royal Canadian Air Force strike force of low level jet bombers in Europe to a nonnuclear role. This is an important statement. Is it an official statement of government policy? If it is not, is the minister prepared either to affirm or deny it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not an official statement of government policy, Mr. Speaker. If it had been it would have been made in the house. So far as the problem itself is concerned, it it not new. Many statements have been made about the problem posed to the Royal Canadian Air Force by the fact that they are not allowed to have special ammunition storage at the two French bases. Obviously this is one of the matters we must consider, but no decision has as yet been taken. When a decision is taken it will be announced in the House of Commons in the normal course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister saying that this is not an accurate statement? That is what I am asking.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have just said that no
decision has been made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the one which was supplementary to mine. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the reported cutback in nuclear weapons for the R.C.A.F. in Europe is to take place immediately and, if so, when does he expect that Canada will be entirely divested of nuclear weapons in accordance with his commitment to negotiate out of the nuclear field?
28902-5-238J
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on that reported statement. I have not even seen the statement.



CAMP GAGETOWN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had any complaints about the practice of the army at Camp Gagetown buying petroleum products from Irving Oil Company Limited, which is owned jointly by Mr. K. C. Irving and Standard Oil Company of California, while a sister company in that area owned by the same people, Irving Refining Limited, is undergoing a legal strike by the oil, chemical and atomic workers union? Would the minister look into the matter to ensure that the army is not participating in strikebreaking?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have had no complaints that I know of. I will look into the matter.



REPORTED CLOSING OF CERTAIN RADAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister confirm the announcement made to the press by the member for Lotbiniere to the effect that several radar stations, including the one at St. Sylvestre, in the riding of Lotbiniere, will soon be closed down.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, a similar question was asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and it was answered by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should it be asked again?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Lotbiniere gave a different story in his own riding from what was told him in the house by the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question, but I cannot force an answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING ADVERTISING OF BEER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister received protest letters from individuals or groups, following the decision of the board of broadcast governors permitting more publicity for beer on television, and increasing the maximum time of an announcement from 12 to 60 seconds?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asked to see a delegation. Unfortunately my duties here prevented me from doing so, but I have seen the representations. Should the hon. member be anxious to get any further information I would be glad to get him anything I can if he would put his question on the order paper.



QUEBEC-REACTION TO ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I will address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister received official protests from the government of the province of Quebec or the department of natural resources in Quebec in connection with the establishment of a national power grid?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will consider this question as notice.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the venerable Postmaster General. Could the minister tell the house whether he is aware of the $40,000 robbery which occurred yesterday and whether, by any chance, the name of the culprit would be on the list of privileged persons?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the robbery, but it is certainly not the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who did it because he was here yesterday.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the house of the steps that are being considered by his officials or himself to prevent those robberies which are getting to be more numerous since the present government took over?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, it was under the Conservatives that robberies were numerous. Now, robberies are due to the shipping of money from the banks. Consequently, we have taken up the matter with bank representatives to find a solution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can I ask the Postmaster General if he knows who is responsible for the theft of his carefully guarded list of consultants?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was an inside job.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he have any comments to make on an article published in Maclean's stating that the Prime Minister's advisers recommended giving up the idea of a world fair in Montreal? The article appeared on page 17 of the October 5, 1963 issue of that magazine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Have the Prime Minister's counsels advised him to give up the idea of a world fair?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if the railways or other

grain handling facilities have begun to divert supplies or cease loading in view of the possibility of a strike tying up the seaway again.


George James McIlraith: As far as I know none of the grain handling facilities have stopped work for the reason mentioned. There may be difficulties on one or two of the ships, but I am not aware that they are grain ships.



RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister comment on certain statements by Mr. Udall which are receiving a great deal of publicity with reference to the pooling of Canadian and United States resources?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister comment on those statements?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, not on the orders of the day. The policy of the government with regard to this matter was made known to the house some weeks ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I would prefer that the hon. member pose a question rather than a supplementary, because I do not think a supplementary question could be founded on that answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: Very well. I will direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. gentleman not realize that this could be one of the most urgent and important questions before the government today, inasmuch as Mr. Udall on behalf of the United States is now proposing that Canada should pool its vast resources with those of the United States, which are depleted and not expected to last very long?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I realize what is involved as well as the hon. gentleman does.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then isn't it about time there was a statement on the subject?



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: I gave notice of my intention to address the following question to the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry When can we expect some action from the interdepartmental committee studying the recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning the practice of tied sales imposed upon service stations by oil companies?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon member for notice of his question. The answer is that I am informed the committee does not expect to finish its work until about the end of this year.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General, to whom I have given notice.
My question relates to the one bearing number 620, which appeared on the order paper and which has been answered.
What person or persons have been consulted for the choice of the architect responsible for the building of the Beauceville post office in the county of Beauce?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper. Is the house ready to go on with its business?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two days ago I sent notice of my question to the Postmaster General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the house goes back to the debate that was interrupted by unanimous consent, I should like to be sure there is an understanding in all parts of the house that if that debate should be concluded, we would then proceed to the orders of the day without a second question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Hull for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections.

Privileges and Elections PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caron for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have today the opportunity to express my views, as well as those of the population of the riding of Compton-Frontenac which I am proud to represent in this house, on the proceedings or rather the dilly-dallying of the committee on privileges and elections with regard to the final recognition in this chamber of the Ralliement des creditistes of the province of Quebec and of its leader, Mr. Real Caouette.
I will not make direct accusations against the members of the committee entrusted with the study of that matter.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion it is clearly established that a member does not have the right to read a speech in the house. I can see the hon. member is holding his speech with both hands and is reading one line after the other. Since that cannot be taken for lengthy notes, I ask that the rules be applied.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are the one who has been appointed to maintain order and discipline in this house and not the hon. member who just stood up to talk through his hat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In so far as the point that has been raised is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a disposition on the other side of the house to deny to members on this side of the house the right to raise points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest to Your Honour that even the members elected to support the government were also elected by the people of Canada, and that they should enjoy the same rights of freedom of speech in this house as members on the other side do. This business of taking exception constantly to any point of order raised from this side of the house is an infringement of the right of free speech of the elected members of parliament, and there should be equality given to both sides of the house in this matter.
(Mr. Speaker.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, right now the Secretary of State reminds us of a man who can see himself sinking.
If we refer to yesterday's Hansard, we find that the Liberals spent the whole evening raising points of order to interrupt those who were speaking on this side of the house. The Secretary of State rises on a question of privilege at the very moment the Liberals are attempting to deprive other members of their own rights and privileges. That is mere hypocrisy meant to conceal the facts of the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot allow that to pass-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Secretary of State please resume his seat? I think we have had enough discussion of this point. The hon. member was just beginning his speech, and obviously he wanted to refresh his memory. I suggest he continue.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to speak to the point of order. I cannot allow the observations made a while ago by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) to pass without comment. He addressed himself to the opposition. If Your Honour has noticed, we have made no objection whatever, and I should like to point that out for the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege. I said exception had been taken, I did not take any exception to any hon. member raising a point of order. I was defending an hon. member's right to raise a point of order. However, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) took exception to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) raising a point of order, and I say that was an infringement of the hon. member's freedom of speech. On four or five occasions in this house the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and other members of the official opposition have taken exception to my rising in my place and raising points of order. I have raised very few compared with the number that were raised by our predecessors on this side of the house, as the record will show. I have tried to exercise the utmost constraint and tolerance in the position I have taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that attacks of the character that have been made are insufferable, and should not be allowed to continue. Merely because there are certain members who do not seem-


Raymond Langlois: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to a question of privilege, and surely I am going to be heard to the end of my question of privilege without interruption.
I do not think anyone could peruse my record in the ten years I have been in the house and find any occasion when I have ever sought to restrict the rights, under the rules, of any hon. member to speak. But I think I am entitled to permission to speak under the rules, in the same way as any other hon. member, without having constant interruptions and constant exception taken. I suggest, sir, that we observe the rules in this house, and when an hon. member raises a point of order we allow the Chair to decide whether or not there is a point of order, and not call into question the hon. member's right to raise it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That will hurt you.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Secretary of State has seen fit to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that, on a number of occasions recently, I have raised points of order in respect of the Secretary of State. Once again I would call the attention of the Chair to the fact that he raised this particular point of order and then changed it to a question of privilege. He did so without recognition of the Chair. I should like also to call attention to the fact that a few moments ago, when the question period was finished, the Secretary of State rose without the consent of the Chair in order to tell what he thought was a funny joke. On that occasion Your Honour saw fit to ask him to return to his seat. The Chair has asked the Secretary of State once today to resume his seat, and only a few days ago on a similar point of order he was requested to return to his seat.
Now he has raised a point of order which he has changed to a question of privilege. Again, I state that no one in this house has violated Your Honour's rulings as often as the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this is the time to give a short explanation of how I believe the Chair should act. It is this: Under our system of government and under the rules of the house, we recognize first of all the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has a very official position under our system; then members of the cabinet; then members of the front bench and I should, of course, include there the leaders of the various parties; then, from there we do the best we can.
Now, it is true that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) carries that title, but he is also the house leader and of necessity must
Privileges and Elections be on his feet more frequently than most members. He has to conduct the business of the house. He is responsible for a great deal of its planning. I am not aware, at least not consciously aware, of any time when he has broken any rule that I have tried to establish in this house. Every time he rose, and he must rise very frequently, I thought in order to save the time of the house I did not have to call, "The Hon. Secretary of State". I always catch his eye or he waits his turn. Hon. members will appreciate that custom dictates that the front benches are considered first, and are given an opportunity to speak first. Then, we gradually work back.
I think if that is understood hon. members, no matter where they sit, will realize they all are given a reasonable opportunity. In so far as I am concerned, I am elected by all of the members and not by a government, a party or a group. So far as I am concerned, all members are equal and have the same rights.


Malcolm MacInnis: On that point, is this why the Chair-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is this why the Chair-


Mr. Speaker:: Kindly repeat your question; I cannot hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that is recognition. Would the Chair indicate to the house why the Secretary of State last week was told to resume his seat when the Speaker agreed with me, and the remarks are recorded in Hansard, that the Secretary of State had been giving the Chair trouble.
In respect to the recognition of front benchers, the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of other parties, I would once again refer to the fact that nowhere in the rule book do I find that a backbencher is relegated to any inferior position in the house.
We of course recognize the necessity of ministers having the right to rise on these occasions, but not without recognition. The same applies to the leader of my own party, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the leader of any other party. Again I say that nowhere in the rule book do I find a backbencher is relegated to an inferior position. We all arrived in the house through the same means, by being elected by our constituents, and the Secretary of State is not mentioned for any preference in the rule book.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I could give the same answer that was given before, in this house, by the hon. member who spoke before me, when he was accused of reading his speech. He answered that he would much rather read his speech than speak without

Privileges and Elections notes and lose the thread of his thoughts. That is, Mr. Speaker, what was once said in this house by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne). In my opinion, if you grant permission to the President of the Privy Council to read his speech in the house I think that, as a private member, I should benefit from the same leniency.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Compton-Frontenac just admitted that he is reading his speech. He has even said that he had the same right as any other member, to do so. According to the rules of the house he does not have any such right. I understand that a member may have extensive notes but he has no right to read a prepared speech, likely written by someone else.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the hon. member for Hull wishes to say that somebody else prepared the speech of the hon. member, he should say so and not make innuendoes. And if he is unable to prove his case, he will be told he is dishonest and makes untruthful innuendoes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It was prepared by Gilles Gregoire.


Gilles Grégoire: I protest, and if the hon. member for Hull maintains that, he lies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. members to allow the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac to resume his speech. I recognize with the hon. member for Hull that standing orders require that speeches be not read in the house. On the other hand, one has to admit that since the beginning of the session, several members on both sides of the house, of all parties or groups in the house, have, on different occasions, read their speeches.
Representations have been made in that respect and the Chair reminded each member that standing orders must be followed. However, in the present circumstances, in the discussion of this measure, I would suggest to the hon. member not to forget that rule and to abide by it; but if he has notes before him, he may use them to refresh his memory, instead of just reading them.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do respect your opinion, Mr. Speaker, but when you prevented other members from reading their speeches, these members pretended they were reading extensive notes, whereas, the hon. member states he is entitled to read his speech because other members have done it before. Consequently, he puts himself in the class of those who have no right to read their speeches.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish the hon. member for Hull had

adhered to the rule as chairman of the committee on privileges and elections.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I shall not allow the hon. member to say anything about the committee on privileges and elections. If I prevented the hon. member from speaking, it was to give other members a chance. He wanted to have the floor all the time, and I did not allow it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Lapointe to co-operate so that we may at least give the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac a chance to get started.
I admit that, judging from the way he started his speech, he seemed about to read a text. But now he has not the floor and did not have the opportunity of continuing his remarks. It may be that, when making his speech, he will observe standing orders, and be satisfied with consulting his notes.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, just for your information, if I said that others had read out their speeches, it was simply to give an example. Others read their speeches long before I did. I just wished to give an instance, but I never said that I wanted to read my speech-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would prefer the discussion to end at this point. I have given my ruling in this matter, and I would ask the hon. member to go on with his speech.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just read the Canada Elections Act, in the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 23, and I could not but carefully revise my own status as member of parliament.
Having fulfilled all the conditions required of the candidates, having been elected twice as member of the House of Commons of Canada for my constituency, I represent here people who have made their choice, taken a definite step and delegated to me powers of representation which they alone may revoke.
I was elected member for Compton-Frontenac after having run as candidate for the creditiste party of the Ralliement des creditistes of the province of Quebec, which recognizes as its leader the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), a fact which was confirmed at a party convention held in Granby.
Delegates from my riding were present at that convention. They were there to represent the opinion of the people of my constituency, and failure to recognize this as an actual fact would be tantamount to betraying the confidence placed in me.
There is no provision which prohibits members of parliament from forming a political party between elections. The interpretation of their mandate is left to their discretion

and only the voters can disapprove of the decisions made by a member at the next election.
Apart from being incomprehensible, the decision made by the committee on privileges and elections is unfair not only to our group by denying us, in the person of our chosen leader, the right of representation on several levels, but also to the thousands of voters whom we represent here.
That is why, as member for the constituency of Compton-Frontenac, as representative of the people who elected the member of their choice to Ottawa, I am asking for the immediate recognition of our group, as well as the recognition of our leader as party leader in this house, with all the privileges implied, and also our recognition as third opposition group, since our group is larger than the one headed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
Another basic question connected with the recognition of our group is the fact that we represent almost exclusively some French Canadian citizens of the province of Quebec and it is a slight to the ethnic character of those citizens to refuse to give it complete and total representation in this house.
If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) is really convinced that Canada will survive to its centennial, he should take immediately the necessary steps. He should insist that the French Canadian people who chose some representatives may be heard through their representatives, with all the rights and privileges which are due to them.
If the efforts which are made in the field of bilingualism and biculturalism can be judged on the basis of the representation which is denied us, then they will only become the shameful cover-up of a grand constitutional mockery.
Let us do away with red tape and let us have action. The patience of a people also has its limits and, as a representative of a large portion of French Canadian people, I can assure the house that the time has now come for decisions and that compromise would only pave the way for the burial of a confederation of which we would have been the grave-diggers. The very fate of that confederation, gentlemen, today lies in your hands.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and all those members who contributed to this debate and who treated us with fairness.
I wish to thank all those who showed some fairness and who made it a point to insist that we be recognized.
28902-5-239
Privileges and Elections
The Leader of the Opposition explained the situation and he gave us recognition. He declared to the Canadian people that he was ready to fight to the bitter end to ensure in this house the recognition of the rights and prerogatives of the French Canadians and of the English speaking Canadians, in a word of the whole Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we are not fighting only for the French Canadians but also for the unhyphenated Canadians. We have a right to be recognized in this house.
We are contributing to the passage of legislation. We have been elected as any other member in this house and we are entitled to claim our rights. This is what we are doing now. We are asking for our due rights and prerogatives with all the strength we can muster.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it was within your province to do us justice. I am of the opinion that the committee on privileges and elections which was created to examine the rights of a political party had no business asking on our behalf the rights we have been asking for ourselves. And I say that it is our duty, that it is the duty of the members of our party to ask for their due, to take their rightful place in this house.
We want security, yes. But in addition to that security, we also want freedom. We are free from any political affiliation. We have been elected directly by the people and we are directly responsible to the electors of our ridings and to those of the province of Quebec.
Once again I thank all those who have helped us to establish if such a political party had the right to sit or not or to occupy such and such a place in the house.
The matter was first put to the Chair, who decided to refer it to a committee, and the members of the said committee rendered a verdict that is unacceptable.
Consequently, we resort to other solutions.
I also wish to draw the attention of the house to some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, as reported on page 3672 of Hansard for October 17, 1963, he stated:
The determination as to whether there is a party is one that is dependant on a number of members uniting in support of a group of principles. That being so, then the method by which the party is formed is of no consequence to parliament. If they want to fight among themselves as to whether the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) or the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)-sitting together there in amity- should be leader, then that is a matter for themselves.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford

Privileges and Elections (Mr. Rondeau), that the following words be added to clause 3:
The house recognizes that according to the most elementary principles of decency it is not up to the other political parties to decide which one of the two Social Credit groups constitutes the Social Credit party, and would leave it to the Social Credit members themselves to decide on this question by a majority vote taken among the 23 Social Credit members.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I have glanced quickly at the amendment that the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac has just proposed, and in my opinion it tends to amend the report of the committee rather than the motion now before the house.
And on that matter, I suggest that the hon. member refer to the second paragraph of citation 323 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
[Text1
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the house, but it must be referred back to the committee.

That is, a report from a committee cannot be amended by the house but it must be referred back to the committee.
Consequently, I must declare that the amendment of the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac is against the rules.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate and I do not intend to do more now than just say a very few words. I would like to draw hon. members' attention to the report to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) took exception, and particularly to three parts of it:
1.	That the New Democratic party occupy the seats next to the official opposition on the left side of the Speaker.
2.	That the members of the Social Credit party occupy the seats next to the New Democratic party on the left side of the Speaker.
3.	That the members of the group-
And I emphasize that word:
-under the leadership of Mr. Caouette occupy the seats on the left of the Social Credit party.
As I have nothing in particular to say about the fourth part of the report I will not even read it.
I think we have lost sight of the fact that all this report does is to recommend that certain provisions-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to know whether the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is now speaking on the question whether or not the
[Mr. Latuiippe.)
amendment is in order, because we want to speak on this point and make the necessary change to put the amendment in order according to the regulations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. member understands that the Chair has already made a ruling and that once a decision is taken no further discussion is allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am exercising my rights -and I believe I have the floor-to speak on the motion made by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), and I was recognized by the Chair. I am now in the course of making my speech, which will be very brief.
It seems to me we ought to realize just what we are being asked to decide. We are being asked to decide, if we accept this report, that the New Democratic party will be moved up to the benches occupied by the Social Credit party at the beginning of this session of parliament; that next to them will be put the Social Credit party under the leadership of the man who was recognized as its leader when this house was constituted after the election. We are also being asked to recognize that a new group be seated next to them. I will not attempt to describe this group by name because, as I understand the proceedings of the committee, two versions of its name were given by two different members of the group; the leader gave one name and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) gave another name. Surely, if the two of them could not agree between themselves it was not up to the committee to decide which name to give them.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. An explanation has already been supplied before the privileges and elections committee concerning the interpretation to be given to both letters. We are convinced that there is no contradiction between them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this is my question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fine.


Gilles Grégoire: If hon. members wish to quote some of our letters, we would like them to do it in the spirit in which the letters were written and not otherwise. My question of privilege is that the record should be set straight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege but a debate. An hon. member may raise such an argument but it

does not truly constitute a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only point I was seeking to make was that the committee recognized that there was a group in this house-it said so in its first words-under the leadership of the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette), and it recommended that that group-it was described as a group and as having a leader-should be given a certain seating in the house. That is all we are being asked to do.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that the numerical principle should be applied to the seating of groups. Other hon. members have said that the historical principle, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre admitted on many occasions he had argued in favour of, and as recently as last year, should be applied. I believe that any hon. member can conscientiously take either view. I happen to take the view that the historical principle should be applied. X think it should have been applied in the last parliament and I think it should have been applied in this parliament, as it was applied in the parliaments of 1935 and 1940 and up until the departure made in 1962. But I do not deny to any other hon. member equal freedom to take the opposite point of view if he prefers to take it.
For my part, I think that if we are going to have recognition of a number of groups in the house some principle has to be applied, and I think the principle of seniority, which had worked in this house ever since 1921 up until 1962, at which time it was regrettably departed from, is a very good principle to apply. I do not think the good faith of anyone who argues for it should be questioned, any more than the good faith of anyone who thinks the numbers principle should be applied.
I think we should get back to sanity in this matter and realize that these are both valid principles, and that one applied from 1921 until 1962, a period of over 40 years, during which time we had more than two parties in every house, and since 1935, except for the parliament of 1958, we had four parties. I think in the parliament of 1935 in the C.C.F. there were eight members, one of whom seceded, leaving only seven, and either 15 or 17, I forget which, in the Social Credit party. That was in 1935. Yet the C.C.F. had seniority over the other group as I remember when I first came to view this parliament. That was the principle applied up until 1962. It was not the principle applied in the last parliament and it was not the principle at the beginning of this parliament; and I think that was too bad. But the committee has seen fit to recommend 28992-5-239J
Division
that we go back to that principle. I think it is a good principle. The principle we are following now obviously does not work, which is why we have this problem. This numbers game, if I may put it that way, has obviously not worked.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is also apparent to me that the hour is 20 minutes past four; that under the rules we have to go to private members' business at five o'clock; and that I gave an undertaking to the house, when I made the motion yesterday to extend the hours, that hon. members would know that on Friday evenings the house would be asked to take estimates, and the estimates prescribed for today are the estimates of the Department of Public Works. It is quite evident that the house is not yet ready to make a decision on this question and that it is not going to be possible in the very limited time left to us today to reach a conclusion. I believe it would be to the benefit of all of us to reflect, and reflect seriously, on this question, over the week end, and on the appearance we are giving to parliament by our debate on the matter; and for that reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That the debate do now adjourn.


Gilles Grégoire: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not closure at all.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Guy Rouleau: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I was paired, and I would have voted in support of the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Siewari:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the motion.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS

Lester Bowles Pearson: That a select committee be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedures and organization of this house, for the purpose of suggesting any changes that would assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business and would strengthen parliament and make it more effective; that the committee have power to send for persons and papers; that it report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house; and that it consist, in addition to Mr. Speaker, of 14 members to be designated at a later date.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the house having decided to suspend for the time being the debate on the matter which has been before it for so many hours, this gives me the opportunity and the honour of moving a motion which stands in the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), the importance and urgency of which has been attested to by the leaders of other parties in this house.
This resolution, in itself, and in its substance, is not important unless it were rejected. The importance of it is that it makes possible the establishment of a committee which could be one of the most important committees that has been set up by this house for a long time. It makes possible the establishment of this committee at a time when we are very conscious of the need to change our rules and procedures to make possible the more effective dispatch of the business of this house. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members of the house are interested in achieving that objective, subject of course to the preservation of the rights and privileges of individual members and the legitimate traditions of the house.
This committee will examine how to make parliament operate more effectively to deal

with the many, and complicated, and new matters which now customarily come before parliament. The Leader of the Opposition in his intervention yesterday answered certain critics of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary activities, and I agree with him that some of this criticism of the institution of parliament has been unreasonable. Some of it has not taken into account, not only the practices and customs of the past but the real difficulties of the present, in adjusting our parliamentary procedures to the many new and complicated problems that arise.
We hear a great deal of criticism on all sides, both inside and outside the house, of the manners and the methods of parliament; but as the right hon. gentleman did the other day, it is well to recall history on this matter so that we may retain that sense of perspective and proportion which is useful in considering matters of this kind. Even in the mother of parliaments-and I think this was referred to the other day-there have been many examples of filibustering, obstruction and even violent scenes.
One does not have to go too far back, to the days of the Irish nationalists, when the business of the house was held up day after day and when scenes were so wild as to make our scenes, when we have them in the House of Commons, seem pretty mild by comparison. Those of us who have studied and are interested in British parliamentary history are reminded how Mr. Disraeli once felt comforted because there was between himself and the other party the clerk's table, which he referred to as that substantial piece of furniture. We have not needed that in this house, at least in my memory.
Distant pastures and distant parliaments in time and in space always look greener and better. It is similar in this House of Commons, yet anyone with a knowledge of parliamentary history-and the right hon. gentleman referred to this yesterday-and looks back even 50 years ago, will be reminded about the violence of debate at that time, the total obstruction day after day of measures brought in for approval, and of constant challenges. There were the same charges of time wasting which take place even today.
A sense of perspective is good and useful; but that does not mean that we have not very serious problems before the house in the organization and operation of parliamentary business and parliamentary procedures. Furthermore there is a very great difference between now and 50 years ago in the house, a difference which arises out of the nature and the scope of our activities today.
Appointment of Committee
We have infinitely more to do today than they had 50 years ago, and our sessions are now almost continuous throughout the year. It was not so many generations ago when the problem of a prime minister and government of the day was finding enough legislation to keep parliament in session at least two months. There are more decisions to be made now, and these decisions involve more continuous responsibility on parliament, on the opposition and the government, than was the case some years ago.
Therefore the need for efficient procedures and the effective discharge of business with a minimum of delay is much greater now than it was in the days about which I have been talking, and the penalty today for inefficiency is much greater than it used to be in those days. In addition the danger to the public welfare, if we do not order our proceedings effectively, is much greater than it used to be. Perhaps that is the reason that public opinion is much less tolerant than it was 50 years ago of the foibles and weaknesses of parliament, and of the House of Commons in particular.
The consequences of our inaction or wrong action today are very immediate and direct, and far greater on our people because of the greater impact of what we do, due to the necessarily increased intervention of parliament and the government in the life and affairs of average people.
This has been recognized during the last 10 or 15 years, particularly in the House of Commons, and we have made progress in those areas in improving our procedures. We have gone some distance in the last few years in limiting debate, in limiting the time that can be used for the budget debate and for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We have cut out a good many of the frills, and this has meant an improvement. These changes were made by agreement among all parties, and were mostly made through a committee set up by the house. I might add that in the deliberations of that committee party considerations did not loom as large as they sometimes do in the house. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal more to be done. It seems to me we have just touched the surface in the changes required to make our deliberative assembly more effective.
We have to make some more fundamental changes than have been possible in the past, and it is essential at the same time to maintain the traditions and customs of the house, and the rights of individual members, particularly of individual members in the opposition. I think we can reconcile these two things and I hope this committee will be in a

Provision for Minimum Wage Rate position to make recommendations to that end.
One of the things to which I hope the committee will give active consideration, is how we can make the committees system of the house operate more effectively. This is something we have all talked about in recent years, and the right hon. gentleman had very important plans to that effect from 1957 onwards. I know an effort was made, but I am sure he will agree it was not as successful as he would have hoped. This is no reflection on the attempt that was made; but surely it is now important to treat this problem as one of the most serious problems of parliament-the more effective discharge of work through committees in a way that will give the committees authority and power to make decisions, and when the decisions are referred to the House of Commons we will not have to go through the same debate over and over again that has taken place in the committees.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely public bills and private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-28, to provide for minimum wages for employees in federal works, undertakings, and businesses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for legislation in the federal labour field which is supported by all the parties in this House of Commons. The proposal is that we should have federal legislation providing for a minimum wage. As hon. members are aware, labour matters come partly under provincial jurisdiction and partly under federal jurisdiction, and therefore this bill would provide for a minimum wage only with respect to those employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. The proposal in my bill is that a minimum wage at the federal level be set at $1.25 an hour. The bill, of course, makes it clear that it would not affect the rate of wages of any employees who already enjoy a higher rate of wages; but if this bill passed and became law it would provide that no one under federal labour jurisdiction could be employed at a rate of less than $1.25 an hour.
Mr. Speaker, minimum wage legislation in the various provinces of Canada is by no means uniform. It varies from province to


province as to the extent of its coverage; it varies from province to province, and from area to area within some provinces, as to the amount that is set as a minimum wage. We feel that the time has come to do two things by legislation of this kind; first of all to provide a minimum wage at the federal level, and second to give a lead to the provinces. It should be stated quite clearly that in the provincial labour field the provinces are autonomous, but it is the view of some of us that if in this area we had good legislation in the federal labour field, it would give a lead to the provinces to make their legislation better than it now is.
The kinds of improvements that are needed in the provinces are such as would extend the coverage to all workers, both male and female, in all areas of our provinces, and also raise the amount of the minimum wage. However, it is not our function here to deal with provincial legislation. I mention those improvements in connection with my suggestion that one of the purposes of federal legislation in this field is to give a lead to the provinces as well.
I said in my opening words that the purpose of this bill is to provide legislation in our federal statute books which is supported by all the parties in this House of Commons. I need not name them all; that list, of course, is growing these days. But I wish to refer in particular to the party that is now in power, the Liberal party. It supports minimum wage legislation, as it supports other legislation in the labour field. In the last parliament, when the Liberals sat in opposition, they readily supported all the labour bills that some of us brought forth. In this parliament they sit on the government side and so they sing a slightly different tune.


An hon. Member:: No, we don't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hon. member over there says "We don't". I would refer hon. members on that side of the house to the debate, for example that is recorded in Hansard of May 30. They will find that what I have said is correct. They argue, of course, that they still believe in those things in which they believed when they supported our bills when sitting on the opposition side of the house, but that what they want is the opportunity to bring these things in themselves. I do not deny them that opportunity; I only wish they would avail themselves of the opportunity, now they are on the government side of the house.
On May 30 of this year when we were debating another bill of mine in the labour field, Bill No. C-2, which provided for statutory holidays with pay, when I pointed out to Liberal members that they had supported

this bill in the previous parliament and were now talking it out, the answer was that it was their intention as Liberals to bring in a national labour code, a comprehensive measure that would include all these things. So I was asked to be patient and to wait until later in the session, when a national labour code would be brought in and the Liberals would provide a charter for labour in terms of statutory holidays with pay, adequate annual vacations, minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and all the things that can be part of a national labour code. I was asked to wait, Mr. Speaker. That was on May 30.
Four and a half months have gone by since then. If the Liberals want to think of it in terms of a number of days, that is 135 days, more than twice the number of days the Liberals needed to get things rolling. But not one suggestion has come from the other side of the house that there is in sight a national labour code or any of the elements of such a labour code which the Liberals promised when they were in opposition, when they were on the hustings and even since they came into this house as the government of Canada. Therefore it seems to me that once again we have to call upon the government of the day and its supporters to take the position, now that they are in power, that they took when they were in opposition. If they then believed in things like this, in a national minimum wage of at least $1.25 an hour, I suggest they should show their support for such a proposal when it is brought before them at this time.
We have had an interesting experience with private members' resolutions and bills in this session. At first they were treated according to the pattern of former years; they were all talked out. Then there seemed to be a little revolution amongst some of the backbenchers on the Liberal side. They did not like having to talk out bills that last year they supported, and as a result of that a bit of a reform took place. Some measures, instead of being talked out, were debated for an hour and then their subject matter was sent to whatever was the appropriate committee. While that is not as satisfactory as passing a piece of legislation and sending a bill itself to a committee, it certainly is better than treating an important piece of legislation to the talking out process.
I hope that today hon. members will not again ask us to wait for this national labour code, since we have already waited four and a half months, since the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), promised us that these things were coming. I hope that instead they will do either one of two things, support this bill on second reading, whereupon it would be referred to the
Provision for Minimum Wage Rate committee on industrial relations for study as to its detail, or at least give it that better-than-talking-out procedure, that of having its subject matter referred to that same committee, the committee on industrial relations.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need in this house, made up of the various parties that are here, to argue the merits of a minimum wage bill; that we ought to have this kind of legislation; that we ought to have it at the federal level, and that the rate of wages in any minimum wage bill should be not less than $1.25 an hour. I suggest that since we all agree to this proposition we give this measure that is now before us the best treatment that it can be given in the time at our disposal. If the house, as I think it should, sees fit to agree to second reading, I give the undertaking that I would not then try to move it into committee of the whole, but I would move that.it be referred to the committee on industrial relations for study clause by clause, in all its detail.
If that is not possible, I hope at least that the bill will not be talked out but rather that the subject matter will be sent to that same committee. There, along with other bills which have been referred, it can be studied, so that we can make some progress toward getting the national labour code which the Liberals promised in the election campaign, which they promised on the floor of this house, but any sight of which we have yet to see. Because we all believe in the principle of this bill, I suggest that it should receive the support of the house in this private members' hour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great deal of pleasure and attention to the comments just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning Bill C-28, which is meant to provide minimum wages of $1.25 per hour throughout the country.
No doubt that the bill is of some value and deserved to be introduced to prepare public opinion.
It must be borne in mind, however, that our country is quite large and that, from one ocean to the other, interests are many and varied.
The situation in Newfoundland may not be compared with that in Vancouver. The two areas are so different. The climate is different and so are working conditions. That is why it is rather difficult to set certain working conditions to be uniformly applied to all the various parts of the country.
However, I believe that a minimum must necessarily be established. In fact, I think that

Provision for Minimum Wage Rate we must pay particular attention to the condition of the workers in the whole country.
But to say that it must be, everywhere in the country $1.25 an hour, would be to impose a limitation on the salary in some places where it is already above $1.25 an hour and in fact to increase it tremendously in some other places where it is very low, as, for example, where it is only $1 an hour.
It would be difficult, therefore to accept, on a total and permanent basis, the purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We know that the object of the bill which he presents to the house is much too serious to be considered lightly. By that I do not mean that the sponsor of the bill did not consider it in detail. He probably did so extensively. The number of sections in the bill shows it. It is easy to see that he worked seriously at it.
But I wonder if all the members have had time to study it carefully, in view of the amount of work they have been called upon to do since the beginning of the session. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just suggested that it be referred to a committee to be considered in detail.
On the other hand, I know that at the present time the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is studying a labour code. And, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it so well, such a study cannot be made hastily; the problems the government has faced since then have been such that we had to put it aside in order to consider more urgent matters.
We recently had before us a resolution and a bill to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees, and every member studied them extensively and every one freely expressed his opinion in the house, so that we are aware of their opinion on that matter.
Since the beginning of the session, we had before us legislative measures requiring the continuous and constant attention of the house. This is the reason why we did not have time to study properly the labour code. But I know that the Minister of Labour is now dealing with a complete consolidation of all acts on labour and their relation with the federal field. This is likely to encourage the provinces to adopt a similar labour code.
For instance, I know that in the province of Quebec only, there is a great difference between wages paid in Hull, in Montreal, in Quebec and in the Gaspe peninsula, because of different conditions prevailing in each of these areas.
The various governments of the province of Quebec, at all times, have often been


blamed for not paying their workmen enough. That is due to the fact that the province should have been divided into areas where salaries could be different and according to the cost of living in each area. I often claimed that when I was a member of the Quebec legislature in 1935-36 and in 1939-45; I always contended that dividing the province into areas would have enabled us to establish salaries according to the circumstances and labour conditions prevailing in each of those areas. But they never paid much attention to me. Today generally salaries are being increased. The federal government did not wait for us to do so, and a complete study is now under way; I do not know how far it will go, but I hope that it will be in the right direction.
The same conditions prevail in the province of Ontario, in the prairie provinces, in the maritimes, and also in the province of British Columbia.
The various parts of Canada are altogether different. The cost of living index is not the same everywhere. We have to consider the index for each part of the country.
I say that it would be a monumental mistake to pass this bill right now and provide for minimum wage of $1.25 throughout Canada, as it would result in a reduction in many localities where salaries are higher and an increase where they are sufficient.
That is why I suggest that this matter should be examined more sensibly and more thoroughly. At any rate, I feel that during the hour we have at our disposal, it would be impossible to examine this bill in a way that would enable us to understand it. I think it would be wise to wait until the Minister of Labour has prepared and submitted to us his labour code. Then, if hon. members are not satisfied with his resolution on the labour code, they could criticize it to their heart's content, and even oppose it, and we shall be in a position to give them the proper answers at that time. We will at least have had the chance to study a comprehensive scheme applicable throughout the country and taking into account different circumstances in any part of the country, an organization which could guide us in some way to attain a certain end. That is why I suggest that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is ill-timed. It has perhaps been prepared in a hurry. The hon. member may have studied it, but we do not feel that we have had enough time to read it, examine it and understand it fully.
For those reasons, I believe we should vote it down. On the other hand, I know that some hon. members on this side of the house do not share my views, and I realize

also that other members, on the other side of the house do not share them either. I also believe that this matter is bound to be very actively discussed. That is why I do not want to take too much time, because I would like other hon. members to have a chance to express their views.
I therefore say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I do not wish to accept his bill today, because I think it is premature and that it was too hastily introduced. I think he should give the Minister of Labour a chance to produce his labour code, and then, he may criticize it and perhaps submit certain things provided in this legislation, in the form of amendments. Then, we may all agree and accept it or reject it.
That is what I am asking today, and I hope that those who will rise after me will probably share my views.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay hon. members too long, but I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the legislation now before us.
First of all, may I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for renewing, in each session, his attempts to move a similar bill. This proves his interest for the working class. It is certainly in a spirit of fairness that he wants to see the workers' salaries under federal jurisdiction, generally increased to $1.25 an hour.
Nowadays, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a salary of $1.25 is certainly not excessive. I should also tell the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who preceded me, that I do not quite understand how he can maintain that this bill would, in certain places, bring existing salaries down to $1.25 an hour. I think that the legislation before us covers the case, when it provides that the lowest salary rate should be $1.25. This means, of course, that any salary higher than $1.25, may stay at that higher level.
I cannot agree with the remarks of my hon. friend for Hull (Mr. Caron). In previous years, he has been greatly concerned with improving the workers' lot and he should therefore be congratulated; but I believe that to postpone such a bill from one session to another is only to delude ourselves.
There is also the question of labour unions which should not be forgotten, and this is why, even if I support the allegations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that it is commendable to increase as much as possible salaries of workers and employees coming under the
Provision for Minimum Wage Rate federal government, I still believe that we should not ignore the influence and authority of labour unions in such a matter.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be profitable to study this bill in the house, as I am convinced that it would be useful to hear the opinions of members before forming an opinion that would really be in the best interest of the workers.
I do not wish to prevent other members from speaking on this bill and this is why I maintain that we should grant it our fullest consideration, because it is of great interest for the working class in our society.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: too, would like to take this opportunity of making a few comments on the subject matter of the bill now before the house. As has been stated, this is not a new bill. This is not the first time a measure of this kind has been before the house. Certainly, it is my opinion that comprehensive legislation in this field is overdue in Canada. This becomes obvious when one considers the practices followed in some of the other more highly developed countries of the world.
As hon. members know, I do not speak for the government, nor could I be expected to do so, but I feel confident that this question is under study and that it will not be very long before we see brought forward the type of comprehensive legislation which is so badly needed in this field. As to the bill now before us dealing with minimum wages, 1 believe it concerns itself with only one aspect of a much wider problem; it seems to me that it would be best to deal with this whole subject comprehensively and at one time. Although there is one act on the statute books of this country pertaining to this subject, the federal government is in fact behind the provinces in the enactment of legislation such as we have before us now.
I am sure there is nothing new which any of us can say in support of a bill of this sort. I believe there are many who feel this situation should have been taken care of earlier by the government many years ago, and we hope it will be taken care of in the near future.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question? He has told us that this is only part of a wider problem. Would he indicate what else in his opinion should be tied in with the proposal before us?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am glad the hon. member for Cape Breton South has asked me that question. I am sorry if he has had any difficulty in following my remarks. The other

Provision for Minimum Wage Rate subjects I thought should be dealt with include hours of work and holidays with pay. These are related to the question before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a further question? Would he put his notes aside and enlighten the house as to his knowledge of the particular subject before us. It is against the rules to present an argument from a prepared text.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has sat here for longer than I have and I am always glad to learn, if possible, from a member with longer experience. It is true I have some notes before me, but it has never been my practice in the house to read from a prepared text, nor am I doing so now. The hon. member for Cape Breton South may himself have to resort to a practice of that sort and therefore he presumes I am doing so. That is not the case.
One of the advantages of legislation along the lines suggested would be the placing of additional purchasing power in the hands of those who belong to the lower income groups. This would be a most admirable result. There are, perhaps, those who feel that a minimum wage of $1.25 across Canada might bring about inequities, inasmuch as it is difficult to ascertain whether the effect of $1.25 in one area is the same as in another area. There are some who, for this reason, might prefer to see a lower figure established. They might think, for instance, that $1.10 would be a better figure. I do not agree. We have to arrive at some figure, and I think the figure of $1.25 is a good one. Of course, I have no way of knowing accurately the extra cost which would be involved in making it $1.25 as opposed to $1.10, but from a source which I believe can be regarded as reasonably reliable I learn that if the figure of $1.10 were adopted, some 20,000 to 23,000 people employed in crown corporations and the like would be affected, and that the extra cost involved would be of the order of $6 million. On the other hand, if $1.25 were the figure adopted a far broader group of crown employees would be affected and the extra money involved would be about $17 million. There is a good deal of difference between those two figures. Nevertheless, I think that since legislation of this sort is overdue it would be unwise to set the figure at less than $1.25 an hour. As I said, one of the reasons that a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour would be a benefit to the country is that it would give additional purchasing power to those in the lower income group. There would also be the advantage of equality of income standards throughout Canada.

There is one problem, however, that we have to face and to which the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has already made some reference. There are areas in Canada where $1.25 an hour certainly means more than it does in other areas. I think this is known to all members and is really an obvious fact. What is really needed, I suppose, is an extensive study, and perhaps the perennial suggestion of $1.25 an hour that has been made in recent years could be approached in this way. There may be some refinements that could be made and possibly in certain areas the figure could be higher than $1.25 an hour. Perhaps some allowances might be made. I would not want to say whether this is a wise or unwise practice. We know that in some provinces there is a difference between the urban rate and the rural rate. I can certainly see the reasoning behind this, but as far as I am concerned the answers are not all in on that question. I am not sure that is a wise course of action.
I thought I had the reference in my notes but when I make notes I unfortunately do not always include all those things I should like to; so in this case I must apologize to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). I will not be referring to my notes but rather to my memory. If my memory is correct, there are some provinces that do not have a difference between the urban and rural rates, and I think there is something to be said for that. Perhaps a distinction could be made along other lines than the area. Perhaps it could be made on the basis of the type of work in which people are engaged.
I think that these considerations, and the fact that there is much more that could be said on this subject lead us to the conclusion that, while we agree this matter really should have been dealt with a long time ago, we cannot accept the bill without further study. It may be that if the present and previous governments had been as progressive in their legislation as some people would have liked them to be, this problem would have been settled some years ago. As I said at the outset, while I cannot speak for the government I am quite confident that those things that were promised in this regard by Liberal candidates prior to the election will be carried out, and I hope very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everything else is being sidetracked.


Richard Joseph Cashin: It is very easy for hon. members who belong to groups who have never had the responsibility of governing the country and are very unlikely ever to have that responsibility, to make such remarks continually. In fact, one might say it is good

politics for them to make such remarks, and I believe people generally realize this, when they do say these things. Every day they say: Why is this not being done today? If all the things were done in one day that some people would like to see done I am afraid we would have to have more than a 24-hour day, and also a very great change in the way things have gone up to now.
As I said, people generally realize that when members of these groups say these things they are really saying them for political advantage. After all, since they are small groups it is quite likely that in many *cases they despair that the public will understand them because people generally usually listen to these remarks and simply chuckle a little.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I certainly will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since he has referred to politics I wonder whether he would not agree it would be good politics for the government to bring in the measures that it has promised to bring in?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am very glad the hon. member asked me that question. I think it would be good policy. What is for the good of the country usually is good politics. I feel that what we are discussing now will be done and that the matter is under study. As we all know, in the last few months the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) has had a test of his mettle such as few, if any, members of the house have ever had. It is very easy to be wise when you do not have that kind of responsibility, but I wonder what course of action would have been taken by some other member.
We are all aware of the great pressures that have been placed upon the Minister of Labour in various ways to do this or that, and I think the consensus is that he has handled himself in a most admirable way. My knowledge of the Minister of Labour goes back long before my entrance into public life a year ago, and I am quite confident that with a man of his calibre in this portfolio and with the co-operation of all of us, labour legislation will be brought before the house during his term of office unexcelled by any in the history of the country. I say this, so great is my faith in this minister. I am always a little amused by those who make certain remarks, the responsibility of which I sometimes question; but I think we should understand that they are made by those who will seldom, if ever, have the opportunity to govern, which in my view is a very good thing.
Provision for Minimum Wage Rate


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the bill brought before us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may not be exactly the same as some that have been presented to previous parliaments but I think it is similar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been before parliament for six or seven years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a matter of interest that the member who introduced the bill pleaded with the government to take the same attitude toward it now as they did when they were in the opposition. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows better than to expect that kind of attitude.
It was also very interesting to note the remarks of the hon. member who spoke just before me in an attempt to excuse the change of attitude as being a part of political life which the public would forgive, and therefore he did not consider it to be a very serious thing that they should have supported such legislation while they were in opposition and during the election campaign, and have now changed their attitude completely when they are the government.
I should like to suggest that the house should refer the bill to the committee on industrial relations. The committee has not met since I returned to parliament in 1962 and perhaps this would be something it could consider, particularly if the members of the government party are in fact serious when they say they would like to see some such legislation passed. Certainly it would be useful to them to study the provisions in this bill in order to assist them in drawing up the labour code they have promised.
I believe there are 19 sections in the bill before us. As I look through them I see there is provision for a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour and in addition there are sections providing that there is to be no deduction from the $1.25 per hour for such things as special wearing apparel, special tools, and so on. There is also a provision, I am glad to learn, relating to board and lodging, and so on, if this is supplied by the employer. So, if you add all these things up the minimum wage that would result, that is, the total remuneration actually paid to the employee, would be substantially more than the $1.25 per hour.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be some additional study of this measure. I am not completely familiar with the working conditions in all parts of Canada, nor am I completely familiar with those industries that supply wearing apparel, tools and so on, for which deductions would not be allowed from the $1.25 under the provisions of this

Provision for Minimum Wage Rate bill. Another provision that should have been in this bill, perhaps even in the preamble, is that this $1.25 is a minimum only and should not be considered as a fair wage. There has been a minimum wage law in the province of Alberta for a number of years, but it is made abundantly clear that it is not considered to be a fair wage or a proper wage; it is simply a minimum. I think this should be made clear also in any federal statute which attempts to set a minimum, that it should not be considered as a fair wage.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I would support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his plea to have the bill sent to the committee on industrial relations, or some other committee for study.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. It was not my intention to do so, but because of the way, the lighthearted way in which the very wealthy hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin)-


Miss LaMarsh:: Cheap, cheap.


Malcolm MacInnis: -read his remarks from a pyramid he built up on his desk, I think it is only fair I should make a few remarks on this bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am quite sure the hon. member introduced it with no intention of establishing this as a fair wage, but only as a minimum wage, and a step in the right direction. The hon. member for St. John's West has a lot to learn. I think he could have learned quite a bit about the minimum wage laws of this country if he had been in Nova Scotia during the last provincial election campaign.
The matter of this minimum wage law came to my attention very forcibly since the start of the Louisburg project. The men there started out at $1.05, and I think at the moment they have reached $1.19 per hour. I do not consider this to be anywhere near a fair wage. Certainly, the establishment of $1.25 as a minimum would be a step in the right direction. I realize, however, that the previous government had a responsibility in connection with this subject, as did governments before that time. As the hon. member stated, if this matter had been looked after when it should have been, this question would not be before the house now. I would point out to the hon. member that his party has had considerable opportunity to deal with it. I would remind the members on the government side of the house also that during the campaign in Nova Scotia, Liberal candidates took it upon themselves to state that the wage

rate of $1.19 per hour at Louisburg was established by the previous government of John Diefenbaker, that it was his responsibility. All I can say to them today is, if this was his responsibility, as they put it, they have had an opportunity to correct a situation that needs correcting, according to their own words.
I realize that there is very little time left, so I should like to say to the wealthy young man and his colleagues-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Cheap, cheap.


Malcolm MacInnis: -that they should put their vote where their mouth is. I could learn from the hon. lady, too.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) always begins his speech on these matters by condemning the government of the day for not having acted expeditiously on a matter which he believes is of great importance. There is no question but that this bill is one of very great importance. There is a large number of people affected. The hon. member should also take into consideration, the fact that since the government came into office we have been criticized for moving too quickly on measures that have been projected from the time of our political campaign.
At the same time, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), as has been pointed out, has been under some pressure in order to try to bring about a settlement of the great lakes dispute, that is the dispute between the S.I.U. and rival unions. Then, we have had the strike of the longshoremen. In fact, I think it could be said that since the minister was sworn in, he has not had a day off from work, with the exception of the odd Sunday, for instance.


Malcolm MacInnis: Nor has the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member like to make another speech?


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Benidickson:: He will consider it at the end of his remarks.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps I had better yield the floor to the minister.
In his remarks just now the hon. member referred to the fact the Minister of Labour had worked very hard since he took office, and had not had a day off. This has nothing to do with the bill, but I would remind him that he is not quite accurate, and I can prove it.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You are getting as bad as Caouette.


Malcolm MacInnis: Oh, shut up, Joe.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member, as usual, is completely out of order, as he has been a number of times since this session began. He asks a question, then makes speeches and then becomes abusive of hon. members. I think the hon. member should contain himself and try to show at least some semblance of good manners in the house.
There is no question but that this legislation the Liberals have been proposing is a matter for consideration by the Minister of Labour. I am sure there is no argument there. We have said that we intend to take measures that will provide at least a minimum standard and that will have effect throughout Canada. Now, this question is not going to be resolved merely by having a debate in the House of Commons for an hour or two. It has been pointed out-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he recall who it was for the Liberal party who spoke on this bill last year and urged its adoption?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he does not, I can tell him. It was the present Minister of Labour.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Surely the hon. member does not say that the introduction of this bill does not mean that there cannot be measures that are equally suitable or even better. The adoption of this bill would not mean the end-all of improving working and economic conditions of people throughout Canada. The measures we have introduced with respect to Atlantic provinces development will, in my opinion, have a much greater effect on the economy of those areas than a minimum wage.
It is my hope that when these measures go into effect and developments flow from the Department of Industry, the Atlantic development board, and the legislation which provides loans to municipalities, a $1.25 per hour wage will be considered a truly miserly amount.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the hon. member who now has the floor addressed himself to the bill before the house instead of dealing with other legislation, some of which has not been considered by the house, we would make a lot more progress.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member reading his speeches quite often and I have found, even when
Royal Assent
doing that, he frequently departs from the actual debate before the house. What I am speaking about has a direct relationship to the question of a $1.25 hourly wage.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the hon. gentleman is talking about. I have not been making any speech in the house today. I have not got any notes before me. I have not got a pile of stuff like the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) had before him when he read word for word.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not read word for word. The pile of words before me includes a lot of words spoken by the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Nasserden), because it is Hansard for part of the session.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Would the parliamentary secretary permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Does he not think the reason the Minister of Labour, last year when he was a private member in opposition, wanted a private members' bill passed which dealt with this subject, was because he did not have confidence the government of that day would do it, and we now have confidence that the government of this day will do it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I believe the hon. member's interpretation of the situation can be accepted. I would not want to be perhaps quite so dogmatic. I believe that in time the Conservative party might have moved toward such legislation but I am sure it would not necessarily have been quite so progressive. No doubt they would have introduced something providing for a much lesser amount.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Alfred Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house, went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act to Provide for the Placing of the Maritime Transportation Unions of Canada Under the Management and Control of Trustees.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour calls it six o'clock I wonder if I might just say a word about the business of the house. I take it, from the statement made last night, that there was agreement that the debate that was in progress at five o'clock would be adjourned and we would go into supply tonight to take the estimates of the Department of Public Works. On that understanding, it might be convenient for the Speaker to leave the chair and the house to go into committee so we would be in committee at seven o'clock, or perhaps 7.10 when hon. members come back.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed that we are going into committee tonight to discuss the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The matter of whether Mr. Speaker leaves the chair is, I would suggest, one for Your Honour's own decision, for your own convenience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps before you do actually leave the chair, sir, in whatever circumstances, I might say that should the estimates of the Department of Public Works be concluded there are a few items outstanding from the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) has indicated that, rather than have us adjourn because of having no business to deal with, he would be quite prepared to answer questions on the items outstanding from the estimates of his department.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State is most optimistic.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.

Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply, vote No. 1, Department of Public Works.
General administration including a grant of $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $10,695,000.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry? [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be in order for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to give us a brief outline of the policy of his department.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, since the items submitted to the hon. members were prepared under the previous administration, over a year ago, I don't think it is necessary for me to give you a long explanation.
However, we have slightly changed those estimates and to enable the house to get a better understanding of the various projects and amounts you are called upon to approve,
I intend to give you some essential explanations and I will do it alternatively in French and in English.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the items under the heading of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must be excluded as they now fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. As for the items concerning the national capital commission, I shall deal with them separately after the items of the Department of Public Works are completed. You will recall that when these items were tabled by the Minister of Finance in May 1963 he also announced that we would be reviewing these estimates to ensure that the amounts were realistic and that they would reflect as accurately as possible what the department could actually carry out this fiscal year.

When revising the estimates prepared in September and October 1962, we found that some projects could not be undertaken because of local difficulties such as the selection of the site, or because of changes in the plans or because of new needs that occurred since 1962. Some projects represent a reduction in the original amount but on the other hand this reconsideration of projects indicated that in some other cases an additional amount had to be provided for to ensure completion of the work.

The net effect of this is that of the total amount indicated in the main estimates for public works for 1963-64, to wit $166 million, a sum of $7,391,195 will not be required and appropriate amendments will be introduced when the individual items are called. On the other hand, additional amounts were required for new programs or projects which could be undertaken within the fiscal year. These additional items will be found listed in the supplementary estimates of the public works department and amount to $12.8 million.

In a word, I would now ask you to approve a total of $172.3 million, and there is an

amount of $6.3 million provided for by the previous administration. For the items we are preparing for the year 1964-65 I expect a more important increase. I will then take that opportunity to submit to the hon. member my idea of the part that the Department of Public Works must play in the national economy. At that time I will have visited the major part of the main projects under construction in the country and I hope that the next estimates that are submitted to the house will reflect the progressive emphasis I intend to give that department which can do so much to develop strategic areas in our various provinces.

I know hon. members will appreciate these facts and that I can count on their fullest co-operation in considering these estimates. I will endeavour to provide answers to any questions they may have. However, I would propose that I deal with them after all members concerned have completed their observations.

Before I resume my seat, may I express to the entire staff of the department my admiration and my appreciation for the dedication they have shown since last April and I wish to tell them how gratifying it is to work with servants of the country who have such a fine comprehension of the importance of their responsibilities.
When I leave that office, maybe in some 20 years, I hope that the department will enjoy as much prestige as it did when I took over.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, my first remarks will be to offer my best wishes to the new incumbent of the public works portfolio. And I could not offer him better wishes than to follow in the steps of his predecessor. I think it will be the best way for him to build up for himself an enviable reputation, to be a man of whom it can be said that he has rendered services to his country.
The Hon. Davie Fulton who left the federal field to go into the provincial political arena was an excellent minister and I know that all members of the house agree to that and miss him a lot. We, on this side of the house, wish him the best of luck in his new political career.
Mr. Chairman, the minister gave us a concise statement of the various changes made within the Department of Public Works and indicated his intention to recommend some others in the future.
Besides, we deeply regretted that when the new administration took office the Department
Supply-Public Works of Public Works was handicapped in matters concerning the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We think it would have been more logical to have the business of that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation administered by the public works department rather than by the national revenue department.
Did the government try to curtail the importance of that department since the incumbent was from Quebec or did the government consider the minister incapable of managing the business of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Small politics.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In the course of my remarks, I do not intend to go into details.
I only want to make a broad review, but I would like later to ask a few questions concerning certain secondary items.
There have been many changes since the minister was named to the Department of Public Works. His first act was to have an office installed in Montreal, at the expense of the Department of Public Works. We would like to know, on this side of the house, what was the cost of this installation, since it is a precedent, and we would also like to know the reasons why the minister, who is almost continually busy in Ottawa, had this office installed.
We would be happy to know who acts for him while he is absent from Montreal. Who are the persons assigned to that office? I was told there are four persons. We would like to know about their salaries, their wages and the part they play, for we find it strange, on this side of the house, that the minister should have in Montreal such a large staff and an office in the public works department building. We would not wish it to be a den for patronage. We wish the minister would give us explanations on that question.
May I remind the minister that one of his first acts as Minister of Public Works was to attend in Montreal, on June 3, 1963, the opening of tenders for work to be carried out at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
We should also like to have some information in that connection. Would the minister tell us whether he will continue to open tenders himself and whether it is the usual practice for a minister of the crown to do that?
According to the Montreal newspapers, after the opening of the tenders, the minister communicated directly with Argo Construction to give them the news and to ask them if they were interested in getting the contract. Mr. Chairman, we find such a behaviour very odd on the part of a minister of the crown.

Supply-Public Works
As I said a while ago, the minister opened an office in Montreal. I have no hesitation to say publicly here that the officials ol the Department of Public Works in Montreal cannot act freely, according to their conscience and their oath of allegiance. The representatives of the minister in Montreal do not allow any employee there to take his responsibilities and to do his duty. They interfere constantly, keep watch over the departmental officials and thwart their efforts. The employees work under tension all the time and we should like the minister to give us some explanation in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, I feel it is unusual for people from the minister's office, in other words proteges of the minister, to try to impede officials of the Department of Public Works in the accomplishment of their duties.
It is true that at the beginning of his remarks, the minister paid a tribute to the employees of this department stating that he was ready to co-operate with them. But if the minister wishes really to be logical with himself, he will begin by closing his Montreal office, he will ask his representatives to refrain from putting pressure on the employees of the Department of Public Works and let them take their decisions and carry out their work.
We, on this side of the house, wish to do without either good or bad patronage, as was the practice up to 1957. I warn the minister that we will be on the watch and I will take this opportunity to remind the house of the kind of patronage which always existed under the Liberal regime before 1957.
Mr. Chairman, I have in hand a photostat letter written by an official of the Department of Publics Works in Montreal which I wish to put on the official record. It reads as follows:
Department of Public Works 150 West St. Paul St.,
Montreal, Que.
April 9, 1954.
CIRCULAR LETTER TO CARETAKERS (Ville-Marie)	RE:-Tenders "copy"
Gentlemen:-
When caretakers and foremen are asked to forward to this office competitive tenders for various works, the following procedure should be followed:
1.	When the names of the tenderers are not given by our office, they will have to be obtained from the member, when he is from the area, from his authorized representative or from the local patronage committee-
Mr. Chairman, I draw the attention of the house to the words "local patronage committee".
____the names of a least two competent contractors (three names would be preferable).
2.	Give separately to each tenderer the plans, specifications or description of the work and the forms for tender.

3. Ask them to forward their signed tenders directly to the district architect, 150 W. St. Paul street, Montreal, under sealed cover marked, tender for... (work to be carried out, for instance: outside paint job, public building in St. Martin) so that it will reach destination before the set time and date.
When a price is to be submitted by only one supplier or contractor, ask the latter to forward his signed tender directly to the same address.
Follow those instructions and observe the strictest secrecy about the names of the various tenderers, the prices submitted by each and the procedure to be followed.
Yours truly,



CONFIDENTIAL

[Stage Direction]
(R. Martineau)
Acting district architect
Certified copy, February 10/59. Caretaker
Mr. Chairman, I must tell the house that I have crossed out the superintendent's name, for were I asked to table the letter, I would not want that person to become the victim of retaliatory measures. But this document is a certified copy of the original.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, may
I ask the hon. member whether the letter he has just read was written in 1954?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. But we are well aware of the type of politics the government is engaged in.
The Postmaster General has a list of privileged people. One knows full well what friends are on that list, and what kind of patronage was prevalent in 1954. I have just submitted to the house an authentic proof, which cannot be refuted.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have a deep respect for the hon. member for Hull-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the hon. member tell us how things were run between 1957 and 1963?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member asked that question for he is doing me a favour. Actually I have here a photostat of the circular letter sent to the building superintendents in 1958, when we were in office.
Here is the document:
Circular-58-4F
Department of Public Works 1643 DeLorimier
Montreal Jan. 2, 1958
Memo to all building superintendents
Would you kindly fill in the enclosed questionnaire, and write the name and address of the contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of your district and surroundings, who might be interested in dealing with the department.
Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the house to the fact that it does not ask for two or three names nor does it say that one should apply to the patronage committee.

I read on:
All these contractors, subcontractors or suppliers must reside within a 15 mile radius of your community and must include any person or company upon which you could depend to carry out various works in the building under your care, or who would be available in case of emergency. Everyone without exception must be listed.
Please take good note, Mr. Chairman, "everyone, without exception must be listed".
Further on:
In the future, when you have been authorized to carry out some works in the building under your care, it will be extremely important that you establish a revolving system so that contractor, subcontractors and suppliers all get a fair share of the money spent.
The enclosed list must be returned to me without delay.
R. J. Grenier,
District director.
There is the difference, Mr. Chairman. The caretakers are simply asked-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a very simple question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You did say, did you not, that you had crossed off the signature or the name of the caretaker on the other letter?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I can table the document. In fact, I put my seat at stake if the document is false, that is the first document I read.
There is the difference between the two governments. It is simple. You just have to read the two letters, as I did.
In the first letter, written under a government to which the minister belonged, and I know that he will certainly not fail his friends-


Alexis Pierre Caron: That was in 1954?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member wish to repudiate the past record of his party, when he was one of its members?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Years come and go, but things change.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They did not change very much, Mr. Chairman, if one may judge by the list of favourites of the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis). Moreover, we know that there are other lists-


Alexis Pierre Caron: They have not been produced.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, but they will be.
Mr. Chairman, you have a letter from the former government of which the hon. member for Hull and the present Minister of Public Works were members. It is a circular letter sent out to have the names of two or three tenderers, for patronage purposes, who were to call at the local patronage committee.
Supply-Public Works Moreover, the letter was marked "confidential", which means that it was to be kept secret.
On the other hand, when we were in office, we sent a letter to superintendents of buildings, letting them know that they were completely free to act as they saw fit, according to their conscience and in keeping with the oath they had taken.
There is the difference. That is why I am informing the Minister of Public Works that we shall keep our eyes open and maintain a constant watch.
Newspapers having reported that the minister had had an office built in Montreal, in which four representatives persecute, so to speak, and watch continuously the officials of the Department of Public Works in Montreal, who cannot make an inspection or give instructions without everything being censured by those favorites of the Minister of Public Works, we cannot but ask that this system be abolished.
I know that the Minister of Public Works is not the only one to blame. His party is responsible for that situation. I have been told that the Minister of Public Works was always taking orders from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), the number one minister in charge of patronage, the good patronage.
Mr. Chairman, I say that the same thing goes for the Postmaster General, who is not the only one to blame, and his list of favourites that the whip of the official opposition (Mr. Winkler) has produced.
Mr. Chairman, we want to co-operate with the minister, but we ask him to act according to democratic principles. Our forefathers, English as well as French speaking, fought to keep a close watch on the money spent by the state. We do not want that money to be used for political corruption, and that is why we will always be on the look out.
Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement was very short.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Can he tell the house if he has now come back to the year 1963?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are in 1963, and I wonder why the minister asks me this question. I know he does not like to be reminded of the past. I realize that the past is somewhat the mirror of the future, but the Minister of Public Works should not take pattern for the future on the past.
But I think that the Minister of Justice very often consults the past to see what should be done in the future. He tries to practise a sort of-

Supply-Public Works


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member permit me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: By all means.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: May I suggest to the hon. member that it might be dangerous to go too far backwards, because one could then talk about Duplessis' patronage, for whom the hon. member once worked, and call attention to the commissions paid for the purchase of paint, etc.-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the question, but I think that suggestion made by the hon. member for Cochrane is completely out of order, since it concerns what is said to have happened in the province of Quebec. If the hon. member wants to deal with provincial politics, let him resign.
Mr. Chairman, as long as I comply with the rules of the house, the hon. member cannot prevent me from saying what I think, according to my conscience, because as far as we who sit on this side of the house are concerned our conscience is clear.
Mr. Chairman, the type of letter sent by the Department of Public Works in 1954 is a scandal which we do not want to be repeated. And I insist on telling to the minister that we shall do our duty, that we shall scrutinize and watch his actions. I know that the minister is a fine man, but we do not want him to be too much influenced by the hon. member for Laurier.
We, on this side of the house, are willing to co-operate fully with the minister so long as he will provide us with the information we request. I feel that the people must be fully informed about the estimates and that the opposition must scrutinize them.
We want to get the list of suppliers of furniture to the department since the minister was appointed to that office.
We also want to know whether tenders have been called and whether they were public tenders, and, in every case, the names of the tenderers and the amounts involved.
We want to know too if tenders have been called for heating fuel intended for public buildings throughout Canada.
We want to know the names of the tenderers, if possible, by provinces. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have a right to get such information.
When the Minister of Public Works was in the opposition, I remember that he rose in the house with such a sad face that you would have thought he had been crying, and in a sobbing voice he said that unemployment was such a dreadful thing. It is true. If the present government had let us proceed with our work, we would have found a solution

much more easily than the Liberal administration is doing at the present time.
Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what the minister has done. This minister who was crying reminded me of those Buddhist monks who burn themselves up, as you probably know. He was weeping over the unemployed. But do you know what he has done? The first thing he did was to open an office in Montreal.
The second one was to cancel many projects included in the estimates which we had drawn up.
At the present time, unemployment is crucial in Canada. Forty per cent of the unemployed are in the province of Quebec. There are also unemployed people in all the other provinces of the country.
Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that it is as a result of an answer given to a question put on the order paper that I learned about the cancellation of works for a value of $2.45 million for this year by the Minister of Public Works. Why, Mr. Chairman, at a time where the government knows that it is faced with a crucial unemployment problem, a serious problem threatening the economic foundations of the country, why has the minister cancelled $2.45 million of works in the country?
I have the list in hand. For example, in Nova Scotia, almost $400,000 of public works were cancelled. In the province of Quebec, almost $315,000 of works and as much in Ontario. I could give you a detailed list. I would like the minister to explain why these works have been cancelled, while they appeared in the main estimates.
We would also like to know, if these works have been considered as being reasonable by qualified officials of the Department of Public Works why the minister has left them out and whether the minister intends in the near future to carry out these building projects, in order that we may know whether the minister or the officials of the department are inconsequential. But I have more confidence, Mr. Chairman, in the distinguished officials of the Department of Public Works who are logical and qualified employees-the architects, engineers and others who have proved themselves.
I naturally have all due respect for lawyers, Mr. Chairman but to my mind the minister was not qualified to determine whether or not $2 million worth of public works could be cancelled in a country afflicted with crucial unemployment.
I am coming back to that. The minister's eyes were full of tears, Mr. Chairman. But today the minister cancels important works in our provinces, at the very moment when unemployment has reached a crucial peak.

I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to give the house a concrete instance which refers to the county I have the honour of representing here. I am thinking about the tenders which were called for the purchase, in the municipality of Rawdon, of a lot to build a post office. The old one was housed in the municipal building.
The mayor and the municipal authorities got in touch with me to inform me that they needed space and they asked for the construction of a post office. Everything was according to the requirements set up by the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works, as far as revenue was concerned.
Then, at the request of the municipal authorities, I made some inquiries. The post office was not for your humble servant. The land was bought, the tenders were called and the lowest bidder was a person from Rawdon.
At that point there was a change of government. The present Minister of Public Works was appointed. He got patronage rolling and this was related to the first move, very likely to favour one of his friends in Montreal. He sent a notice to the contractor who had been awarded the contract and had already started construction, telling him to send his bill, so he could be paid.
The work was stopped, while it was known that the contractor was qualified and that he had been duly approved by the Department of Public Works. I had to beg the minister so that construction could go on. Several days later, he ordered the contractor to carry on with the work of that post office.
I know, Mr. Chairman that this case, which affected me and struck me, has certainly been a shock also to other members of this house.
We should like the Department of Public Works or rather the Minister of Public Works, because I do not want to say anything against the department since the employees of that department do a good job as long as there is no interference from the minister.
We would like all the ridings in the country to be treated the same way, whatever their political allegiance. If the minister wants to do that, he has only to follow the example set by his predecessor, the Hon. Davie Fulton, who was deeply missed by all members of the house and the employees of his department when he left.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the minister must not forget the election promises made by his leader and his party during the last election campaign. In every city or town he visited, the Prime Minister promised something, either the construction of a public building or a wharf. You know, he reminded me a
Supply-Public Works little of the Larousse dictionary: "He sowed broadcast". He made promises.
I read in La Presse on February 27, 1963:
Mr. Pearson promises again a deep water harbour to Riviere du Loup.
The political party which, once in power, will give Riviere du Loup suitable harbour facilities-
Mr. Pearson made promises and I know that he did so in all the provinces of Canada and in the maritimes; now, the minister comes before the house and asks for $172.3 million. He adds only $6.3 million.
I am convinced that those $6.3 million will not take care of all the election promises made by the leader himself. In view of the fact that the minister asks for $6.3 million in supplementary estimates, why did he cut $2,045,000? There is something illogical in this.
We would like also to know what the minister thinks of the famous tax on building materials. I admit that this tax does not fall directly under the Department of Public Works, but I believe that it has direct consequences since it contributes to increase the cost of building materials and, accordingly, has an effect on the construction of buildings by private enterprise in our country. Let me also call to the attention of the minister that the architects and the engineers of the Department of Public Works very often give evidence of bad taste in their building plans. Changes should be made along that line. In other words, attention should be drawn to designing a style proper to each place. If a post office is built in the Laurentians, it should have a special design which would be different from a city post office.
I also ask the Minister of Public Works to set up air conditioning systems in all large public buildings where there are none at the present time. I would give as an example the building where the unemployment insurance and post office employees in Joliette work. It is a beautiful building but it is not equipped with air conditioning; during the summer, for security reasons, they are prohibited from opening the windows to eliminate the risks of thefts. I must admit that no theft has as yet been committed since the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) has been in office.
We should like the minister to give some comfort to government employees and instal air conditioning systems in all major federal buildings. Now that the minister himself has an air conditioned office, as well as all the high officials of the government, why the civil servants of the country-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Supply-Public Works


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I think that the house agrees that the hon. member may continue.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is customary to allow the official spokesman of the opposition to present all his views.


Lucien Lamoureux: Unanimous consent would be required to allow the hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I request from the minister to have air conditioning systems installed in major offices of the country and also that that policy be applied to the erection of new buildings.
As far as the world exhibition of 1967 is concerned, I wish to ask the minister who is responsible for it? Is it the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), or the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) who expressed doubts about the economic aspect of the proposed site on the St. Lawrence, or is it the Minister of Public Works? I have here a newspaper report entitled:
The trustee-minister placed under trusteeship.
And 1 read the article.


Alexis Pierre Caron: From what newspaper do you quote?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am not ashamed to quote it, it is an article by Mr. Clement Brown, published by the newspaper Montreal-Matin. At the same time, I dare him to prove that it is false. Would the hon. member allow me to read the article?
As soon as the Pearson cabinet was sworn in, on April 22, the Prime Minister announced that public works minister Jean Paul Deschatelets would look after the 1967 world exhibition and that he would answer for the commission before parliament. At the time, everybody thought that the same minister would be responsible for the world exhibition.
As the weeks go by, Mr. Deschatelets seems to have less and less authority in that respect. Announcements concerning the world exhibition are made either by Prime Minister Pearson-which may be normal-or by Justice Minister Chevrier -which is much more unusual-
Consequently, in the interests of the Canadian people we would like to know if the world exhibition comes under the Minister of Public Works.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Was the author of the article not a Conservative candidate at the last election?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the fact that a Canadian was a candidate at an election, whether it is under the Social Credit, the N.D.P., the Liberal or the Conservative ticket, is no indication that the man is dishonest.
[The Chairman.]


Alexis Pierre Caron: I did not say that. You are the
one who said it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: To continue with my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the present government jeopardized the world exhibition every time it delayed that project.
In postponing the choice of a final site for the exhibition the present government wanted to blackmail the authorities of the city of Montreal. One of the commissioners, who is a good friend of the minister, and whose name I will not divulge, told me and others that the government was responsible for the delays and that it had endangered the future of the world exhibition to be held in Montreal. The minister did not want the exhibition to be held on St. Helen's and Notre Dame islands. He is quite aware of the article I have in mind and, since then, he has promised that the world exhibition would be held in the eastern part of the metropolis.


Mr. Teillel:: Could we know whom you are speaking of?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have the article here.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: You said that you would not mention the name of a certain party.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I said that the world exhibition commissioner had told me the delays concerning the final acceptance-


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Then, it is anonymous?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -had jeopardized the 1967 world exhibition. Besides, Mr. Chairman, I have here La Presse of March 20, 1963.
May I be allowed to point out that during the last election, the minister, who would have been trustee of the world exhibition, as we might say, in the case of a trusteeship, as is evidenced in a letter published in the Montreal newspapers, and mentioned by La Presse and I quote:
The 1967 World Exhibition in Montreal East.
Enclosed you will find copy of a letter which I have addressed to the Chief Commissioner of the 1967 world exhibition, Mr. Paul Bienvenu, as regards the site of the world exhibition.
I did that at the request of various businessmen's associations of the east end of Montreal.-Jean Paul Deschatelets, member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont.
Dear Mr. Bienvenu,
I am writing to you as a citizen of the Montreal east end about the decision that will be reached these next few days as to the site of the 1967 world exhibition.
Many representations have been made concerning the advantages offered by the eastern part of Montreal, the main ones being as follows:
First, a site ready to be developed.
Second, a very cheap site.
Third, a very easily accessible site.
Fourth, a site located in the heart of French Canada.

I hope the east end of Montreal will be recognized as the logical site for the world exhibition and rest assured that this will meet with the opinion of all the experts who have studied the advantages of the various locations which have been submitted to you until now.-Jean Paul Deschatelets, M.P.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked on the orders of the day of December 12, 1962, concerning the world exhibition and its site in the Montreal east end, as shown in Hansard at page 2578, and I quote:
1.	Has the associate minister of national defence received briefs from the Montreal east businessmen's association and the municipal council of Ville de Repentigny suggesting Maisonneuve park nr some other location in Montreal east, as the site of the 1967 world fair to be held in Montreal?
2.	Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that there is in Montreal east an 800-acre piece of land available as a site for the world fair?
3.	Before a decision is taken in this connection, will public bodies, such as the businessmen's association and the municipal council of Ville de Repentigny, be consulted?
That was meant to show you, Mr. Chairman, that we are not too surprised that the government took some time before accepting St. Helen's island and Notre Dame island as the site of the world exhibition, which location was the choice of the authorities of the city of Montreal.
I should also like to underline, Mr. Chairman, the excellent work done by Mr. Paul Bienvenu who, faced with situation which he described as untenable, could not carry on. I offer my best wishes to the new commissioner, Mr. Pierre Dupuy.
May I congratulate publicly here, in this house, the mayor of Montreal for the excellent work he has performed and for his contribution to the success of the exhibition. I am convinced that the mayor of Montreal keeps working towards the success of this exhibition.
Mr. Chairman, may I also pay a tribute to a man who was the first person in Canada to advocate that the world exhibition be held in Montreal in 1967, and I am referring to the late Senator Mark Drouin. He has gained our gratitude and everybody knows this outstanding personality asserted himself for the manner in which he interpreted Canada. I say: Hats off for the work he performed in connection with the Montreal world exhibition of 1967.
Mr. Chairman, after an inexcusable delay, Ottawa, by dint of pressure from all sides, and of complaints on the part of the Canadian public, gives its assent to the St. Helen's island site.
The federal government also forced the authorities of the city of Montreal to pay the
Supply-Public Works sum of $2,500,000 for part of an ice control project.
Mr. Chairman, I have here an article published in the Montreal paper La Presse on Thursday, July 4, 1963, entitled:
Montreal attributes all difficulties concerning the world exhibition to Ottawa.
The city of Montreal availed itself yesterday of the new delay brought about by next Saturday's "summit conference'', to stiffen its attitude toward the federal authorities and, finally, to blame "the people in Ottawa" as being solely responsible for the delays in determining the 1967 world exhibition site.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that those are things of the past, that they belong to history today, but I merely wanted to recall in the beginning, that the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont, who is now the Minister of Public Works and responsible for the world fair, had some rather painful experiences.
Indeed, this government has known the same difficulties, for any legislation introduced in the house was only passed with great effort. Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Minister of Public Works had to face those difficulties, considering the position of his government.
Mr. Chairman, I am saying all this as spokesman for the official opposition in matters pertaining to the Department of Labour estimates, and I can hear a minister of the crown, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Teillet), who is forever passing remarks. I shall therefore ask you, once for all, to invite him to leave the house if he persists in interrupting me. On the other hand, if he wants to ask me any question, let him rise to do so and I shall be pleased to answer him.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I intended to ask some questions, but it would have been very difficult. Anyway, I was tired of just hearing him read from newspaper cuttings.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it might well be said that this government has not been able to rule in peacetime. The president of the world exhibition, as well as one of the commissioners, have resigned. And so has Mr. Claude Robillard. We shall be happy to hear from the minister who is going to replace them. Days and weeks are passing and nobody has been replaced yet. I think this could very well jeopardize the world exhibition planning.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member knows that, hardly two weeks ago, the mayor of Montreal stated that the Hon. Mr. Dupuy would probably be the only competent man to fill this post.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Mr. Dupuy is the only competent person, I would

Supply-Public Works ask the government to give him immediately the status of commissioner general of the world exhibition, so that he could get out of the civil service. I think that as an ambassador he was under the federal cabinet.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When he was in France.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Dupuy comes under the jurisdiction of the federal cabinet, I believe that the situation is abnormal because we must give the commissioner general every possible latitude. And we would not want him to be under any influence of the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Dupuy enjoys great prestige and that he is a very valuable man. I am also assured that in co-operation with the proper authorities he will ensure the proper operation of the world exhibition. However, we would not want him to be put in an untenable situation.
For these reasons, and following the questions of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) we would like to know when the government will grant him official status as commissioner general for the exhibition in order that he may cease to be subservient to the federal cabinet.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister of Canada knew on July 8 last that Mr. Bienvenu was to resign. Why was there a delay? Why have they waited so long before appointing a successor? I believe that this delay harmed the world fair project.
Mr. Chairman, as I said already, Mr. Dupuy is a competent man and if the government wants to rely on him entirely he will be able to make a success of the exhibition.
Many organizations such as the Jaycees in the district of Montreal expressed a desire that the mayor of Montreal be appointed as commissioner general.
For one, as soon as Mr. Bienvenu resigned, I knew that many citizens of Montreal and the surrounding area declared that in their opinion the mayor of Montreal was highly competent to be at the helm of the exhibition project. Now, when does the government intend to amend the act.


An hon. Member:: He is reading a newspaper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, 1 hear another remark by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Does he have something to say?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, a while ago, through sheer courtesy, the house allowed the hon. member to extend his time. But what is he doing? He is only reading newspapers. That is what I had to say.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have here some paper clippings and some texts I wrote myself. Besides, the spokesman of the official

opposition was always allowed to make his remarks as he pleased, provided he was not out of order.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Just the same, it must make sense.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I warn the minister-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have no desire to be discourteous to the hon. member who has the floor, but it does seem to me it would be fair to point out that there are other members of the committee who would like to participate in the discussion this evening. In view of the fact that we are in committee I wonder, on the point of order, whether the hon. member would be willing to bring to a conclusion the particular phase of the remarks with which he is now dealing and perhaps participate later in the debate with some of the other matters with which he might wish to deal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I will speak for only a few minutes and I will continue later with the other items. I will do that with pleasure.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the world fair is concerned, I shall have an opportunity to come back to that and the minister might indicate when we can discuss that matter, since there is absolutely nothing in the estimates.
We want the fair to be a success. We want it to get a complete autonomy and we want to see the fair commissioners absolutely free. In other words, we do not want the chosen theme "Man and his World" to become "Liberals and their World" because of patronage.
I wish to warn the trustee minister, under trusteeship, because lately, a committee of the Canada Council was set up for the exhibition and I understand that following certain pressures, the presidency was entrusted to the treasurer of the Liberal party, Senator Gelinas.
And with this, Mr. Chairman, I bring my remarks to a close.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my thanks to some hon. members who have yielded the floor to me because of some personal reasons which oblige me to leave early tonight. I wish to extend my gratitude to these hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) introduces tonight the estimates of his department and among those estimates, the one I consider the most

important of course, the item concerning the Montreal world fair.
As a member from the Montreal area, I must point out certain developments which took place after the election, by accident, of a Liberal government on April 8 last.
As soon as he took over, the Minister of Public Works immediately compromised the potential success, the possible success of the world fair. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call to the attention of the house the fact that the 1967 world fair, which is to be held in Montreal, is one of the most splendid undertakings carried out by the Conservatives during their administration in Ottawa. We owe this to the drive of a government which foresaw that Canada would regain its international position if it could persuade the Paris international bureau of exhibitions that the 1967 world fair should take place in Montreal.
Without minimizing the credit which is due to the mayor of Montreal and to the chairman of the executive council, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, I deem it necessary to point out that from the very beginning the Conservatives were the ones who advocated the idea of a world fair first in Canada, and later on in Montreal.
Close on the heels of the last general election, a palpable uneasiness made itself felt within the World Exhibition Corporation, which should be free from political pressure and from the interference of the new government. Unfortunately, it has not been so. I would not want to see my hon. friends opposite claim that the few remarks I am making tonight concerning political pressures are false.
In order to try to place the problem in a context quite favourable to our friends of the government, I should like simply to quote a few words from an article published in MacLean's magazine of October 5, 1963, at page 17. This magazine's reporter stated in a feature article on the world fair:

The first commissioner general of the fair and his deputy have resigned because of bickering and power-plays by government.

If that is not, Mr. Chairman, a formal charge about undue political pressure exerted by the new Liberal government, within that company, then I ask the minister to refute publicly this assertion, and in particular to prove that there has been no pressure because I am able to establish that there has been some pressure exerted by some Liberal organizers who have become today senior officials and executive assistants to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne).
Supply-Public Works
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that besides the political pressure which is exerted, we have the misrepresentations and the evasive answers from the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister himself.
I shall say later that the Prime Minister lied deliberately to the house when he gave an answer based on false information from-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.

Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for St. Mary just said that both the Prime Minister and myself had lied or had given some facts which were not accurate, and that we knew they were not accurate. I do not think that this should go on the record unchallenged. I should think that the hon. member for St. Mary should be asked to withdraw these unfortunate and untrue assertions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I said clearly- and I think the Minister of Public Works heard me quite well-that the Prime Minister had lied to the house or had misinformed the house, because he did not know the facts. I prefer to think that the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister did not lie to the house but rather misinformed its members, probably because they were not aware of the facts that were made public later on.
To prove what I have just said, I would like to recall to the Minister of Public Works the letter of resignation- iText]


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for St. Mary would not want anything on the record which would be offensive to him or to any member of this house. Perhaps he might be willing to withdraw what he said, or rephrase it.


Georges-J. Valade: Well, Mr. Chairman, I specified that either the Prime Minister lied or that he gave an answer which was not in accordance with the facts, and I prefer to think that it was the latter. But I did not accuse either one of them.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the hon. member should withdraw the word "lied". It is a most unparliamentary word.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentlemen in power think that I am hurting their feelings when I say that the Prime Minister has lied, then I did not make that statement; it is for them to believe that. I just put the dilemma to the government-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member will realize that it is not a question

Supply-Public Works of the feelings of any member of the committee. It is a question of using language which is not permitted in the chamber.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I yield to your demands because I want to be more courteous to the present government than they have been since the session started. I want to say that the Prime Minister may not have lied, but the facts reveal that we did not get the true information when we asked questions of the government on the very issue of the resignation of both the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner. I want to point out to hon. gentlemen that when Mr. Bien-venu resigned his function it was acknowledged that things were not going so well. On July 19 I asked the Prime Minister if either Mr. Carsley or Mr. Bienvenu were asked to resign, or whether they had informed the government of their intention to resign. On that occasion both the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister answered that all was well under the roof of the World Fair Corporation, that no such thing was true and that this statement did not conform with the truth. When Mr. Bienvenu made public his letters of resignation, it was found that the first letter sent to the Prime Minister was dated July 12, 1963, which was six days before the Prime Minister answered in this house that he was not aware that either Mr. Bienvenu or Mr. Carsley were resigning.
That is on the record, and I am sure the Minister of Public Works cannot deny something which has been printed in the papers and to which he can refer. It is to this I was referring when I said the Prime Minister did not give an answer to the question I asked on July 13, 1963.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to continue showing that it is unfortunate that the government, as soon as it took office, started to interfere in the business of the World Fair Corporation, using it as a field for political patronage.
By the time the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works is over, I shall be able to give other details.
But to illustrate that there are indications of political pressures, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a letter sent by the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, on July 2, 1963, to the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada.
I do not intend to read this letter in full, because it is rather long, but I want to point out to the house that certain indiscretions have been committed by the Prime Minister
[The Deputy Chairman.]
and the Minister of Public Works, which were a threat to the success of the world fair.
Those indiscretions were made in regard to the chief organizer of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, during the last federal election.
1 refer to the letter dated July 2, 1963, from which I quote a few paragraphs:
Back in Montreal, we met nobody and we had no telephone conversations with newspaper reporters or anybody else about our meeting and the subject of our conversations.
Besides we were very surprised, Mr. Saulnier and myself, to learn when we arrived at your residence-
Here he meant the residence of the Prime Minister-
-that a telephone call was awaiting Mr. Saulnier.
Later on we found that it was a call from Mr. Brady who had been informed of our visit by someone from your office or the office of Mr. Des-chatelets. At any rate, Mr. Saulnier did not call Mr. Brady back and we returned to Montreal without getting in touch with anyone in Ottawa.
Well then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Public Works to tell us who Mr. Brady is. What was a political organizer like Mr. Brady doing at a confidential meeting between the Prime Minister, the mayor of Montreal and the chairman of the executive council?
That is what leads me to believe that by exerting uncalled for pressure, the Liberal party tried to turn the world fair into a political plum, into a source of patronage, instead of carrying it out as a national endeavour designed to stimulate the interest of foreign countries in Canada.
Later on, that is September 4, 1963, I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister.
In view of the facts I have just mentioned, I felt there was sufficient reason for the house to go into committee or for setting up a special commission of inquiry to determine the true motives behind the resignations of Mr. Bienvenu, the commissioner general, and of Mr. Carsley, his deputy.
If the minister, indeed, if the government has nothing to hide I would hope that a parliamentary committee would be set up to find out the truth, even if the committee had to sit behind closed doors.
Mr. Chairman, I should not want to limit myself only to the uncertainty which was created by the hesitation, the beating about the bush, the delays, the retreat, in short, the carelessness shown by the Minister of Public Works with respect to the world fair since the election of the government, last April 8.
I wish to put on official record the fact that the Liberals have accused the former government of wavering. Now, allow me to

mention that within a month, the Conservative party had chosen the present site of the world fair and had officially accepted it, while the present government took five months to accept definitely and officially the site of St. Helen's island which had been recommended by the former government.
Well, Mr. Chairman, not only should we consider those matters, but also if we are aware of our responsibilities, we should make suggestions to the Minister of Public Works, in order to ensure the success of this world fair.
I would like the minister to consider immediately the possibility of building, in co-operation with the city of Montreal, some access roads to Notre Dame island. I would also like the minister to visit the premises and realize that it would be necessary to widen, in co-operation with the authorities of the province of Quebec, the roadway of Jacques Cartier bridge, and this in the near future.
I would like the Minister of Public Works to consider immediately the building of a throughway around the city of Montreal in order to speed up the flow of traffic to the site of the world fair in Montreal.
I also feel that Canada should decide in the near future what type of pavilion it intends to build and that after the exhibition, this pavilion should be used as a museum of Canadian history, as a hospital or as a cancer research centre.
After all the promises the Prime Minister made during the last two election campaigns, the Minister of Public Works should convince him to give the country a Canadian flag which could wave over this Canadian pavilion at the world fair.
In my opinion, the Minister of Public Works should offer favourable conditions to private enterprise for the building of hotels or facilities to accommodate the many tourists who, I hope, will come to Canada for this event.
There were many other matters I wanted to discuss and I would have liked the Minister of Public Works to explain in his statement how he intends to ease unemployment in the province of Quebec where unemployment affects about 40 per cent of the labour force.
When the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was in the opposition, I remember that he has accused the Union Nationale government of being responsible for the unemployment situation, because, as he then suggested, the Union Nationale had refused to participate in joint programs. Well, let the hon. minister continue saying the same thing now.
28902-5-240
Supply-Public Works
Only recently, Mr. Rene Levesque and Mr. Jean Lesage served the present government with an ultimatum demanding its withdrawal from the joint plans. I therefore would ask him to retain the same position, the same opinion. I want to ask him whether, in future, he intends to abolish the joint plans or if he intends to intensify such plans so as to ensure to the province of Quebec the full employment his government, his political party, promised at each federal election.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is coming.


Georges-J. Valade: It is not coming as fast as that. It will not come as fast as that if you continue delaying the business of the house by uselessly interrupting the one who is speaking, without contributing nothing constructive.
I think the minister might give us some explanations since he was so voluble when he was in the opposition. But now that he has crossed the aisle he keeps silent.
Does he approve the policies of Mr. Lesage who in the 1960 election promised that if he was elected he would consider unemployment as a provincial matter. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) denied that Mr. Lesage said that if he were elected he would consider unemployment as a provincial responsibility. Furthermore we have had an acute unemployment situation in the province of Quebec since the coming to office of the Liberal party both in Ottawa and in Quebec.
Mr. Minister, please refrain from giving evasive answers to the members of parliament. We would like to have answers in order to inform the people and in order to know what you have done since you came to office, failing which we will be forced to say that you did nothing.
The truth squad of the Minister of National Health and Welfare could play the same tricks it did in the last election campaign and tell us how far she would go to help the government solve the unemployment problem in Canada and more particularly in Quebec because unemployment is a major problem which should be immediately examined and considered by the government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, because we have done something.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like the minister to tell us how he wants to remedy the unemployment situation in co-operation with his Liberal friends of the province of Quebec who had him elected.
I am sorry, because I only wanted to speak five minutes, but I want to answer my hon. friend.

Supply-Public Works
In La Presse of June 21, 1960, and May 21, 1960, we could read the following:
Marked drop of unemployment, more particularly in the province of Quebec.
This was before the Liberal party came into power in the province of Quebec. Please note:
Marked drop of unemployment, more particularly in the province of Quebec.
And now, I shall quote another item which a responsible paper printed this morning:
40 per cent of Canadians unemployed are living in the province of Quebec.
What about all those election promises?


Alexis Pierre Caron: What paper are you quoting?


Georges-J. Valade: I can tell you. It is not La Reforme. I would not mind my friend using this paper to make a speech-


Alexis Pierre Caron: We only want to know the name of the paper.


Georges-J. Valade: It is Montreal-Matin, but I can also give you La Presse, if you wish, or Le Devoir, and I hope this will satisfy you.
Quebec has 33 per cent of this country's unemployed.
That was in Le Devoir of October 18.
Does the hon. member work hand in hand with the premier of the province of Quebec, who was elected because he promised to put an end to unemployment? I represent a riding where the majority of voters are working people. 1 meet those people and they tell me about their idleness. I know hundreds of voters in my riding who have been discharged by the Liberal government of Quebec as soon as it took over.
Unemployment cannot be fought with party politics.
But no thought was given to Quebec's unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, since the Liberal party has been in office in the province of Quebec, four times as many licences for the sale of liquor have been issued. However, no one bothered to look after the unemployed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that he has wandered quite a bit from the first item now before us by making a review of the political situation in his province.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that the comments of our hon. friends opposite did sidetrack me a little.
Mr. Chairman, I was asking the Minister of Public Works what steps he intends to take to reduce unemployment.
I know that some parties made suggestions, but I also know-and that is the important

point-that the Liberal party made some too. And that is the purpose of my contribution, to ask the Minister of Public Works to describe to us the program he intends to apply in order that this winter we do not have to suffer from that plague of unemployment, which will increase if the government does nothing. We are interested in that problem, as we used to be when we were in office. And if some members doubt that my statements are correct, I shall quote figures to prove them.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Public Works that it is his duty to take immediate steps to reassure the population of the province of Quebec, especially the unemployed, whose number reaches 40 per cent of the total for Canada, and who hope that the Liberal government will take steps to stem unemployment and secure full employment.
Mr. Chairman, I have many more remarks to make, but I shall conclude with some suggestions for the minister. I do not know if it is necessary, but it seems to me that without suggestions, the Liberal government does not work as it should. Here are some of the suggestions I want to make to the minister.
To begin with, the minister will have to intensify right away urban renewal in Montreal. The slums must be demolished and replaced by salubrious houses. Too many people live in slums, in houses that are falling to pieces, and I think that the Minister of Public Works should consult with his colleagues from the cabinet in order that immediate measures may be taken to improve that situation. In doing so, he would help alleviate unemployment.
I say again to him that he will have to promote urban renewal in the city of Montreal.
The minister should also undertake immediately the construction of access roads to the site of the world fair.
Moreover, the Minister of Public Works should tell us whether he intends to recommend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) the removal of that odious 4 per cent tax on building materials, which will be increased to 11 per cent this winter, so that the contractors and taxpayers who would like to do so may build houses this winter, thus increasing employment during that bad season.
Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for the minister's answers. I have many other suggestions to make but I will keep them for later.
Mr. Chairman, of the 21 ridings in the city of Montreal, that of St. Mary is the only one represented by a Conservative member. During the last election campaign, the electors

of the city of Montreal were the victims of propaganda published by some partisan newspapers. Personally, I was logical with my electors, and they in turn were quite logical with me, so that we might not be all victims of that propaganda. I am amazed to note that out of the 21 members from Montreal, there is only one to rise in the house and ask, for the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, the carrying out of important works. The present government should do something for the metropolis of Canada just as we did when we were in power.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain the committee very long because there are others who would like to speak this evening and I have not as much to say as the speakers who preceded me. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I will be leaving in a day or two and I will not return to the house for three weeks, so there will be silence from this quarter. I should like to move from the past into the future for a moment.
I have a peculiar problem which I should like to present to the minister, and it is related to the paving of the Alaska highway. I realize, of course, that this highway comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence at the moment. However, I should like to ask the minister to do some more transferring and get the Alaska highway transferred to his department. I quite understand that as long as the Department of National Defence has jurisdiction, the paving of the highway is something in which they would not be interested. I can assure the minister, however, that the paving of that highway is something in which not only the people of that particular part of the country are interested but many other people as well, including the minister of northern affairs. He is especially interested, and has been most energetic in trying to get something done along that line.
I would appreciate it very much if some negotiations could be conducted with a view to having the Alaska highway paved and reconstructed. I understand that British Columbia is prepared to pay one third of the cost of this project in the British Columbia section, which certainly would be a great help to the federal Department of Public Works, if that department should assume jurisdiction over this highway.
Then, I should like to interest the Minister of Public Works in considering proposals which have been put forward on a number of occasions during election campaigns by both the Liberal and Conservative parties, that is a trans-Canada highway system. In my 28902-5-2401
Supply-Public Works view this is an important step. I like to qualify this request by saying that if the federal government ceases to take the lion's share of the tax revenues and thus allow the provincial governments to embark upon a greater highway program, then I would drop my request immediately. Under the circumstances, since I am convinced the federal government is taking the lion's share of the tax revenue, I believe some responsibility does devolve upon the department.
There is one other thing I should like to mention, and again the minister of northern affairs is involved. I have a feeling that most people who use the trans-Canada highway or other trunk highways over which the federal government might have jurisdiction could be given a right of way when they pass through national parks. I believe that the amount of money that is involved in collecting this $2 from individuals who pass through these parks would provide a right of way through the park. Then, people who are not interested in stopping in the national parks and who are using a through, trans-continental highway, could travel unimpeded through these parks. I have been told by trucking firms that it is very much easier to enter the United States at Coutts or Sweet Grass and come out at Sault Ste. Marie, than it is to go through one of the national parks. I do not think this should be the case. I feel the time has come when serious consideration should be given to eliminating what I believe is an absolute nuisance for travellers on our highways.
I have just one or two little reminders left which, as the hon. member for Kootenay West would say, are very urgent matters for the people in my constituency. I should like to remind the minister to provide post office facilities at Fort Nelson and Taylor.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cariboo and I are departing to attend the commonwealth parliamentary conference. He did not take the time I expected he would in discussing the estimates for the Department of Public Works. The fact he mentioned such matters as the Alaska highway and the removal of the charges for travel on the trans-Canada highway through federal parks, indicates how widespread the subject matters are that can be discussed at this time. One could contrast his remarks with the fairly lengthy observations to which we listened on the subject of the Montreal world fair. In so far as the Montreal world fair is concerned, I certainly wish it well. I was one of the members who spoke in support of the bill which established the Canadian corporation. However, I am not disposed at this time to enter into any detailed dis-

Supply-Public Works cussion such as was undertaken by those who spoke from the Conservative benches. Perhaps later in this discussion one of my colleagues may have something to say about it.
I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cariboo that consideration be given to the elimination of this charge for travelling on the trans-Canada highway through national parks. I know a great many people who are interested in the new through route between Calgary and Vancouver, and who are not planning to visit the park, do find this charge a bit of an imposition. In fact, we have created a toll road over part of the trans-Canada highway as a result of this arrangement in respect of our national parks.
At the outset of my remarks, I should like to say that, in some ways, I have enjoyed the approach which has been taken in the house by our new Minister of Public Works. I cannot say that I shall do my best to see he occupies that post for the next 20 years, as he indicated he might wish to do. Certainly during the time he does occupy that post, I shall do my best as a member who has a considerable interest in the activities of his department to assist him in the proper discharge of his duties. At this particular stage in our discussion, perhaps it would not be amiss if the work done in this department by the person who occupied the post of deputy minister for quite a number of years was mentioned. Those of us who had dealings over a period of time with Major General Young appreciate some of the efforts he made for us in attempting to streamline and modernize the federal Department of Public Works. I felt that that contribution of his should not go unnoted in this discussion.
While I applaud the minister for being fairly forthright in answering questions put to him across the floor, I must admit I was somewhat disappointed that in his opening statement he did not outline in more detail his concept of the role his department should be playing on the Canadian scene. He indicated that a year from now, if he is still occupying that portfolio, he will have more to say than he said tonight. This brought home to me very obviously that the famous 60 days of decision had not reached into the operations of the Department of Public Works, and perhaps in view of what happened in connection with one or two other ministers who were in the forefront during those 60 days, the minister may have been wise not to emphasize that type of role. Nevertheless I think it would have been useful to have had some statement from him

regarding his department's activities in the future.
He did mention that we could anticipate some increase in the estimates for his department next year; but if his idea of a heavy increase does not extend much further than the suggestions he made tonight when he was outlining the additions to and deletions from the program of his department, then his concept of the role of his department leaves a great deal to be desired.
I notice, in the most recent annual report of the department, that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962, which of course was transmitted to us under the signature of the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, a former minister, it shows the 1961-62 program of expenditures was somewhat smaller than that of the preceding year. The figures were $174,256,000 in 1961-62 as compared with $190,842,000 for the fiscal year 1960-61. Compared with the figures which the minister gave tonight, and taking into account his deletions and additions, I make the figure for this year $172,300,000, an increase of $6.3 million over last year; and considering that our population is growing year by year, this leaves us a number of millions of dollars behind the expenditure for the fiscal year 1960-61.
This suggests that the government has not as yet given any indication that it is doing something about the former Conservative so-called austerity program in the field of operations of the Department of Public Works. This is a serious lack in the policies of the government, and should be remedied.
I feel the concept of a federal department of public works should be something more than what is referred to in the last annual report, which as I said was issued under the Conservative regime, as "a construction agency for the federal government." In my view, and I think I can say in the view of the New Democratic party, this department should be an economic instrument, something which will be an active agency spearheading the economic growth of Canada; something that will act in concert with the general level of industrial and other economic activity to ensure that Canada continues to move forward at a steady pace from year to year, and on a scale commensurate with taking up the slack which exists today, and has existed over a number of years, in the field of employment. That is the sort of concept which was completely lacking in anything the minister said tonight when introducing these estimates.
I hope that between now and this time next year he will give some consideration to spearheading that kind of role for his department. If he wants to remain Minister of Public Works for the next 20 years I can think of no

better way in which he might achieve that objective than to put his department in the forefront of activities of the federal government, instead of allowing it to continue as it has been, as a sort of caretaker, back door operation. In that way it could initiate projects which I and a lot of my constituents feel it should tackle.
I can only assume that the situation which was so evident in my constituency as a result of the so-called austerity program, was something which appeared all across Canada. Even in the operations of the harbours and rivers engineering branch of the department, projects in British Columbia were slashed to a point beyond all recognition; and I would point out that even before this slashing took place there was a crying need for the early construction of many projects and the provision of many public services up and down the coastal area of British Columbia.
I shall not outline them all tonight as the minister has been getting letters from me giving the details. However I mention them for two reasons. The first is that even within the present very limited concept of the operations of the department, the government has not taken any step to restore the level of public works to what it was in 1960-61. Second, because the government has not done this, it clearly indicates that the minister is not proposing an active, dynamic role for the functioning of his department which, on the one hand, will provide the kind of public services and facilities that the people of Canada need, and on the other hand and correlated with it, operate in our economy as something to create a balance between needs and employment. By operating in that way it could bring an end to the scourge of unemployment, to which hon. members have made reference, but without providing any practical suggestions for achieving it.
Having read this last annual report put out under the signature of the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, it struck me as rather strange that those who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party carried on at such length, talking about programs of slum clearance and other projects which had not been undertaken. I am quite willing to concede that the new minister has not had time to initiate projects along those lines which, according to the hon. members who have spoken, were not undertaken in their constituencies during the previous regime. But I had hoped the minister would have given us some indication tonight that he had plans to put an end to the state of affairs which does exist, and on this I agree with other hon. members.
Supply-Public Works The hon. member for Cariboo mentioned the trans-Canada highway. There are one or two matters I would like to deal with in that connection and one or two questions I would like to raise with the minister. I wish to refer briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the last annual trans-Canada highway report. Apparently it came out a little later than the report of the department, because it bears the name of the present Minister of Public Works. On page 2 of the report I find these words:
In I960 it was again apparent that the completion of the highway would not be possible in some provinces during the construction period provided for in the existing agreements. A third amendment of the act in May, 1960 extended the construction period to December 31, 1963, and increased the aggregate amount that may be contributed by Canada to $400 million.
As I understand it, that is the position of the Trans-Canada Highway Act at the present time; in other words, the termination of the trans-Canada highway agreement will soon be reached, namely on December 31 of the current year. Yet on the next page of the report I find some detail as to the state of the trans-Canada highway at the time the report was prepared. It says:
Considerable construction still remains to be done in the province of Newfoundland. There appears to be little possibility of construction being completed on the entire Newfoundland mileage before the end of the construction period provided for in the present agreements.
That is, by December 31 of this year:
The province of Quebec has made an auspicious start on the construction of its section of the highway. Continuation of the work on a large scale during the 1962 and 1963 construction seasons will insure the completion of a high percentage of the highway mileage during these years. It is, however, unlikely that the construction of the entire mileage across the province can be completed before the termination date of the agreement.
The province of Ontario is continuing with the work of reconstructing substandard sections of the highway. Although it appears unlikely that all substandard sections will be upgraded before December 31,	1963, there will be a continuous
paved highway across the province by that date.
Those of us who have been in the house over a period of time realize that the Trans-Canada Highway Act expiry date has been extended on more than one occasion; that the original program of completion of the first trans-Canada highway by 1956 fell by the board long ago. But I think the statements in this report do call for some clear indication from the government as to whether before the end of this year we will have some legislation brought before parliament to again extend the period of the trans-Canada highway agreements, or whether these statements have been superseded by more recent developments and the trans-Canada highway will in fact be completed before the end of this year.
377G

Supply-Public Works
I think all of us agree that the construction of the first trans-Canada highway was a most important and valuable undertaking in this country. I think it is one of the things which will in future years, and more and more as the years go on, tend to assist the Canadian people from one end of this country to another to get to know one another better.
I think perhaps no single construction project may in the long run tend to diminish some of the tensions that exist at the present time within the Canadian confederation more than the increasing use that will be made of this trans-Canada highway by travel-conscious Canadians. Therefore I would hope there is no question that this project will be continued to completion and that the necessary action will be taken by the government to achieve this end.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my hon. friend would permit me to make an observation at this point. In the supplementary estimates D, vote 178d-which vote is being added to the present estimates of my department-the hon. member will see that we are asking the house to extend the termination date of the Trans-Canada Highway Act from December 31, 1963, to December 31, 1967.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister to say that there is an item of increased money in a supplementary estimate. Does that mean the construction program is to be accelerated so that the highway will be physically completed by that vote? Does he mean that the extension of this agreement can be achieved by the voting of an item in the estimates rather than by the introduction of an amending bill?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If my hon. friend would permit me to say this, Mr. Chairman, the effect of voting item 178d-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: One dollar.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -will be to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which would terminate on December 31, 1963.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is a standard procedure; a $1 open door.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I find it a little puzzling that an act can be amended by the simple expediency of a vote in the estimates. However, that is the kind of question which, if it is to be discussed any further, I would prefer to have dealt with by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. It seems to me, offhand, to be a rather peculiar approach, and I do not think it was the one taken previously when I was in the house and the termination date was extended.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have given the hon. member this information in order that he may be aware of the fact that we want to extend the Trans-Canada Highway Act beyond December 31, 1963. As I understood his remarks, the hon. member was inquiring as to what we were doing about this matter. I would suggest that when we reach this item we can discuss the way it will be done.


Norman Platt Lambert: The hon. member will be away.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to thank the minister for giving the committee, and myself in particular, this information at this time, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it was a matter that should be clarified and, in my view, the sooner the better. I am certainly happy the minister has indicated that the intention of the government is to make the necessary extension and provide the necessary financing required for the completion of the highway, because this enables me to go on to some other remarks that I wish to make.
I feel that the time has come when both this house and the minister should be looking beyond the completion of the first trans-Canada highway. I do hope that before the discussion of these estimates is concluded there can be an opportunity for some fairly full discussion of this whole matter. I should merely like to state briefly at this time that I feel the completion of the trans-Canada highway should be the beginning of a much broader concept of highway development in Canada. I should also like to say that I feel the program of highway development should be increasingly geared to the concept of a national transport policy which would include, in the consideration of the planning involved, our railway system, our air lines system and our coastal and inland water transportation system, so that the planning and development done would produce unified and co-ordinated transportation facilities for the use of the Canadian people as individuals and for commercial purposes. I recall that a number of years ago, under the administration of the previous Liberal government, action was taken in this house to relinquish federal jurisdiction over interprovincial trucking, I felt at that time, and I still feel, that that was a retrograde step as far as the development of an adequate transportation system and policy in Canada is concerned. I feel it was probably done at that time because the government of the day had not thought out the implication of highway building as a national need in the context of the current situation. I hope that we can push forward to the point where the resources of the whole nation will be behind

the development of a proper national highways program. I think that is certainly one of the areas of activity in which the people who live in the great country to the south of us have given us an example of what can be done. Within the limits of our smaller population and developed resources I think that Canada should long since have followed in the footsteps of that sort of program in a much more adequate way than we have in the undertaking of the single trans-Canada highway program.
I could relate this situation with respect to a highway policy to some of the things I have run into in the course of my travels in the coastal areas of British Columbia. One of the things in which I think the federal government has failed, be it a Liberal or Conservative administration, is in what in common parlance today is called doing a selling job of the highway program. I think this is because there has been this lack of a concept of a real national transportation policy which would have a unifying effect on the Canadian nation. The result of it, certainly in British Columbia, has been that, to put it bluntly, nearly all the credit for the building of the trans-Canada highway has been taken by the provincial administration. That situation may or may not prevail in other provinces to a greater or lesser degree, but we happen to have a minister of highways in British Columbia who is pretty fond of blowing his own horn and giving the impression that he is the only one in the whole country who knows anything about building highways. Because of the lack of understanding among the Canadian people, through lack of initiative by the Canadian government, of a national highway program, it has been possible for a great deal of misrepresentation of the situation to take place.
I think that nowhere has this been more evident than in the northern part of Vancouver island, where there has been a crying need for highway development for a number of years. I find there has been created there quite successfully and skilfully, the impression that the reason there is no highway through to the north end of Vancouver island is because the federal government decided that it would not build a trans-Canada highway to Cape Scott which is the northern tip of the island. I have had to waste a lot of my time trying to explain to people that basically the route of the trans-Canada highway was selected by the provincial authorities, and that it was the government of British Columbia which decided that the trans-Canada highway should run on Vancouver island from Nanaimo south to the city of Victoria.
Supply-Public Works But that does not mean that there is no need for federal participation in a highway program, and this is one of the areas where a broad national policy could very well come into play.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have only a few remarks to make and, if you recall, Mr. Chairman, my remarks have not been continuous.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was just about to say that the coastal area of British Columbia is one of the parts of Canada where the broader concept of a highway building program-and because it is a sea coast area, in conjunction with other means of transport-could very well come into play. I know that this same crying need exists in other parts of the country as well. I have listened to a lot of discussion about the need for the Yellowhead route through from Edmonton to the city of Prince Rupert, which is in the constitutency of my hon. friend from Skeena. One could go on, I am sure, and enumerate situations right across the country where it would be in the national interest that we develop this broader national highway concept.
There is only one other matter I wish to raise at this point. I should like some clarification from the minister before the estimates are concluded as to what the thinking of the present government is in respect to the establishment of federal buildings. I know that during the years I was out of the house a program was initiated to build federal buildings for the use of the Post Office Department in many of the smaller communities, where such had not been the case in previous years. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the present minister and his government to continue with that policy. I suppose that in most constituencies in Canada, outside of the large urban areas, this is quite an important question. I know of one or two communities in my constituency, such as Port Hardy for example, where there is urgent need of better postal facilities, and where the department has previously acquired property which is not presently, or as far as I know, within the plans of the department for use for the erection of such a building. I think it is important that this matter should be clearly stated as a matter of policy on the part of the present government, in view of the fact that in this particular area there was undoubtedly a change of policy by the former

Supply-Public Works Conservative government in relation to the policy pursued by the previous Liberal administration.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks at this stage of the discussion.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The Department of Public Works is, of course, familiar with the district of St. John's West, and the district of St. John's West with the Department of Public Works. I did not think I could let this opportunity pass without making a few comments, while the estimates of the department were before us, because this particular department has a great role to play not only in the district of St. John's West but in all of Newfoundland.
The previous speaker suggested that the federal government had perhaps not done a good selling job vis-a-vis the credit involved in the construction of the trans-Canada highway. I might say that until a few months ago this was an academic question in Newfoundland because the federal government was paying 50 per cent of the cost, and while this arrangement existed it would be some time before Newfoundland would ever enjoy this highway. We are pleased to note that the new government has taken action in this direction and we hope that in the near future the trans-Canada highway will be completed.
However, the role of this department as far as Newfoundland is concerned, and as far as St. John's West is concerned, means more than the building of the trans-Canada highway. I thought there was a good deal of merit in some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni regarding the attitude, or philosophy, or approach he would like to see taken by the Department of Public Works. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that over the past year I have had considerable contact with the department and its officials both in St. John's and in Ottawa and from my encounters with them, I am pleased to say, it seems clear that they do have these things at heart. Although at times we might disagree about some of the things they may be doing, all in all the relationship has been satisfactory.
I think it would be wrong at this time to enter upon a debate on this issue, but we take note of the fact that the estimates before the committee, those compiled by the previous administration, were, unfortunately, affected by the austerity program. Hon. members from British Columbia recalled that their province suffered as a result of that program and the same is true, I suppose, of all ten provinces. It is certainly true of Newfoundland.
The Department of Public Works has a role to play in the economic growth of the

province I am happy to represent. Decisions to undertake harbour improvements such as the building of wharves or breakwaters in fishing communities undoubtedly add to the wealth of those communities and make it easier for the fishermen to fish. Over the past 14 years a number of noteworthy improvements have been made. We were encouraged by the remarks the minister made in opening this discussion. What is of great importance to us is that in future estimates a larger amount of money should be made available for such projects as I have mentioned. Expenditure of this sort could be justified on many grounds.
I might say that in the district of St. John's West, which is, in fact, two thirds an urban riding, there are 61 or 62 communities. I tried to total them up before rising to speak. There are 61 or 62 harbours in the district. The population in some of these places is small but it is clear that here we find the basic economy of Newfoundland, because these people must make their living from the sea. A problem has arisen, inasmuch as in some of these smaller communities extensive harbour improvements or other public works are required at a cost which it is difficult to justify on purely economic grounds. Some effort has been made in the past-and I hope it may continue-to centralize these projects, that is to say, to provide facilities in one community which would be of benefit to neighbouring communities. Certainly, a great many people have advocated such an approach, and it is a laudable approach; but considerable difficulty is involved because when people have made their homes for generations in these smaller communities there are important sociological aspects to be considered, quite apart from the financial burdens on individuals who must go further before they can begin their work. My own impression is that efforts on the part of the government to proceed with centralized projects of this kind would meet with small progress.
The situation in Newfoundland is unique in many respects, particularly since our people are scattered along 6,000 miles of coast line in some thousand or more communities. They have settled in these communities and made a living there with varying degrees of success. One might say on seeing some of these communities: Why don't they move somewhere else? But when you enter the community and see the lives the people lead you would perhaps be reluctant to change them. Sometimes, in these smaller communities where there are fewer facilities than in many of the larger ports, the people are more successful in the fishing. The fact that

there may be only 50 fishermen does not particularly bother them. These people who engage in the fishing industry expect the government to pay some attention to their problems.
We have heard a great deal of discussion about the world fair in Montreal. It is difficult for people who want $10,000 or $12,000 to build a wharf which would be of immense value to them to read, with equanimity, that $18 million was voted for this, and $22 million for that. We may put forward all the economic arguments in the world, but in the last analysis, it is difficult to explain. But I do hope that the minister and the department are aware of this and I feel confident that they are. As I say, I am not debating the merits or demerits now, because this type of austerity program is over. However, I thought it was necessary to draw to the attention of the house and the minister-perhaps it did not need to be drawn to the minister's attention-the fact that this did set back the development of Newfoundland considerably, because it is only economically possible for the Department of Public Works to carry out two, three or four listed projects in a given area or along a good portion of the coast in one year. When we have had a year or two years in which the normal amount of spending on these smaller public works projects has been cut it sets back the economy, and at this time, with the renewed interest in the fisheries and with the interest of the Minister of Fisheries in the development of a national fishery policy, the Department of Public Works has a very important role to play in the development of the fishery in Newfoundland.
In essence I suppose what the situation really boils down to is that what is needed is a considerable increase in spending. There are those, of course, in the house who object for some reason or other and who feel that at this time we cannot spend too much on works of this type. However, I come back to the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that if we can look at these expenditures as economic investments in the community and in the province they can be justified. From my contacts with the officials of the department and the minister, I know they are very much aware of the situation. In my view the important need is that the government as a whole and the members of the House of Commons, who must vote on the estimates of this department, should be aware of the great role that this department can play, and that all of us realize that this sort of spending can help, particularly in ridings such as those represented by the two members from British Columbia who have spoken, and the ridings of Newfoundland 28902-5-241
Supply-Public Works where there are Canadians making their living in small communities. It is an investment in those people and in those communities because it can help them to improve their lot.
We can talk too much about centralization, because what kind of a country would Canada be if everybody lived in a city with approximately 100,000 people? We would all start to look alike, talk alike and walk alike and I think it would be a very boring country. One of the tremendous attractions of Canada is that it is a big country with many little communities scattered throughout the land, and while this may cause many problems for us I think we must recognize that if we develop these rural communities they will respond. Indeed, one of the responses may well be that some of those living in exceptionally small communities may realize that by going to a little larger community they may be able to improve their lot in life. If we show our willingness to develop I think they will cooperate with us. A thought has just occurred to me, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I should say that a new thought has occurred to me, and it is one that required a little prompting before it did occur. I wish to note the fact that, now that we are discussing the nation's business, and now that I am trying to make clear the case of Newfoundland, there is not one member of the creditistes group present in the house to show any interest in my problems and the problems of the many people in the small communities of Newfoundland. I will certainly convey that fact to my friends in Newfoundland.
We have our problems too and they are many and varied. We are patient and we listen to other people's problems, and I hope we are not inflicting ourselves on you too much if as new Canadians we bring our problems forward. There are those who are not in the Social Credit group, under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve, who are not interested in the problems of Newfoundland. There are others in other groups in the house who have made remarks indicating that they have little knowledge of our problems and do not really care. We know these things; but in life that has to be our lot one way or another, and we are prepared to cope with it.
As I say, I feel there must be an increase in the estimates of this department because in my view the economic effects thereof are sufficient justification. In my own district

Supply-Public Works there are four or five major harbour developments that are necessary. I know the department is very much aware of them and I hope that in the next few years these particularly important projects will be undertaken. I believe the net result will be a general improvement.
There are two particular votes that will come up later about which I should like to comment in passing, the dredging vote and the miscellaneous vote. In my opinion both of these votes should be increased because I find there is some difficulty from time to time in being able to get all the dredging done I should like to see done in the riding of St. John's West. The lack of this dredging causes great inconvenience to many of the fishermen in these small rural communities.
I have already drawn it to the attention of the minister but I should like to reiterate that if we increase the miscellaneous vote many of these small jobs that are not listed items could be performed and great progress could be made. I think it is unfortunate we had to have an austerity program because it hurt my district as it did many others.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is over now.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The minister says it is over now. This is good news for St. John's West and Newfoundland generally.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of putting a few questions and thoughts before the Minister of Public Works in relation to the highway development program.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Are you hearing me over there, or was that a facetious remark? If so, I shall be glad to accommodate you.


An hon. Member:: Be careful, we will not sell your wheat.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: We are not talking about wheat; we are talking about highways. The hon. member's facetious remark about wheat will be dealt with in due course when the estimates having to do with wheat and the Department of Agriculture are before the house.
To return to the subject of highways and highway development, a subject dear to my heart and to the hearts of the people I represent, we in the Crowsnest pass and that area extending from Medicine Hat through Pincher Creek, Cowley, Blairmore, Hillcrest, Coleman, Fernie and Nelson to Vancouver have been asking that No. 3 highway be made an alternate trans-Canada highway to No. 1. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Kootenay East is prepared to support me.

He represents the constituency to the west of me, and if there is one thing that the people are saying to him and also to me it is that the time is long past that the parliament of Canada should co-operate with the provinces to make highway No. 3 an alternate trans-Canada highway. I hope the Minister of Public Works is listening to me, because I am wondering why in the estimates now before us there is a $10 million cut in the highway appropriation to the provinces. I should like to ask the minister if, as a result of this $10 million cut, he was forced to forgo any consideration of a contribution towards making this No. 3 highway an alternative route to No. 1. What we need in southern Alberta and southern British Columbia is an all-weather highway, one which can be travelled in any month of the year without fear of being blocked by snowfalls or ice conditions. The only western route on which one can be sure of that is the one which I have described, branching off through Medicine Hat and going west through the Crowsnest pass.
Many years ago the people of the Crowsnest pass area felt that the No. 1 highway should go through the Crowsnest pass, through Nelson and on to Vancouver. However, vested interests in Calgary and Banff were successful in having the present route established. We have no quarrel with that. However, we do say that the alternative southern route should be established. I should like the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for highways, to go out and visit the area. I shall be glad at any time to take him over that route, and I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay East would join with me. We would give him a first hand glimpse of that part of the country and give him an idea of the merit of my suggestion at this time.
This road has been black-topped most of the way by the provincial departments of highways. However, in order to bring the road up to federal standards, and in order to take care of the tourist traffic in that area, other work would be necessary. The tourist traffic is important to the people of that area, so it is important that an all-weather road be established for travellers who wish to go from the prairie provinces to Vancouver during the winter or any time of year, on business or for pleasure.
If I might finish my original thought, I should like the Minister of Public Works to visit that area. I know that he is new at his job and he cannot be expected to know everything about every comer of the country. Has the minister ever been to the west to familiarize himself with the conditions that exist there? He is nodding his head, indicating

that he has. I shall, therefore, expect action from him to make this No. 3 highway an alternate route for the people of that area. The chamber of commerce of the Crowsnest pass area has been able recently to obtain from the provincial government a promise to develop a provincial park in the area which has the greatest tourist attractions of any part of Canada. There is the Frank Slide, and beautiful scenery including Crowsnest mountain, and many other attractions in that area.
I notice that there has been $10 million cut from the appropriation and I am wondering if this government wants to curtail these important developments, or are they in financial difficulties and trying to balance their budget by making these cuts? I contend that this is no time to be giving consideration to reduction when such important matters for employment as the development of our highway system are being considered. A cut of $10 million at this time is quite unreasonable.
In closing, I want to say that the second largest industry in the Dominion of Canada is the tourist industry. We should like the Minister of Public Works to give earnest consideration to highway No. 3. When he is travelling in the west with us, I should like him to look at another proposed road from this route which goes through Red Rock canyon in Waterton Lakes park to Coleman in Crowsnest pass. A certain amount of work has been done on this route, but it has not been completed. We should like to have the minister come out and familiarize himself with this project. Above all, we shall look for action just as soon as possible and hope that construction will begin next summer.


Edward Nasserden: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago the hon. member for St. John's West was belabouring the committee because some members were absent tonight. He said they were not giving attention to the problems of Newfoundland. Yet, no sooner had he finished speaking than he left the chamber and he has remained absent since.


Mr.   Kahn@: I am just going to take two or three minutes of the committee's time to lay before it a rather personal feeling, a rather personal belief. Before I came to this parliament I was engaged in the business of constructing buildings. I have, therefore, some knowledge of the cost of structures. In pursuing that business, I built a number of buildings, some of which were of magnificent design and were inexpensive in costs, while others were very costly buildings but were atrocious. In travelling across the country, I have seen a number of public buildings of fine design. I have seen also some public buildings that are atrocious.
28902-5-241 ^
Supply-Public Works
I understand that there are expenditures which are not covered by these estimates, but are located elsewhere in the estimates, which are devoted to trying to foster good design in all types of art. It seems to me that in the Department of Public Works we have an opportunity to couple together the business of providing accommodation with the ideal of leaving behind examples of good design. It seems to me that this is not only an opportunity for the department, but more than that, I consider it an obligation of the department. The structures we build today are going to be here long after many of us have gone. This will not happen accidentally. It will only happen if there is a conscious awareness on the part of the minister and his department that they have a dual responsibility.
I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity to urge the minister to impress upon his department the fact that when they create a structure they are creating more than just accommodation for people or a place to work. They are creating structures that are going to influence the environments in which they are located. I think the opportunity and Obligation is there to make that influence a good one. I hope the minister and the department will be aware of this, will stress it, and so will leave in our communities structures for the people that come after us that are worthy examples of the best of our age.


Mr. Francis:: Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I will be absent from the house for some time and I would like to make one or two remarks tonight about some items that appear in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I would remind the committee that the house does review the estimates of the national capital commission as part of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and I am particularly anxious to make one or two comments on the program of capital development.
On page 466 of the estimates the accounting of the loans for the development of the national capital region is given, and there is a substantial improvement in the vote here. In particular this represents a program of development of the Le Breton flats area as part of a complex of government structures and over-all planning.
I also call the attention of the committee to the program for the acquisition of the green belt, which was initiated some years ago. It is being continued and I hope it will be completed soon. The officials responsible for the development of these programs have operated very closely in co-operation with the respective municipal authorities in the different municipalities involved, and I think there

Supply-Public Works has been very little criticism of the over-all programs. A great deal is being done here that the national capital and those who take part in the life of the national capital can justifiably praise.
The program of development of the green belt is a long term one, and I hope that within the next year it will be possible to complete, or substantially complete, the acquisition of a number of properties where there have been difficulties in arriving at agreement. The over-all program is one that is much to be commended.
I would also like to refer to the vote for development of the national capital area. This shows an increase of something in excess of $3 million in the building program, and in many cases this has been long overdue. Those who visit our national capital and look at temporary structures that were erected, in some cases over 20 years ago, recognize this is a program which has to be accelerated. In spite of the difficult circumstances of the present budget a great deal is being done in this connection.
One matter about which I, as a local representative, am very pleased, is the approach which the minister himself has shown in the development of a number of major projects in the area. For example I am thinking of the general assurances which the city of Ottawa recently received from the government. I am also thinking of the proposed Heron road-Base Line road bridge, which is very necessary for the complete development of the complex of government buildings at Confederation heights. This is one project which is of very great importance to the area which I represent, and it is a project which should have been resolved long before now. I give full marks to the minister for facing the problem squarely and making forthright recommendations which give the municipal authorities a basis on which to proceed. I might add that the package is much bigger than that, and includes the Smyth road bridge and some assistance for the overpass structure.
The minister has provided some general outline of policy which the municipal authorities can count on in future years in planning an orderly development of their municipal public works as part of a national capital program. This is a great step forward, and on behalf of a number of people who have been associated with these matters, I wish to express their thanks for the appreciation, sympathy and understanding which the minister has shown in these projects. I know the municipal authorities concerned will recognize a considerable improvement in the situation over that which prevailed previously.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. It has been brought to my attention that some hon. member commented on my absence from the chamber. I was on the phone talking to a friend of mine in Quebec and he assured me that, although there were no members of the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Ville-neuve showing an interest in the province of Newfoundland, that did not mean there were many Quebecers who were not interested in my province's problems. That explains my brief absence from the chamber.


Norman Platt Lambert: In my opening remarks may I say that the minister will be immeasurably assisted in his duties this year in having recently been fortunate in the appointment of his new deputy minister, who worked with me for a brief period when I was with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Having said that, I now come to deal with the estimates under discussion.
The usual aim of the debate on the estimates of the Department of Public Works is to encourage the minister to spend more money. That may be correct, provided it is directed towards the provision of useful projects within the constituencies represented by hon. members, and also on a general basis; but I do think there comes a time when we must assess the whole question of the provision of public buildings to see if we are not getting to the point where we are establishing a series of monuments of bricks and mortar to the memory of a series of successive ministers.
I feel that for the size of our nation, and with the expansion which has taken place in the post-war years, we have reached a point in the provision of government capital structures that will be sufficient for our needs for many years to come. It is true there is a great deal of replacement, particularly in some of the smaller towns and villages, where postal facilities and other types of smaller buildings must be renewed or enlarged. However, when it comes to the question of great, large buildings, we find that from one end of the country to the other there is a decreasing need for the provision of these great monuments, particularly at a cost to the crown.
I have been wondering just how intense a study has been made of lease-backs by the crown, where buildings are put up by interested individuals to the specifications of the crown or the principal tenants, and then leased back over a period of years. I wonder whether this would not be a less expensive way of providing the crown in Canada with

its necessary public buildings. I am not speaking of hospitals, but of offices.
I think there might be introduced a degree of flexibility into our system of property holdings. This degree of flexibility does not exist at present. I am sure some study has been made of it but I would be interested to knew if a really intensive study has been made and what has been the result. This could apply to other government departments that own buildings. While I am dealing with the question of large government buildings, Mr. Chairman, I would bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I am not aware of the immediate policy of his department with regard to the provision of really modern buildings with proper facilities, including air conditioning, but this is a point that deserves serious consideration. Some people may say air conditioning is a frill, but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the minister, that in a city such as Ottawa, which in the summer time has a climatic condition that very often leads heads of departments to dismiss their staffs early in the day, or where staffs are only operating at 65 per cent or 75 per cent efficiency, to ignore this question of installing air conditioning in government buildings is cheese-paring. It is more than cheese-paring: it is a wrong policy not to provide this facility. These buildings should be provided with general air conditioning.
It is true that the minister is bound by certain treasury regulations in this regard, but surely he can bring his influence to bear on this problem and do something about it. If other ministers in the chamber also hear these words I would ask them to also consider this matter. It is all very well for the minister, who may introduce air conditioning into his office, in the office of his deputy minister and down to a certain level; but the ordinary working staff should be given equal consideration in this respect. We have in this city temporary buildings that will continue to be occupied for another 10 or 15 years, and they are actually hells in which to work during the summertime. These temporary buildings are costly to maintain. In wintertime they are inefficiently heated. There is no means of controlling the climatic conditions which prevail in this city. I am sure that in the long run we would obtain a much greater return per employee in the way of more efficient work and less absenteeism as a result of sickness if facilities were provided which would to some extent offset the climatic conditions which prevail here.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it has been beyond my comprehension that we have continued
Supply-Public Works with this sort of prehistoric policy for so many years. We know that commercial firms in cities such as Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto instal either a complete air conditioning system or modified air conditioning in their buildings. Why do they do it? They do it because they realize it is not just a question of personal comfort but it brings a greater return in work efficiency on the part of their employees. This is not the first time I have spoken about this matter. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I have not much hair on the top of my head is that I have been butting it against a blank wall in this regard. But I will come back to this plea time and time again. I will leave the matter there, Mr. Chairman.
I would refer to another matter about which I have spoken a number of times and which was instituted a couple of years ago. I would like the minister to give us an estimate of how it has worked out. I refer to the requirement of time and material payment bonds on major contracts. There have been many unhappy experiences in this regard, particularly in the Department of Transport -I will not deal with the particular instance -and if there had been time and material payment bonds not only would we have had a faster completion of jobs but a great many subcontractors and suppliers, who in some cases went into bankruptcy because of incompletion of a contract or because of improper operation on the part of the prime contractor, would have been paid.
A great deal has been said about a second trans-Canada route. Some people advocate one route, others advocate another. We would like to know from the minister what progress has been made with respect to the conference that he indicated he was convening, or trying to convene, with the various ministers of highways of the provinces with regard to a national highways system. Whether it be known by the name of confederation routes or whether the highways be primarily north and south routes, it seems to me we must evolve a national highway policy as part of a national transportation policy. This will take a great deal of negotiation and I know the banks and certain people will bristle when I say this, but I am of the opinion that this is one of the problems we must not only face, but solve, before we can achieve ultimate development in this country.
I have another matter to which I would draw the attention of the minister. I ask him whether he has available the information that his colleagues the Minister of Labour, and the Secretary of State, and himself, were asked to provide last July when the house

Supply-Public Works was asked to pass supplementary estimates "C" under which an item of the Department of Finance, No. 50b, was to be increased by some $7 million. This item concerned projects that were on the shelf and were to be accelerated. They were small projects which would assist in providing employment in the winter. The minister should now have the information on this question. If these projects are not well on the way or on the point of starting, they will not be of any use in this program.
The last matter to which I wish to refer, Mr. Chairman, in these brief opening remarks is the question of the national war memorial on Nepean point. I ask the minister to give us the reasons for there having been a reversal of the twice announced decision within the last year with regard to this question. There may be some technical reason which the minister may be able to advance to explain this. I do not think his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs would have been a willing party to such a decision. I am not going to advert to any division of cabinet in this regard, but knowing something of the background of this project, and having participated last February in a renewal of the decision that had been reached by the administration formed by my hon. friends opposite in 1956, I believe, or thereabouts, that this was going to be done, I would ask why there has been this reversal. I am not necessarily quarrelling with the decision and saying it is wrong, but I want to know why it was changed. Perhaps the minister will be able to furnish us with an answer. I can promise his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs that, should he appear before the committee on veterans affairs, we will obtain complete details in this regard. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the various suggestions put forward by hon. members on this first item of the estimates of the minister's department will be given serious consideration. We will deal with other questions when we obtain complete answers from the minister.
I do not think the Minister of Public Works should operate some sort of great big pork barrel, and in all seriousness I would warn him against even the minor type of patronage, which always has a habit of being found out.
I had forgotten to ask one question which always bothered me, and that is the formula by which the minister's staff, in consultation with post office officials, determine the size of a new post office. This formula seems to have antiquity as its main characteristic, and it is my own personal experience that, no sooner does one get a post office built according to this formula in a town which has a normal, healthy growth, than within two

years we are belabouring the minister to have an expansion because the walls are just not made of rubber and we need far more space than was initially provided, and I think at far too great a cost. With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will call it a day on this item.


Mr. Munro:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Did he express these fine sentiments about the Department of Public Works when they built what I understand was a $14 million trade school in the Edmonton area? This was under the previous administration.


Norman Platt Lambert: If you will learn the facts you will understand that this school was built by the province of Alberta as a result of a decision by the province of Alberta to implement part of its program. The federal government had nothing to do with it, except the provision under its program of 75 per cent of a program that applied to every other part of the country. When it comes down to it, if the hon. gentleman wishes to know other things-


John Carr Munro: The hon. member has answered my question.


Norman Platt Lambert: -about the constituency of Edmonton West, may I also say that almost a like amount was spent by the public within separate school boards in that constituency to provide vocational training, with the result that the constituency of Edmonton West benefited from the extension of educational facilities to the tune of almost $13 million.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, not belonging to either the Liberal or Conservative party, naturally I cannot become engaged in a conversation about pork barrels or patronage.


Norman Platt Lambert: You do not live in Saskatchewan.


Frank Howard: No, and I do not live in Alberta either. Thank God I am not attached to the Conservative party, as is my hon. friend from Edmonton West.
I listened with interest to the initial remarks of the Minister of Public Works, as I am sure other members of the committee did, but I regret very much that the approach he has taken is one of: Give me the money to spend this year; next year I will tell you what the policy is. It is regrettable that a new government, one which sat in opposition for some four to five years, and repented during those years for what had happened in its term of office prior thereto, is not able during the period they are in government again to come up with a simple declaratory policy with respect to the manner in which the public works department will fit within

the economy of the country and the structure of government. But perhaps all we have to do-because this is the statement of the minister-is to wait until next year to see whether or not he is able to come up with a policy with respect to the action and attitude of the public works department which differs in any way from that which has been in existence for some years now.
During the time the minister was a private member he and I, at the other end of this chamber, sat with just a few seats between us. We became friends of sorts, and I was sure that that friendship would carry over, inasmuch as he is now a minister, and that it might have some bearing on public works projects in the riding of Skeena which might be borderline projects, whether they would be instituted in one year or the next.


An hon. Member:: What about the pork barrel?


Frank Howard: I do not want to get into the pork barrel; I just want the minister to get into British Columbia and to concern himself with northern British Columbia. Perhaps friendship of a personal nature should not be the basis on which projects of public works should be considered; in any event it has no validity in the relationship now, because the minister, as an interjection to his comrade in arms from St. John's West, said that austerity was over. We need have no worries anyway, because apparently the minister now has a bottomless barrel from which to draw sheafs of money to engage in public works projects all over the nation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And in Newfoundland.


Frank Howard: Yes, and in Newfoundland, there is no question about that.
I should like to relate to the minister some of the things which need to be done in northern British Columbia. To be a little parochial about it, I should like the minister to come out to that part of the country and spend some time there seeing the country, meeting the people, and seeing at first hand the situations which exist. Because as the old Chinese expression goes, one look is worth a thousand reports any day. The minister's predecessor visited the riding, but that visit coincided with an election which took place. I should like the minister to come when there is no election in the offing so that there is not any doubt as to why he is there. But in case the minister does not get the chance to come out-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will do that.


Frank Howard: The minister says he will go, and I certainly appreciate it because I should like to be his chauffeur by car, by boat, by
Supply-Public Works airplane, or by dog sled if necessary to get him into the various parts of the constituency so that he can see just what exists there. X have written a number of letters to the minister and his predecessor, Mr. Chairman, about this wonderful part of the country, northern British Columbia. What I should like to do, inasmuch as the minister has now agreed to visit us, is to place on record some of the things in the coastal area at which I should like him to look seriously, from the point of view of my doing some initial work on them, so that when he does come he can see these projects in process of being built.
I should like to start him off in the community of Stewart, which is at the moment a relatively small community of a few hundreds of population. It is, or will be, the southern terminus of the so-called Stewart-Cassiar road being financed partially by another department of the federal government under the so-called roads to resources program. Even though the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said in Prince Rupert a few weeks ago that he was not going to put any more money into the Stewart-Cassiar road, if he has not already changed his mind I am sure he will on reflection. In any event, Stewart is going to be the southern terminus of that highway, and will be the most northern deep sea shipping port for the entire 400 to 500 miles of British Columbia, which is presently bounded by the Alaska Panhandle international channel.


Arthur Laing: I know the hon. member would not wish to misquote me. What I said in Prince Rupert was that under the roads to resources program the entire $7.5 million of federal funds allocated to British Columbia had been apportioned to the Stewart-Cassiar road. I recall the minister of mines told me that the $7.5 million had all been spent. This was a ten year agreement, and the money has been spent in four or five years. The hon. member asked me about further funds. I did not say we would not spend any more money on this road. I said the money allocated had been entirely spent, according to the minister of mines of British Columbia.


Frank Howard: One thing which the minister of northern affairs should realize is that this was not a ten year agreement; it was a five year agreement. The agreement was to spend $3 million a year divided equally between the federal and provincial governments for a period of five years. That is the situation with respect to the agreement. In any event it is immaterial at this juncture. I am sure the minister, upon reflection, will realize the necessity of renegotiating the agreement or of putting up additional federal money for

Supply-Public Works this particular road, so that it can be completed, and the entire north country opened up.
Stewart, inasmuch as it will be the shipping port of this area of British Columbia once the road is built, needs serious attention on the part of the Department of Public Works with a view to the provision of adequate shipping, storage, wharf and docking facilities at the head of the Portland canal. I should like to ask the minister to consider seriously developing this port to the point where there is adequate shipping to serve the needs of this part of the country to the north of Stewart.
Next, is the Indian village of Kincolith at the mouth of the Nass river. It is true there is some responsibility involved here on the part of the Indian affairs branch. This village requires both adequate dock facilities for the steamer when it calls and some sort of roadway or board walk as far up the river as the steamer cannot get into the village. We have had some correspondence with the minister's predecessor about this from time to time. I should like him to reopen the file and take another look at this request.
At the community of Port Simpson, south from there, the department built floats a few years ago but there has been a campaign to get a breakwater built there. I understand there are plans on foot to construct such a breakwater, and if that is so the people of Port Simpson will be thankful. I hope the breakwater when it is built will be an adequate one.
Further south, running into the harbour of Prince Rupert, some dredging was done by the department a few years ago across what is known as the Metlakatla bar. We had a great deal of trouble convincing the department that it should undertake the dredging of this channel. Finally, the work was done, but the channel is silting up. What is required, I think, is redredging and the provision of a concrete structure of some sort under water to make sure there is continuous channel which does not silt up because of the tide and the wind.
There is another community along the coast, small in population, but situated in a very beautiful place. The people there are of the pioneer type deserving of more concern than has been shown them by the department in years past. I refer to the community of Oona River. It is true this would be a costly item but I suggest the department should construct a suitable harbour on the south of the river and develop a breakwater there. I should like the department to reopen its file on this matter, too, since I consider it an important one.


John Carr Munro: Just about $50 million now.


Frank Howard: The minister told us he had a bottomless barrel from which he could get all sorts of money.


John Carr Munro: Not a pork barrel. The hon. member said he did not believe in a pork barrel when he began his remarks.


Frank Howard: The minister did not say it was a pork barrel. It is a money barrel, and I am interested in getting some money out of it to look after these much needed improvements.
There is the Indian village of Hartley Bay, an isolated place some distance from the settled community of Prince Rupert. There is a breakwater of sorts there consisting of some floating logs which are anchored and which are supposed to break up the swell and waves when a storm breaks. This community is wide open to Hecate strait and, in fact, to the whole Pacific ocean in a southeast gale, and the people who live there have a hard time trying to protect their boats. I should like the minister to look at this situation from the point of view of dredging out in the bay and establishing a suitable breakwater, so that the people of this village can get adequate protection for their fishing boats during storms, particularly in the fall and spring months.
In the Indian village of Kitamaat there is also a need to establish a breakwater. I might add that these communities are populated primarily by people engaged in the fishing industry. The problem is to find protection for the fishing boats which have to be tied up. Kitamaat is at the head of a long channel, the Douglas channel, and directly in the path of any southeast gale. There is a great need to build, at or near this village, a breakwater to protect the fishing boats of those who live in this community.
Just across the bay is the smelter city of Kitimat which was established a few years ago. Unfortunately it is almost entirely under the control of the Aluminum Company of Canada. I suggest that what the federal government must do is establish a government dock there and an assembly wharf so that Kitimat can be turned into a deep sea shipping port, perhaps a lumber assembly wharf. Some steps must be taken to serve the public need in that area; it should not be left under the control of one concern as it is now.
In the municipality of the village of Terrace, a federal building was put up a few years ago. The situation here is identical with that mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West a few minutes ago. The

building was too small from the day it was built and an extension is badly needed. Terrace is one of the fastest growing communities in the whole north country. The population is expanding by leaps and bounds. The facilities provided by the federal building are just not adequate to serve even the existing population. I think an intensive study must be made both of this and other work which should be undertaken there.
In Prince Rupert, in 1926, a grain elevator was built, designed with the possibility of duplication through the addition of facilities equal to those originally provided. The need for elevator space exists today even more than it did then. We are in the midst of making huge grain exports. Therefore we should take advantage of the government elevator at Prince Rupert. I understand that to double the capacity of the elevator at Prince Rupert the cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.25 a bushel of storage capacity, which would bring the total cost to $1,500,600 or $2 million. This project is necessary and we would like to see it undertaken.
In the few minutes at my disposal perhaps I can vicariously take the minister to the jewel of the north Pacific coast, the Queen Charlotte islands. Here too we have people who primarily follow the fishing industry, who have quite a large investment in fishing boats and who need breakwaters, wharves and floats adequate to serve their requirements and to protect their investment. In the area between Queen Charlotte city and the Skide-gate thousands and thousands of dollars have been invested by the people in fishing boats, and in the whole area there is not a breakwater of any sort behind which they can shelter in case of a storm. Boats have been lost regularly year after year. I know that the minister's department, before he came to office and even recently, has undertaken studies and surveys of the situation. It may be a costly project. It may be that the bottom in the inlet is not suitable for rock breakwaters. It may be it is just a lot of muck and ooze with no really solid bottom to it, but I am sure that somewhere in that area a suitable bottom and a sufficient amount of rock can be found to build a breakwater to protect the investment in fishing boats of the people who live there.
Queen Charlotte city is the site of the only hospital on the Queen Charlotte islands. It is also the site of the R.C.M.P. detachment and people use it as a communications centre and for everything else. There are no adequate wharf facilities there. There are no adequate aeroplane float facilities and there certainly is no breakwater of any sort to protect boats.
Supply-Public Works I think what is required is something more than the investigations that have been undertaken in the past.
There is also the matter of redredging Skidegate narrows which were dredged seven, eight or ten years ago. I know this project is under study by the department because I have had correspondence with the minister about it. But the study needs to be intensified because this is a most necessary public project requiring to be carried out on the Queen Charlotte islands.
The small community of Port Clements is where the road serving the MacMillan and Bloedel Powell River camp at Juskatla begins. There is a need to rebuild the wharf and the shed at the end of the wharf at Port Clements. This project has been under study by the department for three or four years but so far nothing has been done. This is a small item in the millions of dollars the minister has at his disposal and in the millions of dollars that are spent by the public works officials, but it is most necessary and vitally important to the people who live in that area and who are served by that particular wharf and shed.
Up at Masset we would like the minister to put some money into redredging what is known locally as the Delkatla slough. This was dredged a few years ago but unfortunately, because of the manner in which it was dredged, the wind has blown some of the sand back into the basin. There is also a tidewater slough behind it and every time the tide runs out it brings down silt and muck and deposits it in the Delkatla basin. We would like to have that redredged. The provincial government is at present building a causeway there. I do not know whether the Department of Public Works is participating in that project but I think it certainly should from the point of view of assuring that the basin will not resilt every time the tide runs out of the slough, and so that there will be some guarantee that when it is dredged it will stay that way.
A few years ago we were able to get the department to do some dredging at a place called Wiah point or Seven Mile point. This is the site of the Prince Rupert fisherman's co-operative fishing camp. It is a small place but it is almost the only haven along the whole north coast of the Queen Charlotte islands where these people troll for salmon. I am thankful and the fishermen are thankful for the dredging that has been done, but there are often strong northeaster winds and it is necessary to have a rock breakwater on a reef that runs out just above Wiah point.

Supply-Public Works We would like this project to be undertaken as well.
I know that there are only a few minutes left until 10.30. I have some other thoughts to express with regard to federal buildings generally within the riding, and the trans-Canada highway. I know that members generally do not like to start on a subject and after two or three minutes have to interrupt themselves and resume on another day. I do not like to do so either. If it is agreeable to the committee perhaps I could call it 10.30 now, or I could spend the next couple of minutes talking about the necessity of a second trans-Canada highway from Prince George to Prince Rupert.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we call it 10.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Could I ask the acting house leader what the business will be for next week in so far as he can go?


George James McIlraith: On the first two days of the week we will have a supply motion. Presumably the motion having to do with concurrence in the report on the standing committee on privileges and elections will be dealt with very quickly on Monday, I hope. I am sorry that I cannot go beyond Tuesday.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put.

Monday, October 21, 1963