1963-10-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question which affects a fundamental privilege of this house and its members. This privilege is the absolute right of a member to make a statement in the house and not to have its truth impeached or questioned in any place outside the house.
I refer to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 117, which reads as follows:
(1)	The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by members of parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents.
(2)	Freedom of speech is declared by the Bill of Rights in the following terms: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament."
On October 16, 1963, I asked the following question of the Prime Minister, as reported at page 3632 of Hansard:
I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the spirit of fair play, he can inform the house as to the nature of the business which the Minister of Agriculture and his alter ego, the expectant Minister without Portfolio, considered so much more important than the debate and the votes on agricultural policy that they found it necessary to be absent for such a considerable time during the debate yesterday.
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
The Minister of Agriculture and his associate, having taken part in this debate on agriculture, left the house to attend engagements previously undertaken for the Minister of Agriculture with farmers of Canada in the west. They got in touch with the grass roots while the hon. member remained in the house.
On Thursday, October 17, 1963 a newspaper, the Oakville daily Journal Record, impeached the answer of the Prime Minister in the following words:
The daily Journal Record learned late today that agriculture minister Harry Hays was working an auction in Kingston when absent from parliament on Tuesday.
Prices of up to $1,000 were realized at the cattle sale conducted by Hays Farms Limited, formerly owned by Hays and now operated by his brother, Tom, of Oakville.
Hays auctioned at the second annual sale for Eastern Breeders Incorporated. A total of $25,135 changed hands.
He has earned up to $50,000 a year from auctioneering.
On Friday, October 18, 1963 the same newspaper repeated its impeachment in an editorial entitled "Hays was at Auction-His Place was in Ottawa". The concluding paragraph of this editorial reads as follows:
Meantime, we suggest again, if Harry Hays is to continue as Minister of Agriculture he keep to government business and keep out of the bull ring. Where public duty and public confidence is concerned, there should be no compromise.
I accepted, and I continue to accept, the truth of the Prime Minister's statement to me as a statement of fact, that is until it is proven or confessed to be untrue.



BULGARIA


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to table two copies in English and in French of the trade agreement between the People's Republic of Bulgaria and Canada, signed at Ottawa on October 8, 1963, together with certain other letters signed at the same time and relating to that agreement.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Caron for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take more than a very few minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because I hope there is a general disposition in the house to settle this question and get on with the other business of the country. I think, however, since I who was not a member of the committee have spoken very briefly, I should say what it seems to me we are being asked to decide.
It seems to me that in the course of the debate so far three points have arisen, one of which is quite irrelevant to the report made by the committee, and that is the question of the allowance for a leader. I believe the Leader of the Opposition was quite

Privileges and Elections correct when he said that the law was made by parliament and that if there was any interpretation to be made of it, it would have to be made by the courts. I do not think the committee was seeking in any way to discuss that question at all, and I see no reason that I or anyone else should discuss it. I accept without qualification the statement made by the hon. member for Villeneuve that that was not a consideration at all in this matter, and that it should not be so regarded. Therefore I do not propose to say anything more about it.
The other two questions which it seems to me are involved in the report before the house are first, the order of seating of the various groups in this house who are not supporters of either my right hon. friend the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Hales:: The right honourable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. gentleman, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the former prime minister; and I may say, sir, I would be the last person in the house to deny to the right hon. gentleman any title or honour which he has earned through his long service in public life.
The question of the order of seating is one that is dealt with in the report, and the other question that seems to have arisen, and perhaps deserves to have a word or two said about it, is the question of recognition of certain members as a group or a party. I confess I am not subtle enough to be able to tell the difference between a group and a party. In my view, since parliament does not know the words, since our law does not know either of the words, and since they have no official connotation in any way, it does not matter which one is used.
I remember the days when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and most of those who now support him used to refer to their party as a movement and resented very much having it called a party. I always thought that was a kind of sanctimonious distinction without a difference, and I think the same is true of this question of groups and parties. I think if any four or five of us in the house are gathered together under one leader we can call ourselves a group or a party, and it is nobody else's business what we call ourselves in a free country, so long as we do not try to pass ourselves off as somebody else.
Now, sir, there are two possible ways in which this question could have been resolved, and the committee considered both of them. One was what I would call the historic, traditional and chronological method; that is to

say, to look at the groups that are in the house and see which one had been around the longest and which had representation in parliament the longest and give it a priority, and then the one that had been next longest, and so on.
That has been followed. I have looked at some of the precedents, and it was followed invariably, as I said on Friday, from 1921 to 1962-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -without any exception. The other method was what I referred to perhaps a little disrespectfully as the numbers game, the numerical basis. That was never followed at all before 1962. Personally I think what was done in 1962 was a regrettable departure from precedent; but it was done, and that precedent was again accepted at the beginning of this parliament. These two proposals were considered by the committee. The committee recommended following one of them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced a motion into the house suggesting that the committee should be instructed to follow the other one, and the house decided by a majority not to follow that other course.
Having made that decision, it seems to me that alternative has been refused by the house itself. Therefore it could hardly be reopened in this session. If we were being pedantic- although I do not think anyone wants to be very pedantic about it-I would suggest the reason we are in this difficulty is precisely because we were following the numerical principle. If we had not been following the numerical principle, if we had stuck to the historical, traditional principle, no problem would have arisen at this particular time. Also there is this danger, if we should try to insist upon the numerical principle, that one can never tell when five of the sheep who now follow the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam might stray away.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that happened we would have to have the musical chairs all over again, and it seems to me parliament has something more important to do than that. That problem would not have arisen if we had stuck to the historical, traditional or chronological principle. Therefore it seems to me there is every ground for supporting that principle. So far as the question of the recognition of groups is concerned-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he tell us what position his party took when this matter was under discussion at the beginning of the

twenty fifth parliament and again at the beginning of this parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a matter for the house. I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and I took no position on this matter whatsoever, and I do not think anyone was authorized to speak for the Liberal party on this kind of matter. But we have taken the view, as we have on this occasion too, sir, that every-


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could answer one question first. We have in this matter taken the view, as we have throughout, that the constitution of the house is the business of the house and it is not for the government to tell the house how it should be constituted. That is the position we have taken.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to speak in a consecutive way, and also briefly. If the hon. member's question is not answered when I have concluded, I will be glad to answer it. On the question of whether there is recognition of groups or parties- and, as I say, I cannot see the difference- on reading the report we see that it says "the members of the group under the leadership of Mr. Caouette". It seems to me this is a clear recognition of the fact that there is a group in this house under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette); that is recognized in the report itself.
The report also recognizes that apart from the supporters of the right hon. gentleman opposite there are two other groups in the house, and I think that is evident; we can all see that with our own eyes.


An hon. Member:: Read paragraph 4.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read paragraph 4. It says:
That the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by the group under the leadership of Mr. Real Caouette be referred to the parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons for study and report to the Speaker.
I think the committee felt they had no useful advice to offer to Your Honour on this subject, and they probably felt

I am just surmising what they probably felt-that Your Honour and the house might get some advice from the parliamentary counsel. But it does seem to me that in a way this fourth part of the report has been superseded by the action which Your Honour has already taken. Your
Privileges and Elections Honour has already recognized on one or two occasions, as a courtesy, the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Olson:: On a point of order, each time Your Honour has given this recognition you have stated clearly that it should not be considered as a precedent.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Every time Your Honour did recognize the group you said it was pending the report of the committee. What the Secretary of State is now arguing runs against his case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I had been able to finish my sentence I think both hon. gentlemen would have been satisfied with what I was saying. I was about to say that Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Villeneuve as a courtesy pending any decision by the house. But I would point out that this is the only way in which hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of the house, are ever given recognition. A certain recognition is given to ministers, especially to the Prime Minister as the real leader of the house. Apart from that, recognition is given as a courtesy, and solely as a courtesy. I do not see how it could be anything else unless we were fundamentally to alter the character of our parliament, which is divided into two sides with a government and an opposition. However, this recognition by courtesy has been given since 1921, and I think it is far too late to change the practice now. It does seem to me, Your Honour, that whether you seek the advice of parliamentary counsel or not, this is a matter which you will decide yourself in your own good time.
It seems to me that the committee has given further advice on two points; first, that there are, in addition to the official opposition, three discernible groups or parties in the house. The committee has recommended that these be seated in a certain order, and that order is based on the historical principle. Second, the committee has recognized, in paragraph 3 of its report, that those hon. members who follow the hon. member for Villeneuve are, in their own words, members of a group.
That is all this motion is about. That is all we are asked to decide. It is true there could be a great deal of argument about the order, but surely that argument was really settled when the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was defeated the other day, the motion proposing an alternative order.
There is no doubt whatever that when this parliament was constituted last May a group or party was recognized under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer. There

Privileges and Elections is a group in this house, obviously discernible, which supports the hon. member for Red Deer, so there can be no question that there is such a group. It seems to me, as the hon. member for Villeneuve has said and as, I believe, the hon. member for Lapointe also said the other day, that it is not for the Liberal party or the Conservative party or the New Democratic party to decide a question affecting the internal workings of the Social Credit party or its internal divisions or anything else. That is their business. It is not our business. I agree completely with that view.


Mr. Fisher:: Sophist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking in the house, and the hon. member for Port Arthur can write it down. I am speaking for myself as one member of this house when I say that I do not think that is anybody's business except the members of that party. How they describe themselves is their business and not ours, but the order in which they sit has been made by the house a responsibility of the house. All we are being asked to decide is that, apart from the official opposition, there are three groups, and that they sit in a certain order. The only alternative order which has been suggested has been rejected by the house, so I respectfully suggest that it would be a wonderful idea now if we could have a vote, agree with the committee's report, and get on with the business of the country.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, following the example set by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), I shall be very brief. However, I have a few comments to make on his motion.
In the first place I must say that I was a member of the committee on privileges and elections to which the matter was referred. As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) knows quite well, I do not agree completely with his ideas, especially regarding monetary reform. I also entertain some doubts as to whether the group led by the hon. member for Villeneuve is actually a party in the traditional sense of the word.
I tried to set forth the difficulties which might crop up if the committee were to decide that the group headed by the hon. member for Villeneuve did constitute a political party.
As for me, I do not feel that the committee should be called upon to decide whether or not this is the case. However, this problem has been brought before the committee and the house. It must be recognized that the Ralliement des creditistes has actually broken

off from the national Social Credit party. That is the first point. It must be recognized from the evidence in the house, that the group headed by the hon. member for Villeneuve is the larger one and that, on the other hand, having well established structures it has a right to be heard as a group. In addition, it seems to me that it is entitled to the privileges usually granted to a group.
That group is, after all, a physical entity, and must be assigned a specific seating space in the house. When the famous French poet Lamartine was elected deputy, he proclaimed he would like to be seated right under the ceiling. Unfortunately, that would not do in this house. That political group has a right to a material space in the house; it must be given a place.
That being said, it would seem to me that the only applicable criterion, which is both logical and consistent, is the numerical one. The hon. member for Villeneuve, and several other hon. members, have rightly pointed out that 13 is a larger number than 11. I feel there is no other principle which could guide the house in arriving at a fair and logical solution.
The Secretary of State has brought forth the argument of historical precedent. Even from this point of view I think that he is inconsistent in his argument. Indeed the principle of historical precedents has been abandoned for a number of years and is only taken up when there is a question of seating a group in the house, to determine its importance numerically. Moreover, if there is a question of seniority it should be kept in mind that the hon. member for Villeneuve, for whom I certainly hold no brief, was nevertheless, a member of this house from 1946 to 1949, and, as a matter of fact, for the riding of Pontiac which I am now representing. It is therefore clear that, in the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Villeneuve enjoys seniority.
For all those reasons I think that the house should not accept to concur in the report presented by the committee on privileges and elections, but that the house should rather refer the matter again to the committee for a new recommendation.
Moreover, it seems to me that the Secretary of State, who used to speak for freedom of speech, resorted to tactics which strangely resembled closure when, at about 4.20 last Friday, he moved the adjournment.
I hope that today he will not resort again to dilatory methods contrary to standing orders and to parliamentary tradition.
As the government, through his spokesmen the Secretary of State, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of

Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Turner), very clearly stated its stand in the matter, it should now assume its responsibilities without passing them on to others, and put an end to this controversy, once and for all.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is one which I think is of the utmost importance, namely that the House of Commons should not be made into a complete farce. At this moment we are, according to the precedence of orders, discussing a motion having to do with the seating and recognition of members in the House of Commons. In view of the fact that the economy of Canada might be brought to a standstill at any time, and that we are facing a most important issue affecting the entire country arising out of the trusteeship legislation and the shipping of Canada being brought to a halt, I would ask that we do not make a farce of the parliament of Canada at this time by discussing seating or the recognition of groups in the House of Commons.
I ask the Prime Minister or the house leader whether the necessary motion cannot now be moved so the House of Commons can discuss immediately the question of the trusteeship legislation, our shipping and what has taken place. Surely the economy of Canada is of more importance than the seating of members in this house or the recognition of groups. I ask the Prime Minister to take the necessary action now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Harold Edward Winch: Do you require a motion, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes a decision on the question of privilege he will have to end with a motion asking the house to decide one thing or the other.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the present debate be adjourned and that we proceed to orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally I have listened to the hon. member with the greatest of interest. The points raised are certainly most important but under the rules of the house I have to be satisfied that first there is a question of urgency and, second, that there is a basic question of privilege. I cannot come to that decision on the presentation made by the hon. member, and unless there is unanimous consent on the part of the house I must recognize the hon. member for Red Deer who stood up just before the hon. member spoke.
Privileges and Elections


Harold Edward Winch: I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with other matters that are of the utmost importance to the economy of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the hon. member for Vancouver East that he has the right to move an amendment that the motion be put now and that the house do proceed to orders of the day, but I do not see a question of privilege.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the question raised, surely nothing would be lost and much might be gained if we could dispose now of this matter which we have been debating for some days, and the best way to dispose of it is to vote. If the vote cannot be taken now, perhaps we could agree to have the vote taken within the next hour. I still think it would be desirable to get this matter disposed of as quickly as possible and then go on with the orders of the day and the business of the country.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Red Deer wish the floor? He stood up twice.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, if the house is ready for the question I will refrain from speaking, but if there is going to be a debate-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State. He has referred to some good points in the report, but there are others we cannot accept. It is not our intention to delay the business of the house, but on the other hand we would not like the house to commit an injustice. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he would be agreeable to our presenting our amendment and then adjourning the debate for 24 hours to permit all members of the house to think about it. We could then take the vote on the amendment tomorrow and see the result.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if such a proposition were to be entertained it would seem to me, because of what the Prime Minister has said, that we would have to have an undertaking that there would be a vote on the amendment and a vote immediately thereafter on the main motion if the amendment was not carried. Otherwise we would have gained nothing; we would have just postponed the matter further. Unless it could be agreed unanimously that an amendment could be considered and that the amendment and the main motion would be voted on tomorrow, it would seem to me that we would not gain anything.


Gilles Grégoire: We are trying to find a solution to the problem, and we are suggesting an amendment. If it is not agreed to by the

Privileges and Elections house, maybe we can then try to find another solution together with the Secretary of State. Some ideas have been raised today by the Secretary of State that might be discussed. For example, the Secretary of State talked about seniority. Who decides which party has seniority? He talked about groups and parties. In our minds there is a lot to this matter.
For example, since last Friday a member of the Liberal party spoke on the C.B.C. program "Les Affaires de l'Etat", a free program for the political parties in Ottawa. We do not have any of these free political programs on the French network of the C.B.C.; they are only for political parties. If we are only a group we will not have access to these programs. There are many other points to be considered with regard to the difference between a group and a party. There is, for example, the question of membership on the standing and special committees of the house. Will a group be allowed to have members on these committees?
These are problems which have to be faced before we take a vote on the main motion. That is why we would like to present our amendment and then discuss the seriousness of the problem with the Secretary of State. He might call a meeting of all the house leaders to discuss the problem and we could find a solution. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State wants to impose his own solution on us without any discussion, we cannot accept that. We have heard the leader of the official opposition say that, although he does not like what the hon. member for Villeneuve is saying, he is nevertheless ready to fight unto death so that he can say it. We have the help of a great political party in Canada. We would have the help also of the New Democratic party, and we need it because we do not have very much experience in this house.
We are ready to fight, therefore, if they want to impose their decision. If they want to discuss a solution, then we are ready to discuss it to avoid delaying the business of this house. It is for this reason we are asking the Secretary of State if he wants to adjourn the debate and discuss the problem. We are ready to do that. If he wants to impose a solution, we are not ready to accept it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman should-


An hon. Member:: How many times can you speak?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am merely getting up because the hon. gentleman did make a proposition. I think the hon. member would

be well advised to move an amendment and proceed in the ordinary way with the debate. The government is not seeking to impose any solution of this problem. As I have pointed out, all we are doing is debating the report of the committee. Let us go on with the debate on the report of that committee, and settle it.


Mr. Rheal Caouette (Villeneuve):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Has the minister received any instructions from the legal officers of the House of Commons concerning the recognition of the Rallie-ment des creditistes in relation to the privileges that are given to the other political parties? Can the Secretary of State assure us that we will receive the same consideration as any political party in this House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not my business. It would be very improper for me or any other member except yourself, sir, to give such an assurance. We elected Your Honour to be the guardian of the rights, prerogatives and privileges of all hon. members, and for a member of the government to usurp that position or for anyone to suggest that a member of the government ought to usurp that position, I think shows a lack of understanding of parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Secretary of State now suggesting that this problem be referred back to the Speaker for decision? Is that the suggestion of the Secretary of State?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, my suggestion is that we continue the debate in the ordinary way under the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the house now continue the debate on the motion? Is there any other hon. member who would like to speak?


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Quebec West.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) says that there is no difference between a party and a group, I would answer him that there is, and a quite considerable one. In the report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, he states, in volume 3, that the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) should be seated on the left of the Social Credit party. Therefore, the group of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is recognized as a party. The New

Democratic party, is recognized-the word party is mentioned-but when it comes to us, we are registered as a mere group.
Now, if the Secretary of State states that in this case there is no difference either, I want to state that when the motion is put and carried, they will find that there is a difference. But before we are accused of delaying the business of the house we certainly shall express our views and warn the government that it is taking a dangerous course and that, before long, it might come to regret its action.
Mr. Speaker, as I am interested in the motion now before the house, I think it is my duty to expound what I think might enlighten hon. members.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I was elected on April 8 last, for the second time, the electors of my county recognized that I was, first of all, a member of the Social Credit-and I still am-but the candidate chosen by the Ralliement des creditistes, and it was in that capacity that those electors financed my campaign.
Later on, you were informed at the Granby convention that we were not satisfied with our parliamentary leader and that we had decided to change him. At that time we agreed to choose a new parliamentary leader. Our present leader, our parliamentary leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was chosen at a caucus. We saw in him qualities of dynamism and courage, and we wanted our whole country to benefit from that vitality.
The greater part of hon. members recognized that the division was justified. That is why I am asking the house to recognize our group according to our number. I shall come back to this matter in a while, in order fully to explain to hon. members that when we take tradition as a basis, the number is to be considered first.
If the question is of no interest to the members of other parties, they should let the group
I	represent in the house decide, and when the question is put we shall see where the true majority is and also which is the true Social Credit party.
If the house has decided that 12 members having a leader constitute a party, I wonder why it should delay the recognition of our group which comprises 13 members. Under Bill C-91, any group of at least 12 members will be officially recognized as a party in the house. As we have 13 members, we are therefore a party. The group of only
II	members cannot be called a party under Bill C-91.
To find the true definition of a party, one can consult the Quillet dictionary which says:
Privileges and Elections -of the union of several persons having the same interests or holding the same views against others who have opposite interests or views.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have in this house some interests with which all other parties disagree. Once again, this proves that we really form a party, and consequently, the definition of the Quillet dictionary applies.
We recognize also that the hon. member for Villeneuve has great merit. He gained the confidence of the people when, single handed, he had 26 members elected in 1962 and 20 in 1963. Without the fighting spirit of our leader, whose great qualities we recognize and which nobody can deny, I am convinced that the eleven members of the western group would not have been elected. Despite the stubborn fight conducted against the hon. member for Villeneuve, he succeeded in having 20 members elected last April, as you all know, and got 29 per cent of the votes, which is the second highest percentage in the province of Quebec. This is significant.
If this result scares the party in office and causes it to hesitate to recognize us as a fourth group in the opposition, it means that they will have to face our group after the next election, because the Ralliement des creditistes is the most dynamic group, and that, they know well. I therefore ask the government to reconsider their decision before they plunge into this, because it will have implications all across the nation.
I think that the New Democratic party, with 17 members, must sit right next to the official opposition party in this house. As far as we are concerned, we should sit on the left of the N.D.P. and as for the others they should sit in the corner, which seems logical since there are only 11 of them.
If one considers the votes taken lately, Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether there will be 11 of them very long, because they are divided into one, two or three groups, for 11 members. So, I wonder whether that pact will hold very long.
Since the reconvening of the session, you can see that we always stand united and that we know where we are going.
If there were an election tomorrow morning, if the people gave a solid vote for a new party, whatever its membership, could you, in two months from now, together with the new parties, count enough members to make up 140?
Do not forget that, because you are only a small group in the house. So, ask yourselves whether what you are doing is proper. But no, you do not ask yourselves that question. But the people want a new party, they want the party in power to hold a majority, and that is precisely decided by the number of members.
3796	HOUSE OF
Privileges and Elections
If, after the last general election, the Liberals had been unable to assume office, they would have said: "Listen, we have 129 members whereas the Conservatives have only 94. It is unfair." As far as I am concerned, their complaints would have been justified because it is always the largest group which should have precedence.
In my opinion, you may live to regret this. I feel that we should do the same thing now that we did after the election of last April 8. It is only logical that the largest party should govern. However, it is obvious, here, that makeshift arrangements are being made.
Last year, with 30 members, we came before the New Democratic party which had only 17 members. We had precedence over them and we found that logical.
This year, the contrary is being done in the house, and I feel that such action is unfair to us.
In my opinion, the house should consider the question more seriously instead of contradicting itself as it has done in the past few days. Its actions contradict its statement.
I hope that the public which follows what is happening in parliament will not be deceived by the decision which the government has undertaken to have approved without further explanation. We know what the result would be, the same as last week.
The house wants to know if the Ralliement des creditistes constitutes a new party in this house. Well, we are not a new party, we still follow the Social Credit doctrine; we have only changed our leader in parliament. I claim that the majority voice is that of the largest number of members in a democratic party like ours or in a house where freedom of speech and freedom of action are recognized. Speaking of freedom of speech, if we are placed in fourth position, we will make our presence felt here, we will speak out and we will criticize you for this action every time we have the opportunity to do so.
You want to make us your scapegoats and give us the last place in the opposition. Do not forget that besides being a political group, we are a true political party as it is clearly recognized in the report of the privileges and elections committee.
If the word "party" is applied to the Social Credit party headed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), or the New Democratic party, or to the Conservatives or the Liberals, I maintain that we are here as representatives of the Ralliement des creditistes and, therefore, constitute an officially recognized party. The dictionary proves us right as well as Bill C-91 for that matter. We are only asking you to be fair, and not only


in our own interests; indeed, we do not want a precedent to be thus created which we may have cause to regret later on. Some are here for this session only, but the younger ones among us, who can hope to spend many years in this chamber, do not want to deplore later an act that parliament is ready to approve today.
Another illogical situation is the alleged seniority of the group directed by the hon. member for Red Deer, the oldest group, the group which, it is said, professes the true Social Credit theory, whereas it is known that the hon. member for Villeneuve sat in the house from 1946 to 1949. It is therefore the hon. member for Villeneuve who would deserve that seniority and not the three other Social Credit members who belong to the group you wish to recognize and who were elected for the first time in 1957.
Consequently, I do not understand that position. They talk of seniority and then, looking at the senior members, they find there are three in one group and one in the other; now, as one group has three, that one is the real group.
Where is the seriousness, where is the logic of that reasoning? If we really desire to be fair and to be recognized as such throughout the country, I suggest to the house it is solely the number of members which should be the first consideration. As we are 13, we say that the true Social Credit group is the group of 13, and that until the next election.
That the group still bears the name of Social Credit, we agree and we are not ready to deny it; we shall keep the name. It is understood that we do not form a new group, we only have a new house leader; it is the same theory, and the proof is that ever since we came here, we have been sharing the same ideas as the other group, even though you do not want to admit our monetary theory.
I believe that if the party in office were to make a decision today, in view of the state of mind now prevailing, it would be shameful to see it proceed towards a precipice. As you have already done twice, at the time of your decisions on the 11 per cent tax and the legislation concerning old age pensions, this time again, you are running towards catastrophe.
I wish the people had trust in parliament for its passing proper legislation.
I wish I had heard not only the parliamentary secretary, who was far from being convincing that time, but also the Prime Minister, to see what he thinks about the situation.
The other day, I noticed he did not commit himself first, on the occasion of the vote, and I congratulate him. The hon. member for

Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) had said the first one to vote would take a great responsibility. It is therefore another one who assumed that responsibility.
Up to now we have heard backbenchers who did not really take this matter seriously. They sought to divert the attention of the house from the real problem and from the decision to be made. But we simply want our rights. No one can deny that we are not within our rights in trying to get what we are asking for.
We do not want to interfere with the business of the house and we would rather legislate and work for the people, but it is the respect for our rights that we are dealing with at this time. We sit now in the house and should a precedent be established, others in the years ahead would be placed in an unfortunate situation. We want the matter to be settled at once, even if it takes three or four days, we want it settled definitely so that we may arrive at a fair decision.
If tomorrow morning the leader of a party were to pass away, he would have to be replaced by another one, and the party would not lose its identity but the party leader would simply change. That is exactly what makes the difference.
In my opinion, the committee on privileges and elections spent too much time looking for considerations outside parliament. What has the national association got to do with that? It is members elected to the house who must reach their decisions. I think it is the word of the elected members which must count in the house and not considerations from outside.
At this time, it is useless to rack one's brains and look for difficulties where there are none in order to determine where is the real group. The national association has nothing to do with that. In my opinion, we have wasted enough time considering in this problem side issues which should have been disregarded altogether.
I should like to mention to the house all the admiration I have for my parliamentary leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve who offered last Friday the amount of his additional allowance of $4,000 to the down-and-out people in Canada. That proves again to the house that there has been no quibbling over that $4,000, but rather over the principle we wish to defend and that we do not want to see violated by others.
And when it is realized that, owing to internal difficulties in a group, it is virtually impossible to attain a preset goal, then one simply quits. But we did not, we took a vote and the majority decided that the ideal which it.
Privileges and Elections our group was pursuing was actually the one which we must reach.
I intend to move an amendment in the hope that it will be taken into consideration and that it will not be brushed aside too lightly. Things must not be rushed. It is much better to spend one or two extra hours today and reach a decision which parliament will not have cause to regret.
Everybody talks about democracy and about freedom. I would rather have spoken last Friday, as I could have waxed more eloquent after hearing various speeches on the same topic. But the Secretary of State prevented me from doing so at the time.
That is why I come back to this matter today, is to make hon. members realize our position, because I find that after two days outside parliament, opinions have not changed.
I simply ask the hon. members on the government side, before they vote, to think twice about the lack of fairness and of understanding they would show with regard to a group in this house, if they were to take a decision too quickly.
We simply ask to be recognized as a group of 13 in this house, and we want a place as such.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the report of the committee on privileges and elections be sent back to that committee with the recommendation from the house that the following words be added to paragraph 2:
"The house recognizes that the most elementary decency demands that it should not be up to other political parties to decide which of the two Social Credit groups is the Social Credit party, and proposes to leave it to the Social Credit members themselves to decide that point by a majority vote among the 23 Social Credit members."
Mr. Speaker, if the house would entertain that amendment, it could be said that it had acted in a truly democratic way, and one would see where democracy is to be found and what sensible results really are.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have

Division
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. [Translation]


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Eachen). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Mullally:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

Appointment of R.C.M.P. Commissioner


Some hon. Members:: Question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words, because our group do not wish to postpone any longer the division on the main question.
We are aware of what is going on and I want to protest vigorously against the decision of the committee on privileges and elections, which asserts that 13 members make a smaller group than 11. Actually, I feel that the public, who have a better sense of arithmetic than the members of the Liberal party, as well as the supporters of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), will soon realize their tremendous mistake, as well as the wrong which is being perpetrated in the name of a wholly arbitrary decision. Following the committee's recommendations, we have been relegated to the last ranks among the political parties in this house.
I appreciate the statement of the Secretary of State at the opening of today's sitting, when he said that a group and a party were one and the same thing.
What we want is that the legal advisers of the House of Commons establish whether we are entitled, in this house, to the privileges everybody else is enjoying. Then you might recognize us, Mr. Speaker; I am firmly persuaded that it would warm the cockles of your heart to be allowed to recognize a group of men, of members of parliament lawfully elected, and seated in one of the corners of the house.
Mr. Speaker, we too are desirous to speed up the business of the house, because there are important problems to be settled without delay. Actually, outsiders have come to Ottawa, where they are meeting today with government representatives, and the leaders of the various parties. They hope their problems will be examined as soon as possible, and given a constructive solution.
For these reasons, we shall not prevent any longer the house from dividing on the motion, in order that it might proceed with its business forthwith, tText]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that
the government has with regret accepted the resignation of Commissioner C. W. Harvison of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take effect on October 31, 1963. Commissioner Harvison first submitted his resignation in April of this year at the termination of 35 years of service. At the request of the government he agreed to retain his post as commissioner for a further period but has now requested to be allowed to retire as of the end of October.
Commissioner Harvison joined the Royal North-West Mounted Police in 1919 and is the last serving officer who began his service in the force when it bore that historic name. Both in the ranks and as a commissioned officer he has not only participated in but has made a distinguished contribution to the development of the R.C.M.P. from a frontier police force into one of the finest modern law enforcement agencies of any country in the world.
On behalf of all members of the house and of the people of Canada may I express our sincere appreciation of Commissioner Harvi-son's long years of outstanding service to the country and to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He has good reason to be proud of his record, just as we can all take pride in the force he has served.
I should also like to announce that the governor in council has appointed Deputy Commissioner G. B. McClellan to succeed Commissioner Harvison, with effect from November 1,	1963. Deputy Commissioner
McClellan was born in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, in 1908, was educated at the Royal Military College at Kingston, Ontario, and joined the R.C.M.P. in 1932. Commissioned in 1939, Deputy Commissioner McClellan has served in all fields of federal law enforcement and national security and has held increasingly responsible positions in which he contributed much to the growth and development of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Appointed deputy commissioner in 1959, he was responsible for the administration of the force until 1960 when he became deputy commissioner, operations, responsible to the commissioner for all phases of policing, security and investigational work of the force as the senior deputy commissioner, and second in command.
I am certain that Deputy Commissioner McClellan will carry out the heavy responsibilities of his new post in a manner in keeping with the fine traditions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Export of Arms EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SOUTH AFRICA


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the policy of the government on the export of arms to South Africa, which the Prime Minister observed on Friday, October 11, was under consideration at that time by the government. 1 will also deal with the policy with regard to the export of arms to Portugal.
It has for several years been the policy of the Canadian government not to permit the shipment of arms to South Africa which might be used against the non-white population for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid. On August 7, 1963, the security council passed a resolution recommending that all states should cease the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military vehicles to South Africa. Taking into account the security council's recommendation and wishing further to express our disapproval of South Africa's apartheid policies, the government has decided that it will not authorize the acceptance of any new orders from South Africa for items of military equipment, nor permit the shipment of such equipment to South Africa.
Before August 7, 1963, the Canadian government had authorized the sale to South Africa of certain aircraft, communications equipment and air navigation equipment manufactured in Canada which were judged to be without relevance to the enforcement of the policy of apartheid. While keeping the situation under constant review, for the present the government will allow the shipment to South Africa only of maintenance spares for equipment supplied before August 7, 1963 and, subject to examination in each case, of certain aircraft piston engines and maintenance spares for such engines.
The government has also reviewed its policy with regard to the export of arms to Portugal. As I informed the house on June 25 this year, Canada has not made any contributions of Canadian military assistance to Portugal since November, 1960. With respect to the sale of arms and military equipment on a commercial basis, it has been the policy of the Canadian government since 1960 not to permit the export to Portugal or the territories under Portuguese administration of any arms or equipment which, in our judgment, would be used for military purposes in the Portuguese overseas territories. The government proposes to continue this policy.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made
[Mr. Pearson.l
by the minister is one of interest. It deals with a very difficult and trying problem. In its announcement the government has followed the course followed by the government of which I had the honour to be prime minister. I recognize the difficulties in the way.
So far as South Africa is concerned, we took the stand, and were greatly criticized for having done so, that while nations may practice in their hearts the luxury of discrimination, no nation within the commonwealth could have as its cornerstone a policy of discrimination as its only policy in dealing with those of a coloured race. As long as such a course was followed I contended, and the last year and a half has certainly borne out the stand I took, that within the commonwealth, with five out of six belonging to a coloured race, no nation could possibly accept membership believing, as does the present administration in South Africa, that a person belonging to a coloured race is not entitled to equality within the country.
In so far as Portugal is concerned, Portugal is the oldest ally of Great Britain. She has been a true ally throughout the years, as South Africa had been a true and co-operative friend in the commonwealth. It is difficult for a government to take a stand on this question and make the determination that has again been made. I think it is the only one consistent with the situation prevailing in the world today. I can only say that, difficult as the problem is, the government of the day having followed the path of the government of yesterday, which was criticized, we give our support to the stand taken.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not
want to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to express the suggestion that we lend our whole-hearted support to the statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given to us. As one who perhaps understands well the situation because of years of experience in the continent about which we are talking, I am convinced that it is the responsibility of freedom loving people of Canada, with a parliamentary system of government, pledged to the preservation of the rights of individuals, regardless of race, colour or creed to give leadership whenever possible on problems such as this. I think the government has taken the correct stand in following the policies laid down by the previous government in regard to this most difficult problem.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago I asked the Prime Minister what action the government intended to take with reference to stopping the shipment of arms to South Africa. I am very glad that the statement has been made

Questions
today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think the government is to be congratulated for this somewhat belated decision to stop the shipment of arms to both South Africa and Portugal. I do not believe that under world conditions as they are today, Canada or the Canadian people would want arms shipped to South Africa which might be used to enforce apartheid and to carry on policies of racial discrimination. Nor do I think the Canadian people will support armaments being sent to Portugal in order to maintain the last relics of colonialism in that part of Africa.
I am very glad the government has taken the step which it has. I hope it will carefully watch the matter of aircraft because I am not sure I can agree with the minister when he says aircraft cannot be used to maintain apartheid policies. If there is civil disobedience in South Africa, certainly military aircraft would become very important weapons. I hope the government will watch carefully the question of airplanes and airplane parts going to South Africa. I am sure the statement which has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be welcomed by Canadians generally as proof that we are doing more than paying lip service in our opposition to colonialism and racial discrimination.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we wholeheartedly subscribe to the stand taken by the government as outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a move forward in the recognition of human rights in a part of the world in which recognition is needed and help is needed. My only wish is that the same recognition would be given in this House of Commons, since we are not in South Africa.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports by standing and special committees, for the purpose of presenting a report.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Asselin presented the ninth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Yes, (a) to Moncton Lumber Company Limited; (b) for $6,000; (c) by direct negotiation without calling for tenders, since under the long established policy of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation governing priorities, the company, as a lessee of the premises, was entitled to purchase at a fair market price; (d) not known.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the following
questions are being	answered today: 999,	1,023,1,197,	1,216,	1,228,	1,248,	1,257,	1,268,	1,272,1,291,	1,295,	1,297,	1,301,	1,308,	1,309,	1,310,1,311,	1,320,	1,321,	1,322,	1,323,	1,324,	1,326,1,331,	1,343,	1,351,	1,352,	1,354,	1,362,	1,366,1,368,	1,379,	1,401 and 1,413.	
If questions Nos. 1,179 and 1,233 could be made orders for returns, the returns would be tabled immediately. I would also ask that question 931 be made an order for return.
If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,191, 1,232, 1,235, 1,251 and 1,356, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Berger: 1.	On what date were the latest Canadian-Ameri-can interviews held or correspondence exchanged pertaining to the subject of Canadian forestry employees working in the state of Maine and unable to draw unemployment insurance?
2.	Who were the participating parties?
3.	On that occasion was any progress made?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1, 2 and 3. In view of the intense interest held by members from the areas of eastern Quebec and New Brunswick, it is felt that a complete statement should be made concerning the efforts to conclude a reciprocal agreement between the state of Maine and the unemployment insurance commission of Canada with respect to unemployment insurance.
The steps taken over the past year may be summarized as follows:
Discussions were held in Quebec city on 22 May, 1962, between the members of the Maine employment security commission, representatives of the U.S. bureau of employment security, representatives of importers for the American pulpwood association, and the members of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada.
While satisfactory progress appeared to have been made at this meeting, it was agreed at its conclusion that the members of the two commissions-Maine and the unemployment insurance commission-should meet again in October 1962.
On 22 and 23 August, 1962, the director of unemployment insurance and the chief of claims operations, both of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada, met with their counterparts from Maine to discuss administrative problems associated with any agreement that might be reached. These discussions were entirely satisfactory.

Questions
On October 19, 1962, the chairman of the Maine employment security commission wrote the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada stating that the question of a reciprocal agreement had been referred by the Maine commission to their advisory council and asking for a postponement of the proposed October meeting. The chairman of the unemployment insurance commission agreed.
In mid-December 1962, the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada telephoned his Maine counterpart regarding the postponed meeting and in reply received a letter dated December 17, 1962, from the Maine chairman to the effect that the advisory council would not be considering the matter of this agreement until its meeting on January 15, 1963, after which he would be pleased to arrange the meeting between the two commissions.
On January 17, 1963, the chairman of the Maine employment security commission again wrote the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada saying that the Maine advisory council had referred the question of this agreement to a special committee; that he would keep the unemployment insurance commission of Canada posted on further reports, and that he hoped for a meeting of the two commissions in the not too distant future to continue discussions.
On March 1, 1963, the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada enquired of the Maine commission as to the action taken by the advisory council and was informed that it (the council) was still gathering data pertinent to its deliberations.
On July 24, 1963, the chairman of the Maine employment security commission informed the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission that their commission had met with the advisory council and were now in process of making arrangements for a further discussion on the matter before a final decision is made. He further advised that he had hopes that the answer would be given to the unemployment insurance commission by September 1, 1963.
On August 1, 1963, the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission acknowledged the letter from the chairman of the Maine employment security commission expressing the hope that it will be possible to come to an agreement.
On August 20, 1963, the chairman of the Mains employment security commission wrote to the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission to report that due to unexpected difficulty in scheduling the meeting with the pulp and paper committee it ap-

peared that the earliest date for the meeting would be the middle of September and that a decision on the state of Maine-Canada reciprocal agreement would be communicated not later than October 1, 1963.
On September 25, 1963 discussions were held in Augusta, Maine regarding an agreement between the state of Maine and the unemployment insurance commission of Canada with respect to unemployment insurance. At the same time a meeting was held with the members of the employment security commission for the state of Maine. It is hoped that as a result of these further discussions a satisfactory conclusion can be reached.


GLASSCO REPORT RESPECTING QUEEN'S PUBLISHER
Mr. Fisher: Has the Glassco commission, volume 2, report No. 9, entitled "printing and publishing", been appraised by the government and, if so, does the government intend to (a) implement the recommendation on page 300 creating the new office of queen's publisher (b) implement the recommendation on page 306 making the queen's publisher responsible for procuring all print required by parliament and in particular, paragraph 2, page 306, "His staff would serve departments by establishing specifications, calling tenders, awarding the contract and supervising completion of the printing. The queen's publisher should be given responsibility to classify on an objective basis those printers eligible to be invited to tender" (c) implement the recommendation conclusion 6, page 140, purchasing and supply, volume 2 Glassco commission which reads "Equally appropriate for early transfer to Department of Defence Production would be the responsibility for purchasing and supplying office furniture, office machinery, printing and stationery"?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: (a) and (b). The Glassco commission's recommendations concerning the creation of the post of queen's publisher and the responsibilities to be attached to that post, if created, are still under consideration.
(c) Yes.
*IS F.L.Q. A SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION?


Mr. Fisher: Is the F.L.Q. a subversive organization, by definition or practice, in so far as the Department of Justice and our security police are concerned?


Mr. Macdonald:: The Department of Justice does not define or classify organizations, as subversive or otherwise, but any organization which employs violence for the purposes indicated by the F.L.Q. is regarded as subversive by the R.C.M. police and kept under surveillance as such.


QUALIFICATIONS OF ARMY OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION AND STAFF COLLEGE TRAINING
Mr. Douglas: 1.	With regard to the qualification of army officers for promotion and for entry to the staff college, what officers or group of officers or what schools.

directorates, or headquarters carry out (a) the preparation or guiding of officers in their preparation for the examinations (b) the preparation of study papers or tactical exercises without troops for the use of candidates (e) the teaching of the current tactical doctrine (d) the setting of examinations (e) the preparation of marking guides (f) the marking of examination papers?
2.	With regard to the officers in each subparagraph of 1 above, (a) what qualifications and special training do they have (b) do they have other duties unrelated to the qualifying of officers and, if so, what are they?
3.	Is co-ordination effected to ensure that officers are examined on what they have been taught and, if so, how?
Questions
Answer: 1 and 2. Qualifications for promotion in the army rests on passing two sets of examinations, a theoretical and a practical for the rank of captain and major. The theoretical, known as part I examinations, cover selected military subjects of concern to all officers. The practical, known as part II examinations, emphasize subjects peculiar to specific corps.
Detailed information is contained in the attached appendix.
3.	Yes, co-ordination is provided by detailed standards and procedures laid down in the manual "How to Qualify".
28902-5-242

Pabt 1 Examinations
Function or activity	Officers or group of officers concerned	Qualifications and special training	Other duties
		2. (a)	(b)
1. a) Preparation and guiding.	Guidance is provided by commanding officers and senior regimental officers. Commands stage central study groups for their candidates.	Rank of major, normally PSC, experience in regimental duty.	Yes, depending on appointment.b) Study papers and tactical	Director of military training at army headquarters.	As above.	As above.exercises.	c) Teaching current tactical doctrine.	Director of military training and unit officers concerned.	As above.	As above.d)	Set examinations. e)	Preparation of marking guides. f)	Marking of papers.	The examining board in directorate of military training. As above. As above.	Experienced staff trained officers in the rank of major under the chairmanship of It. colonel.	Certain officers in directorate of military training are specifically charged with the preparation and marking of those examinations.
Part 2 Examinations
	Function or activity	Officers or group of officers concerned	Qualifications and special training	Other duties
			2. (a)	(b)
1. a)	Preparation and guiding.	Commanding officers and senior regimental officers.	Rank of major, normally PSC, experience in	Yes, depending on ap-Command staff officers.	regimental duty.	pointment.b)	Study papers/tactical	As above.	As above.	As above.exercises.	c)	Teaching current tactical doctrine.	As above.	As above.	As above.d)	Set examinations.	Corps schools, directors.	As above.	Yes, Corps schools and directors.e)	Preparation of marking guides.	As above.	As above.	As above.f)	Conduct of examination.	A corps board of officers, convened by director of military	As above, plus more senior officers.	None during the examin-training including the corps director or school com-	ation.mandant and a number of staff trained majors. This board both conducts the practical examinations and	marks any written exercises required.	3804	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


SALE OF PUBLIC WHARF, MONCTON, N.B.
Mr, Rideout: Has the public wharf in Moncton, N.B., been sold and, if so (a) to whom (b) at what price (c) were public tenders called (d) what facility is presently being used in the city of Moncton to serve as a public wharf?


Mr, Pickersgill:: Yes, (a) to Moncton Lumber Company Limited; (b) for $6,000; (c) by direct negotiation without calling for tenders, since under the long established policy of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation governing priorities, the company, as a lessee of the premises, was entitled to purchase at a fair market price; (d) not known.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What Canadian universities have been provided with grants in aid under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources research assistance program?
2.	What are the amounts involved in each case?
3.	What specific projects are covered?
4.	When was this program inaugurated?
5.	Will it be continued in the 1963-64 fiscal year?
Answer: 1. University of British Columbia, for the president's committee on Arctic and alpine research; University of Alberta, for the boreal institute; University of Saskatchewan, for the institute for northern studies; University of Manitoba, for the president's committee on Arctic research; University of Ottawa, for the Canadian research centre on anthropology and the Boothia expedition; Laval University, for the centre d'Etudes nor-diques; Memorial University of Newfoundland, for the institute of social and economic research.
2.
	Fiscal	Fiscal
	Year	Year
	1962/63	1963/64
University of British		
Columbia	$1,500	$4,000
University of		
Alberta	$4,800	$4,800
University of		
Saskatchewan	$6,000	$7,000
University of		to be
Manitoba	$1,500	determined
University of		
Ottawa	$1,200	$2,200Laval University	$6,000	$7,000Memorial University	of Newfoundland	-	$5,0003.	Grants are made to interdisciplinary university northern research institutes for research in the north in the physical, biological, earth and social sciences. The allocation of funds to specific projects is made by the board of directors of each research institute.
28902-5-242J
Questions
4.	Fiscal year 1962/63. The first grants were made in October 1962.
5.	Yes. See answer to 2. above.



* YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Is the program of federal government financial participation with respect to the construction and/or maintenance (as the case may be) of (i) roads (ii) access roads (iii) recreation roads (iv) tote roads (v) winter roads or trails, being continued in the Yukon Territory by the government in the same way, and to the same extent, as it was prior to April 8, 1963?
2.	If the program in part 1 above is being continued (a) what projects, within each of the classifications of road enumerated in part 1 above, have been or are being proceeded with (b) what amount of financial assistance has been given by the government to each project within the classifications of road or trail enumerated in part 1?
3.	If the program in part 1 above is not being continued by the government, or, if the said program has been limited by the government (i) what reductions have been made in the moneys heretofore available under this program with respect to each of the classifications of roads enumerated in part 1 (ii) what projects have been abandoned in each of the classifications of roads enumerated in part 1 above (iii) what projects which were contemplated in each of the classifications of roads enumerated in part 1 above are being abandoned?
4.	If the program of federal financial assistance with respect to the classifications of roads enumerated above is not being continued by the government, is any substitute plan or plans being contemplated and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the same?


Mr. Laing:: The answer to this question extends over three closely typed pages, and I was wondering if I could have unanimous consent to have it printed in Hansard2


Mr. Speaker:: Is unanimous consent given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:]
1.	There has been no change in the program of federal government financial participation with respect to the construction and/or maintenance of-
(i) roads; (ii) access roads; (iii) recreation roads; (iv) tote trails; (v) winter roads or trails.
2.	The following projects in the Yukon are being undertaken during the current year. The federal government pays 100 per cent of the costs unless otherwise indicated. (See Appendix A for detailed costs).
(a) Reconstruction of Whitehorse-Keno highway (trunk highway); (b) reconstruction of Stewart Crossing-Dawson road (secondary trunk highway); (c) reconstruction of boundary road (secondary trunk highway); (d) construction of the Watson lake-Ross river

Questions
road (area development road); (e) reconstruction of a portion of the Canol road (area development road); (f) construction of the Nahanni range road (area development road);
(g)	contribution of two-thirds the cost of the Canada tungsten road (mine access road);
(h)	other small road projects including engineering surveys.
Total estimated federal expenditures on roads-$2,500,000.
The federal government also contributes toward the cost of maintenance of development roads and trunk highways in the Yukon in accordance with the federal-territorial financial agreement. Expenditures in the current year are expected to amount to approximately $633,000.
The tote trail program has been maintained at its former level and $50,000 is available to provide assistance in this regard. In addition the considerable expenditures made by the federal government towards the upkeep and reconstruction of the northwest highways system should be mentioned. It is estimated that expenditures attributable to the Yukon portion of the system for the current year will be in the order of $6,000,000.
3.	The contribution to maintenance costs and the tote trail assistance program are included in the federal-territorial financial agreement and therefore continue each year. None of the road construction projects already commenced will be curtailed. The construction of new roads of various classifications is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of each region of the Yukon. The funds spent each year for this purpose vary accordingly.
4.	The road requirements of the Yukon are under constant study and plans for the future will be expanded as the needs increase. No changes in the methods of financing roads in the Yukon are contemplated at this time.
Appendix A (Item 2)
For the current year, i.e., 1st April, 1963 to 31st March, 1964, the following programs are being carried out in the Yukon:
(a) Reconstruction of the Whitehorse-Keno road (trunk highway); estimated expenditure in the year-$500,000. The total estimated cost of this project, excluding bridges, is $2,062,000. This is the fourth of a five year program;
(b)	Stewart Crossing-Dawson road (secondary trunk highway). Estimated expenditures in current year-$43,000;	(c) Boundary road
(secondary trunk highway). Estimated current expenditures-$50,000. Reconstruction of existing road; (d) Watson lake-Ross river road (area development road). Third year of a five year program. Estimated expenditures for this year-$1,215,000; (e) Canol road (area

development road). Reconstruction of oil road built in 1943. Expenditures for year estimated to be $46,000; (f) Nahanni range road (ai-ea development road). Last year of program. Estimated cost

$250,000; (g) Canada Tungsten road (mine access road). Contribution of two thirds actual cost amounts to a total of $667,000. This year's final payment-$100,000; (h) Other smaller road projects, including engineering surveys-$290,000;	(i) Federal
government share of maintenance cost of certain roads in Yukon. Estimate-$632,700; (j) Contribution toward tote trails. Program administered by the Yukon territorial government-$50,000.
Federal government-
Capital expenditures on Yukon roads, excluding northwest highways system, local and municipal roads.
1960-61, $3,203,667; 1961-62, $4,628,736; 196263, $3,912,176; 1963-64, $2,500,000 estimate.
^NORTHERN AFFAIRS



CONSULTATIONS


Mr. Nielsen: Has the government of Canada or any official or employee of the government had any consultations with either the government of the province of British Columbia, or with the government of the United States of America, or, with any official or employee of either of the said governments, with respect to (a) the maintenance or paving of the Alaska highway (b) the maintenance or paving of the Haines cut-off road (e) the construction of a road from Carcross in the Yukon Territory to Skagway in the state of Alaska (d) the acquisition by Canada of a corridor or corridors from the Yukon Territory through to tidewater on the Alaskan panhandle (e) the acquisition by Canada of a 'free' port or ports on the Alaskan panhandle?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There have been no recent negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States on any of the five subjects mentioned in the question, although there have been some informal and inconclusive discussions with regard to the Haines cut-off highway. I would refer my hon. friend to what the minister of northern affairs said on October 3, 1963, page 3156 of Hansard.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon: Norlh and Victoria):
What has been the total annual payroll of civilian personnel at the Point Edward naval base for each of the years 1953 to 1963 inclusive?
Answer: Payroll figures are not available for 1953 and 1954. 1955, $1,719,799; 1956, $1,856,851; 1957, $1,959,835; 1958, $2,025,728; 1959, $2,147,072; 1960, $2,059,364; 1961, $2,398,769;	1962 $2,634,767; (to Sept. 30) 1963,



$1,911,117.  SWORDFISH  CONSUMPTION BY ARMED FORCES

Mr. Crouse: Has the Minister of National Defence given consideration to purchasing and making available swordfish for our armed forces, thereby increasing the market for this seafood which is presently being caught in large quantities by Nova Scotian fishermen?
Answer: Yes, the services are being asked to consider adding swordfish as an alternative item in the appropriate portion of their ration scale. It should be pointed out, however, that the addition of swordfish as an item in service ration scales will not of itself result in a large and continuing demand for the item. The extend to which such action will create a demand for swordfish will depend upon the extent to which individual service units wish to draw swordfish in place of meat, poultry, or some other variety of fish.



BILINGUAL EXAMINATION

Mr. Olson: Is there a standard examination for the purpose of determining whether or not an individual is bilingual when applying for a federal government service job that specifies bilingual qualifications and, if so, (a) does the test determine the degree of bilingual proficiency (b) do certain jobs require greater or lesser degrees of bilingual proficiency?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission:
Although there is no standard examination for the purpose of determining whether or not an individual is bilingual, there are tests, either oral or written, designed to assess the bilingual qualifications of an applicant for a particular job.
(a)	Yes, depending on the particular requirements of the position.
(b)	Yes.



CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, YUKON TERRITORY

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed with the construction of a minimum security penal institution in the Yukon Territory and, if so, where is the intended location of such institution?
2.	Have the plans and specifications of the project been completed and, if so, when is it intended to call for public tenders on the job?
3.	What are the proposed dates of commencement of construction and completion of the project?
Answer: 1. Yes, in the Whitehorse area, to enable the territorial government to carry out its responsibilities for custody of prisoners, under the federal-territorial financial agreement.
2.	No.
3.	It is anticipated that construction will begin in 1964, for completion in 1965.
Questions



RESPONSIBILITIES OF QUEEN'S PUBLISHER

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,291
Douglas Mason Fisher: On September 30, 1963, what divisions and parts of divisions of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and how many employees of each have become the responsibility of the proposed office of queen's publisher?


Mr. Drury:: The publications branch, 138
employees; from the procurement, purchasing and stores branch, four employees, and from the supporting services of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, 38 employees.



TENDERS AND CONTRACTS FOR PRINTING

Mr. Fisher: How many (a) printing job tenders for print requisitioned by government agencies have been issued (b) contracts have been awarded, since the day on which procurement, purchasing and stores branch became a responsibility of the Department of Defence Production and, of these (i) how many tenders have been issued, and how many contracts have been awarded by the procurement, purchasing and stores branch as a responsibility of the Department of Defence Production, and (ii) how many tenders have been issued, and how many contracts have been awarded by the proposed office of queen's publisher.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) 205.
(b) 427.
(i)	Tenders, 182; purchase orders, 411.
(ii)	Tenders, 23; contracts awarded, 16.



PURCHASES BY PROCUREMENT BRANCH, DEFENCE PRODUCTION

Mi. Fisher: What categories of goods and services purchased by the procurement, purchasing and stores branch prior to July 25, 1963, will be purchased by the branch as a division of the Department of Defence Production?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The categories of goods and services to be purchased by procurement, purchasing and stores branch are:	Printed
matter (other than books and publications), stationery, paper and envelopes, printing equipment and supplies, office machines, services for maintenance and repair of office machines and printing equipment.



GRAIN STORAGE CAPACITY

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What is the total storage capacity of (a) all terminal elevators in Canada (b) all grain elevators in western Canada (c) permanent annexes in western Canada (d) temporary annexes in western Canada (e) farm-owned storage bins in western Canada?


Mr. Hays:: (Data are basis board of grain commissioners' initial licensing records as of August 1, 1963.)
(a) Total licensed capacity of all terminal elevators in Canada at the above date was 159,460,410 bushels.

Questions
(b)	Total storage capacity of all grain elevators licensed in western Canada at the above date was 540,880,610 bushels.
(c)	and (d) The term "annex" is applied to country elevator storage prior to 1951-52. There were two classifications, permanent and temporary. The temporary notation was discontinued effective 1951-52. As of August 1, 1963, the total storage capacity of annexes licensed as part of the country elevator system was 197,205,700 bushels.
(e)	This information is not available. The board of grain commissioners has estimated that the peak quantity of grain stored at any one time on western farms was during the
1956-57 crop year and that it would have been in the order of 900 to 950 million bushels.



REPAIRS TO C.G.S. &quot;WOLFE&quot;

Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What firms tendered on the repairs to the C.G.S. Wolfe and what were the amounts of the various tenders?
2.	To what firm has the contract been awarded?
3.	On what date are the repairs required to be completed?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. Ferguson Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S., $55,892; Steel and Engine Products, Liverpool, N.S., $64,987; Saint John Dry Dock, Saint John, N.B., $72,672; Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, N.S., $97,870.
2.	Ferguson Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S.
3.	Thirty days after delivery of the ship to Ferguson Industries Ltd.
OWNER OF S.S. "TRITONICa"


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What company is the registered owner of the Tritonica?
2.	Is this company a subsidiary of any other company and, if so, what is the name of the company?
3.	Who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the Tritonica?
Answer: 1. Snowberry Co., Limited, Reid house, Hamilton, Bermuda.
2.	Information not available as registered owner is not a Canadian corporation.
3.	Information not available.



CORPORATION EARNINGS AND PROFITS

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What are the earnings of manufacturing corporations after taxes, in dollars, (at the annual rate, seasonally adjusted) for the last 5 years?
2.	What are the earnings on each dollar of sales, or profits after taxes, per dollar of sales (seasonally adjusted) of manufacturing corporations during the last 5 years.
Answer: 1 and 2.
Seasonally adjusted data on earnings after taxes or profits after taxes of manufacturing corporations are not available.

Annual profits after taxes per dollar of revenue (i.e. sales plus investment income) for the past five years are as follows: 1958, 3.5 cents; 1959, 3.5 cents; 1960, 3.1 cents; 1961, 3.0 cents; 1962, 3.3 cents.



SUPERINTENDENT, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What persons have held the post of acting superintendent of the Prince Edward Island national park since its establishment?
2.	What were their terms of office?
3.	What persons have held the post of superintendent of the P.E.I. national park?
4.	What were their terms of office?
5.	Does the government intend to return to its predecessor's practice and appoint a full time superintendent for this park?
6.	What was the total expenditure by the government of Canada in the park in the fiscal years
1957-	58 to 1962-63?
Answer: 1 and 2. June 1937-July 1938, A. L. MacKay, Officer in charge; Sept. 1947-Apr. 1948, L. W. Ford, Officer in charge; Oct. 1953-Apr. 1954, L. W. Ford, Officer in charge; Oct.
1954-Apr. 1955, L. W. Ford, Officer in charge; Oct. 1955-May 1956, L. W. Ford, Officer in charge; Apr. 1948-May 1949, J. H. Atkinson, A/superintendent; June 1951-Oct. 1952, G. B. McGillivray, A/superintendent; Nov. 1952-Apr. 1953, R. G. McCallum, Officer in charge; Apr. 1953-May 1953, E. G. Saunders, A/superintendent; May 1953-Oct. 1953, J. A. McKay, A/superintendent; Apr. 1954-Oct. 1954, H. A. deVeber, A/superintendent; Apr. 1955-Sept. 1955, J. C. Goodison, A/superintendent; May
1956-	Sept. 1956, F. C. Browning, A/superintendent; July 1963-Sept. 1963, A. R. Ede, A/superintendent; Sept. 1963-, H. B. Webb, A/superintendent.
3 and 4. August 1938-Sept. 1947, E. A. Smith; June 1949-May 1951, J. H. Atkinson; Oct. 1956-May 1958, F. C. Browning; May
1958-	June 1963, E. J. Kipping.
5.	Yes.
6.	1957-58, $156,087; 1958-59, $302,212; 195960, $440,630; 1960-61, $690,537; 1961-62, $661,583; 1962-63, $486,261.



VISITORS TO LOWER FORT GARRY, MAN.

Mr. Slogan: 1.	What were the number of visitors at lower Fort Garry from the year 1955 on?
2.	What was the classification of these visitors in each of the years?
Answer: 1. Fiscal year 1955-56, 1956-57, no attendance figures available in our records;
1957-	58, 21,300 (estimated); 1958-59, 15,000
(estimated); 1959-60, 33,229; 1960-61, 42,787; 1961-62,	50,234;	1962-63,	59,544;	1963-64,
76,792 (to Sept. 30).
2. No accurate classification of visitors is available from our records.



LOWER FORT GARRY, MAN., GUIDES

Mr. Slogan: 1.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the guides used at lower Fort Garry in 1963?
Questions
2.	What was the rate of pay for the guides, and what did each guide earn?
3.	What are the duties of the guides?
4.	What is the schedule of the visiting hours at lower Fort Garry?
Answer: 1 and 2.
Occupation	Rate	of pay	Total earningsHerbert Flaig, 852 Sherburn st., Winnipeg 9, Manitoba.	Student	$1.71	per hr.	
$548.06
Carolyn Judy Porhownik, Box 8, group 323, R.R. 3, Selkirk, Manitoba.	Student	$1.71	per hr.	$1,351.76Reva Janet Ross, 520 Ash street, Winnipeg, Manitoba.	Student	$1.71	per hr.	$660.073.	(a) To conduct visitors about the grounds and buildings, and provide historical information relevant to the fort (b) to carry out fire-fighting duties in case of emergency; (c) to assist in various other tasks, as required.4.	1963 schedule: May to August inclusive,
10 a.m. to 8 p.m., 7 days a week; September,
11 a.m. to 6 p.m., 7 days a week; October, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., 7 days a week.



LOWER FORT GARRY MUSEUM BUILDING

Mr. Slogan: 1.	What tenders were received for the building of a museum building at lower Fort Garry?
2.	What were the names of the companies, the amount tendered, and the successful tenderer?
3.	When is it expected that the contract for the museum building will be finished?
4.	Is it anticipated that the museum will be opened to the public at the start of the tourist season in 1964?
Answer: 1 and 2. Rodzen Construction Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba (successful tenderer), $135,794; A. W. Homme Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, $142,979; Kraft Construction Company Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, $144,820; Commonwealth Construction Company Ltd.,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, $146,000; Wallace & Akins Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba, $154,370.
3.	June 28, 1964.
4.	It is planned to complete displays in time to open the museum to the public during the 1964 tourist season.



LOWER FORT GARRY, MAN.  LAND PURCHASES

Mr. Slogan: 1.	Has the federal government purchased any land from the provincial government of Manitoba around lower Fort Garry and, if so, what land has been purchased, at what price, and for what purpose?
2.	What are the plans of the federal government for the expansion of lower Fort Garry as a tourist attraction up to and including 1967?
Answer: 1. No.
2. Construction of a museum; restoration of original fort buildings.



FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, LOWER FORT GARRY, MAN.

Mr. Slogan: 1.	What federal moneys were spent at lower Fort Garry in each fiscal year since 1955?
2.	What is the breakdown of these expenditures as far as maintenance, operation costs, personnel, and improvements?
Answer: 1. and 2.
Operation and
Personnel	Maintenance	Construction1955-56	Nil	$	150	-1956-57	Nil	$	3,359	$ 10,9561957-58	Nil	$	3,937	$ 1,3491958-59	Nil	$	4,518	$ 6,1071959-60	Nil	$	4,481	$ 6,8601960-61	Nil	$	4,724	$ 5,5031961-62	$ 4,500	$	7,540	$ 3,2331962-63	$ 7,565	$	8,550	$ 19,5391963-64	$ 12,000 (est'd)	$	16,000 (est'd)	$185,500 (est'd)
Questions



TARIFFS ON DENTAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

Mr. Slogan: 1.	What tariffs are imposed against dental equipment, supplies and materials imported into this
country?
2.	Is there any difference in the tariffs on dental materials used in the mouth as against those used outside the mouth?
3.	Specifically what tariffs are imposed on alginate impression materials and prophylaxis brushes and rubber cups manufactured in the United States?


Mr. Garland:: 1. Dental instruments of any material designed for surgical operative use, orthodontic appliances and parts thereof for the correction of malocclusions, dental operating lights, dental X-ray machines, X-ray film, X-ray developing tanks, dental instrument sterilizers, unmounted artificial teeth, are admissible free of duty under all tariffs.
Dental chairs, dental units, electric dental engines and dental cuspidors are admissible free of duty when imported under the British preferential tariff or the most favoured nation tariff. These articles are dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under the general tariff.
Other dental equipment and supplies are subject to the provisions of the customs tariff according to their classification.
2.	Dental materials are liable to the same rates of duty whether used in or out of the mouth.
3.	Alginate impression compound is dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, when imported from the United States. Prophylaxis brushes and rubber polishing cups for dental hand pieces are admissible free of duty under all tariffs.



WRECK OF &quot;TRITONICA&quot;

Mr. Graffiey: 1.	Has the Department of Transport ordered the agents and/or owners of M. V. Tritonica to remove or destroy the said ship under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and, has the department considered the effect upon navigation and upon possible claims in law against the Tritonica if she is destroyed by dynamite?
2.	How wide is the ship channel at the point where the Tritonica is resting?
3.	How far from the centre of the channel is the wreck of the Tritonica1
4.	What action, if any, has the department taken to see that security is put up by the ship and/or her owners, for possible claims on behalf of consorts, ascendants, descendants, cargo, etc?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) Yes; (b) no.
2.	1.9 nautical miles.
3.	Approximately 300 feet.
4.	No duty is imposed on the Department of Transport under the Canada Shipping Act in respect of claims against a ship and/or her owners following a shipping casualty, for death, injury or damage to cargo.
The wreck is located in a very dangerous position for coastal vessels many of which cannot get through in the winter against the

tide even with icebreaker assistance. They are carried about by ice and currents waiting for favourable tide. The wreck, which cannot be marked by a lighted buoy in the winter months, is a serious hazard to these vessels so much so that the owners of the wreck have been required to remove the upper works this fall.



YEAR ROUND CROSSING OF MACKENZIE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,343[DOT]-Mr. Rheaume:
1.	Has any study been carried out on the feasibility of constructing a bridge across the Mackenzie river at or near Fort Providence to provide year-round use the Mackenzie highway system and, if so, what are the estimated costs of such a bridge?
2.	Have any other means of providing a year-round river crossing been investigated and, if so, what are these alternatives?
3.	Are there any plans to proceed with provision of a year round crossing of the Mackenzie river and, if so, when does the government expect to start this project?
4.	If not, will the government undertake to look into the need to make the Mackenzie highway system operative on a year round basis?
Answer: 1. Yes; $6,500,000, based on limited initial investigations.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, when the volume of traffic warrants.

Mr. Fisher: Has the B.B.G. received any information that the ownership situation of the private television stations at Vancouver, Windsor, and Halifax, has undergone any changes in the past two years, including share transfers or sales to foreign persons or corporations and, if so, what are the details of such changes, including the percentage of Canadian ownership at present, in each of these operations?
Answer: The board has received information that the ownerships in the licensees of stations CHAN-TV Vancouver, CKLW-TV Windsor and CJCH-TV Halifax have undergone changes. This information came in the form of applications for the transfer of shares in the licensee companies referred to the board by the Minister of Transport under the provisions of section 103 of the general radio regulations, part II. As the licensee companies involved are private companies and are not, therefore, required to make public the details of their share ownership, the board does not announce publicly all the details of applications for the transfer of shares in these companies, except where a change of ownership or control of the licensee company is involved. One such application by station CHAN-TV, Vancouver, has been received by the board in the past two years. This application involved the transfer of 4,987 shares of

stock all owned by Canadians, being transferred to other Canadian citizens, which resulted in a potentially different alliance of shareholders who could exercise control of the licensee. This application was recommended for approval by the board following a public hearing in June, 1963. The percentage of Canadian ownership in the three stations is as follows: CHAN-TV, Vancouver, 75 per cent; CKLW-TV, Windsor, 0 per cent; CJCH-TV, Halifax, 75 per cent.



PERSONNEL OF TELEVISION STATION CKLW-T.V., WINDSOR, ONT.

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the B.B.G. In hand any information on the citizenship of the sales director, T.V. sales manager, promotion manager, program manager, news director, sales manager (radio), and sales director T.V. of the Canadian television station CKLW, Windsor?
2.	Has the B.B.G. in hand any information on the citizenship of the following talent roster of CKLW-T.V. Windsor: Messrs. J. Booth, L. Sands. T. David, W. Kenerdy, T. Clay, J. Van, J. Schafer, T. Lindsay, J. Gentile, J. La Lane, G. Hunter, L. Leslie, R. Wise and Mrs. Nancy Thomas?
3.	Has the B.B.G. any information in hand which would indicate that Mr. E. Metcalf, sales director of CKLW-T.V. is an American, an employee of R.K.O., and effectively in control of the whole operation?
4.	Has the B.B.G. made any recent analysis of the CKLW-T.V. situation, or given any warnings regarding American ownership or control to R.K.O.?
Answer: 1. No. The board does not have any such information.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The last analysis of the ownership of CKLW-T.V. was made by the board in March, 1963. The board has not given any warnings to R.K.O. regarding American ownership or control of the station.



DOCUMENTARY FILM ON NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Dinsdale: Has the national film board been commissioned to prepare a documentary educational film on national parks and, if so (a) when was this film requested (b) when will it be available for distribution?
Questions
poses in Newfoundland and of the efforts of a private company in trawling for squid?
2. Will the government give immediate consideration to making available a dragger to trawl for squid within the three mile limit off Newfoundland?
Answer: 1. The Newfoundland bait service has procured approximately 500,000 pounds of squid which, with purchases from private firms and continuing catches, should meet winter requirements. Private firms are believed to have adequate supplies. Efforts to catch squid by trawling have not proven satisfactory.
2. Consideration is being given to further experiments along these lines.



REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Mather: 1.	What action has been taken respecting implementation of the royal commission report on publications?
2.	Is any action contemplated by the government on this report during the present year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. The matter has been and is still under active consideration.
2. An announcement of government policy will be made in the near future.



COLOMBO PLAN PROJECTS IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Mr. Matheson: Since the inception of the Colombo plan what specific projects has Canada undertaken in each year, and at what costs for (a) India, and (b) Pakistan?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: (a)
India
Projects	Canadian Dollar Allocations
1950-52 Bombay State transport	4,352,775
Mayurakshi hydro electric	496,953
1952-53 Mayurakshi hydro electric	802,811
Locomotive boilers	1,815,452
Answer: Yes.
(a)	First discussions on the script took place on October 31, 1961. Financial authority to proceed with the production was received from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources on June 28, 1962.
(b)	First release prints are expected by the end of December, 1963. Large scale distribution will start soon after April 1, 1964.



* SQUID BAIT, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Tucker: 1. Has the Minister of Fisheries any information concerning the availability of squid for bait pur-28902-5-243
1953-54	
Steam locomotives	11,000,000
Umtru hydro electric	1,163,957
1954-55	
Steam locomotives	10,470,043
Diesel generating sets	3,007,372
Biological control station	38,355
1955-56	
Kundah hydro electric	
stages I and II	11,500,000
Pest control	146,356
Magnetometer survey	125,000
Locust control trucks	135,685
3812	HOUSE OF
Questions Projects India (cont'd)	Canadian Dollar Allocations
1956-57 Trombay reactor	5,000,000
Kundah hydro electric, stages I and II	7,000,000
Magnetometer survey	82,224
Film and filmstrips	275
1957-58	
Trombay reactor	2,000,000
Kundah hydro electric stages I and II	3,500,000
Biological control station	7,668
Co-Op movement training center	37,245
Cobalt beam therapy units	118,636
Cobalt beam source-Madras	8,000
1958-59	
Trombay reactor	1,000,000
Co-Op film scheme	50,000
Cobalt beam therapy units	114,480
Calcutta milk scheme	130,000
1959-60	
Trombay reactor	700,000
Power projects-feasibility study	58,718
Cobalt beam therapy units	135,520
Diesel shunter locomotives	1,540,000
Meteorological radio teletype	250,000
1960-61 Kundah hydro electric stage III	3,500,000
Trombay reactor	600,000
Fuel rods-Trombay reactor	325,000
1961-62 Kundah hydro electric stage III	9,200,000
Water-loop (Trombay reactor)	800,000
1962-63	
Kundah hydro electric stage III	9,300,000
Iddikki hydro electric	200,000
Crop spraying aircraft	300,000
Cobalt beam therapy units	148,000
1963-64	
Umtru hydro electric	650,000
Cobalt beam therapy units	200,000
Gamma cell units	60,000
(b) Pakistan	Canadian
Dollar
Projects	Allocations
1951-52	
Goalpara steam plant (Khulna)	32,764
Thai livestock farm	196,745
Cement plant	5,000,000
Air resources survey	2,000,000
1952-53	
Cement plant	500,000
Locust control	176,807
Warsak hydro electric [Mr. Martin (Essex East) .3	3,421,762

Canadian
Dollar
Projects Pakistan (cont'd)	Allocations
1953-	54
Cement plant	939,503
Warsak hydro electric	6,000,000
Tractor training school equipment 17,249 Mobile dispensary units	11,795
Air resources survey	1,000,000
Shadiwal hydro electric	1,359,657
1954-	55
Warsak hydro electric	2,000,000
Ganges-Kobadak steam plant	1,306,343
Dacca-Chittagong transmission line	4,006,343
Air resources survey	50,000
Biological control station	46,155
Lendhi poultry farm	3,106
1955-	56
Warsak hydro electric	7,000,000
Goalpara steam plant (Khulna)	2,025,000
1956-	57
Warsak hydro electric	9,200,000
Air resources survey	87,990
Locust control	80,413
Liaquat hospital contribution	2,000
1957-	58
Warsak hydro electric	9,000,000
Dacca-Chittagong transmission line	1,575,000
Air resources survey	155,000
Shadiwal hydro electric	2,000,000
Tarnab farm	2,277
Biological control station	9,228
1958-	59
Warsak hydro electric	500,000
Dacca-Chittagong transmission line	1,100,000
Pest control equipment	120,000
Locust control-Beaver aircraft	200,000
Sukkur-Natural gas station	3,329,000
1959-	60
Books and courses P.I.I.A.	15,000
Sukkur-Natural gas station	3,886,000
1960-	61
Aerial survey (Chittagong region)	500,000
Cobalt teletherapy unit-Karachi	82,000
1961-	62
Aerial survey (Chittagong region)	125,000
Bheramara-Goalpara transmission line	2,000,000
Comilla-Sylhet transmission line	500,000
Hardboard development scheme	500,000
Mineral exploration survey-
West Pakistan	450,000
Aircraft and spraying equipment	200,000
Karachi port trust equipment	2,500,000
Sangu multipurpose scheme	150,000
Tabulating equipment	17,000

Canadian
Dollar
Projects Pakistan (cont'd) Allocations 1962-63
Bheramara-Goalpara transmission
line	1,000,000
Comilla-Sylhet transmission line	2,500,000
Hardboard development scheme	900,000
Sangu multipurpose scheme	150,000
Refugee housing project	1,000,000
Crop spraying aircraft	400,000
Equipment for atomic energy
commission	250,000
Bheramara-Goalpara transmission
line	1,000,000
Comilla-Sylhet transmission line	1,500,000
Hardboard development scheme	450,000
Refugee housing project	1,000,000
Sukkur-Natural gas station and
transmission line	1,800,000
Land use study	275,000
Engineering study-Sylhet steam
plant	100,000
Hospital equipment	25,000
Equipment for fishing industry	2,750,000



TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC AID PROGRAMS

Mr. Brewin: What are the amounts of the increases or decreases, in each case, in respect to various programs of technical or economic aid (a) given, or (b) announced, by the government of Canada since April 8, 1963?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been no decreases since April 8, 1963 in the levels of Canadian aid programs. Increases which have been announced, but not yet come into effect, are:
(a)	As announced by the government in August, part I countries (i.e., the more developed members) of the international development association, including Canada, have agreed, subject to necessary legislative action, to make available to the association new resources aggregating $750 million to enable the association after its first five year period of operation, to continue to finance on easy terms worth while development projects in developing countries. The payments would be made to I.D.A. in three annual instalments of $250 million each, the first instalment being due in November, 1965. Subject to enactment of the necessary legislation, the Canadian contribution would amount to $41,700,000 (U.S.), or more than $14 million (Canadian) per year.
(b)	The Minister of Trade and Commerce in a statement on July 24 announced the government's intention to ask parliament to provide for a program for the supply of wheat and wheat flour to international aid agencies,
28902-5-243J
Questions
including the world food program, and to developing countries which are not now commercial markets or where commercial exports are limited by capacity to pay. The minister said the intention was to increase on a progressive basis the amount of Canadian food aid in appropriate relationship to the total of our assistance activities, and that the total allocation for this purpose might rise to a level of around $40 million per annum over the course of the next few years.
(c)	I announced in the House of Commons on October 15, subject to appropriation of funds by parliament, an increase in Canada's pledge to the United Nations special fund to $5 million (Canadian) for 1964 from the 1963 level of $2.35 million (U.S.).



INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. Maiher: What was the amount, in dollars, expended in the fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962 in interest payments on the national debt?
Answer: Interest in Canadian dollars on the public debt of Canada. Fiscal years ending March 31 of years stated: 1960, $735,630,175; 1961, $756,664,228; 1962, $802,919,207.
Source: Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, appendix No. 6.



IMPORTS FROM BULGARIA

Mr. Ricard: What are the main products that will be imported from Bulgaria as a result of the recent wheat sale by Canada to that country?
Answer: The recently concluded Canada-Bulgaria trade agreement provides for an exchange of most favoured nation treatment between the two countries and a commitment by Bulgaria to purchase minimum quantities of Canadian wheat. In addition, it was agreed that trade offices may be opened both in Canada and Bulgaria for purposes of market exploration and trade promotion.
No discussions were held concerning specific commodities which the Bulgarian trade enterprises will offer to Canadian importers for sale in the Canadian market.



PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH ACCOUNTS

Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	When is it expected that the government will issue directions for the payment, pursuant to Bill C-91, assented to August 2, 1963 of members' telephone and telegraph accounts?
2.	What proportion of such accounts will be paid out of public funds?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Orders for Returns
of members of the House of Commons pursuant to recommendations of the commissioners of internal economy. No recommendation regarding telephone and telegraph accounts has been made thus far.
2.	Answered by 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


* COLUMBIA RIVER


Mr. Herridge: 1.	What are the latest estimates of Canada's share of downstream power benefits under the Columbia river treaty (a) by year (b) by capacity, and (c) by energy, for the first 60 years from ratification (assuming 1964) attributable to (i) Mica creek (ii) Duncan lake (iii) high Arrow?
2.	By whom were these estimates prepared?
3.	If the answer to 2 is not a Canadian authority, has any Canadian authority prepared similar estimates independently?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The reply to this question is lengthy, and I wonder if the house would agree to making it an order for return, to be tabled herewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Return tabled.



FEDERAL BUILDINGS ON INDIAN RESERVES, MANITOBA

Mr. Slefanson: 1.	What buildings have been erected by the federal government, with the cost of each, between June 21, 1957 and April 22, 1963, on the following Indian reservations:	Fisher river, Peguis, lake
Manitoba, Little Saskatchewan, lake St. Martin, Jackhead, Grand Rapids and Norway House?
2.	What federal government buildings are planned for these reservations this year?



NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION

Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What is the capital investment of the Northern Canada Power Commission in each of the following locations in the Northwest Territories (a) Fort Smith (b) Fort Simpson (e) Inuvik (d) Fort McPherson (e) Aklavik?
2.	What are the annual operating costs for the
past three years of the stations (a),	(b),	(c),
and (d) above?
3.	What were the annual revenues from all sources for each of the stations listed in part (1) under the following headings (e) sale of electricity (b) sale of heat (c) sale of water and sewage services (d) other?
4.	For each of the categories in part (3), what revenue was received from government agencies, and what revenue came from private persons and businesses?
5.	What is the present charge to the consumer in each of the above settlements for electricity per kilowatt hour in each of the following categories (a) commercial rates (b) private consumer?
Return tabled.



MAYO, Y.T., AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Nielsen: Has the government received any representations for the improvement of the airport at Mayo in the Yukon Territory and, if so, from whom were such representations received, and what action is intended by the government in respect thereto?
Return tabled.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him first whether in the last eight days he has been in communication with the President of the United States, either by letter or telephone, regarding the shipping difficulties on the great lakes; also whether the act respecting trusteeship has been proclaimed and, if so, the names of the trustees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first question is concerned the answer is yes. I have been in touch with the President of the United States on this matter.
So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, the act has not yet been proclaimed. It will be proclaimed without delay, and the names of the three trustees announced.


John George Diefenbaker: When is it expected these three trustees will be appointed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, until last Saturday it was still hoped, and there was reason for hope, that a private trusteeship satisfactory to Canada and the Canadian Labour Congress particularly might have been reached, in which case the government would not have had the responsibility, under the agreement which was being proposed, for appointing more than one of the three trustees. That possibility was removed during the weekend, Mr. Speaker, by the action taken by the S.I.U. Therefore we have since that time, since yesterday, been getting in touch with three gentlemen who we think will be very good trustees, and as soon as we hear from them we will announce it to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Will they be Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will be Canadians.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we have been asking for.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great concern which is being felt in many quarters about the interference with or the stoppage of the ships engaged in the shipment of wheat, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any consideration has been given to the proposal or suggestion made by the premier of Saskatchewan that the government might give consideration to establishing a government controller of shipping to meet the present emergency situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the situation tomorrow will not require that kind of solution.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, in view of the allegations contained in the telegram sent by the Minister of Labour to Mr. Banks that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has been violated, could the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering any sanctions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter is under consideration and will have to be viewed in the light of what happens tomorrow.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What other alternative arrangements are being made to ship greater amounts of wheat to the loading ports on the St. Lawrence through the increased use of our railroads?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we are using the winter ports to full capacity now, and I do not understand the implication in the hon. gentleman's question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Then perhaps I might ask a supplementary question. How many Canadian railroad cars are presently being detained in the United States, and what arrangements are being made to have these returned to Canada in order that they might be used in this emergency?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the two railway companies are doing everything possible to move the grain to the maximum of their capacity, and there has been no falling down in that respect.


Mr. Woolliams:: My supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Inquiries o} the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question was not answered. It was, how many Canadian railroad cars are being detained in the United States and what action is being taken to have them returned to Canada, so they can be used in this emergency?


George James McIlraith: There is always an exchange of cars between the two countries. I can find out the precise figure in the United States at the moment and bring it to the attention of the house, but this is a question that I could hardly be expected to answer without notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether he has received a letter from Mr. Hal Banks contending that the public trusteeship legislation is in violation of the bill of rights; and, if he has received such a letter, has he any comment to make on this contention?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter this morning from Mr. Hal Banks in connection with the matter which my hon. friend has alluded to, and I must say in reply that the trusteeship bill was examined in accordance with the statute by the deputy minister, as required by the act, and he has affixed his certificate thereto. Likewise, I have considered the measure, and in my opinion this legislation is not inconsistent with the bill of rights.


Mr. Nielsen:: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Bow River was first, and then the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder could he tell the house how many bushels of wheat have been delivered to Canadian ports under contract between the Canadian wheat board and the U.S.S.R., at the present time?
Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I may say, Mr. Speaker, I am not in possession of these figures. If the hon. gentleman would give me notice I can get the information for him.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I going to get legal advice and, if so, will action wish to address a supplementary question to be taken with regard to this kind of action? the Prime Minister. In view of the state- Mr_ chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no ments made by the Minister of Labour evidence to that effect at the moment, but branding as clearly illegal, the action of the j could ask the officers of the department seamen in the S.I.U. visiting parliament hill wdether there is any. Of course, even if there today, is it the intention of the government was>
j must again bring to the attention of to do anything about the so-called classifica- the hon. gentleman that there are a number tion of illegality which the minister has sections in the statutes providing for placed on the visit of the S.I.U. seamen?	sanctions thereunder.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already had a question on that subject and said the matter was under consideration.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour see Mr. Hal Banks when he was here with his group of people today and, if so, what reply did Mr. Banks make to the instruction which the Minister of Labour issued that the S.I.U. members must return to work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen Mr. Hal Banks today. Whether the Minister of Labour has or not, I am not sure. He is not in the house at the moment.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the Department of Justice investigating whether Canadian shipping companies acted in collusion with the officers of the S.I.U. in the illegal walkout now taking place, in that they took no action to point out to their men that their actions were contrary to their collective agreement and the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, and that they could be penalized for such action by dismissal, or in some other way? If so, if the department is looking at this, will it take steps to penalize the officers of the shipping companies as well as the officers of the S.I.U.?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that under the law there are sanctions which deal with men leaving their ships, but my understanding of the law is that the responsibility for laying charges or dealing with the matter lies with either of the parties under the agreement, and not with the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the hon. member was trying to ascertain, and I do not think the minister has answered it, is whether the minister is looking into the possibility-and there is some suggestion of more than a possibility- of collusion between some of the shipping companies and the men, whereby the men were granted permission to leave the ships on the very flimsy pretext that they were


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any protest from the shipping companies about the men walking off the ships? Surely the minister does not think it is enough for the Minister of Labour to send the men a wire saying that the walk-off is illegal, and then wash his hands of the affair and say it is up to the shipping companies to prosecute them, when the shipping companies themselves are part of this collusion.


Lionel Chevrier: I have received no protests, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport further to that asked by the hon. member for Red Deer, who complained of the shortage of box cars. Will the minister, in his investigation of this matter, also look at the statement of a senior C.P.R. official which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail last Friday, which has just been verified, and says that it is useless or illogical to bring in any more trainloads of grain because of a shortage of vessels?


George James McIlraith: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    INQUIRY INTO LONGSHOREMEN'S PENSION FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister say whether or not a commission of inquiry has been set up with a view to looking into the pension fund of the I.L.A.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I think I should consult the Minister of Labour to make sure that I give the right reply to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Montreal local of the I.L.A. advised the government that, unless this commission is set up at once, it will consider the strike settlement as null and
void?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to look into it.



NORRIS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he could inform the house when the house might expect the report of the special counsel, and when possible action might be taken with regard to prosecutions arising from the evidence before the Norris commission?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question on Friday, and I am afraid I cannot add anything more to what I said at that time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: In view of the absence of the Minister of Labour, who must be holding consultations with a number of delegations, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. A few weeks ago I asked a question with respect to the winter house building incentive program, namely, could the government change the date of November 30 to that of October 30 for the beginning of operations?
Has the government come to a decision, since our area is considered as economically under-developed and the weather there is particularly severe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question on Friday last and I have nothing to add to what I said at that time. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard for that day he will see the reply.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canadian university service overseas is making a positive contribution to world peace on behalf of this nation, and in view of the fact that only $132,000 has been raised to meet a budget of $180,000 to keep 130 volunteers overseas untill the end of 1963, does the minister not
Inquiries of the Ministry think that financial assistance from the federal treasury would be justified at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly put that question on the order paper.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government noted the continuing fluctuations in sugar prices and, if so, what is the government doing about it?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the house is well aware, there have been many developments in the sugar market that have raised world sugar prices, including a typhoon and other developments of a different character. The observation we have made of the course of sugar prices is that Canadian prices have simply followed world prices. There has been no extraordinary development that seems to require any other explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not so sure about that.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED CASH ADVANCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Due to the slowness in increasing quotas and the resulting hardship caused to farmers in northern Saskatchewan, would the Prime Minister let us know how soon the government will bring forward amendments to the cash advances legislation to increase advances to farmers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I will look into it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is the Minister of Agriculture?


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has any information to give the house on

Inquiries of the Ministry a matter I raised in his absence on Friday. It was as to whether the wheat board has given consideration to an early increase in the two and three bushel quotas now existing, particularly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which are far below the corresponding quotas of a year ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that the quotas are a little lower now than they were a year ago, because at the beginning of the previous season there were only 200 million bushels in storage in country elevators while on August 1 of this year there were 370 million bushels. So there was more space in the elevators last year than there is this year. Because of the large crop we had stocks on hand at the beginning of this year amounting to over 100 million bushels in excess of those on hand a year ago, and that is why quotas are opening up more slowly. I am hopeful that if our shipping difficulties are overcome quotas will open up rapidly in the future and reach much higher levels.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister look into reports I have received to the effect that cars are virtually not available at many points in northern Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to hon. members that it is now ten minutes to five and that if we are to begin consideration of the supply motion at all we have only ten minutes in which to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not often rise to make an objection, but this is not the first time Your Honour has felt it necessary to draw attention to the time when questions are being asked. It has happened two or three times before.
I often restrain myself from asking questions, but I must say with the greatest of deference to Your Honour that I see no reason under the rules for you to issue these injunctions.


POSSIBLE MARKET FOR EDIBLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has returned from his European trade mission, would he inform the house whether the reports coming from Russia are true, that besides wheat Soviet farm failures have also hit oil seed crops, and that therefore there is also a shortage of edible oils? In view of this, would the minister now direct his officials to ascertain

whether it is possible to establish in Russia a market for Canadian edible oil and edible oil seeds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to have my officials look into this matter. When I was in Europe, while I was not in the Soviet union I had an opportunity of speaking to several people who are very well informed on developments in the Soviet union, and the general view that I formed from what they said was that there were certain developments within the organization of agriculture in the Soviet union that would lead one to believe that some of their problems are not only of a temporary character. I do not know how far this may extend to oil seeds, but it does seem to affect the whole field of cereals.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING FORTHCOMING TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a statement attributed to the deputy minister that the Kennedy round of tariff cutting may have to be delayed because preparations are not proceeding smoothly. In view of widespread interest in this matter, would the minister make a statement to the house as soon as possible as to the status of these preparations, so that we may know whether reports of delay are accurate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I think it might be useful if I were to take an early opportunity of doing what the hon. member suggests. My officials and I have been in consultation, in various parts of the world, with various ministers. Others of my staff are back from Geneva. They have given me a preliminary report, and I think it might be useful if, in the near future, I were to set before the house the state of these negotiations. I know there are many industrialists in this country who have to be thinking about the advice they may be giving the government in connection with the next round of tariff negotiations, and I should like to give them as much help as possible.


GRAIN SHIPMENTS THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister look into the desirability of making a report to the house on the most recent and very disturbing situation which has prevailed with regard to grain shipments through the port of

Churchill, keeping in mind the fact that, despite the fact that insurance coverage on vessels into and out of Churchill expired only yesterday, reliable sources report that due to a lack of shipping orders only one grain vessel has been loaded in the last ten days, and this under ideal weather conditions at this very efficient port?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into this. May I say to the house that the total shipments for this year did, as I suggested they might, establish a new record for the port of Churchill.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the future minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, the Minister without Portfolio. Could he tell the house whether the government intends to set up in the near future a feed grain agency for eastern Canada, along the lines of the brief submitted to members of the house last Friday by the Catholic Farmers' Union and the Quebec Federated Co-operative?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to welcome last week, with the Minister of Agriculture, a delegation from the Catholic Farmers' Union of the province of Quebec. The suggestions made have been taken into serious consideration and the cabinet will soon decide on a policy which will then be announced in the house.


PARTICIPATION BY MINISTER IN CATTLE AUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister of Canada. Did the Minister of Agriculture inform the Prime Minister that he would participate in a cattle auction at Kingston on Tuesday last, October 15?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that an urgent question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Put it on the order paper.


CONFLICTING STATEMENTS RESPECTING PLANTING OF WHEAT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In the address which
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. gentleman delivered to the Saskatchewan farmers union on September 23 as reported in the Union Farmer he made an observation that it would be in the interest of western producers to devote less of their land to wheat than in the recent past. I should like to ask the minister if he can reconcile this advice with the statement made in Edmonton by the Minister of Agriculture on October 17, that there was an unlimited market for wheat grown by the Canadian farmer. I think the farmers would appreciate some direction as to what constitutes government policy; is it as enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or by the Minister of Agriculture?


Mitchell William Sharp: When I spoke on the subject I discussed the question of whether it would be necessary, looking ahead for some time-I was not talking about the need today, as the hon. member will see from reading the text of my remarks-to devote 27 million acres to wheat, which was the amount seeded this year, in order to supply the demand. I said in the course of my remarks that looking ahead for some years-and I did in fact project as far as 1980-one could see a large and growing demand for feed grains. In these circumstances it did seem to me that farmers, in planning for the future, might consider whether they would get more out of their land by continuing to devote as much to wheat as they did, or whether they should not consider diverting some to feed grains. That is the position I took and it is, I find, exactly the same position as was taken by the Manitoba minister of agriculture, Mr. Hutton, when he spoke in Winnipeg at the beginning of this month. He set out the same considerations.
These are the considerations one ought to bear in mind in the future, but, of course, before any advice is given to parliament the government will be considering the whole question in the light of the information which is available as we approach seeding time. I have been in Europe, and the impression I got was that the demand for wheat will continue at a fairly high level during the coming crop year. I hope that is right. If this should prove to be the case, information of this kind will be given to the farmers and to the farm organizations who will be able to make their decisions as to what to seed in the light of all the conditions and in the light of the best information we are able to place before them at the time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the minister for his statement, and I am not quarrelling with what he has said; but has he passed on that information to his colleague the Minister of
3820	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Agriculture, whose statement is wholly at variance with that just made by the hon. gentleman?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Is it government policy to dismiss from employment the wife of a young veteran, herself a veteran with five children, in a purely political move?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member's question is in order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this young woman received notice last Friday that her services would be terminated on November 4. With her ability and personality she increased the revenue of this small post office by $2,100 in one year, and she has now been notified that she is being dismissed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The bill of rights.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to put his question on the order paper he will receive a proper answer.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I wrote to the Postmaster General, but to no avail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Patronage.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is raised now because this seems to be an opportune point at which to do it. I have put several questions on the order paper, as Your Honour will probably have noticed, and have received answers to about half of them. As I understand it, the placing of questions on the order paper is for two purposes; one is to save the time of the house in asking them as verbal questions on orders of the day, and the other is to obtain information that is public information and not classified as privileged.
The answers to questions so far from the government have been very sketchy indeed.


As one example I might quote to Your Honour the answer to my question 1,272 today. The second part of that question was:
Have the plans and specifications of the project been completed and, if so, when is it intended to call for public tenders on the job?
The answer to that is "No". This is typical of a good many of the answers that have been given. Together with the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) I would ask, what is the point of asking questions unless there is going to be some effort made on the part of ministers of the crown to give more complete answers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should be permitted to say a word on the point of order, or question of privilege, whichever it is the hon. gentleman has raised.


Erik Nielsen: Privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would draw attention to the fact that the order paper shows, as anyone can see, that well over 1,100 questions have already been answered in this parliament, which must be something of a record. I might say also that the hon. gentleman's example of a question was an exceptionally poor one, because he was not asking about something that had been done, but about something that might or might not be done in the future. It seems to me there is a rule of the house that hypothetical questions should not be asked or answered.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the first part of that question was:
Does the government intend to proceed with the construction of a minimum security penal institution in the Yukon territory and, if so, where is the intended location of such institution?
The answer given to that part was complete and I am satisfied with it. But the second part of the question was:
Have the plans and specifications of the project been completed and, if so, when is it intended to call for public tenders on the job?
The answer given was "No". The answer to the third part of the question was:
It is anticipated that construction will begin in 1964, for completion in 1965.
This is an example of the incomplete answers we are getting. The Secretary of State is certainly no expert in the construction of questions. He knows, as any minister of the crown knows, what the questions mean. My questions are carefully thought out. I could ask them on the orders of the day and waste a good deal of the time of the house, just as the Secretary of State

used to do during the last session; but I am trying to co-operate, as is the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. Yet all we get is evasion and equivocation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would, I think, be too much to expect that I should not have a word to say in reply. The hon. member said he could waste the time of the house by asking questions. Surely if his questions are a waste of the time of the house they should not be asked on orders of the day, and they should not be put on the order paper either.
I may say I have here the total number of questions asked on orders of the day during the last session and in the first 70 days of this session. I find that in the session 1962-63, there were 1,705 questions asked on orders of the day. In the first 70 days of this session, the number is 2,941. So, if there is any question of wasting time, hon. members can draw their own conclusions. I have the statistics by parties, too, should anyone be interested in having them.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I was about to rise on a point of order and draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State was in no way referring to the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend from Yukon. While I am on my feet I would once again respectfully remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State has risen seven times without having been recognized by the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to say, on my question of privilege, that I am trying to co-operate with the government by putting my questions on the order paper in order to obtain information to which I feel this house and my constituents are entitled. I believe hon. members who sit on this side are entitled to do this, and the least we can expect is some kind of co-operation from the government and answers to our questions which are reasonably complete.



DELAY IN RECEIPT OF FRENCH &quot;HANSARD&quot; AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and concerns the request he made to the members of the house to help him in working out the problem of the delays in the French edition of the committee reports.
Is the Secretary of State aware that for some time now the working hours have been reduced by one hour and a half every day for the staff looking after the French debates
Inquiries of the Ministry reports at the printing bureau, that is the employees work from 11.30 p.m. until 7.30 a.m. instead of 10.30 to 8 o'clock and that, in order to save an hour and a half overtime?
Further, is the Secretary of State aware that overtime was authorized for the preparation of English Hansard and English committee reports, while there was a formal objection made as regards the French Hansard and the French committee report?
Is the Secretary of State aware that every time texts are to be printed, formal orders were given at the printing bureau that the English debates and committee reports should constantly and continually have priority over the printing of French debates and French committee reports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, not aware of any of these situations, but as one of the commissioners of internal economy I will be glad to ask my fellow commissioners, with Your Honour, to look into it.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. We have read with interest, and I would say approval, the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs made to the United Nations on October 18 condemning the South African regime for its policies of apartheid.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am coming to it, gentlemen. Does the Prime Minister or his Secretary of State for External Affairs plan in the near future to move a motion of censure against colonialism as practised in Europe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, discrimination should be condemned wherever it appears. Violation of human rights and freedoms should be condemned wherever it appears, especially, if I may say so, with respect to countries which have once known freedom and lost it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister recall, at a meeting in Toronto on March 5, 1963, promising to the ethnic press that he would do just that, in competition with the right hon. gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Although this is not a question for orders of the day, the hon. gentleman
3822	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry has misinterpreted what I said at that meeting. I would be glad to show him a transcript of my remarks.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have it right here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman and his leader made the specific statement that a resolution would be introduced to this effect. At the meeting in question I expressed the feeling that perhaps a resolution would not be the best way of going about it, because a resolution advocating this kind of liberation -which was defeated-would do more harm than good.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a question of privilege, may I read an extract as reported by the Canadian Press.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should state his question as quickly as he can.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of privilege, the right hon. gentleman as much as told me that I had misinterpreted him, and I want to put on record the exact expression quoted by the Canadian Press. It is only two sentences.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman is going to put on the record a paragraph of or an excerpt from my statement, surely I will have the right to put the whole statement on the record so far as it relates to this matter. If, Mr. Speaker, you are going to allow this to be done as a matter of privilege, a matter which should be discussed in debate, then I would expect the same right, as a question of privilege, to put on the record what I said in this regard as well as what the right hon. gentleman said. He has been mentioned by the hon. member. We can go on indefinitely doing this.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, for some reason the Prime Minister took it upon himself to say what I had said and what he had said. All the hon. gentleman wants to do, in view of that gratuitous explanation given by the Prime Minister, is to place before the house the actual facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on that point, the right hon. gentleman should listen more carefully to the statements of his followers. The hon. member for Marquette mentioned him in connection with the statement. He mentioned the statement which he had made and compared it favourably to one I was supposed to have made. That is why I brought the right hon. gentleman into it.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to reduce taxes on tobacco, as the Prime Minister promised in Joliette in the last election?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on June 3 the house passed a question of mine, No. 12, as an order for return. I have received a request from the Minister of Public Works that, because of certain limitations in connection with it, I consent to withdrawing this question. I do not quite know how this should be done, but I will withdraw the question, and I assume that this will wipe out the request for the order for return. In case anyone who follows Hansard is interested in information, I should like to put on record that I have been supplied with what I wanted from the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the order of the house dated June 3, 1963. for a return to question No. 12 be discharged.
That was the matter brought up by the hon. member for Port Arthur today and it seemed to secure the general acceptance of the house.
Motion agreed to and order discharged.



REACTION TO ANNOUNCEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister has now checked up on the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the establishment of a national power grid, of which the Prime Minister stated he knew nothing in the house last Monday. Has he now received representations from Mr. Lesage in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to check this matter with the minister, but I will do so as soon as possible.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house whether the minister of education is participating in another election today, or is he away on departmental business?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, under our constitution there cannot be a minister of education in this house.


John Alfred Irvine: I am sorry; I meant the Minister of Agriculture.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Agriculture is away on official business, as he always is when he is away from the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I asked him a question last week about certain newspaper reports in regard to the new role of the R.C.A.F., and the minister said that these reports were not official. May I ask the minister now if these reports emanated from his executive assistant, Group Captain Lee?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Certainly not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m.-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you see the clock, since it would be an injustice to the opposition, and since a supply motion is to be called, I wonder whether you could just not see the clock and have orders of the day called so we can proceed with the supply motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I try to accommodate as many people as possible, but I would call the attention of the house to standing order 15, subsection 4:
When a debate on a motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair" for the house to go into committee of supply is in progress at five o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for private members' business on that day shall be suspended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was asking, perhaps by way of unnecessary circumlocution, was that there might be unanimous consent that the house proceed with the supply motion.
Labour Relations


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



LABOUR RELATIONS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional opportunity that is provided in the House of Commons for the bringing before the house of such matters as are of importance and deserve the consideration of the house. It is historic, it is traditional and it assures a privilege that is part and parcel of parliamentary government. It enables the house to give consideration to those matters which, in the opinion of its membership, have not been dealt with in a proper or expeditious manner. Furthermore, it enables the house, where amendments are moved, to judge the government of the day on the basis of any amendment or subamendment that may be put forward.
I know that the question of confidence is one that is being discussed today in all parts of our country and even beyond. Everywhere, not only in Canada but abroad, reference is being made to the loss of confidence not only on the part of people within our own country but beyond. Indeed, in strange places arguments are being advanced that one would not have thought possible a few months ago.
I remember so well that over the years the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) used to read with becoming modesty the editorial comment in the London Economist. That fine periodical was regarded as the voice of wisdom itself. It was quoted and requoted. I have before me the issue of the London Economist of October 19, 1963, which contains an article entitled "Ottawa's Low Ebb". It reads in part as follows:
Canada is always ripe for an argument and usually for a wrong diagnosis. Scarcely recognizable as the same place of five months ago, Ottawa gives the impression today of a rudderless mess.
I am only going to quote a few brief references. The article goes on to say:
The phrase "sixty days of decision", coined for the Pearson government, was bound to blow up in the sloganmakers* faces.
The article continues:
The tragic thing is that so much of the promise of intelligent liberalism has been lost so quickly.

Labour Relations
The ardent new frontiersmen of six months ago now admit that one more mistake, a single inadvertence, must bring the government down.
This is from an international magazine that was accepted as the gospel whenever it was critical of the former government, and it was invariably produced as a witness in support of the arguments that were then used by the Liberal party. The article goes on to refer to "the depths of insecurity and indignity that Mr. Pearson's government has so quickly plumbed after all its brave noises in April".
I recommend this article to the various ministers sitting opposite. I know they will be anxious to read it. It is interesting. It talks about the situation and says:
It began six months ago with brave ideas of running Canada on a logical, centralist economic policy-with development planning, federal pensions and municipal loans-and seemed then prepared to take on a decisive struggle for federal as against provincial power. It has taken no longer than this for the provinces to see these federal pretensions off, and with no need for a struggle after Ottawa's display of political weakness.
I look at these master men opposite and I read in the Economist these words: "Display of political weakness". The article continues:
Thick planks of Liberal policy have been shattered and the effectiveness of central government in Canada, under whatever party, has been dealt a severe blow.
The rest of it is equally good reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Gloom and doom.


John George Diefenbaker: I think of the change. I think of a year and a half ago when these people opposite talked about anti-Americanism and how they were going to bring about a new day. Here is what the communique said that was issued on the 11th of May, 1963 following the meeting between President Kennedy and the Prime Minister. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister said the other day that any time he wanted to call the President on the phone he could do so. Any one of us could do that. The other side of the question is that the president does not always answer. But this was not so when they met at Hyannis Port. The honeymoon is over, but they are still speaking to one another. What did the communique say?
It was agreed that both governments should always deal in a positive and co-operative manner with developments affecting their international trade and payments.
I am not going into that because I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will be able to give the house some information in that regard.
Wise co-operation across the border can enhance rather than diminish the sovereignty of each country by making it stronger and more prosperous than before.

The Prime Minister has agreed.
On the great waters that separate and unite the two countries-the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes-it is essential that those who own and sail ships should be free to go about their lawful business without impediment or harassment.
Page Mr. Wirtz. Bring in Mr. Meany.
The Prime Minister and the President shared a common concern at the consequences that could result from industrial strife on this central waterway.
Then, come these immortal words:
The Prime Minister and the president stressed the importance of each country showing regard for the views of the other where attitudes differ. For this purpose they are arranging for more freqeur.t consultation at all levels in order that the intentions of each government may be fully appreciated by the other and misunderstanding avoided.
I am not going to go into those six misunderstandings upon which they are in complete disagreement. Then, the communique continues:
The Prime Minister and the President look forward to a period of particularly active and productive co-operation between the two countries.
What kind of co-operation has there been? What have these masterminds been able to achieve? Well, on this occasion I am going to deal with the labour situation. I begin by referring to an editorial in the Financial Post which has never been regarded as being entirely prejudiced in our favour. The editorial in the Financial Post of October 19, 1963 is entitled, "Kennedy to Meany to Hall to Banks." It reads in part as follows:
President Kennedy wants to be re-elected next year but Canadians don't like being a punching bag in his political warm-up.
Then, it says this:
But more and more the habit of pushing other people around is growing...in Washington.
I ask you to read this editorial. I am not going to read it in detail unless someone insists on having his curiosity satisfied. It says:
Take the latest example of outrageous interference-the American pressure against the Canadian government-over the labour union war on the great lakes. Belatedly, the Canadian government stepped into this mess-
This is not the same mess as was referred to in the account of the Economist; that was a mess covering everything. This is just the labour mess.
-the trustee scheme is about to be implemented. But the spectacle of the White House and the U.S. secretary of labour and whole weighty machinery of the U.S. government being gassed up to tell the Canadian government what it can and cannot do about a Canadian problem is, to say the least, unpleasant.
Now, sir, this is a most amazing change of viewpoint. A year ago, six months ago,

they said I was anti-American simply because I said Canadian policy would be determined in Canada by Canadians. This statement was ridiculed over there. I am not going to quote unless I am asked to do so, but the quotations will be complete if I am. Then, it goes on to say:
Here is the cast of characters and here is the play. Kennedy needs the labour union vote in his presidential contest next year. That means he needs the unqualified support of George Meany, the powerful head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. To protect his hide, Meany needs all the friends he can keep and so he will do anything to please Paul Hall, the very powerful international boss of the seafarers' union.
Paul Hall, in turn, very much needs the support of Hal Banks-and the money Banks gets out of his Canadian union members.
So when the U.S. secretary of labour solemnly makes an official pilgrimage to Ottawa-
-and nobody can recall that happening before.
-and when he makes public declarations telling the Canadian government what to do, he is merely doing a chore for Kennedy who wants to do a favour for George Meany, who needs Hall, who needs the notorious Hal Banks.
From Mr. Kennedy's point of view, Canada is quite unimportant. It would, in most respects, be a lot simpler for the White House and the U.S. government if we didn't exist at all as a separate country.
Then, on October 19 there is another article in this periodical which condemned us for being anti-American because we dared to say to the United States: "We will co-operate with you; we are together facing the problem of maintaining freedom. We have done our part all over the world, but we are going to determine our policies on the basis of Canadian needs." On October 19, 1963, the Financial Post has an article captioned "White House now think Canada is just a nuisance." How has this come about? One has only needed to follow the action taken by this government in connection with the labour dispute on the great lakes to realize how uncertain has been the attitude of this government, how desirous of taking the easy course. I expected that today the Prime Minister would be announcing some action. However, we received the same reply: Tomorrow, just wait until tomorrow. When we asked him today, what are you going to do, he replies: Tomorrow. John Macdonald used to have that name, old man tomorrow.
When I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the international longshoremen, he said he had no information. However, the telegram was sent to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) at 12.11 a.m. A summary of the telegram is this: The International Longshoremen's Union says that if the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) does
Labour Relations
not set up immediately a commission of inquiry into the pension fund, they will consider the strike settlement null and void. I point out that was the main issue of the strike, and an inquiry was promised by Judge Lippe. I asked the Prime Minister about that very serious matter and he said he had no information but would look it up. This telegram was sent to the government on Friday, at twelve noon, at a time when there is a challenge in all Canadian ports, at least most of them, to shipping.


Mr. Deschatelets:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman just said that a few days ago a telegram was sent to me.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not mention the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, you did.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon; it was the Minister of Labour. I thank the hon. gentleman because that was just a slip. I was going to deal with him a little later, and I suppose public works came to my mind. There is a minister from the city of Montreal. I wonder whether or not he knew about the telegram? The Prime Minister, the head of the government, did not. There is the possibility of the settlement of the strike being broken, but the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. Today he says: "Tomorrow you will get the information."
I am not going to deal with anything other than this labour situation, because it reveals the inherent weakness of the government, diplomatic postponement, promises of action, and looking for the easy way. I repeat what I have said before, that if the government had acted early in August, and it had the support of parliament, many of today's difficulties would have been avoided. But what did the Prime Minister or his colleagues in the cabinet say?-and it must be remembered that he is the one responsible for them. They said, "We cannot do it; it is very difficult legislation." Well, we have read the trustee legislation and there is nothing very difficult in the wording or drafting of it.
If you follow the record of this government that used to tell us what it would do and how decisive it would be, you can only conclude that on the labour situation, dangerous to the economic position of our country, its record has been a syllabus of pusillanimous pussy-footing for the last several months. The members of the government have dallied on and on; they have postponed; they have been timid, but their timidity masqueraded as diplomatic definance. It has been an amazing picture.
The government decided it would ask the President of the United States for some help.

Labour Relations
It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, if we had a blow by blow description of that conversation. I am speaking about the one between the Prime Minister and the President, after the President waited several hours overnight before he would take the phone. The Prime. Minister said, "I can call him at any time-"


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that is a false statement. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will accept that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman, who has been prime minister of this country, makes a statement which has been branded as false, then the right hon. gentleman should accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a question of privilege. This is an old game.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I did not hear the point which was sought to be made by the right hon. Prime Minister, so it was a little difficult for me to determine if there was a question of privilege. I could rule on that if I heard the point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will make it quite clear what the question of privilege is. The right hon. gentleman has made a statement which I have already designated in the house as false, and which was accepted as such by the house. Now the right hon. gentleman is reiterating that statement today. He has no right to do that, and surely he knows it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is an old game, to call it privilege. There is no privilege in that. I am giving the interpretation as to what happened. I asked him whether he called the President and he answered that he tried to get him on Friday evening. The President was not answering, even though the Prime Minister had said he could call the President at any time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that statement happens to be false and I ask the right hon. gentleman to accept my denial. Surely a man who has been prime minister of this country is not going to continue to repeat falsehoods in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking of falsity, I remember this same man who is Prime Minister today; I remember all the things he uttered both before and during the election campaign. He is the one who speaks about falsity, but the record is clear as can be when it comes to falsity. He is giving me a lecture today, but may I point out to him that the other day in this house he said, "How cheap can you get"?
He would lecture us on the proprieties. I only wish I had a copy of some of his speech on September 18,	1962, when he spoke
language that the leader of any party should not use. Yet he tries to parade as one who is just so nice. When you listen to him on the radio you would think that there but for-[DOT] you know what Churchill said about Sir Stafford Cripps.
I repeat what I have said, and it cannot be denied factually. I know it touches his finer sensibilities because after all, Mr. Speaker, you remember this magnificent document, the extracts from the joint communique to which I have just referred. You have just to look over this period of five or six months to understand why he feels annoyed.
They were going to co-operate together. Then this government plastered the United States with a 30 per cent sales tax on shares purchased externally, but it had to back down. Then members of the government went over to the United States and they were going to bring about a reduction in the amount of automobile parts imported by Canada from the United States. That was part of their policy, but again they backed down. I have read the statement which the minister made the day before yesterday, and it is quite different from what he said previously.
Then there is the labour question, and also the cancellation of an order by the United States department of defence for Canadian aircraft. All this happened in this period of a new heaven and a new earth that were going to be brought about by the change of government.
Sir, there is no help from the United States in this labour difficulty, because Mr. Kennedy needs votes. I heard that on the radio from the United States within the last few hours, and over the week end there was a meeting of labour men in western Ontario who concluded they could expect very little co-operative support from the United States in controlling this situation on the great lakes because the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is a body whose support is needed by the President of the United States.

The record has been one of worsening relations from the very beginning of the government's tenure of office. The ministers have been theorizing as to what they were going to do economically and otherwise. We have had political cackle masquerading as economic wisdom, and having to be withdrawn. That has been the record all the way along.
It is natural that, with all this running back and forth by the government, the Washington administration should think anything they would do would be acceptable. Well, what has taken place? I know how the backbenchers in the Liberal party think about it. They had a caucus the other day and I am told the private members wanted a larger voice in the government.


An hon. Member:: They might do better.


John George Diefenbaker: Well it could not be made any worse.
The record in this labour situation has been frightful. Today when we asked questions, and knowing there was going to be a supply motion, the answers given us were, "We will give you full information tomorrow." Wait until tomorrow has been the promise all the way since last August. The government tried everything and finally brought the trusteeship legislation before parliament. Parliament did not hold it up. It approved the legislation almost unanimously, only four members having disagreement with some matter or other and not giving it support. The legislation was passed; but now there is further delay and the excuse has been that the government was wishing for some system to be arranged whereby the legislation, distasteful as it is, would not have to be brought into effect. Well, Mr. Meany has given his views on the whole situation. In his release he condemns what has been done in Canada. He says:
A subsequent one-man commission of inquiry appointed by the Canadian government became the vehicle for a vitriolic and vengeful attack upon the S.I.U. of Canada and its leadership.
Then he says:
In an effort to avert such legislation and to reach an acceptable solution, there have been exchanges between the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Canadian Labour Congress, the United States secretary of labour and the Canadian ministry of labour. We have co-operated fully-
He is speaking of his organization:
-in an effort to reach agreement on a proposal whereby a voluntary joint A.F.L.-C.I.O. and C.L.C. trusteeship would be established over the seafarers international union of Canada. Such a trusteeship would have full and complete authority over the officers and operations of the union and would function with the complete support of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and its international affiliate, the S.I.U. of North America.
Labour Relations
Then he says:
These discussions failed because of disagreement on two basic issues:
The first was composition of the trusteeship. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. was prepared to accept a two-man trusteeship, one person to be designated by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and one by the C.L.C., with the provision that in the event of any disagreement between them, the issue would be referred to a four-man committee composed of the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the president of the Canadian Labour Congress the United States secretary of labour and the Canadian ministry of labour.
We could not get this information in this house. We have to get it from Mr. Meany in a report to his representatives across the United States. Then he goes on to say this:
The Canadian Labour Congress would not agree to this proposal. They insisted that the joint trustees turn directly to a third party in the event of a disagreement and that this third party must be a Canadian national.
Then he goes on and condemns this plan in general, and finally concludes by saying:
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is just as opposed to the gov-erment control of unions in Canada as in Honduras or Peru or any other place on earth.
They played around with these people, and while they played our economy was in danger of being throttled. They secured a tremendous order from the U.S.S.R. It was very obvious when I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) today, when he spoke of the advice he had given two months ago to the western farmers, that he had no idea that Russia was going to be in the market for wheat. They came over here and entered into an agreement, and I think they surprised the government by their offer to purchase.
We now face a very serious situation. We ask, "What are you going to do about it?" We receive the same answer as we received in July and August. There is always an excuse; some other thing is going to be done. They got parliament to put through the legislation and then decided they would play around with it and take the easy course.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The politically expedient course.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been the course throughout. Today we face a serious, a dangerous situation. I say immediately that our attitude in this opposition throughout has been not to take political advantage of the government in this difficult matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We voted for the legislation. How much further could we go? We supported the legislation, recognizing at the same time the fact that it was legislation of a kind that should only be very temporary and that the only reason for bringing it in was the fact that there was no other course

Labour Relations
open. The Conservative party, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has in the past two or three months on this particular matter, and on other matters too-but I am speaking about labour now-done nothing to take partisan advantage of the government's action. I was glad today to have the assurance that at last they have come to a realization that this board should be Canadian. That is what we were asking for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They did not think that a few weeks ago, or even a few days ago. We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition will at all times support the government in any action that upholds the sovereignty of parliament and the independence of Canada against outside interference. That is the stand we took. For two years we were criticized and ridiculed by those who now occupy the treasury benches. They said, "Isn't the situation terrible? We will bring about"-and I repeat this because it was the picture put before the Canadian people-"that new heaven and that new earth". Relations with the United States were going to be the epitome of perfection. It has been a most sorry, sorry record. They were going to bring about an Atlantic union

that was the first thing they were going to do-and the New York Times says they have adopted a protectionism that will set back the Atlantic union for years to come.
These were the people who were going to co-operate and who said we were so wrong in daring to say that Canada would determine its own policies. Sir, dawdling accompanied by tranquilizing statements has been the record of this government for the last three months on this question. Their attitude has been to play around, postpone and hope that something will come up. We tried to warn them in August. Do you remember what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said? He said that the mere announcement of the legislation to provide a trusteeship would, he hoped, bring about peace on the great lakes. There was two months delay, giving the opposition to the government's policy time to organize. What would you expect, when the government of Canada had announced that if there was anything of a tyrannical nature on the great lakes parliament would be recalled? A Canadian ship was dynamited. Nothing was done about it. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. This government fiddled, hoping for an easy solution. They showed weakness, uncertainty.


An hon. Member:: Fumbling and bungling.


John George Diefenbaker: They used to talk about bungling. I give you exhibit No. 1 in the

person of the Prime Minister. They called in American officials. Mr. Wirtz came here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Gloom and doom.


John George Diefenbaker: He tried to put pressure on Canada. I asked the Prime Minister about this, and he said, "Oh, no; the statement he made was not that". This was the first statement Wirtz made. They always took the easy way out. What was the result of all this? The result was that in the United States it was taken for granted that this was a government that could be pushed around with impunity and ease. They were pushed easily. Meany and Paul Hall were met with trepidation and timidity. You cannot blame them across the line for not taking Canada seriously. Had there been a 30-minute display of firmness at the beginning, an unmistakeable determination to act, all this would have been avoided. After all, in facing up to Hal Banks, diplomatic give and take is not one of the elements he understands as being evidence of strength.
Now what have we got? We have the promise from the Prime Minister: Wait until tomorrow. We have a situation today bordering on anarchy in Canada. Political considerations have no place here when there is anywhere in this nation a desire to supplant parliamentary legislation, right, and order on the part of any group within this country of ours. The Globe and Mail said this morning that the government had been trying to find the easy way out. It has not worked out very well. Tomorrow we shall learn what is what. It has been the same all the way along the line. Hon. gentlemen opposite have wrecked our relations with the provinces. The pension plan is now shelved. There was the budget fiasco; the auto parts which were going to be produced here in Canada. In all these things, the government has not acted. Many bulletins go out telling us what it is hoped to accomplish. What has taken place has imperilled our wheat shipments-shipments which will mean so much to the economy and to the balance of payments situation. What this government has done has caused lasting damage to our relations, economically, with the United States. I call as my witness the Canadian-American committee; and it is interesting to note that Donald Gordon was one of the signatories to a report in which it is pointed out that damage has been done to our relations by the action taken.
How has the government acted today? I was not one of those who had a visitation today. Somebody told me there was a sign carried by someone representing Prince Albert. Well, the only relationship Prince

Albert has had with the maritime scene is that the last naval battle fought in North America was fought 25 miles outside Prince Albert. Apart from that, we have no relation with what is going on in the shipping world, except in so far as the economy is directly affected. What did the Minister of Labour do? He made a statement today. It must have been produced in a great hurry because it does not contain all the decorations which are usual in such statements. It is just a simple, mimeographed record. I shall say this to the minister: I think he has tried very hard to do the very best. I do not agree with the course he has followed, but he is one who has given answers when we have asked questions of him, and that is something. He was away today, otherwise the Prime Minister would not have been answering questions and given us this indefinite answer, "tomorrow".
What was said? The federal government on October 20 ordered the seafarers international union to call off its walkout. Listen to this, for direct language:
You and the officials of your union must be aware of the fact that the directives issued in instruction bulletin No. 1 by the seaman's rights committee contravened the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act through taking illegal strike action during the term of agreement.
The government of Canada demands that you and other members of the executive board obey the law of Canada and direct all members of your union to return immediately to their ships and to resume work.
I do not know what their answer to that would be, but I do know they have had experience in the last few months.
The Minister of Justice had two outstanding lawyers look into the question of what prosecutions could take place. Mr. Justice Norris said this person should be prosecuted-referring to Banks-and the lawyers have been taking months to determine whether there could be any prosecution. First, there was a preliminary report on the subject. We asked for its production and I cannot argue with hon. gentlemen opposite when they say the document is not producible. But it shows the weakness, the temporizing, of this government. Mr. Justice Norris said grave offences had been committed by Banks. Mr. Justice Norris is a judge of wide experience at the bar. But no action was taken. Why? I do not intend to repeat the close relationship, the filial regard shown between the Liberal party and Mr. Banks. But Mr. Banks has not been prosecuted, unless, tomorrow, we are told so after this motion has been dealt with.
The minister was asked: "What are you going to do?" I am reading from the article in the Globe and Mail by Bernard Dufresne:
Labour Relations
Asked what would happen if Mr. Banks does not order his membership to return to work, Mr. MacEachen said with a short chuckle: "We'll have to wait and see. There are a number of sanctions that may be taken by the companies and the government."
This is the kind of decisiveness we have had-chuckles and postponements. Today, the Prime Minister says: Wait until tomorrow. This must have put the fear of retribution into the hearts of all those who have read it today. They gathered here on parliament hill. A Canadian citizen has a right to bring his views to the attention of parliament. This right has existed as far back as 1623 or 1624-the right of petition. They gathered here, and the minister made a statement. It reads as follows:
You have been told that the new trusteeship law will harm you, your jobs and your unions. This is a false statement. Unions often establish their own trusteeships. It was hoped this could be done in the present situation. When this proved impossible, government action had to be taken.
It goes on to mention the powers of the trustees and what rights the unions have. Then it says:
The members of the maritime transportation unions are asked to co-operate fully with the trustees in carrying out their responsibilities.
Tomorrow's sun never yet rose or set on any human being. Tomorrow, there is to be action, the Prime Minister said. Think of all the tomorrows that have gone by since July 25. This has been a history of indecision, confusion and uncertainty. On August 2, as reported at page 2943 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
It would be impossible in the circumstances to have this difficult and complicated legislation prepared within a matter of weeks. It may require a strict examination of the constitutionality of the legislation, and it might mean getting in touch with the provincial governments concerned-
An examination of that bill reveals little of those elements of complexity or consultative difficulty which were referred to. A little further on he said:
I hope very much that the indication that this legislation is being prepared and will be made effective will hold the situation during the summer.
Well, "tomorrow" came with the dynamiting of the Howard L. Shaw, a Canadian ship.
At the same page in Hansard I asked the Prime Minister, regarding this report which was released on July 18:
-would the Prime Minister give consideration to bringing before the house before the adjournment the legislation to which reference was made yesterday.. .Otherwise there may well be an invitation to further lawlessness and disorder and a tie-up of shipping-

Labour Relations
But no; the reply was that the next day the house would adjourn and we would come back it there was any trouble.
On September 30 the Minister of Labour said, as reported at page 3026 of Hansard:
-I think I should tell the house in all fairness that I have some faint hope that if we get a break in the next short time we may be in a different position in several days, but at the moment the decision is to proceed at the earliest possible opportunity, having given the necessary notice, with the trusteeship legislation.
Again that tortuous uncertainty, that postponement, that waffling; that is what it has been all the way along throughout the entire course. Today I thought we would get an answer. On October 3 the Minister of Labour said, as reported at page 3150 of Hansard:
I can assure the hon. member that our purpose in this situation is to establish an effective alternative if possible.
Negotiations were going on. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that all these peregrinations back and forth were calculated to impress the United States with the government's intention and determination to go ahead with the Norris recommendations? They brought Mr. Reynolds to Canada, as the Minister of Labour said, as a result of a request made to the secretary of labour in the United States. Mr. Wirtz came to Canada on September 11 to express his opposition, and Mr. Reynolds gave his views later on. It is just impossible to understand what has taken place. I suppose that only history will reveal everything that took place.
Under all the circumstances, therefore, I think it is clear that I intend to move an amendment-not wait until tomorrow, although welcoming, as we do at last, an attitude of action on the part of this government, rather than one of putting off, waffling, postponing, and using the phone, even though not answered. It is today when we are in parliament. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This government, because of its confusion, inconsistency and pusillanimous dawdling and delays in taking effective action has encouraged chaos approaching anarchy to develop on the great lakes, the seaway, and in several Canadian ports, thereby causing disruption in shipping and the placing in jeopardy of essential trade in general, and in particular contracts for delivery of wheat to foreign countries."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right hon. gentleman for adding a little light hearted relief at the end of what has been a very difficult, trying and worrying afternoon. It is
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
very good of him to move the kind of amendment which gives us the chance to relax a little bit. I want to congratulate him on finding some new words for the amendment. Our favourite words use to be "fumbling and bumbling". The right hon. gentleman hit upon a new phrase, I think new in the history of parliament-"pusillanimous dawdling". I am grateful to him for, as I said, giving us a little comic relief at the end of a difficult time.
The right hon. gentleman certainly covered the waterfront this afternoon. He told us at one stage, Mr. Speaker, of his interesting discourse, that he was going to deal with labour matters, but he got on to Russia, to Hyannis Port and to the last election. He covered every kind of activity he could think of which, in his view, might reflect on what has been done. But of all the amusing things he said, the most amusing was when he put solemnly on the record the statement that political considerations have no place in this serious situation with which we are dealing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in moving his non-confidence motion, which has already been put on the record with its interesting adjectives, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) told us he was going to deal with the labour situation, which is admittedly now difficult in some aspects and could, I admit, become dangerous. In view of the nature of the situation which we face I think we might have expected from him a careful, objective analysis of that situation but, as hon. members who were here will recall, we got a violent, partisan harangue most of which, if I may use the expression, was partisan claptrap. It was another illustration of the right hon. gentleman's determination to direct the opposition by innuendo, insult and invective.


Mr. Churchill:: That is claptrap.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It included much of the language of wild exaggeration. We were told that the country was on the verge of anarchy. We on this side were accused-I suppose I should apologize for repeating the phrase- of pusillanimous dawdling. I want to congratulate the right hon. gentleman's research

staff on having dug that one up. We were accused of pusillanimous dawdling, Mr. Speaker, by the greatest dawdler of them all.
The successful effort to restore communications with our neighbour, the United States, which had been completely broken by the end of the last regime, was sneered at. I recall that the joint defence committee had not met for a very long time under the previous administration, that the trade and economic committee had practically ceased to function, and that the heads of government in the two countries had not communicated with each other. The right hon. gentleman seems unable to conceal his chagrin that all this has now changed.
He is very worried because of my alleged difficulties in getting the President of the United States on the telephone. This really seems to disturb him. I have had no such difficulties, but the right hon. gentleman will recall that in the last month of his regime the line was completely out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suppose we really ought to be charitable to him in his reaction of envy and chagrin at the changed situation in regard to communications.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad the right hon. gentleman has retained his sense of humour.


John George Diefenbaker: He just looks across the way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is, of course, very important to have this direct communication between the heads of two governments whose relations are so important to each other, and must continue to be on the best possible footing. Not only is it important, it should be normal for this kind of communication to be in existence. It is only an abnormal situation when communications are broken and are non-existent. It is deplorable when that happens in the relations between our two governments and our two countries, and even more deplorable when a senior member of his party has to descend to the depths that have been descended to in putting a forged communication on the record in order to stir up trouble between our two countries. We are going to have enough difficulty in the days and weeks and months ahead in solving the problems that face our two countries without adding to that difficulty by that kind of tactic.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman indulged in what I can only refer to as a kind of gloating and mocking accusation of loss of confidence in Canada abroad, in the United States and other countries. He quoted
Labour Relations
in support of that accusation from the Economist. He is quite right that I used to quote the Economist in reverse against his government, and the same man who wrote those articles in the Economist in those days wrote the article from which he quoted this afternoon. I admit that this man takes just about as jaundiced a view of this government as he took of the previous one-not quite as jaundiced but almost as jaundiced.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is the writer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the right hon. gentleman takes satisfaction from this particular correspondent's article I am happy to let him get all the satisfaction he can out of it. Of course, if we wanted to indulge in this game of quotation and cross-quotation it would be quite simple to find articles on the other side. During the dinner recess I happened to pick up the Financial Times. The staff correspondent in Ottawa of the Financial Times, a journalist of experience and repute, had this to say in his article this week:
U.S.-Canada relations are a long way from being on the rocks. On the contrary, newspaper scare headlines only underscore the fact that the two countries are making real efforts to come to terms on matters of genuine concern to both. And they are having some success.
That is from the current edition of the Financial Times.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about the Financial Post?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am unable to hear all these interventions from that corner, but after tomorrow those members will be a little closer to me and I will be able to deal with them. I cannot help but add that on this question of loss of confidence in Canada abroad the right hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon speaks with the authority of personal experience. There is no doubt, of course, that since this government took office it has made mistakes. Unlike the right hon. gentleman and his regime, we do not claim infallibility or omniscience.


An hon. Member:: You had all the answers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But if everything is as bad as the right hon. gentleman indicated it was this afternoon, and if the people of the country feel as he indicated they do feel, that it is so bad, why does the right hon. gentleman not work harder to bring about a situation where he will be able to appeal to the country and get a verdict? Why is he so very careful on every division in this house to make sure there are enough of his members outside that we cannot be defeated?


Erik Nielsen: How about your own members?

Labour Relations


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, if our members stay out of the house, that proves exactly what I have been suggesting to the right hon. gentleman, that we are worried, that we are anxious to stay in office to do our job, and if we stay out of the house it then gives the hon. gentleman a better chance to defeat us. This means he has to keep even more of his members out of the house to avoid that unhappy situation, from his point of view.
If, Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman so passionately claims, the only fault of his government in the field of foreign affairs and Canadian-United States relations was standing up for Canada, if that was their only fault, standing up for Canada, as any government would stand up for Canada, why was it that his own cabinet collapsed over that very issue and some of his senior colleagues deserted him? If I were the right hon. gentleman, I would be very careful not to revive these unhappy memories of a collapsing cabinet caused, in large part, by relations which had been allowed to deteriorate between Canada and the United States, especially in the field of defence.
This afternoon, the right hon. gentleman said he was going to talk about the labour situation. He discussed the labour situation in international terms and its international implications, especially those bearing on our relations with the United States, in a way designed to stir up the maximum of animosity with our neighbours, and with a minimum of reasoned argument. Let us have a look at the position both in respect of what this government has tried to do-


An hon. Member:: What about the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you let him speak?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and in respect of what the right hon. gentleman said he would have done if he had had the responsibility of office. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) will deal with this matter in greater detail, if he has the opportunity tomorrow; but I should like to make one or two comments about it because it is indeed a serious situation and serious charges have been levelled at the government about the way in which they dealt with it. The burden of the right hon. gentleman's argument is that the government should have acted last session, towards the end of July or the beginning of August; that they should have acted at once, without delay, in a matter of hours or at the most days, to put into effect a public trusteeship which would have taken over certain Canadian maritime unions and brought them under government trusteeship; in other words, that this government should have intervened at

once, without seeking any alternative course, to bring the five unions under government trusteeship.


John George Diefenbaker: They were all willing but one, were they not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were all willing but one. The egg was 95 per cent fresh.
Then, the right hon. gentleman sneered at the argument put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and others that a certain time was required to make sure that the legislation as drafted would stand up in the courts; would be perfectly sound from every point of view, and especially from a constitutional point of view. If the right hon. gentleman thinks, as he professes to think, that the drafting of this legislation was a simple matter which could have been worked out in a day or two, he does not know anything about its complexity. I wish very much he could submit this question to a committee, have the officials of the Department of Justice brought before this committee where they could be examined on the difficulties in drafting this kind of legislation, on the difficulties in making sure that what we put before this parliament would not conflict with provincial jurisdiction in the field of property and civil rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we had also to relate this particular legislation to my hon. friend's pet piece of legislation, the bill of rights. Also a great many union contracts had to be examined very carefully to make sure that the trusteeship set up, if it had to be set up by the government, would have sufficient power to do the thing that had to be done, that is clean up the situation in this union as it was disclosed in the Norris report and in accordance with certain Norris recommendations. Quite rightly, therefore, we took the necessary time to make sure that the legislation was sound.
While this legislation was being drafted, and it took a few weeks to get this done in the right way, we then proceeded to see if there were some satisfactory alternative to the government having to take this power and establish, what I think most hon. members will consider to be, an undesirable precedent. The right hon. gentleman would not have done that. He would not have sought any other alternative. He would have plunged right in with government trusteeship, irrespective of the wishes of everybody, including the Canadian Labour Congress. While the legislation was being drafted, indeed while the legislation was going through the house, the government had established through the Minister of Labour, whose work I think in this matter is to be commended, the closest possible co-operation with the Canadian

Labour Congress and maintained that cooperation right up until this moment. This co-operation would have been abandoned by the right hon. gentleman if he had his way, because he would have rushed in at once, without any delay, into government trusteeship, irrespective of the wishes of the Canadian Labour Congress.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Did not the C.L.C. and Mr. Jodoin say, immediately the Norris report came down, that while he, as was everybody, was anxious to avoid trusteeship, he would give his co-operation and support to it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, he did; and Mr. Jodoin said while he was not anxious for trusteeship he would work with the government to try to And an alternative to the trusteeship. The right hon. gentleman would have given him no such opportunity, if he had been in office.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He would have insisted on public trusteeship at once. Never mind the necessity for care, but rush in. He would have said: Never mind whether there could be a better alternative than public trusteeship; let the government charge ahead and take over these labour unions. Never mind whether there is any hope of agreeing on a private solution with the approval of the Canadian Labour Congress, but rush ahead. Never mind what the consequences are in Canada, and never mind the consequences in relation to the United States.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this government rejected that course and we are glad that we did. We worked with the Canadian Labour Congress, we encouraged them and supported them in every way we could in getting in touch with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you get in touch with Mr. Wirtz?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman has made a great play about the fact we on this side of the line, through the C.L.C., and indeed through the government, got in touch with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the government of the United States in respect of a matter which was basically Canadian, but which had very important and dangerous international implications.
The right hon. gentleman does not mind that. He would rush ahead-"damn the torpedoes"-straight ahead with legislation. We thought it was better to see if we could
Labour Relations
work out through negotiations between the Canadian Labour Congress and the A.F.L.-C.I.O., with the support of the United States government and the Canadian government, a private trusteeship which would be satisfactory from the Canadian viewpoint and which would make unnecessary government intervention in this matter.
From the very beginning the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian government insisted that no such private trusteeship would be satisfactory unless two out of the three trustees were Canadians. The right hon. gentleman made great play with the fact that for the first time this afternoon he learned that in a public trusteeship we were going to have three Canadians. This was a remarkable discovery on his part, that a Canadian government public trusteeship was to have three Canadians.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there never was any question in anybody's mind that in a public trusteeship the three trustees would have to be Canadians; but in a private trusteeship, if it were to be effective for maintaining and securing peace on the great lakes on the American side, in our view it was not too high a price to pay for that through an agreement which would make it possible, to have one of the three trustees a United States citizen. If, as a result of that kind of trusteeship with that kind of membership, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. could give us an assurance that Canadian ships, manned by Canadian seamen under this kind of trusteeship arrangement, would not be interfered with on the great lakes and in American ports, surely that was not too high a price to pay for that kind of agreed arrangement between the two labour organizations of the two countries.
That is what we tried to bring about, and in all these negotiations the Canadian Labour Congress was clear, and we were clear, that two of the three trustees had to be Canadians. In the first stages that was one of the reasons that the negotiations broke down.
Another condition we laid down from the beginning was that a private trusteeship must have sufficient authority to clean up the S.I.U. in Canada. There could be no question about that. It must have sufficient authority to do the job that was required to be done whether by a government trusteeship or a private trusteeship, in accordance with certain recommendations of the Norris report.
The negotiations became very difficult. They became almost impossible when the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Mr. Meany, made what has been described by many hon. members inside the house, and outside the house, as a shocking statement which represented complete ignorance of Canadian affairs and a shocking intervention in Canadian affairs. If it were

Labour Relations
done entirely through ignorance perhaps he is not as open to condemnation as it it were done by calculation, but in any event it was a mischievous intervention which made it extremely difficult to make any progress.
Mr. Wirtz, the secretary of labour, who had been working hard and conscientiously to bring about a kind of meeting of minds with his opposite number, the Minister of Labour, so that a private trusteeship would be agreeable to both countries, then made what I described as an unhelpful intervention-and it certainly was-but it was not designed to be harmful or deliberately mischievous. In any event, the negotiations were on the point of breaking down on this issue of membership after the intervention of Mr. Meany, which in a sense was an incitement to disobey any trusteeship. So, in those circumstances I thought it might be useful if I got in touch with the President of the United States and asked for his intervention, to see if we could get negotiations restored on the only basis where there was possibility of success, namely that there should be a clear understanding about the composition of a private trusteeship and about its authority and powers.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman said the president was not helpful in this matter. I would say that we got a great deal more help from the President of the United States in this matter than we got from the right hon. gentleman who, day after day, kept demanding details of the negotiations while negotiations were going on, knowing perfectly well that if you give the details of your negotiation in the middle of negotiations you have much less chance of coming to a successful agreement. But that did not deter the right hon. gentleman from trying to probe for details such as, "How many times did you phone the president; how quickly did he answer the phone"? And the right hon. gentleman got so upset over the allegation that somehow or other President Kennedy did not answer the phone quickly enough that it moved him to national indignation.


John George Diefenbaker: They tell me the Prime Minister was awfully annoyed, too, when he did not answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a result of President Kennedy's intervention and my talk with him, the negotiations were resumed. They were resumed in good faith by the Canadian Labour Congress, and with the support and the approval of the government. They were resumed in the hope that we could-even at that late time when the bill had passed the House of Commons, was going to the Senate and would shortly be given royal assent- work out a private trusteeship before the

legislation was proclaimed, a private trusteeship which would clean up the conditions exposed by the Norris report in the S.I.U. of Canada, a branch of an international union, something which gave the international headquarters in the United States some standing on the matter; and second, an arrangement which would receive the formal support of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and which would ensure that Canadian shipping in United States lake ports would not be interfered with or harassed.
While these resumed negotiations were proceeding and encouraging progress was being made, Mr. Hal Banks ordered from their ships members of his union, and organized the march on Ottawa which took place today. The first act, Mr. Speaker, was illegal, and the second-notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman said about it this afternoon as a vindication of the historic rights of the citizen to petition his member of parliament- I believe was an effort to bring unjustifiable pressure on the government with respect to legislation which had passed through this house and the Senate, and had received the royal assent.
In the face of this illegal action the Canadian Labour Congress decided yesterday that it was useless, and indeed from their point of view improper, to continue negotiations. The government understands and supports the position which they took.
We have done everything we can on this side to make unnecessary a public trusteeship over Canadian unions through legislation. We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this could have been avoided by satisfactory private arrangements. The illegal action taken by Mr. Hal Banks and the S.I.U., and the refusal of the
S.I.U. international in the United States to do anything to prevent this-as they could have done because they knew what was happening-leaves the government with no alternative but to proceed without delay to proclaim the act putting the public trusteeship into effect, and this is what we propose to do.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We propose to do this far more quickly than was the case with my hon. friends opposite, when they took any action in respect of any situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We must show that Canada, and free and responsible trade unionism in Canada, is bigger than Mr. Banks-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and that a Canadian government is not going to be intimidated by the

illegal action and pressure of one who has destroyed democratic government in his own union. This morning, Mr. Speaker-the prime minister is going to be very disappointed about this-I rang up the White House again and I got through-


John George Diefenbaker: The prime minister is going to be disappointed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make the right hon. gentleman feel a little better. As long as he pursues the kind of tactics that he pursued this afternoon, in the face of a dangerous national situation, he is going to be over on that side for a long, long, long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore I think it is only fair once in a while to remind him that he was once prime minister. I telephoned the President this morning-he had the secretary of labour with him at the White House-and told him that the illegal and, as I thought it was, provocative action that was going on in Ottawa at the moment I was telephoning made it quite impossible for the Canadian Labour Congress to continue in negotiation with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. about a private trusteeship. I added that I thought this was particularly unfortunate because those negotiations had been so close to agreement.
I told the president we were distressed by recent developments but that we must support the position, and we would support the position, taken by the Canadian Labour Congress. They could not be expected to discuss matters in the face of this kind of pressure, and therefore the government had no alternative now but to proclaim its legislation putting a public trusteeship into effect.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I told the president that it was of the greatest possible importance now, more important than anything else facing us at this moment-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What did the president say?
Mr- Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend, who has nothing to do but interrupt in this house and who has made quite a reputation for himself as a stupid interrupter, would be good enough to keep quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Intelligent heckling is to be welcomed, but asinine assertions are to be condemned.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this a testimony on your part?
28902-5-244
Labour Relations


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I still ask, what did the President say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I told the President that it was of the greatest possible importance now to persuade the United States A.F.L.-C.I.O. to accept the legislation that was being passed in Canada, in respect of its impact on the United States side of the line, and prevent violence on the United States side of the great lakes against Canadian ships once this legislation is in effect. Otherwise we would be in for serious trouble, which I am sure nobody on either side of the line wants, except a few ill-meaning people who would like to stir up trouble.
The objective of the government is to have the public trusteeship end-and I told the president this-as quickly as possible, and the reorganized and cleaned up union returned to the officers chosen by the workers themselves. But I said this would be difficult and would certainly be delayed if the wrong reaction occurred in A.F.L.-C.I.O. circles and showed itself in harassment of Canadian ships at United States lake ports. So I urged Mr. Kennedy to do what he could to prevent this happening. The President told me, I would tell the right hon. gentleman who has been so unhelpful in this matter in his contribution to good neighbourliness, that he will do what he can.


An hon. Member:: Did he promise?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He said he will do what he can to prevent this kind of-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What did he say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -reaction; and if he does, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will be very disappointed indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the right hon. gentleman answer as to what the President
said?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's right, what did the
President say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, they are so passionately interested in the details of this conversation that I will tell them what the President said. He said he regretted the necessity for this action, but he understood the necessity and he would do all he could to avoid any impact which would cause trouble between our two countries. It is too bad that the right hon. gentleman should be so disappointed by this kind of response from the President.


John George Diefenbaker: We are all glad he
answered the 'phone this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have had a demonstration today in Ottawa. I believe that a good many of those who were here have some misunderstanding about the nature of the legislation

Labour Relations
and the effect it will have on trade unions in Canada. We as members of parliament have done what we can on this side, in the interviews we have had with the delegates of the demonstration, to correct some of the misunderstandings and remove some of the misapprehension that is obviously in the minds of certain of the members of the S.I.U. who came to Ottawa.
They have been told by their leadership that the new trusteeship law will harm them, harm their jobs and harm their union. That is a false statement. The new law will protect seamen and their unions by seeking to ensure that union affairs are conducted honestly and decently. Seamen are protected under the new law from any high handed action which interferes with their democratic rights either from within or from outside their unions. The trustees to be named under the legislation are required, (1) to protect the funds and property of the unions from being misused; (2) to recommend changes in the constitutions and bylaws of the unions, which will ensure democratic control of the unions by their members, and no such changes can be made without the approval of the members; (3) the trustees are required to establish advisory committees of seamen and, where necessary, bargaining committees. They are required to establish means whereby union members may manage their affairs efficiently and democratically. Members of the unions concerned have nothing to fear from the trusteeship imposed under this legislation.
The act has been passed by parliament and has been given the royal assent. When it is proclaimed and in effect, it will have the constructive purpose of cleaning up a particular union, and in due course and as soon as possible return the unions to their members. I am sure the trustees will serve the best interests of the members and their unions and that the members, the seamen, will have every opportunity to be heard. Any just grievance will be considered by the trustees. Under the legislation the unions will not lose their rights to bargain or to strike. Surely this should at least help to remove some of the misunderstanding and misapprehension that has been caused by the information given to members by officers of the union. It should even, I hope, remove some of the wilder misunderstanding existing across the line in some union circles as to what we are doing in Canada about a Canadian union. If that misunderstanding can be removed, then I believe this trusteeship legislation will be acceptable to all union members in Canada -all union members-and it will help to restore peace on the great lakes.
I would have preferred, as I think most of those in this house would have preferred, to

have had a private arrangement. That was impossible. Therefore we have proceeded with our legislation. We believe that in the way we have produced this legislation, in the effort we have made to find a suitable alternative, and the way we have worked from beginning to end with the Canadian Labour Congress, we have followed the right course as a responsible government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) have berated each other and covered a good deal of territory in their respective speeches, I should like to draw the attention of the house for a few minutes to the amendment itself.
This amendment which the Leader of the Opposition has moved criticizes the government for its dawdling and delay in taking effective action as a result of which, it says, there has been disruption of shipping and the placing in jeopardy of the trade of this country, in particular of deliveries of wheat to foreign ports. I should like to begin by saying that members in all parts of the house are naturally concerned that nothing should happen which would interrupt the promised deliveries of wheat to countries which are Canadian customers. This concern is not felt by the Conservative party alone. It is felt, I think, by members in all parties. As a matter of fact, shipping has not yet been hurt. I shall have something to say about what the future holds a little later in my observations. But, so far, this temporary stoppage has not affected wheat shipments or trade in general as the amendment suggests.
What interested me most in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition was that though he berated the government for its failure to act, I could find nothing in his remarks which indicated what he wanted them to do. Day after day I have listened to members of the official opposition calling upon the government to do something without saying specifically what it was they wanted the government to do. This is a very happy position to take because then, no matter what they do, they are able to criticize. The Leader of the Opposition is critical because the government has not acted promptly to implement the recommendations of the Norris report. But I need hardly remind the house that the situation on the great lakes did not spring up over night. This has been a most unfortunate and lamentable situation which has existed over a period of years. The S.I.U. were put out of the Canadian Labour Congress, if I remember correctly, as far back as 1959; and in May of 1962 the president of the C.L.C. wrote to the present

Leader of the Opposition, who was then prime minister, setting out in detail certain acts of intimidation, violence and lawlessness and urging that immediate steps should be taken to rectify the situation. Weeks passed and nothing was done. It was only when the Canadian labour movement tied up the St. Lawrence seaway that a commissioner was finally appointed in July, 1962. So, when the Leader of the Opposition calls for action, I for one, would be interested to know what specific action he has in mind. Certainly, there was no very specific action taken in those years from 1959 to 1962.
Let me say a word about the delay which has occurred with respect to appointing a board of public trustees to take over the maritime shipping unions. I think the government was justified in taking time to do two very important things. The first was to explore the possibility of setting up a private trusteeship. I am sure no member of this house, particularly those who have a great respect for free trade unions, wants to see a government trusteeship imposed on any union or group of unions. It seems to me the government was justified in taking whatever time was necessary, within reason, to explore the possibility of a private trusteeship in which trade union leaders responsible to the labour movement in Canada would be charged with trying to rectify the situation on the great lakes.
There was another advantage attached to the setting up of a private trusteeship, if it could have been arranged, namely that it might have secured the co-operation of the United States labour organization, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. This is important because everyone knows that much of our trade on the great lakes is in the United States ports, and if Canadian ships are to be handled expeditiously great value must be attached to having the full co-operation of the United States labour movement. My feeling has been that the government should have explored with the Canadian and United States labour movements the possibility of a private trusteeship which would have brought the five maritime unions under its control and sought to settle the difficulties which have disturbed the shipping industry for the past four years.
I think there is some evidence that the government has been doing just that. That is the first thing they needed to do, and I cannot blame them for taking time to do it.
The second thing they needed time to do was to look very carefully for the right kind of men to serve on the board of trustees. Merely setting up a board of trustees will not effectively deal with this problem. What will count is the way in which the board operates 28902-5-244J
Labour Relations
-whether it shows intelligence, firmness and sympathy in dealing with these unions. This trusteeship could be a farce and a failure if the right kind of men are not vested with the great authority which parliament has given. If the government needed some time to canvass the situation in order to get the right kind of men for this job, I, for one, am prepared to see that they get the necessary time. I wish to urge, once again, that those appointed to this board will include at least one, and perhaps two men with a wide experience of the trade union movement- men who are not involved in this dispute, but men who know how to lead unions back into a democratic way of doing business, so that they can emerge from this trusteeship strong, democratic and effective.
Having said that I am not prepared to criticize the government because it was seeking an alternative course of a private trusteeship, and because it has taken some time to canvass the situation and get the right kind of personnel for the board of trustees, let me say that I think the test of the government's courage and decisiveness will now lie in what they do in the next day or two. If this withdrawal of men from the ships over the last 48 hours were to continue it could pose a very serious problem for the shipment of goods, and particularly for the shipment of wheat. This is one of the things upon which our economy is depending for a large amount of money to help balance our international payments.
It was perfectly clear from the statement which was made yesterday by Mr. Claude Jodoin, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, that all attempts at setting up a private trusteeship had failed. I need not go into the details of why they failed; certainly the S.I.U. in calling the men off the ships in my opinion made it much more difficult to proceed with a private trusteeship. A private trusteeship established in the face of intimidation and threats would have been a private trusteeship that would be weakened from the very beginning of its operations. I can quite understand why the Canadian labour movement came to the conclusion that in this situation, with an illegal strike and an illegal walk-off confronting them, they could not see any way in which a private trusteeship could operate successfully. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think one is safe in assuming that all efforts to establish a private trusteeship have failed.
It seems to me that it is now for the government to act promptly and decisively. I think the government has no choice now but to proclaim the legislation and to set up the public trusteeship just as expeditiously as possible. Indeed, I would go one step further.

Labour Relations
If the walk-out of the seamen continues, or if there is any evidence that the companies are seeking to embarrass the trusteeship, then the government may have to take further steps. It is rather significant that in the last two or three days men have been able to walk off ships in some instances with the consent of the company, which under the Canada Shipping Act they are required to get from the master of the ship. This leads me to wonder whether or not there is collusion in this instance with the shipping companies, whether or not they too are seeking to intimidate the government and parliament. They may also enter into arrangements which would intimidate the board of trustees. I think the government has to give serious consideration to doing what was done, if I remember correctly, in 1946 when a government controller of shipping was set up. Because unless the board of trustees can get the wholehearted co-operation of the companies as well as the trade unions, then the board of trustees cannot possibly hope to operate with any great degree of success.
I think the government has to deal promptly and aggressively in this matter. Let us just see what has happened in the last 48 hours. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) informed the S.I.U. by telegram, according to the press, that this walk-off from the ships constituted an illegal strike, and ordered the men to go back to work. Yet when the member for Winnipeg North asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) this afternoon what he proposed to do about it, he said that if these men have broken the law the responsibility lies with the shipping companies to deal with them. This is not decisive action. For the Minister of Labour to say that this strike is illegal and that the men must go back to work, and for the Minister of Justice to wash his hands of it and say that this is not his responsibility, but that it is up to the shipping companies to act if the seamen have broken their collective agreements and violated the Canada Shipping Act, does not indicate the kind of decisiveness which is going to be needed in the next few days if the trusteeship is going to operate successfully.
I feel that the government should proclaim the legislation. I believe they should set up the board of trustees just as quickly as they can find the right personnel. One of the first things which must be done is to get the necessary information to the members of these unions, and particularly to the S.I.U., making it clear what are the purposes of the trusteeship. I was glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicated in his remarks some of the things the board of trustees would do. Many of the men who were out in front

of the parliament buildings today are genuinely concerned. They have not been given the facts of the case. Some of them fear that they will lose their jobs when the trusteeship comes in. It should be made clear to them by the trustees and the government that they will have job security; that there will be no interference with seniority. One of the functions of a board of trustees will be to go into the company records and establish seniority for these men. These men are afraid that there will not be proper collective bargaining; that the trusteeship will be able to sit down and negotiate any collective bargaining agreement it likes and the men will have to live with it, and that consequently their wages, fringe benefits and their standard of living will be reduced. What the Prime Minister said tonight needs to be emphasized, not just in a speech in the House of Commons but in material sent out to the individual members, namely that these men will still have the right to bargain collectively through their own selected negotiating committees; that they will still have the right to strike legally, provided they comply with the laws of the country; that they will lose none of the rights of a democratic trade union but that, on the contrary, the purpose of the trusteeship is to restore to them the democracy which, in at least one instance, has been taken away from them.
I should like to say to the government that we in the New Democratic party have supported the legislation for setting up a government trusteeship. But I also want to warn the government that we will expect them to make it clear to the trustees that the basic rights of the workers of these five labour unions must be safeguarded and protected. We will consider it one of our tasks in this house to ask questions and raise issues whenever we think this trusteeship is not conducting the affairs of these unions in a democratic and proper manner. The one thing these men do not want is the substitution of one dictatorship for another. What they want, and what I believe they will accept, is a trusteeship designed to act in their best interests, one which will restore to them at the earliest possible date the full democratic rights which every free trade union in a free nation has the right to enjoy.
Neither this house nor the government, Mr. Speaker, need think that by appointing a board of trustees the whole problem will be settled. The government and the board of trustees will have to get the co-operation and confidence of the men. This is my first plea, that everything be done to work with them and to make it clear to them that this trusteeship is not something which is being

Labour Relations
imposed upon them, but that it is something The first question that comes to mind, of being done to enable them to develop a course, when considering the amendment is democratic union and to improve their living whether supporting the amendment would conditions.	clean up the mess we now have in the ship-
The other place where the government will have a great responsibility is in endeavouring to secure the co-operation of the government of the United States, which I hope in turn can secure the co-operation of the United States labour movement, to see to it that Canadian ships in United States ports will be free from harassment and sabotage. This is one of the things that a private trusteeship might have had great difficulty in doing, but at government level the government should be able to exercise all its powers of persuasiveness and representation on the American government, so that Canadian ships manned by whatever seamen and by whatever union can get proper access to American ports, and the rights that they should have in those ports.
May I sum up by saying I do not share the view that the government has dawdled in the matter of dealing with the Norris report. I think that up until now they have taken the wise course of examining and exploring every alternative in the hope that it might not be necessary to take this very radical and far reaching step. But I urge the government now, when all hope of a private trusteeship is gone, not to hesitate any longer but to act decisively and, above all, to act humanely in the interests of the workers concerned.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have before the house this evening an amendment which, among other things, contains some tongue twisters, such as "pusillanimous dawdling", the effect of which is to accuse the government of creating a situation which has placed in jeopardy the essential trade of the country. In his opening remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to some of the wording of the amendment as being humorous. On the basis of looking back over the record I think that one could take that viewpoint, if the situation facing the government and parliament today were not so serious.
If there ever was a time when there was need for full support of the government by parliament, it is now. I was extremely proud of the near unanimity of the vote on the trusteeship bill a few days ago. I believe this is an indication to Canadians and those south of the border that there is an almost unanimous determination by parliament to support the government in the action they have taken.
ping industry. The answer, of course, is no. In my opinion the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) should be commending the government, rather than condemning them, for resisting pressure from the United States. All through the discussions that have taken place in the house there have been continual gibes against the government by the Leader of the Opposition for not standing up to the United States labour unions, their secretary of labour and so on. But now that we have reached the point where the government have gone ahead with their plans to do what they think will clean up the mess, surely if any hon. member should commend them it is the Leader of the Opposition.
I should like to refer to schedule No. 31 of the schedules to the Norris report on the disruption of shipping on the great lakes. That schedule sets out in some detail examples of intimidation and violence based on the evidence given before the commission. It is rather interesting to note that out of a total of 75 incidents referred to in the schedule, 67 of them took place between June, 1957 and April, 1963 when the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition had the full power of government to enforce the law. If you go over these cases you will see there was no effort made to enforce the law. What could be more in accord with pusillanimous dawdling than to turn and look the other way whan these things were going on, and to allow them to take place? As Mr. Justice Norris said only 12 days after the hearings started, "Without at this time deciding who is responsible for these attacks, these cowardly attacks, it is very difficult for me to understand how in this state of our so-called civilization things of this sort could happan in Canada."
Whether or not the S.I.U. and its executive officers are responsible, these attacks did take place when the right hon. gentleman's government was in office.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: When did knowledge of the facts become evident?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The fact is that these things took place all during the years when the right hon. gentleman and his government were responsible for enforcing the law.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us when the evidence became clear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think it is the responsibility of the government to enforce the law every day.

Labour Relations


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely with proper evidence.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I might also say that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) cannot be entirely excused for delaying in acting on the evidence in the Norris report.


Mr. Smith:: Did you get permission to say that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot hear all these interjections, Mr. Speaker. The situation that is facing us today is serious. May I say in closing that if all the charges in the amendment are true of the present government, they were even more true of the government led by the right hon. gentleman who moved the amendment. Like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I too wish to point out in his speech today and all the other speeches he has made on this matter the Leader of the Opposition has never suggested any other alternative action that could have been taken, or could be taken now. I think it is time, therefore, for resolute determination by parliament to support the Minister of Labour in his attempt to do what appears to be the only thing we can do to resolve this problem.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when you read the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), you wonder, with good reason, if his parliamentary advisers did their work well. I wonder, in view of the chaos and strife that prevail on the great lakes at the present time, if it is in order-even though the parliamentary procedure allows it-to move an amendment written in such terms?
In my opinion that amendment is not at all in the interest of those who are waiting for us to take action, because all of us without exception in this house have declared ourselves in favor of a settlement by the private companies which deal with the interested unions.
Everyone would have preferred to see the matter settled directly by the employers and the unions in the great lakes area, and if we waited until the last moment, it is because the government was forced to intervene at the request of all members in the house and various Canadian unions.
As a matter of fact, what does the amendment say? I quote:

This government, because of its confusion, inconsistency and pusillanimous dawdling and delays in taking effective action has encouraged chaos approaching anarchy to develop on the great lakes, the seaway, and in several Canadian ports, thereby causing disruption in shipping and the placing in
(Mr. Olson.]
jeopardy of essential trade in general, and in particular contracts for delivery of wheat to foreign countries.

Mr. Speaker, we sincerely believe that the present situation did not arise only yesterday or a couple of weeks ago. The trouble already existed between unions and employers and even between the unions themselves on the great lakes. This situation existed when the Conservatives were in office and even before. I find it hard to understand today that such an amendment which blames the government for taking action according to a request to that effect made by the different parties of the house and the unions themselves, should be entertained. I am neither Liberal nor Conservative, but, in my opinion, under the circumstances, we must show some intelligence, and in this case, we have no alternative but to yield to evidence and support the government.
The government waited till the last moment to take action, hoping that the matter would be settled between employers and labour or between the unions themselves.
A dispute arose between American and Canadian unions. Street fights broke out in some towns near the great lakes between members of Canadian and American unions.
However, there is a point on which I insist strongly: the government should see by all possible and conceivable means, that our Canadian unions are subject to no interference from federal and provincial governments in the disputes between employers and employees.
It is not within the province of the government to take the place of the employers, or of the employees or of the unions. The government is merely authorized to ensure good relations between these various groups of our society.
We, of the Social Credit, honestly believe that in this dispute the government is acting the way it should, and in my opinion, the amendment moved by the opposition is neither timely nor wise, and our group will certainly not support it, for this very serious conflict prevailing on the great lakes must be settled in the nearest possible future.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the example of some of the previous speakers and try to be as brief as possible. The amendment charges the government with inconsistency, delays and lack of policy. I think that such an amendment is well founded, and for proof of that one only needs to scan the record of the present administration since it took office. I know that when the

much vaunted 60 days of action turned out to be a somewhat less brilliant success than anticipated, some people said that might be understandable. After all, a government must be given time. They have to adapt themselves. They have to acquire the managerial skills. Give them time, and they will prove themselves.
Well, they have had the time. They have had their 60 days and they have had at least 60 days of grace. The recent recess should have been a period of sober second thoughts for the government. Many people thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and members of his cabinet would develop those imaginative policies about which the Prime Minister spoke so fluently during his last days in opposition, and during the election campaign, out of which would emerge sound government policies. The Liberal party convinced the people of Canada that they were the only ones who could provide sound government for this country. After those 60 days, Mr. Speaker, and after all that followed those 60 days, I defy the Prime Minister, any member of his cabinet or any member sitting over there to say truthfully that the end result of the new administration has not been a profound disappointment for them. This government has been proven, across the length and breadth of this country, to be amateurish and it has done wrong in practically every field of endeavour into which it has ventured.
I might be accused of speaking in generalities, so it may be a good thing for me to get down to specifics, and one of these specifics is precisely the subject of this amendment. The amendment deals with Canadian-Ameri-can relations and, Mr. Speaker, if there were any field in which the Canadian people sincerely believed that, by handing over the reins of government to the present Prime Minister and administration, there would be an improvement, it was in that field.
A few months ago the Prime Minister said that during the tenure of office of the previous administration relations between Canada and the United States had been permitted to deteriorate. That is what he said; and he played a leading part last February in bringing about the fall of the previous government. He participated in a debate in this house on February 5, 1963, and as recorded at page 3454 of Hansard for that date he said:
We want to get back to those days when Canada was so respected, because she did make her own policy.
What has happened since then? The Canadian government is not making its own policy now. It is not making its own international policy in spheres which involve the United States government, and we all know
Labour Relations
the interference that we have had from that quarter. It is admitted by everyone. For example, the Prime Minister himself said that the interference of Mr. Meany was shocking, but much more grave to my mind was the interference of secretary of labour Wirtz, which the Prime Minister has branded in perhaps the understatement of the year as being less than helpful.
Well, Mr. Speaker, under this weak, hesitant government we do not make our own policies these days. We are not respected because we are not making our own policies. Last February the Prime Minister said that if he assumed office Canada would make her own policies in co-operation and friendship with her allies, but we know the results today. Not only do we not make our own policies with our neighbours, but the government cannot even make up its mind and cannot evolve constructive and definite policies. I defy anyone sitting on the government benches to point out any government in recent times which has backed down more often than the present government from its announced measures both in the budget, in resolutions and in proposed legislation.
Indeed, in modern times there has never been a weaker government in Canada, and one has to go back to the weak Liberal government of Alexander Mackenzie in 1873, almost a century ago, to find a parallel. We all know what happened to that Mackenzie government and how long it took the Liberal party to regain power.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to be brief but the subject matter flows so abundantly, the examples are so numerous and the mistakes so fantastic that I can hardly pass up this opportunity to review them. I shall deal with but a few and, if I may so express myself, I am only scratching the surface. The Prime Minister laughs, but I would point out that according to a story carried by the Canadian Press and reported in the Ottawa Journal of October 11, 1963, it is stated:
Canada-U.S. ties strained in 1963. Not-so-friendly neighbours.
Does the Prime Minister really think that this is a laughing matter-a laughing matter for this House of Commons or a laughing matter for the Canadian people? This article is substantiated by a large number of cases in point, all of them uncontroverted, and it refers to the unthinkable, almost incredible blunders of the Minister of Finance in the course of his budget legislation. There was the take-over securities tax from which the government sheepishly withdrew. Was that an example of the sound, constructive leadership which we were led to expect?


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the dollar.

Labour Relations


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, the dollar is another example. Never has a party so blatantly deceived the Canadian people as in this matter of the Canadian dollar. Deny it if you will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure my learned and hon. friend will admit that he is going beyond the scope of the amendment now before the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I brought up the subject of the dollar because it was raised in a question by an hon. member opposite. Second, I believe it is very pertinent to this debate, because the debate deals with Canada-American relations, and the rate of our dollar in relation to the American dollar is very pertinent to those relations. However,
I shall go on to another subject, because I understand how little government members want to hear about the dollar.
I was referring to articles such as the one I mentioned a moment ago, articles which are being published in periodicals all over the country, articles such as the one in the Economist to which the Leader of the Opposition referred this afternoon. They all show how much the government has lost its touch. How far away in the dim and vague past is the subtle hand of the great diplomat who now occupies the elevated position of Prime Minister of Canada. Where is the astute diplomat now?


An hon. Member:: Right here.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Only a few days ago there was another article in the Ottawa Journal on U.S.-Canada relations, written by I. Norman Smith, and headed "Stuntsmanship is not Statesmanship." I hope the Prime Minister and the members of his government have read that article, and that they realize how publicity stunts have recently led to a deterioration of these relations. Perhaps he will take the advice proffered in that article to go back to the ordinary fields of consultation between foreign experts and diplomats of both countries, and thus restore that free, easy and friendly relationship that should exist between Canada and our great neighbour to the south. That is what we in Canada want, but unfortunately that is not what we have received from the government.
In this matter of trusteeship legislation a lot of weakness has been displayed by the government. First we had a report by Mr. Justice Norris that revealed the shocking conditions existing on the great lakes, disruption of shipping, gangsterism, and all the excesses that are brought about by violence and disdain for the law. That was clear enough. Mr. Speaker, that report was brought in. The situation was defined as being urgent,

but the government decided to wait. When it received the report, it acted as if it had received a baby from someone else, and it was a most embarrassing thing. It was a package which they did not want to touch.


An hon. Member:: Don't you like babies?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I like babies, but I also like a government that acts with a bit of decisiveness. The conduct of the government and the whole course of its decisions pertaining to this trusteeship legislation has displayed once again its lack of policy, its lack of decisiveness. The other opposition parties may think the government has acted in the right way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I admit that before placing Canadian unions under trusteeship every other avenue had to be explored. But I think too much time was spent-and I charge the government with this failure-not in sound negotiation, but simply in wishful thinking, in the hope that something would turn up. That something has not turned up and we have had these delays. First there was the delay in receiving the report, second in deciding to do anything about the report, third in implementing the legislation, and now in proclaiming the legislation. Then we had today's demonstration which, according to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), was illegal because it was a walkout which in fact constituted a strike, and a strike that could not be justified under the seamen's contracts and under existing law; and the Prime Minister said the very fact of the march upon Ottawa was a way of exerting undue pressure on the government. The Prime Minister knows and the government know-or they should-that this walkout, coupled with the strike of the longshoremen that caused costly and very serious delays in the delivery of grain shipments to Russia and other countries, is placing our economy in jeopardy; yet they have done nothing up to this time.
The Prime Minister was asked today whether any sanctions would be taken against the union boss and members of the union for their illegal action, for their violation of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and he said he will consider that matter. This is as far as they have progressed in this regard. Despite what the other opposition parties may say, is it not logical, is it not almost imperative that the opposition raise this question by proposing the motion of non-confidence which it has proposed? We must do this because it is our role to make the government realize it has mishandled this issue very badly and has completely mishandled the very important, vital question

of our relationship with the United States. Our only purpose in bringing this motion forward is to expose that indecision and inconsistency, and to express the hope that some action will be taken and that now the act will be proclaimed.
The Prime Minister said it would be proclaimed tomorrow. I hope it is proclaimed tomorrow. I hope, also, that the trustees will be appointed tomorrow; that the government will not allow unbearable pressure to be exerted upon it in regard to the proclamation and the execution of the provisions of the legislation and the appointment of the trustees. If the past record is any indication, I am afraid there will be further delay and there might also be more backtracking. Having regard to all these circumstances, to the sorry, disappointing performance of the government in every field, particularly in the very vital field of Canada-United States relations, to its hesitancy in permitting a very serious situation in the disruption of shipping to continue and to be aggravated, I think the government can no longer enjoy the confidence of this house. Those at the far end of this side of the house who on past occasions, when embarrassing questions have been raised, have abstained from voting, should support this motion. Surely, also, the Social Credit party, be it one group or another-those who say they are in favour of free enterprise, of democratic rights and all the rest-should also be the first to support this motion, because I know it is supported by the facts and by a large body of public opinion across this land.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the house that the question be now considered, I am prepared not to speak on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) wants to speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro).


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to be necessary to prolong the debate on the motion put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I would think that to every reasonable, thinking member of this house the putting of a motion of this kind amply points out the utter futility that must 28902-5-245
Labour Relations
be rampant in the opposition benches. It points out two prominent phenomena, to my mind, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition. First, it does seem strange that this non-confidence motion is based on a criticism of the government's handling of the labour strike and the S.I.U. It seems so strange because very influential and diverse components in our society-and I might say, opposing components in our society-such as the labour movement on the one hand and certainly the business interests on the other hand, seem to unanimously approve the government's action in this regard. Therefore it seems strange that on an issue such as this, where the government is to a great degree obtaining support from all walks of life and even from opposing groups in regard to this issue, it should be this issue upon which the opposition desires to bring down the government. To my way of thinking it indicates just how desperate is the opposition to find an issue at this stage. It certainly points out what a fantastic waste of time there is in this parliament when we have sunk to the level of debating frivolous issues such as this.
Another trend which became apparent during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was that he was prepared to bring this government down on the basis of the restrained and moderate action it has taken as far as the labour situation is concerned. We have endeavoured, not only in the course of this trusteeship legislation but throughout the longshoremen's strike, to work out a voluntary rather than an imposed solution. This, to my way of thinking, is the antithesis of bureaucratic, arrogant action. Yet, apparently, the right hon. gentleman would prefer to bring down this government because it did not impose a public trusteeship by bureaucratic action months ago, before giving the individuals and the authorities concerned an opportunity to work the matter out. He considered, apparently, that the government should have moved in immediately. Had they done so, we can almost hear the screams of protest about bureaucracy. This situation makes it clear, in my opinion, how ridiculous is a motion such as we now find before us. It is not difficult in these circumstances to understand the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the right hon. gentleman's followers today. We all recognize what a fearful waste of time this lack of confidence motion really is. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the procedures of this house.
Today we heard the leader of the New Democratic party speak out in support of the action which has been taken by the government. The members of the N.D.P. hold themselves out as being the friends of labour, and

Labour Relations
they say they support the measured and restrained action this government has taken. I should like to read, from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail less than a week ago. It is from an editorial which appeared in the issue of October 16 under the heading "Strong Performance":
When negotiation for a private trusteeship of Canadian maritime transport unions broke down last week, labour minister Allan J. MacEachen and the Canadian Labour Congress were subjected to outspoken and unreasonable criticism by United States labor secretary Willard Wirtz and Mr. George Meany, president of the American Federation of Labour-Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Legislation to establish government trusteeship aver the unions moved irrevocably through the House of Commons despite the U.S. criticism.
A strike by the international longshoremen's association crippled four St. Lawrence river ports and threatened to wreck the Canada-Russia grain deal. A mediator appointed by Mr. MacEachen moved into the picture and settled a strike that could have led to compulsory arbitration or more drastic federal government action.
Let us see how clearly the next paragraph is at variance with what the Leader of the Opposition had to say:
Mr. MacEachen, a 41-year-old former professor of economics, held a steady course under the strongest pressure of his political career. The I.L.A. settlement promises three years of peace. The trusteeship legislation shows strength of purpose to clean up the tangled waterfront mess according to the letter and spirit of the report by Mr. Justice T. G. Norris, who defined the problem and suggested the solution.
Members of Prime Minister Lester Pearson's cabinet have not always performed well under political fire. In a portfolio that needs a man with the confidence of the labour movement and the strength to deal with labour fearlessly, Mr. MacEachen's record so far gives reason for optimism for the future.
There we have an editorial dealing with the government's record and calling attention to this aspect as one of the brightest places in that record. Against such a background it becomes nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition to waste the time of this house by bringing in a want of confidence motion of the kind now before us, when there is ample evidence, from what has appeared in the press, and from what has been said by the leader of the New Democratic party, that the action taken by the government on this issue was restrained, and all that could be expected. So the exercise we see today seems a futile one.
Another reflection which occurred to me while I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was this: here is a man who for years has set himself up as a champion of the rights of the individual. Yet he inferred at the time of the longshoremen's strike last week that he wanted the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to move in and

impose compulsory arbitration before giving the parties themselves an opportunity to reach an agreed solution. As it turned out- probably to the disappointment of the Leader of the Opposition-the strike was settled without there being bureaucratic governmental intervention of the kind which the right hon. gentleman is supposed to detest so much. This speech comes from the man who is the author of the bill of rights. It is strange that a man responsible for a bill guaranteeing the rights of individuals should advocate compulsory arbitration before the parties concerned could work out a solution. This type of thinking was in evidence not only with regard to the longshoremen's strike but also to this trusteeship legislation. He would have had a solution imposed months ago before the parties had had a chance to settle the problem on a private basis. Should this be the attitude of a man who champions the rights of individuals? The bill of rights talks about freedom of association. Well, we have only to consider the longshoremen's strike last week. Here was a legal strike. The men started months ago going through all the conciliation processes available to them, until the time came then they had the legal right to strike. Before they had been out for two days the Leader of the Opposition wanted this government to move in and impose compulsory arbitration.
On this basis, we see how contradictory and frivolous was the speech made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest the attitude of his followers amply indicates that there is no sincerity behind this particular want of confidence motion and I hope it will be disposed of as quickly as possible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be in a position where we are being lectured for bringing in an amendment to a supply motion. I understood that it was the leader of the house who proclaimed what the business would be. I thought it was he who laid down that there would be a supply motion every week, from now on, until they were all through.
We in the opposition are merely taking advantage of an opportunity which is rightfully ours. In doing so we have chosen to discuss a situation which is of the utmost importance to the economy of Canada today. We are taking advantage of this occasion to show the people of Canada why this particular situation has arisen, and who are responsible for this meaningless bungling or mishandling of the shipping problem on the great lakes. This is our rightful duty. It is our purpose. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) can call it a frivolous

issue if he likes. The Prime Minister can sit in his place and laugh about the problem facing Canada today, if he feels it is a laughing matter. The hon. member from Hamilton can call any issue affecting the economy of the country from coast to coast a frivolous issue, if he pleases. That may be his duty here; I do not know. However, I feel that as a representative of western Canada and of all Canada I should point out that corrective measures were not taken when they should have been taken to ensure the movement of exports from this country.
I should like to point out to the house that the great lakes shipping season will soon be drawing to a close. Is this bill going to be proclaimed at Christmas time when the issue is no longer of paramount importance owing to the freeze-up of the great lakes? We go along with the leader of the New Democratic party who commends the constructive purposes of the legislation. But why was the legislation necessary in the first place? We were told at the end of July that the legislation was ready to be brought in. But two months went by. Personally, I thought that two months would be all right, that perhaps it needed two months to get the various unions together and to a point where they could agree that the problem should be solved. But because of continued interference from across the line we got nowhere. I do not say that maliciously. We in western Canada are very fond of our neighbours to the south, but it is obvious that in recent months United States-Canadian relationships have not been too friendly. One has to look only at the headline of the Financial Post of October 19, 1963, to see the heading; "White House now thinks Canada is just a nuisance". Perhaps the Prime Minister called the President two or three times too often. Why should he have to call him at all? We are dealing with a Canadian matter of concern to our economy and exports. Some people laugh and call it a frivolous issue. Our wheat exports are tied up owing to meaningless bungling on the part of this government.
This whole issue should have been solved. It is all very well for the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) to tell us to pick up the Norris report and look at table 31 for the evidence. The evidence is certainly there. The report was tabled not too long ago; we now want action. Why has not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) laid some charges on the evidence adduced before the Norris commission? He has been asked several times about this, and prompted and prodded by questions in the house, but no action has been forthcoming. The government waited till the 28902-5-245J
Labour Relations
eleventh hour, until the dispute was irreconcilable. There is a headline in today's Globe and Mail which says:	"S.I.U. ordered by
Ottawa to halt the walk out at once". Anyone with any experience in handling men or experience in public relations or diplomacy would admit that handling people is perhaps the finest test of diplomacy. We know what a great diplomat the Prime Minister is held out to be, but the government brings in legislation which orders the S.I.U. to do things. You cannot order a group of men, Mr. Speaker, to do something and expect to receive their co-operation. You cannot order a group of men to go back to work.
The government had two months, from August to October, to get these groups together. But what did they do? They listened to Mr. Meany and Mr. Wirtz of the United States. They contacted the President several times. They dealt with Mr. Jodoin. But at no time are we told that they made actual efforts to get the five unions concerned together so that agreement could be reached. I do not know much about labour unions or labour matters-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is always nice to know that someone is listening to you, Mr. Speaker-but I can say that two years ago the non-ops on the railroads were threatening to strike, and the government of that day brought in legislation, but before doing so made sure the union heads would agree to abide by it.
What are we told about the legislation recently passed? We are now waiting for it to be proclaimed. But according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) the worst is yet to come. Not too long ago in the house he made that statement. This should all have been taken care of before now. The farmers of western Canada do not think this is a frivolous matter when their livelihood is at stake and the export of their prime product is held up. According to a late issue of the Union Farmer, a paper put out by the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, a call is made for more judicial settlement of this strike. That is a surprising thing to see in a Saskatchewan farmers' union paper, but the people are fed up and want the matter resolved. But it should not be handled in the meaningless bungling way of ordering people to go back to work. That is the worst thing which could be done with the S.I.U. men in their present frame of mind.
We have heard a lot of talk about voluntary trusteeship and the consultations had with Mr. Jodoin. Surprisingly enough we have not heard about the five other labour

Veterans Affairs
unions being consulted. Mr. Jodoin said the other day that a voluntary trusteeship is impossible now. The Prime Minister comes into the house today and tells us it is impossible; he accepts Mr. Jodoin's statement. Whether it is correct or not I do not know, but I do feel that there has been a great deal of meaningless bungling with regard to the handling of this whole issue. May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you call it ten o'clock I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Secretary of State unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the items listed in the main and supplementary estimates for 1963-64 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs presented to this house at the present session be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Wednesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will go on with this debate. Should the debate end before ten o'clock we would like to finish the vocational training resolution if we could. If that were finished we would go on with the debate on the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act would be the business for Wednesday also and from then on until it was completed except, of course, for Thursday and Friday evenings when, by understanding, we are to take estimates.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, Oclober 22, 19S3