1963-12-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) presented the fourteenth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that Bill No. S-45 be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole later this day.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace) presented the fourteenth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that Bill No. S-47 be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole later this day.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annap-olis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. The minister informed the house the other day that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had a team of experts in Toronto studying the proposals made by the British American Oil Company with respect to the manufacture of heavy water, and he hoped that he would have a report by Monday. I wonder has the minister had a report on this matter, and would he be prepared to report to the house at this time?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with respect to the British American Oil company process for the manufacture of heavy water. The report makes clear that British American have not developed their prospective process to a point which would warrant changing the decision announced in the house 28902-5-381
on December 2 last. Accordingly the negotiations between Deuterium Corporation of Canada Limited and A.E.C.L. leading toward a definitive contract are continuing on the basis of that statement.



REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSIST AIR INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Does the government intend to take any action to meet the situation exposed in the brief submitted by the air industry association of Canada, in which that association declared the air industry to be in a very precarious position and that drastic action should be taken by the government now?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to read this important brief. The government recognize that serious study must be given to the situation of the air industry in Canada, and such study is presently going on.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him whether the department has cancelled its order for the building of C.C.G.S. Nanook in the Pictou shipyard. If so, what is the reason for this action?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there was never any order for building the ship. It is a ship which was damaged in the ice in the north this summer, and tenders were called for the repair work on it. The lowest bidder was the yard at Pictou but the cost, as revealed by the competitive tenders, is so high in relation to the two weeks of work required of this ship in the summer in the Hudson strait that it was decided to delay the work, because it can always be done later if it is found necessary to do it. But in view of the prospective use of
5982	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the ship it was thought inadvisable to go ahead with the work at that enormous cost.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the high amount of unemployment in that area would the minister be prepared to reconsider the department's decision in that regard?


George James McIlraith: I am very well aware and very conscious of the high unemployment in the area. That is why I was so pleased yesterday with the public announcement of the contract for building flat cars there. But the point here is that it is very difficult to justify a repair bill of that sort for two weeks' use of a ship in the summer as living quarters for the crew while working unloading freight in the north, when there are other ships available that do not require any such expenditure.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the minister's answer, would he at least see that this ship is left in the port of Pictou until a decision is made on whether to go ahead with repairs at a later date? I ask this question because I understand his department has decided to remove the ship from there, and of course if repairs were called for later the port would be iced in. Would the minister consider leaving the ship there for the present?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do that.



POSSIBLE WORKS IN LAKE ST. PIERRE TO AID WINTER NAVIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell us whether his department intends to build dams or have other engineering works done in the amount of $60 million, on St. Peter lake, in order to make winter navigation possible on the St. Lawrence river as far up as Montreal?


Hon. J. P. Deschaieleis (Minisler of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, no such project was mentioned.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Public Works tell us whether such surveys were made by the engineers of his department these last few months?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not know about that, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister or his legal advisers finished reading and analysing Jacques Hebert's book entitled "J'aecuse les assassins de Coffin"? If so, have they come to the conclusion that a royal commission must be set up?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisler of Juslice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the high officials of the department have finished reading the book, but they are now examining the lengthy departmental file concerning the decision taken in 1956 to refuse the commutation.
There are two aspects to this question. First there is the purely provincial aspect and, considering it, there does not seem to be any reason to make an investigation in that field.
With regard to the commutation or rather the decision not to commute the sentence, I am studying, in co-operation with the officials of my departments, what happened prior to the refusal to commute the sentence, and I hope to be able to make a statement in that regard before the adjournment of the house.


Mr. Reid Scoil (Danforlh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister can tell us if he has recently received any representations from the government of the province of Quebec, or anybody on its behalf, expressing its views in this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of the question. Expressing what?


Mr.   Scoll@: Expressing the views of the government of the province of Quebec in this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no representations from the government of Quebec.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the supplementary question is really urgent I will allow it, but I do not think even the original question was urgent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: My supplementary question is, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: No doubt I should have specified in my answer-and I thought I did so- that besides having finished that reading, they are now considering what happened and what is contained in a bulky file, in connection with the statements contained in Mr. Hebert's book.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice related to his answers earlier in the day on the Coffin murder case, and in particular the suggested constitutional crisis between the then prime minister and the governor general. Did the minister investigate the alleged two day interval between the decision not to commute the sentence and the refusal or alleged refusal of the governor general to sign the necessary document?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day that I had communicated with the then prime minister, and I gave his report to the house. I was sorry that one newspaper report indicated that I had used the word "indignant" in respect of Mr. St. Laurent's conversation with me. That was not so. The reply I got from Mr. St. Laurent was not in the slightest degree one which denoted anything like that. He simply denied the report, and I am sure that as far as the house and the country are concerned that denial will have been accepted.
I might add that I did ask my officers to look at the records to ascertain if there had been any unusual delay in the matter. I find the facts to be as follows. The cabinet arrived at its decision on February 7, 1956. The order in council pertaining to the decision not to interfere with the sentence is dated February 8, 1956, and this decision was communicated to the provincial authorities early in the morning on February 9, 1956. The telegram from the sheriff confirming receipt of such advice was dispatched from Montreal at 10 a.m. on February 9, 1956. This contradicts and seems to dispose of the allegation that the governor general held the matter up for two days.

A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, when I answered a question directed to me by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette),
28902-5-381i



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Has the government informed the C.P.A. Repair Company at Lincoln Park, Calgary, that their contract for the repair of R.C.A.F. and other government aircraft will not be renewed when it runs out in March, I believe, of 1964?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: do not know the answer to that question. I would be glad to take it as notice.



INQUIRY AS TO CONVERSION OF DESTROYER ESCORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Defence Production. Has a decision been made yet whether the conversion of the remaining St. Laurent class destroyer escorts will be carried out in the west coast shipyards?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister say when this decision may be expected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As soon as possible.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in today's Gazette regarding the possibility of the sale to interests abroad of shares in a Canadian bank? Will he tell the house whether this would require the authorization of the government, and, if so, is the government prepared to grant such authorization?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen that report. The answer to the second part of the question is that the government has no authority under any

Inquiries of the Ministry existing legislation to prevent the sale of any corporation or the sale of any other property to anyone.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the reported intention of the Toronto-Dominion Bank to dispose of part of its assets to a foreign bank, and in view of the prohibition under section 99, subsection 2, of the Bank Act against such a transaction taking place without the minister's consent, can the minister tell us whether he is prepared to give consent to such a transaction if an application is made?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, there has been a certain amount of rumour that certain transactions of the Toronto-Dominion Bank might or might not be considered. The Toronto-Dominion Bank made an announcement at 11.15 this morning which perhaps hon. members have not seen. The announcement stated that the Toronto-Dominion Bank was making an investment in a bank to be known as the Midland and International Banks Limited, with head office in London, England, the other participants being the Midland Bank Limited, Standard Bank Limited of London, England and the Commercial Bank of Australia Limited. I do not know anything about any disposition of the assets of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. If there were any such contemplated, they would be dealt with in the ordinary course under the provisions of the law.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have a supplementary question on this matter which I believe should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not given him notice of this question. As the Minister of Finance said, a statement was issued by the Toronto-Dominion Bank at 11.15 this morning, with some preliminary rumours yesterday that some momentous statement was forthcoming; therefore I have not given notice to the minister of my intention to ask this question but he may take it as notice.
In view of the statement made at 11.15 that the Toronto-Dominion Bank, in association with banks in the United Kingdom and Australia, were forming a gigantic corporation for the financing of exports throughout the world, may I ask if this will be supplementary to or in competition with our export credits insurance.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the hon. gentleman has said, I have not had an opportunity to think about this question. My offhand opinion would be

that there is room in this country for enlarged facilities for the financing of the export trade. I would hope that is the effect of this transaction.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    EMPLOYMENT AT OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry he is not wearing the button that was given to him this morning. In view of the failure of the government and the delegation from Manitoba to reach a meeting of minds this morning with respect to the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg, can the right hon. gentleman say what steps the government will now take to allay the dismay which all of us from Manitoba feel over this matter?
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I do not feel there was a failure to reach a meeting of minds, and I do not think there is any cause for dismay with regard to the matter which the hon. member has mentioned.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that a public inquiry will be undertaken, as suggested by the premier of Manitoba, concerning the proposed reduction of employment in this overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg? I suggest this is something which the Prime Minister could do and ought to do in all the circumstances.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The proposal which has been made will, we hope, lead to no reduction in employment but to the maintenance of employment, so the question was wrongly phrased in that respect. As far as an inquiry into the matter is concerned, I told the premier this morning I would discuss with him whether there should be such an inquiry, what the terms of reference of such an inquiry might be, and whether it should be held by the provincial or the federal government.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for his general observations. May I ask, however, whether he will accept a public inquiry by the government of Canada jointly with the government of Manitoba to inquire into the peregrinations of this problem which have taken place since he took office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already stated I would discuss this matter with the premier of Manitoba, and the right hon. gentleman should surely realize that that is the proper way to proceed in a matter of joint interest of this kind.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: In
November the Prime Minister made a statement that employment in Winnipeg would not be reduced. In January the former minister said there would be a freeze of jobs. Close to 200 jobs had disappeared in Winnipeg. Can the government direct T.C.A. to maintain the freeze until a policy is worked out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have already said, it is the policy of the government to do everything possible to maintain employment at the T.C.A. base in Winnipeg and, if possible, to increase it.


David Orlikow: Would the Prime Minister convey that desire of the government to Mr. McGregor, who is ignoring it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to do that, and also to convey to him the proceedings at the meeting this morning.


Mr. Knowles:: Is the Prime Minister aware that while this policy is in effect, employment at the base in Winnipeg is declining?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have asked for the figures with regard to employment in the base at Winnipeg, and for the figures of any decrease in T.C.A. employment in Winnipeg over the years. While there has been some decrease in recent months, there has also been a considerable increase in employment compared with ten years ago.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that there has been some progress in recent months, may I ask him to clarify this particular point. I put a written question on the order paper on November 13, which was answered. The question read as follows:
How many personnel have been transferred from the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg to Montreal since April 22, 1963?
The answer given by the Minister of Transport was:
The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows. During the period in question there have been five transfers, all of supervisory category, four of these at the individual's request and one at company request. No non-supervisory personnel have been transferred in the period.
In view of that answer, and in view of the statement made by the delegation this morning at the meeting which the Prime Minister attended that 170 people have been transferred in this interval, would it not be wise to have a public inquiry to get the facts of the case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The information, Mr. Speaker, given to us this morning will be taken up with T.C.A. We will check the information
Inquiries of the Ministry against that which is available to T.C.A. and do our best to clear up this matter.


Léon Balcer: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Earlier the Prime Minister indicated he would send a report of the meeting this morning with the Winnipeg representatives to the president of T.C.A. Will he, at the same time, send to the president of T.C.A. any recommendations made by the cabinet or himself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if there are any recommendations to be made as a result of this morning's meeting, of course we will be glad to send them to the president of T.C.A.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to a statement he made on November 22, page 5055 of Hansard, to the effect that in the last ten years employment in T.C.A. at Winnipeg has increased by 23 per cent. This morning one member of the Manitoba delegation referred to that statement and said employment had decreased by 14 per cent. Was the minister misleading the house in his statement of November 22?


George James McIlraith: No, the minister spoke quite accurately. This morning that particular member of the delegation, in referring to 14 per cent, was making a point about the overhaul and maintenance base at Winnipeg and dealing with a different period of time.



STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT RESPECTING CARAVELLE AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government share Mr. McGregor's opinions concerning the Caravelle aircraft and the qualifications of French speaking Canadians. [Text]



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the answer the Prime Minister gave to a supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat yesterday concerning the commonwealth seat on the security council. As reported at page 5927 of Hansard the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, that question has not arisen and will not arise as long as there is an understanding that there should be a commonwealth seat on these councils.
5986	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
My question is, is the Prime Minister telling the house that there is now an informal understanding at the United Nations that there will be a commonwealth seat in future, not only on the general committee but also on the security council and on the economic and social council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the commonwealth has been represented on all these agencies, as my hon. friend knows, since the beginning of the United Nations shows that there has indeed been such an understanding up to the present. We hope that understanding can continue, and that if any change is made in these agencies the commonwealth will continue to have a seat on them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. I take it from the answer of the Prime Minister, then, that there is no assurance that this gentlemen's agreement on the informal seating arrangements on the security and economic and social councils will be continued?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult indeed to give that kind of assurance when the commonwealth itself is divided on the matter.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has an answer to the question I asked him the other day about jet planes and air turbulence.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the question it had to do with air turbulence in connection with the accident involving a jet aircraft. I want to assure the hon. member that no possible cause is being overlooked in the investigations that are now going on into the aircraft accident which he mentioned. Air turbulence is one of the possible causes that are being examined, and is receiving careful attention along with many others.



CANADIAN OBSERVERS AT INVESTIGATION INTO RECENT U.S. CRASH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 I asked the Minister of Transport a question which he took as notice. I wonder if he can answer it now.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member
[Mr. Nesbitt.)

asked me whether any of the technical personnel from the Department of Transport were in the United States as observers in connection with the investigation into the recent crash of a Boeing 707. The answer is that since Canada is not involved in either the operation or the manufacture of this type of aircraft, and since the full results of the United States investigation will be available to us in any event, we have not requested any invitation to participate in the investigation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Millar (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which has already been given. Would the Prime Minister confirm a statement in the London Free Press of Friday, December 13, 1963, by the president of the London Liberal association to the effect that he had received assurances from the Prime Minister and the cabinet that the present operation of the C.N.R. car shops in London will continue and possibly be expanded in the future, and that they will not be closed in 1965 as had been originally planned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. gentleman's question just before I came into the house. To my knowledge I have received no such representations or requests from the gentleman named in the report, but I understand representations were made to the Minister of Transport and I believe he has taken up the matter with Canadian National Railways.


Campbell Ewing Millar: A supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister say whether these assurances have been given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I have received no such request for any such assurance, but I will be glad to make a further investigation because, as I say, I got the hon. gentleman's question just before I came into the house.



INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCEMENT OF NEW SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he give any indication now

when the house will be reassembling in January or February, or whenever it may be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. I would hope that by Thursday we will be in a position to know when we are likely to finish this session, and then be able to announce before the end of the session our plans for a return in January or February.



RETENTION OF SESSIONAL STAFF DURING RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State has an answer yet to the question I put to him on December 11. My question related to the intersessional period and the retention of messengers, page boys, and other members of the House of Commons staff.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Yes, sir, I have. 1 understand, and perhaps I should have known this, that the decision of the commissioners of internal economy, the decision to which I referred on December 10 with respect to members' secretaries, applies to all sessional employees who may wish to work during the interval between this session and the next one. That means there will be continuous employment for the whole staff between this session and the next one.



REQUEST FOR IMPROVED QUARTERS FOR INTERPRETERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the classic phrase, while I am on my feet may I also reply to a question asked on Saturday, December 14 by the hon. member for Quebec West about better accommodation for the interpreters. The hon. gentleman suggested that the room in which they are housed is small and very cold, and inquired whether they would get a new room. I am told it is the intention not to give them a new room but to increase the size of their present room-I do not know exactly how- and to put some heaters in so that they can be comfortable.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the recent publication of a report indicating that of the 111 polio cases in Canada this year, 101 cases occurred in Quebec, does the minister not believe that a special study of this condition should be made and that the types of grants paid to Quebec should be reviewed?


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



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might now answer the question put by the hon. member for Ontario yesterday, when he asked whether the government was prepared to accede to the request by the distributive trades advisory council to set up a marketing advisory council and to repeal section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act. The reply is that the matter is still under consideration, and the distributive trades advisory committee has indicated its intention to present a further brief which I have agreed to receive. Until I have those representations I do not think I can give a categorical reply.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on December 12 I asked the Minister of Public Works if he could give the house his assurance that there would be no reductions in civilian personnel on the Alaska highway as a result of the take-over of maintenance operations by his department from the Department of National Defence. The minister indicated that he would probably be able to give me an answer within the next few days, and I wonder whether he has that answer now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: His estimates are up today.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this situation will be carefully examined, but I cannot give any assurance of any kind to the hon. member today.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



MEETINGS OF EASTERN FEED GRAINS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Y amaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house if the eastern feed grains committee set up in 1962 to work in liaison between the Canadian wheat board and eastern feeders has held a meeting recently?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this committee held one meeting under the previous administration. Our present policy in this respect, that is liaison between feed dealers, feeders and so on in eastern Canada and the government, is set out in the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture on December 12, when he said, as found on page 5756 of Hansard:
The government sees merit in having an administrative arm responsible for the feed grain policy and to act in a liaison capacity in feed grain matters, and intends to move in this direction.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked a question about difficulties in the shipping of flour from Vancouver to Russia. At that time I had not heard that report, but I have since inquired and I find that in general the shipments of flour to the U.S.S.R. have been progressing very satisfactorily. Some difficulty occurred in Vancouver last week as a result of condensation damage to approximately 5,000 bags of flour. This flour is being reconditioned. Notwithstanding the delay relating to this particular shipment, I have been assured by the flour milling industry that shipments from both coasts are ahead of the program agreed to in the contracts concluded by the milling industry with the U.S.S.R. trading organization Exportkhleb.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has a group of members been commissioned to design a particular flag for Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is such a committee I am not aware of it.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry or, since he is not here, to his parliamentary secretary?
Is the parliamentry secretary in a position to inform the house whether the department maintains constant relations with the Maine and Vermont authorities concerning the extensive logging operations now in progress on both sides of the border?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: I really think that is a question for the order paper, and I will be glad to answer it if it is put on the order paper.


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


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Concerning forestry operations between Canada and the United States, especially with the states of Maine and Vermont, could the minister have an investigation made to find out whether all customs duties are being paid, because again this year, approximately 150 million feet of lumber will be involved in those operations?


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), advocating in Paris measures intended to prevent the spreading of nuclear arms in the world and on the other hand, the storing of nuclear arms on Canadian soil?

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, there is no irreconcilability between those two statements.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Could the right hon. Prime Minister give us more information about the statement made yesterday by the minister of external affairs to the effect that Canada intends to strengthen the strike force role of its squadrons in Europe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns, I hope on Thursday, he may be able to deal with the matter.



GENERAL FOULKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last I directed a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. 1 asked him whether General Foulkes had been re-employed by the government or brought to Ottawa in an advisory capacity. The minister said he did not know but would look into the matter and report to us on Monday. It is now Tuesday.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that General Foulkes has not been re-employed by the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Since statistics indicate that 218,900 applications for unemployment benefits were made in October, and since this figure is likely to go up, could the minister inform the house about the present condition of the unemployment insurance fund and give us a broad outline of what is being done in order to reduce unemployment?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I announced yesterday that as of the end of November there was approximately $56 million in the unemployment insurance fund. It would be impossible on orders of the day,
Inquiries of the Ministry to outline the extent of the winter works programs now in preparation and in progress.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Canada's stand on western aid to Russia
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister the nature of the assistance that might be given to the U.S.S.R. against communist China to help the Soviet union in its power struggle with communist China, as indicated yesterday by Mr. Rusk in a rather unusual statement. I shall read the statement and ask the Prime Minister what is the attitude of the Prime Minister in this regard, and whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs commented on it, in Paris? According to the press Mr. Rusk stated:
In the quarrel between Chinese militancy and Russia's peaceful coexistence, our interest is to see that Moscow prevails.
What variety of international philosophy is this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course if I started a discussion on orders of the day on the international philosophy involved in this question, certainly we would not adjourn before Christmas. This is important, and is not a question to be answered on orders of the day, but I shall be glad to look into the text of Mr. Rusk's statement in Paris and what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there at this stage, and if there is anything in this statement that requires comment on orders of the day, I shall be glad to make it.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the second time today the Prime Minister has shown petulance and peevishness. I asked a reasonable question on an important matter-
Some hen. Members: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you want to continue the session beyond Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the Prime
Minister whether he would make any observation on this matter, because it is a matter of deep significance and one that deserves attention. I am not saying that the Prime Minister can answer it today, but will he answer it before we conclude this week's session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I already had promised to do that, but I would call your attention to the advice you gave us, as recorded at page 4206 of Hansard for October 31, to the effect that in putting a question

Inquiries of the Ministry a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits and not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with within the limits of an answer to a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, I am very happy to see that the Prime Minister has endeavoured to take over your position, but I still recognize you as the Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to appoint a Canadian ambassador to France in the near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a Canadian ambassador in France at the present time. I believe he left for Paris this morning.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it arises from the answer he made to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, in which he stated that a new ambassador for Canada had gone to France this morning. Some months ago I asked the Prime Minister what was the salary of the commissioner general, Mr. Dupuy, to which the Prime Minister answered that Mr. Dupuy was still employed by the Department of External Affairs as ambassador to France. Since there is a new ambassador, I want to ask what is the salary that is paid to the commissioner general?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry if my answer was misunderstood. I did not say a new ambassador had gone. I said the ambassador had gone this morning, Mr. Dupuy, who still is ambassador to France.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As his excellency Mr. Dupuy is going to resign soon, and as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) missed the mark and has not succeeded in being appointed president of the C.N.R., is it the government's intention to appoint him Canadian ambassador to Paris in the foreseeable future?


John George Diefenbaker: Let us hear the answer to that.


Lionel Chevrier: You thought it was the other way around last week.


Léon Balcer: The country is waiting for an answer.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether any representations have been made to him expressing concern at the use of the R.C.M.P. in strikebreaking activities in the labour dispute which is taking place at the North Canadian Forest planing mill in Grande Prairie, Alberta. If so, what action does the minister contemplate taking as a result of these representations?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, no representations have been made to me in that respect, tout I will inquire at once and have a reply before the house rises.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON 1962-63 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether the minister, in his discussions with Mr. McNamara, was able to learn the size of the final wheat payment which might be made to the farmers in March.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt
whether Mr. McNamara himself yet knows the answer to that question. I was talking to him today and he indicated to me that he hoped to close out the accounts about the beginning of January.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. While I do not share the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning the statement made by Mayor Charlotte Whitton on bilingualism, I have

Inquiries of the Ministry
no means of preventing the mayor from speaking her mind. My question of privilege is aimed at another part of the hon. member's statement, where he said that Mr. Gilles Gregoire was the leader of Quebec members in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: I am on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does my hon. friend rise on a question of privilege, or is it his intention to put a question on the orders of the day?


John Cole: I rose on a question of privilege.
As a representative from the province of Quebec in this house, I deny the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) the authority to impose the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) as my leader. I think I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the house. I was referring to a report published in this morning's Le Devoir.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: If I may say
a word on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for'Longueuil has read perhaps what has been misinterpreted. Specifically I said I did not think that the blatant and almost base antics of Real Caouette, his chief lieutenant, Gilles Gregoire, and others, was helping to do anything more than keep people away from their initial desire to understand. This construction in the newspaper placed the hon. member for Lapointe as the chief of Quebec, and I certainly would not want to promote him to that position.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that in the spirit of Christmas we proceed with orders of the day.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wonder whether the two hon. members who just spoke take for granted everything published in the press.
It is a fact that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) makes a valuable contribution to parliament and no hon. member has the right to criticize the way the hon. member for Lapointe behaves in the House of Commons.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday, as to whether any of the provinces have reached agreement with the federal government in respect of increasing the old age and other payments effective from December 1 and, if so, which provinces?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked since yesterday when this question was put to me. We have received a couple of wires and a couple of the provinces have informed us of their intentions, but we have not heard from all the provinces.
It is suggested that it would be perhaps unfair to mention names, since some provinces did go so far as to send me a wire and others may have the same intention but have not notified me. Therefore, since at the moment the information is incomplete, I would ask my hon. friend to wait, and perhaps before the house rises for the Christmas recess I will have the information in full.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State with reference to the business of the house. My question refers to item No. 18 on the order paper, the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Transport which is a prelude to legislation to implement certain recommendations of the royal commission on transportation. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could arrange with the various parties of the house to advance this resolution one stage so that the legislation would be made available. I think most hon. members know this is a fairly complicated matter, and it would be a great advantage if we had the legislation to study between the closing of this session and the beginning of the next one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to give consideration to this matter, although I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand that there are some other matters on the order paper to which I feel obliged to give higher priority.

National Centennial Act REDISTRIBUTION



PROVISION FOR OFFICE OF REPRESENTATION COMMISSIONER AND READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION

John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting the office of representation commissioner and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL CENTENNIAL ACT


Lester Bowles Pearson: the third reading of Bill No. C-107, to amend the National Centennial Act.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an interruption made last evening which I did not hear. That interruption came from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) and, as reported at page 5989 of Hansard, he said this:
I challenge the right hon. gentleman to show me where the word "nation" is in the English version of the present act and also to show me that we are deleting the word "national" from the present act.
I did not hear that question and that challenge last evening. It comes to me as somewhat of a surprise, in view of the fact that when he spoke on November 19, in explaining the reasons for the amendments to this act he said, as reported at page 4911 of Hansard:
Moreover, the word "national" in the English version is confusing in the context in which it is used, and resulted in another historical error in the French version. Thus, the latter constantly refers to the "centenary of the nation" rather than to the "centenary of confederation".
The expressions "Canada centennial", "centenaire du Canada", "national centennial" and "centenaire de la nation" have given rise to perfectly justified objections on the part of the premier of the province of Quebec.
He set down those objections in an exchange of correspondence first with the former prime minister of Canada and then with the present Prime Minister. That correspondence began on October 4, 1961, and has already been tabled in this house by the Minister of Justice, on June 27 of this year to be exact.
That correspondence and the debates which took place last summer in the legislative assembly show quite clearly that the government of Quebec will refuse to participate in the centennial celebrations, unless the changes we are proposing today are accepted by the Canadian parliament.

Now, sir, this challenge comes to me as rather a surprise, because I have before me the bill and it is apparent that the minister has not even read his own bill or the explanations therein. The challenge, I again point out, was to show the minister where they were deleting the word "national" from the present act. Therefore I commence by pointing out that clause 1 provides:
Section 1 of the National Centennial Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
In the explanatory notes it says:
The purpose of this amendment is to change the short title of the National Centennial Act.
Section 1 at present reads as follows: "1. This act may be cited as the National Centennial Act".
Clause 1 says:
"This act may be cited as the Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act".
So that "national" is removed twice there. Later on, in clause 2 it says:
Paragraph (a) of section 2 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) "Commission" means the centennial commission referred to in section 3;"
Then in the explanatory notes we find these words appear:
"Administration" means the national centennial administration referred to in section 3;"
Then it says in clause 3:
Section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
At the moment section 3 reads:
There shall be a corporation to be called the national centennial administration-
That is now changed in this bill to the following:
There shall be a corporation to be called the centennial commission-
Then it sets out the members who shall comprise the commission. Finally, under clause 6 it say*:
Subsection (1) of section 10 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"10.	(1) There shall be a special account in
the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the centennial of confederation fund, to which shall be credited the amounts appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the fund".
In the explanatory notes we find these words:
Subsection (1) at present reads as follows: "10. (1) There shall be a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the national centennial fund, to which shall be credited the amounts appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the fund".
Therefore, sir, the challenge has been answered by simply indicating that the word "national" is removed in at least four or five cases throughout the act.

Hon, Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: I have answered the challenge, and I intend to say something further.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Could I ask a question of the hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the right hon. gentleman care to refer to clause 7 of the new bill, dealing with section 17 of the act, which provides:
There shall be a national conference on the centennial of confederation-


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to squirm out of the position in which his smart question last evening placed him. In so far as that conference is concerned it says:
There shall be a national conference on the centennial of confederation-*
That is a different organization altogether. The hon. gentleman now, having made that loose statement last evening, finds himself in a situation where he tries to get out of the impossibility of the position in which he has placed himself by reason of an aimless interruption. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I ought to place on the record the letter from the premier of Quebec to the present Prime Minister. It is dated May 2, 1963:
Office of the Premier Province of Quebec
Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Prime Minister,
You no doubt know that the government of the province of Quebec has been invited to participate in the celebration of the centennial of confederation. This government has already expressed its intention of taking an appropriate part in that celebration by undertaking to pay its share of the cost of the memorial which is being erected in Charlottetown.
Unfortunately, a serious difficulty has made until now any kind of agreement impossible with the federal government.
As I pointed out in my letter of October 19, 1961 to the then prime minister of Canada-
And I interpolate here, that was ten days or so after the law had been passed by both houses.
-the act passed by the parliament of Canada is properly entitled an "act respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada", but that title is contradicted by section 3 and 17 which mention respectively the "national centennial" and "Canada's centennial".
Then he goes on to say:
It is obvious that it is not the title of the act that will catch the eye of the people, but
National Centennial Act
the names of the organizations set up to bring it into operation. ...We are therefore confident that you will admit the necessity of amending the act respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada in such a way as to eliminate the difficulties I have mentioned.
I draw attention to those excerpts from the letter as part of the answer to the challenge made last evening. I reiterate what I said then, that throughout the discussions, when the legislation was before the House of Commons, there was no objection raised by any of the members who sat opposite. Indeed, the present Prime Minister said on September 18, 1961:
The fact that we shall soon be celebrating our hundredth birthday makes us one of the older states in the world.
Then on another occasion, speaking in the house on the same date, he said, the reference being to myself:
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, it would be appropriate to examine the values of our national society.
In later speeches he said the same thing. For instance, speaking to the national federation of Liberal women-I emphasize the description of that organization; they have not had the feeling that "national" is a dangerous word-the right hon. gentleman said on October 29, 1963:
Canadians are going to grow together in national development, national purpose and national pride.
In all these cases "national" is used as it was used in the law passed by this parliament, the law which is now being amended. I simply wanted to clarify this and to point out that the hon. gentleman has not, apparently, read his own bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am astonished beyond measure that the Prime Minister has not participated in this debate. His name appeared before the legislation on second reading. He was not present during that discussion. He is here in the house today, his name standing as the sponsor of third reading, and he has nothing to say.
I was at some pains last night to draw attention to the fact that in my opinion and in the opinion of many people the Prime Minister of this country should speak on this particular matter and clear up the situation which prevails within his own ranks, and clear up something of the difficulty and dissension which has been introduced into this problem by the President of the Privy Council and others.
I do not intend to prolong the discussion this afternoon, but the silence of the Prime Minister is an indication of the very thing that I feared and to which I tried to draw
5994	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act attention yesterday. I was afraid that the people who were put up as spokesmen for the Liberal party in the debate on the resolution and on second reading were, in effect, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and expressing his views. Now that fear is confirmed, because the Prime Minister has not taken the opportunity which was his when this motion was called to deny that these gentlemen were speaking on his behalf and on behalf of the Liberal party.
With all seriousness I drew attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and I questioned whether or not that speech represented the views of the Liberal party of Canada. Now, in the absence of any word from the Prime Minister, we are faced with the situation that those obviously are his views and the views of the Liberal party of Canada. Unless the Prime Minister will repudiate that hon. member and that statement he made, what other conclusion can we draw? No self-respecting Canadian is going to sit here in silence in the House of Commons and hear offensive statements such as were made by the hon. member to whom I have referred, without some explanation being given. And only from the Prime Minister of this country can such an explanation come.
I am speaking with the utmost seriousness about this situation. The Liberal party laughs. That is exactly what one would expect from that party. They approve of those statements of the hon. member for Lotbiniere and they laugh when I say this question should be treated with all seriousness. I ask the Prime Minister, does he approve of the statement made by the hon. member when he said the symbol of Canada's supreme authority is a foreign sovereign? Are we to sit here and have statements of that kind made in the House of Commons and recorded in Hansard? Are we to hear these reflections on our system of government and on our Queen and be silent about it? This, obviously, is the attitude which represents the policy of the Liberal party of Canada, and I hope all Canadians are now aware of it.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I take a few minutes to try to calm down the few members who have just spoken about the matter under consideration.
At this time, when we in this house are thinking of celebrating confederation and attempts are being made to have us believe that we have succeeded in uniting the two great races into one nation, extremists have to take this occasion to try to push their extreme views one step further.
[Mr. Churchill.l

I think that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) may have gone a little too far when he referred to the Queen, but if at this point an attempt is made to push this matter still further, to the extent of having someone state that this was right or that was wrong; if the word "national" is to become controversial with regard to confederation or centennial celebrations, then I wonder whether it would even be worth while to celebrate the centennial of confederation after all.
I admit that on some occasions, Quebec members have perhaps gone a little too far on the nationalist issue. This I recognize. But I would also ask the previous speakers to realize that on some occasions, other members have also carried their own brand of nationalism quite far.
I should also like to refer to the famous statement made by the previous speaker. Mr. Speaker, on a matter of such vital importance to the entire country, I wonder once again why petty politics has to be brought into this debate.
We earnestly wish to commemorate the centennial of confederation. We are anxious to show the world what a success this country has been. We want to show that it is possible for French speaking and English speaking Canadians to establish a true confederation. In that respect, I accept in good faith the explanation given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) to the effect that Canada constitutes a political nation.
From the political point of view, we form a state, a country and a nation. I also agree with the minister when he states that from a cultural viewpoint, things are rather different, there being a French Canadian nation and an English Canadian nation.
Once again, I would ask hon. members of the opposition who spoke before me not to block this project which concerns all true Canadians who wish to celebrate a true confederation which has made it possible for two great races, two great nations, to establish so great and so fine a country as Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days, we have heard statements concerning the celebration of the centenary of confederation which were irresponsible in many respects.
Some members object and are deeply concerned because we are to celebrate the centenary of confederation instead of the centenary of the nation. As in the past, they have been trying to create a truly and fundamentally anti-Canadian climate.
On the other hand, others have said that there are two groups of extremists, one of

which is French Canadian, the other English Canadian, and both working against national unity in Canada.
I do not think that in this house there has been on our part, or on the part of French Canadian members, any hindrance or obstacle to understanding in this country. If there ever has been a conciliating nation or race these last 97 years, it should be recognized that it has been the population of the province of Quebec and French Canadian members.
Personally I do not agree with the opinion expressed the other day by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to the effect that Canada recognizes the Queen of a foreign country. When we speak of Her Majesty the Queen, I see her as the Queen of Canada and not at all as the Queen of England. I think that Queen of Canada is her title as far as we are concerned.
We have to recognize more and more on the part of this sovereign, who is perfectly bilingual, that deep desire for unity, conciliation and understanding. Such an example might perhaps have been followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who seems to have encountered many more difficulties than Her Majesty in the learning of French.
On the other hand, there are still people who talk about the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag and of a national anthem.
More and more, throughout the country, people have come to recognize the importance and urgency of adopting those measures or that measure that will provide Canada with a national distinctive flag and not a flag relating to a foreign emblem.
In this connection, I shall give as an example the small countries that have just recovered or obtained their freedom and independence. The first thing they did at this solemn moment in their history, was to adopt a distinctive national flag. Such was the case with Jamaica and African countries where, only a few days ago, that first step was taken once again.
When it has gained or is about to gain its sovereignty, the first action a country should take is to give itself a distinctive national flag and a national anthem.
For my part, in 1967, whether other people like it or not, if a flag bearing the union jack is presented as an English flag, I shall be the first to salute it to show my respect for the English, but should this flag be offered as the Canadian flag, well, there is a limit, and if it should come to that, I will not salute it, no matter what flag it is, unless it is Canada's own distinctive national flag.
This does not apply exclusively to the union jack. I would salute as well, with joy
National Centennial Act and veneration, the American flag which is the symbol of a friendly nation; but nobody could get me to believe that the American flag is our own national flag.
We are not faced with a problem of dissent, but with a problem of decision. If we recognize self-government and liberty for the smaller countries of the world, let us try at least to set an example, after several decades of existence as a dominion. I am sure that there is not a single representative, be he English or French speaking, who will object to the adoption of a national flag and a national anthem, which would be distinctly Canadian.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) stated yesterday afternoon that Canadians are showing their attachment to the idea of national unity in Canada. Let us remember, however, that national unity is not a one-way street. There cannot be exclusively rights for some and nothing but duties for others. We have on both sides, some rights and corresponding duties. Our main duty is precisely to try and understand each other the best we can.
I have said it, and I shall repeat it once more: I do not believe that an Englishman can be turned into a Frenchman, nor that a Frenchman can become an Englishman. However, I believe that it is possible to have two good Canadians, practising bonne entente and mutual understanding. In order to reach that goal, if it becomes necessary to water our wine, let us not hesitate. We have done just that and we ask our partners to do the same, so that we can sit at the same table, the table of confederation, of bonne entente, of understanding and co-operation. That is what we are asking for.
Yesterday, I was listening to the whining by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) concerning the use of the phrase "centennial of the nation" instead of "centennial of confederation" and he criticized the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and asked the Prime Minister to give his opinion. If the right hon. gentleman keeps silent, it may be that he understands that it is up to parliament to decide. The Prime Minister alone does not decide. He introduces his legislation, but does not take the decision.
We should have liked to have his views. If he does not put them forward, at least some official representatives of the government have spoken. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State made some statements yesterday. There were also statements made by the Conservatives. Only, as far as confederation is concerned, the Conservatives could have acted two or three years ago when they were sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker.
5996	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
Now, if the government introduces such legislation, why lay the blame on the Prime Minister and ask him what he intends to do when the problem is settled. It does not belong to the Prime Minister to decide, but to parliament as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say for the time being, but I sincerely believe confederation, the centennial of confederation can be celebrated with enthusiasm in 1967, provided we are Canadians and not foreigners, provided we are bound to our Canadian country, and not to another country outside our frontiers, provided we play our part as Canadians and take our responsibilities in that respect, in order to reach the goal we are seeking, that is understanding, mutual co-operation and making Canada a greater country, where life is worth living.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Lamontagne: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that its support is unanimous?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-127, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1962 to the 30th day of June, 1964, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is basically the same as in previous years being in accordance with the practice followed since 1952 and only differs in form in that it covers two calendar years instead of the usual one. As hon. members know, ordinarily there is a financing and guarantee bill presented to the house each year, but inasmuch as the 1962 legislation was not dealt with last year and the fiscal year 1963 is nearing completion it was deemed expedient to combine both years' authorizations and to present the bill at this time.
[Mr. Caouette.l

The 1962 capital budgets and 1961 annual reports of C.N.R. and T.C.A. were considered in November, 1962, by the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, owned and controlled by the government. During the current session the 1963 capital budgets and 1962 annual reports of these crown corporations have been under consideration by a similar committee. The bill is intended to accomplish eight main purposes, each of which is similar in form to those of the 1961 act and preceding annual acts. These purposes are:
1.	To authorize capital expenditures by the Canadian National Railways not exceeding $156,500,000 during the 1962 calendar year as well as capital expenditures not exceeding $157 million during the 1963 calendar year.
2.	To authorize the company to make, prior to July 1, 1964, such capital expenditures as may be necessary to discharge obligations incurred under the 1962-63 act, but which become due for payment after January 1, 1964, as long as these expenditures do not exceed $56 million.
3.	To authorize the railway company to enter into contracts prior to July 1, 1964 for new equipment and for general additions and conversions, where payment will come due after the calendar year 1963, provided that such amounts do not exceed $31,200,000.
4.	To provide for the continued purchase by the Minister of Finance of Canadian National Railways 4 per cent preferred stock through to the end of the calendar year 1964. The 1961 financing and guarantee act extended to December 31, 1962, the expiry date of the authority granted by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1952, for the purchase of such stock up to the limit of 3 per cent of the company's gross revenue. In future years this provision might be among those affected if the government implemented the recommendations of the MacPherson commission and the proposals on the recapitalization of the C.N.R. While government decisions on these urgent and fundamental problems are pending, it is recommended that the bill extend the expiry date of this provision until the end of 1964.
5.	For the same reasons the bill also will extend until the end of 1964 the moratorium on interest on the government loan of $100 million to the railway company authorized by the capital revision act, 1952.
6.	The bill will contain a new section to increase to $480 million the limitation in the Canadian National Railways Refunding Act, 1955, placed on the authority to refund maturing or matured securities of the railway company. The limit is at present $230 million and it is necessary to increase this limit to allow the railway company to repay to the

government a loan of $250 million which the government advanced to the railway company for the purpose of refunding a bond issue in the same amount which matured on the 1st of February, 1963. The only foreseeable way that the C.N.R. could repay this government loan of $250 million would be to sell a bond issue of like amount to the public. There are no plans for such an issue. However, it is considered desirable to provide in this bill for such a possibility, should debt management considerations ever point in that direction.
7.	The bill will provide for the financing, either by means of the issue of new securities by the government of Canada or by way of direct loan, of an amount not to exceed $31,800,000. This amount represents the financial requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines of $9,800,000 in the calendar year 1962, of $16 million in 1963 and $6 million during the first six months of 1964.
8.	Finally, as in previous years, the bill provides authority to make temporary loans to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines to meet deficiencies in operating revenues up to June 30, 1964. As hon. members are aware, these loans to the two companies on income deficit account are of a temporary nature to meet deficiencies in revenue which regularly occur in the early part of each calendar year, and are repaid later either from annual revenues or, if these are insufficient, are written off by parliamentary appropriation.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this debate since I know that, as is the case usually, this legislation concerns particularly financial matters. However, as former minister of transport, I simply wish to take this opportunity to ask the government to study as soon as possible the advisability of allowing refinancing of the operations of the Canadian National Railways.
I believe it is already too long since we had a thorough study of the possibility of allowing the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to adopt a new financing policy, in order that the company may not have to show each year an illogical deficit, which undermines the morale not only of the directors but also of all the employees of the Canadian National Railways.
That is why I have no objection whatsoever to the bill as it stands at the present time. I do not think it includes anything really new. However, when he appeared before the sessional committee, the president of the Canadian National Railways repeated
Canadian National Railways his arguments, which in fact are perfectly logical, in favour of a new capitalization policy for the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill, but in doing so we would also raise the matter referred to by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the long delay that seems to have been necessary, not just on the part of this government but the previous government, in making up their minds about the recapitalization program of Canadian National Railways. On the two most recent occasions the president of the railway has been before a house committee saying that the presentation has been made. On the third most recent occasion he was before us he gave us a long pep talk on all the advantages of recapitalization and what it would do for the railway. But despite all this long preparation we still have not had any action.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) suggests that it is up to the Department of Finance. I do not know what the Department of Finance thinks about it, but it might be as well if we had some explanation at this time. Since the bill really has an almost retroactive effect I would hope that the debate on it would not be long.
One weakness of the capital expenditures set-up of Canadian National Railways from our point of view has been that, with the argument for recapitalization, it is very difficult to know just how well the capital expenditures program for the last decade has worked. This is particularly true since Donald Gordon took over the management, and it is difficult to know how well this capital expenditure program has worked in putting the railway into what he now claims would be an efficient position, as a matter of fact a position without deficit in 1963, if the Mac-Pherson recommendations on recapitalization had been carried out. This claim of Mr. Gordon's is one that is difficult to understand or appreciate. It is easier to see when you look at the long term debt of Canadian National Railways and the fantastic interest payments which have to be made.
I suppose our Social Credit friends would have a solution for the most disturbing point, one which would be more apparent and easier than any that I could offer. However, I tend to go along with their line of reasoning on this. Over the last six or seven years Canadian National Railways have had too many debenture or bond issues floated at rates of interest of 5 per cent or more. This may have been necessary in order to meet the market of the time, but one wonders, when

Canadian National Railways the government of Canada has such borrowing powers, whether this tremendous increase in the percentage of interest on the C.N.R. debt for these more recent capital expenditures is not too high. I would hate to think that in another ten years, if recapitalization does go through, another president of Canadian National Railways will be coming along to have the debt shifted again on to the back of the government of Canada, because of the high interest rates that were charged on Canadian National borrowings during the fifties and sixties. It is for this reason I think we would appreciate a statement from the Department of Finance as to its attitude towards recapitalization of the whole Canadian National debt structure.
In the meantime, this is a routine measure and only touches that other matter by implication. We have, therefore, nothing further to say.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the floor simply to say that we do not refuse in the least to support this bill since it is only legalizing expenditures incurred last year and this year. I think we would be playing a dirty trick on the C.N.R. and all other agencies related to it if we refused to support this bill.
However, it enables us to notice the financial situation in which the C.N.R. finds itself and to show to everyone-even to those who refuse to believe in the Social Credit theories -that those debts that keep piling up are incurred just to reimburse loans made previously.
If the people are happy with this system, they can keep it; but if they are not satisfied with it, nor with Social Credit, they should by all means find quickly a system that will rid us of those chronic debts which only increase year after year.
I would also like to say a word on the management of Canadian National Railways which, judging by what we hear, is most adequate. We are ready to recognize this, inasmuch as the directors will prove it to us but, as a matter of fact, this bill involves, besides Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and it is difficult to examine its budgets and balance sheets, since they are included with those of Canadian National Railways, whose directors are unwilling to reveal the amounts involved, claiming that this is an altogether different company.
I think the government should hereafter consider separating these two crown corporations. Because these are public companies; hon. members, who are the representatives
IMr. Fisher.l
of the people, must be made aware, on behalf of the people, of all expenditures and; they must know what constitutes the income and what the resulting balance is.
I admit, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) said a while ago, that we now have a sham deficit, if we consider the operations for this year. Nevertheless, we are in a situation of chronic indebtedness which will prevent the C.N.R. and T.C.A. from making profits, because our economic system is no more adequate this year than last.
To conclude, I should like to make a short comment on the hotels operated by the C.N.R. Because the Social Credit party claims to be the party of free or private enterprise, its opponents tell us that private companies make exorbitant profits and are hurtful to some other concerns.
I have seen the operation reports of the C.N.R. hotels and I understand that only the Queen Elizabeth hotel, which is run by a private company, made profits, but so much so that it succeeded in erasing the deficits of all other C.N.R. hotels.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is food for thought. This is not a matter of demagogy, but only of recording facts and figures. If other hon. members can offer better solutions, they should better do it fast, since we are sinking into conditions which worsen year after year, and even if we still exist in 1967 to celebrate the centennial of confederation, we will find ourselves in a financial situation which will prevent us from doing so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity we have of studying Bill No. C-127 to
speak on a subject which made the headlines in papers all over the country, namely the decision of the president of T.C.A. in favour of the American DC-9.
I will try to be brief. I was reading in the Saturday, November 5, 1963 issue of Le Devoir a statement of principle, a testimony of faith by the Liberal members from the province of Quebec. The newspaper report is as follows:
The Liberal members from Quebec will recommend to the federal government the purchase of the Caravelle jetliners.
Ottawa-It is the intention of the Liberal members from the province of Quebec to recommend to the federal government the purchase of the French jet Caravelle instead of the American DC-9 in order to alleviate the tragic situation which prevails at the Canadair plant of Ville Saint Laurent, near Montreal.
Under the chairmanship of Mr. Guy Rouleau, M.P. for Dollard, the Quebec Liberals have decided to form a study and working committee which will make recommendations to the government in that respect.
According to them, there is serious unemployment at present in northern Montreal and especially

In Ville Saint Laurent, because Canadair has no contracts. The company has kept only 3,187 of Its 6,500 regular employees.
Liberal members from Quebec see only one solution to the problem, that is the purchase by T.C.A. of the Caravelle jetliner which would be built by Canadair.
Therefore, it will be the committee's mission to convince the federal government and especially the Department of Transport to choose the Caravelle instead of the American DC-9 which would be partly built in the Toronto area but which would be assembled in the United States.
The French company, Sud-Aviation, promised to conclude an agreement with Canadair for the construction of the Caravelle, if Trans-Canada Air Lines decided to buy a sufficient number of those jets.
The government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and Ville Saint Laurent have already submitted representations in that respect.
Local 712 of the international association of machinists has also submitted urgent recommendations to the hon. member for Dollard.
The committee is made up of Mr. Rouleau, the chairman, and of Messrs. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle), Pit Lessard (St. Henry), Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann), Prosper Boulanger (Mer-cier), Vincent Drouin (Argenteuil-Deux-Monta-gnes) and Jean Rochon (Laval).
Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to read to the house this press report published in nearly all our Canadian newspapers, because it is an ultimatum by the federal representatives from Quebec, to force the government to choose the Caravelle, so as to cope with the unemployment which besets Quebec, and more particularly the island of Montreal, which includes the town of Saint Laurent.
I was astonished to see that the pressures exercised by the representatives have come to nothing, and that when the Prime Minister told the house about the choice of the DC-9, the same members on the treasury benches, (all of them from Quebec), thunderously applauded.
Mr. Speaker, after that statement which, as I said, is really an ultimatum, I am amazed by the actions of the representatives who sit on the treasury benches and who signed the petition.
Mr. Speaker, pressures, supported by countless documents, had also been exerted by the authorities of the province of Quebec, by Mr. Lapalme and by Mr. Rene Levesque. The following account was given as to it:
Let us remember that Mr. Rene Levesque, who is the minister of natural resources in the Lesage cabinet, stated as early as October last: "The Quebec government will have recourse to all firm and friendly means of exerting pressure to endeavour to persuade federal authorities of the necessity to pick out the Sud-Aviation Caravelle aircraft, to modernize Trans-Canada's air fleet-
And Mr. Rene Levesque had this to add:
-that he had attracted criticisms from Ottawa for having stated that the Quebec government was exerting "polite but persistent" pressures so as to guide the company's choice, has disclosed yesterday that the cabinet possesses "well supported" files regarding the respective worthiness
Canadian National Railways of the aircraft among which Trans-Canada Air Lines must make their choice and that the superiority of the Caravelle aircraft is undoubtedly unquestionable,
As I have said, Mr. Lapalme made those statements, supported by labour representatives in Canada and, especially in the province of Quebec.
However, Mr. Speaker, we were surprised by T.C.A.'s decision, concerning the choice of the DC-9 aircraft, which was approved afterwards by the government, and we were particularly surprised by the statement made by Mr. McGregor, president of this crown corporation whose salary is paid by the Canadian taxpayers. In my opinion, he should have been more careful in his statements and he should not have tried to foster trouble and stir up strife. The president of T.C.A. made unfortunate statements. I would refer to what Mr. Therrien, a member of the Glassco commission, said again recently:
It is not the ill-timed statements of a man like Mr. McGregor, president of T.C.A., who, more than anybody else, should refrain from evaluating the qualifications of the French Canadians in administration. No such statements can help settle the problem to the satisfaction of the French-Canadian nation.
Mr. McGregor even stated that it was quite possible that T.C.A. would remain unilingual, as it would be too expensive, and thousands of dollars would have to be spent to have the words "Air Canada" inscribed on the corporation's aircraft. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether intensification of bilingualism in this country should be measured by the amount of dollars likely to be involved.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it would have been so important to award T.C.A. that contract, to Canadair providing work for thousands of Canadian workers and their families for five years.
It should not be forgotten that Sud-Aviation would have built all the Caravelle aircraft here, whereas only certain parts of the DC-9 will be built here, while other parts will be built in the United States. The bulk of the work will be done in the United States. That was the opinion of a Montreal newspaper quoted earlier; and this statement was signed by many members from Quebec.
There is also something else, Mr. Speaker. The DC-9 still has to be tested. Moreover, American firms are being encouraged to build these aircraft themselves and in fact, most parts will be built in the United States, and this at a moment when we have a deficit with that country.
Mr. McGregor even questioned the efficiency of the Caravelle. In my opinion, he showed a lack of judgment and contributed to intensify the tension between France and Canada, at a time when our Prime Minister

Canadian National Railways is going to visit France in a few weeks. I think that was a poor thing to say when one considers that the Caravelle has carried 7 million passengers over 60 million miles, which is equal to 2,500 times around the earth and 130 times the distance to the moon. Moreover, the Caravelle is used not only in France, but by 23 companies throughout the world.
Another statement made before the committee and which surprised me was when Mr. McGregor attempted to question the competence of French speaking Canadians.
I think he should first do like the president of another crown corporation, that is try to find at least one or two French speaking persons to appoint to the board of directors, consisting of nine members.
Furthermore, McGregor added that the Caravelle was an excellent aircraft eight years ago but that it is outdated today. I am quite surprised that the president of this crown corporation does not know that the Caravelle Super B which will be in operation in 1964, is a much better aircraft than the Caravelle now in use.
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted in closing to give to the house statistics taken from the British magazine Flight International.
The following figures represent the activities of the different models of aircraft in the world and the number of accidents they have had. These figures are applicable up to the month of May 1963. They indicate, for instance, that the Boeing 707 with 210 aircraft in service, has had 32 accidents, 9 being fatal, since it has been put into operation. With 60 aircraft in operation, the Comet has had 16 accidents, 5 being fatal; the DC-8, 185 in operation, 15 accidents, 7 being fatal; the Boeing 720, 129 in operation, 11 accidents, 2 being fatal; the Caravelle, 151 in operation, 7 accidents, 4 being fatal; the Convair 800, no figures as to number in operation or number of accidents, but this aircraft has had one fatal accident.
And to complete this list, since May 30, 1963, the Caravelle has had one fatal accident. The BAC-111 has had one fatal accident and the DC-8 has had two accidents, one of them fatal, that is the recent accident at Ste. Therese de Blainville.
In the light of the statements made by the president of T.C.A. which have gone a long way to damage our national unity as well as the relations between France and Canada, I wonder whether the government could not compel this crown corporation to publish the report of its experts on the choice of the DC-9, in order to shed some light on the matter for the benefit of the public?


Besides, part of that report relating to the maintenance and repair base in Winnipeg was made known to the government of Manitoba.
I also wonder whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) or the government should not oblige Mr. McGregor to mend his ways, so as to put right not only the damage he brought to our national unity, but also the deterioration of our relations with a friendly country like France.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wished to make.


Mr. Loiselle:: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege?


Gérard Loiselle: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member who just sat down read an article from Le Devoir and mentioned that the committee he was speaking about had been set up in order to bring the government to choose the Caravelle.
I want to tell this house that, though the newspaper published such a report, that statement is untrue. The committee was set up to study the problem in a general way, and established what aircraft would be best for Trans-Canada Air Lines, but certainly not to compel the government to accept the Caravelle.
I would not want the Canadian people to take that statement for granted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I would gladly accept the statement of my hon. friend, if he were to table the recent article published by the newspapers; that article has appeared in most of our newspapers, and all of them are quite emphatic on that point. I have two or three copies of it in my office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a rule of this house, which an experienced member such as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) knows, that we are gentlemen in this house and when an hon. member, on his responsibility, states that something about himself is a fact, we accept it as a fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [TranslatioJi]


Mr. Gerard Ferron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks shall be brief. We are presented

with a bill for the year 1962-63 and also for new investments covering a period ending in July 1964.
I think it is important to mention here that the C.N.R., a crown corporation, shows a deficit every year, which entails an increase in its debt and new bond issues at quite high rates of interest, especially when you consider that only one or two issues carried interest at the rate of 5 per cent in the last ten years, while all others were over 5| per cent and even 6 per cent in some cases.
While these deficits accrue from year to year, we are told that a substantial proportion of the new investments will be to help T.C.A. meet its obligations, expand and buy new aircraft, which represents quite a large amount.
But, as was indicated by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) at a meeting of the railways committee, a balance sheet of T.C.A. is not presented to us under the pretext that it is a completely different corporation from the C.N.R.
I note that the former minister of transport made a very brief statement on this bill, but when you realize that T.C.A. operates a transportation system in some parts of Canada in direct competition with companies which have invested large amounts of money in the last three or five years to improve their service and make it adequate to meet today's needs, you start wondering. And on that score, I could refer to the case of Quebecair which has made very large capital investments in the last three years following the promise that T.C.A. would give up the service between Quebec and Montreal and on the north shore, where service is also provided by Quebecair. Besides, it has been established that T.C.A. operates at a loss between Quebec and the north shore, and Quebecair has to compete now with a crown corporation.
The same thing exists in the trucking field. There were statements made by C.N.R. representatives to the effect that this year again they would continue to compete with private companies already existing through their road transportation system. It is the same thing again with the hotel business where, among others, the Queen Elizabeth hotel, owned by the C.N.R., shows a profit, and it is operated in direct competition with private enterprise. In short, that crown corporation branches out in three important directions, truck transport, air transport and hotel business.
Today, with this bill, we are called upon to vote rather substantial amounts in order to facilitate the refinancing of balance sheets in continuous deficit. Who will pay these amounts? It is always the Canadian taxpayer who pays the cost.
Canadian National Railways
It seems to me, as mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) that some suggestions might be in order; therefore, may I offer you my own suggestion. A complete study of the refinancing of all the assets now administered by the C.N.R. should be undertaken as soon as possible to consider the advisability of financing that crown corporation in new ways less costly and, in the last analysis, cheaper for the Canadian people, so that we may have truly well organized services without having to submit measures that cost a lot of money to the country.
In short, we are seeing competition between crown corporations and private enterprise which has invested huge sums of money. We should give greater protection to private trucking companies, especially from organizations like the C.N.R. which asks us each year for rather large amounts when already adequate services are financed by private enterprise.
In my opinion, we should look for a new method of refinancing in full the C.N.R.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I do not think there is much point in repeating in the house the discussion which took place in the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, especially the question raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon); that is, the question of the choice of the DC-9 aircraft over the Caravelle. I am a member of that committee and therefore am aware of the controversy that has been taking place in the country and in the house on the question of Trans-Canada's choice of aircraft. I hold no particular brief for Toronto and de Havilland, or for Montreal and Canadair. I come from a part of the country well removed from the rivalries between the two places for the employment which would ensue from the choice of a particular aircraft.
I wanted to be satisfied, as much as a member of parliament with a lack of technical knowledge could be, through questioning, that Trans-Canada Air Lines had made the correct choice. I was satisfied about this and practically all the members of the committee were so satisfied, including all those of the Conservative party, I believe. It was explained to us by the president of the company that six factors were applied in the choice of an aircraft. I believe five of them were under consideration. The airplanes were rated according to the six factors, and the airplane which had the highest rating-that is, which served T.C.A.'s interests best-was the one they chose.
6002	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) says there is no doubt the Caravelle is the best aircraft. I submit there is a great deal of doubt. Mr. McGregor did explain at one time that this might be a perfectly good aircraft for some air lines, having in mind the kind of work they would be required to perform, but that it was not suitable for the work of T.C.A. He told us that after these six factors had been applied, the DC-9 came out in front.
I will agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in one respect; the president of T.C.A. did make some unfortunate remarks about the Caravelle. It would have been far better had he not mentioned that accident record, because he did go on to say, afterwards, that most accidents are caused by human factors, not mechanical failure. But I think on Mr. McGregor's behalf it can be said that he was under considerable pressure from questioning, and perhaps he was goaded into saying more than he should have said on that occasion. But I am satisfied, and I am sure most of the members of the committee are satisfied, that on technical grounds the corporation made a correct decision. It would have made no difference to me had the report been available, because it was a technical report. I am not an aeronautical engineer and it would not have helped me very much if we had received a copy.
I believe the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) complained about the lack of financial details in the C.N.R. and T.C.A. reports. I suggest that until the house committee is able to examine in more detail the reports of competing firms, such as Canadian Pacific Airlines and other operators, we should not press these publicly operated companies to go into more detail with regard to the financial side of their operations than is the practice at the present time.
There is a great deal of complaint about the competition which the public corporations are giving to certain private companies in transportation and other fields. Hon. members complain about deficits incurred by these public corporations, but they resent any attempt to decrease the deficits by moving into certain other fields of business, even though the public corporations have been interested in these other fields of endeavour for a considerable time.
I should like to correct one point made by the hon. member for Beauce. The Queen Elizabeth hotel is not the only hotel in the C.N.R. system which has made money. Half of them made money, although the profits were not very great.
I hope the government will proceed in the next session with the measures necessary for


the refinancing of the C.N.R. When that takes place I think the operational statements year by year will be perfectly satisfactory.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased a moment ago to hear the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) who is perfectly familiar with the situation of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines recommend a refinancing of the debt with a view to reducing the interest on it.
Well, we notice that the ideas advocated by our group in this house are beginning to find their way into the minds and this is a good thing. I know some of our good Liberal friends would be quite pleased to have certain monetary reforms carried out, when they find it impossible to administer the country according to their wishes and views.
Our ideas about the monetary reform are becoming increasingly essential to the administration of this country. Every day we find new evidence of this, especially with the study of the bill now before us, which reveals this enormous debt, impossible to pay, but that will have to be cleared some day, because we cannot continue, under such a system, to maintain so considerable a debt.
A while ago I heard the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) say: Of course I do not advocate the easy solutions of the Social Credit, but I favour a decrease and a refinancing of the debt of C.N.R.
So let me ask this question: Is it more difficult to create credit as a debt than to create credit without debts? Is the operation not exactly the same?
Now, I say that to write down figures in a book indicating an issue of credit at a 6 per cent rate of interest or an issue of credit at 1 per cent is the same kind of operation. In fact, what difference is there really in the writing down of figures and what technical problems can there be?
It seems to me that one does not have to be extremely bright to understand that.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: The Canadian National Railways will never be able to make any profits so long as they face a debt of that kind. This is one of the most important questions the government should examine in order to solve this extremely serious problem which, in my opinion, cripples much of Canada's economy.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I was blaming the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for trying to increase the differences between our two great races. And now we are discussing the financing of the C.N.R., and this gives us

an opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who, after the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), has once again raised a problem which is very close to our hearts, in the province of Quebec, and that to such an extent-I say so in all honesty-that it would be a service to render the house and the Conservative party if the hon. member for Three Rivers would take the seat to his left and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would move up to a front bench.
This decision has been highly talked about in Quebec and people in that province are disappointed. At that time, the government replied that it had chosen the DC-9 on the advice of experts.
To a certain extent, the answer was satisfactory but, later on, the province of Quebec asked the government why it had followed the advice of experts concerning the DC-9 but not in the case of the T.C.A. base at Winnipeg. Here again, we were told that the report was confidential and that it would be difficult to get further information.
That would have satisfied the province of Quebec but now, Mr. McGregor states that the report is confidential and cannot be made public. The fantastic thing is that he gave Montreal students explanations concerning the report which was too confidential to be communicated to members of the house.
The matter is being raised again and complaints are being voiced by the eternal martyrs of the province of Quebec who have been ill-treated once more.
I say the government has made a mistake. French Canadian members are complaining. I should like to tell other members who wonder why they complain that if the province of Quebec had obtained what so many of its members had been asking, that is the choice of the Caravelle and the transfer of the maintenance base to the Canadair plant, it would not have complained.
If we so often see Quebec members rising in the house to assert in very strong terms what they believe to be their rights, I say to the other members that if we have to do so, it is because the province of Quebec is aware that it has not always obtained its share. I am not suggesting that we are always right and that the other provinces are always wrong. But I say that the government, as matters stood, should have accepted the motion for the tabling of the engineers' report on the matter.
These were the comments I wished to make, and I feel that as long as one ethnic group will try to drive the other one to the wall,
Canadian National Railways there will be ground for fearing that the Canadian confederation will not be properly commemorated.


David Réal Caouette: Just one word, Mr. Speaker, concerning paragraph 2 of clause 3 of the measure now before us; it says this:
(2) The national company, with the approval of the governor in council, is authorized
(a)	at any time prior to the 1st day of July, 1964, to borrow money by the issue and sale of securities or by way of loan from the Minister of Finance to provide the amounts required by Trans-Canada Air Lines for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1); and
(b)	by the issue and sale of securities, to borrow money to repay loans made under section 6.
Mr. Speaker, under clause 3, the Canadian National Railways is authorized to make capital expenditures amounting to $157 million and those expenditures	are	distributed as
follows:
Road property	$114,134,000
Branch line construction	4,166,000
Hotels	3,797,000
Equipment	18,410,000
Mr. Speaker, I shoud like to point out that, this year, $3,797,000 are allocated to hotels compared to $1,480,000 last year.
Mr. Speaker, under paragraph (2) of clause 3, the Canadian National Railways is authorized to borrow money by the issue and sale of securities. But if a crown corporation has had deficits for many years, where will it take those securities to be issued? Where will it go and from whom will it borrow those amounts? In short, to whom will it sell those securities it will decide to market?
Mr. Speaker, the same paragraph stipulates also:
-by the issue and sale of securities or by way of loan from the Minister of Finance-
Now, how will the Minister of Finance be able to finance the sum of $157 million required by the Canadian National Railways?
And at this point let me say incidentally that Trans-Canada Air Lines also shows a deficit each year.
Where will the Minister of Finance get the money to make a loan to the C.N.R.?
Mr. Speaker, reference was made a while ago to the fact that T.C.A. and the C.N.R., and especially the latter, often used those amounts to compete unfairly with private enterprise.
An hon. member mentioned earlier that in the hotel trade, only the hotels run by private enterprise were making profits. And yet, the government presists in competing with private enterprise in other fields.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) pointed out to the house that the trucking industry was subject to fierce competition from the C.N.R. I do not think it is in the

Canadian National Railways best interests of Canada that crown corporations, including the C.N.R., should thus compete with private enterprise.
On the one hand, private enterprise is being taxed in order to finance the deficits of crown corporations, indirect taxes are levied, etc. In the provincial field, the trucking business must pay very high charges for truck licence plates, etc. And, with all those expenditures, it is almost a miracle that the trucking business can remain in operation throughout Canada and in every province.
Now, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) rightly pointed out just now, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), in order to finance the operations of crown corporations, were to borrow from the Bank of Canada at a nominal interest rate not exceeding administrative costs, he would not have to pay the same deficit two or three times, or two or three times the cost of building a railway line, and even twice the amount for repairs, because capital bears interest, that is, the interest reaches the same amount as the capital created at the beginning.
From a mathematical point of view, it is impossible to repay twice the amount of the loan.
Mr. Speaker, we suggest that the goven-ment should use the Bank of Canada, and not only to finance the C.N.R., but in all fields.
Mr. Speaker, we have said many times, and rightly so, that it would be cheaper to resort to debt-free money than to debt-tied money which requires that such amount be greater in the end than when it was first created.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that even if the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) does not understand all the principles or theories of the Social Credit, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance could at least try the experiment once, to realize to what extent it could help the Canadian people as a whole. Instead of levying taxes that grow higher each year, we could consider a possible reduction of taxes, precisely because we would create the equivalent for crown corporations or the administration of public affairs in all fields, educational, municipal, provincial and federal.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in a few years from now the government would be happy to be able to lighten the tax burden which now weighs heavily on the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer.
Before resuming my seat, I would not forgive myself if I did not point out how important it is, for the parliament of Canada, to help private enterprise, as much as possible, because it has not failed in Canada.
[Mr. Caouette.l

In fact, the trucking industry, as well as other private industries, has not failed in Canada. What has failed is the financial system, and the members of the cabinet, including the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), should go to the Bank of Canada to finance the development which is needed from an economic and social standpoint as well as from a simple Canadian standpoint.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill he read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. C-127, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1962, to the 30th day of June, 1964, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


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



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: As there are a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54 they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that would refer to items Nos. 1 to 5, I assume?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, items Nos. 1 to 5 plus Bill No. S-47 and Bill No. S-45, which were reported today. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-41, to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles.-Mr. Rouleau.

Bill No. S-48, respecting the Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mor-ison.
Bill No. S-49, respecting the Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-51, to incorporate Family Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).
Bill No. S-45, respecting the executive board of the Canada conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America.
Bill No. S-47, to incorporate Royal General Insurance Company of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. S-50, to incorporate the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Cameron (High Park)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks on this bill. They will not be lengthy but there are a couple of aspects of the bill that I think it is worth reflecting upon and placing some information on the record. The purpose of the bill is to create a mortgage insurance company which will then be used to provide mortgage insurance for other loan companies which will operate in each of the ten provinces. As was explained to us in committee, the mortgage companies that will be incorporated intend to supply a much higher ratio of mortgage lending to private home owners and owners of duplexes than is now available. I understand they will supply about an 80 per cent mortgage and this mortgage insurance company is intended to provide mortgage insurance for the top 20 per cent of the loan.
It is interesting to note that this is a new experiment in the field of mortgage law and is really filling a vacuum which exists at the present time. Those of us on this side of the house and various people in the government when they were on this side of the house advocated that the National Housing Act should be extended to fill this vacuum. I can recall sitting in the other corner in 1962 and hearing the now Minister of National Revenue when he was in the opposition day after day on the orders of the day ask the very urgent question, because all his questions were urgent, when would the government agree to extend the provisions of the National Housing Act so that it could cover older homes in the cities. We now hear the same gentleman giving the answers as a member of the treasury benches that he received in
28902-5-382
Private Bills
opposition, that this is under study, active study, careful study, urgent study, all sorts of things, and that eventually we may see such action.


Mr. Macdonald:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Is he not aware that there is an item on the order paper in the name of the minister proposing just such a measure?


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, there are many items on the order paper, many of which we doubt will ever be presented to the house. I can refer to the great Canada Development Corporation, of which we have heard nothing more. I could refer to many items that have been placed on the order paper and which have never been put forward. This is a very urgent matter and I would have thought that with the great national importance that was attached to it in the last election it would have been drawn to our attention. With the spirit of unanimity and Christmas good will that is exhibited in the house, and inasmuch as everybody is in favour of this proposal, I am sure if the government will call the order right now there will be unanimous consent to put it right at the top of our business. If they will do so I will take my seat and I am sure we could pass it quickly.


Frank Howard: Any more questions?


Reid Scott: I merely wanted to refer to a booklet, "The Policies of the Liberal Party, General Election, 1963".


Mr. Baldwin:: That is a bad subject for Christmas.


Reid Scott: When I hold this document in my hands I almost feel I should bow, or perhaps wear gloves. I know it hurts-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It hurts you more than it does us.


Reid Scott: -that these matters should be placed on record. On page 9 we have these words appearing:
Extend national housing legislation to provide insured mortgages for the purchase of existing homes as well as for building new homes.
The hon. member for Rosedale has said that this is on the order paper. We are glad to see it. We know that, like all commitments, it will be honoured. I am sorry, as I say, that the government does not consider it urgent enough to bring it forward now so we can pass it at once. As was pointed out in the committee, Mr. Chairman, I do think the government is doing a bit of a disservice to these gentlemen. The mortgage insurance company which these gentlemen have come here to have incorporated is going to have a very short life. These people are going to go to all the expense of setting up a mortgage

Private Bills
insurance company and incorporating ten other companies, one in each of the provinces, and the government is then going to honour its election commitment at the next session. We will presumably extend the National Housing Act to all existing homes and this poor company will probably be wiped out. I do not feel particularly sorry for these companies. They are probably well financed. I understand that the Bank of Nova Scotia is behind them. But it looks to me as though they are going to have a very short life indeed because of the assurance I have received from the hon. member for Rosedale that this matter will be proceeded with after our Christmas recess. I am delighted to hear it, and I hope that the people who are incorporating these companies and going to all this expense realize that the life of their companies is going to be a short one.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 3 consideration in committee of Bill No. S-7, to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada-Mr. Mitchell-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, until now we objected quite vigorously to concurrence in Bill No. S-7.
However, after having sort of washed out the measure the first time, as the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) would say, I talked with my friend, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell) and we agreed that the amendments made to Bill No. S-7 seem to satisfy the Quebec college of pharmacists, as we had no request or representations from that college since those amendments were made. If the pharmacists had continued to object, we would have likely taken their remarks into consideration, but in the absence of representations from them, we do not intend to prevent concurrence in Bill No. S-7 which leaves to an organization of pharmacists full discretion to accept or to reject what is proposed in Bill No. S-7.
Consequently, we do not object to Bill No. S-7 being concurred in.


Reid Scott: I wonder if the sponsor of the bill has given any consideration to the suggestion which I believe was made by the hon. member for Greenwood, that persons whose certificates of qualification are cancelled have a right of appeal?


Mr. Mitchell:: I would agree to the amendment if the hon. member wishes to put it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Powers of board.
Reid Scott: I wonder if this clause could stand for a moment while I finish drafting the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 12 stands.
Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17-Borrowing powers. [Translation]


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, on clause 11, I wish to ask the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell) whether an applicant not licensed to practice pharmacy may obtain that certificate.


David Rodger Mitchell: No, Mr. Chairman, he cannot. A person who is a graduate pharmacist, recognized by any graduating body of any province, is a graduate pharmacist. He is the only one who could apply for qualification under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall we revert to clause 11?


Reid Scott: It is actually clause 12.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 11 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On clause 12

Removal from register.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 12 be amended by adding subparagraph (d) to paragraph (1) so that it shall read:
''any person whose name has been removed from the register pursuant to section (1) shall have a right of appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada for a review of the decision, and the decision of the court shall be binding on all parties.


David Rodger Mitchell: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-15, to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada-Mr. Enns-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the time of the committee for a few minutes to put on the record, certainly the views of this member and I think of a number of other members who constituted the committee which considered this bill in the miscellaneous private bills committee, and the reasons, apart altogether from the individuals involved in this particular case, why I think it would not be in the best public interest to enact this kind of legislation.
We discovered during the course of the rather prolonged hearings in the committee that this particular organization was one which arose out of a movement that had originated in the state of Nebraska, and which had ultimately achieved incorporation itself within the state of Nebraska. Subsequently the movement decided to undertake a Canadian operation and obtained a licence from the province of Manitoba, or rather, the Nebraska corporation obtained a licence from Manitoba to carry on its activities within that province. Subsequently the Nebraska corporation extended its activities throughout Canada, and I think the activities are adequately stated in the explanatory notes and in the powers of the bill. They basically involved the broadcasting of evangelical messages throughout Canada.
I would like to make it perfectly clear, and I am sure this feeling is shared by the other members on the committee, that we have no objection whatsoever to that type of broadcasting. We certainly have no criticism at all of the reverend gentleman who is responsible for the development of this particular organization in Nebraska. Indeed, viewing the financial statements of the Nebraska organization, and viewing the fact that he has in a period of approximately 15 years attained for that corporation total assets in excess of $1 million, one can only admire both his sincerity and his faith, and point out that the organization which he has built up to the present and the very broad activities which it carries out, is a tribute to his own personal character.
28902-5-382i
Private Bills
However, I would like to point out that in enacting this bill we would be creating not only a precedent, which might be taken advantage of by subsequent applicants for incorporations by way of private bills in this house, but we may also be creating a corporate body which, when the reverend gentleman to whom I have made reference, in due course passes on, might fall into the hands of a much less scrupulous and a much less devoted group of successors.
What the bill proposes to do is to create, by way of a private act, a corporation with no distinct congregation or body of members which will be able to control the directors or trustees, as they are referred to in this particular bill. In other words, a group of trustees or directors are being set up who are beyond the control of any particular group of supporting members. They will be entitled to carry on the corporation's activities, they will be entitled to solicit a very large amount of funds across Canada, and will be entitled to spend those funds and apply them for such purposes as they wish, without ultimately presenting their accounting to the control of any particular congregation.
Hon. members will at once see there is a sharp distinction here between the type of corporation proposed in this bill and the type of corporation such as the Lutheran corporation which we considered earlier today. In that case there is a congregation; there is a situation where you have a defined body of members who ultimately reserve the rights, and have property rights reserved under the law for the purpose of controlling that particular ministry.
There is no defined body of members in the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada who will be in the position of controlling the board of trustees and controlling the ministry. Therefore the consequence is that there is no one basically to whom an accounting is to be made. There is no one to control the trustees in the course of their solicitation for public funds. There is no one ultimately to control the manner in which the funds are to be spent, the extent to which these funds shall be spent on expenses and the charitable purposes for which they are to be devoted, and in general terms to make certain the trustees in this particular case stick within the framework of their particular powers.
It is known that the corporate power conferred by this parliament can be withdrawn by this parliament, but I suggest in practical terms it will not be easy, or in fact practical, for any particular individual who may question the manner in which the corporation has been carried on, to come back to parliament, and obtain a repeal of the statute.

Private Bills
I would point out that the problem involved in religious or charitable bodies of this kind has been met at various levels, and some of the provinces have various provisions, such as the province of Ontario, which has enacted a statute known as the charities accounting act. This act sets down a defined procedure whereby a body soliciting and applying for funds in the province must make an accounting to the public trustee of the province, a civil servant, an emanation of the government. They must make an accounting to the public trustee, as I say; they must explain how the funds have been applied, and when funds have been solicited or received they must make periodic returns of the amounts received and the persons from whom they were received. What is equally important are the provisions under section 6 of the Ontario charities accounting act whereby, to quote subsection 1:
Any person may complain as to the manner In which a person or organization has solicited or procured funds by way of contribution or gift from the public for any purpose, or as to the manner in which any such funds have been dealt with or disposed of.
May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that machinery of that kind, and control provisions such as those contained in the charities accounting act of Ontario, are not paralleled at the federal level. There is no machinery such as is provided for by this Ontario statute which would enable individuals who are critical of the manner in which funds have been solicited or spent by a charitable organization to obtain any public review by any government body with regard to those particular activities.
I also point out that there is a very real question of doubt as to whether or not a provincial statute such as the one I have referred to would apply to a company incorporated under a private act of this parliament. Indeed, in the course of the committee hearings I expressly questioned the solicitor for the association as to whether or not the body, which is now authorized to do business in Manitoba and in fact is engaging in business throughout Canada, has raised funds in Ontario. He said yes, and he also acknowledged the fact that he made no returns under the Ontario law; and what is more, he said he did not have any intention of making returns under that law. He took the position that the provincial acts did not apply. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there is a real doubt as to whether these provincial provisions can apply. Therefore, not only is federal machinery missing, but it is fairly clear also that the provincial machinery will be inapplicable.
It was suggested in the course of the committee's hearings that the various taxing au-
[Mr. Macdonald.1
thorities, who from time to time have the duty of conferring upon these bodies charitable status to entitle them to the tax deductions and exemptions available to charities, would in some way exercise some kind of police influence over the body in question. Without questioning the fact that the revenue will from time to time devote close consideration as to the amount spent by such a body or as to the manner in which it otherwise employs its funds, I suggest that the apparatus of the Department of National Revenue is, first, not available to question the manner in which funds are raised; and second, it is only partly available to look into the manner in which the funds are applied. Taxing authorities such as the Department of National Revenue may very well be interested in the amount of expenses, but there is no provision available for an individual to take exception to the manner in which the funds have been expended and to require some kind of accounting of the manner in which the funds have been used. He cannot require this through the taxing statutes.
It was also pointed out during the course of the hearings that there was a full audit of the operations of this particular corporation in Canada. I would point out, as I pointed out at that time, that no doubt it is true that an audit provides interested persons with a better understanding of the financial position of such a corporation, but an audit provides no kind of assurance at all as to the manner in which the funds may have been applied. An audit will tell us how much quantitatively was spent in what direction, but it has no way of qualitatively assessing the manner in which the particular funds were expended by the board of trustees.
Therefore I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we would be creating a corporate body here which is in the position of soliciting large amounts of funds-and experience indicates they have had success in soliciting large amounts of funds-from people throughout Canada, and that the body will be substantially beyond the jurisdiction of any controlling authority in Canada, including the jurisdiction of the people who may actually provide the funds. There is nothing in this bill, as there is so often in the case of charitable institutions, under part II of the Companies Act of Canada, saying that a contributor of a certain amount shall become a sustaining member, that the contributor of a further amount shall become an honourary life member, and so on. There is no provision, in fact, decreeing who a member shall be, or that by reason of their financial contribution they shall be entitled to a particular right, such as to question the activities of the corporation.

I think it would be an unsound principle for this legislature to adopt the practice of creating such corporate bodies. It is for this reason that I personally expressed my opposition to this measure when it was before the committee. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, let me just reaffirm that I respect the good faith of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa in bringing this matter before the house. I also respect the good faith, as I say, of the reverend gentleman who sought this incorporation and who has had such success in his evangelic methods. But I do not think this house should engage in the creating of such a corporate body, which substantially will not be responsible to the people from whom it receives its funds.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say only a few words about this bill. I think that because it has been passed through the committee and is back in the house we should today express the opinion of the committee of the whole and of the house, if there is a difference of opinion, and come to a conclusion on this bill. I know that in the miscellaneous private bills committee the decision was finally made to report the bill with certain amendments, which are before us. I acknowledge that those who are opposed to the bill are opposed to it by virtue of honest belief that there is not sufficient control in connection with this company which seeks incorporation.
I would just like to make two comments, Mr. Chairman. First, I think this is a basic case of religious freedom. Second, we discussed in committee ways in which any improper action by the broadcasting company could be avoided. We brought in amendments in fairly large quantity which legally, I think would encompass the corporation with a great many limitations that were not originally intended. So I think there is no possibility of the corporation carrying on a business for which there is no supervision.
I want to comment on one of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale in this regard.
In the committee there was no suggestion whatever of impropriety. This is a company which is making "Back to the Bible" broadcasts to the people, mainly in western Canada but also elsewhere in this country. There was never any question that the broadcasts were improper or were doing anything except providing the straight dissemination of the religious viewpoint of the Bible as seen by Reverend Epps, who appeared before the committee. There was no suggestion that Reverend Epps was not a straightforward and honest broadcaster whose messages are listened to in many remote sections of Canada where people have no opportunity of going to church. There is no suggestion at all that
Private Bills
there is anything improper about these broadcasts. There were suggestions that perhaps the whole set-up was not tight enough to prevent abuses of the privilege that parliament was being asked to grant with regard to charitable donations.
One of the clauses in the bill states that the object of the corporation, among others, is to accept charitable donation. Some members of the committee feared that the inclusion of this object in the bill might give the broadcasting corporation automatic status as a charitable organization in the light of which they could say to those responsible for collecting income tax: We do not need to qualify as a charitable organization because we have been qualified by parliament. To prevent such a thing happening an amendment was introduced to subclause (c) of clause 4 stating that this provision would not relieve the corporation of the necessity of complying with the provisions of any other statute relating to charitable organizations.
Thus, this organization is still required to make returns to the income tax department in order to qualify as a charitable organization. I make this appeal to the committee. This is a progressive corporation with religious objects. No impropriety was ever suggested with regard to it. If we deny the request of this organization we shall be denying it equality before the law in the parliament of Canada. Other organizations are incorporated to carry out religious and charitable objectives and the same privilege should be extended to this organization, regardless of the fact that it has its origins in the United States. For these reasons I appeal to the committee to let this matter come to a vote and, when the vote is reached, to support this bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question? Would he not agree that it would be desirable in the case of this religious body, as in the case of all others which come before the house, that there should be some ultimate control exercisable by those who give their financial support over the manner in which the ministry is conducted?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The question is a reasonable one. It was raised in the committee. There are directors, all of whom must be Canadians, as provided in this particular bill. There is no church congregation in the ordinary sense of that word. It would be impossible to have one in the circumstances in which this organization is set up. The corporation broadcasts its appeals. It receives contributions, presumably in small sums of money-one dollar, or two dollars. People put these sums in envelopes and send them

Private Bills
in to support the broadcasts and the missionary work. But by the very nature of the operation there is not a congregation in the normal sense of that word.
The operation must, therefore, be carried on by those who have banded together to run it. There are seven or nine general directors of the world wide organization, and there are three in Canada. I admit there is not a congregation in the normal sense; neither are we establishing a religion or a church. We are merely recognizing a state which exists; we are recognizing an organization which makes broadcasts and which requests funds. I point out again that in this bill, and particularly in the terms of the amendment, we have required this organization to make a return under the Companies Act and under the Income Tax Act. These conditions have been tightened up as far as possible, and although there is no congregation there is a governing body which is responsible to the organizations to which reports are made. There is no provision for an annual meeting. It would virtually be impossible to bring together all the people who have made contributions so as to hold such a meeting. It would be too much to expect those who had contributed a dollar, or two dollars, or even ten dollars, to travel the length and breadth of this country in order to take part in an annual meeting.
I think we have to recognize the existence of this organization. To say it is different is not to say we should not allow it to operate. I do not think we have a right to tell a religious organization how it should operate. I do not think we have the right to say who shall be the officials of such an organization or how it shall be set up. If we did that, we should be getting into trouble. I think we must recognize that this is a religious body, that it is set up in the best way open to us, and that we have to accept it.


Mr. Olson:: There are one or two questions I should like to direct to the sponsor of this bill. I may say that from what I know of the Good News Broadcasting Corporation I agree with the remarks which have been made; it in sincere in its attempt to promote Christianity. I would not disagree with that. But I was not a member of the committee and I should like to know whether donations to this organization qualify at the present time for exemption from income tax, particularly in Manitoba. I should like also to know whether this body has encountered any resistance from provincial governments or other groups with regard to its activities in the provinces. I agree that an amendment such as has been described might answer many of the doubts some members have felt, but even

though the technicalities of the law may have been met I believe we must be concerned to see that funds are dispersed in accordance with the wishes of those who contribute. It would be interesting to know whether, if this act were passed, the organization would have the authority from parliament to circumvent provincial statutes set up to control charitable organizations.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill to answer those questions.


Mr. Enns:: First of all, the hon. member asked whether contributions to this organization are deductible under the Income Tax Act. The answer is, yes. For a number of years the corporation has had the authority to issue receipts which are acceptable as showing that certain sums have been donated to a charitable organization.
The hon. member asked if there had been any objection from the provinces or provincial bodies with regard to the activities of this corporation across Canada. I would say there have been no registered official objections as far as any provincial government or organization is concerned. There has been no organized objection to this group per se. The very fact that it is expanding its services is testimony to the value these programs must have to the many citizens who listen to them. Donations are voluntary. No one knocks on any door. People want to listen to the programs or they do not. They can turn their radios off if they wish. Few church organizations can exist on the basis of so loose a financial structure. Many churches live on pledges. This is done entirely by voluntary support. Testimony was given before the committee that over one million letters had been received in the past year alone. This is good testimony to the usefulness of, or to the need for, an operation of this kind.
I believe the next question which the hon. member asked related to the availability of an auditor's statement, or of a financial statement. I think the undertaking is certainly present that any donor requesting a financial statement can have his request granted.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) has already mentioned how difficult it would be to conduct annual meetings when there are listeners from British Columbia to Newfoundland. This is entirely a national organization. You cannot very well bring people in to these meetings; you could not have a big enough hall to hold all the people who are interested. Therefore it is left to those persons desirous of getting a factual statement to see that this will be provided. I merely want to reiterate that the service of

the Good News Broadcasting Corporation is widely endorsed across Canada, just as it is in the United States.
There was some objection raised about this company having a parent organization in the United States. I do not think this objection is relevant because religion is not a national item and we really would not want to object on that ground, I am sure. The fact that the organization has come to the parliament of Canada for incorporation means, by that very act alone, that it is accepting further imposition or restriction. Because whether or not parliament passes the bill the company will continue operating, and there is really nothing which can be done to stop them. What they are doing now is becoming a Canadian corporation and subjecting themselves to the further regulation that this implies. I appeal to all hon. members of the house to give favourable consideration to the passing of this bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. gentleman a question. I think I am right in saying that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa did not quite answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. His question was, as I understood it, whether there is any anticipation that this corporation, by the act of its incorporation, will circumvent provincial laws. May I point out that, as I pointed out in my own remarks, counsel for the corporation indicated that the corporation, when it was licensed merely to carry on business in Manitoba, had not attempted to comply with Ontario law. Notwithstanding the fact that it had raised money in Ontario. And counsel indicated, it was not his intention to advise the corporation to comply with Ontario law if in fact incorporation is granted.


Siegfried John Enns: I certainly hope the hon. member for Rosedale is not imputing a lack of willingness to co-operate on the part of the corporation. I am sure that is not his intention. I think it is merely because there has not been a request made of the corporation by any province to .file returns to comply with any provincial statutes in this regard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. S-15, an act to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada, raises a number of questions. Is it a new Christian sect? Is it necessary to introduce a bill in the house when a member rises and says that this association is already preaching the Christian doctrine in Canada? That is precisely the point which I do not particularly like.
Private Bills
In fact, quite often in the house, we are told: It does not matter whether you accept the bill or not, the corporation is already in operation in Canada.
Now, what are the aims of the said corporation? Section 4 states:
The objects of the corporation shall be
(a)	to promote the dissemination of Christian knowledge and to promote, organize, establish, maintain and carry on, conduct and assist organizations or facilities for the dissemination of Christian knowledge in all its branches and activities, including foreign and home missions, publishing houses, seminaries, schools, colleges, public correspondence schools, hospitals, dispensaries, parsonages, orphanages and homes for the aged, and any other institutions and organizations for charitable purposes or any of them;
(b)	to supply and render charitable services to poor and needy persons.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, one is justified to wonder whether this is an organization similar to the Salvation Army?
Is the activity of this corporation a duplication of that of the Salvation Army, which I will admit, renders tremendous services in all parts of Canada?
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 4 read as follows:
(c)	to give and to receive donations for charitable purposes and in connection therewith to do all things reasonably necessary in order to comply with any terms stipulated by the donors of gifts made from time to time to the corporation; and
(d)	to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.
Mr. Chairman, the primary question, I believe, is to know since when this organization has been operating in Canada, in what provinces, and through what radio stations.
I understand that the headquarters of the corporation are located in Winnipeg, but it is always dangerous for us, in parliament, to pass legislation to give the right to receive donations for charitable purposes.
Quite often, so-called charity organizations were created here and there in Canada, but then people found they were organized rackets more than anything else.
I should not like this bill to make it possible for an organization of three or four men to form another racket.
If its purpose is to promote Christian doctrine, is it a new religion or is it just an organization like the Salvation Army that we are being asked to authorize in Canada? If so, I would say that our country already has numerous organizations to look after the poor and the destitute, in other words all those who suffer.
Mr. Chairman, if that organization is already operating in Canada, as the hon. member has stated a while ago, why is this bill presented to us and why are we told

Supply-Public Works
"Whether you pass it or not, the organization will continue its operations just the same".
I feel we should have more information. We need explanations concerning the set-up of that organization and the number of years it has been in Canada or in the western provinces.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Shall I rise, report progress-


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Villeneuve has raised certain questions, but these are the kind of questions which were discussed in committee and the committee did in fact come out with a divided vote in favour of the bill. I feel this is merely a repetition of discussion which has taken place in the committee, and I request that the question be put.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments I should like to make on this bill. I am opposed to the incorporation of this organization under a federal charter. I was a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee and I sat-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member would require unanimous consent of the house to go on now.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report progress-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, do we have unanimous consent to continue?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: No, because I want to make some extended remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: We do not. Six o'clock has been called by a number of members.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This is an outrageous breach-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is an outrageous breach of religious freedom in this country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the house give leave to go into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration including a grant ot $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association. $10,695,000.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, it is the third time tonight that my estimates come up for consideration by the committee, and I think it would be better if, at this stage, I answered as briefly as possible the various points which hon. members have seen fit to raise.
Before doing that, however, I should like to remind hon. members that, in my original statement, on the first night my estimates were under consideration, I did mention the important points to which in my opinion it was necessary to refer here in order to fully appreciate the significance of the various amounts submitted to the consideration of the hon. members.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) tabled the estimates, in May 1963, he announced that they would be revised in order to reflect, as closely as possible, the amounts that my department would be actually spending this year. Of the amount of $166 million, that is the sum of the general votes for the year 1963-64, $7,391,195 will not be required, and amendments will be brought up when we take up these different items. On the other hand, additional amounts will be required for new projects, which will be outlined in the list of supplementary estimates and which amount to $12,800,000.
In brief, I would ask you to approve a total of $172,300,000, that is $6,300,000 more than what was estimated by the previous administration.
That being said, I would now like to comment on the various points raised by hon. members.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mbntcalm (Mr. Pigeon) did not see fit to express his views on questions of such significance, for instance, as the part the Department of Public Works should play in the economy of this country; he restricted his remarks to purely local questions, of minor interest. I shall answer as follows the various points he raised.
I must first of all call his attention to the fact that the Department of Public Works was

relieved of the responsibility for the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On the other hand, I am responsible for the world fair of 1967, I am answerable to the house for the national capital commission and, lately, I had to assume responsibilities which, up to now, belonged to the Department of National Defence.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm mentioned an incident which was reported to have taken place in the Montreal office of the Department of Public Works, at the opening of the tenders for a contract concerning urgent works in St. Vincent de Paul. The journalists were present then and I was very surprised to read in the Montreal Matin, the day after that incident, an article saying the minister had been in touch personally with the company that had submitted the lowest tender. I repeat here what I said then: That is entirely false but, since the work to be done at St. Vincent de Paul was so urgent, I had asked the acting deputy minister to call that company as soon as the tenders were opened to inquire if it could get to work immediately. That is why the acting deputy minister of public works made that call.
I would think that the hon. member linked that matter to some allegations of patronage, also with regard to my office in Montreal. Therefore, I would like to say this: The house should know that when my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. D. Fulton, introduced me to the officials of the department, when I arrived at the office of the Department of Public Works, he asked me if I was bringing my staff with me.
I asked Mr. Fulton whether he was satisfied with his staff. He answered in the affirmative. I then said: I willingly accept to keep all your employees. This was done with one exception, I think, of the private secretary to the minister who followed him in British Columbia for an election venture which did not prove successful.
Afterwards-I believe it was in May-the Department of Public Works needed a good stenographer. At that time, I heard that the secretary to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) was quite competent. I took the liberty to offer her a job in my office. So my present secretary is the girl who had been secretary to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for a few years.


An hon. Member:: Is she any better than the hon. member?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have an excellent secretary.
28902-5-383
Supply-Public Works


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Then I say this: in that light, I think the allegations of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in his remarks are not justified. I can assure him right here that we do all we can to avoid any discrimination, because we realize that we are at the service, not only of the public, but also of all hon. members on both sides of the house who are entitled to services like the ones a department like this one can provide.
The reason it looks as though I have a little more elaborate staff than usual in Montreal is that in view of my responsibilities as minister responsible for the world fair and for the public works department, I found out that I could not attend to my duties here in the house as I should, because I understand that the main concern of a member or a minister must be the House of Commons and, like all previous ministers, I opened an office in my home town. Since there was no public federal building in my constituency, I was offered an office completely separate from the Department of Public Works on Delorimier street, in Montreal. In that office, there are three permanent employees: a retired civil servant age 69, a young man of 22, and a girl working full time. For the last two months, there has been a part-time stenographer who will quit at the end of the month.
I want to give my hon. friend for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm the assurance that as far as decisions are concerned with regard to public works projects, only the need and the urgency of that need are taken into consideration to determine the time and place of such projects.
The hon. member mentioned a promise the Prime Minister made in Riviere du Loup, namely the development of a deep-water seaport. May I remind the hon. member that it was not a promise but a commitment and like all commitments made by this government and the Prime Minister, it will be kept.
A few days ago I sent to the hon. member for Riviere du Loup (Mr. Gendron) a letter which is perfectly clear on this matter. I wrote that we have decided to proceed with the development of a seaport at Riviere du Loup as soon as the best site is determined by our engineers, and that this important project will mean serious economic improvements for the whole area.
The hon. member has also mentioned the fact that we had, or that I had, through my behaviour, caused undue delays to the directors of the world exhibition. May I be allowed to point this out to the hon. member: while the previous prime minister was campaigning in western Canada last March, he sent to the directors of the world exhibition a telegram

Supply-Public Works
in which he stated he approved, in principle, the site that had been chosen by the city of Montreal, on two conditions.
In May 1963, we confirmed in principle the choice of the site, but we said at that time: "We shall give our consent only when the engineers have determined whether that site is appropriate and under what conditions."
I do not remember the exact date, but I clearly recall that we received-I think it was on a Wednesday or a Thursday-the reports from the experts of the Lasalle laboratory in Montreal, to the effect that the site was appropriate provided a breakwater were built above Champlain bridge. Within the next two or three days, we gave our approval, and our engineers then advised the government to proceed with a stationary structure instead of a mobile one, as had been recommended by the engineers of the city of Montreal.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm has raised other points. I will take the opportunity to deal with them at the same time as those raised by other members.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) alleged that there was patronage in the organization of the Montreal world exhibition. I will not take the trouble even to deny that baseless statement.
But I am glad that he raised the point because it gives me an opportunity to say this: The Canadian World Exhibition Corporation has the status of a crown corporation and, from the outset, whether it be to the former commissioner or the present, I said that what we expected from them was an exhibition worthy not only of the city of Montreal, but of Canada. Moreover, I clearly stated that they should discharge that responsibility and, for that purpose, they could count on us to give them complete freedom in their administration.
If my hon. friend had followed the appointments which have been made up until now in connection with the world fair, he would know that with the exception of the positions which are to be filled by the governor in council the officials of the fair have chosen their own staff and assumed the responsibilities we entrusted to them.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) also mentioned the east-west trans-Canada highway in Montreal. That is a large scale project in which members on this side and I have been interested for a number of years. The question raised by the hon. member gives me an opportunity to say that we claim our fair share of this initiative. It will provide Montreal with a super-highway which will be second to none in North America.

I must point out to the hon. member that we entered into this agreement about four months after coming into power.
I should now like to say a few words about the remarks made by the hon. members for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and for Macleod (Mr. Kindt). They referred to the Alaska highway for which my department will be responsible as of April 1 next.
It is understood that we shall be careful to see that the transfer of responsibilities from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works will not cause any inconvenience to those who live or work in that area.
Those hon. members also mentioned a trans-Canada highway system.

I do not know if they had in mind the construction of a second trans-Canada highway or a new highway program, but may I say their suggestion so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned will be taken into consideration and, as they know, we are reviewing the position of the federal and provincial governments in respect to this matter. Discussions at the official levels have taken place, and we already have the intentions and wishes of every province in this regard.
Hon. members will recall that this matter was discussed at the last federal-provincial conference. It is still on the agenda and will be discussed again when the conference resumes in March next.
There was a reference by the hon. member for Cariboo to the entrance fee for national parks. Of course this is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Barnelt:: Would the minister permit a question at this point. The matter was raised by the hon. member for Cariboo and myself, to the effect that this jurisdiction of the national parks administration over certain sections of the trans-Canada highway has created a toll charge on the use of certain sections of the highway. Will the minister interest himself in taking this matter up with the parks administration and see whether something could be worked out which would make it possible for people who desire to use the highway, and not the national parks, to travel along it without paying this charge?
I might point out that in the province from which I come this question of tolls on the trans-Canada highway has been the subject of some considerable discussion, and for a number of years was a matter of controversy

between the federal and the provincial government in cases where the provincial government had some toll arrangements to which the federal government objected.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I understand that a fee is always an inconvenience to those who have to pay it, but the question raised by the hon. member will be discussed by the minister of northern affairs and myself, and later on I will let him know the result of that discussion.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni complained that I had dealt very briefly with the part, as I see it, which the Minister of Public Works is called upon to play in the economy of the country. He stated that this department should be an economic instrument to promote the economic development of Canada. Well, I will tell him that I agree with his views and that the only reason I did not raise this very important point is due to the fact that the estimates submitted to the hon. members' attention today are those of the previous administration and I thought that it would be wise to wait until I introduce my own estimates in a few months.
However, I want to mention right away that the Department of Public Works has a major role to play in the economic field and that the time is past where the department was only good to build post offices or other public buildings. Above all, the department must be one of projects, of construction work.
I have already visited several projects in the provinces and especially in the Atlantic region. At the next opportunity, I shall make it my duty to visit the other western provinces. I am now convinced that many distressed areas I have visited, that lack primary or secondary industries, are areas where the Department of Public Works, by means of some important works or projects, can create just those favourable economic conditions which would promote the development of private enterprise.
I am thinking now of harbour and navigation and communication facilities. I feel that large scale redevelopment operations should be carried out in some areas, including the means of communication which have been non-existent until now. That is why private enterprise has not been interested in settling in the districts concerned.
That is one aspect of my department's estimates and I thank the hon. member for having brought it up. However, I intend to say more in that connection when I introduce my estimates in a few months time.
Mr. Chairman, several members have spoken of the trans-Canada highway.
28902-5-383J
Supply-Public Works

I think I should mention here that four provinces have already completed their highways program, namely Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. British Columbia has nearly completed its program. As hon. members will recall, we have given to the Atlantic provinces a special program where it will be possible for them to complete their highways under the act with an increased share on the part of the federal government from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his remarks. We have taken careful note of his suggestions for many projects interesting his riding.

For the information of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), I can say that we shall bring special attention to the improvement of architecture in public buildings. I have had several discussions with the chief architect of the department about that, and the hon. member can be sure that everything possible will be done to improve the building standards.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) dealt with the national capital commission. Following the speech he made, we announced various important projects concerning the capital.
As for the comments made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-

May I say to the hon. member for Skeena that I appreciated and enjoyed the comprehensive survey he gave of his constituency and of its many needs. I will not attempt to deal with them individually but the hon. member can be assured that careful consideration will be given to the suggestions he has made.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). May I tell him that nothing is changed in the system of calling tenders.
The hon. member brought up the matter of the building of a penitentiary in St. Pie de Bagot, and I am informed that in the meantime an answer was given to him by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). It is up to the Department of Justice to choose the site of a penitentiary.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the members who have spoken on my department's estimates and I do hope that the first item will be carried as quickly as possible.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) for what little information he gave me in reply to the questions I asked when he introduced his estimates.
In view of his answers, I feel I am justified in returning to the charge since the minister does not seem to have given me all the information I am entitled to.
First of all, as for the purchase of land by his department for the construction of a penitentiary in the parish of St. Pie de Bagot,
I am convinced that my constituents wish to have much more information than the minister has given me.
Not taking into account the evasive replies I received from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), I should like the Minister of Public Works to tell me what use will be made of the four farms which were bought for the construction of a penitentiary in the parish of St. Pie de Bagot.
Mr. Chairman, the officials of the departments of public works and of justice have spent a sum of $83,000 from the public funds to which you and I, and the workers and farmers of my constituency as well have contributed, and I believe that the evasive answers given to me do not warrant the expense.
So, I insist with the Minister of Public Works, because first I believe him to be less arrogant than his colleague, the Minister of Justice, and also because I am of the opinion that he will better understand the kind of information I am seeking. I just want to know what future use is contemplated for the four farms which were bought in St. Pie de Bagot.
Why, Mr. Chairman, have they put a stop to a project which was to bring to my constituency the construction of an institution at a cost of $4,500,000, which would have given work-


An hon. Member:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Do you have something to say, my hon. friend? You will have the opportunity when I am finished, if you will listen.
I wonder why the project has been discarded after so much work has been done?
When the estimates of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) are under consideration, I will have to rise again to ask the minister a justification, for it seems to me bad economics to spend $83,000 and then to abandon the project.
I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) another question. Do inspectors on retaining wall construction projects have to be on the site 10 hours, eight hours or during the normal working hours

of the workers? The minister has not replied to that question either. Yet, I feel that he should explain the conduct of workers who are paid out of the public funds which are entrusted to his department.
Referring to page 340 of the estimates, I should also like the minister to tell us why his department's 1963-64 estimates were reduced by $1,799,000 as compared with those of 1962-63?
In my opinion, that is a matter of some importance for the taxpayers. I feel they are entitled to some information concerning the way the government spends the money they pay in taxes either weekly or yearly. I would be happy if the Minister of Public Works would furnish this information, which might at the same time be useful to his colleagues sitting on his side of the house, since, no doubt for reasons of discipline or constraint, even though they do not know what is happening in their own constituencies, some members do not dare ask questions in the house.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I would like my hon. friend to give me some additional information concerning the third point he raised. I understand he wishes explanations on a reduction of estimates between the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. If this is what my hon. friend meant, I should point out to him that those estimates were made up by the former administration. But, before answering him, I would like to have more information, for I cannot answer that question now; perhaps I have misunderstood- it is about the amount of $1,799,000?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I refer to the estimates on page 340 of the blue book. I ask the minister to give us explanations concerning the reduction of $1,799,000 between the estimates for 1962-63 and those for 1963-64.
I suppose that since the time he assumed his portfolio, the minister must have been informed of the projects to be carried out in the province of Quebec. Therefore, he should explain this cut in the expenditures. Why is the province of Quebec deprived of nearly $2 million worth of public works?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I shall give the hon. member the information he seeks in a minute but I should like to point out, first of all, that our predecessors were in power during those two fiscal years-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The 1963-64 fiscal year is your baby.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: These are the estimates of the former government. Be that as it may, I shall give the hon. member a reply as soon as I have the information.

Now, I do not wish to go any further as far as penitentiaries are concerned. We are the building agents for the Department of Justice, and I think that during the session, answers were given to various questions by the Minister of Justice on that matter.
As regards inspectors, I must say that as a general rule, they should remain on work sites permanently. In a case where an inspector lives near that site, he would of course be allowed to go home at meal time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I was quite impressed by the policy statement made by the Minister of Public Works concerning representation in parliament. He had fine words for us and in fact, I must admit that in the federal cabinet, he is one of the most courteous ministers to all hon. members. I do not agree with all his political opinions nor with his views concerning his departmental expenditures, but I must recognize that he is very human and easy to meet. He even anticipates and calls us to give information before we ask for it.
On that score, I sincerely congratulate him. But I bring to his attention the case of some officials of his who seem eager to play patronage in the administration of the public works department.
In my riding, for instance, I see departmental officials transact business with the former Liberal candidate, Stephen Cuddihy, or the general organizer for Val d'Or, notary Jos. Morin. Whenever there are public works to be done or transactions to be made for the building of post offices, we see right away the names of Mr. Cuddihy, of Rouyn, or of notary Morin, of Val d'Or. I wonder why officials of the Department of Public Works, when they write to those people, do not send a copy of their letter to the rightfully elected members in their respective riding. Why do they not send us a copy of those letters so that we may know at least what the Department of Public Works is doing in our ridings?
For instance, in Cadillac, near Rouyn, there was an agreement for the construction of a post office. The land selected will cost $2,000 to the government. Since the town of Cadillac could be termed a ghost town, because the various mines have been closed for several years, it is easy to find lots at lower prices and even a street corner, since a street corner was sought there.
The same thing happened in Duparquet- I just received a letter from Duparquet yesterday-where a post office will be built under the winter works program. Apparently, the people do not really need the proposed post office; they would need rather
Supply-Public Works
something else, such as a parish hall, a community centre, but they are quite satisfied with their present post office.
It seems to me that the officials, and the inspectors of the Department of Public Works should go there and ask the opinion of the Duparquet citizens and not that of the Liberal organizer to know how the available funds should be spent in the best interests of the people and the town.
A few days ago, I also asked the Minister of Public Works whether it would be possible to build a wharf at lake Boischatel. I was promised at that time that inspectors would go and investigate on the spot. So far, they have not been there.
There is another point I would like to speak about, while on the subject of Ville-neuve county. I have in mind the town of Noranda. We have a level crossing, and I understand that this is a matter which concerns not only the Department of Public Works but also the Department of Transport, which has something to do in that field of construction; as I was saying, we have a level crossing with four railway tracks. These tracks paralyse traffic every day, for ten or twenty minutes, when it is not for a full half hour.
It would seem imperative to build an overpass in Noranda. Let the Department of Public Works confer with the Department of Transport or with the Canadian National Railways but, by all means, let us find a solution to that problem. We have been asking for an overpass in Noranda for the last ten years.
The other project I think the minister could consider and probably carry through, still under the winter works program, is this one. Between the two cities of Rouyn and Noranda, we have an exquisite little lake called lake Osisko. The waters of that lake have been poisoned by the acids dumped there by the Noranda mine and other mines in the surrounding area.
Now, for the past few years, they have stopped dumping those poisonous acids in the lake. The thing to do would be to clean it, which would give a brand new look to the cities of Rouyn and Noranda. In my opinion, instead of having our unemployed cut small twigs in wintertime along the trans-Canada highway, it would be better to start purifying that lake.
The Minister of Public Works claimed a while ago that his department was not, necessarily, a department of public works only but that it should also deal with projects and buildings, and I agree completely with him on that. The Department of Public Works will spend $178,906,000 this year. It is a very important department.

Supply-Public Works
When you look under the heading "Public buildings-construction and maintenance-the breakdown of expenditures by province-you will find that one of his colleagues, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) was not too greedy: $130,000 for the province of Newfoundland. Nova Scotia, $700,000; New Brunswick, $200,000; Quebec, $2,105,000 compared to $3,940,000 for the year 1962-63. In a short while we will probably be given the reasons for this decrease of $1,799,000 in the case of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) asked a while ago the reason for that state of affairs and the Minister of Public Works told him that those were the estimates prepared by the Conservative government. I am inclined to believe that is true; we are studying the Conservative government's estimates at the present time.
We want to know the reasons for that decrease and whether it is possible to offset it by increasing the amount of construction in order to keep for the province of Quebec the million dollars which would be of great assistance. I think that the province of Quebec really deserves it.
As regards the Ottawa district or rather the city of Ottawa, $14 million are appropriated in order to carry out the federal program. The province of Ontario, excluding Ottawa, gets $5,280,000; including Ottawa, the amount comes to $19,685,000 for the province of Ontario. The province of Manitoba receives $75,000. The province of Saskatchewan, $190,000. The province of Alberta, $1,410,000 and British Columbia, $1,615,000. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories get $3 million.
Now the Minister of Public Works spoke about the attention the department, its officials and its architects devote to the architecture and appearance of public buildings.
Some years ago, the government ordered an extension of the post office in the city of Rouyn. At that time, we had a Conservative government. Now, when that annex was constructed to the post office of the city of Rouyn, the whole population wondered whether it was not a hen house, and this, because the appearance is terrible and entirely void of good taste.
I do not know who was the architect that made the plans for this extension to the post office of the city of Rouyn, but it is an eyesore, and located right in the center of the town. I would suggest to the minister to send his architects to Rouyn to give a better appearance to the post office, for that building, after all, shelters the post office of the metropolis of northwest Quebec, since Rouyn is the most important town in that area.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore submit those suggestions to the attention of the Minister of
[Mr. Caouette.l
Public Works, as regards that part of the province of the county which is called the Villeneuve constituency.
The minister mentioned also the site of the world fair. The site has been chosen. The work is already progressing rapidly. The Minister of Public Works is not the only one responsible for the choice of this site, in Montreal.
I believe that the first steps for holding of the world fair in Montreal were made by His Honour Mayor Drapeau of Montreal who convinced every country in the world to hold the world fair in Montreal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a question to the hon. member for Villeneuve?


David Réal Caouette: By all means.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member not think that if the world fair is held in Canada and in Montreal in particular, it is also thanks to the former government?


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Réal Caouette: I wish to thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for his question. He is so self-centred that no one can hold it against him. True, the Conservative party was in power when the question came up for the first time but it was not settled at that time. Even if the Conservatives were in power, it is the mayor of Montreal who took the initiative.


Georges-J. Valade: That is not so.


David Réal Caouette: The mayor of Montreal had set his heart upon holding the world fair in his city.


Georges-J. Valade: That is not so.


David Réal Caouette: The world fair will be very beneficial to the Montreal area, indeed to the whole province, and even to all parts of the country. Expressways will be built, as well as residential and commercial projects in the Montreal suburbs, and will extend as far as Quebec city. This will surely promote a great deal of economic activity in our province.
In that connection, I commend the former government and I also congratulate the Minister of Public Works and the present government for the stand they both took in order to help the mayor of Montreal and the province of Quebec in obtaining that the world fair be held in Montreal. I am sure that all hon. members and all the Canadian people will go to Montreal on that occasion because there will be several million visitors in Montreal during that year of the world fair.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept most of the estimates although we will have certain questions to ask.

In closing, I point out once again to the Minister of Public Works the matters I mentioned concerning my constituency. I hope that his officials will send us a copy of their letter when they write to someone in our riding. It seems to me that would be elementary courtesy. We have nothing against the officials but we wish to be consulted or, at least, be made aware of what is going on or what the government decides to do in our riding.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, these are very important and interesting estimates, for one reason because the buildings and works of the Department of Public Works are one of the few physical manifestations of a federal government in most constituencies, and people take particular interest on that account. I am particularly interested in this department because I have had a close association with the officials of the department in British Columbia for over 50 years. I have had some experience in this field. As a matter of fact, some of the happiest days of my life have been spent around wharves, floats, dredges and things of that sort and that is why I am inclined on occasion to dredge things up. Anyway, I congratulate the minister on his appointment and I must say I appreciate his courtesy and promptness in dealing with any matters I have brought to his attention. I wish him well in all he undertakes in connection with the department.
I listened with interest this evening to his review and we shall look forward particularly to the introduction of his estimates next session because I am confident he is giving serious consideration to them on a planned basis. I think he has been influenced by this side of the house a bit in that respect. Throughout the years visits of federal ministers to the Kootenays have been somewhat rare. I do not know whether it is because we are off the beaten track to some extent, but we will not be when we get a second trans-Canada highway going through Lethbridge, Trail, Hope-


Gerald William Baldwin: And the Kettle valley railway.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and parallel with the Kettle valley railway. I extend to the Minister of Public Works on behalf of the people of Kootenay West a hearty invitation to visit the garden of Eden and to meet with the representatives of the municipalities and other organizations. If he will only let us know when he is coming I can assure him he will be taken about the constituency, he will see all he wants to see and he will see first
Supply-Public Works
hand what is required from the federal Department of Public Works in Kootenay West.
I also want to express my sincere congratulations to his parliamentary secretary whom I have found most attentive and obliging in dealing with any matters I have brought to his attention. There have been occasions when I have wondered what the parliamentary assistants-pardon me, the proper term now is parliamentary secretary- were for. There have been occasions when I have wondered why they existed. However, I find that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works fully justifies his existence and I have heard other members express the same opinion.
At this point I am duty bound to mention the retirement of Major General Young, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., C.D., bachelor of science in engineering, who has rendered distinguished service to this country in two world wars and afterwards for his command of operation "Return of Troops" and the transportation of war brides. Thousands of war brides owe him a debt of gratitude for his handling of their transportation to Canada after the war under most difficult circumstances. I could tell a most interesting story about this operation but I do not have the time this evening.
General Young was responsible, with his associates, for the reorganization of the department and its improved efficiency. From then on the work that the department was required to do was done with more efficiency than the organization had had up until that time, and I am sure all members of the house wish him a lengthy and happy retirement coupled with the opportunity to serve Canada in the many organizations of which he is a distinguished member. I am glad to know that his service in peace and war has been recognized in the naming of a government survey vessel after him. I like to see that sort of thing. I like to see the services of people who have served this country well recognized in that way. If we cannot have other decorations let us name government equipment or geographical features after people. I can think of some good places to name after the Minister of Justice. There is a particular valley in our district whose features would be most appropriate.
I must extend my sincere congratulations to Colonel Lalonde on his appointment as deputy minister. I trust he will be as successful in supervising the treatment of disabilities of wharves, the clogged arteries of rivers and the repairs to the plumbing in public buildings as he was in supervising similar remedial measures in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Supply-Public Works
I wish to bring a few matters to the attention of the minister. I had intended to deal at greater length with some of these questions. I have always been interested in the department. I have seen it evolve from a very small department in British Columbia, particularly in the interior, to its present state of efficiency. I want to make a few suggestions and I should like to hear the minister's comments later.
First I should like to make a few comments on organization before I pinpoint the particular needs of Kootenay West. I thought that the royal commission on government organization made a few excellent recommendations, and I agree with them as a result of my own experience. I am going to deal with three or four of them particularly with respect to the purchase of property, the inventory required to know what property we have in Canada, and the management of property.
The first one was that consideration be given to consolidating, in a single statute, land legislation having general application to the acquisition by purchase or lease, and the disposal or leasing to others, of real property in Canada and abroad by all departments and agencies of the crown. I think that recommendation merits further consideration because I have noticed a growing need for this approach as the years go by.
The second recommendation was that the Department of Public Works be made responsible for the development of a complete inventory of properties owned or leased by the federal government and its agencies, and its maintenance as a perpetual record by posting to it all future acquisitions and disposals as they occur. I think that is an excellent suggestion so that we will know in total what our assets in public property are and what disposals have occurred throughout the year. There is some tightening up needed. I am speaking from local experiences on a very small scale but they do indicate the need for consideration of this recommendation.
The third was that the Department of Public Works, in its organization for real property management, assign staff to be responsible for land use aspects of federal property ownership and to consult and cooperate with other levels of government and their agencies for the future development of urban, rural and regional areas. There has been a big improvement in the last ten years with respect to property management in the property management division. You do not go into a public building nowadays as you might have ten or 12 years ago and find that nobody knows who is in charge. At that time you would find the janitor fighting with the postmaster as to who was in charge of

the building and problems of that sort. There is a greatly improved state of affairs there.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps it should be the janitor.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that is quite correct, and rightly so. When a man is managing a building he should be in charge. But I have seen quite a contest between the district architect, the janitor and the postmaster as to who was in charge of a federal public building. These things are being cleared up.
There is a very interesting recommendation with respect to the need for decentralization and field organization. There has been a lot done in that direction but I think there could be more done. This is what the report has to say:
The extent to which future activities of the Department of Public Works should be decentralized cannot be categorically stated at this time. While in general there are obvious advantages in transferring to the field certain operational functions and thereby improving the efficiency with which the needs of client departments and agencies in the field may be met, the extent to which the user departments themselves delegate authority to the field has a direct bearing upon what may be appropriate. Based on experience elsewhere, your commissioners believe that a fairly substantial delegation of authority to responsible offices, each with such satellites as may be required, will probably prove most satisfactory.
I mention that because throughout the years I have been informed there have been occasions when the district office or local people had to refer to Ottawa with respect to calling for tenders for piling, tenders for lumber or tenders for wharf floats or something of that sort and there has been unnecessary delay. If the people on the ground are competent they know better than anyone else which is the best purchase to make and which is the best value. There have been delays to such an extent that on one or two occasions the building of wharves was delayed until the next season because of rising water, and so on. I trust as a result of the recommendations of the commission on government organization, and the experience of the department, the minister will realize the need for a continuation of the district office in the Koote-nays. There has been some suggestion that because steamer service has disappeared from the rivers, there is no necessity for a local office. I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that we have a different type of traffic now. We have a large number of tugs towing timber. We have a great increase in pleasure craft. There is a need for a continuation of an office because of the requirement for the building and maintenance of wharves, the dredging of rivers, the placing of piles and everything that is necessary to carry on navigation successfully. I urge that

consideration be given to the retention of the office in Nelson to serve the Okanagan and Kootenay areas.
I have one other suggestion that has to do with public relations. The report says:
The reticence of many departments in publicizing their activities through the press inhibits the development of groups of specialists for this purpose. The Department of Public Works construction programs are frequently of intense local interest across Canada, but it had no organized information service until 1954-
I believe that is about the time Mr. Winters took over and General Young became deputy minister.
-and the unit then inaugurated has been kept to a modest size. In the Department of Defence Production, which is a comparable source of frequent but low-keyed news, press releases and other necessary information services are under the direct supervision of the deputy minister.
When relations with the news services are retained in the deputy minister, it is generally good practice to designate the responsible member of his staff by name, even if the duties are too light to justify a full time appointment. This is a convenience to the press and a safeguard against uncertainties and confusion within the department. For such an appointment, some knowledge of information techniques is desirable but not imperative; of greater importance is an intimate knowledge of policies and operations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in that connection I do urge the necessity for the improvement of the public relations of the department, not necessarily for the advantage of the department, however I believe that when interesting works are being built or interesting developments are taking place there should be an official press release from the department concerned, so that everybody knows exactly what is happening. You would be amazed how interested the people in these districts are in public works projects.
I urge the necessity for senior officials, when visiting the districts in connection with projects of importance, communicating with local organizations as well. They will get sound advice from local organizations. I found, on a number of occasions throughout the years, quite serious blunders had been made and then later, because of contact with local organizations, quite serious blunders have been avoided. I should like to give one or two illustrations of this point. I understand that the department and the district architect have been giving consideration to some alterations to the Gray building in Nelson, which is a federal public building in which the post office and other departments are housed. The sea cadets have been using the basement, and found it very useful indeed. Then, they heard that civil defence was going to take over. They were going to put in some windows, some ventilation and make some other changes. They heard other organizations were
Supply-Public Works
going to use this basement. Now, in order to avoid all this concern on the part of the navy league, the sea cadets, the city council and others who, like most organizations in Kootenay West, get in touch with their member to try to find out what is going on, there should have been some information given by the architect when he was visiting the district. He could have called three or four people together and said, "We are going to redesign the basement, but you need not be worried. As soon as it is done you will all be fitted in again." This procedure would have avoided a lot of concern.
Then, there is the question of sites for local post offices and other buildings. No one knows more about local conditions than the local people. I have had an illustration recently of a district architect choosing a site on a side-street in a small village. He may have had very good reasons for doing so, but there have been complaints about it. The parliamentary secretary is having the matter looked into, and he very kindly wrote to me to tell me the district architect was going to visit this small village, meet the local business people, and so on. I think it would be a good idea to do that before any final decision is made, and then the decision will be satisfactory all around.
I recall when the question of wharves came up on one occasion, and some $4,000 was being appropriated to dismantle a certain wharf. I know all these wharves and their condition. This was a sound wharf, good for another 20 years. It had good piling and good decking, and $4,000 was to be spent to destroy it. The local people in the district said they did not need it for the stern wheelers, but that about a hundred pleasure craft came up from Portland and other points north during the summer. This is the best 300-mile inland water trip in America. Some of these pleasure craft would stop at this wharf, which was going to be destroyed. The people got in touch with me and I said to the minister, why not spend that $4,000 in repairing the wharf? This was done, and so we have a sound and useful wharf which will last another 20 years.
This type of situation does not happen when the local organizations are consulted. This usually happens when someone comes from outside who does not know the people, is not used to dropping in and visiting the local storekeepers, and so on. These little courtesies make for co-operation.
In so far as dredging is concerned, if you want to know what dredging is required on the Columbia river, the Arrow lakes or the other waterways, the officials should keep in touch with the captains of the vessels that

Supply-Public Works
are operating on the lakes. They know where the shoals occur, and where the levels change with high and low water. The department should seek their advice and would quite often be able to avoid unnecessary checking. However, I have very little criticism in this respect. Years ago, and up to recent years, the men who visited the area would make a trip on a tug for a hundred miles or so, just to see how the channels were. I do suggest that this type of co-operation does not cost much, but it does add to the efficiency of the department and the appreciation of the work it is doing.
There is one other question I should like to mention. In the interior of British Columbia, and I suppose the same condition exists in a good many places, the department depends on a large percentage of so-called casual employees. In a good number of cases, these casual employees have worked for the department for 20 or 25 years, especially in dredging or on the docks. They are laid off when the water starts to rise and they are re-employed when the water goes down and dredging can begin. Throughout the years there has been some extra work found for some of them in the maintenance of wharves, and so on.
I know that in one case the question of this labour was raised and they built a wharf for some $4,000 less than the estimated cost by contract. I suggest that consideration be given to keeping these very competent men employed as long as possible each year. You cannot replace them nowadays. They are used to running pile drivers, handling equipment for the building of wharves, running dredges and things of that sort. They are particularly skilled, in so far as that district is concerned, because of their knowledge of the channels in the waterways and so on. I suggest that every effort be made to continue their employment as long as possible by planning the work so that when dredging is over they can be employed on wharf construction or wharf maintenance.
I should like now to say a word or two about architecture. I am interested in all types of architecture, mobile and immobile, Mr. Chairman. I recognize the need for functional construction. The first consideration has to be functional design in the erection of a building. I suggest that the time has come when some consideration should be given to developing types of architecture appropriate to the region in which the buildings are to be erected. A building that is appropriate on the prairies is not necessarily appropriate in the mountainous areas of B.C. One of these flat California-type buildings on the prairies fits into the landscape, with its horizontal

lines, but it looks completely out of place if it is backed against two very steep mountain sides. I am not going to say very much about that, but I am very interested in architecture and I think more consideration should be given to designs appropriate to the regions in which buildings are to be erected.
Some mention was made of the role of the department and that it should be, as it were, an economic buffer in our society. Road work has been an economic buffer ever since Canada was established. In the early days people used to pay their taxes with road work, and later they got cash for it. I remember in the early days of this century you would not get work on the roads if you did not belong to the Conservative association. Then when the Liberals got in, you had to belong to the Liberal association to get work. That has all disappeared now. There is no patronage in my district. I have not seen any of that sort of thing for many years. There is great scope for the department to act as an economic buffer, particularly to provide winter employment on heavy rock work and bridge construction when the work is undertaken as a result of long term planning; but I warn that it is not possible to do this planning successfully on a year to year basis.
I cannot help saying a word or two about the trans-Canada highway. I know some of my colleagues do not agree with me in this connection, and we have different views as to where the second highway should be. However, I am going to suggest that every consideration be given to the development of the southern provincial highway as the second trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, because it goes through the most populated area of British Columbia and where the greatest proportion of the wealth of the province is produced.
Now, I come to a few local things in my constituency. I am only mentioning a few because I am expecting to see the minister out there soon and we will give him a good time, like we do with everybody, who visits us, and show him around.


Mr. Graffley:: If we all did this we would be here for years and years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon?


William Heward Grafftey: If we all did this, touched on local topics, we would go on for years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. gentleman does not deny the hon. member for Kootenay West the right to place representations before the minister that he has promised his constituents he would place before him. I just make a few suggestions. I think consideration should be given to the deeper dredging and the widening of the

channel going into the wharf at Arrowhead at the head of the Arrow lakes, and also going into the Columbia river. We had a number of pleasure craft from Portland there last year and some got stuck on the shoals. Some dredging is necessary at the mouth of the river also, and some improvement in the navigation markers and so on.
I hope the improvements to the Gray building in Nelson will soon be undertaken so that civil defence members, the sea cadets and others can carry on as usual. Some further dredging and rip-rap are required at the narrows between the upper and lower lakes on the Columbia river, and I hope the minister will give favourable consideration to providing a launching ramp at Trout lake. There are only a few permanent residents there, but it has a big summer population and its principal income is from the tourist business. Whenever it is considered necessary to replace a wharf or remove a wharf the local people should be consulted, because very often these wharves, by cutting them in half, can be converted into launching ramps suitable for small pleasure craft.
I also want to bring the minister's attention to the fact that there is a necessity for a new 6torm boom around the launching ramp at a place called Boswell, and once again I emphasize the necessity for consultation with local organizations and local people who know their communities' requirements and have a knowledge of local circumstances and river conditions.
In view of the threatened Columbia river development, I wish to ask the minister, has any survey been made of the wharves that would be flooded, and have estimates been made of the cost of rebuilding these facilities between Castlegar and Revelstoke? I am sure the cost would run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Another matter is the question of snow removal. Many wharves are on a 10 per cent grade, and if they are not sanded in winter they can be quite dangerous. There have been cases of difference of opinion as to whether a certain wharf was the responsibility of the federal government or the provincial government. 1 bring that to the minister's attention because it can be very serious when you have 20 or 30 cars going over an icy dock. I ask that the responsibility for snow removal be determined for every dock, before the winter season commences.
Mr. Chairman, I find a little restlessness on my right. I seldom rise in this house-


An hon. Member:: The understatement of the year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -but now my concluding inquiry is this-
Supply-Public Works


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I appreciate the applause I am getting from all sides. There have been some recent press references with respect to the restoration of lovers' lane to its former beauty and usefulness. In view of the unusual interest in Ottawa in this project, I would appreciate the minister informing the house of his department's plans in this respect. This restoration has been contemplated for many years and I have had a number of phone calls about it recently. I do hope the minister tell us what his plans are for lovers' lane.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Kootenay West and because I want to save the time of the committee I simply say I ratify and confirm his preliminary remarks with regard to the minister and his staff, save with respect to such part of the statement he made having reference to the constituency of Kootenay West, because after listening to the hon. member for six years I have come to the conclusion that short of Heaven no land could be as fair, nor no people as amiable as those who inhabit the constituency of Kootenay West.
Now, I will come directly to one specific issue, and I have already advised the minister of the matter with which I intend to deal. It is the situation apropos of the construction on the Peace river, in the vicinity of Hudson Hope, of a very large hydroelectric project involving the damming of the river and the ultimate setting up of a reservoir which will extend back over the channel of the Peace and up the Rocky mountain trench for several hundred miles.
As I assess the situation by an examination of the facts and the pertinent legislation, I can only say it would appear that the province of British Columbia is proceeding with this project in complete breach and in defiance of the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and that this government is indulging in a studied ignorance of this particular breach of the law. From time to time I have put several questions on the order paper, and up until several weeks ago the minister, in response to a question I put to him, said that no application for approval of this particular project had been received by him as the minister charged with responsibility under this particular act.
A short time after that, so that there should be no doubt about the matter, I asked the Minister of Justice whether in the opinion of the officials of his department this particular project was one which was covered by the provisions of this legislation. The minister replied to me on October 14 that the advice he had received was to the

Supply-Public Works
effect that the works in question were included in the class of works to which the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies. This simply confirms the research I made, the cases I studied and my understanding of what is concerned in this particular project. I make it quite plain, Mr. Chairman, that so far as I am concerned and the people in my country, we have no objection to this project and we have always given due credit to the government of British Columbia for proceeding with it. We feel it will serve a great need now and in the future to satisfy the hunger for electricity which will, I think, be greatly intensified in the southern parts of British Columbia and in the Pacific northwest. But there is a statute, and the thousands of people who live below where the project is planned along the Peace river are entitled, if there is a law and it is a good law, to ask that it be observed by the government of British Columbia, and that the federal government make certain that there is due observance of the statute. The statute is very simple. Section 4 of the act says:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site and plans thereof have been approved by the minister; and the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations.
Then the act goes on to provide that a publication shall be made in the Canada Gazette and in two newspapers circulated in the district. I ask the minister now whether since I last spoke to him or directed any questions to him there has been an application for approval filed on behalf of the province of British Columbia, even though it is long overdue and there has been this breach of the legislation in the interval. I will be glad to resume my seat in the belief that this matter will be dealt with in due course, if such an application has been received. If one has not been received, I would like to proceed with the matter. Can the minister say whether any such application has been received?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No application has been received, Mr. Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I put this to the minister and to the members of this committee. This project, as I understand it, will involve the filling of this reservoir, which may take a period of 8, 10, or 12, or possibly even 14 years, depending on the run-off and the amount of water available. During that period the province of British Columbia, or the authority which is acting on behalf of the province, will have complete control-without having filed any plans, as it should have filed plans, as to what is proposed by its engineering plans with regard to this
[Mr. Baldwin.}
program-will be diverting water and will be interfering with the navigability of the Peace river. This river has been navigated from the time of Alexander Mackenzie, who in 1799 was the first white man to reach the Pacific coast from overland. The first trip I made on the Peace river in 1929 was on a boat which accommodated several hundred people. I have no doubt

at least I would so hope-that the engineering plans of the province of British Columbia are proper and suitable plans and will take into consideration the requirements of the people who live downstream.
I might only say here, sir, that I am informed that some time ago a departmental committee was established of different departments of this government-or it might have been of the previous government-to examine the extent to which this interference and diversion of the waters of the Peace might affect the navigation in the Mackenzie river area. The Peace flows into Slave river, thence into Great Slave lake, from which the Mackenzie emerges and flows to the Arctic. I do not know whether this committee has completed its deliberations and I do not know what results have been produced. But we have heard in the last few weeks, apart altogether from the question of navigation, the potentially serious situation which might develop in Canada as it has developed in the United States with regard to this question of the use of waters and large rivers.
I think it quite wrong, quite improper, that under these conditions the government of British Columbia has not seen fit to file its plans. There is an obvious recognition that this is a river in respect of which application should be filed, because I have here under the date January 26, 1963, an extract from the Canada Gazette which is a notice by the government of the province of British Columbia, through the minister of highways, that there has been deposited with the Minister of Public Works in Ottawa, under this cut, and filed in the office of the district registrar of the land registry district of Kamloops, a description of site and plan of a highway bridge proposed to be built across the Peace river near Hudson Hope. This, as I understand it, is a highway bridge to be used in conjunction with this project. I may be wrong in that, but that is my understanding.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I had occasion not so many years ago to be concerned in the case of a small farmer who had purchased land on the south shore of Lesser Slave lake and through whose land flowed a small stream which at certain seasons of the year was barely navigable. A fisherman who plied his trade in the Lesser Slave lake area wanted, on possibly three

or four occasions in the year, to pass through this stream into the lake. The farmer had fenced this land and he was compelled, as a result of proceedings initiated by the Department of Public Works, to take down his fence. He was later assessed damages as a result of an action brought in the exchequer court. There is no doubt in the world that this type of work falls within the four corners of this legislation.
My submission is that if this is a good law- and I am satisfied it is a good law-it should apply to the rich as well as to the poor, to the strong as well as to the weak; and it would be my hope that before next spring comes around the government of the province of British Columbia will have purged its defiance of this legislation and will have filed its plans and will, I hope, proceed properly and to the satisfaction of the people of this country with this project-but under the law, and not above the law.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few very brief words about this difficult matter of selecting projects. We have heard tonight about a very large number of small projects, particularly projects in Kootenay West. We have heard about one very large project in northern British Columbia. There are projects all over the country of different characters, with different advantages and different costs, and this presents a very difficult problem of selection. In the United States and in some countries overseas this problem has been tackled on a reasonably sound basis. The type of analysis which has now begun to be reported extensively in the text books is generally described as benefit-cost analysis.
By and large this approach looks ahead over many years. It puts under one heading the benefits and on the other side of the ledger the costs. The benefits are assessed by the economists, who look ahead at the various requirements. They may be a single need or they may be several needs in the case of a multi-purpose project. These are evaluated in dollar terms. These are the incomes, the revenues, the benefits of the project in question. Then on the opposite side of the ledger are the costs. The costs are assessed essentially by the engineers but they may be reduced, for example, if there is a large pocket of unemployed in the area and the expenditure, for instance, by the federal government in respect of unemployment insurance is reduced.
There are, in other words, a variety of considerations to be taken into account with respect to cost. A project is basically economic if the benefits over many years, paid for in accordance with today's values, are greater than the costs. This does not mean
Supply-Public Works
that a project should always go ahead. Various alternatives should be studied and the project which has the highest ratio of benefits to costs is the one which deserves the highest priority. I confidently expect that with the passage of time more projects will be evaluated in this way in different parts of the country. Adoption of this method would mean that more objective and independent decisions will be made in deciding which are the most economic projects. It would mean that those with the greatest social as well as the greatest economic advantages would go ahead first. The most persuasive member might not manage to get as many buildings or other projects in his area, but the national interest would be better served if such an objective appraisal were made.
We have in the last few years made some progress along these lines in Canada. We now have a publication entitled "A guide to benefit cost analysis" whose production was one of the results of the resources for tomorrow conference. It is available to all government departments and it is now being used, I understand, in the Department of Public Works. It is certainly being used in various government departments in the provinces and I trust that in the future it will be used even more widely. I think there will be less controversy and less politics involved in establishing priorities and that, in the long run, it would lead to greater national advantage if this were the case. I certainly suggest to the minister that it be used more extensively than it is now in the Department of Public Works.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the hon. member would agree-I am sure he wants to be fair about this-that the booklet to which he referred arose out of the deliberations of some of those who were brought to Ottawa at the instance of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he was minister and that the proposal for liaison between provincial ministers was also one of the ideas brought forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I thought the hon. member might care to comment on this in case one of his hon. friends later on might want to claim that this is a creation of the present government.


John (Jack) Davis: I will be glad to do so. Certainly, the resources for tomorrow conference was a product of the previous administration, perhaps one of its best accomplishments. I would say further, though, that a number of us from across the country participated, and as one of the authors of this book I advocate its extensive use throughout the country.


Mr. Crouse:: It is not my wish to speak at great length and unduly delay the minister's

Supply-Public Works
estimates. However, this is the first opportunity I have had to publicly congratulate him upon his elevation to the cabinet, and I know that his years of experience in the house will enable him to carry out his duties in a fair and impartial manner so as to bring credit to him and his department.
I am sure all of us were pleased to learn that it is the intention of the hon. gentleman and of this government to continue the winter works program established by the Conservative government. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, certainly, the recent announcement that the government intends to proceed with the program to construct adequate post offices for rural areas will meet with general approval among Canadians. This program of post office construction began as a result of a federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on July 14 and 15, 1958-a conference attended by nine provincial labour ministers, beside representatives of management, labour and various municipalities across Canada.
The winter works program is available to every municipality wishing to take advantage of it, and since it is a truly national cooperative effort I believe it is one which might very well be carried on every winter. In fact, it is gratifying to us on this side of the house to see the present government adopting a "me too" policy in so many fields. Not only is it continuing our winter works program, but it is carrying on with our program of providing aid for home construction through the central mortgage and housing corporation, it is continuing to use the devalued dollar, it is continuing to support the building of technical training schools so as to provide new skills for those who are unemployed; it has adopted our shipbuilding program and many other projects which were initiated in 1958 and 1959 when it became evident this country needed policies which would guide its great leap forward into the age of automation. These policies and programs were initiated by the then Conservative government.
Among the programs begun in 1958 was a scheme for the building of small post offices across Canada. I well remember, when I was first elected in 1957, visiting the post offices in New Ross, Lunenburg county, and Brooklyn in Queens county, and conditions in those offices were deplorable. It was evident to me at that time that the former Liberal administration had lost touch with the people, for little or no thought had been given to providing adequate buildings for this necessary public service. We realized of course, that something had to be done, and we initiated a crash program which saw 70 new post offices started across Canada in 1959. Not only did these offices lead to the provision of better 
facilities, but work on their construction contributed to easing the unemployment problem which plagued our government-a problem which still faces us today. We have at the present time well over a quarter of a million people unemployed in Canada and the government has yet to give us any indication of its plans to create full employment.
The recent announcement in Queens-Lunen-burg that seven new post offices would be built is, of course, helpful. I am pleased to note that my request to the minister that every consideration be given to the needs of my constituents has fallen on such fruitful ground, as far as post offices are concerned. The minister is, of course, free to make these announcements in any manner that pleases him but I would have thought, in view of the friendly relations which exist between us, that he would have released this information through the elected member of parliament rather than through a spokesman for the Liberal party. In any event, the beneficiaries of this extended Conservative program are the people of Queens county and Lunenburg county, and I can assure the minister that regardless of the manner in which these announcements are made any project which will be of benefit to my constituents would be most welcome.
There are a number of questions which come to my mind. I am wondering whether these post offices will be built under the terms of the winter works incentive program, whether they will be constructed in the usual way and provided for in the estimates, or whether the spokesman on this occasion had some advance knowledge concerning next years estimates. This is a question I should like the minister to answer if he has time.
I should like to suggest that, when considering the erection of new public buildings, the minister should give some thought to the needs of the people in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. At the present time the various agencies of the government are located in different buildings throughout the town. This creates difficulties for the citizens who must use these various services, as well as for the employed personnel. In Lunenburg, for example, we have a new public building and in this building provision has been made for officials of the fisheries department as well as for officers of the customs branch, officials of the unemployment insurance commission and the post office. This is a very desirable situation from the point of view of the public in that certain economies are effected with a consolidation of various services. This is the type of federal building required in Bridgewater. Here we have a town that is growing

rapidly, it is the shopping centre of Lunenburg county serving a large agricultural area. The present facilities are overcrowded and inadequate, and I would urge upon the minister the need for carrying out a survey with the hope that a larger federal building, capable of housing all the government offices in Bridgewater, will be built in the near future.
I am also concerned with the minister's plans for a bridge over the canal at Chester, in Lunenburg county. We have in Nova Scotia only two canals. One of these is located at St. Peters in Cape Breton; the other is located in my riding at Chester. During the past summer the walls of this canal collapsed. Although it is still possible for small craft to proceed through the canal, it is evident that something of a permanent nature must be done to repair the damage that has been caused. The last plans I heard of from the department were to the effect that they would fill in the canal and at some future date would then dredge out this filling and build an adequate bridge to carry the traffic which must proceed from the town of Chester to the peninsula. However, to date no action has been taken in this matter. A temporary bridge has been built across the canal, but I am informed that this is inadequate to carry heavy trucks and that the people living on the peninsula are very much concerned in the event that a fire should occur; for there is the possibility that the existing temporary bridge could not carry a fire engine. Therefore I would ask the minister to give careful consideration to doing something about providing a suitable bridge over the damaged canal at Chester.
I could mention many other matters, Mr. Chairman, but I see that time is running out. However, one item I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the need for a further harbour development in Liverpool, in Queens county. This home of privateers in by-gone days is today showing new resurgence and growth. Formerly the wharves and docking facilities were adequate for the fishermen, but the shipbuilding program of the Conservative government has changed all this. Today the fishermen are building larger draggers and trawlers. In fact, the firm of Steel and Engine Products Limited at Liverpool recently completed the first steel stern trawler to be built in Nova Scotia. This new development has created two problems. The present harbour is not deep enough in certain areas to accommodate the growing fleet; and the present wharf at Liverpool should be lengthened by at least 300 feet to provide additional docking space for the new and growing fleet of fishing trawlers. I hope the
Supply-Public Works
minister will give immediate consideration to this problem so that the development of this primary industry in Queens county will in no way be curtailed.


Mr. Freneiie:: Mr. Chairman, consideration of the estimates of the various departments always results in interesting debates, and today's discussion has been all the more interesting because, in my opinion, it deals with a department whose action is felt immediately by the whole economy, stimulating as it does the activities in several fields.
The presentation of the estimates of the Minister of Public Works goes back to last October 18. At that time, he made a short statement, too short in my opinion, about his plans. There again, the word may not be right because in fact they are plans drawn up by the previous government and to which he made only minor changes. However, we were happy to read in Hansard that he expected his estimates to show a substantial increase next year.
We heard him say those same things a while ago. Of course that does not give much to all those who put their faith in the candidates of the present government during the last elections, hoping that they would look after problems immediately.
When he presented his estimates last October 18, he said he hoped to direct his department for at least 20 years. I am very happy to see that he has such good intentions. If through his work, his persistence, initiative and success, he reaches his objectives, the Canadian people will benefit from that desire because if he wants to remain in office that long he will have to show himself worthy of it through the efficiency of the means used to further his department's business.
I read with great interest the debate of October 18. There were very interesting discussions during which good suggestions were made by members of the opposition. Allegations and even charges were made against a certain type of patronage reportedly being practised at the present time in the Department of Public Works. But these charges were denied by the minister, and I was very pleased to hear that. A document dating back to 1954 was even tabled at that time. If nothing more recent can be found, I feel that the problem is not as serious as suggested, and surely the minister cannot be blamed for the situation prevailing at that time.
Besides, I have no intention of defending the minister at all. I am well aware that he can defend for himself, but I cannot resist the temptation to quote these words from the holy scriptures:

Supply-Public Works
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at him.
If these words were applied, I am sure that the accusations would come only from one corner of the house.
In any event, we know that there is a great danger of patronage in the Department of Public Works, where opportunities are perhaps more numerous than anywhere else. We take the liberty of urging the minister to use every means at his disposal to preserve us against that distressing evil.
We agree that defeated candidates of political parties deserve some recognition from the group they represented, but such party recognition should not be shown at the expense of the Canadian people or opposition members, because those members do represent the majority of voters in their ridings.
The Department of Public Works is extending its activities in many fields and on that basis, it is of vital importance in the economic life of the country. In my opinion, a budget of less than $200 million is much too small to enable the department to play its rightful part.
Everybody will agree that the money available is far from sufficient to enable the department to meet even the most urgent requirements.
As a matter of fact, a very simple calculation indicates that the budget of public works is only 2.8 per cent of the total budget. Such a percentage is definitely inadequate, considering all the responsibilities of that department.
In my opinion, that department could act as a stabilizer in the country's economy by maintaining in various parts of the country permanent work sites or development works of all kinds, capable of absorbing a certain proportion of the labour force unemployed at present or likely to become unemployed.
The minister also referred a while ago to this pet project of his and I hope that he will obtain the necessary co-operation from the cabinet to carry out this plan.
The needs of Canada are great. In a vast and young country such as ours, everything must be done, and considering the direction which seems to be taken by the present government, it is quite logical, in my opinion, that it should undertake and carry out an extensive program of public works which would provide work for the great number of unemployed.
As for us in the province of Quebec, this evil is still more acute than elsewhere. And surely there is no lack of needs.
The St. Lawrence river crossing the entire province is our pride and at the same time a vehicle for materials which we greatly

appreciate. On the other hand, many dredging, cleaning, digging and development works are essential to maintain the seaway which is increasingly used. Traffic being heavier, it should be improved to speed it up.
I think I need not remind members of the committee and the minister of the accidents which occurred lately on the St. Lawrence to underline the urgency of certain work on this important seaway.
More and more, the shores of the St. Lawrence river are being lined with summer cottages and permanent homes, which means that retaining walls have to be erected as protection measures against tides, ice or damage due to navigation.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that the building of retaining walls to check erosion of certain pieces of land, is an urgent matter, for heavy damage is caused to this land every year due to ice, tides or navigation.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding which is particularly affected by that problem. I get numerous requests concerning the building of those walls. Each time, we have to engage in discussions-not to say in a battle- with the engineers of the department in order to determine who is responsible for the damage done and ask the minister to intervene personally to speed up the investigations, etc., etc.
Far be it from me, however, to accuse the officers of the department of being incompetent or of working against the interests of the taxpayers. On the contrary, those to whom I addressed myself have always proved themselves to be quite competent and have shown a lot of good will. But those people, as I can well understand, work under particularly difficult circumstances and conditions and, not having the credit required to carry out the work, they are faced with the famous dilemma: either to recommend that the work be postponed or simply to refuse the job completely.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt about it, Portneuf is a beautiful riding that I am proud to represent. The area is greatly appreciated by tourists, who always like to go back there.
I do not want to insist, but I feel duty bound to ask at this time for special projects precisely to help my constituency to keep this high reputation. Numerous projects have already been carried out, others are being completed, and I wish to thank the people responsible for that. However, there are still many gaps to fill. I call the minister's attention on that situation.
The Department of Public Works is also responsible for the construction of public buildings. If each member of the committee

were asked to state the needs of his riding, I am sure everyone would have something to say and we would be sitting here for quite a while. That goes to show that the needs are both urgent and numerous.
If buildings were erected to meet the present needs and, naturally, if the necessary funds were available, it would be possible to provide work for thousands of men in the building trades and thousands more in the building materials industry. That would somewhat palliate the disastrous effect of the famous 4, 8 or 11 per cent tax, call it whatever you want.
Mr. Chairman, the people who belong to the building trades are particularly dear to me. It may be because I am one of them. I should add though that a major part of my riding's economy depends on the building materials industry.
Wood as such or transformed into wall panels or plywood provides the livelihood of thousands of people. Hundreds of others work in my constituency's stone or granite quarries which are, in fact, the most important in Canada. Many others are directly interested in the building trades, to say nothing of the people who produce or prepare cement, this all-important building material.
All those people I have the honour to represent, regardless of party affiliation, insist that I submit their requests to the house.
Those people like their work; they have their own homes and lead an active social life. They wish to stay in their respective parishes, near their relatives and friends.
Of those thousands of workers, each and every one has felt at various degrees, the harmful effect of the tax on building materials.
At present, hundreds of unemployed live in anxiety and fear for the future. Many of them did not even succeed in accumulating enough unemployment insurance stamps during the summer and must now be content with small unemployment assistance benefits.
For all those reasons and many others and because I represent a group of workers, I would ask the Minister of Public Works to see to it that his department launch immediately a vast program of public works which would constitute a market for the building materials produced by some of my constituents and also a labour market for the workers who are available and who are willing to work.
The responsibility for the success of the Canadian world exhibition rests for the most part with the Minister of Public Works. We believe that the forecasts for this event are of primary importance to the Canadian people
Supply-Public Works
and give us a particularly well chosen opportunity to apply a vast program of work which could efficiently lessen the problems of the unemployed, provided, however, that the money so employed is not wasted, as is the case now.
Of course, we believe that the choice of the Montreal area is a happy one, and we commend that initiative on the part of the authorities who made the decision. But we must nevertheless express surprise at the fact that an island has to be built on the river to have an appropriate site for this exhibition. It appeared to us laymen that it would have been easy to locate this exhibition on the shore, without having to build an artificial island.
During consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Defence, a few days ago, numerous protests have been made following the announcement of reductions in that department. And the same word always comes back: unemployment. We do not dispute the fact that $74 million have been saved, but we are concerned, and justly so, about the repercussions such a saving may have on the unemployment situation.
Mr. Chairman, millions of dollars have been distributed among Canadian citizens, each year, in unemployment assistance and social assistance of all kinds. We certainly recognize that those sums of money made it possible for some families to live, but we believe that this money fills only half its purpose and that if the federal government, together with the provinces and the municipalities, were making this capital work by investing it in public projects, we would decrease the number of the needy in two ways, first by giving work to a large number of them, and second, by maintaining the operation of the industries which manufacture the products needed for the implementation of such work.
If we succeed, during and because of a war, to set up powerful enterprises, I believe more firmly still that the establishing of peacetime industries is not only feasible, but indeed desirable and advisable.
Mr. Chairman, one of my former teachers, Commander Beauge, launched, many years ago, a bold project which, at the time, seemed utopian and impracticable, but which could now be easily carried out owing to the scientific and engineering strides of our era. Everybody guessed it and I think the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) even mentioned it in the house during the last session. I am referring to the project of the construction of a dam between Newfoundland and Labrador which would completely change nearly half the country's economy because of its effects on the climate.

Supply-Public Works
Such a project might make you smile at first sight, but I am sure that if the minister could afford it, he would be very happy to carry it out because I think that is a project worthy of him.
Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted at this time to point out to the house a notice of motion which was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Mar-coux) and which particularly concerns the activity of the public works department. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall read that notice of motion in order to draw the minister's attention to the problems involved.
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to provide a plan whereby, in cases where over $50,000 is to be spent on constructing or renovating buildings belonging to the government, under the administration and management of the Department of Public Works or any other department at home or abroad, 1 per cent of the amount should be allocated for artistic work such as murals, sculptures, ornamental walls, flooring, mosaic work, frescoes, tapestries, paintings, fountains, lighting fixtures and other similar work, and that all such work be conceived and executed by Canadian artists; and, to provide further that such artists should work in co-operation with the architects in charge of the construction in order to bring about the closest possible integration; and further, that a competent and independent board be set up by the Canada Council to allocate the contracts fairly among the artists, and to ensure that all aspects of any such program are observed and implemented.
Mr. Chairman, I think that suggestion should be taken into consideration and to me, it looks like very proper action which would benefit our Canadian artists and would be an incentive for them to develop the renown of our country in the arts.
Mr. Chairman, during my remarks, I suggested several important projects. I realize the minister could not carry them out at the present time because of the limitations he must take into consideration in performing his duties, which necessarily involve a lack of credit.
Of course, to carry out these projects, considerable amount of money will be necessary. But if we consider the saturation point reached by the taxation burden, we realize that we shall have to seek the necessary credits elsewhere.
Our solution, on this side of the house, obviously appears too simple to some, while others find it too complicated; but I feel that the economists of the party in power should suggest a gradual adoption of these economic measures advocated by us, that is to say the creation of new, interest-free credit, as our economy is able to absorb it.
I am not astonished to see that some of our hon. friends opposite are smiling; but if they want me to lose what I call my illusions, let them find some other solution.
[Mr. Frenette.l
Actually, I do not believe in the spontaneous generating of limitless amounts of credit, but I stick to the idea that the infusion of new capital, through the Bank of Canada, into well ordered channels, is the only solution available to us. All other possible means have been tried, and they brought about the present situation. That is why I suggest that we adapt our financial system to our most urgent needs. Let us be up to date.
If this were done, I feel that the minister could fulfil his task adequately and, by so doing, have the wish expressed on the memorable evening of October 18, 1963, when he said he would like to remain at the head of his department for the next 20 years.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I very much regret having to bring up the subject I wish to bring up at all, and I particularly regret having to bring it up at this time towards the end of the session. However, I have tried every other method, and I have really no choice but to raise the matter before the committee. This case involves a rather elderly lady who suffered, I think, a great injustice at the hands of some of the officials of the Department of Public Works. This is an example of what I would describe as a disgraceful form of bureaucracy, and I wish to bring it to the attention of the minister, his parliamentary secretary and the members of the committee. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I have already brought this matter to the attention of the minister and his parliamentary secretary but I should like to do so again.
I have a number of letters here and I had intended to read them into the record. However, in order to save time I shall paraphrase it. This case concerns a Mrs. Olive Showier of the city of Woodstock, Ontario who, on February 15 last, when entering a federal building in the city of Woodstock, slipped and fell on the icy steps causing some damage to her knee. Apparently that evening the caretaker-and this reminds me of the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West as to the difficulty in ascertaining who is in charge of these buildings-came around to see the good lady and take note of her injury. He instructed her to do certain things. In a letter directed to me dated May 1 last, Mrs. Showier wrote as follows:
The accident was reported to the post office February 15 and Mr. McCutcheon-
Presumably the caretaker.
-was speaking to my niece over the phone that evening.
On Saturday February 16, Mr. McCutcheon came down to the house to see me between one and two o'clock p.m. He admitted there had been

salt put on the steps that morning, but it does not melt the ice as quickly on the north side of the street.
Mr. McCutcheon called again at the house February 19 and asked me to write three letters explaining how the accident happened for him to forward to the complaint department which I did and he picked them up the same evening.
Then, she goes on to mention another matter concerning her out-of-pocket expenses which amounted to $20.50. This is all the good lady is asking. There was some correspondence between me and the minister and his parliamentary secretary.
I only wish to read one letter which was sent to me from the minister on June 21, 1963. I realize the minister did not write it himself. It was drawn up by some of his officials and it is a masterpiece of what I call red tape and eyewash. It reads:
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
This refers to our recent exchange of correspondence about Mrs. Showler's unfortunate accident on the steps of the Woodstock federal building.
As the director of our property and building management branch pointed out to Mrs. Showier, her claim cannot be considered because it was not submitted within seven days of the date of the accident, as required by the Crown Liability Act. Other requirements of the act must also be met. Such notice must be served upon a responsible official of this department and a copy of the notice must be sent by registered mail to the deputy attorney general. This does not appear to have been done in this case.
Notwithstanding the disqualification of her claim because of the time factor and the lack of official notice, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the crown. The steps were cleared of ice and snow, and salted at 3.15 p.m. Mrs. Showier reported that she fell at 3.45 p.m. At that time, the steps were reported to be clear, but wet.
Bear this in mind.
A medical certificate dated February 19, 1963, on our file, reports that Mrs. Showier did not suffer any serious injury as a result of her fall.
Mrs. Showler's claim that Mr. McCutcheon told her the steps were, in fact, icy has been investigated. It does not appear, after verification of this point with Mr. McCutcheon, caretaker of the building, that such a statement was ever made to Mrs. Showier.
I'll bet it wasn't, after the verification was made.
Also, Mr. McCutcheon's suggestion to Mrs. Showier that she submit a claim should not be interpreted as an admission of negligence. It is simply a courtesy extended to persons in such cases in the interests of justice and fair play.
In these circumstances, it appears that the department exercised all reasonable care and precaution, that the accident was not due to any negligence on the part of a servant of the crown, and that therefore, there is no legal liability on the part of the crown.


Mr. Gregoire:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. When did this occur?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It occurred last February 15 and the correspondence went on last June and July.
Supply-Public Works


Gilles Grégoire: Then the Conservatives were in office at that time. Why didn't they settle the problem?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If it is of any interest to the hon. member the point was not brought to the attention of the department then. The first correspondence was on May 7, 1963, if that satisfies my hon. friend, who seems interested in disturbing the lady's claim.
This is one of the most offensive cases I have seen in the ten years or so I have been a member of parliament. I realize the minister must have many complaints and cannot personally look into them all, but this is a particularly unfortunate case. The lady is still suffering. She is still using a crutch. She is not seeking any permanent damages from the department and only asks that she receive out-of-pocket expenses of $20.50 for an X-ray.
Someone may ask, why is all this time being wasted in bringing up the claim of an elderly lady in Woodstock for $20? But, as has been said, this is a court of last resort. I fully agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur that if an ombudsman were functioning it would not be necessary for members of parliament to bring up such things, but until such an institution is brought into effect the ordinary citizen has absolutely no recourse against some of the procedures followed in some government departments, except to have their member of parliament bring the matter up in this house.
It is my contention that this lady has been very unfairly treated. I have talked to her on several occasions and I have no doubt at all her story is absolutely true. I think the correspondence I have read into the record will verify that, and I hope the minister will give this matter further consideration.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk tonight about Three Rivers and its famous bridge. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) must be just as interested as I am to see carried out that gigantic project which has been firing the imagination of the people of Three Rivers for more than 60 years. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works so that he will use his influence-and he is very influential, I think-with the government in order to settle, once and for all, that utterly ridiculous situation which is highly detrimental to the whole of central Quebec.
It must be remembered that it is a bridge which would connect the two shores of the St. Lawrence; it would be the only one between Montreal and Quebec city, which are 180 miles apart, to serve a population of about 250,000 people.
When I was minister of transport, I had the opportunity to study this question thoroughly with the engineers of my department and

Supply-Public Works
those of the Department of Public Works. We discussed it with the directors of the corporation, which is an independent corporation, created by the Quebec government, in which there are representatives of all parties, but mostly of the Liberal party.
So, I had the opportunity to study this question thoroughly and even organize meetings with the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge and the engineers of the provincial government. We considered all suggestions and there was never any mention of an expenditure of $60 million, nor of $30 million, not even of $10 million; mention was always made of an expenditure of $5 to $7 million. The engineers of the Department of Public Works had reached the conclusion that the federal government would be likely to pay an amount of $5 to $7 million in order to protect navigation on the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Chairman, I am told it is ten thirty. I would like to know whether it is the intention of the house to sit a little longer tonight.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. [Translation]


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, when we opened the negotiations with the representatives of the provincial government and those of the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge, the latter proposed that a bridge be built on a site which had been approved by the former minister of transport, Mr. Marler. There is no doubt that the construction of a bridge at that place could have interfered with navigation on the St. Lawrence and could have impeded the flow of ice on the river. Consequently, as minister of transport, I got in touch with the head of the corporation and the provincial authorities and I asked them to consider other alternatives.
That is how it was later proposed to build the bridge between the municipality of St. Angele, opposite Three Rivers, and St. Quentin island. If the project had been carried out at that place, it would not have cost a cent to the federal government; however, it would have involved an expenditure of $10 to $12 million for the provincial government and the city of Three Rivers. The bridge would have been built right between the town of Cap de la Madeleine and Three Rivers. It would have had to pass under the Duplessis bridge and would have necessitated the construction of another one on the east side of the St. Maurice and a third one over that river. There is no doubt that the project would have cost at least $10 to $12 million to the provincial government. Now, as the provincial government had given a statutory 
guarantee for the expenses of the corporation and since the cost of the bridge could reach something like $35 million, the province indicated to us that it could go no further.
That is why I feel that the federal government would be justified to provide $5 to $7 million for the construction of a bridge for the benefit not only of the local residents, but of all the people in the province of Quebec. That expenditure would help the economic and industrial development not only of the centre of the province of Quebec, but of the whole of Canada.
Work has started. The bridge corporation has hired engineers who, for the last 12 months or so, have been busy with their engineering work; the corporation expropriated the necessary land, and last week, it obtained from the provincial government a first loan of $1,180,000. The corporation officials have announced that tenders for the first stages of the work would be called in the very first days of January 1964.
Mr. Chairman, one can well imagine the feelings of the population of Three Rivers when they heard the new Minister of Transport state, that according to his experts, the order in council signed on March 4 of last year was not legal, or at least, that its legality was open to question. This is absolutely ridiculous, for everyone knows that once signed by the governor general, an order in council cannot be cancelled, as it is absolutely legal. If the government thinks that Three Rivers is not entitled to a bridge, let it take its responsibilities; let it issue a new order in council and deprive the population of that region of this very necessary bridge.
The Minister of Transport does not want to take his responsibilities; for more than a month and a half, we have been urging him to tell us whether the government intends to cancel everything which was done under the former government to carry out that ambitious program. The minister beats about the bush, gives vague answers and refuses to tell us what stand the federal government intends to take. It is quite clear that he creates all sorts of obstacles to stop the building of a bridge which is absolutely necessary to the development of that part of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for this, to have works carried out in the St. Lawrence river to protect the bridge against the ice, to control floods and help navigation. I ask him to take his responsibilities too, to co-operate with the bridge corporation and the provincial government, so that this ridiculous situation may be settled once and for all.

Mr. Chairman, today, in a reply to a question put by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), the Minister of Transport said that surveys had been made on the St. Lawrence river since last March.
This afternoon, I asked the Minister of Public Works whether surveys had been made in his department concerning the construction of dikes on lake St. Pierre. He answered no. Maybe my question was not clear enough-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No survey was made by the Department of Public Works. That is what 1 meant.


Léon Balcer: I would ask the Minister of Public Works to take his responsibilities once and for all and to help the Minister of Transport to extricate himself from all those difficulties which are his own doing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the house for having been so kind as to let me have the floor so long.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I simply wish to ask some information of the Minister of Public Works, concerning the St. Charles river project, in Quebec.
I know a delegation from Quebec met the minister in that respect, about a month ago. I should like to ask the minister what are the immediate projects concerning that river and the agreements reached or the arrangements made with the authorities of the city of Quebec, concerning the development of the St. Charles river, in Quebec.


Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Chairman, since this item deals with the appropriation for dredging I would like to make a very brief reference to a condition which exists in my constituency. It is with respect to the water level of lake Winnipegosis. I would like to refer to the amount of money the government is spending each year on dredging this lake. I am advised by the department that they have spent approximately $47,000 a year during the last seven years, which gives a total amount in excess of $310,000.
I would suggest to the minister that he could save his department a considerable sum of money over the next few years by the construction of a dam on the West Waterhen river to maintain the water level of the lake. At the present time it is just impossible for the dredge crew to clear channels fast enough to serve the industries on the lake. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to place on the record a letter I have received from the Winnipegosis chamber of commerce outlining the drastic situation which has developed:
Supply-Public Works
The Winnipegosis chamber of commerce wishes to place before you the drastic situation the village of Winnipegosis and the surrounding areas are confronted with due to the low level of lake Winnipegosis. The residents of Winnipegosis are dependent on income coming from four sources, namely, lumber, fish, cattle and tourist. All four are in one way or another dependant on the water level of lake Winnipegosis.
In the past years an income of approximately $150,000 was obtained from lumbering alone. All the lumber was transported on the lake to the town of Winnipegosis. Due to a terrific drop in water level this will soon be an impossibility. Second, the value of fish caught in lake Winnipegosis reached $956,023 in 1961. This catch is going down and to our understanding this industry will soon discontinue, mainly caused by low water level. Cattle ranchers from Salt Point are dependant on the lake for transportation of their beef to Winnipegosis. They hope that some dredging would soon be done in order to be able to load and ship their cattle. When the water had been higher, dredging was not necessary. In other places cattle cannot reach the waterline due to long stretches of muck into which they sink while trying to get a drink. In the winter, because of low level, the water freezes to the bottom, and once again ranchers are faced with a problem. To overcome this, we know of ranchers paying high prices to welldiggers but cannot reach water on land.
Let us now turn to the tourist trade. Angling on lake Winnipegosis will soon be a thing of the past. Many fishing and hunting lodges are not accessible any more by boats. When you come to the lakeshore, all you can see are stretches of muck with some ducks beyond that. This will soon affect the duck population about which we are concerned, especially the redheads which make lake Winnipegosis their best breeding grounds...
We must state once again that we are faced with a critical situation which, to our understanding and belief, can be corrected by a dam on the West Waterhen river.
Hoping that you will give our plea your utmost consideration and give us some assurance that our problem will soon be corrected.
Since Dauphin is the only place in Manitoba declared a designated area, the construction of the dam would give employment to a great number of people this winter. To indicate the responsibility of the federal government in the matter, the Minister of Labour has interpreted a "designated area" as follows, and I will just quote in part from an answer he gave to a question by the hon. member for Churchill:
This area will also qualify in connection with the supplementary federal government winter construction program, which applies to designated development areas and designated areas of high winter unemployment.
If the government are serious with regard to creating employment in a designated area, then I suggest that the construction of such a dam on the Waterhen river this winter, besides giving employment to a great number of people living in the area would help to maintain, as pointed out in the letter, the fishing industry, the lumbering industry, the cattle industry and it would help to conserve our wildlife, as well as the important tourist industry.

Supply-Public Works
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to give this matter his most serious consideration with a view to getting the project under way in the very near future. [Translation]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, my first words are to express my admiration for the Minister of Public Works. I thank him for all he has done and for the courtesy-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member has so much admiration for the minister, it would be preferable to vote his credits.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I object to what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just said. If ever a member has wasted the time of the house, it is the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I feel I should make concerning the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
Taking a look at the estimates of this department for the year 1962-63, we find that they have been cut from $191 million to $178 million. Everyone knows how urgent it is that work be carried out to deal with unemployment. The minister, despite his good intentions, remains incapable of solving this problem with the small amount of money made available to him. He can only tell us that he has not got a penny left and it is impossible for him to consider any new requests until next year.
On the other hand, I find that national defence takes up 25.6 per cent of our national budget; the Department of National Health and Welfare, 19.1 per cent; debt charges, 13.5 per cent, that we have to pay in interests; payments to the provinces, 3.3 per cent -I approve of this expenditure and I know it will increase-veterans' affairs, 5.3 per cent; transport, 4 per cent; public works, only 2.8 per cent.
If there is one department whose estimates should be increased, it is the public works department, which must undertake huge works where they are needed. Instead of investing money in public works, the government prefers to leave families in such abject poverty that 19.1 per cent of the national budget has to be affected to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
We are not against giving help to families in need but we all admit that if a greater number of public works were undertaken, there would not be so many of them. In my riding, many farmers get help from the welfare department. They are no longer able to earn a living from their farms. There are also a great number of workers, in the cities, who

live on social welfare. They look for jobs but they cannot find any because no public works are undertaken.
In my opinion, this government should direct its activities towards public works, particularly if it wants to alleviate the unemployment situation.
I admit that will only partially meet our problems. A great many citizens are only too anxious to have work.
In the riding of Megantic, where I live, we have a splendid city planning project which is admired by many people from abroad, especially Americans who visit us. We could welcome a great number of tourists. It would be and important incentive to our town and to all our county to find in the tourist industry an important livelihood for our families. Besides, one knows that where the government spends $3, it brings in more than six.
Mr. Chairman, we have great projects to carry out. In this connection, by improving waterways, lakes, etc., as needed, we could give plenty to work to many people.
However, there is not only the water areas that might be improved. It is true that there is a magnificent lake in my own city, and such lakes are not to be found in every town.
Finally throughout my constituency, people wonder what the federal government is doing about public works. They wonder whether the government invests money only along lakes and waterways. In several parishes of my riding, people cannot take advantage of public works. All kinds of suggestions are being made to us with a request to submit them to the government in order to help the citizens of my riding.
One can find in my constituency many abandoned farms where there is almost nothing left. The farms have been deserted. We are being asked to proceed to the reafforestation of those lands and, to do so, we are being asked to see the Minister of Public Works who, by extending the winter works period until May, for example, or until June, could rehabilitate those fertile and abandoned pieces of land. In view of the fact that many farmers having private properties are unable to do such a thing, the Department of Public Works could employ unemployed people in my constituency in order to undertake the reafforestation of those lands. Besides, according to federal and provincial engineers, reafforestation would be an ideal solution for the rehabilitation of those lands.
We are also asked to request the Minister of Public Works to build dams on the many lakes of that area.
I would also like to point out to the minister the damages owing to drought prevalent in

my constituency in summertime. There should be an irrigation system and dams should be erected on lakes so as to regulate spring water and provide water all year round.
Moreover, in co-operation with the provincial government, we are asked to urge the Department of Public Works to build fish hatcheries to breed fish for restocking lakes. These lakes have been fished out, and tourists are no longer interested to visit them. It would therefore be necessary to launch all kinds of public works.
Thus, the winter works program could be used to improve level crossings which are quite numerous in my riding, especially in the populated areas. That is where improvements are necessary. However, nothing can be done because no funds are available. Yet, if there was money, it would be possible to provide work for the unemployed and improve those level crossings.
Numerous other means have been suggested to us, but I could not list them all tonight because that would take too much time. As I do not wish to delay the committee, I shall not insist on that point.
I would therefore ask the Department of Public Works to give serious consideration to those cases and to provide more funds to correct such anomalies.
In considering the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I find that the government allocates it only $178 million, when it should receive at least $400 million. The national defence estimates should be reduced by several million dollars to use them in the Department of Public Works. If that were done, the government would be in a better position to really do something for the country and the welfare of its citizens, not to mention that this will also develop Canada further.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have the intention of making a few remarks before eleven o'clock, and I do not intend to be talked down by anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, as I think I am entitled to in view of the fact that it is after ten thirty. We are sitting here by consent, not noticing the clock. We had certain indications as to how many speakers there were but they keep on popping up. Personally I should like to know how many more speakers there will be on item 1.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oxford said this evening that this was a supreme court of parliament; that every one of us has a right to speak on
Supply-Public Works
matters affecting his constituency. That being the case I presume that we should all rise and address ourselves to these problems. If we were to limit ourselves to ten minutes each, then forgetting the treasury benches that would mean there are about 220 members, which involves about 2,200 minutes, which is three and a half sitting days. I suggest that we sit here right through until tomorrow morning, and then possibly by Christmas we will complete the department with which we are dealing now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not agree with that at all.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had agreed to sit until eleven o'clock.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, ten thirty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman will be allowed to speak, because it seems to me that no one else wishes to, and then perhaps we could dispose of the whole department afterwards. Perhaps I might also draw to the attention of the committee the fact that I have looked over the list. There are 11 departments left in which not one item has yet been passed. There are a very considerable number of others in which the majority of the items have not been passed. I am not seeking to put any kind of pressure on the committee, but it seems to me that when practically the whole legislative program is over, with a little temperance it would be possible to deal with the estimates. I do not think there has been a session of parliament in which more time has been spent on the estimates than has been spent this year.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, there were a few more members in this corner of the house who wished to participate in the debate, but we agreed to the proposal which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) made a while ago when he asked for our co-operation.
No other member of our group will speak tonight and we are willing to co-operate, because we wish to celebrate Christmas like everybody else.
Consequently, we would ask members of all parties to respect the agreement and to allow passage of the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not trying to stop the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka from speaking; I am trying to stop the ones after him.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak, and had I been given the opportunity to say what I inended to I would have been finished

Supply-Public Works
by now. I have quite a number of remarks to make in connection with public works, but in view of our efforts to get the work finished I am not going to make them extensively. I just want to draw some matters to the attention of the committee, and this is the reason I am speaking tonight.
I had it very seriously in mind earlier to make my speech and hold the government up, because of two very unpleasant things which happened today, both of them in connection with private members' bills. The first was a very fast trick played by the chairman of the banking and commerce committee in connection with a private bill which was passed on division this morning. The second is the fact-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am wondering whether the hon. member does not think that he is using language which is perhaps a little strong when he refers to a fast trick put over the committee of the house by the chairman of a committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be irrelevant too.


An hon. Member:: And out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Also, when this bill was passed at five o'clock there was only one private member's bill left, and the Liberal members talked it out, which I think is unfair. Now, I do not intend to go ahead with my remarks, because in holding up the government-


Mr. Teillel:: On a point of order, we did not talk it out.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -I would also be holding up other hon. members. I have explained this matter because I felt an explanation was necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings, construction and services-
5. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, but the amount within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased, subject to the approval of treasury board-Newfoundland, $130,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, as explained by the minister when he made his statement I move:
That vote No. 5 be reduced by $55,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
10. Nova Scotia, $705,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 10 be reduced by $395,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

30. Ottawa, $14,405,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 30 be reduced by the sum of $1,685,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
50. Alberta, $1,410,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 50 be reduced by $558,000. Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
55. British Columbia, $1,615,000.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the reason for the restrictions or cancellations?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: These are the reductions mentioned by the minister when he introduced his estimates.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would you repeat them?


An hon. Member:: Look on Hansard tomorrow.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 55 be reduced by $425,000. Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
60. Yukon and Northwest Territories, $3,000,000. Mr. Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 60 be reduced by $2,175,000. Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Harbours and rivers, engineering services-[DOT]
100. Prince Edward Island, $630,000.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 100 be reduced by $260,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
105. New Brunswick, $1,905,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: I move:
That vote No. 105 be reduced by $54,000. Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
110. Quebec, $4,567,000.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That vote No. 110 be reduced by $558,000.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry? Mr. Pigeon: On division.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Public Works tell us whether he intends to put this amount to another use since he is saving money to some extent.

Could he not use that money to carry out other works? For instance, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) is pressing for the construction of a bridge in Three Rivers. He might use that money for this purpose.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I must point out to the hon. member that those are projects which have been reviewed, and that for the reasons I gave earlier, either because of the difficulties involved in the selection of a site or for any other technical reasons, we did not see fit to go on with them.
However, this money might very well be included in the estimates I shall be introducing next year.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the minister not allocate these funds to the carrying out of other works, since works are needed not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, we cannot transfer any of these funds. If we do not undertake certain projects, we have to proceed as we now are doing, that is, reduce the estimates accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
125. Alberta and Northwest Territories, $117,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That vote No. 125 be reduced by $9,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
150. Dredging-maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,801,200.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That vote No. 150 be reduced by $101,200.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
180. Trans-Canada highway-construction through national parks, $2,213,000.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That vote No. 180 be reduced by $150,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Central mortgage and housing corporation
[Stage Direction]
205. Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services and administering mortgages on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $415,000.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, item No. 205 is now under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let it be carried.
28902-5-384
Supply-Public Works


Lucien Lamoureux: Transferred to the Department of National Revenue. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
220. Payment to the national capital fund, $7,500,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us the total amount of money he has saved through his efforts tonight?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: My understanding is that the total reductions and the differences in addition amount to something like $6 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L50. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of the acquisition, development, construction and improvement of land and buildings. $118,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: This item with regard to C.M.H.C. has also been transferred to the Department of National Revenue.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to thank all hon. members for their co-operative federalism which has enabled us to pass the estimates of my department.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister is finished with his estimates may I say I hope he has not reduced the items too far to fix my desk top here.
207d.. To authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, notwithstanding section 7 of the National Housing Act, 1954, to insure loans made on and after June 14, 1963 under that act to homeowners. to builders of houses who intend to sell to home purchasers, and to co-operative housing associations, where the amount of any such loan does not exceed,
(a)	in the case of a loan made in respect of a house containing one family housing unit, an amount equal to the aggregate of
(i)	95 per cent of the first $13,000 of the lending value or any part thereof,
(ii)	70 per cent of any amount by which the lending value exceeds $13,000, and
(iii)	the amount of the insurance fee paid in respect of the loan; and
(b)	in the case of a loan made in respect of a house containing two family housing units, an amount equal to the aggregate of
(i)	95 per cent of the first $13,000 of one half of the lending value of the house or any part thereof,
(ii)	70 per cent of any amount by which one half of the lending value of the house exceeds $13 000
(ni) 85 per cent of the other half of the lending value of the house, and
(iv)	the amount of the insurance fee paid in respect of the loan, $1.


Lucien Lamoureux: Item 207d, with regard to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has also been transferred to the Department of National Revenue. This concludes the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
6038	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair, since the house is in a very co-operative mood, since the hon. lady has been sitting here all day and as already we have had two or three opportunities to discuss her estimates, and there are only two or three items left and since I believe it is the eve of her birthday, I wonder whether we could not make her a birthday present by disposing of her department.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
55. Family allowances and old age security- administration, $2,890,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This item is all right, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak on item 60 but at the speed things are going one has to watch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
60. Old age and unemployment assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances-admlnis-tration, $188,800.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the government is considering any further changes in the requirements for these various pensions as set out in the different pieces of legislation. Rather than raise them individually I thought I could do it on one general item. I have in mind the question of residence, particularly with respect to old age security but also with respect to the others. One of the complaints that seems to have come to me from a great many people in recent months is that of elderly people who have lived in Canada perhaps 40, 50 or 60 years, but who have had to go elsewhere because of health, and find this one year requirement before they can qualify for the old age security pension a very difficult and awkward one to meet. There are other complaints.
With respect to the disability pension there is the question of the definition of disability and so on. If this were being done tomorrow I would take my 30 minutes and deal with it but tonight I shall do so very briefly. I should like to ask the minister if her department is considering bringing in amendments to these various pieces of welfare legislation to correct some of these difficulties.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, may I say my hon. friend knows that things are in a state of flux in my department. The question of the year's requirement is one on which I also have received some letters but not very many considering the million people in receipt of this benefit. When these letters are received they are discussed by me with my officials, but because of the incipience of the Canada pension plan they are perhaps not treated with as much importance as they might otherwise be.
[The Chairman.]

With respect to the disability definition 1 agree with my friend that it is a rather restrictive one and a number of hon. members have already mentioned this, as indeed I did when I was on the other side of the house. But with respect to the hopes that the government has regarding the disabled being added to the Canada pension plan, this means that these areas are open for considerable future improvement, and I would say to my hon. friend it is more likely when the Canada pension plan is in effect those who qualify in the future will be taken care of in that way and that the administration will look then to those who remain and cannot qualify under the plan. As my friend knows, I have only been a few months in this office and at the moment there is no suggestion by the government of any change for the next fiscal year in these particular matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just one remark to make. I noted what the minister said the other day, I think it was during discussion of her estimates or on some piece of legislation, about the desirability of getting our pensions to the place where they are paid to certain people as of right and to all people who need pensions because of their need and not because they come in particular categories. I think she will appreciate that this is related to the sort of thing I have been asking her about, and I hope that in whatever recess we give to members of the cabinet between this session and next she will work very hard on this important question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) concerning item 55, which has to do with family allowances.
I realize that these estimates were prepared by the Conservative regime which preceded the present government and that, at that time, no thought had been given to raising family allowances because they wanted to give the impression of being more on the conservative side.
But now that the Liberals are in office, does the minister intend, when the time comes to prepare the next budget-which will be a Liberal budget-to propose an increase in family allowances and to have it apply to all children as long as they keep on going to high school, technical school or university?


Gilles Grégoire: Will the minister answer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the business for tomorrow, may I ask?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before I say anything about the business for tomorrow, sir, I should like to see whether it would be agreeable to hon. members in all parts of the house if we were to meet tomorrow at twelve o'clock. It seems to me that between twelve and one we could dispose of orders of the day and routine business, then when we resumed again at two thirty we would have quite a long go at the estimates until seven o'clock, and possibly make a great deal of progress. All that is involved would be to abbreviate somewhat the caucuses we have. I feel confident it would contribute a great deal to progress tomorrow.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Could the minister tell us what departments are complete and what departments remain to be completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would be glad to do that. I have a list here which was made up before northern affairs was completed last night. I could try to correct it as I go along. There are no items passed in the Department of Agriculture; citizenship and immigration, no items passed; defence production, they have all passed. No items have been passed for the Department of External Affairs; finance, no items have passed and the department has not yet been before the committee. Department of Fisheries, I am told there are 11 items to pass. All the items in the Department of Forestry have passed. Most of the items in the Department of Industry have passed, but there are some still outstanding. They have all passed in justice. Only two items have passed in the Department of Labour and there are 21 still outstanding; legislation is entirely outstanding. There are 28 items in mines and technical surveys, and none have passed. There are still eight items to pass in national defence. There are no more items to pass in national health and welfare. No items have yet been passed in national revenue. I think there is only one left outstanding in northern affairs, if I recall. Post office, of course, no items have been called as yet. It is the first department on the menu for tomorrow. Public works is completed. My own department has not yet been touched. There is one item outstanding in trade and commerce; and in transport,
28902-5-384J
Business of the House
58 items have been passed and 13 are outstanding. Veterans affairs, no items have been passed but the departmental estimates were considered very carefully in committee.
It will be seen there are still a considerable number of items to be called. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings gave us some prospective of what we would have to face if every hon. member spoke for ten minutes, and we would need a considerable number of hours. For that reason, I do renew my request, because I believe we would gain considerably more than one hour by sitting the hour between twelve and one tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see the Secretary of State is looking in my direction as he renews that request. I might say we do not feel very happy about this business of having negotiated hours for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday as well as Thursday, and then being asked to change them. Members have made their plans accordingly. However, in the light of the situation and in the light of the general desire to get along, we in this party give our unanimous consent.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, we will go along with that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we agree to the suggestion of the Secretary of State that we sit tomorrow at twelve o'clock noon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The main stumbling block has been removed, so we agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the Globe and Mail notices who is here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I wonder if the Globe and Mail is here. However, that is said in a spirit of good, clean fun. Perhaps I am lucky that that newspaper has not got a great circulation in Bonavista-Twillingate.
The departments that will be taken tomorrow are post office, legislation, national revenue, and if we complete those departments, the Minister of Fisheries is eager to go ahead. If we complete all of those, I think the Minister of Agriculture would be willing to come in to complete his department, too, just before seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we will sit tomorrow from twelve o'clock to one o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have already agreed to that. In this connection, I just want to have it clearly understood what our hours are going to be on Thursday. We reached agreement last night, but both Hansard and Votes and Proceedings could be misleading on the-point.

Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I ought to come clean about this. I did not notice the point until the hon. gentleman spoke to me earlier, but the language I used last night did not convey what I intended to convey, nor did it convey what I believe was the understanding. I think the understanding was that on Thursday we would start at 11, rise at one, continue at 2.30 and rise at 6, and continue at 7 and go on to 10.30. That, I hope, will be recorded as an amended understanding because I would not like to seem to be taking advantage of the sloppy language I used last night. I am not saying that when Thursday comes I may not ask hon. members to be generous in their interpretation of those hours, but those are the hours that were agreed upon and should be ordered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as it was mentioned earlier by the Secretary of State that it will be the birthday of the Minister of National Health and Welfare tomorrow, may we wish her sweet sixteen.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The private members' hour on Thursday is not to be eliminated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there was no understanding to that effect and I believe there are some very interesting items up for debate in that hour. I imagine it would depend whether those concerned would want to debate them or not.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is only one bill left.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the bills come before us. It is motions for papers on Thursday.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Motions for papers last week; this week will be private bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps there should be some discussion about that, but there is no understanding as of now.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty four minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.

[The following Items were passed in committee of supply this day (for amendments, see text):]
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Welfare branch-
55. Family alowances and old age security- Administration, $2,890,000.
60.	Old age and unemployment assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances-Administration, $188,800.
Fitness and amateur sport-
61.	Administration, $124,100.
National welfare grants-
62.	Administration, $72,900.
63.	To authorize, on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, national welfare grants to provinces and welfare agencies including schools of social work, and to individuals in the form of scholarships and fellowships, $500,000.
General-
65. Grants to health and welfare and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $267,750.
70. Emergency health, welfare and training services, $4,799,000.

[Stage Direction]
1.	General administration including a grant of $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $10,695,000.
Public buildings, construction and services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, but the amount within the vote to be expanded on individualy listed projects may be increased or decreased, subject to the approval of treasury board-
5. Newfoundland, $130,000.
5a. Newfoundland, $1.
10. Nova Scotia. $705,000.
20. New Brunswick, $200,000.
20a. New Brunswick, $40,000.
25. Quebec, $2,105,000.
25a. Quebec, $92,000.
30. Ottawa, $14,405,000.
35. Ontario (other than Otawa), $5,280,000.
35a. Ontario (other than Ottawa), $206,000.
40. Manitoba, $75,000.
45. Saskatchewan, $190,000.
45a. Saskatchewan, $35,000.
50. Alberta, $1,410,000.
55. British Columbia, $1,615,000.
55a. British Columbia, $1.
60. Yukon and Northwest Territories, $3,000,000. 70. Improvements	generally-Not	more than
$25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $750,000.
75. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $45,122,400.
75a. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $915,000.
80. Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $2,098,800.
80a. Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $118,500.
Supply-Items Passed 85. Work in the interests of fire prevention including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian joint fire prevention publicity committee, $221,000.
Harbours and rivers, engineering services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, but the amount within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased, subject to the approval of treasury board- ' 90. Newfoundland, $3,825,000.
90a. Newfoundland, $92,000.
95. Nova Scotia, $1,711,000.
95a. Nova Scotia, $224,000.
100. Prince Edward Island, $630,000.
105. New Brunswick, $1,905,000.
105a. New Brunswick, $1.
110. Quebec, $4,567,000.
110a. Quebec, $1.
115. Ontario, $2,791,000.
115a. Ontario, $1.
120. Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $52,000.
125. Alberta and Northwest Territories, $117,000. 130. British Columbia and Yukon Territory $2,492,000.
130a. British Columbia and Yukon Territory
[Stage Direction]
135. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works land and equipment, $52,500.
135a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $40,500.
140. Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures, $600,000.
145. Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacements for the maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $2,800,000.
Dredging-
150. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,801,200.
155. Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $854,000.
160. Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $827,800.
Development engineering services-
165. Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the
estimates, $1,235,000.
165a. Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges as detailed in the estimates, $800,000.
167.	Towards the cost of planning a causeway and associated structures across Northumberland strait $500,000.
168.	Towards installation of a water supply system at Churchill, Manitoba, $80,000.
168a. Towards installation of a water supply system at Churchill, Manitoba, $110,000.
170. Roads and bridges-Maintenance and operation including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $379,600.
170a. Roads and bridges-Maintenance and operation including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $40,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
175. Testing laboratories-Operation and maintenance, $1,008,100.
Trans-Canada highway-
178d. To provide, notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 4 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, for the payment until May 31, 1968 by Canada to any province with which Canada has entered into an agreement under that act, of contributions in respect of the cost incurred by such province prior to December 31,	1967, in construction of the
trans-Canada highway; to provide, notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 4 of the said act, for the payment until May 31, 1968, to the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick of contributions equal to ninety per cent of the cost incurred between April 1, 1964 and December 31, 1967, by each of those provinces in construction of the trans-Canada highway; to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the said act shall not exceed six hundred and twenty five million dollars, and to authorize the Minister of Public Works, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with the provinces to give effect to the foregoing provisions, $1.
179a. Trans-Canada highway-to provide, notwithstanding subsection 2 of section 4 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act (R. S. chapter 269, as amended) for payment to the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick of amounts up to 90 per cent of the costs to the provinces of construction of this highway as from April 1, 1963, $10,000,000.
180. Construction through national parks, $2,213,-
000.
General-
185. Advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $2,000,000.
190. Balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1963-64, $800,000.
195. Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, including expenditures on works on other than federal property: a maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000, $2,000,000.
200. To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $700,000.
National capital commission-
210. Operation and maintenance of parks, parkways and grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa and Hull, and general administration, $2,831,000.
215. Interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $2,000,000.
220. Payment to the national capital fund $7,500,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L55. Loans to the national capital commission in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region excluding property being acquired for the purpose of establishing what is commonly referred to as the "Green-belt", $10,000,000.
L60. Loans to the national capital commission, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in that area of the national capital region commonly referred to as the "Greenbelt", $4,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 18, 1963