1963-10-07

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the details of an older worker employment and training incentive program which will become effective on November 1, 1963.
The duration of unemployment for workers over 45 is generally much longer than for younger workers. The government has therefore initiated this program which is designed to assist long term unemployed mature men and women to re-enter employment and secure necessary skills. This plan involves incentive payments to employers to hire eligible older workers between November 1, 1963 and January 31, 1964. The payments will amount to 50 per cent of the monthly wage paid, or $75 per month, whichever is less. The program will assist employers during the period in which an eligible older worker is being given the training and work experience necessary for his continued employment.
The conditions governing the payment of incentives to employers are as follows:
1.	Incentive payments apply only to employment which is insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, excluding employment by governments at all levels and by government owned business enterprises.
2.	The employer must provide the worker with a significant amount of approved on the job training or, if this is inappropriate, other approved programs to assist the worker to continue in gainful employment.
3.	The employer must hire the worker during the period November 1, 1963 to January 31, 1964 and employ the worker or his eligible replacement for at least three months before the incentive becomes payable.
4.	The worker must not be employed in a job vacated by another worker after September 1, 1963.
The conditions applying to the eligibility of workers for employment under the program are as follows:
1- The worker must be 45 years of age or over and not in full time employment at the time of hiring.
2.	The worker must not be eligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits.
3.	The worker must have been unemployed for at least six of the previous nine months. Evidence of unemployment can be provided by registration with the national employment service, receipt of unemployment assistance payments or other satisfactory evidence of attachment to the labour market.
4.	The worker must not be in receipt of the universal old age pension or any other retirement or pension benefits equivalent to or higher than the amount of universal old age pension.
5.	The worker must be the only member of the family household for whom an incentive payment is made.
I might add that the national employment service will be responsible for the implementation of the program at the community level. The Department of Labour will be responsible for the general promotion of the program itself.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement by the Minister of Labour is a further example of the way in which the present government, having made policy announcements well in advance, comes out with the working details of those policies only 24 days or so before those policies are to be put into effect. In other words it has been the habit of this government to announce policies without working out their details; and even when the details have been worked out, it has been evident that those policies do not operate in the way which was intended.
This incentive of $75 per month to employers who employ workers of 45 years of age and over from November 1, 1963 to January 31, 1964 is an attempt to encourage the hiring of these older workers. The period for which they will be hired is another matter. The duration of their employment is a vital matter, and it should not be on a temporary basis; it should be done on a permanent basis. When the former government, the Conservative government, was in office our concern was for the older worker and his employment, as was the concern of everyone in this country. We endeavoured, through an educational process, to acquaint employers with the ability and dependability of the older worker. In this effort we were successful to a considerable extent.
It now remains to be seen whether this new gimmick for the employment of the older worker will work out as well as it is hoped, or intended, it will, or whether it will

Labour Conditions
be just another flop in the gimmicks promoted by this government.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, we accept the decision just announced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and which is along the lines of the policy he stated briefly in June. In fact, when he did make that statement, we tried on several occasions to get additional information.
Last week I asked for further enlightenment in that connection.
The Minister of Labour informs us today that the assistance will start on November 1,
1963,	and will continue up to January 31,
1964,	that is over a period of three months. During that time, employers of workers 45 years of age or over who were previously unemployed will be entitled to an allowance of 50 per cent of the salaries paid up to a maximum of $75 a month.
In his statement, the minister referred to the fact that employers will have to prove that they will provide the training required to enable those unemployed to keep their new jobs. Such a condition, I must say, will probably be exceedingly difficult to control.
What kind of training will be considered as required for an employer to be entitled to that special payment? What, in the minister's view, constitutes training capable of helping a man keep a job after three months?
Can we consider that somebody who has been previously unemployed for six months will be able to benefit from the training as set forth in the act?
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that is one of the points which will be eagerly discussed and with which some might play politics, something which I for one deplore at this time.
I am of the opinion that the civil servants who will have to decide who is entitled to that grant and who is not, will find themselves in a very difficult situation and even liable to make unfair decisions.
I feel that point had to be raised and I hope the minister, in a further statement, will be able to clarify what will be considered sufficient training to enable employers to benefit from that allowance.
I said last week that those measures were good in themselves but were still only of a temporary nature and that nothing would really solve the problem facing young people and those not so young as long as the economy is not moving again and does not improve enough to offer employment to all those who are looking for work.

[Text1


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we share with all members of the house concern for the position of the older workers in our country. However, we shall have to take a closer look at the program announced earlier and supplemented today by the Minister of Labour to determine whether or not this program goes any distance in dealing with this problem. The minister can look to his left a couple of places and see a colleague who spent a little while this summer in Sweden studying what they have done there in another field. Some of us who have been in that country think the Minister of Labour might also go to Sweden and discover what they have done in providing full employment for all age groups.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that I have revoked the approval previously given under the Annual Vacations Act to vacation pay arrangements contained in collective agreements between the seafarers international union and a large number of shipping companies.
Where approval is given such collective agreement arrangements, the act no longer has application. With the revocation of approval in these cases the act will now apply and employers in the shipping industry will henceforth pay vacation pay direct to employees instead of to the S.I.U.
It will also be recalled that Mr. Justice Norris found that the conditions laid down in granting approval had not been fulfilled by the S.I.U. and the shipping companies.
Detailed directions in this regard have gone out to the trade union and the great lakes shipping companies concerned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved:: That, until the proceedings on the interim supply resolution, now before the house, and on the supply bill to be based thereon have been disposed of, the provisions of section 3 of standing order 6 concerning the time of evening adjournment shall be suspended; and that, in order to allow for several readings of the said supply bill in any sitting, the provisions of standing order 75 shall be suspended in relation thereto;
Provided that, if any other government order is taken in any such sitting, the terms of this order shall not be operative.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with the very-greatest reluctance that I rise this afternoon to propose the motion standing in my name on the order paper. I think all of us are perhaps more sensible than we have been for quite a long time that the eyes of the whole country are upon this house at this time; and I think most of us, at any rate, feel that the electorate, regardless of party, expect us first of all to discharge the business of the public.
Now, it is well known that we have before us, or will have before us when the orders of the day are reached today, the resumption of the debate on interim supply. It is known that there are peculiar procedural and other difficulties that could arise in the discussion of interim supply. As successive governments have often reminded the house, it has usually been possible to deal with interim supply fairly quickly. However, there have been times when that has not been possible.
It does seem to me that there were somewhat unusual circumstances in this particular case, because the house had recessed for the best part of two months and there was a resumption of a session in which there were a number of questions of real moment and concern. The interim supply debate went on for two days last week, and not one word of exception was taken from this side of the house to that fact. No attempt of any kind was made to restrict that debate in any way. In fact several members of the government, notably the Minister of Labour, took part in that debate. There was, therefore, an effort on the part of the government to deal with matters relating to public business that were raised during those two days. Moreover, sir, it had been the intention of the government, had interim supply been granted on Friday, to have a supply motion today which would have provided every opportunity to hon. members to air any grievances that might have arisen against the government in the conduct of public business.
At the end of two days of debate on Friday there was a disposition in the committee, if I understood it right-I am not relying on my own memory, but I am relying on the words of certain hon. gentlemen opposite-to grant supply. I should like to refer very briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as recorded at page 3236 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, it is now five o'clock and I wonder if I could suggest that we obtain unanimous consent to continuing in committee through the next hour, which would give an opportunity to those hon. members of the house who have a special interest in prolonging this debate to exhaust all their presentations to the committee.
So far as I could judge this was acceptable to everyone then present in the committee with the exception of one hon. member, who
Suspension of Adjournment Time exercised his undoubted rights under the rules to object. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made what I thought was an admirable and responsible intervention. At a later stage, when we had taken up the private business and the order had been called for second reading of a bill relating to sweepstakes, standing in the name of the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, as recorded on page 3239 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I break the rules by interrupting at this point? We have been proceeding rather quickly. As I understand the house leader, he suggested that if we were not going ahead with the bill recently dealt with, we might stand other public bills and go back into committee of supply if he could have an assurance from this side that we and other members of other parties would stand our bills. I presume our people would be willing to do that.
I think the hon. gentleman was speaking for his party, as the evidence showed a few minutes later. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre almost immediately afterward said this:
Mr. Speaker, we would be very happy to comply with this suggestion. Progress should be made on the interim supply bill and, if possible, with the old age pensions as well.
Why then, sir, in view of this almost universal evidence of co-operation and willingness to dispose of the matter, should there be any excuse whatever for bringing on this motion at the present time? I think I have to found that upon a statement made by the hon. member for Lapointe the evening before. It will be found at page 3197 of Hansard for Thursday, October 3, in which the hon. member said:
Mr. Chairman, I must inform you that we do not intend to end the debate on interim supply either tonight, tomorrow or as long as the privileges and elections committee has not remedied the ridiculous and illogical situation which prevails in this corner of the house. We tried to do it and it was supposed to be done as soon as possible. Last Monday, the house asked that the situation be settled but it has not yet been done.
Then on Friday the hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 3212 of Hansard:
It rests with certain members of the government to see that a decision is taken as soon as possible, because it is absolutely illogical and utterly ridiculous not to recognize a group of 13 members...
and he continued from there. I think the hon. gentleman on reflection-and I know he will reflect on this-will realize that this is not, and under our rules cannot be, a matter for the government. The whole house accepted a motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on the day the session resumed, to remit the matter of the seating in the house to a committee; and under our rules, while that committee is deliberating

Suspension of Adjournment Time it is contrary to the rules for the matter to be debated here in the house.
I do not intend to debate it but merely to draw attention to the tact; that the house, by a decision which no hon. member opposed, remitted this matter to the committee, and until it comes back from the committee the house has not power, under its rules, to deal with the matter. Moreover, the friends of the government are not a majority on that committee or any other committee of the house, any more than the government itself has a majority in the house, so that it is quite impossible for the government as a government to settle this matter. It is a matter for the house. It is a matter, as Your Honour properly pointed out, of the organization of the house; and whatever the disposition of the government might be it is not within its power under our constitution, and it would be an attempt to usurp powers the government has not got and has not the right to have, to attempt to settle any question which is a question for the whole house.
Therefore it seems to me, sir, it is rather illogical to hold up the business of the country because a committee of the house has not yet been able to discharge an obligation placed upon it. I believe there are other ways under our rules by which one can air a grievance against a committee, but to hold up supply in the house would not, it seems to me, be a very effective remedy in that regard.
On Friday, as reported at page 3244 of Hansard for that day, when asked to announce the business of the house for this week by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre I pointed out;
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be very wise for me on this occasion to attempt to forecast the business very far ahead, because until interim supply has been granted it will of course not be possible, I am afraid, to do any other business at all. Therefore that will be the first item of business on Monday.
I think it is only fair to hon. members in all parts of the house for me to indicate as briefly and as clearly as I can just what is the degree of urgency of the public business. I am informed by the officials of the treasury that there are already bills which ought to be paid by the government and which are unpaid because the house has not yet seen fit to vote the supply necessary to make it possible to pay them. I am also informed that unless this grant of interim supply can be made by the end of the day tomorrow-and that means dealing with the matter in both houses, securing the royal assent and then having the supply released by the governor in council-certain of the cheques for the payment of public servants which normally go out in the middle of the month and which are normally spread over three days at the
middle of the month-which process is affected to some degree by the fact that Monday next is Thanksgiving day and a bank holiday-and which would normally be received by public servants on Thursday, cannot be given to them because the money will not be available; and that for every day's delay the number of public servants so affected will be greater.
I am also advised that unless this house and the other place are able later this week or, at the very latest, at the beginning of next week to deal with all stages of the amendment to the Old Age Security Act, it will not be practical to include the additional payment in the cheques which are normally received, I believe, in all parts of Canada by the recipients on the twentieth day of the month. Therefore it is a matter of some urgency which will affect a great number of our fellow citizens. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that the government has felt that in view of the statement made in the house by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), assuming he was speaking for those associated with him in making that statement, we should take every step it was reasonably possible to take under the rules to make as sure as we could that these bills would be paid. Of course we are in the hands of the house; we cannot do more than accept what the majority of hon. members wish to have done in this matter, but we thought we should take every feasible step to see that ample time was available for hon. members to air any additional grievances they might feel they had and still enable the house and the whole parliament to discharge its duties and to enable the fundamental business of the country, the public business, to go on.
I cannot believe, sir, that the country really would feel that this house was justified or that any part of the house was justified in holding up the public business, the business of all the people of Canada, because anybody in any part of the house was not satisfied with the place in which he happened temporarily to be sitting, particularly when a procedure had been provided whereby this question could be settled. This is a question which has some real complications in it, as I think all of us with any sense of the history of parliament realize, and the house has already provided unanimously for another way of dealing with that question.
Therefore, sir, it seemed to us that there was no real choice in the circumstances but to put forward this motion, the more so when one considers the exchange which took place between myself and the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) on Friday afternoon. I would like also to put that on the record. When the hon. member for Quebec West rose to speak, he was good enough to

let me interrupt him, and I made this statement:
I wonder if hon. members would permit me to say just a word? I think all hon. members should be aware, if they are not already, of the fact we are on an interim supply motion. This is the fourth day of October, a Friday, and the next day that the house will be sitting will be the seventh. We are practically at the point where the government will not be able to pay the public servants or make other essential payments unless the business now before the committee is completed with very little delay. It had been the intention of the government, unless some emergency legislation was required, to have a supply motion on Monday, at which time all hon. members would have, as they always have, the greatest possible freedom of debate. I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if there was any possibility of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion now and dealing with the supply bill so that it could go to the other place and the ordinary business of the country could go on. It seems to me that if this could be done, anything that might be said on this motion could also be said on another occasion.
I am not seeking in any way to restrict hon. members, but I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was frequently in the position I am now in, is well aware of the urgency of this matter. I am not seeking to suggest in any way that the debate be restricted and I have no fault to find with any hon. member in any section of the house, because some very urgent matters have been discussed today and we recognize that these matters are urgent. But I thought it only right for me to bring the situation in which the whole house finds itself at the moment to the attention of the committee.
The deputy chairman then asked, "Shall the resolution carry?" and I think most hon. members who were here said "Carried". Then the hon. member for Quebec West said this:
I regret I cannot accept that proposal. When we are recognized in the house, we shall then be able to agree, but for the time being I must carry on with this debate on supply.
What does that statement mean? It means that the hon. gentleman said in effect that he had nothing more to say on supply and he would be prepared to agree to the supply but only if something else, that was not in the power of the committee of supply to do or that time in the power of the house to do, because it had been remitted to the committee on privileges and elections, had been done. It seems to me that on reflection all hon. members will realize that it will be a very serious thing for the public interest if a question of the mere internal organization of the house, the house-keeping of the house so to speak, should be put before the public business which we are elected to discharge. That, it seems to me, is the problem with which we are faced. It seems to me that the government, unpleasant as it is to ask hon. members to forego the usual adjournment and to prolong the debate, had no option in the circumstances, in view of the urgency of the public business which I have sought to state in as accurate and as temperate a manner as possible, but to bring this motion before the house.
Suspension of Adjournment Time
I may say that if the government at this stage could receive satisfactory assurances that before ten o'clock today the interim supply could be concluded, I would be very happy indeed to ask the house to permit this motion to stand. But in default of those assurances it seems to me-


Mr. Woolliams:: You will pull the trigger.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -we have an inescapable duty in this matter.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the historic days in the Commons of Canada. We have now seen the spectacle of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and government house leader coming before the house in sackcloth and ashes to ask forgiveness for his sins of the past. This is the most amazing development in the 12 years that I have been here in the House of Commons. Apparently if you wait long enough things happen which change the course of history, and sinners finally repent. So we have today the house leader, the arranger of government business, the man behind the scenes who fixes things up-the "grey eminence" as we used to call him in years gone by before he entered the government-now trying, in his capacity as house leader, to persuade the house to do, as he puts it, things which are solely for the good of the country. It is not the government which is so seriously concerned; it is the putting ahead of all other considerations for the good of the country.
This is a complete change in the character of my opposite number here, the government house leader. In all the years I have been here and that he has been in the house he has been working around this way and that, particularly when he was on the opposition side, to make it difficult for the government of that day to carry on. I had several years of that experience and I know whereof I speak. Now in sackcloth and ashes he comes here before us and says, in effect, that his plans have all failed; that it is not possible to organize the business of the house; that despite all his experience in the past and all the lectures which he gave me for about four years he now finds it impossible to organize the business of the house. We start with one subject matter; he then withdraws it, brings another bill before the house and has a go at that; and then changes around and brings on something else.
Perhaps the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) will also enter into this debate today. He was the champion last year of leadership and good government. He was telling us that if only we had leadership in this house and the business was properly organized we would get things done. This is the

Suspension oj Adjournment Time man who said: "Why don't you start with a bill and carry it right through to completion?" Well, he has now had an observance of another government in office with an experienced operator in charge of government business, and I hope that he will get up and say again that what we require in this house is leadership and a proper organization of the business, and that if we are going to start with something, that we stay with it and carry it through to completion. Because that has not been the case in this session.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how did all this trouble arise? The trouble arose through the fault of the government itself. The house leader has read to us the ultimatum which was delivered to the house on Thursday night by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). This took us by surprise, because the hon. member for Lapointe has so frequently been seen to cross over to get, as we always thought, instructions from the Secretary of State or people on that side of the house. We have seen messages apparently relayed to him on this side so that a question can be asked which is easily answered to the satisfaction of the originators of the question. Now, what has spoiled this friendship?


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the hon. member is now assuming some of our intentions and I think he is completely wrong. He should remember what he was doing last year. I think he would-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that with this reminder the hon. member for Lapointe would subsequently get into the debate and give us a statement with regard to what he is attempting to do in the House of Commons. I simply said that, as observers here, this is what we thought was going on, and that now what we had considered to be a beautiful friendship seems to have been destroyed. This disturbs us no end. How is the government going to be sustained in office if this beautiful friendship is destroyed? They may be forced out of office by these actions.
The ultimatum to which I have referred was given to us on Thursday night. The house leader has already drawn attention to it, but let us make sure of the words again. At page 3197 of Hansard the hon. member for Lapointe is reported as having said:
Mr. Chairman, I must inform you that we do not intend to end the debate on interim supply either tonight, tomorrow or as long as the privileges and elections committee has not remedied the ridiculous and illogical situation which prevails in this corner of the house.

And so, faced with this ultimatum, this is the response of the house leader. He says: "I cannot deal any longer with my former friend so now the house has to come to my rescue and we must sit night and day until those who wish to operate a filibuster in this house are worn out." This is the state of affairs at the present time.
The Secretary of State spoke about the urgency of this matter and told us that unless the interim supply is granted by Tuesday night very dire consequences will result. He pointed out that we have already had some time on interim supply and should now terminate the debate. He is constantly giving advice to the house as to what to do. Just the other day he wanted to have a committee set up without debate. He did not want debate in the house. Now he wants us to debate night and day, so I do not know what side he is on.
I think that the proper organization of the business of the house is to make arrangements, and confidential arrangements, so that when a controversial issue is coming before the house it may be possible for one spokesman for each party to speak on behalf of his party, and then the measure might well go through rather quickly. But he rises in the house and says: "I should like to bring this measure before you but I do not want any debate on it". What does he want? We now know that he wants to debate endlessly night and day all week. The hon. gentleman mentioned urgency. Unless this matter is settled by tomorrow night there will be difficulty, he said. Well, we have been all through this before. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a diligent student of the House of Commons in the past, made a review in 1956 of interim supply procedure over many preceding years. I have done the same myself. In 1956, when a critical moment was approaching the House of Commons and when interim supply was up for consideration on June 11, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre recited for the benefit of the house the way in which interim supply had been dealt with over the years. Quite correctly, the Secretary of State has suggested that it can be dealt with very quickly on occasions, and the practice of the house normally has been to deal with interim supply very quickly, sometimes in 30 minutes, sometimes in an hour and a half, sometimes in half a day and sometimes in one day; the discussion rarely exceeds one day's sitting.
The urgency of such a motion has always been recognized by the House of Commons. It is important that the cheques go out to the people who are expecting their midmonth's salary, to those whom money is

owed by the government. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, there is an arrangement whereby the cheques, which are numerous, are spread over three days. I have talked over the years with members of my staff who have been drawing cheques of this nature and they say this three day period is normal. They can take their cheques down to the bank on the 13th, 14th and 15th of the month, if these are weekdays and the banks are not pressed; and the people who are cashing government cheques do not have to form longer queues than are now required. We recognize the urgency of this matter but it is strange that in 1956 interim supply was passed on June 11 without serious objection being taken and I think we will be able to find other instances when interim supply was passed as late in the month as that. However, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out in his survey in 1956, it has been customary for the house to deal with interim supply about two weeks before the cheques are required, in other words, toward the end of the month.
I thought that when we reassembled a week ago the first item to be considered would be interim supply which, perhaps, would have gone through in 20 or 30 minutes. But it was postponed until Thursday. Despite the urgency which the leader of the house draws to our attention he failed, it seems, to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) of the object he had in mind. The Secretary of State for External Affairs intervened in the debate on interim supply in order to make a statement regarding his particular problems related to external affairs. Would it not have been better to have arranged for a special debate on external afEairs early in the session, as has been requested by hon. members on this side of the house, rather than to have had the Secretary of State for External Affairs intervene on Thursday to make a speech dealing with one of the most controversial subjects which has been before the House of Commons in years. Then, I presume, other hon. members were not to reply. The hon. gentleman has spoken, and that is the end of the debate. I should have liked to take part in that debate on external affairs and to have answered some of the questions put forward by the minister. I should have liked to take up his statement that Canada is now in a stronger position to favour disarmament, because she has nuclear arms on her soil.
Hon. members will appreciate the range of subjects which are opened up by the intervention of ministers other than the Minister of Finance. Interim supply should be carried on by the Minister of Finance. The leader of the house should absent himself and other
Suspension of Adjournment Time ministers should remain silent. Then something would be done and the urgency of the matter would be met. Why did not the leader of the house speak to his colleagues and tell them: keep out of this debate, let the opposition people speak and we shall get the measure through. He did not adopt that course.
As a matter of fact, the cheques for those who are expecting payments by the government could be cashed on the 15th of this month, that is, on Tuesday of next week. Monday, of course, is Thanksgiving day, and there is, of course, Saturday and Sunday. If the normal practice were followed, the cheques could be cashed on Thursday and Friday of this week and the following Tuesday. I doubt very much if anybody will be seriously inconvenienced if the cheques are not cashed until Friday or the following Tuesday. They are dated the 15th of the month. The banks, relying on the government, will, I am told, accept them a day or two in advance. However, the Secretary of State tells us that unless we deal with this matter by tomorrow night, people are going to be seriously inconvenienced. I wonder if that is completely accurate. Granted there has been a three day period for the cashing and distribution of these cheques in the light of the difficulties which confront this house perhaps the cashing of the cheques could be done in two days rather than in three or, at the worst, on the day on which they fall due, which is the 15th. I should much prefer the matter to be dealt with more expeditiously and in a more orderly fashion, but I question the statement of the Secretary of State that this matter must be settled by Tuesday night.
I would say the wrong method of dealing with interim supply was indicated to this house last year by the Liberal party which now forms the government. During the course of last session alone, just consider the delays which were involved. Hon. members can look at the whole calendar year, 1962, and they will find that in the closing weeks of that session-and the house was dissolved in April-the opposition took 27 days discussing supplementary estimates which were just a continuation of the main estimates. That had never been done before in the House of Commons. Considerations of urgency they brushed aside. For 27 days they continued to discuss expenditures which they had been discussing earlier when the main estimates were before the house.
Then, after the election of 1962, when the house resumed in the fall of 1962, what did they do? Talk about urgency in granting supply. They blocked everything we brought before this house in the way of supply. We had a supply motion and six departments were called. Not one item of the estimates

Suspension of Adjournment Time for 1962 was passed by the House of Commons: Not one item. Yet the Department of Agriculture was before the house for three days. Other departments were called and dealt with. But their estimates were not passed-not one single item.
Then, as to interim supply, we called for interim supply in December last year. This government, if it survives, will be calling for interim supply in December of this year and if we grant the present supply motion for which they are asking they will have had interim supply for eight months.
We will hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about giving the government a blank cheque for a period of eight months with no estimates having been passed by the house except those of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I arranged by asking Conservative members on this side to refrain from lengthy debate. Those estimates were passed. The estimates of the Department of Transport were almost finished and we also started on the estimates of the Department of Finance. But last session not a single estimate was passed and interim supply was asked for. Now it is being requested for a period of eight months. A blank cheque is being sought and two thirds of all estimates for the fiscal year are being voted in this way without careful consideration, item by item.
Those are the arguments that were used against us last fall. In December of last year when we asked the house to vote interim supply for the month of January the members of the Liberal opposition were fully familiar with the urgency of interim supply. They knew how urgent it was and that the voting of money was required to carry on the normal business of the country, to provide for the pay cheques of people who were on the government payroll and to pay debts and things of that nature. Despite their knowledge of the urgency they took seven days, Mr. Speaker, to pass interim supply.


An hon. Member:: The chickens are coming home to roost.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the chickens are coming home to roost. They taught our friends here, who are new to the House of Commons, what to do on interim supply: Hold up the government; do not pass interim supply in 30 minutes or an hour and half or one day or two days; stretch it out. They took six full days and part of a seventh, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), then leader of the opposition, intervened twice in the debate on interim supply. Not content with one go at it he came back again. He admitted he was roaming rather widely, to use his own words, but he intervened a second time in order to hold us up.

On February 4, 1963, when we were dealing with interim supply again, all the arguments were raised again about spending money without the estimates having been passed by the house, and so on. I drew attention to a statement by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition. I said, as found on page 3422 of Hansard:
I should like to consider now the question of interim supply. Interim supply has loomed very largely in the mind of the house recently, and I think the Leader of the Opposition threatened us today-did he not?-with regard to the next interim supply.


Mr. Pearson:: Oh, no.
I went on to say:
"Wait till Wednesday'', he said, "when interim supply is likely to be called, and then you're for it".


John Whitney Pickersgill: What page is that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You will find it on the 4th February of this year. Then the mentor in all this, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), set out in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press in January of this year what should be done with regard to interim supply, and I presume he has passed this on to this former friend, the hon. member for Lapointe. He pointed out that in June, 1956, when there had been quite a dispute in the house over the pipe line debate, it was in the hands of the opposition of that day to bring the government down by refusing to vote interim supply. On January 29, 1963, the Secretary of State recounted this past history and drew to the attention of his party and, of course, his other friends, the way to do it. He said at that time, and these words are worth recording:
Theoretically there were these two choices_
Applying closure or dissolving parliament. He only had two choices in January, 1963, applying closure or dissolving parliament, but now he has come up with a third-sit night and day. These are his words:
Theoretically, there were these two choices, but in fact there was not. The government had been deeply wounded by the battle over the use of closure in the pipe line debate. Notwithstanding the fact that the pipe line debate had lasted a full month, the opposition had succeeded in creating the impression that freedom of speech was being denied and that the ministers were riding roughshod over parliament. To impose closure on the debate on a supply bill would have been to limit the right of the Commons to control the expenditures of the crown and the Liberal government was not, in fact, prepared even to consider closure as a possible course of action. Moreover, if closure had been tried, it would have required nearly two weeks to secure the passage of the bill, the public servants would have gone without pay, and other urgent expenditures could not have been made. All the opposition had to do in the week of June 11, 1956, was to go on debating the government's expenditures for three or four days and the government would have been forced to ask for a dissolution of parliament and an election.

There is the mentor. That is the way you do it. In February of last winter that is what they were prepared to do. "Wait until interim supply comes up on Wednesday", said the then Leader of the Opposition, "and you are for it". I hope everybody in the house understands what can be done with regard to interim supply, and I presume this is what the Secretary of State was attempting to teach his party and to bring before others who might in their turn want to do something about interim supply.
I want to examine the proposal now before us, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, you have to lay a basis and to give the history of the past to show how the Secretary of State in his sackcloth and ashes tries to approach this problem. He has dismissed closure as being a little too much related to the pipe line debate of 1956 under the autocrats of that day in the Liberal government. So he has come up with night and day sittings. He has proposed that we now sit night and day to get interim supply through and he has put a deadline on it, Tuesday night.
This is a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, of the failure of the government to organize the business of the house in a satisfactory manner. They have brought on themselves the dispute which is progressing in one of the committees of the house. It was their doing. They suggested this method of fragmentation of parliament and now they are caught with a real problem. But they are not content to wait for the decision of that committee. They now want to force interim supply through the house, whether or not that committee reaches a decision. This is a big stick indeed that is being waved before the House of Commons.
Why is it not possible for the committee to settle this matter? There are a large number of members on that committee. There are 14 members from the government side on the committee and surely they have some friends among those people who frequently cross the floor of the house when a vote is about to take place to get instructions apparently as to what to do. Why do their friends on that committee not come to their assistance now? The membership of the committee is 29, with 14 government members. They need one more, and they can decide the issues. Why are they delaying? This is what we would like to know. Let that committee decide, and then we will not have to go through this method, and this procedure, of sitting night and day to try to wear out some people who have a grievance against this government.
1 should like to propose a solution to this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but before presenting
Suspension of Adjournment Time that solution may I say that the actions of our party on Thursday and Friday, when we were debating interim supply, were clearly set out. We withdrew from any debate on interim supply in the last hour and a half on Thursday. Similarly, on Friday, we withdrew from the debate. We were not opposed to interim supply going through on Thursday or on Friday. We were quite content to proceed. As a matter of fact, at my request, the hon. member for Acadia consented to forgo his bill. We were prepared then to go ahead. We could have continued the sitting of the house until six thirty or seven o'clock on Friday, and concluded the matter.
Well, that is the position of our party on this. We want to get ahead with other matters. We want to see other aspects of the government's program, and to let them continue making the mistakes which they are so proficient at making instead of stalling on the interim supply bill. This is something which should be passed and dealt with by the house very quickly.
However, the solution proposed by the Secretary of State is, I think, unsatisfactory under the circumstances. In view of the fact the problem is not one resting here on the floor of the house at the moment, but is in front of a committee of the house, if that committee will report to the house then we dispose of that particular problem and get on with interim supply. We have had an ultimatum from the hon. member for Lapointe. Let the committee settle the question and, I take it from his remarks, there will then not be a filibuster on interim supply. If the committee does not settle the matter, then there will be a filibuster. However, let us divide this question up into its two components. What is the report of the committee? What is its decision, since that committee is heavily weighted with government supporters?
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That, all the words after the word "that" in line one be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"In order to facilitate the proceedings on the interim supply resolution now before the house, and on the supply bill to be based thereon, the matters in dispute which the house has not yet resolved and which were referred to the committee on privileges and elections on Monday, September 30, 1963, be determined and to that end the standing committee on privileges and elections shall be empowered to sit while this house is sitting and, effective on the adoption of this resolution, shall immediately resume its sittings and shall sit daily and shall direct its attention to making a final report to this house on the said matters within 48 hours".


Mr. Speaker:: In the short time at my disposal, I have considered this amendment

Suspension of Adjournment Time to the motion as carefully as possible. In my view it is beyond the scope of the motion as moved this afternoon. It is a new and distinct motion which, itself, requires notice. It is also in the nature of giving instructions to the committee. For these three reasons, I must declare that, in my opinion, the amendment sought by the hon. member is out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful perhaps to have heard hon. members on this particular point. However, a decision has already been made and I have no recourse but to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
''The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
"To a motion to provide for the suspension of the hour of evening adjournment and also to provide for several readings in any sitting of a projected interim supply bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) proposed an amendment, namely:
"That all the words after the word 'That' in line 1 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"In order to facilitate the proceedings on the interim supply resolution now before the house, and on the supply bill to be based thereon, the matters in dispute which the house has not yet resolved and which were referred to the committee on privileges and elections on Monday, September 30, 1963, be determined and to that end the standing committee on privileges and elections shall be empowered to sit while this house is sitting and, effective on the adoption of this resolution, shall immediately resume its sittings and shall sit daily and shall direct its attention to making a final report to this house on the said matters within 48 hours".
The Chair having decided that the proposed amendment was beyond the scope of the main motion, that it was in the nature of a substantive motion which required notice thereof, and also that it was in effect an instruction to a standing committee, ruled the proposed amendment out of order. Whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if I had voted I would have voted against your ruling. I was paired with the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your decision.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, should not those who stand to say they are paired state with whom they are paired?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the motion before the house it is my intention to make only a brief intervention at this time to indicate the position of the Social Credit party with respect to the motion now before us. As we listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in his rebuttal of the motion we witnessed an interesting display of political showmanship, rather profound in its presentation but so insipid in its content and wasteful of our time. My advise to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


An hon. Member:: You are the one who
needs advice.


Robert Norman Thompson: -is simply that two wrongs can never justify a right. The height to
Suspension oj Adjournment Time which politics has risen in this house today is merely the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, the country still looks for leadership and responsible action from us who collectively make up this House of Commons.
The real issue is not one of urgency or non-urgency; it is a matter of right and wrong. The question which is before the committee on privileges and elections at this time is one which has existed since confederation. It is not a matter of immediate politics; it is a matter of principle upon which we have asked the committee to make a recommendation to this house. The question before them is simply, what is the correct and proper thing to do? I did say, as I have said before, that when a piece of legislation is brought before the house we should go through with it. All that this resolution is asking at the present time is that we go through with the interim supply motion.
The motion introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has been occasioned by the announced intentions of a small number of members of this house to block the passage of an interim supply motion and the bill which follows, as well as other important legislation, until and unless parliament yields to some demands which are of a purely political nature, thereby denying the house the right to decide an issue in a democratic manner. This amounts to tyranny by a minority. We submit, Mr. Speaker, that this constitutes blackmail of the most odious nature and indicates the necessity for such drastic revision of the rules of this house as are necessary to make such a situation impossible in the future. Parliament cannot be bullied into submission. No matter how we disagree with the views of its members, democracy involves the giving of a fair hearing to minorities. It must also involve the fact that the majority finally decides what action is to be taken on a matter. Perhaps consideration should be given at this time to suspending any further meetings of the committee on privileges and elections until this threat is removed. If it is not, the committee will be sitting under a cloud; it will be sitting under a threat and that is not the way in which democracy should function.
The motion calls for the suspension of standing order 6 concerning the time of the evening adjournment which, of course, would permit an uninterrupted sitting of this house until the interim supply resolution had been approved. Although we have doubts as to the effectiveness of this measure we are prepared to support the motion in the hope that it will in the long run expedite the business of the house and allow us to go ahead with the important legislation which awaits us including the measure to increase the pensions of senior citizens, as well as

Suspension of Adjournment Time interim supply in order to assure the continuance of monthly cheques in respect of other assistance measures such as family allowances, quite apart from the payment of our civil servants and members of the armed forces. We wish at this time to identify our position. We wish to dissociate ourselves from any attempt to coerce parliament in the way which occasioned the introduction of this motion, and we hope that good judgment and concern for national welfare will yet prevail in this house and that we shall act as legislators rather than just as political opportunists.


Mr. Real Caouefle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the motion introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) shows that the Secretary of State enjoys resorting to blackmail-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: -by making us believe that if we refuse to let interim supply pass the government will be prevented from paying its bills and its civil servants, from passing legislation to increase old age pensions in this country.
Mr. Speaker, such statements, made to get the newspapermen's attention, may have the effect of throwing the blame on the group I represent in this house by suggesting that we prevent the old people from receiving their pension, the civil servants from getting their pay and the government's bill from being paid.
I do not believe a word what the Secretary of State said a while ago, not any more than I endorse the purely political statements the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) made when he blamed the government for not doing what they themselves did not do when they were in office.
In the present circumstances, we are of the opinion that we should proceed with the adoption of as much legislation as possible. It is a fact. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that over a month ago I wrote to you personally to ask you to consider the seating arrangement in the House of Commons, as well as the allocation of offices in the parliament building. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit most humbly and with all possible respect that you could have settled the question in five minutes. You yourself could have made the decision.
Reference has just been made to the majority rule in a democracy. Well, the political party to which we belong held a provincial convention in Granby. There was also a caucus of members of parliament at which all

were invited and where there was a majority vote in our favour. And when we submit that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order.
I do not do so because I have any particular grudge against the hon. member for Villeneuve, but merely because I think this is a matter which should be dealt with early in the proceedings.
Is it in order to discuss in the House of Commons a matter which has been referred to a standing committee and upon which that committee has not yet reported? I know that already references have been made to the subject but, for the most part, they have been to the effect that that is where the matter is now under consideration-that the subject should not be dealt with in this chamber. But when it comes to discussing the merits of the question, whether by the hon. member for Villeneuve or by any other hon. member, the point of order arises: can members of this house discuss something which has been referred to a standing committee?


Mr. Speaker:: 
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will continue by pointing out that I firmly believe that in a democratic country it does not belong to any political party, in this house, or elsewhere, to decide our own political status.
When we held a convention-as I said earlier-which was perfectly legal-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -we decided to join forces, 13 members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Why then ask the Liberal party or the Conservative party to decide whether or not we are a political party? That is what it means.
Today we are accused of wanting to boycott legislation. The committee has been meeting since last Monday-I did not and will not go there. We are told that the committee sits; it does not sit; it meets, and no decision is reached.
Personally I wish to suggest something to the house. If we were given the assurance that a decision will be reached at the earliest possible moment, then we would be most willing to co-operate with the government. But until now we have had only discussions, and that since last Monday, a week ago today.
We ask to be given our own seats as well as our own offices, because in this corner of the house-you will agree-we are two separate groups, and it is ridiculous to keep us in the situation we find ourselves in.
We ask to be recognized. That is democracy, recognizing the rights of minorities. We are a minority party, I admit, but democratic rights should be recognized. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said: Two wrongs do not make a right. That is true. Something is right and something is wrong.

Something is wrong and something is right but at this time I feel that he is wrong and we are right.

We are seeking nothing but the recognition of democratic principles. After that, we will object no more.
28902-5-208
Suspension of Adjournment Time
Do not come along with sad stories or blackmail by telling us that civil servants will not be paid tomorrow evening or the day after, that they will have to cash their cheques Thursday or the following Tuesday. That is nothing but hogwash.
It was stated a while ago that in the past- in fact, no later than last year-we took a week or ten days to adopt interim supply and civil servants were paid just the same. At the time, we had a Conservative government in power instead of the present Liberal regime, but there is little difference between the two. When one party takes over from the other, he inherits the problems of his predecessor. The same problems are always there and the same far fetched solutions are proposed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that we are recognized as members elected by voters in our ridings of the province of Quebec. Well, we must be recognized as a group in this house, and then we shall be willing to help the government and even support it. But a decision must be arrived at within one or two hours of discussions during the whole week, the decision being postponed until the next day or the day after, to reach a solution, in two months' time, that perhaps would not be acceptable. Whether or not the solution is acceptable, this committee should come to a decision which will recognize our existence in the house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that no member likes the idea of removing the hours of adjournment so that we face the prospect of sitting all night. Nevertheless I am prepared to support this motion if there is no other compromise that can be found so that the business of the country can be continued and certain important legislation, particularly that having to do with increasing old age pensions, can be dealt with at the earliest possible date.
Let us take a brief moment to see why we are in the situation in which we find ourselves. The supporters of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) feel they have a grievance with reference to their seating in the house, and their recognition as a political party or group. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an important question, and the members of the New Democratic party are also concerned about the question of seating in the house and recognition of priorities. That is why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a week ago today moved a motion to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections. That committee was only constituted last Thursday and it has not had very much time. I

Suspension of Adjournment Time would say to the hon. member for Villeneuve that if it becomes apparent that this committee is dragging its feet or that it is stalling or deliberately putting oil reaching a decision, we will be as active as any other members in raising the matter in the house and urging that the committee reach a decision and make a report to the house.
But I want to say to the hon. member for Villeneuve that surely the seating arrangements in this house, whether for the Cre-ditistes or for the New Democratic party, are relatively unimportant compared to the conduct of the public affairs of Canada. As my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, said last week in introducing his motion, it is an honour to sit in any part of this house, and while we will be just as zealous as any other group in asking that we be given proper recognition I do not think this justifies any group in the house, no matter how important they may think they are, being allowed to hold up interim supply and thereby making it impossible to meet accounts which are due.
What is just as serious, Mr. Speaker, is that by holding up interim supply we are holding up proceeding with the amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I think the house wasted three days last week discussing the resolution precedent to that bill. It could have been passed in a couple of hours but three days were lost. I want to point out that as far as this group is concerned we put up two speakers, both of whom spoke less than 10 minutes. We were prepared last Thursday to see the interim supply measure go through. We do not think that any group of members, on the basis of a personal grievance affecting their privileges in this house-not on a matter of policy, not on something which affects the welfare of Canada-has the right to stop the conduct of public affairs; and that is what holding up interim supply amounts to.
I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Villeneuve and to those who are supporting him. After all, not only the eyes of Canada but the eyes of many countries are upon this democratic parliament. In the world in which we live democracy is on trial as it has not been for many decades. Democracy can be destroyed and discredited just as much by people from within as by its enemies from outside. The very essence of democracy is a capacity for self-discipline. The success of democracy depends upon the willingness of those who sit in parliament to forget their petty bickerings and partisan advantage wherever the public good is involved.
I would say that parliament is making a pretty poor spectacle of itself when interim supply is held up and when a bill to increase old age pensions is held up merely because

we in this corner of the house feel that we have a grievance about the seating arrangements, a matter which I might point out is already before a parliamentary committee and under consideration. I would therefore urge the supporters of the hon. member for Villeneuve to reconsider their attitude. I would urge them to consider the public image which we are creating for the people of Canada. If we are to restore people's faith in democratic procedures, I think it can only be done if the general public are convinced that this parliament is serious about conducting public affairs.
I am sorry the government did not give some consideration to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, because I am not sure that removing the closing hours and sitting all night is necessarily going to push through interim supply. I suppose eventually, by a process of exhaustion, we will get interim supply through. But that is not a very happy way in which to conduct the affairs of this parliament. It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made an eminently sensible proposal. Your Honour has ruled the amendment out of order, and so I am not going to discuss it. But it seems to me if some agreement could be reached among the various parties, that the committee will sit while the house is sitting, that it will try, within 48 or 72 hours or a shorter time if possible, to bring down a report, then the hon. member for Villeneuve and his supporters could be assured that this committee is not going to drag out this matter for weeks or months or that this is simply a stalling device. If this course could be agreed to by the government, and the gentlemen who feel aggrieved are prepared at the same time to allow interim supply to go through, then we could get on with the business of the house.
I make an appeal to both the government and the Creditistes to get together to see if a compromise cannot be worked out. I am prepared to support this motion if it is the only alternative, but I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that it will solve our problem. It will certainly mean that for the next 48 hours or so we will be sitting night and day listening to an interminable discussion, not by members who are objecting to some vote in the interim supply measure, but simply listening to speeches that are made for the purpose of holding up the business of the house. It seems to me that is not a spectacle that is likely to enhance the prestige of democracy either in Canada or in other parts of the world.
I do hope some agreement can be reached whereby the committee would undertake to meet while the house is sitting, and to bring down a report before the end of this week.

I hope, at the same time, the hon, member for Villeneuve and his supporters will agree to forgo the filibuster which they have threatened, and forgo the attempt to blackmail this house into bullying the committee into doing something it is not prepared to do. If they are prepared to make this kind of compromise, and the government is prepared to accept such a compromise, we can get on with the business of the house. However, if such a compromise cannot be reached, I would like to make it clear I am prepared to support the motion.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam that I have called a meeting of the steering committee for this afternoon. We want to decide when we are going to sit, and it is the steering committee that is going to decide. If the house wants to give us the right to sit while the house is sitting, we can sit this evening for as long as it is desired to decide the question. However, I have to get orders from either the house or the committee, and that is the thing for which I am waiting.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: In view of the remarks that have just been made, and in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, as well as the fact that Your Honour ruled out the amendment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on technical grounds, I wonder whether or not that suggestion could be concurred in by unanimous consent. It does seem to be the feeling in all parts of the house that an effort should be made to settle this question without involving the house. Perhaps by adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hull, this might be considered over the supper hour and either the amendment concurred in or a compromise motion made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I be permitted to say a word on the point that has been raised? I know this is completely contrary to the rules, sir, and if anyone objects I will sit down. If there is no objection, I should like to take up the point made by the hon. member for Saskatoon in pursuance of the point made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
As the hon. member for Hull has pointed out, the steering committee is going to meet this afternoon, and perhaps that could be done while we are considering private members business. Perhaps they could agree to have a meeting of the full committee at six o'clock, which it would be quite legal to do. The committee could then ask for the permission of the house to sit this evening, which we could give at eight o'clock. Then, it might be that this whole matter could be resolved
28902-5-208J
Suspension of Adjournment Time this evening while the house is sitting. If that could be done, I would be very happy indeed to suspend my motion right away.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to set straight a certain impression which might seem to prevail. We never intended and we still do not intend to needlessly delay the proceedings of the house.
We would not want the house to think that we are prepared to delay the proceedings merely to have the seats distributed in the house. Such is not the case.
There is one situation which was brought up as far back as last Monday; it was dealt with in the press all across the country, in the province and in our ridings, and it was said that there would be a discussion as to whether the Ralliement des creditistes would be recognized or not. At that time, the people of the province of Quebec were asking us how it was that with 13 French Canadians in the house, we could not be recognized as a political party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) motioning to sit down. He often pulled on my sleeve in order to make me sit down when we were discussing matters concerning the problems of the French Canadians in this house and I wish to protest.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the hon. member for Lapointe to sit down. I want that on the record.


Gilles Grégoire: It is so true that he has risen
on a question of privilege, and I should like to answer that the hon. member for Red Deer has suggested-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to stick to the matter before the house, which is the motion. As a matter of fact, I should like to suggest at this time, in view of the suggestion of the Secretary of State, that perhaps the house might consider the adjournment of the debate. Would the hon. member for Lapointe accede to such a suggestion?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to accept the suggested solution, namely that the committee sits as soon as possible. At one time, as we said, we talked about delaying the carrying of interim supply in order to

Suspension of Adjournment Time draw the attention of the house on what we consider as an illogical situation, that is the fact that the proceedings of a committee cannot be carried out more speedily.
Now that there is an indication that the proceedings of the committee will be hastened, now that the attention of the house has been drawn on that point and that the committee is ready to proceed as quickly as possible, I shall say once again that we are not here to block the business of the house nor the increase in old age pensions. We merely wanted to draw the attention of the house on the present situation, and it seems to me that this is enough.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on record, on behalf of our party, as indicating that we would be very happy to go along with the suggestion made by the Secretary of State, should that suggestion receive approval from all corners of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that we would need a motion to adjourn this debate.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, if I may make one suggestion, it does not seem to me that the committee has to ask for leave to sit while the house is sitting. This is a motion which can be made in the house itself by the house itself. I would suggest, with unanimous consent, we might have that motion made now because there is no need to go through with the procedure which the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has suggested, and the house on its own can give instructions to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a very sensible suggestion and if it were known there would be unanimous consent to have such a motion made by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), and if the house would concur in a motion that the committee be allowed to sit while the house is sitting, then I would suggest someone should move the adjournment of this debate and let the hon. member for Hull make that motion. Then we could proceed in the ordinary way with the business of the house from now on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there seems to be no objection I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I make a motion that the steering committee meet right away-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -and that the committee should have the right to sit while the house is in session.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that you are adding to the motion "by unanimous consent of the house"?


Alexis Pierre Caron: By unanimous consent of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North) moved: for
leave to introduce Bill No. C-100, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (Captive sales financing).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
rivieres"
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-39 (from the Senate), to amend the National Harbours Board Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no debate on this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

['Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to my answer of Friday last.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the following questions are to be answered today: 691, 973, 1,071, 1,098, 1,099, 1,101, 1,103, 1,110, 1,155, 1,157, 1,158, 1,159, 1,171, 1,176, 1,177, 1,178, 1,187, 1,193, 1,204, 1,209, 1,210, 1,212.
If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,182, 1,183, 1,186, 1,192, 1,194, 1,195, 1,241 I would ask that the remaining questions stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) The question of transferring health services for Indians to the provinces should be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference, but the present health program should be continued and extended until such time as this can be accomplished.

(b)	Provincial welfare legislation and services should be used for the benefit of the Indian population.
(c)	Social welfare should be placed on the agenda of a dominion-provincial conference with a view to transferring jurisdiction to the provinces.
(d)	A substantially increased public investment should be made in Indian housing and sanitation facilities.
(e)	A revolving loan fund for housing purposes should be established."?


Mr. Munro:: (a) This matter is under consideration for possible inclusion on the agenda of a dominion-provincial conference.
The level at which the health program for Indians has and is being maintained can be gauged from the following information which represents expenditures from the organization and maintenance vote of the Indian and northern health services:-
1960-	61	$21,066,9581961-	62	22,127,3611962-	63	23,083,1381963-	64	23,479,215(b)	It is the policy and practice to use provincial welfare legislation and services for Indians wherever possible. Welfare services and social benefits available to Indians, other than those financed entirely by Indian affairs branch or through band funds, are provided from one of two sources:
(i) welfare programs developed through cooperative cost-sharing arrangements with provincial, municipal and private organizations; and (ii) welfare programs operated by other federal and provincial departments of government.
Categorical assistance
Indians are eligible for family allowances and old age security administered by the federal government as well as for old age assistance, blind and disabled persons' allowances administered by provincial governments.
In Ontario and Quebec, Indian women receive mothers' allowances on the same basis as non-Indian mothers. Under the Nova Scotia assistance program, Indian mothers and abandoned Indian children are recipients of provincial social assistance.
Public assistance
In Quebec there has been some experimentation with the inclusion of Indians in an over-all assistance program.
Under the Ontario general welfare assistance act, 33 Indian bands (about half the Indian population of Ontario) participate in the provincial welfare assistance program.
In Saskatchewan, all provincial welfare services are available to Indians living off reserves.
Questions
The province of British Columbia provides welfare assistance to Indians, who are living off reserves and who have not established residence in a municipality, on a refundable basis from Indian affairs branch.
Child welfare
As the field of child welfare is a provincial responsibility, there is a variance from one province to another in the administration and financing of the child care programs. In all provinces, Indian affairs branch assumes responsibility for the maintenance of Indian children under the care and supervision of the child welfare agency.
In British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, child welfare services are available to all children of the province on the same basis.
An agreement between the federal and British Columbia governments provides for a federal contribution toward the administrative costs of two social workers employed full time among the Indian population in the Smithers and Prince Rupert areas.
Child welfare services in Saskatchewan are extended to Indian reserves on a very limited referral basis from Indian affairs branch to the provincial department of child welfare.
An agreement between the federal government and the children's aid societies of western Manitoba provides for the extension of child welfare services to the reserves within the area of jurisdiction of the children's aid societies of western Manitoba.
Child welfare services are available to all reserves in Ontario through agreements with the federal government and the children's aid societies.
In New Brunswick, certain children's aid societies have provided limited child welfare services on reserves; however, there is no agreement with the provincial government and/or societies.
An agreement between the government of Nova Scotia and the federal government allows for the extension of child welfare services to all Nova Scotia reserves.
The federal and Yukon territorial governments have an agreement whereby the territorial government assumes responsibility for the administration of child welfare services and the federal government makes a financial contribution toward the administrative costs.
The department has an arrangement with northern affairs by which child welfare services and professional consultative services in all aspects of welfare in the district of Mackenzie are provided by northern affairs and national resources.
3284	HOUSE OF
Questions
Rehabilitation
In British Columbia, in Ontario, and in the maritime provinces, the benefits and services of the provincial rehabilitation programs are extended to Indian handicapped persons on the same basis as to non-Indians.
In Alberta, an agreement has been negotiated whereby the Alberta tuberculosis association has assumed responsibility for extending rehabilitation services to handicapped Indians at Indian affairs branch cost.
In Saskatchewan, an agreement has been in effect for some years with the provincial council for crippled children and adults whereby the Indian affairs branch pays a service charge as well as direct costs for work done with handicapped Indians.
In Manitoba, the sanatorium board of that province has been operating a rehabilitation program, under contract with the Indian affairs branch, that has been specially designed to help the young rehabilitants adapt to urban living conditions.
(c)	This matter is under consideration for possible inclusion on the agenda of an appropriate dominion-provincial conference.
(d)	A substantial investment in public funds for housing and sanitation facilities on

behalf of Indians has been made in recent years. Since 1959, expenditures for these purposes are as follows:
Year Sanitation Houses	Total
1959-	60 $ 46,387.29 $1,995,896.73 $2,042,284.02
1960-	61	254,276.98	1,979,702.82	2,233,989.801961-	62	354,806.98	2,191,693.12	2,546,500.101962-	63	381,740.39	1,951,807.26	2,333,547.65
Total $1,037,211.64 $8,119,099.93 $9,156,311.57
Ce) The operation of a housing loan fund for Indians on reserves is contingent upon suitable amendments being made to the Indian Act.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard: 1.	With respect to the Indian affairs branch maximum scales of relief food assistance, what are the names of the settlements which are eligible for supplementary relief food allowance, and of these settlements which ones fall into each of the categories A, B, C and D?
2.	By whom was the determination made so to establish each such settlement as being eligible for the supplementary relief food scale, and upon what date was each such determination made?


John Carr Munro: 1. Indian bands eligible for supplementary relief food allowances:
Agency	Location of Agency Office	Band	Category	Date Approved
Ontario				
Fort Frances	Fort Frances	Lac La Croix	A	April 8, 1959Sioux Lookout	Sioux Lookout	Fort Severn	A	November 24, 1960Sioux Lookout	Sioux Lookout	Deer Lake	A	January 17, 1961Sioux Lookout	Sioux Lookout	Trout Lake	A & B	January 17, 1961Sioux Lookout	Sioux Lookout	Osnaburgh	A	January 17, 1961Nakina	Nakina	Fort Hope	B	April 6, 1959Nakina	Nakina	Martin Falls	B	April 6, 1959James Bay	Moose Factory	Nemiska	B	September 10, 1959James Bay	Moose Factory	Great Whale River	D	April 25, 1963Manitoba	Clandeboye	Selkirk	Little Grand Rapids A	April 15, 1959Nelson River	Ilford	Shamattawa	B	March 24, 1959District of Mackenzie Aklavik Inuvik, N.W.T.	Fort Franklin	A	September 10, 1959Aklavik	Inuvik, N.W.T.	Fort Good Hope	A	September 10, 1959Aklavik	Inuvik, N.W.T.	Arctic Red River	A	September 10, 1959Aklavik	Inuvik, N.W.T.	Fort Norman	A	September 10, 1959Aklavik	Inuvik, N.W.T.	Fort McPherson	A	November 9, 1959Aklavik	Inuvik, N.W.T.	Old Crow	C	November 9, 1959Fort Simpson	Fort Simpson	Fort Wrigley	A	September 10, 1959Fort Simpson	Fort Simpson	Fort Liard	A	December 20, 1959Fort Simpson	Fort Simpson	Fort Simpson	A	September 16, 1960

Questions
Agency	Location of Agency Office	Band	Category	Date Approved
British Columbia				
Skeena River	Prince Rupert	Kin eolith	A	April 15, 1959Terrace	Terrace	Canyon City	A	April 15, 1959Terrace	Terrace	Greenville	A	April 15, 1959Terrace	Terrace	Gitlakdamix	A	April 15, 1959Stuart Lake	Vanderhoof	Finlay River	A	April 15, 1959Stuart Lake	Vanderhoof	Takla Lake	A	April 15, 1959Yukon Territory	Yukon	Whitehorse	Atlin Teslin	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Selkirk	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Champagne	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Mayo	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Teslin Lake	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Dawson	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Carmacks	B	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Kluane	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Liard River	A	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Ross River	D	May 15, 1959Yukon	Whitehorse	Tahltan	D	June 26, 1963Yukon	Whitehorse	Whitehorse	A	May 15, 1959
Summary
Category	Bands
A	29
B	6
C	1
D	3
	39
2.	Eligibility of Indian bands for supplementary relief food allowance is based upon local food prices. Recommendations for increased assistance are submitted by Indian agency superintendents through the office of the Indian commissioner for B.C. or through the appropriate regional office in other provinces and forwarded to the Indian affairs branch in Ottawa for approval. Alternatively, an enquiry regarding food costs is initiated by branch headquarters if there is reason to believe that consideration should be given to granting supplementary allowances in any particular area.


JAMES COUTTS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What office does Jim Coutts hold in the government?
2.	What is his age, place of birth, institutions of education attended and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm or employer), and initial and present salary with the government?
3.	What length of time has this gentleman undertaken to serve the government and/or what engagement in length of time was given to him?
4.	In brief, what particular qualities of Mr. Coutts led to his engagement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. Secretary to the Prime
Minister.
2.	25-High river, Alberta. Nanton consolidated school-grades 1-12 University of Alberta-B.A., LL.B Practised law-Calgary- McLaws & Co. $9000.
3.	None specified.
4.	Ability to do the job.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF FAUTEUX REPORT
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering repealing the Ticket of Leave Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and certain portions of the Penitentiary Act, and their replacement by one statute that deals in a comprehensive manner with the matters now dealt with in these acts, as recommended by the Fauteux report?


Mr. Chevrier:: The government is not
presently considering the consolidation of the legislation referred to by a single statute. However, the Ticket of Leave Act was repealed and replaced by the Parole Act, which came into force on February 15, 1959; a new Penitentiary Act came into force in 1961; and the Prisons and Reformatories Act is under review.


VISITS BY JUDGES TO PENAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What arrangements has the government made for visits of magistrates and judges to penal institutions to which they sentence offenders who appear before them, as recommended in the Fauteux report?

Questions
2.	What steps has the government taken to implement the recommendations of the Fauteux report that courts rely to a much greater extent upon pre-sentence reports?


Lionel Chevrier: 1. In most penitentiaries, magistrates and judges are frequent visitors and such visits are encouraged. Every request from the judiciary to visit penitentiaries receives immediate attention and the visit is arranged. An item of $5,000 is included in the current estimates of the Department of Justice to cover travelling expenses of judges for this purpose.
2.	No action has been taken by the federal government but it is understood that, in certain provinces at least, the use of pre-sentence reports is being extended.


OBSERVATION BY JUDGES OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering requiring that magistrates and judges who order corporal punishment be required to observe the actual imposition of such punishment at least once annually?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING SUSPENDED SENTENCE, PROBATION, ETC.
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to legislation to effect (a) the abolition of a number of the restrictions on the power of the courts to suspend the passing of sentence (b) the authorization of probation without conviction (c) the amendment of criminal law to prevent imprisonment in default of payment of fines by persons who are unable to pay them and (d) that distinction be made in the law, as far as times for payment of fines is concerned, between indictable offences and summary conviction offences, all of which is recommended in the Fauteux report?


Lionel Chevrier: As to (a) and (b) the desirability of such legislation is being studied by the Department of Justice in connection with the continuing criminal law amendment program.
As to (c) and (d) sections 622 and 694 of the Criminal Code were amended in 1959 to provide, in respect of indictable and summary conviction offences alike, that where an accused person is fined the court shall consider any representations made by him as to whether time should be allowed for payment, and lay down other conditions designed to prevent imprisonment for inability to pay fines.


AFTER-CARE FOR CERTAIN PAROLEES
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering what means could be used to provide specialized after-care for particular types of parolees such as sex offenders, drug addicts, alcoholics and psychopaths, as recommended by the Fauteux report?


Lionel Chevrier: Supervision is provided for serious sex offenders, drug addicts, psychopaths and most alcoholics while on parole, either by parole officers or private or public agencies under the direction of the parole board.
Arrangements are made in appropriate cases for referral to and treatment in, psychiatric or specialized clinics, where available, and in some cases special conditions are imposed in the parole agreement signed by the parolee.
The government is considering also what means could be employed to expand or improve the existing facilities and to provide more intensive supervision and surveillance in these classes of cases.


SURVEYS RESPECTING CAESIUM 137 LEVELS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the government any information concerning the results of surveys conducted by U.S. health authorities in Alaska and, if so, (a) what was the nature of such results and (b) what level of caesium 137 was found by surveys?
2.	Is the federal government conducting similar surveys among Eskimos in northern Canada and, if so, (a) have any preliminary results been received and (b) has any comparison been made between U.S. results and any Canadian results?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Yes. The results indicate that the levels of caesium 137 in Alaskan Eskimos who feed largely on caribou and reindeer meat are higher than those found elsewhere in Alaska or in the rest of the United States. Whole body counting measurements of caesium 137 in adult Alaskan Eskimos in 1962 ranged from 3 to 790 nanocuries. The highest observed level is less than the level recommended by the international commission on radiological protection as a basis for health assessment for individuals within the population. The highest average level for any community was 421 nanocuries. Typical levels in adults in other parts of the United States in 1962 were 5 to 7 nanocuries.
2. Yes. A study of fall-out levels in northern Canada has been initiated. This is a co-operative project involving units of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of National Health and Welfare. The study is composed of a number of related but separate surveys. To date no direct measurements of caesium 137 in Canadian Eskimos have been made by whole body counting. Arrangements have however been made for such measurements. Urine specimens are being collected now and will be measured to give an indication of average caesium 137 levels in people in different communities. Samples of caribou and reindeer meat are also being received and measured for caesium 137; it is hoped that the first report on these measurements will be available in about a month. Levels of

caesium 137 in Canadians living in the more populated parts of Canada were about the same as those found in the United States during 1962.


NON-PRESCRIPTION SALE OF ANTIBIOTIC PREPARATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government any information concerning proposals by the U.S. food and drug administration to ban the non-prescription sale of lozenges, nose sprays, mouth washes, deodorants and skin lotions containing antibiotics and, if so, are steps being contemplated for similar control in this country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Department of National Health and Welfare is being kept informed by the United States food and drug administration of its study of this subject.
No product registered in Canada under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act is permitted to contain an antibiotic. Only a few antibiotics are permitted in non-prescription preparations whose sale is subject to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations and the relevant regulations are under constant review in the light of any health hazards that may be observed in their use.


FROBISHER BAY
Mr. Orlikow: Are Eskimos refused admittance to the quarters of the Department of Transport employees at the Frobisher Bay recreation association at Frobisher Bay, N.W.T. and, if so, under what authority, and when were these regulations promulgated?


George James McIlraith: No. The Frobisher airport recreation association is not operated by the
Questions
department but is organized by its employees to provide recreation for themselves and their families, and membership includes Eskimo employees and their families. Active membership is open to all employees of the Department of Transport, associate membership to other residents of Frobisher Bay.


USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN ANTI-COLD PREPARATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering banning the use of antibiotics now used in many anti-cold preparation prescriptions on the grounds that they are of no value in preventing colds or in protecting otherwise healthy people from the complications that sometimes follow a cold?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The primary responsibility for determining the possible therapeutic value of a prescription drug containing an antibiotic rests with physicians. The government would consider a prohibition of the inclusion of antibiotics in prescription drugs sold for the alleviation of cold symptoms only if a serious health hazard were demonstrated to exist.


POULTRY EVISCERATION PLANTS, MANITOBA
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	How many poultry evisceration plants are there in the province of Manitoba?
2.	How many of these are licensed by the health of animals division?
3.	When were they licensed?
4.	What is the total volume of birds processed through each of the plants in Manitoba from 1959 to 1962?
5.	What are the percentages of condemned birds from each plant, each year, from 1959 to 1962?


Mr. Hays:: 1. The department's records indicate there are 24.
2. Nine.
3.
Plant
Canada Packers Ltd.
Swift Canadian Co. Ltd.
Swift Canadian Co. Ltd.
Manitoba Dairy & Poultry Cooperative Ltd. Blumenort Cooperative Produce Ltd.
Geo. Dueck & Sons Ltd.
Pembina Poultry Packers Limited Dominion Poultry Sales Limited
Winkler Cooperative Creamery Ltd.
Address	Date of Registration
Winnipeg	Jan. 8, 1951
Winnipeg	Feb. 6, 1952
Neepawa	Oct. 6, 1958
Winnipeg	Oct. 23, 1957
Blumenort	Nov. 6, 1957
Niverville	Sept. 30, 1958
Morden	Oct. 1, 1956
Winnipeg	June 27, 1950 (not oper-
Winkler	ating at present) May 8, 1957 (temporarily
closed for 1963 season)
4.	and 5. Inasmuch as this information represents the volume of business of private concerns available to the department through the provisions of the Canada Meat Inspection Act,
it is not published. However, total volume of all poultry slaughtered through health of animals branch inspected plants in Manitoba is available and is shown in the following table along with the number condemned.
28902-5-209
Questions

Eviscerated
1959-	60	3,642,1591960-	61	3,572,7421961-	62	4,463,224


ARDA PROJECTS, INTERLAKE REGION, MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	Has an Interim report been received by the government on the two research projects and the five community and economic studies of the interlake region of Manitoba, approved by the federal government on March 15, 1963, under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and, if so, will it be made available to members of the House of Commons and other interested parties?
2.	Has the government any plans for projects in the interlake area, in addition to the eleven cost sharing projects announced on March 15, 1963 and, if so, what are they, and the estimated cost?


Harry William Hays: 1. No report has been received. 2. Five additional projects have been approved in the interlake area of Manitoba. The nature of these projects, the total cost of each and the amounts allocated as the federal share are set forth in the following table:
Project	Total Federal
Cost Share
Land capability surveys in the interlake and west lake regions to develop a land capability map of fringe or frontier areas.	$24,800	$12,400A land utilization study of the interlake region to prepare a land zoning or administration map for guidance in development.	62,000	62,000To appraise the commercial fishery to determine the economic benefits which could be derived by the rural people of the interlake area. 99,290	49,645To accelerate the soil survey program in the interlake region to provide background information for the soil capability	inventory. 23,000	23,000To determine the leadership structure of people associated with agricultural-fishing communities.	7,500	7,500


AIRSTRIP SURFACE, FORT SIMPSON, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Has the Department of Transport any plans to put a gravel surface on the airstrip at Fort Simpson, N.W.T. and, if so, when will this project begin, and what will be the cost?
2.	If not, will the department examine this matter and provide for this urgently required surface as soon as possible?

Condemned	Percentage
44,377	1.21%
46,480	1.30%
Not yet	-
available


George James McIlraith: 1. The department's forecast of estimates provides for the gravelling of runway 12-30 together with the apron and taxiway. No estimate can be given as to when this project will begin since it depends on provision of sufficient funds but it is tentatively scheduled for the year 1966-67. The estimated cost for the whole project is slightly over $1,000,000.
2. A full economic and engineering study will be undertaken before the work outlined in the answer to part 1 is undertaken.


ACCESS TO AIRPORT, FORT SIMPSON, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Does the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have any plans to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island to allow year-round access by the residents of Fort Simpson to their airport and, if so, when will this project get underway?
2.	If not, will the department consider providing this vital and urgent link?
Answer: 1. No.
2. Yes, when the volume of traffic increases to such an extent as to warrant the high cost involved. There is at present a causeway between the island and the mainland which is useable throughout the year except a few weeks in spring during the break-up of the Mackenzie river.


*TRIP TO WINDSOR BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a trip to and from Windsor, Ontario, on September 25 last in a government aircraft at government expense?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of this trip?


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is, on government business having partly to do with trade and economic matters which were being discussed with the representatives of the government of another country in Ottawa that day, and as I had to participate as chairman of the Canadian delegation, it was necessary to make these arrangements.


Mr. Cole (Chicoulimi): 1.	Does the government consider the Russian rouble to be convertible currency?
2.	Will the payment of wheat sold to Russia be made through a bank transfer from the Bank of Moscow or the Bank of London?

Questions


Mr. Pepin:: Export agents of the Canadian wheat board receive payment following the loading of wheat on each vessel on presentation of documents to a Canadian bank. The question as to how the Canadian bank receives the funds from the U.S.S.R. is a private commercial matter between the buyer and the Canadian banks.


Mr. Coales: What is the status of the negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States related to the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Development?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, in response to this question I may say that we do not feel that we have sufficient information at the present time to give any positive indication as to the government's position. This matter, however, has been discussed with the premier of New Brunswick, and we have asked for some more information from the United States. There are no negotiations under way.


Mr. Simpson: What are the names of all those present during the negotiations with the Russians in relation to the recent grain sale?
Answer: The negotiations of the Canada-
U.S.S.R. trade agreement and the wheat sales to the U.S.S.R. were closely related. The following were present during either or both discussions:
D. S. McPhail,
Department of External Affairs.
J. Fast,
Department of External Affairs.
M. Sakellaropoulo,
Department of Finance.
J. A. MacPherson,
Department of Finance.
D. W. McGill,
Department of National Revenue.
H. D. MacDermid,
Department of National Revenue.
F. Shefrin,
Department of Agriculture.
Soviet government trade delegation.
S.	A. Borisov,
First deputy minister, ministry of foreign trade of the U.S.S.R.
A.	H. Manzhulo,
Ministry of foreign trade.
V.	M. Ivanov,
Ministry of foreign trade.
L. M. Matveev,
Head of V/O exportkhleb.
B.	L. Popov,
Ministry of foreign trade.
A. P. Korostelov,
Ministry of foreign trade.
Canadian government trade delegation Honourable Mitchell Sharp,
Minister of Trade and Commerce.
J. H. Warren,
Assistant deputy minister, trade policy, Department of Trade and Commerce.
W.	C. McNamara,
Chief commissioner, Canadian wheat board. W. Riddel,
Assistant chief commissioner, Canadian wheat board.
V. L. Chapin,
Department of Trade and Commerce.
R. V. N. Gordon,
Department of Trade and Commerce.
R. M. Esdale,
Department of Trade and Commerce.
C.	J. MacCallum,
Department of Trade and Commerce.
O. G. Stoner,
Department of External Affairs.
28902-5-209i
V. N. Platonov,
Ministry of foreign trade.
N. J. Kuzminsky,
Head of bureau of translation, ministry of foreign trade.


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the salary, as of October 1, of Richard O'Hagan of the Prime Minister's office?
2.	Has Mr. O'Hagan received any salary or expenses from MacLaren's Advertising Agency since April 22, 1963?


Mr. Davis:: 1. $10,000.
2. No.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Has the American government recently made representations to the Canadian government regarding negotiations concerning the tidal power at Passamaquoddy and, if so, what stage has been reached in these negotiations?
2.	Has the commission on territorial waters submitted a report on the matter recently?

Questions


Paul Joseph James Martin: The United States government has indicated that it was willing to discuss the matter with the government of Canada but there are no negotiations under way at the moment. See also my reply to question No. 1,186.
2. The final report of the joint international commission on that matter was published on May 1, 1961.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,194
Mr. Ricard:: Since the establishment of the agricultural prices stabilization board and up to March 31, 1963, what has been, for each of the fiscal years concerned, the amount of the grants paid to the producers of sugar beets in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot?


Mr. Beer:: The agricultural stabilization board has not recorded payments to producers of sugar beets by constituency but up to March 31, 1963, total deficiency payments to producers of sugar beets in the province of Quebec were as follows:
Fiscal	year	1959-60	crop	$ 73,040Fiscal	year	1960-61	crop	$ 76,502Fiscal	year	1961-62	crop	$122,085Fiscal	year	1962-63	crop	$168,891


Mr. Ricard: Since the establishment of the agricultural prices stabilization board and up to March 31, 1963, what has been paid as a grant of 25 cents a hundredweight of milk to the operators of each of the following factories: Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Germain, Co. of Drummond; Theodore Jodoin, St-Theodore d'Acton, Co. of Bagot; Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Hugues, Co. of Bagot; Des-lauriers & Frere-Paul Jodoin, St-Liboire, Co. of Bagot; Felice DiPalma, St-Liboire, Co. of Bagot; Helidore Parent, Ste-Helene, Co. of Bagot; Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Simon, Co. of Bagot; Theodore Gevry, St-Pie, Co. of Bagot; Alfred Bernard, La Presentation, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Produits Laitiers Val Maska, St-Damase, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Charles Benoit & Irenee Lariviere, La Presentation, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Lussier & Frere Enr., St-Hyacinthe, Co. of St. Hyacinthe; Produits Laitiers Mont St-Hilaire, St-Hyacinthe, Co. of St-Hyacinthe?


Bruce Silas Beer: The agricultural stabilization board does not make grants of 25 cents per hundredweight for milk to the operator of any processing plant.
Plants are reimbursed for payments made to individual producers on behalf of the agricultural stabilization board.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Does the government of Canada intend to maintain its preferential tariff policy for the republic of South Africa even if that country has withdrawn from the commonwealth?
2.	On what ground has the government made its decision in this regard?
3.	What was the amount of trade with the republic during the last fiscal year?
4.	What part of that amount went to the preferential tariffs granted?
Answer: 1. Canada exchanges tariff preferences with the republic of South Africa on the basis of the bilateral trade agreement negotiated with that country in 1932. The validity of that agreement does not depend on membership in the commonwealth.
2.	The basis on which the government continues to extend preferential tariff treatment is, as indicated above, a trade agreement which continues in force unless denounced by either party on six months' notice.
3.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963, South African exports to Canada totalled $17.5 million. For the same period Canadian exports to South Africa amounted to $42 million.
4.	In 1962 approximately 25 per cent of Canadian exports to South Africa entered at preferential rates of duty. There is no specific figure available on what percentage of South African exports to Canada enjoy tariff preferences. However, in 1962 of the nine leading South African exports to Canada valued at $12 million, $6.5 million or 54 per cent entered under a preferential tariff.


Mr. Scott: 1.	Does the government have statistics as to the total amount of Canadian borrowings in the U.S.A.?
2.	If so, what was the total value of such borrowings from (a) January 1,	1963 to July 18,
1963 and (b) July 18, 1963 to September 30, 1963?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2. The sale to residents of the United States of new issues of Canadian bonds and debentures produced $401 million in the period from January 1 to March 31, 1963, and $366 million in the period April 1 to June 30, 1963. These totals included amounts sold earlier for delivery in these quarters. Sales in the first quarter totalled $531 million and in the second quarter $134 million.
Data are not available for parts of quarters and totals for the third quarter are not yet complete.


Mr. Scoil: 1. Has the government's attention been drawn to the report on invisible trade barriers between

Canada and the United States recently published under the sponsorship of the Canadian-American committee?
2.	Is the government presently investigating the extent to which trade liberalization in Canada and the U.S.A. may be limited by (a) discretionary authority given customs officials to value and classify imports (b) interpretation by such officials of escape clauses in trade agreements (c) administrative zeal in restricting imports in ways not sanctioned by law?
3.	Briefly, what plan does the government have to deal with the problems raised by the above mentioned report?
Answer: 1. Yes. The government is aware of this publication by the Canadian-American committee of the national planning association (U.S.A.) and the private planning association of Canada.
2.	The government considers any subjects bearing on trade liberalization, on a continuing basis and as a matter of day to day business. There is no special investigation being conducted in respect of the points mentioned in the question. As regards (a) procedures are available in both countries to consult the customs authorities about value and classification problems, to seek a review, and to appeal decisions of officials. As regards (b), the invocation of escape clause procedures of international agreements would be a matter to be decided by the government in Canada; under United States law decisions on these matters are made by the president, after a report by the U.S. tariff commission has been made. As regards (c), it is of course the case that the laws of a sovereign country must be administered. As indicated above, established appeal procedures are available.
3.	Invisible barriers to Canadian exports, or non-tariff barriers as they are called, are a matter of interest and concern wherever they exist. We are continuing to press for removal of such barriers in our international trade consultations with other countries. The subject of non-tariff barriers to trade will be considered at the GATT trade conference next year.


Mr. Scoti: 1.	Have the talks between deputy trade minister James A. Roberts and foreign trade minister Witold Trampczynski of Poland been completed?
2.	Briefly, what is the nature of the "Canadian-Polish common trade development policy" that the Polish press agency PAP reported as having been agreed upon during such talks?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2. The deputy minister of my department has just returned from a visit to Poland and other eastern European countries. This visit was in return for a number of visits from officials of these countries to Canada and in
Questions
response to invitations which have been extended on various occasions. These were, of course, opportunities to exchange views on various trade matters. In the course of these discussions it was made clear that both sides are interested in developing mutually advantageous trade between the two countries. To this end there is in prospect a return visit to Canada later this month of a Polish trade delegation. Such a visit will provide a further opportunity to exchange views on trade matters.


Mr. Cowan: 1.	Is the Scott Misener Steamships Ltd., mentioned at the bottom of page 54 in the report of industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping (Norris report), a federally chartered company?
2.	Who were the directors of the company in 1959, and who are the directors in 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes-incorporated on December 5, 1933 under name Colonial Steamships, Limited,-name changed to Scott Misener Steamships Limited by supplementary letters patent dated December 31, 1958.
2. According to the annual summary as of March 31, 1959 the directors of the company were: R. Scott Misener, Port Colborne, Ont.; J. N. McWatters, Port Colborne, Ont.; Ralph
S.	Misener, Winnipeg, Man.; F. H. Brown, Vancouver, B.C.; A. E. Pequegnat, Waterloo, Ont.; E. P. Murphy, Ottawa, Ont.; N. T. Berry, Toronto, Ont.; John E. F. Misener, Welland, Ont.; John A. France, Winnipeg, Man.; as of March 31, 1960:
R. Scott Misener, Port Colborne, Ont.; Ralph
S.	Misener, Winnipeg, Man.; John E. F. Misener, Welland, Ont.; John A. France, Winnipeg, Man.; J. N. McWatters, Port Colborne, Ont.; N. T. Berry, Toronto, Ont.; A. E. Pequegnat, Kitchener, Ont.; F. H. Brown, Vancouver, B.C.; E. P. Murphy, Ottawa, Ont.; and as of March 31, 1963:
J. N. McWatters, R.R. No. 2, Wainfleet, Ont.; N. T. Berry, 7 May Street, Toronto, 5, Ont.; A. E. Pequegnat, 241 Frederick St., Kitchener, Ont.; F. H. Brown, Suite 1312, Standard Bldg., Vancouver, B.C.; R. Scott Misener, 74 West St., Port Colborne, Ont.; Ralph S. Misener, 300 Dromore Avenue, Winnipeg, Man.; John E. F. Misener, 55 Parkway Ave., Welland, Ont.; John A. France, Fonthill, Ont.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. It being five o'clock the house will revert to private members' business.

Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Her Majesty's government consider the advisability of appointing commissioners under Part I of the Inquiries Act:
(a)	to inquire into the extent of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river and its effect on the Atlantic provinces;
(b)	to determine whether such action is in accord with the original spirit and mutual pledges of co-operation in which confederation was conceived;
(c)	to make such recommendations as they deem appropriate having regard to forging a dynamic national policy with particular respect to air, sea and land transportation in which the future of every region will be fully utilized with maximum benefits to that region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private members' notice of motion has been drafted a little wider than might have been necessary. In essence it simply deals with the effect of winter navigation on the ports of Saint John and Halifax. I have brought it under the Inquiries Act because of the present aversion to royal commissions. It is not inappropriate, either, that we should be discussing the St. Lawrence at the present time, in view of the problems that exist there. This matter has not been debated to any great extent through the years. There has been some discussion on the estimates of the Department of Transport and a few questions have been asked in the house from time to time, but I find no complete record of a full debate. I approach this matter, Mr. Speaker, in a nonpartisan way, and I understand that the hon. member for Halifax, and others, will be joining in this debate. I want to point out at the beginning that we in the maritimes do not stand in the way of progress: we, ourselves simply do not wish to be paying for this progress.
Some history should be placed on record in connection with this matter. We could go back to confederation to find various statements that were made at that time about the importance of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and their ports, and how they should be considered in any plans that might be put into effect in 1867. Sir John A. Macdonald is on record as having referred to this matter. I came across a very pertinent excerpt from the pre-confederation debates of 1865, in the provincial parliament of Canada, in Quebec, third session, page 349. Mr. Joly, the member for Lotbiniere, in speaking about Sir Etienne Tache, the president of the council, said this:
The honourable president of the council tells us that he is favourable to confederation, because it
[Mr. Speaker.!
will give us a seaport at all seasons of the year- a most powerful argument, he adds, in its favour. We stand in great need of a seaport in the winter season, more especially if the United States abolish the right of transit. Absolutely, without reference to that, we require it in order to perfect our system of defence.
Various statements have been made by people through the years about this matter. I recall the late Mr. Clarence Gillis, at one time a member from Cape Breton, was always a strong advocate about the problems that would be presented with the St. Lawrence seaway. In fact, in the light of the remarks made recently about maritimers by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), I often wish Mr. Gillis was with us in the house again, because he certainly would have dealt with the hon. member from his own party in his own strong way. Mr. Rand Matheson of the maritime transport commission always had fears in the early days of the seaway that when business was taken inland it would mean a greater use of the St. Lawrence in the summer. I recall Mr. Sam Balcom, a former member for Halifax, who on many occasions tabled questions about this matter, and Mr. Yvon Tasse, who was a member from Quebec, was also a great advocate of winter shipping in the city of Quebec.
We pointed out to him on many occasions that his difficulty in promoting the port of Quebec in the wintertime was that once Quebec was fully open the traffic would go past the door and on to Three Rivers and Montreal. I only mentioned these names, Mr. Speaker, to show that there has been some interest in this question, although there have not been any recorded debates. I mentioned this matter in the house on June 11, 1954, and the minister of transport at that time, now the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), said:
I can tell my hon. friend that I cannot see any possibility of keeping the St. Lawrence route open during 12 months of the year. Certainly there is nothing envisaged in the plans for the development of the seaway, either jointly or separately, in connection with power and navigation, which would have anything to do with that subject either directly or indirectly. I do not foresee that in the immediate future, unless it be by atomic power, with which I am not competent to deal, there is any possibility of a longer season of navigation on the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Speaker, that brings the matter up to date. The icebreaking continues and we in Saint John and Halifax are faced each year during the winter season with the headlines of the newspapers that plague us incessantly. I have just copied some newspaper headlines to give the house an idea of the apprehension that exists in our minds. "Eleven icebreakers for St. Lawrence"; "More icebreakers urged for gulf"; "Labour protests

policy on Quebec icebreaker"; "Halifax becoming 'ghost town' port". These, I may interject, are headlines from Halifax and Saint John newspapers. Then "Montreal winter shipping-'feasible sooner or later' "Testing methods of removing ice"; "Icebound ship set free". That was on the St. Lawrence. "Nova Scotia port union boss says icebreakers shortening season"; "Year-around route stimulates industry-$100 million Levis development"; "Icebreakers have busy gulf season", and so on.
In order to prove my case conclusively, Mr. Speaker, I have some official figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics which show the traffic which has been built up at the ports of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal in January, February and March, the full winter season, from 1958 to 1963. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the house I would like to have this brief table printed in Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Has the hon. member for Saint John-Albert the permission of the house to have this table printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Tons of export and import cargoes loaded at Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal, P.Q. in the months January,	February and March-1958 to
1963 inclusive
1963	1962	1961	1960	1959 1958
(See note)
Tons loadedexport	63,733	39,833	30,303	40,943	13,815	nilTons unloadedimport	28,020	29,796	25,671	24,824	245	nil
Total tonsexport &
import	91,753	69,629	55,974	65,767	14,060	nil
Note: Excludes 41,506 tons loaded at Montreal which were carried in ships caught at Montreal in 1958 fall freeze-up and subsequently released by icebreakers in January of 1959.
Source: d.b.s. shipping statistics.


Thomas Miller Bell: This matter has been presented on many occasions. The last formal time I recall its being raised was in a brief to the former minister of transport on May 30, 1961. This was a brief presented by the ports of Halifax and Saint John. It was most constructive. I refer to the part at the end of their brief where they dealt with the test of this matter of icebreaking and said:
The question should not be where the icebreaker is working, but what it is doing and whether the results meet an essential public need or national interest; or maybe whether the results are to some extent contrary to national interest and policy.
Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence
Certain representations were made in Saint John and Halifax to the MacPherson royal commission, but they felt that the terms of reference did not include a treatment of this subject. While there was a veiled reference in volume 2 of the MacPherson report there was not anything of a helpful nature in so far as concerns this matter which looms so large to these ports.
We were encouraged, however, when recently the Atlantic development board accepted as one of their first projects this entire subject. The former member for Halifax, Bob McCleave, was aggressive in his approaches to the Atlantic development board, as it was newly constitued and they accepted, as I say, a full study of this matter. I notice that this is to be continued by the new directors who made a statement on September 27, 1963, to the effect that the Atlantic development board will continue the economic examination of the effect on Atlantic ports, of winter shipping in the St. Lawrence seaway, and a scientific and engineering study of winter shipping in the St. Lawrence. This will be carried out together with existing studies that are being made by the national harbours board, and others.
I feel that one should be constructive about a matter such as this. I have jotted down a few questions that the Atlantic development board and others interested in this matter might wish to consider. First of all, will the ice in the straits still be a danger, even with icebreaking in the St. Lawrence? What is the threat from fresh water ice in the spring? Would all the winter traffic figures for the St. Lawrence be business that would otherwise have come to Saint John and Halifax? Has any activity that formerly went through American ports been diverted to any Canadian ports because of winter navigation? Have insurance rates changed in any way to spread extra costs for winter navigation over all ports of eastern Canada? Has export business been held up in the spring in order to wait for the opening of the St. Lawrence; and also, are orders rushed through Montreal in the fall before closing? Has there been any actual benefit to Halifax from the opening of Quebec in the winter as suggested? Is it possible to assess the costs of icebreaking even in a general way? If the St. Lawrence were navigable all year, would any legitimate new business be created that does not presently exist?
I throw those thoughts out, Mr. Speaker, and in addition suggest that some of the solutions might be of this nature. First, special costs assessed to shipping companies varied to the thickness of ships' plates, as in many northern European countries such as Finland.

Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence Second, individual icebreaker service should be paid for when and if needed. And third- and this is the suggestion that meets with more favour from responsible bodies in the maritimes-set freight rates on a directly competitive basis with the St. Lawrence; that is to say, with no advantage to the St. Lawrence, at least in wintertime. This equalization would, of course, be in the nature of a direct subsidy. It would be interesting to compare the estimates of these subsidy proposals with that of the entire cost of icebreaking services throughout the winter season on the St. Lawrence. Those are some solutions.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I merely say that this is a fast-moving transportation world. We are very apprehensive in Saint John and Halifax. I am speaking particularly from a Saint John standpoint when I say that we were at one time the fourth largest city in Canada, and probably the largest port at the time of confederation. We have many problems. We have a transit type of port activity, and the St. Lawrence would take more from us than Halifax. We are primarily serviced by Canadian Pacific. They are changing their passenger plans and making many other different moves, especially with regard to freight. We hear of trans-oceanic air freight, and such air freight is a big issue. We also wonder about trucking. If trucking had been given a completely free hand, would it have made a difference to our ports? As far as Saint John is concerned, the West Indies has always loomed large to us from an economic trading point of view, and we have had what business there has been from Cuba. What is our position in the future in this regard? These are all questions which have to be answered. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of recent date with reference to this matter;
Perhaps Saint John is but the victim of our geography; a geography which, left to itself, ordains that Canada's growth must mainly be with our central regions, and beyond these to the west and the Pacific. Nor is it easy to combat geography; to overcome the consequences of resources-or lack of them-in given areas.
Yet Saint John's position, one of the problems of a Canadian nationhood, deserves the thought of all of us. For a land half prosperous and half poor is hardly the stuff of greatness.
We in the maritimes, Mr. Speaker, realize that we cannot stop the inevitable, as I said in my opening remarks. This is a request for the full, ungarnished facts. We want the cold truth so that we will know where our future lies. The people there, I am sure, will accept as we have in the past, certain facts of life, and go from there in co-operation with government to different or even related activities. This has been demonstrated on many


previous occasions, and certainly a challenge such as this can be met with our usual forthrightness.


Mr. Maurice Rinfrei (Si. James):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I represent a riding which is interested in harbour development, I welcome this opportunity of stressing with all hon. members the importance of harbours throughout Canada and the impact of their operation on our economy.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) is worried about the harbours of the maritimes and his concern is due to winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert does not seem to share the views expressed by his former Conservative colleague, the former minister of transport, Hon. George Hees, at the annual dinner of the dominion marine association and of the lake carriers association held at Montebello on January 22, 1958. Speaking of aids to navigation, Mr. Hees stated that it was possible for certain ships to ply the St. Lawrence in winter and he had this to say:
Thanks to those ships, practically all needs should be met within a few years in the St. Lawrence river and the gulf districts, including the winter navigation that might be possible in the various ports of the lower St. Lawrence and even in Quebec harbour.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert must not have appreciated either the statement made by his Conservative colleague, the present member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), minister of transport in the previous Conservative government, who on January 4, 1962, delivered a speech about winter navigation.
The January 5, 1962 issue of La Presse published an item about the official opening of winter navigation in Three Rivers, in which Hon. Leon Balcer was reported as having said;
The federal government will endeavour to encourage shipping as far as the port of Three Elvers, because such an activity will promote to large extent the economic development not only of the Three Rivers area but of the whole country.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert was a member of this house in 1958 and in 1962, and we never heard him complain to his two colleagues who were ministers of transport from 1957.
To reassure the hon. member for Saint John-Albert about his fears concerning prosperity of maritime ports, I will quote him a few figures which are an indication of the prosperity of these ports. Reviewing statistics published by the national harbours board, we can see that the gains in tonnage for the port of Saint John, show an increase of

82 per cent in 1960 compared to 1959, an increase of 14 per cent in 1961 over 1960 and a slight decrease in 1962.
Concerning the port of Halifax, it maintained the same tonnage in 1960 and 1961; in 1962, the tonnage increased by 7 per cent.
Those figures indicate that, at the present time, the ports of Halifax and Saint John are not only maintaining their operations but are experiencing an increase in tonnage for import and export goods, even though during the winter navigation on the St. Lawrence has increased.
Hon. members realize that the Department of Transport's icebreaker service must ensure winter navigation on the St. Lawrence so that merchant ships may proceed on the lower St. Lawrence and in the gulf itself.
It is imperative for the industrial development of the north shore that ships carrying ore, paper and aluminum from nearby plants to the United States and Europe stop over in centres like Port Cartier, Seven Islands and Baie Comeau.
The south shore will one day be more industrialized than it is at present. Assistance should be given by both the federal and provincial governments to that economically underdeveloped area to attract new industries. Communities like Chandler, Perce, Ri-mouski and Riviere du Loup will require water transportation facilities all year round.
The co-operation of icebreakers is also required to assist the ferryboats which ply between the north shore and the south shore of the St. Lawrence, as well as the small coasting vessels which give the service between the neighbouring ports of the lower St. Lawrence and the north shore of the gulf, in order that, in the absence of a railway, those centres may be supplied and may ship the goods produced by the local industries.
For a few years, European and Canadian shipyards have been building boats reinforced to such a degree that they can resist to navigation amidst the floating ice. Some of those ships have gone upstream and reached the ports of Quebec and Three Rivers, thus promoting our imports and exports at a reduced rate for the cost of transportation. Such reinforced boats resort to icebreakers when they find deep ice, but they can navigate without help in the regions covered with floating ice or thin ice.
Above Three Rivers and up to Montreal, the icebreakers are in service to prevent the floods caused by ice piling up along the shore and in the channel. Therefore, the icebreakers are called upon to prevent such ice jams.
Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence
After all, winter shipping on the St. Lawrence river is done thanks to the icebreakers, reinforced ships, coasters and ferryboats which are essential in order to supply and ensure the economic life of certain areas along the river.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert which are essential in order to supply and inquiry and study the shipping situation all across Canada. I do not think that an inquiry is necessary. This government has set up two boards which are certainly aware of this problem, the Atlantic development board and the national economic development board.
These two national agencies, following research and surveys, will be in a position to make recommendations for the continuation by the Canadian ports of their operations on the present scale and for an increase of their yearly volume of goods.
Science progress and the development of new industrial areas will ensure an increased traffic in our Canadian ports, and all the areas served by harbours should be able to take advantage of these benefits.
I hope that all our national ports will share in the economic growth of our country and that governments at all levels, as well as private industry, will provide them with the necessary funds in order to meet their objectives, that is economic prosperity and stability.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Peri Arthur):: We should like to support the motion advanced by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) while expressing some regret that the hon. member who has just spoken from the government side should have given us what is almost the traditional answer-"Why didn't you do something about it when you were in power?"
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) interjects: "He did not say that". I am paraphrasing what I think was the effect of what the hon. member was saying. I stand corrected if I gave the impression that he said so in those exact words.
Part (b) of the motion would, of course, be very difficult, I imagine, for any board of inquiry to analyse and develop, but I certainly agree very much with what is stated in parts (a) and (c). I have brought up this subject on a number of occasions in previous parliaments, as I think the hon. member for Saint John-Albert will probably remember. One of my reasons for doing so, and I should probably be somewhat ashamed about it, was that it was guaranteed to start some kind of argument because, obviously, the interests of the maritime members, particularly of those

Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence members who represent Halifax and Saint John, are strongly affected by developments on the St. Lawrence.
It was obvious to me that there were some differences of opinion within the previous government with regard to the gradual development of icebreaking services and other aids to winter navigation which were being pushed forward by the Department of Transport. I feel there was a marked tendency for people in politics to speak differently in different parts of the country in connection with this controversy. I have always felt there should be a consistency in approaching this problem. My personal feeling is that the Department of Transport has, under instruction, gone out of its way to assist in the development of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence and I believe the people in the maritimes have had every right to complain about this, since it has not been stated in a context which had regard to the interests and facilities they have.
I recall that on one occasion when I brought this question up in a debate in this house I was told by a government employee who is an authority on shipping that there would be a saving of approximately $20 a ton on the freight of everything brought into Montreal or Quebec in the wintertime, compared with having it go to Halifax or Saint John first. This figure in itself, given to me by a government employee, was argument enough to convince me that this matter ought to be examined very thoroughly.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John-Albert for having brought this question to the attention of the house and I hope the government will consider accepting his suggestion that there should be such an inquiry. Among other things it would, if adopted, remove this extremely controversial subject from the tricks that can be played with it by people pushing a partisan point of view.
If I might speak on a side issue for a few moments, I should like to say to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert-and this has to do with his suggestion to the house that I was unfair to maritime members-that if he would look at the script of my remarks he would see that their substance is somewhat different from the story which ran in the newspapers. The main point of my remarks- and they have a relation to the problem which is before us now-was to the effect that the maritime members of parliament are often kept so busy by their constituents chasing constituency matters that they do not have time to work on the larger issues within the national framework which relate to their region. I am delighted that in this particular

instance the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has, in a sense, given the lie to that particular interpretation. But, if it is any consolation to him, he will find that in my remarks I made particular reference to him as one of the exceptions.
As to the way in which this inquiry could be carried out, I should like to suggest that this subject is of sufficient importance as to warrant an inquiry of the kind suggested in the motion before us. I am very doubtful about any promise by the Minister of Transport to have it examined by a departmental committee. It seems to me this would really not get anywhere. I should not like to have it examined by a departmental committee because it seems to me we really would not get anywhere. On the other hand, I should not like it to have the status of a full royal commission in the sense that I think this would perhaps blow the matter up beyond an economic analysis and the development of a strictly alternative transportation policy. For that reason we believe this is a good motion and we would hope that the government would consider accepting it. It certainly seems to me that it was presented in the best of spirits and it is worth real consideration.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question eagerly because there is no matter of greater interest to me or, indeed, to the city of Halifax and its economy than the question of the continuing inroads on our port traffic being made not only by winter navigation but also by the St. Lawrence seaway, and the diversion of so much Canadian exports and imports through United States ports to points of destination or from points of origin in Ontario and the west.
I speak in support of the principle of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and I compliment him on his thorough approach and research on the matter. I say that I support the resolution in principle because it is my understanding that the Atlantic development board is already undertaking such an investigation, and I feel that this is the proper board to supervise, if not to carry out, an investigation of this type.
Before going into the question of winter navigation, may I say I regret that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) did not consider the (b) part of the resolution of great importance, because I feel that it is. Before confederation was consummated, indeed as far back as 1851, Joseph Howe in his memorable speech at Southampton, as did all other Nova Scotian people contemplating confederation, spoke of the consequences of our port and the ports of Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick generally becoming winter ports for Canada. This was agreed upon as part of the spirit of confederation. Perhaps I will return to that a little later.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) when he hopes that our commerce will develop in such a way that the economy of each and every port in Canada will greatly improve; but with all deference to him I cannot agree with the statistics he quotes regarding total tonnage in the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The hon. member quotes tonnage figures for the port of Halifax as being unchanged from 1960 to 1961 and showing a slight increase in 1962. But he has dealt with the question of gross tonnage, and gross tonnage has increased only because of an increase in oil and gypsum products being handled which, while they inflate the total tonnage, provide little in the way of manhours of employment on the waterfront. I have had occasion to say previously in the house that it is packaged general cargo, the type that the longshoreman has to swing his hook into, which provides employment to labour on the waterfront.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Certainly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Does that mean that the hon. member is not in agreement with his colleague from St. James on this subject?


Gerald Augustine Regan: If my hon. friend had been listening closely he would have heard me say that I was, with deference, disagreeing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what I wanted you to say.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am very pleased that honest disagreements can at times take place within our party. The problem in the port of Halifax and also in the port of Saint John is that general cargo decreased all during the Tory years in office and during the years of increasing icebreaking activities on the St. Lawrence, and this has resulted in a very serious unemployment situation on our waterfronts.
I think that the question of winter navigation can be approached from two beginnings. First, I do not believe that, economically, winter navigation on the St. Lawrence is a good thing. I do not think it is a good thing at all, but I think that we in the maritimes are broadminded enough to recognize that some increasing measure of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence is inevitable. I say it is not a good thing because let us remember that navigation in the winter on the St. Lawrence does not create any new commerce. It merely takes away trade from the Atlantic
Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence ports and transfers it to the St. Lawrence ports, which already enjoy a prosperous summer trade. If you accept the premise that the St. Lawrence ports and port workers are already more prosperous, then surely we must reach the conclusion that the use of government funds to expand winter navigation on the St. Lawrence at the expense of the Atlantic ports is a policy of robbing the poor to help the rich.
Not only has our gross packaged cargo tonnage not increased during the past six years, but at the same time the tonnage in the St. Lawrence ports of Three Rivers, Montreal and so on has increased sharply. The natural growth of our population and of our economy alone should have resulted in some increase in the volume being handled through the Atlantic ports, but this has not been the case.
Having accepted as being to some degree inevitable the proposition that winter navigation will continue to exist, I say that the position of the maritime provinces is that we must have a more realistic freight rate structure so that our ports can compete. This matter was touched on by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and I am in wholehearted agreement with him in this respect. After all, much of the freight being imported or exported through maritime ports is hauled by the government-owned railway to or from those ports, and if the railway is not fully utilized it will build up a larger deficit than otherwise. This railway always operates at a deficit, and I cannot see that there is much national wisdom or economic gain from a national point of view in using the St. Lawrence ports as the result of great expenditure of public funds to keep these ports open in the winter, when as a consequence you cause railwaymen to be laid off and the railways to have less revenue and a larger deficit because goods are not being transported by the railway to or from the maritime ports.
I think this last point is more particularly significant inasmuch as we do not have a Canadian merchant marine at the present time. We are therefore left in the position that the money involved in the transporting of goods from central Canada to a point on the ocean equivalent to Halifax or Saint John, and the wages earned by the seamen involved, go outside of the nation and are lost. It goes to foreign owned ships, and the wages go to foreign seamen, whereas if the goods are shipped through Atlantic ports in the wintertime our railways remain more prosperous. This surely is of interest to our nation, and in addition it is Canadians who receive employment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time under the Maritimes Freight Rates Act,

Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence no subsidies are paid on goods imported or exported through the Atlantic ports. I suggest that we certainly need to undertake a revision of our freight rates structure. If this were done, and if for every dollar spent on icebreaking and allied activities in the St. Lawrence a similar amount were spent by way of subsidies on freight rates, then we would again be in a position to compete. As I have said before, no ship owner in the world will risk a vessel on the St. Lawrence during winter, despite icebreaking activities, if he can ship through the ports of Halifax or Saint John at no extra cost.
Earlier I said that it was part of the agreement under which the maritimes went into confederation that we would have this wintertime business, that we would be the winter ports of Canada. I would remind hon. members on all sides of the house, particularly those from Ontario and Quebec, that when they talk about the spirit of confederation, the undertakings of confederation, they must also remember that the maritimes were given these undertakings.

If Quebec wishes to remain faithful to the spirit of the British North America Act, may I remind that province of the reasons and motives that led the maritimes to enter confederation.
ITextt
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have not even received the gain in cargo that should have come about as a result of the natural growth in population and the natural growth in commerce. Our package cargo has actually decreased in volume and we have suffered losses in our winter business. They have been made more severe because we have been steadily losing business in the summertime to the St. Lawrence seaway.
I cannot agree that this house should undertake this investigation, because it is being undertaken by the Atlantic development board, the group that can best deal with this matter. Nevertheless I would urge the government to pay strict attention to these investigations and give very serious consideration to a new national freight rate structure. I do not believe this structure should be of the postage stamp type, which would enable anyone to ship commodities from one point in Canada to another at the same charge. However, the system adopted should be a little closer to the postage stamp type of freight toll, and then we in the maritimes would have an opportunity to share in the prosperity of the rest of Canada.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: It was my privilege many years ago, Mr. Speaker, to unite


the efforts of the cities of Halifax and Saint John in solving a problem which this house and its ministers had been unable to solve for many years. I refer to the subject of taxation on crown properties. We began with railway properties in Halifax and Saint John, and, following that, we evolved a municipal grants system in Canada.
I am in the fortunate position, Mr. Speaker, of not knowing what happened prior to April 8 and I am not burdened with concern about what I may have said before that date. On the contrary, I am concerned with something of a more vital nature. Until recently I happened to be a member of the port commission of the city of Halifax, while acting also in another official capacity. This brought me into very close touch with the problems of Saint John and Halifax, vis-a-vis the national government and its policies in respect of navigation on the St. Lawrence.
It might be well if I were to recall briefly something of the anatomy of winter navigation which was put together by the port commission some time ago. For many years it was customary for practically all movements on the river to cease some time early in December, until some time about the middle of April. This was known as the closed as opposed to the open season. During the closed season the only exception to the general paralysis seems to have been the cross-river ferries, the flood control operations of the icebreakers working from the Quebec bridge to above Three Rivers, and a small commercial movement from Pointe au Pic where, if the winds were right, there was usually sufficient open water for coasting vessels to serve north shore points to the east which had no other transportation or connection with the outside world.
During this period between December and April the St. Lawrence river, in so far as export and import cargoes were concerned, was closed. Such cargoes between Canada and other countries were loaded and discharged at Halifax or Saint John. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was upon this condition that the major portion of the business of the Atlantic ports was based. Indeed, it was in part on this condition that the arguments for the maritime provinces to enter confederation were based and were accepted, as my colleague so well pointed out a few moments ago. This house frequently hears references to constitutional obligations under confederation. We have our obligations to which we are asking this house, from time to time, to have a sense of responsibility. I would hope that we could all forgo them. We would be willing to forgo them if there were new ways of doing things and

better understanding between the peoples of this great nation. When we hear this talk about constitutional rights, we must remind people that we have them too. Indeed, all parts of Canada have them.
We, in the maritimes, believe it is a good thing to look at the problems of the other fellow through his eyes from time to time. We think that this is a practice that might be observed occasionally in this house, and indeed throughout other parts of Canada. It might bear benefits to all the Canadian people. I mentioned earlier the anatomy of shipping policy, but we now find that certain changes have occurred. We find that flood control operations have extended to the lower shore, with its natural resources. We do not criticize that whatever. We see this gradual increase in icebreaking services up the river. We recognize this is a national development; but we also know that none of those costs are being included in the charges against ship users. This is a public service. This is not economically sound.
One result of the increased federal government subsidies and services to open up a new route of transportation has been to destroy our competitive position. We say, therefore, the Canadian government definitely has an obligation to correct this growing imbalance in our competitive position.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps some people do not realize the extent to which the Atlantic development board has already gone in recognizing the plea for action on this matter.


Mr. Pigeon:: Come to our side.


John Edward Lloyd: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is making some suggestion, as he has done quite frequently. I would be glad to answer him when the opportunity presents itself, but right now we have more important business to deal with.
Briefly the situation is that you have a conflict of interests in the Atlantic provinces with the sincere and well-motivated interests of the people along the St. Lawrence river, and you can only resolve such a conflict of interests in the light of the most exacting study of the justification of the claims of both. It cannot be resolved by a debate across the floor of the House of Commons.
This problem confronted the former minister of transport in the same way as it now confronts the present minister, and it cannot be solved in any way other than within the principle of a scheme of organization such as that proposed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). However, I think it must be recognized that the Atlantic development board now has the staff and skill to do
Winter Navigation on St. Lawrence the essential research work that is basic to an intelligent decision regarding the kind of policy that must ensue, and that will work in the mutual interests of both areas.
I understand the board has two gentlemen who are skilled in these fields and who would be able to define the nature and scope of the problem. Having defined the nature and scope of it, the board will then be able to get people together who are not biased in favour of either the Atlantic ports or the St. Lawrence ports, and who will be able to make an objective examination of this critical problem.
To some people, on the face of it winter navigation is sheer economic nonsense. Some have gone so far as to say that; but on the other hand there are those along the St. Lawrence who say the economic development of Canada demands the maximum utilization of this great seaway. We feel, however, that the case has not yet been fully justified by those who support the St. Lawrence development.
I believe that the principle and objectivity sought by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert can be assured by the steps now taken by the Atlantic development board in putting together personnel on a team who will view the problem objectively, report to the minister, and through him to the house. In that way we can achieve a realistic policy that will be in the interests of both areas.


Mr. Jean-Charles Car.lin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, we heard many views exchanged this afternoon on that ever ticklish matter of winter navigation. As far as I am concerned, you know where I stand; I represent the Quebec South riding. You know how much this matter of winter navigation was discussed in Quebec these last few years. This afternoon, I would not want anyone to think that I am speaking in any capacity other than that of hon. member for Quebec South.
Having heard the version given in this house by the hon. members from the maritimes, I think the question should be first considered in its constitutional context and then in its economic aspect.
I think and I agree with my hon. friends that the matter, in its constitutional context, must be discussed with the same objectivity as any other matter concerning the constitution of our country. When we talk about reshaping our constitution, I think we will have to take into consideration the examples given this afternoon.
Now, as far as the economic aspect is concerned, the solution advocated by this government is to charge the new Atlantic

Inquiries of the Ministry economic council with the requested investigation. I think that council will have in its hands all the tools, all the required information and will get in contact with every profession and every person interested in this great problem. I am sure that on the basis of their investigation we can get very happy results.
Of course, at the time the maritimes entered confederation, it must be recognized that we had transportation systems other than those in use today. Transportation is improving every day and we must reconsider our transportation system, not at the expense of some people but to the advantage of all.
In that particular field, I was reading, a few weeks ago, that the United States are presently considering the feasibility of keeping the St. Lawrence seaway open 12 months a year.
If, thanks to modern technology, we find ways and means to improve navigation and expand its volume, I feel that we might then draw the blueprint for a new policy which would not discriminate against anyone, but would be to the general advantage.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that through an exchange of objective viewpoints, and with the necessary good will on every part, we shall be able to find in this country of ours a place for everyone, and that all Canadians will benefit thereby.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired.

May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock we will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock. 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.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he knows how much longer we will have to wait for a statement on the retention of the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the statement which was made last week by the Minister of Transport that he will be in a position soon to make the statement that the hon. member desires.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what he said last week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport would now answer the question I put to the Acting Prime Minister before the Minister of Transport came in. I asked when we might expect a statement, which for several days now has been promised soon, with regard to the retention of the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to my answer of Friday last.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the hon. lady tell the house whether it is absolutely necessary to take money away from some people by means of a tax increase in order to provide better living conditions for the aged, that is to give them $10 more a month?



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the national museum whether he would consider informing the house in the next day or two of the situation regarding the resignations at the museum, or the rumours of resignations, and giving some explanation as to what may be involved in the matter.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Your Honour, I would be glad to make a statement in the course of the next several days. There have been a number of resignations, which I regret as much as, I am sure, my hon. friend does. I hope to be able to make a statement in a few days.



INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO REDUCE DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre  Boulin@Dorchester: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister succeeded in convincing the automobile industry, which is under American control, to undertake a vast development program in Canada as he stated he would do at the close of the meeting of the international monetary fund? If not, what other steps are being considered by the government to reduce our trade deficit?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government's
policies in this and other matters will be announced in due course. I am afraid this is not the time to do it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question of which I have given notice is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the urgent representations made by the board of control of the city of Toronto, has the minister given consideration to extending the period of the winter works program by commencing it on October 15 and concluding it at the end of May, as requested by the board of control of Toronto?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. I would like to take some further notice before answering it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister received a brief from the Fraserview veterans home owners and tenants association requesting a review of the administration of the Fraserview housing project in Vancouver? If so, what action is contemplated?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his
Inquiries of the Ministry intention to ask this question. In April of this year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation received a brief from a committee of purchasers of veterans homes in the Fraserview subdivision. The petition recommended that the market values of houses be reexamined to determine whether any of the houses were overpriced in relation to the current market; that the $1,000 rebate arrangement be removed and that all possible steps be taken to change the project from a rental project to home ownership. The corporation immediately caused a study to be made. Based on this study the corporation recommended, and I agreed, that:
(a)	The $1,000 rebate arrangement be cancelled.
(b)	The net sale price of 137 unsold basementless houses be reduced by a further $600.
(c)	That monthly rentals be increased from $3.50 to $11 per unit per month to eliminate the existing operating deficit only. On August 27 the proposed rental increases were deferred as a result of a telegram received from a newly formed Fraserview veterans ratepayers and tenants association. The matter is being further studied and a decision on the rentals will be made shortly.



INQUIRY AS TO RESEARCH GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the government agreed to pay a $78,000 grant to the Canadian council on housing research and community planning, under the National Housing Act, did it reserve the right to check on the manner in which this amount is or will be spent?


John Richard Garland: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. What action does the Minister of Finance intend to take in order to prevent further attempts by American interests to control Canadian business, more particularly following the recent take-over of the Mercantile Bank of Canada by the Rockefeller interests?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there is no lav/ which prevents anybody from acquiring the shares of any bank in Canada. In fact I can say there is no such law. Until the Bank Act comes up for revision I think it would be unwise to speculate further about this subject.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a resolution was introduced in the United Nations today by Ceylon on behalf of 16 African, Asian and Latin American delegations charging that human rights are being violated in South Viet Nam, would the minister inform the house whether Canada intends to support this resolution and express its opposition to the policy of oppression and torture of Buddhists and others by the government of Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that no one in this country will support any policy of oppression against any religious group. To the extent that this problem is one within the jurisdiction of any individual country, my hon. friend may be sure that Canada will assert its position as it should in the light of any obligations it has as a member of the United Nations.
This resolution is being studied at the present time in accord with the assessment that is being made by the representative of Canada in Viet Nam. Canada is a member of the international supervisory commission in Viet Nam, and is expected to maintain a rather objective position in the interests of Viet Nam itself. With this consideration in mind, however, we are giving the resolution in question the most careful examination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: All I wanted to know was whether Canada intended to support the resolution.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of only having returned from Nova Scotia some two hours ago I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the information circulating in Nova


Scotia is correct, to the effect that the government has agreed that there shall be established a heavy water installation in Cape Breton on a five year guarantee of the sale of its product.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the information that the hon. member has is not factual. The matter is under consideration.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. During a recent trip the minister made in the Gaspe peninsula, he spoke of huge public works projects undertaken or to be undertaken by the federal government to further the development of that area. Could the minister inform the house of the projects he has in mind to help regions now in a state of stagnation, particularly the Lake St, John area?


Hon. Jean Paul Deschaieleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my visit to the lower St. Lawrence valley and the Gaspe peninsula was precisely to get first hand information about the problems there. I can assure my hon. friend that, on my return, I told my colleagues about those problems. We have several projects but, as they are government projects, they will be announced in due course.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following a trip between Ottawa and Montreal, on the Canadian National Railways, with the hon. member for tles-de-la-Madeleine and the hon. member for Richmond, we found that the train crew could not speak French, and that on the Ottawa-Montreal run. Can the Minister of Transport tell us if the president of the C.N.R. has really undertaken to improve bilingualism aboard C.N.R. trains?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Defence Production. Does he intend to make any representations to the United States government concerning the apparent decision of that government not to buy any more Caribou aircraft from Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past couple of days in Washington have in fact resulted in a decision by the congress of the United States to reduce the appropriations for the coming year for the United States army. While this reduction has been directly related by certain members of the United States press to a reduction in orders for Canadian aircraft, in fact such a direct relationship is not the case. My department has been in continuous communication with the U.S. defence department to do what it can to ensure that the orders already placed are not cancelled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister confirm to the house the announcement made recently to the effect that a nuclear heads depot would be built in the city of Val d'Or, in the riding of Ville-neuve?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question is on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE OF MINISTER BEFORE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the speech made by the Prime Minister at the United Nations and in view of certain declarations made by himself, would the Minister of National Defence now be prepared to appear before the defence committee of this House of Commons to relate these various speeches and outline how the committee can function in respect thereto?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated to the house on a previous occasion, I am prepared to appear as a witness before that committee at any time the committee deems it would be helpful.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put a question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister bring the house up to date on the latest development between the unions in the great lakes labour dispute? If not, when will a report be forthcoming?



EXPENSE ALLOWANCES OF MEMBERS AND SENATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance a question on October 3 in regard to whether parliamentary expense allowances were being paid both in the other place and in this house according to the law, and he promised me an answer as soon as he had the information.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for raising this interesting point. I should explain that under the recent amendment the expense allowances are paid quarterly, whereas previously they were paid on an annual basis. In connection with the Senate allowances, the chief treasury officer, after consultation with the Clerk of the Senate and on his advice, was of the opinion that the recent amendment permitted the payment of the residual portion of the smaller allowance of $2,000 per annum which applied from January 1 to April 7 to be paid on September 30; that is, at the end of the quarter. The chief treasury officer for the House of Commons, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the amendment w the Senate and House of Commons Act did not affect the operation of the former provision in so far as the period from January 1 to April 7 was concerned. He accordingly declined to make payment of the allowances for that period before the end of the year.
Section 31(6) of the Financial Administration Act provides that where the comptroller is of the opinion that a doubt exists as to the legality or otherwise of a proposed charge to an appropriation provided for the expenses of the Senate or the House of Commons, he shall report through the Minister of Finance to the appropriate minister, who shall obtain a decision in accordance with such procedure as may from time to time

Interim Supply
be prescribed. It is my understanding that this would be the internal economy committees of the respective chambers.
As there is in the opinion of the comptroller a doubt existing as to whether these allowances may or may not be paid at the present time for the period January 1 to April 7, this matter is being drawn to the attention of the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate. I have written to them and suggested that they get together and obtain legal advice, and perhaps we may straighten out the point which the hon. member was so kind as to bring to my attention.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $747,449,955.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except fisheries item 45, northern affairs and national resources item 10 and public works items 20 and 190 for which the proportion is one twelfth and except atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 107 and loans, investments and advances item L20 for which no proportion is requested, $640,449,276.00;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport item 35, $820,000.00;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of agriculture item 50, $178,833.34;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 25, 100 and 145, citizenship and immigration item 30, transport item 10, of the said estimates, $3,583,608.34;
(e)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except external affairs item 96a, finance item 5a, northern affairs and national resources item 110a, and loans, investments and advances items L13a and L63a, $48,103,070.00;
(f)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117a, $84,240.00;
(g)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 116a, $280,800.00;
(h)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,166,686.67;
(i)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $3,333,333.34;
(j)	eight twelfths of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $49,444,457.34;
(k)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117d, $5,670.00;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, since the committee on privileges and elections is supposed to sit tonight, I do not intend to speak at great length on interim supply.
If I take part in the debate tonight, it is not because we merely want to kill time, as was suggested these last few days. Such is not the case at all. I have some facts to bring to the attention of the house which mainly concern my riding, and I take the opportunity of this interim supply motion to point out to the house some of the facts that clearly show to what extent the present administration and the previous one have placed the country in an untenable position. Besides, the present government is aware of it now. As a matter of fact, one realizes it readily to see the government act.
Even though Canada is a very rich country with a very high production and producing capacity, our people have great needs, as evidenced by the large number of depressed areas, such as my own riding of Abitibi in northwestern Quebec.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that their conversations in the house make it extremely difficult for other members, including the chairman, to follow the speech now being made by the hon. member for Chapleau?


Gérard Laprise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The government is slow in answering the plea of the people for the right to benefit from the wealth which now exists. That only goes to show that the Liberal party was not ready to take over last April. Ready to levy taxes, yes, but not to administer the country.
Tax increases lead us to believe that the government is concerned about the annual deficits which are reaching astronomical proportions, and the people of this country as well as its business and industrial leaders are also worried about them.
The government is aware of present needs, but its actions are paralysed by a lack of funds. Taxes do not bring in enough money to balance the budget, and the government knows how unpopular taxes are. That is surely why the government and especially the Department of National Revenue, since last spring in particular, have been constantly pestering the taxpayers in my riding.
As a matter of fact, since last spring, income tax inspectors from the Rouyn district office have not stopped making cuts on the receipts for charitable donations contained in the income tax returns of certain people. I

say certain people because there is apparently some discrimination in some working-class areas of my constituency.
Indeed, while in some cases receipts for charitable donations are being cut from $372 to $150 without reason, letters are written to the Rouyn office, information is sought to find out where, when and how the investigations were made. And in this regard, last June 5, I received the following reply from the office of the director of income tax:
We can assure you that we have not reduced the amounts specified for charitable donations without prior investigation.
I asked again where and when those investigations had been made and by whom. Here is the reply I got on August 27, 1963, from the chief assessment officer in the district income tax office:
We draw your attention to the fact that in the case under consideration, under section 133 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the employees of the division are not authorized to give information to a third party.
Mr. Chairman, that third party was the member for Chapleau who wanted to know where and when the investigations mentioned had been made, and it seems there is no way of finding that out, but it still holds true just the same that some workers, some miners see their receipts for charitable donations cut while other miners, other workers, who have practically the same revenue, the same salary and the same dependants, see their income tax return and their receipts for charitable donations accepted in full.
Consequently, it makes one wonder if there is not some kind of patronage granted to some taxpayers, and people are wondering in my riding if that is not a kind of punishment for some.
Mr. Chairman, I protest against the action taken by inspectors of the income tax office in Rouyn and I ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) to put a stop to that situation and to find, with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), another way to finance government operations. I urge him to study carefully the suggestions made by the Social Credit party and to give back to the Bank of Canada the role it must play in our country's economy. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about another matter in this chamber, that is television.
National radio and television is not available in all parts of my riding. I know that Chapleau is a sprawling riding, but I am also aware that it is relatively easy to bring radio and television services everywhere. I do not think that there is some insurmountable physical obstacle. In fact, private industry has managed to make television broadcasts available in the towns of Chibougamau
Interim Supply
and Chapais but at an exorbitant cost. Consequently, physical obstacles are not insurmountable since private industry did it. Thus it is only a matter of financial limitations which prevent the broadcasting of radio and television programs.
In this regard, I should like to refer to a case which is typical of the mining area of Chibougamau and Chapais, where some 2,000 families must pay $200 for the television cable and $6 a month payable a year in advance, that is a total sum of $272 before enjoying T.V. services that the majority of Canadians in other sections of the country enjoy free of charge. And yet the miners from Chibougamau and Chapais pay taxes and they may be the highest per capita in the country.
The Minister of Finance should make available to C.B.C. a larger budget so that it may satisfy the wishes of the citizens from those communities, such as Parent and Clova, which are scattered along the C.N.R. tracks or, in the meantime, he should grant the corporation some funds so that the rental of the television cable may be reduced and the poor as well as the rich in the towns of Chibougamau and Chapais may enjoy television broadcasts.
At the present time, the mining area of Chibougamau and Chapais is served for television purposes through Saguenay-Lake St. John. And yet, this mining area is actually in the political riding of Chapleau. I am of the opinion that it is irregular to give television service through an area not politically connected with the area to be served. The same thing was done for the railway service. A railroad was started in direction of the Lake St. John area.
Again, when time came to build a road for cars and trucks, a dirt road, the same thing was done; the Saguenay-Lake St. John was the first to be served.
Mr. Chairman, please note that I am not at all jealous of the fact that the Saguenay-Lake St. John was the first to be connected to this mining area, but I find it quite strange that, in order to develop an area, the first thing done is to provide exits to another area.
Consequently, I urge the C.B.C. to take immediately the necessary steps to give the citizens of Chibougamau and Chapais radio and television services at a price comparable to other parts of the country.
Mr. Chairman, people complain about unemployment which has been prevailing for a long time in our area and which not only reduces and cripples trade and industry but also brings about undeserved poverty and concern in many families thereby affected.
And yet, those numerous families suffer from privation, not because we lack things

Interim Supply
in this country, but rather because they need things that exist. And if those needs are not satisfied, it is rather due to the fact that they lack purchasing power.
Mr. Chairman, when we see the advertising which is done now to sell things, to sell goods produced by Canadians, we may ask why, in a country known as the richest in the world, it is still necessary to collect old clothes to dress poor children who want to go to school in some areas called "underdeveloped" or "emergency areas".
And concerning that matter, I want to speak about Chapleau county, in Abitibi, which is designated as such an area at the present time, amid plenty and surpluses. In fact, people there are still in that condition where they have to collect old clothes to enable children to attend school, in order to take advantage of the opportunity to get an education which they need.
Mr. Chairman, in order to enable those citizens to get the things offered to them in quantity in all ways, and in quality, the government should use the Bank of Canada to coin production and services offered in surpluses, and distribute them, in the form of dividends, to all Canadian citizens, because everyone, in one way or another, has taken part in the production of goods and services in this country.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian government should not be so mean when it comes to paying a retirement pension to our senior citizens, and I am of the opinion that the present retirement pension should begin immediately at 65 years, without any test, and at 60 for people without any resources.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why those in need would not be able to benefit from the production and resources of this country without taking anything away from the people who work, or depriving others from part of their income.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that old age pensions, retirement pensions, old age assistance pensions, pensions for the blind or the disabled, family allowances, and all similar social welfare measures, should be financed by the Bank of Canada. The necessary funds could be drawn from the production surplus we accumulate year after year, that is, the unsold surpluses.
We must allow the Bank of Canada to play the part it was created to play, and it behooves the government to instruct it to play that part.


Mr. Dionne:: To date, Mr. Chairman, my interventions in the discussion never contributed at all to any inconvenience for the Chair and, therefore, I can sum up my remarks in compliance with the traditional procedures.

Congratulations to those who carry out those functions; they do it in all fairness and with a sense of responsibility which is all to their credit.
Mr. Chairman, as a representative for a riding which made a tremendous contribution to the development of several neighbouring areas through many sacrifices, during a few centuries of history, I should like to take this opportunity now offered to me to call the attention of the house to the need to adopt an attitude more consistent with the needs and the purposes of the people in our region and of all Canadians in general who showed, by their labour and their sense of sacrifice that the sources of courage, of good will and of generous dispositions are far from exhausted so long as they are given a chance through legislation which allows for a reasonable proportion of economic realities.
All Canadians still wish to participate in the development of their country. To be effective, that participation must involve the essential elements of security and of proper freedom for one and all.
The implementation, as soon as possible, of appropriate public works in order to alleviate unemployment in our region is absolutely necessary and would be greatly appreciated. The decisions taken by the government to designate the so-called distressed areas will have to be altered to take into account the needs of our region.
During the month of September, in the course of a regular meeting of the municipal corporation of Kamouraska county, in which nearly all the mayors of the municipalities in the county took part, a resolution was passed and a copy thereof was forwarded to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen), asking them to include the county of Kamouraska in the list of those which can benefit from a federal grant for unemployment works and from a tax cut for industries wishing to settle in the county.
During the last week of the month of September, the members of the chamber of commerce of St. Pascal, Kamouraska county, of which I am a member, also adopted a similar resolution. I hope the ministers will take those requests into consideration and that appropriate decisions will be taken so that the county of Kamouraska will get from this government the share of benefits it can rightfully expect.
Quite a number of these plans could be carried into effect without delay; some studies have been completed, various programs have been referred to the authorities several years ago, but their implementation

often seems to be paralysed through a lack of agreement and co-operation between the central and provincial governments.
We hope that the necessary decisions will be arrived at as soon as possible by the responsible authorities, for in Kamouraska and elsewhere, people have had enough of all these discussions and, quite naturally, expect action.
The same thing applies to the implementation of the ARDA program, and to the generous distribution of subsidies to farmers. It is true that Kamouraska county is not included among the depressed areas, but let us not forget that due to the prevailing economic conditions more than 30 per cent of our citizens depend on social welfare services for their livelihood.
The constant worry created by a financial system which functions contrary to present economic realities has led us to a way of life which is truly upside-down.
Too many are those who are attracted by the moon while entire families still have to go without the necessities of life. We no longer have enough room in our jails for criminals, most of whom have taken to that kind of life because of a lack of guidance. Not only is society responsible for that state of affairs but it must take the necessary steps as soon as possible to correct a situation it contributed to create.
It is a shame that in a country as young as ours, the need for policemen is such that the taxpayers' money has to be used to secure enough candidates to fill the vacancies. We all know that police duty involves great responsibilities. It is most unfortunate that many policemen fall in line of duty.
I do not hesitate to say that unemployment and the demoralizing insecurity which have been prevailing for too long are greatly responsible for what is happening.
Has a second thought been given to the feeling of fathers who can barely make both ends meet with incomes of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 a year, to the feelings of those who, in their sickness, must accept the restrictions imposed by social service officials regarding their own subsistence and that of their families, and even worse, to the feelings of the unemployed? There are thousands of them, as everybody knows, who live in constant fear.
What was their reaction when they saw that legislators were looking after their own interests instead of settling urgent problems such as unemployment, family allowance increases, boosts in old age pensions and in pensions to veterans who, more than any others, have given their all for the survival of democracy, for which their countrymen
Interim Supply
should have been ever grateful. I could continue enumerating quite a number of undeserved cases of destitution. Have we considered those unsettled cases before granting ourselves an increase of indemnities?
It is unfortunate, but such actions contribute to increase dissatisfaction among the people. Canadian citizens are always ready to pay their administrators handsomely, as long as they do not forget to give them in the first place the necessary means to earn a decent living.
Let us compare the imbalance between the increasing rise of salaries of the average Canadian heads of families and the unchanged rates of family allowances.
Allow me to point out, by the way, that the cost of living for all Canadian families is increasing. Nevertheless, family allowances which were established in 1944 at $5, $6, $7 and $8 per month were only increased once, such an increase averaging about 35 cents, to the minimum being raised to $6 up to 10 years of age and $8 from 10 to 16 years of age, while the maximum of $8 was never altered.
During the same period the salaries of members of parliament have passed from $4,000 in 1944 to $6,000 in 1945, and from $10,000 in 1954 to $18,000 in 1963. From $4,000 to $18,000, which means four and a half times what they were in 1944. By adjusting family allowances on the same basis, we would reach an average of $30 a month.
If hon. ministers and members had been consistent they would be ashamed of having adjourned the session and taken holidays before raising the present level of family allowances. It is yet time to make a gesture to that effect, and it is clear that the increase in the cost of living calls for such an adjustment.
And what about those irregularities with regard to pension adjustments for veterans, considering that, after five or six years of war those ailments from which the veterans are suffering today are certainly, to a great extent, due to their military service for Canada. There are some revolting cases of discrimination with regard to some veterans who have given the best of themselves to ensure what little freedom Canadians still have today.
Now what about the problems of Canadian workers on American territory who have been waiting for 20 years for a settlement enabling them to benefit from unemployment insurance payments? What about all those railway maintenance workers, more particularly on temporary teams, where salary increases are in a proportion of 1, 2, and 3 cents an hour, considering that they have to use bunk beds to rest after a ten-hour working

Interim Supply
day. Labour unions succeeded, as we know, after ten years of negotiations and pressure in having legislation passed by the Quebec government prohibiting the use of bunk beds for bush workers. Now, how does it happen that a corporation like the Canadian National Railways, whose president is paid $75,000 a year and certainly has all the comfort he needs, did not think of a better distribution of salaries for the working teams, granting them a little more comfort with regard to living conditions and housing.
There is blatant discrimination with regard to temporary team employees, those who are only entitled to one day's holiday a month, which is paid on an eight-hour day basis, whereas they are regularly working on a ten-hour day basis.
All those errors accrued in various quarters and administrative services, are not likely to create an atmosphere of good will and understanding among our people.
Exaggerated expenses of all sorts, in anticipation of so-called defence schemes, are not likely to give Canadian citizens a feeling of security.
Sometimes, you get the feeling that the next war will be caused by the disarmament question.
It is, nevertheless, odd to see the friendliness between Canadian and American leaders when it comes to agreeing on such programs, whereas it seems impossible to solve the problem of having Canadian workers on American territory share in the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
One more word about the budget. Why, there again, does the government not pay greater attention to the thousands of letters and claims dealing with the 11 per cent tax on building materials, which affects so many people? The workers, builders and saw-mill owners have all been upset by the contents of the last budget and protest has been raised everywhere in order to convince the Minister of Finance of the extent to which the building industry in all fields will be affected. The remedies brought in afterwards, at the beginning of July, are, to our mind, quite inadequate and leave the working class, and mainly the workers in the building trade and lumber industry who are still so cruelly suffering from unemployment, with the added burden of a tax which we find not only unjustified but impossible to justify.
It would be worthwhile, I believe, if all the solution seekers looked seriously beyond the ordinary economic routines and outside the beaten track, because wherever we look at present all the citizens admit that a monetary system, whichever it may be, must be guided by a bookkeeping system. Everybody

will agree that the first quality of a bookkeeping system should be accuracy; the solution of any problem, to be correct, must demonstrate that the computation has been properly done.
If we consider the results of the present monetary system, we find easily that the volume of credit put into circulation under the form of numbers is not at all in keeping with the goods for sale or, if you prefer, is not at all proportional to the production to be disposed of.
The main source of worry for Canadians is the fact that we pay more attention to the "symbol" than to "reality": yet, the human being is more important than the dollar sign.
We are able to produce too much, but unable to allocate sufficiently.
Good sense should lead our legislators to admit, not only in principle but also in practice, the fact that what is physically possible must be possible financially, that it is possible to adapt our bookkeeping system to the needs and wants.
It is necessary that we should get used to thinking in terms of thousands of useful things instead of thinking in terms of millions of dollars.
Whatever is said about it, I declare that the present system is unable to cope with the burden which is imposed on it, that it is imperative that other means, another economic and financial system be devised.
In my opinion, the duty which devolves upon us at the present time is to work out for Canada of tomorrow a system capable of ensuring a standard of justice according to which the interests of human beings may have precedence over financial interests.
We know that consumption is the object of production. That it would be useless to make shoes if people were not to wear them. That houses have no value whatsoever unless people live in them. That food will perish unless it is consumed.
We also know that all these things can be produced in unlimited quantities. Nevertheless, it seems that our legislators, for this or that reason, do not believe that man can have them.
Imaginary obstacles bar their way: they are remains of the periods of scarcity when it was claimed that there was "no money". We keep up with the times as far as knowledge is concerned, but our beliefs belong to the past. Thus, we go from bad to worse like a boat equipped with a powerful motor that flounders on reefs because its pilot has no faith in the compass.
Now we benefit from the results of thousands of years of learning, discoveries and inventions, but we lack self-confidence to put them to use.

Lack of confidence paralyses our action, and instead of using our plentiful resources, we always have shortages. Any progress, scientific discovery and invention originate in the human mind.
It is first an idea and then it becomes an actual fact when man is convinced that its realization is possible and that he is capable of bringing it into being.
America would never have been discovered if Christopher Columbus had not thought it possible to reach land by sailing westward.
Lindbergh would not have succeeded in crossing the ocean if he had lacked selfconfidence.
It is not fear that has prompted our missionary settlers to venture into remote countries and the coureurs des bois to explore the far reaches of the forest.
Many thinkers and inventors were ridiculed by the so-called scholars of their times. However, Pasteur was acknowledged as a benefactor of humanity and everybody realized with Galileo that the earth revolves around the sun.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I will be short because I know that you do not want to spend the night here. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) expressed good intentions this afternoon and we congratulate him for that.
However, I would like to point out two or three developments in my constituency.
If we seem to be the only ones to take the floor in this house, it may be because events force us to do so. We are the last ones to have the floor. We have the last rank and we are the last to express our views. I regret that my party seems to be lagging behind the others, but I have every confidence that the Secretary of State will remedy that within an hour or two.
We are asked to vote money to enable the government to make the necessary expenditures for its good or bad administration, for the implementation of the good and the mediocre legislation.
If you bear with me, I will examine some of that legislation. For instance, let us talk about the unemployment insurance and the winter works program. The Unemployment Insurance Act is certainly not perfect since the government has deemed it appropriate to launch an investigation on the subject. The unemployed will wait a long time for this report to be considered before recommendations are implemented. The unemployed will wait with anxiety for the amendments to the act.
Mr. Chairman, I very much fear that the inquiry commission on unemployment will
Interim Supply
not be any more fruitful than the commissions created up to date. It will be a good opportunity for the party in office to give new life to its defeated candidates or to reward those who worked hard in the last election.
I was told that the commissioners are getting a mere $100 per day. It is obvious that with such a low salary the investigation will be twice as long, because the important part is not the investigation itself, but the volume a few hundred pages thick, it will produce or some millions of dollars it will cost the taxpayers.
However, this is advantageous in many ways for the government. First, it gags the member who is accused of being the cause of the undue delay in the said investigation because of his claims. Then, it is the best escape for the cabinet. As a matter of fact, all through this investigation, the minister only has to answer that it is under way and if questions are increasing, the reply will be that the investigation is continuing. If the questions become persistent, the minister himself will remind us that the important investigators are putting the final touches to their document.
And when the investigation is over and the report is published, a process of two or three years, then the government will at last -unless there is an election-start considering the report, which will last a long time. If an election is brought about by the intolerable inactivity of the government, the winning side will wonder whether the report is not obsolete or-what is more usual-it will be said that the report was badly prepared, since anything the previous administration did could only be bad.
I have no doubt that this is the fate that will befall the Gill report. The investigation cost thousands of dollars. No matter, the people are paying. And the same game continues and the people keep hoping for better days.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to show the house the serious specific needs of my constituency of Roberval.
In my riding, strange things are happening and I would like the government to seriously investigate in order to find ways to stop some of them. The federal civil service will be the screen used to cover up some appointments, but everybody sees through that kind of thing. The manager was appointed judge in all cases that can be easily rejected at the local office; if there are any complications, they go to arbitration and the joke is all the better.
The insured is told that his case has been submitted to the head office in Montreal. I wonder what poor little employees in Mont-

Interim Supply
real, who know nothing beyond the ground floor of the tax office could possibly know about the situation of an unemployed worker in Dolbeau or St. Felicien.
Mind you, I have nothing against the employees, because they are the helpless victims of the legislation itself which is simply ridiculous. Millions of dollars have been spent, I know, for the production of a report on unemployment insurance. But I am still wondering if that inquiry has not been used, as many others, to reward those who have served the party well, especially when we know that the staff of all those agencies is made up of people who helped the party.
We are still waiting for the members to study at least the Gill report in the house. Meanwhile, the unemployed are waiting in vain for justice to be done.
To give you just an idea of the unforgivable injustice done in our areas, I shall only refer to some cases about loggers.
The main industry in my riding is the forest industry. The workers leave in the fall to come back only in February. When the work is done, each man goes to the unemployment insurance office. And there the clerk, a little sulky, glances at the book. He asks himself two questions. Are there enough stamps? If not, it is simple, the clerk says "You may go, you do not have enough stamps" without any further explanation.
On the other hand, if there are enough stamps, it is a different story. The worker will be sent where no worker could go, for instance, to cut wood for a small contractor who never pays his men. And if he should refuse, this is a sufficient reason to cut off his benefits.
Another time a farmer comes during winter to get his benefits at the unemployment insurance office. He leaves his home in the morning and travels through a snow storm for about two, three or four miles; he gets stuck in a snow bank and arrives fifteen minutes late at the unemployment insurance office. What happens then? The clerk deducts five or ten dollars, depending on how long he was stranded in the snow bank. One must not come two or three minutes late to the unemployment insurance office. You must understand that those clerks are very punctilious. Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I am aware of cases similar to those I have just mentioned.
For instance, the head of a family comes to the unemployment insurance office and is refused his benefits, although his booklet is full of stamps. That man was sent to log where he could not earn only a dollar a day, just to deprive him of his benefits. For three months he did not get a penny from an insurance he had paid for himself; and mind

you, when one pays for insurance, one must get coverage.
In fact, suppose you hold fire insurance and your house burns down. If you do not get your money from the insurance company, you will get a lawyer to settle your claim.
But it is not the same with unemployment insurance. A worker goes into the bush and he is not asked if he wants to contribute or not; the unemployment insurance premium is simply deducted from his pay cheque. And when the time comes to draw benefits, when he is unemployed, he is told: You are not entitled to draw benefits. We had the right to have you pay premiums for one, two, three or four months but you do not have the right to draw unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Chairman, last spring, following a small investigation, I found that more than 25 per cent of the heads of families in my area-I know my area is somewhat unusual -were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. But it had been decided to eliminate by all possible means their benefits; and then they went back home with their four, five or six children, and for two or three months they received nothing except public charity to support their families.
Mr. Chairman, that is the reason why I should like to draw the minister's attention to those cases of hardship in order that his high officials make inquiries in our offices. It is not because we are somewhat far away, almost at the other end of the province, that insurance of people who paid for it should be stolen.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that those remarks will be taken into consideration by the minister.
Mr. Chairman, the other point to which I want to draw the government's attention concerns the areas designated as "depressed areas". All hon. members and the people wonder why 35 areas were designated as entitled to special federal assistance measures to promote economic and industrial development, because of their high rate of unemployment and slow economic progress. And they answer us that the choice was made by the area development and the assistance to economic development agencies.
I am convinced that hon. members would be very happy to fathom that mystery if the Ministers of Labour and Industry (Mr. Mac-Eachen and Mr. Drury) would send them a list of the responsible people to every member.
Although we do not know more than any other citizen, if we look carefully at some of the other areas, we soon realize that many of the forgotten areas are much more in need than the others.

As far as I am concerned, I am very glad the Dolbeau district and few other ones have been included in the areas designated by the government.
However, if a survey were made in the district of Roberval, especially at the far end of my riding, namely St. Felicien, La Dore, St. Edwige, as far as Bouchette lake, we would be forced to conclude to the similarity between the two areas that make up the riding of Roberval.
The minister stated that the criteria used for the choice of the areas are established on employment and unemployment statistics taken during summer months instead of using the yearly average, to avoid giving too much importance to winter unemployment in areas where the problem is seasonal. In fact, the statistics have been based during the last eight years on the period between May and October, without taking into account considerations of time and place for each of these areas.
It seems that the board did not stop to consider that the Gaspe peninsula could not be compared to the Lake St. John area, and, moreover that they could not be compared for a given period of the year. Board officials have forgotten that the distance between Quebec and Ontario can have great influence on such a survey.
It seems that discussions are always held around a conference table where decisions are taken. As in most fields, it is assumed that four eggs give four chickens, and eight eggs, eight chickens, and nobody enquires about whether or not all conditions are fulfilled.
Every year, the Department of Labour intends to make a survey of all the areas, but always under the same conditions, the same causes unavoidably producing the same effects.
Mr. Chairman, are you not of the opinion that better results would have been achieved if they had ever dared to consult the members in each riding?
If the hon. members were asked to make a survey with the help of each organization in their ridings and then report to the Department of Labour, it would be much more logical and useful. We still have to cope with bureaucratic action in its simplest form, a disease affecting modern society. It is also the screen behind which hide the little dictators of various parties whose mission in life is to keep honest workers, the hon. members, from fulfilling faithfully the functions for which they were selected by the people.
Half of the areas in my riding were declared depressed areas and therefore entitled to a 60 per cent federal grant for 28902-5-210
Interim Supply
winter works, in addition to the benefits provided for new industries.
I am quite happy to see the Dolbeau area included in the regions designated by the government.
But I am very much surprised that the other part of my riding is excluded or forgotten.
A strange thing is the fact that at St. Felicien, for instance, where the river divides that economic area in two, one side of the river is designated as a depressed area while the other side is not. I am therefore asking the Department of Labour to see about correcting that anomaly immediately.
And more specifically in the case of St. Felicien, the matter is urgent because they are developing the river bank into a wonderful driveway which will be the pride of the town and will give work to the unemployed.
We are told that the department based their decision on the statistics issued by the unemployment insurance office. As regards the Roberval office, I cannot understand the conclusions of its report. Indeed, there is only one community where the population has decreased in my riding and that is in the Roberval district. I find the same error in that part of my riding as the one made in the Gaspe peninsula ridings, for instance.
The department has corrected the situation in the Gaspe region and I am sure they will show the same fair play in the Roberval riding.
It is hard to say what winter will be like in my constituency since the largest lumber corporations plan to close down their operations around the end of January. That is to say that winter works granted to 60 per cent of my riding will prove to be a necessity for the months to come. And as evidence, Mr. Speaker, I have here a resolution by the municipal council of Roberval asking the minister to come to their help.
I sent a copy of that resolution to the Minister of Labour and I hope he can act in time because there are only about ten days left to place the necessary requests and obtain approvals in time.
In the name of all my fellow citizens of the Roberval riding, I am asking the government to revise the case of the Roberval office so that the whole riding be declared a depressed area and be entitled to the benefits provided under the act. The minister is surely aware of the situation after all the telephone calls made and all the letters sent by the authorities in my riding.
We are craving for one thing, a little work for our unemployed this winter. I am sure the Minister of Labour will find a solution to that problem immediately and take into

Interim Supply
serious consideration the suggestions contained in the resolution of the St. Felicien council.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the members who sit immediately next to us who seem for the time being to be both without a name and a purpose. It would appear, on the surface in any event, that the debate in which they are engaging this evening is a gross abuse and misuse of the interim supply procedure to attain some sort of end which is not yet clear. In any event, I think it is a misuse of this particular procedure to obtain interim supply for Her Majesty.
As far as the name is concerned I think we might, while sitting here, properly refer to them in English. I do not know how this would be translated into French, but in English it would, perhaps, be the national union of 13 separatists. You will immediately see, Mr. Chairman, that with the propensity of the newspapers to condense almost everything to some alphabetical nomenclature, taking the first letters of the national union of 13 separatists, it comes out to "nuts".


Mr. Langlois:: We are happy to find that there are some who are capable of recognizing nuts when they see some. These animals can be recognized when they are out in the fields; we must be careful, or we are liable to be collected by them.
I do not intend to speak for very long, but before trying to get order anywhere else I believe it is time to establish some order here. It is the business of the government to see to it that justice is done, one way or another. It is up to the government to make its own decisions, not to depend on anybody else or to hope that a decision will come out of the blue. I hope a decision is reached tonight and that it will be taken for the benefit of all.

Mr. Chairman, I have several matters to discuss, but I shall limit myself to pointing out only a few, so that the government may understand the exact meaning of what I want to say without getting mixed up. I am well aware that as could be noted until now the government has a very quick perception, and is quick enough to grasp this country's problems, but not quite as quick when it comes to finding solutions. I shall therefore list a few problems which we have to face, more particularly in my riding, as well as others which affect the country as a whole, like unemployment and farming.
My fellow member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has just mentioned the unemploy-

ment problem, and though he dealt at some length, there are still a few points he did not mention. I consider, for instance that as far as the federal administration is concerned, that committee should be responsible to the house, because there is now perhaps unintentional, discrimination against those who have to deal with the officials of the unemployment insurance commission.
Let me quote as an example the case of a fellow in my county-and there may be several others throughout the country-who, having worked for somebody and paid his stamps, goes to the unemployment insurance office in the fall to get his insurance pay, as he is unemployed. Being a carpenter, he had worked in the building industry. His job having come to an end he went to that office and was told by an officer: "You are not entitled to any benefits, sir, just because you did not work for a man normally called a 'jobber'." And the official in that office simply tore up his stamps.
My friend spent all winter without drawing any benefits. The following summer, he went to work again. The same man who had provided stamps the previous year re-employed him. He went back to the unemployment office and the official told him that he had to affix stamps. Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of the same two persons, one the employer and the other the employee, it was necessary to pay stamps the previous year, but that the employee was not entitled to draw benefits, because the stamps were not valid? Why does the government compel citizens to do such a thing and then change its decision? It is an injustice of the federal authorities through the unemployment insurance commission. Such a thing does not only happen in the county of Megantic but throughout the country. Perhaps these things are not consciously done, perhaps the government is unaware of them, but they happen in many ridings and parishes in this country. It is high time the government assumed its responsibilities and started solving its own problems, before trying to tell others what to do.
There is another case in my county-that of a man, working in a mine, who takes a holiday and is dismissed. The worker is told: "You are dismissed for two weeks and this will be your holidays, but he is not explicitly told that the work will be resumed after two weeks. He is also told: Go and submit a claim at the unemployment insurance commission. Then our friend submits a claim in order to draw benefits.
After two weeks, work is resumed. But one of them had not been to the unemployment insurance office to submit his claim. He had

been paying unemployment insurance contributions ever since the enactment of the act and was entitled to draw benefits for 52 weeks. At the end of the year, in December, this individual reached 60 years of age and was retired. He applied to the unemployment insurance commission for his benefits. He drew them until the month of August, but then, the payments stopped. Since then, that person did not get any money. He actually lost his benefits for September, October, November and December and yet, he had been paying his contributions for ten years.
Mr. Chairman, if a worker paid all his contributions even though he did not submit any claim, he is supposed to get some money, because in all fairness, he is entitled to his benefits even though he did not apply to the unemployment insurance office. Workers know that the commission is under federal jurisdiction. All those who have their work cut out with government representatives or with opposition members, as well as those who have trouble getting their unemployment insurance because it is federal business, naturally lose faith in the Liberal and Conservative parties.
I am convinced that Conservative and Liberal governments, and even the New Democratic party have been harried by workers.
Sometimes commission executives themselves lose their bearings. In my constituency, if the unemployment insurance officer does not have the necessary answers, or if the case appears too involved, he tells people to go to Montreal and find out what it is all about. And so, poor people without a cent in their pockets are compelled to go to Montreal to clear things up. The office in my part of the country should certainly not be a sort of travel bureau which sends workers on trips to Montreal.
Here is a case which arose in my county in connection with unemployment insurance and winter works. A man claimed his unemployment benefits, and got them. Some time later, say in October, when he scarcely had worked at all, he is called because he is available for work.
Mr. Chairman, if the fellow who gets $32 to $36 a week in unemployment insurance benefits is deprived of that on the pretence that he is available for work and able to cut branches along the road during a period of three days at a modicum of $8 per day, that is $24, it is no wonder that he should recriminate. He would rather be unemployed and get $36 a week than work for $24, and that is the sort of things we get at present.
So, we are using the unemployment insurance fund in order to give work to the workers during wintertime. Thus it is their 28902-5-210i
Interim Supply
own money; they have worked; they have paid for stamps and they are forced to dig ditches along the roads.
I know that such an injustice happens in various parishes and that it has happened in my own constituency; and we wonder afterwards why the workers protest when they are being told that they cannot get unemployment insurance benefits on the pretence that they are available for work, if they refuse to cut branches along the road.
Another case, Mr. Chairman, has happened in my county: a fellow has been taken ill since he was temporarily laid off by the mine. He has collected his unemployment insurance benefits and then, after having been hired again by the mine, he had to pass a medical test whereby he was found to be suffering from tuberculosis. They told him: "We cannot hire you, my friend." In the meantime, the unemployment insurance commission officers had found out that the man was not working. The commissioners went to his house and said: "How is it that you are collecting unemployment insurance benefits?" He answered: "Listen, I was unemployed, I have been fired". They told him that he could not get unemployment insurance benefits on account of his illness, that he was not entitled to them, that he had failed to state that he was ill, hence that he had made a misleading report.
Mr. Chairman, that man did not know he was sick during those three months he was unemployed. It was only when he came back to work and the mining company forced him to take a medical examination that his illness was discovered. That man did not know he was ill when he applied for unemployment insurance benefits.
Such an injustice should be corrected and the unemployment insurance commission should take its responsibilities. It is up to the house and the government to correct the situation.
It is quite likely that the same thing is happening elsewhere.
Earlier, I asked the hon. Minister of Labour what he was doing with the Gill report and whether a committee of the house would be set up to examine the report, to enact its recommendations and to put an end to those injustices. What did he reply? The same thing as usual: We will take it under serious consideration.
I hope the time for consideration is over, that we are now going to see some action and that the minister will take his responsibilities. It is up to the government to act if it wishes to do so. Otherwise, it will do the same thing as its predecessors, it will drag its feet for 95 years.

Interim Supply
The Gill report is not the only topic I wanted to discuss here. Let us hope that the present government will act taster than its Liberal predecessors.
It would seem that there are, within the government, men who are able to take advice and make decisions, but let them do something. Whether they do right or wrong, let them do something for heaven's sake. They have done nothing until now, so let them wake up.
There is not only the Gill report and the matter of unemployment insurance, there is also agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, last year, the former member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) discussed both eastern and western agriculture. This year, there is some talk about the appointment of two ministers of agriculture, one for the east and one for the west. Frankly, I find that a bit embarrassing. The government has trouble finding one good man; how can it find two of them? Indeed, my colleague has asked for the construction of storage facilities along the St. Lawrence. What was to be their purpose? They would be for the benefit of farmers of the province of Quebec who may be, at present, in worse financial straits than western farmers and who envisage the coming winter with great anxiety.
Even I do not know where they will get the funds required to operate their farms and look after their families. When the former member for Bellechasse asked for storage facilities along the St. Lawrence, it was so that there would not be too many hands tampering with western wheat on the Canadian wheat board. At the present time, the government is paying the western farmers 45 cents for a bushel of oats and 55 cents with the adjustment payment, while the eastern farmer has to buy it at $4 and $4.50 per cwt. In between, who is tampering with bushels of wheat and oats? The situation is the same in Alberta and British Columbia. Certain apple growers-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: May I ask the hon. member a question? Could he give us the meaning of the word "tampering"?


Raymond Langlois: I will. It is not in the same sense as fooling around.


An hon. Member:: In French.


Raymond Langlois: It is not used in the sense of fooling around with grain, but simply of speculating on grain. Does that answer your question?


An hon. Member:: I shall look it up in my dictionary.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The word is rather slangy.


Raymond Langlois: Maybe so. It is a good thing to resort to such words from time to time in order to be understood. They are very expressive.
Mr. Chairman, to come back to agriculture, in Alberta and British Columbia, we have wheat growers and apple growers. Here is an example of what I mean by speculating on Canadian products. In British Columbia, which is an apple-producing province, to get a bushel of wheat in Alberta, a farmer has to give from 4] to 5 bushels of apples. Now, let us reverse the roles and go into the province of Alberta. We know that in Alberta a farmer is obliged to furnish from 4 to 5-J bushels to have one bushel of apples, whereas both are equivalent to 60 pounds. Who benefits from the 3i to 4 bushels of wheat or apples? Who gets the profit? Here, what does the Canadian wheat board do once it relinquishes its control; it is the Winnipeg wheat exchange which ships the goods to Montreal and Toronto? But it continues the same speculation so that the eastern farmer pays more than the special amount on the exchange of wheat and grain originating in the west.
That is what the former member for Bellechasse asked. He wanted to avoid that speculation by having warehouses along the St. Lawrence. It is the Canadian wheat board that pays transportation costs for the wheat directly from the great lakes to the St. Lawrence river. He wanted to dispense with the province of Quebec co-operative societies paying an additional amount on those bushels of grain to the Canadian wheat board, to the western farmers.
Mr. Chairman, there are in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces a great number of farmers whose lands are presently encumbered with farm loans, lands that were nevertheless free of debt for generations, that were cleared by the ancestors of today's occupants. That is the present situation, although some claim our economy is sound whereas the farmers' lands are mortgaged to the hilt to either the federal or the provincial farm loan boards.
Mr. Chairman, such a situation depends only on one thing. We cannot charge that all the farmers are poor managers, that they are imbeciles, that they know nothing about production. I believe that there are some farmers who can produce much more than some members of parliament. It is not up to us to judge them. We should seek here at home the reason for this state of affairs. Is it our laws, our own administration in this house which force those farmers to mortgage their farms?

Mr. Chairman, it is not by lending more to the farmers through farm loans that we shall resolve the problem. What the farmer wishes presently is to obtain a better price for his products and to pay a little less in taxation. Thus, the farmers may succeed in making both ends meet. Mr. Chairman, there is another point I should like to deal with; it concerns our young people, unemployment, unemployment insurance, but also the economic development of this country. And at this stage of my remarks, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to listen carefully to what I am going to say.
I want to deal with the problem facing our young people today when they wish to join the armed forces and benefit from federal government assistance. When a student wants to join the armed forces, he is paid a salary, given military training, clothed, lodged and fed. But when the same student wants to get a scholarship to go to university, he is told: "Wait a minute, the government does not give scholarships".
How is it that the government has money to give our young men military training, but have absolutely nothing to offer to those who want to carry on their studies at the university?
Mr. Chairman, one must not forget that our university students can defend our country as well as our young military trainees, for every man defends his country in his own way.
Now, why does not the government give direct assistance to those who want to carry on their studies at the university, as it does in the case of those who wish to join the army?
It is all very well to defend our country, but we must not only defend it, we should also develop it, and those who will develop it will be perhaps in as good a position to defend it as those who will have had military training.
Everybody could work along the same lines, some looking after the country's military defense while others would look after its growth.
Mr. Chairman, that is the point I wished to raise about youth. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes a special interest in the young people of Canada, since she has already started a campaign and made sacrifices herself by giving up smoking. That is already a good example she has set our young people in order to keep them in good health.
I am asking the government whether they have a solution, as quite often they have not, why-
Interim Supply


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could we be informed of the friendly agreement that seems to exist between the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the leader of the house?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is always better to have friends than enemies.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: So the divorce is over.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I did not get the question or the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm (Mr. Pigeon) but if they are in any way similar to his other remarks I will not lose any time in trying to reply to them.
In conclusion I would simply suggest to the government, seeing that they are unable to solve the problem of unemployment, misery, hunger and insecurity in our country at present, and have not found any solution in their own political structure, after 95 years of trial and errors, that they should change their routine and try some other means, like the monetary reform advocated by the Social Credit party. You may call that "funny money" but instead of calling the Social Credit monetary system the "funny money" system you should examine your own financial systems when you have to devaluate the dollar, when you have a revaluated or devaluated dollar. That never happened under a Social Credit administration because there never was one, but it happened under the Liberal and Conservative administrations.
At the present time we need solutions to wipe out the national debt which is increasing day by day and to remedy unemployment, misery and hunger.
I am asking the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and their colleagues in the various departments to consider the solutions offered by Social Credit; they may find solutions to the problems they have to face at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving me the floor at this moment. The hour is getting late and I would like to appeal to every hon. member of the house to appreciate the circumstances under which we are presently operating, and to understand something on principle and not on expediency. I ask, right now, will all hon. members and all parties agree to call all speeches to a complete halt and vote on the important issue before us?
Anyone who stands now is guilty of denial of principle and expediency. May we now, sir, have the vote?


Gilles Grégoire: I will stand but for one moment, and then we will have the vote. We

Appropriation Bill
[DOT]are putting an end to our speeches, but before that I would like to say that I have attended the committee on privileges and elections since 8.30 o'clock and it is not serious at all. I was not able to see they were willing-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he is not permitted to refer to the matters presently under consideration in the privilege and election committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that we are confident that the other side of the house will deal with the problem as quickly as possible, and we shall leave it at that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

Walter Lockhart Gordon: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964, the sum of $747,449,955.03, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-101, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
On the preamble.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I would like to raise. I would appreciate very much knowing from the house leader what compromise he made with Social Credit about this?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the house leader, now that the hurricane warnings have been taken down, what business will be ready for the ship of state tomorrow, on the calmer seas?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I sincerely hope that the hon. gentleman's forecast is correct and that the hurricanes are over, both in the Caribbean and here. We would go ahead tomorrow with the old age pensions bill, the two Northwest Territories bills and the vocational training resolution. That, I think, would probably occupy the greater part of the day. If there were any time left the government would reserve the right to take anything on the order paper of a relatively non-controversial character.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be my hope that progress would be made both in the house and in the committees.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 8, 19B3