1963-10-03

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. In the debate on the amendment to the Old Age Security Act two evenings ago there was an unfortunate reluctance by some members opposite, and in particular the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), to accept my word with respect to an alleged tape recorded interview which had been held and published in last Friday's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail. I beg to call to the attention of the house, and particularly the hon. member, a report which appears on the front page of today's issue of the Globe and Mail. I wish, sir, to read it into the record. It is as follows:
Health minister Judy LaMarsh has denied in the commons that she suggested there were any grounds for accusing the Lesage government in Quebec as "Nazi-to-be". Thanking the member who gave her the opportunity to make the denial, Miss LaMarsh said she had never made such a statement at any time to anyone.
The issue arose as the result of an interview on the subject of pensions which Miss LaMarsh had given to a staff writer of the Globe and Mail. The interview was published in Friday editions of this newspaper.
A report in Wednesday's editions of the Globe and Mail on the commons exchange stated erroneously that a tape recorder had been used during the interview. While the newspaper had considered the possibility of recording the interview and while this possibility had been mentioned to Miss LaMarsh, no tape recorder was used. The Globe and Mail regrets this error in its account of the debate and any embarrassment it may have caused Miss LaMarsh.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him what is the present position with respect to the threatened strike by the longshoremen. What action is being taken, and what are the hopes of this dispute being settled?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the special mediator appointed to deal with this matter has met with the shipping federation, and he also met separately with the longshoremen. I understand he has a meeting this afternoon with both groups, and at that meeting he will attempt to mediate the differences between the two parties concerned. I think we must give Judge Lippe an opportunity to exhaust all possibilities in the process of mediation before undertaking any further action at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: In the event that there is not a settlement, has the government a plan in mind to prevent this very serious situation developing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the situation is serious in light of a possible strike. It ought to be realized that any strike contemplated is fully lawful in the situation, because it would occur after a seven day interval following the report of the conciliation board. However, the government is keeping a very careful watch on the situation and will decide what steps should be taken in the event of any breakdown in the mediation process. But I think it would be premature to assume at this stage that they will be unsuccessful in reaching a settlement.



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can advise the house what the delay is in dealing with the great lakes situation, and when is the government expecting to take action in order to resolve this serious situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government has placed on the order paper at the earliest possible moment a resolution providing for the introduction of legislation for the establishment of a public trusteeship. Under our parliamentary process today would be the first day that it would be possible to deal with that matter. However, a very intensive consideration of this problem is being undertaken today in Ottawa. The under secretary of labour for the United States, Mr. Reynolds, has been in Ottawa since ten o'clock this

Inquiries oj the Ministry morning; discussions are going on and contact is being maintained from this central discussion with other groups in the search for an inter-union settlement. In those circumstances it would be my view that it would be premature to proceed until all the possibilities for an inter-union settlement have been exhausted.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. In view of what the minister has said, are we to believe that it is now left to the United States government to resolve this dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government realizes the importance and seriousness of this matter and has been acting in a very constructive and determined way since the receipt of the Norris commission report. On the other hand, as I have said already, the government intends to proceed with this legislation unless a solid and effective alternative is presented. The Canadian labour movement, I am sure, is quite capable of deciding what should be done in consultation with the Canadian government, and the government is quite capable, following such consultation, of deciding what is an effective and solid alternative. I think it would be irresponsible in the situation not to allow for the possibility of an inter-union arrangement in which the Canadian Labour Congress would be a full participant.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a further supplementary question. What is the role of the undersecretary of labour for the United States in this dispute, since he is here in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it has been obvious for some months now that the good offices of the undersecretary of labour of the United States have been available to assist in the settlement of the situation which, as the hon. member knows, has very serious international implications. The secretary of labour and his under secretary have lent their good offices in the search for this solid, effective alternative in the form of an inter-union arrangement.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Newspaper reports suggest that the Minister of Labour is bringing pressure on Canadian trade union leaders to accept a private trusteeship in which the final appeal will be to the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. labour movement of the United States. I want to ask the minister first whether he will deny that; and second, whether he will assure the house that if government trusteeship legislation is abandoned we can be sure that any private trusteeship will be effective, and that it will be


vested in Canada and under the control of the Canadian labour movement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is altogether false to suggest that the Minister of Labour of Canada has put any pressure on the officers of the Canadian Labour Congress to accept any such settlement, and I believe the officers of the Canadian Labour Congress would be the first to admit that I have consulted them in a spirit of responsibility at every stage of these negotiations. The Canadian Labour Congress and the various labour bodies concerned in Canada will obviously be permitted to express their views and to make their own decisions, because any alternative to government action will provide for an arrangement between the two labour sectors, one in the United States and one in Canada; and surely it is not the purpose of the Canadian government to put pressure on the C.L.C. to reach a decision which in its judgment would be contrary to its best interests.
I can assure the hon. member that our purpose in this situation is to establish an effective alternative if possible. If that should not be possible the government will proceed with its public trusteeship legislation. I assure hon. members there will be no disposition on the part of the Canadian government to enter into an arrangement, or withdraw, in this situation if the alternative in our judgment would not be effective, or fail to protect Canadian interests.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. May I ask the minister if he himself has seen the United States under secretary of labour, or if the latter is here for the purpose of exerting such pressure as he may choose on the Canadian trade union leaders?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I saw Mr. Reynolds this morning and had a discussion with him in which we reviewed the situation. To my knowledge the under secretary has had no direct contact with the officers of the Canadian Labour Congress, and in the circumstances any contact would be undertaken, at least initially, through officials of my department or myself. I wish to assure the hon. member that the under secretary of labour has come to Canada as the result of a request which I made to the secretary of labour of the United States that an honest search should be continued toward a solution of this difficult question. We are honestly searching to find out what alternatives may still remain and whether the differences may be reconciled. That is the purpose of the under secretary's visit. There is certainly no intention that he come here to exert pressure on the Canadian government or the Canadian Labour Congress.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with interest to the fulsome praise of the activities of the secretary of labour of the United States in this connection-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Pearson:: How cheap can he get?


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen say
"shame". Apparently they want United States interference in Canadian labour matters. I want to ask the minister this. Did the secretary of labour, Mr. Wirtz, advise the shipping company in Toronto that it ought not to allow its ship to go to Chicago? I am referring, of course, to the Leiteh shipping company.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no knowledge whatever that the secretary of labour has made any representations to Mr. Leiteh with respect to the disposition of any ship. I wish to assure the right hon. gentleman that the secretary of labour has made no such representations to me as Minister of Labour.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouefle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken any decision regarding the appointment of a new president of the Canadian National Railways and if not, when does it intend to do so?
1 Text}


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope to be able to make an announcement on this matter tomorrow.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Could he tell the house whether it is true that the raise in taxes to pay for the old age pension increase is due to the fact that the province of Quebec refuses to take part in the federal pension plan, as stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh)?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the tax in question will be for the purpose of increasing the pension to all Canadians; therefore all Canadians will participate in the plan.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF PENSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning today's order paper. As he will notice, item No. 16 is to introduce a measure to establish a Canada pension plan, and this particular resolution includes a clause:
-for the payment of an additional pension of ten dollars a month to all persons to whom a pension may be paid under the Old Age Security Act;
My question is, would he give a little direction and leadership to the house, and I think probably to the house leader and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to get the resolution off the order paper, or explain to the house whether he is going to add this on to the $75 provided in item No. 8?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a little direction to the hon. gentleman, because I know he needs it, and I will look into this important matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesier-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are lay-offs of personnel employed at H.M.C.S. Dockyard, Halifax, expected this fall? If so, when, and how many employees will be affected?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the type of question that should go on the order paper.



D.E.W. LINE-APPLICATION OF EMPLOYEES FOR UNION CERTIFICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been called to a press dispatch in Le Devoir of September 26 to the effect that a United States company is arguing before the Canada labour relations board that its 600 employees on bases on the D.E.W. Line should be deprived of their rights to belong to a trade union and to bargain collectively by virtue of a Canada-United States treaty relating to these bases? What action does the minister propose to protect the rights of the Canadian workers concerned?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for notice of his question. I just wish to tell him that the international brotherhood of electrical workers covering the employees of the Federal Electric Company has an application for certification before the Canada labour relations board at present. Recently the board heard evidence on this point and reserved its decision. I feel we must wait first for the decision of the Canada labour relations board before going further into the matter.



REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the house of the decision reached by his department and the government following the energetic, loud but well-founded protests of the hon. members for Bonaventure and Gaspe (Messrs. Bechard and Cyr) to the effect that the Gaspe region be designated as a depressed area so that it may benefit from the advantages granted by the government in such cases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour has had a proposal under consideration for some time, as I indicated in the house some weeks prior to the adjournment, with respect to the declaration of certain areas in Canada of high winter unemployment and to cover two special programs that I announced, I believe, on June 10; namely the accelerated supplementary construction program and the additional 10 per cent for the municipal incentive program. These two measures were intended specifically for the areas of high winter unemployment.
The government has made a decision as to the designation of these areas of high winter unemployment, and I hope to be able to give the details to the house as soon as possible. I am sure this matter will be of interest to all hon. members of the house, including the two hon. gentlemen to whom my hon. friend has referred.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Solicitor General. When will the committee be set up to deal with the problem of consumer credit?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that committee will be set up as soon as more urgent business of the house has been disposed of.



REGULATIONS RESPECTING MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell us when the regulations under the municipal development act will be published so the act can become operative?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: These are now in the process of being discussed with representatives of the provinces, and it is my hope that they will come to a conclusion shortly.



REPORTED THREAT OF RETALIATORY ACTION BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this question, but my understanding is that such a relationship already exists between the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their opposites in the United States.']
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question in regard to his recent meetings in Washington. What was the nature of the retaliatory action threatened by United States commerce secretary Hodges in the event that the Canadian government presses forward with the action commenced by the previous Canadian administration in encouraging the manufacture of more car parts and components in Canada? The retaliatory action referred to was mentioned by Mr. John Meyer in today's Gazette.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: My question is intended for the Prime Minister. Is it the government's intention to consider in the near future the possibility of accrediting an ambassador to the Vatican?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy, and when there is an announcement to be made it will be made in the house.
[Mr. Brewin.l


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Press reports indicate that he informed the United States government at the recent joint cabinet meeting in Washington that Canada had a new three year aid program to benefit commonwealth countries. Would the minister let the house in on the secret?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the right hon. gentleman I should like to say that I have not seen the report which suggested we had indicated an announcement of policy. I did inform those with whom we were conferring in Washington that Canada was giving consideration to its external aid program and hoped to be in a position some time within the foreseeable future to make a definite announcement as to the nature of that new policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Stripped of the extra words, did the hon. gentleman tell the United States government that Canada had a new three year plan for commonwealth assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked me another question. I did say in addition that I hoped we would be in a position to announce that program of external aid for a period of at least three years.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. The morning papers report that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) has stated before the Montreal Rotary Club that the federal government should vacate the provincial field. Was he then expressing the policy of the government?


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Would the Prime Minister tell the house if he shares the view expressed last night by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) who said that the central government cannot go on any longer acting as it does now, that is presenting
Inquiries of the Ministry legislation and then, following a province's reactions, reach a compromise satisfactory to all concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is against the rules to ask questions of this kind relating to private members' statements. This question is quite improper.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It has been brought to my attention that expense allowances for members of the other place are being paid on a different basis than those being paid to members of the House of Commons. Can the minister assure the house that the law is being compiled with in respect to these allowances?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into the matter and advise my hon. friend as soon as I have the information.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the house leader and ask whether he would inform the house what course will be followed for Thanksgiving and Armistice days.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that, with the amount of business that still requires to be done in the present session, it will be necessary for the house to sit on both these days, and indeed on every possible sitting day for most of the rest of this year. I would imagine, however, that if there are ceremonies in Ottawa that would conflict in any way with the sittings of the house on Remembrance day, the sittings would be suitably adjusted. I refer to national ceremonies.
May I be permitted to respectfully suggest to Your Honour that on an early occasion you read to the house the admirable statement made by your predecessor, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) about questions on the orders of the day?


Mr. Mandziuk:: Which you ignored.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did the minister get in touch with the Attorney General of the United States in order to obtain all possible information regarding the connection between the American crime syndicate (Cosa Nostra) and organized crime in Canada, in conjunction with legal authorities of certain provinces, Ontario among others?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. As to the second part, I think that this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of provincial rather than federal authorities.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister initiate a meeting of Canadian and United States police officials to establish a police liaison committee which would speed information about and action against crime?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this question, but my understanding is that such a relationship already exists between the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their opposites in the United States.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture; I am sorry I have not given him notice. Would the minister advise the house whether the government has removed the quotas on United States turkeys entering Canada? If so, on what date were they removed?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, the quota has not been removed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. I am under the impression it has been, and following the minister's answer I was going to ask him if he had been able to secure any concession or reciprocal arrangement with regard to Canadian cheese entering the United States.


Mr.   Hayes@: Mr. Speaker, this is quite involved and probably the question should be put on the order paper.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the answer which the Minister of Agriculture gave me a few moments ago with regard to quotas on United States turkeys coming into Canada, and in order to relieve any confusion in the industry, I wonder whether he would care to review that answer and maybe clarify it right now.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought this question up again, because we have been discussing the removal of the quota on turkeys since last spring.
On August 21 it was decided that this should be done, and an order in council was passed on August 26 to this effect. Our reason for doing this was that turkeys imported into Canada are protected by a tariff of 5 cents per pound, and also the fact that the discounted dollar provides for another 2J cents per pound protection which, plus the freight, amounts to something like 9 cents per pound before United States turkeys compete with Canadian turkeys.
It was also our feeling at the time this was decided that feed conditions in Canada were such that turkeys could be fed as reasonably here as they could in the United States, and there was no danger of any importations of United States turkeys affecting the price of Canadian turkeys. The matter was discussed with the turkey people before we decided on this course and they are quite familiar with the action that has been taken. I am referring to the Canadian turkey federation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I thank him for bringing us up to date, because we were in a state of confusion until he clarified this matter. I would like to ask the minister, is it not a fact that he is in accord with the devaluation of the Canadian dollar that made this transaction possible?



INQUIRY AS TO IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the position of the Canadian cheese market, does the government intend to proceed with its plan to import cheese from New Zealand in order to transform that

cheese into a by-product for export to the United States, notwithstanding the objection raised by the Canadian farmers' unions?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this question should
possibly be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We do have in Canada a very favourable trade balance with New Zealand and we are not importing any cheese from New Zealand. This will be government policy. If it is changed at that time, it will be announced in the house.



SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES TO DECREASED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. During his recent swing through the prairies he asked the farmers to produce less wheat. What is the alternative to the production of wheat?


Harry William Hays: Oats, barley and cattle.


An hon. Member:: And turkeys.



SUPPLIES OP FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: While I am on my feet, on orders of the day on Tuesday last the hon. member for Beauce inquired whether I intended to order the construction of feed grain bins for the benefit of eastern farmers so as to reduce the cost of feed grain to the eastern feed mills.
As the hon. member undoubtedly knows, the government announced in August a new feed grain policy under which it will pay storage charges over the winter months on western feed grains in eastern elevators, and an estimate will be presented to the house to implement this program which, along with the freight payments, provides very substantial assistance in reducing the cost of feed grains to eastern producers. It will also help materially in ensuring adequate stocks of feed grains for eastern Canada.



CANADIAN FLAG


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister of Canada? Following some of his previous statements, could the Prime Minister inform the house when he intends to set up a
Inquiries of the Ministry special committee to choose a distinctive emblem for Canada, that is a flag and a national anthem, as he has promised to do before 1965?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will discharge our commitment in this regard, and it might not require a committee of the House of Commons first.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand his department is now closing the $50 million air force jet training station at Penhold. I wonder if he would mind telling the house where the personnel of that training centre will be placed, and where a new training centre will be opened?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The personnel who will not be required there will be used at another base where service flying will be undertaken. This will be chosen from existing R.C.A.F. bases, and will be well suited for the purpose.


Henry Frank Jones: Can the
Minister of National Defence tell us whether Saskatoon is on the list of those air force stations that will receive consideration for the new jet base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think all R.C.A.F. bases would be considered, but I would not want to hold out too much hope to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How many jet air training stations could replace this station at Penhold? Some are suitable and some are not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the list is lengthy, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman would put his question on the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if the department contemplates a change in the activity of the departmental icebreakers on the lower St. Lawrence next winter in view of the importance of winter navigation in that area.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: I could get a complete answer for that question if it were put on the order paper. I could answer it now, but I do not think it has the urgency of the type required by our rules.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker will decide that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General tell the house whether he received a request from the Quebec city letter carriers concerning the numerous disadvantages which exist in the new post office, such as, for instance, rooms too small for the gathering of letter carriers and a ceiling light badly set up for good visibility.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, the answer is no. As for the second part, I deny it as such.



TISDALE, SASK.-REMOVAL OF TELEPHONE FROM POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Would the minister instruct his officials to investigate the reason for removing the telephone from the post office at Tisdale?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will please put his question on the order paper he will get a complete answer.



INQUIRY AS TO ISSUE OF COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the government's intention to issue a postage stamp dedicated to world peace, does the government also intend to issue a postage stamp commemorating the acquisition of American nuclear arms by Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret that so many of the hon. gentleman's questions are both foolish and out of order.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and perhaps before doing so I may be permitted to welcome him back to the house for this part of the session. Does he intend to submit a report on the activities of the United Nations assembly which he has been attending, with particular reference to whether the serious financial problem they had has been resolved and if the solution has been acceptable?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his initial remarks. The question to which he refers has not been resolved, and it will be one of the matters that will be considered in part at this assembly. It will probably not be resolved until the next assembly.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister of northern affairs arises from the fact that he sent a committee of his officials to the Yukon to report to him on the feasibility of maintaining the Haines cut-off road. Has the minister received this report as yet, and if so is any action intended by the government to keep the road open this winter?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I made an extensive tour to the northwest, including the United States panhandle, the Prince Rupert area and the Yukon, and I became aware of some important transportation problems of considerable consequence to Canada. I arranged for some five senior officials to go there and make a report on the problems. They have now returned to their posts in Ottawa but their report is not completed, and until it is I cannot say what government action will be taken.



INQUIRY AS TO RECREATIONAL PARKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Could the minister inform the house whether the recreational parks program that was discussed in the house last June 26 has been launched; and if so, will it be included in the winter works program?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice?



YUKON-WORK OF COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether he could inform the house what progress the special interdepartmental committee set up by his predecessor and minister of northern affairs has made with regard to agricultural development in the Yukon?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to put that question on the order paper.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I note that in the legislation that is proposed for the rest of this session there is no mention of the recommendations which were contained in the O'Leary report. Would he inform the house whether any legislation is planned this session to implement any of these recommendations, or otherwise to protect the Canadian magazine industry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, of course that is a matter of policy on which I would not be in a position to give an answer.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Before the house adjourned the minister was considering the general frigate program. I am wondering whether the minister is still considering that program, and whether he has at last reached a decision on it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that a decision will be reached soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry



BILINGUAL SIGNS ON DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS VEHICLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell the house when his department intends to have bilingual markings placed on trucks and other vehicles serving national defence headquarters? What positive measures is the department taking in that respect?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say when the government expects the report from the committee which was appointed to inquire into the possibility of establishing collective bargaining rights for the civil service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say when that report will be received. My hon. friend knows this is an important and complicated matter and will take some time, but I will be glad to look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, is it still the hope of the government to introduce legislation on this matter this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the hope of the government to have legislation on this matter as soon as that can be arranged, but it will be some time before that will be possible.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but perhaps in his absence the Prime Minister would answer because of the widespread interest in the matter. Would the Prime Minister agree to table in the house the recent trade agreement signed between his government and the government of Russia, excluding from it those portions dealing with the wheat sale?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take that up with the minister and see what can be done in that respect.



SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would tell us what steps, if any, he took to advise the Russians of the advantages of making use of the port of Churchill with regard to the recently announced wheat shipments?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this was answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I just do not know which day. I think it was last Monday.


Henry Frank Jones: I was asking what the Minister of Agriculture had done in this regard, if anything?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is it expected by the government that the St. Irenee airport, Charlevoix county, can be maintained in operation during next winter?
[Text!


George James McIlraith: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE.  INQUIRY AS TO TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house as to the new developments that have taken place as regards the building of an air terminal in Bagotville?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can do that if the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper so that I may have the opportunity of preparing a suitable reply.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR EMPLOYMENT OF BILINGUAL PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that unilingualism still prevails on several T.C.A. lines in the province of Quebec and elsewhere, what steps does the department intend to take in order to provide us with the service of bilingual stewardesses on all T.C.A. lines?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's lengthy question contains some assertions that are not in accordance with the facts. As to the substantive part of the question, I will deal with that later if I am permitted to take the question as notice. I will bring the hon. member an answer in the next day or so.



CONSTRUCTION IN CANADA OF NEW PLANES TO BE ACQUIRED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell the house whether there were recent developments concerning the construction of Caravelles by Canadair in Montreal for T.C.A.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not catch the whole of the question. I wonder whether the hon. member would put his question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it true that the negotiations relating to the North Pacific fisheries are in a stalemate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, I must say that the negotiations are not yet completed.

l Text]

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

["Order; the hour appointed for private members' business having expired, the house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.", '\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.']
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $747,449,955.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except fisheries item 45, northern affairs and national resources item 10 and public works items 20 and 190 for which the proportion is one twelfth and except atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 107 and loans, investments and advances item L20 for which no proportion is requested, $640,449,276.00;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport item 35, $820,000.00;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of agriculture item 50, $178,833.34;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 25, 100 and 145, citizenship and immigration item 30, transport item 10, of the said estimates, $3,583,608.34;
(e)	two twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except external affairs item 96a, finance item 5a, northern affairs and national resources item 110a, and loans, investments and advances items L13a and L63a, $48,103,070.00;
(f)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117a, $84,240.00;
(g)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 116a, $280,800.00;
(h)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,166,666.67;
(i)	two twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $3,333,333.34;
(j)	eight twelfths of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $49,444,457.34;
(k)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 117d, $5,670.00;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am taking the first opportunity which has presented itself-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Grafftey:: Before I proceed, Mr. Chairman, was the Minister of Finance about to make a statement at the outset of the debate?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to make a statement at the outset of this debate at the resolution stage, but
Interim Supply
if hon. members have any questions they would like to put to me I would be very glad to do my best to answer them.


Mr. Churchill:: Just on a point of clarification, is the minister going to give the usual undertaking regarding the submission of these estimates?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I understood that that was usually given when the bill was before the committee, but I will be glad to do it now. This resolution provides two twelfths of the items in the main and supplementary estimates tabled prior to the adjournment and includes eight twelfths of the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, bringing the total supply which would be released to date up to eight twelfths of the total estimates if the bill is passed. There are a small number of items required in addition to these proportions because of the seasonal nature of the expenditures.
When the bill is presented it will also include additional borrowing authority up to $500 million. I should like to assure the committee that the proportions requested in the bill, as hon. members will see when it is before the committee, are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to November 30, 1963. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by the bill. The form of this bill is the usual one for interim supply bills, and the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to question or criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to thank the minister for his most helpful and useful statement. Before this committee votes interim supply it is my duty and my purpose to bring to the notice of hon. members certain recent developments in this country, developments which, in the opinion of the majority of our members on this side of the house, if continued will have serious effects on Canada and on all Canadians.
These developments relate to the total collapse of the majority of the government's major legislative proposals as contained in the speech from the throne. They relate, in fact, to the total collapse of the Pearson plan for moving our economy ahead and for upholding the myth of improving Canada's prestige abroad.
Why has such a collapse taken place? Many Canadians of all political stripes are asking

Interim Supply
this question today. It has happened because the government, by its dictatorial arrogance and by its lack of consultation with the people and with local authorities during its short time in office, has lost touch with reality and with the people of Canada.
In my brief remarks this afternoon I should like to touch with equal brevity on some background historical material. During the war years and the post-war years, Canadians willingly gave up many of their normal freedoms in order to bring the world conflict to a successful conclusion. In the fifties the Liberal establishment was denied by the people of Canada, speaking through their duly elected members in this House of Commons, the possession of complete emergency powers forever. That was in 1956 and 1957. One would have thought the Grits would have learned their lesson. Yet the dictatorial arrogance of 1956 and 1957 was only a minor tune as compared with the symphony of confusion we have today. I say that the Pearson-Gordon-LaMarsh attitude must go. Canadians of all parties-and this includes Liberals, Conservatives and members of other political parties from the Atlantic to the Pacific- demand that it should go for the good of Canada.
Many people in Canada today say they see little difference in the approach of the political parties to major public issues. Perhaps that is something for which all members in this house are to blame to a greater or lesser degree. Nevertheless, for those of us who have examined Liberal doctrine and the position taken by the Grits, there is no difficulty in discovering the reason for contemporary confusion. Only the other day backbenchers of the party opposite castigated the cabinet in general and individual ministers in particular. I am sure this is the first time in the history of modern democracy that a ministry has been castigated by its backbenchers for losing touch not only with the people of Canada but with its own supporters in parliament.
There is another matter which I think should be brought up again and again both on the floor of the chamber and outside; something which will make clear beyond doubt the difference between the political parties in this country today, a difference which will soon become readily apparent to all Canadians. The hon. lady who a number of weeks ago proposed or seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne enunciated a Liberal collectivist theory which was not denied by anyone in the Liberal high command. This theory means, in essence, that the individual today does not count in the eyes of the government; he does not know what is good for him. According to this

theory the Liberal establishment will tell him what is good for him, and government decisions will be enforced in every locality whether wanted or not.
What happened yesterday? We asked the Minister of Labour whether, before he decreed that certain municipalities were to be declared depressed areas, the local authorities had been consulted in advance. The minister did not answer because he knew the local authorities had not been consulted. These municipalities are to be declared depressed areas whether they want it or not, merely because someone here in Ottawa has a chart which says they must be called depressed areas. Lack of consultation is one of the major reasons why the whole government's domestic program is on the rocks. Arrogance, lack of humility and lack of consultation have produced this situation. I notice the superior attitude of the President of the Privy Council. He looks across at me as if I were a young school boy who knows nothing about the intricacies of the planners. I say to him that planning or no planning, in a confederation such as Canada you should consult the local authorities before superimposing decisions on them from the top.
Before I catalogue in some detail the results of this attitude there is another thing I should like to say. It relates to our great civil service. But before I bring this subject to the attention of our members, and to make sure that responsibility will surround the debate in this regard, I wish to say that in my opinion Canada happens to be blessed with one of the finest civil services in the free world. Nothing that I have to say relates to any desire on my part to amend the Civil Service Act or the departmental regulations concerning political activity in the civil service. I want to make that perfectly clear before I proceed with the remarks I wish to make.
Having said that, I wish to emphasize and re-emphasize that we are witnessing a phenomenon which I think is unprecedented in parliamentary history in the modern western world, namely the composition of the ministry which is before us today. The Liberal ministry of today is made up to the extent of more than one third, of former senior civil servants.
I do not intend to suggest that this in itself is a bad thing, but I am going to say this; that in Canada today under the parliamentary system, Montesquieu's separation of powers theory does not necessarily, in toto or in part, apply to parliamentary democracy. We in the Canadian parliament only have true freedom when there is a real separation between the administrative and legislative wings of government and I maintain that with the present ministry, one third of which is composed of

former senior bureaucrats, we do not have that desirable state of freedom today. Having already said, and I reiterate, that we have in Canada one of the finest civil services in the western world, I say that this point must be placed again and again before the people of Canada.
I have often talked to the Secretary of State privately and I know he feels that I belabour this point to an absurd degree, but I think this situation must be looked at seriously today regardless of any consideration of amendments to the Civil Service Act or departmental regulations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman repeat that sentence? I apologize to him. As he knows, I have one deaf ear and I was giving the other to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


William Heward Grafftey: Since I am not reading from a text it is hard for me to go back. I will never forget the spectacle of the Prime Minister meeting all the deputy ministers after the election. I thought this was a very poor move. It was as if he was saying "Hello, boys, here we are again; we are the only establishment you can ever work with for the good of Canada". What palpably absurd nonsense. No matter how much yelling I hear from the opposite benches I am going to bring this point before the house and the people of Canada time and time again.
I have brought the point before the House of Commons that much of the Liberal economic program has foundered on the rocks because of a lack of consultation with local authorities and the people. It has always been a Conservative principle to put emphasis on the wishes of the people and the dignity of the individual. We realize that in our federal union, to dictate from Ottawa without consulting the local authorities crushes individual initiative and spells disaster.
I am not thinging about this only for today, Mr. Chairman. Burke, one of the great founders of Conservative principles, placed great emphasis on the importance of local self-agency. This is a principle or doctrine that Liberalism has never been able to claim, so let us not be surprised at what is happening today. The people of Canada should recognize this difference in principle. Burke's idea of local self-agency is a principle which is very important to Canadian Conservatism in 1963.
In the speech from the throne we heard about the notion of co-operative federalism. As far as most members on this side of the house are concerned, co-operative federalism denotes a high degree of consultation. What have we seen in the few short months since? I put this straight question to the
Interim Supply
Minister of National Health and Welfare. When the hon. lady introduced the universal contributory pension scheme on the floor of the House of Commons on July 18 last was she aware-yes or no-of Mr. Lesage's intentions, either from her colleagues in the cabinet or through reading the province of Quebec press? If she was aware, why did she go blindly ahead? This question has not been answered. Here again we have a lack of co-operation and a lack of consultation with the provinces.
The Minister of Labour admitted that he did not consult the Minister of Finance before he brought in the $500 bonus for home builders. I asked the Minister of Labour repeatedly yesterday, do you intend to consult the municipalities before declaring that they are depressed areas? I did not get an answer. Why? Because Liberal doctrine dictates that there is no consultation. Whether or not the municipality wants to be designated a depressed area, it is going to be called one. Under our administration we did not call them distressed areas; they were labour surplus areas. The legislation was made public and situations were dealt with on the basis of local initiative.
Surely the Minister of Finance must realize that his budget and the major economic measures he intended to introduce on the floor of the House of Commons-hon. members may laugh, but these are the facts and the people of Canada know them-to move the economy ahead floundered. Why? Because of a lack of consultation. With regard to the municipal loans legislation there was no consultation with local authorities or the provinces. In respect of the budget there was no consultation with senior civil servants. It is no wonder that because of a lack of consultation an integral part of the whole economic program of the government has floundered, much to the regret of all Canadians who put country before party.
I hope that never again will a tax be levied and then revised as was done in the case of the tax on building materials. I am not going into details in this regard.
However, the retail lumbermen's association met in Vancouver last week, and its members were most alarmed at the slow-down in construction which is directly attributable to this tax. In the city of Calgary alone construction has declined by $30 million in the period from June 14 until now compared with a similar period last year.
Much to our incredible surprise we also see no consultation among the cabinet ministers themselves. The Prime Minister says that the health plan should be submitted to a parliamentary committee. The Minister of National

Interim Supply
Health and Welfare says that she hopes it will not be and it should not be. We hear free trade doctrines coming out of the mouth of the Minister of Trade and Commerce while on the other hand the new Minister of Industry preaches protectionism.
Every Canadian wants to see the world fair under way and preparations completed on time, but look at the confusion and lack of consultation that have existed up until now. Just the other day a suggestion emanated from the government that they may name a Liberal backbencher as a liaison officer between the authorities in Montreal and Ottawa. Will this add more confusion to the confusion already existing? We do not know, but we do know that many of the difficulties with regard to the world fair up to now have been caused by a lack of consultation. That is a phrase I am reiterating time and time again in my brief speech this afternoon.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether before designating areas for ARDA projects the local authorities were consulted. The minister could not even give me an answer. In every country in the western world with legislation like ARDA the programs are based on the idea of local initiative, but even after repeated questioning the Minister of Agriculture could not guarantee to the house that ARDA projects would be designated only after consultation with the local authorities.
I am not taking sides at the present time in the classical debate of centralization versus provincial rights, but whether you feel that Canada is in danger of being balkanized too much or whether you feel that Canada should not have too much central government, no matter what side you take in this debate, I think all hon. members recognize the desirability of setting up within a very short time some sort of agency or secretariat for federal-provincial relations.
I say, and many members have said inside and outside this house, that such an agency or secretariat will not necessarily solve all the problems, but it will go a long way toward helping to channel communication with different levels of government. I say to the ministry opposite in the name of the people governed, first of all let us consult local authorities. Let us all realize that the original Pearson myth for improving our image abroad is long dead, as the Pearson plan for moving our economy ahead is dead. Let us make it plain that dictatorial arrogance has no place in a young, dynamic nation like Canada that will soon be celebrating its 100th birthday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to mention my satisfaction at the

re-election to the Social Credit government in British Columbia. It is a fact, as Premier Bennett of British Columbia often said, that every time a Social Credit government is elected in any part of Canada, nobody seems able to defeat it. The same thing will happen federally as soon as the Canadian electorate decides to rely on a progressive government instead of having an administration resorting to the same old tricks since confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the ways some income tax inspectors are terrorizing the people of the province, of the country and more particularly of my own riding. No sooner were the last income tax returns submitted by the Canadian taxpayers, than inspectors in the Rouyn-Noranda area office started playing around with the receipts for charitable donations and established on their own initiative the amount allowable for each taxpayer. Receipts for $700 or $800 were reduced in the Rouyn local office to $100, a reduction of $500 and $600. And the government gives a free hand to those inspectors, those leeches who are literally terrorizing the people who are earning their living through hard work. I consider shameful that such zealots be tolerated in the service of a government or a state such as Canada.
I therefore vehemently protest against the acts of those people who enter almost forcibly in private homes, small businesses and practically paralyse the economy of our area. Please note, Mr. Chairman, that the government has designated that district as an economically depressed area. In the same area were also included Val d'Or and Rouyn. I will have something more to say about that depressed area in a moment.
There is another point I would like to raise in this house, and I am sorry that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) is away, because it concerns his department. This concerns patronage. We often hear from civil servants and government members that there is no patronage at the federal level, that in Ottawa British traditions are respected and that a man is entitled to only one vote; the member of parliament is respected; the Conservative, Social Credit and N.D.P. or Liberal member was elected by a majority in his riding and he is respected as such.
Recently, in my constituency, without my knowing it and without anybody being aware of it except those who imparted the information to me, the Post Office Department issued a tender call for repairs to or repainting of mail boxes. The Liberal candidate in the last election, Mr. Stephen Cuddihy, received tender forms, met a painting contractor and asked him to tender for those repairs saying:

"You have two employees working for you, make them each send a tender a little higher than yours in order to obtain the job for yourself." Take good note of that. The Liberal candidate who lost by 11,000 votes at the last election is the one going around with tender blanks. Note that those tender forms concerning that job were never posted in the Noranda post office nor advertised in the papers.
Well, the man in question makes his tender. I have a copy here and the copy, like the original, was prepared at the Noranda post office by the postmaster, Mr. Langlois. Now, those tenders never reached Ottawa or North Bay. They seem to have remained in the Noranda post office. But the funniest part is that the next day-note that the tenders were called on July 25, while the date limit was August 7, 1963-the same Mr. Cuddihy goes to another Rouyn garage, the Thibault Garage Limited, hands over three other tender forms to the Liberal organizer, Mr. Georges Thibault, who is treasurer of the Liberal party in Villeneuve riding, and tells him: "Prepare a tender and find two fellows in the garage who will turn in a tender higher than yours, so that you will get the contract." Imagine that. No patronage. It does not matter.
Then I wrote to the post office deputy minister in Ottawa asking him the names of those who had tendered to repair mail boxes in Noranda and he answered on September 20, 1963:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of September 23 concerning the repairing and painting of 16 relay cabinets in Rouyn-Noranda.
We received the three following tenders:
Mr. George Thibault, 25 Mgr Rheaume street west, Rouyn, $352.
Mr. J.-H. Thibault-
He is Georges' brother, and the owner of the garage where Georges is employed. As you see, it is quite complete. I go on:
Mr. J.-H. Thibault, 33 Gamble street west, Rouyn, $384.


An hon. Member:: It is a family compact.


David Réal Caouette: Third tender-because three were required-
Mr. Marcel Pepin.
He is the sales manager at the Thibault garage-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Any relation to the minister?


David Réal Caouette: They may be second cousins.
Mr. Chairman, the suggestions of the defeated Liberal candidate are then followed. Four hundred dollars for Marcel Pepin, $384 for J. H. Thibault and $350 for Georges Thibault. The three are employed in the same garage.
28902-5-202
Interim Supply
But that is not all. He tells him: "Prepare your tender, and you are sure to get the contract if yours is lower than the others."
The deputy minister wrote me at the time:
Considering the average price asked throughout Canada for that kind of work, it should be possible to have those boxes repaired and painted for about $200, which, as you will realize, is considerably less than the lowest tender we received.
In view of the foregoing, we intend to call again for public tenders-
The letter upset things to a certain extent at the time.
There was the intention of calling for tenders again to find a contractor who would do the job at a more reasonable price.
The three other tenders did not reach Ottawa, because the deputy postmaster general gave me the list of all tenderers, and there are three of them.
Are you aware that after the 1958 election, a Conservative candidate in that district was sentenced to 24 months, I think, for having played around with the government funds in that way.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that it is plainly dishonest when a Liberal candidate, or whoever it may be, goes with three tender blanks to the owners of one company and suggests a price increase so that they may obtain the contract. This should be condemned and if the postmaster at Noranda is in coalition with the Liberal candidate in this case, I would ask the Postmaster General to have that representative or the postmaster of Noranda sacked. We shall not tolerate such patronage.
A Conservative member purged a prison sentence two, three or four years ago for an offence which may have been more serious, but not very much. And a fellow gets five days for making $115 on a federal government contract. We, in this house, are administering funds belonging to the public, which should be kept in mind.
You know that those three men from the same garage are not in the painting business-don't ask Marcel Pepin to paint mail boxes, because he never saw a paint brush in his life. To ask a gas station manager to paint mail boxes is silly. One should rather ask professional painters. There are complaints about unemployment in that field, more particularly in this season. Those contracts should therefore be given to professional house painters, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit or N.D.P. for all I care.
We are not here to serve a party, but the people as a whole.
So I called the Noranda postmaster and asked him: "How many tenders did you receive?" "Three," he told me. "Do you know

Interim Supply
who sent them?"-"Yes."-"Did you get any others?"-"No."-"You did not receive any other tenders?"-"No."
Two hours later, a copy of Mr. Henri Trepanier's tender, for the sum of $305, reached us. He had not received any reply to his tender. Then I was told at the post office: "It is not my fault. I sent it to North Bay."-"Who is the postmaster in North Bay?"-"Mr. Aurele Filiatreault."
So I wrote Mr. Aurele Filiatreault, in North Bay, to find out what the feeling was about those tenders. And here is what I told him:
Sir,
Would you be kind enough to let me know how you proceed to call for public tenders in the case of mail boxes in your district?
Is it normal and decent to give the tender blanks to the Liberal candidate, S. Cuddihy, defeated by more than 11,000 votes last April? Is it normal and decent that the said Mr. Cuddihy should deliver those blanks to three persons connected with Garage Thibault Ltee of Rouyn.
Are you supposed to play political patronage with tax money paid by everybody?
In case you are not aware of the fact, I wish to inform you that I am the member for Ville-neuve.
And no one in this house can doubt it.
And that as such, I shall not tolerate to see persons rejected by the people practising patronage.
I have nothing against calls for tender being public, displayed in post offices and advertised in the papers. But I strongly object to any dealings going on behind my back, to such an extent that I shall raise the matter in the House of Commons for the sake of democratic principles.
In addition to these three tenders by Garage Thibault Inc., a regular painter submitted a tender in Noranda which was not forwarded to the department. I should like to know who.
Sincerely your,
Real Caouette, M.P.
Two days later I got the following letter: Dear Mr. Caouette,
I refer to your letter of September 25 with regard to the procedure being followed for the repair of mail boxes.
The repair program is under the direct supervision of the Post Office Department headquarters in Ottawa, through the district office and the local postmaster.
Does this mean that those who deal in patronage are the officials of the department headquarters. Nobody knows.
I am therefore taking the liberty of handing over your letter to the headquarters from which you will receive the requested information.
I am waiting for that information from headquarters to see who is meddling with the affairs of the Post Office Department in Canada, at least in Villeneuve county.
Mr. Chairman, the postmaster of Noranda is a perfect gentleman. Mr. Filiatreault's letter indicates that it is the Ottawa office which give orders, but I would be rather inclined to believe that the matter is arranged between Noranda and Ottawa, namely Ottawa

and the Liberal candidate and his treasurer, Mr. Georges Thibault, connected with the Thibault garage.
In any event my investigation goes on in that case and, as I said a while ago, if the postmaster has taken the liberty to go in for political patronage in the constituency of Villeneuve, I ask for his dismissal from the Post Office Department.
Now, let us deal with another matter. Our area is underdeveloped and the government has proposed a solution for all underdeveloped areas in Canada. From what the Prime Minister said yesterday, I conclude that from the economic standpoint all areas in Canada are now underdeveloped, that is in October 1963.
In any event the proposed solution consists in a tax exemption for new industries which settle in our area. Fine solution.
What secondary industries would settle 425 miles from Montreal and Toronto, in the north of the province, when there are not enough people to justify setting up a new industry.
Why not provide for an exemption from direct taxes for the people of that area? They would buy more if their income were higher. The increased demand would bring in new industries.
When the population has doubled in size new industries will be set up. Now, the population is no longer increasing in the district and people are moving north to other places. Some try their luck in the Montreal area, in the eastern townships, in the Quebec district, and in Ontario. Our people are scattered everywhere in the province of Quebec and the western provinces.
It is proposed to give tax exemptions to those new industries. That is like putting a poultice on a wooden leg. It is a worthless solution because, as everybody knows, industry is not interested in paying more for transportation, thereby increasing production costs.
Mr. Chairman, Social Credit has a solution under the present plan. According to mining engineers of our district, if the government were to decide to increase the price of gold by $10 an ounce, there would probably be 30 to 40 new mining concerns in our area. Such companies are basic industries in our region. We have agriculture and lumber but mining is the big thing.
We have mines in Villeneuve, Noranda, Malartic, Cadillac and Rouyn. The possibilities are beyond imagination. The government would just have to raise the price of gold by $10 an ounce for the companies concerned to work those mines. That would increase employment to an unprecedented level. Population would probably double in northwestern Quebec. At that point, secondary or ordinary industries might think it worth

their while to open plants there, because we would have a population and incomes large enough to set the wheels turning. That would be one way to bring about some improvement and a means to pull our district out of its economic stagnation.
Mr. Chairman, the other possible solution has been rejected by the Conservative government. By increasing personal income we would have been able to act, not upon Canadian consumption, but upon Canadian production. It is indeed futile to expect people to buy products when they have no money to do it.
Of course, some industrial sectors would close down. Throughout the length and breadth of Canada we see industries which are at the same economic level as the plants at Noranda. Naturally, the people concerned would like nothing better than to step up production, but what would be the point if nobody were able to buy?
And then you hear about planning. In fact, throughout the country, planners say: Production must be planned, Canadian economy must be planned. And yet, producers do not need the government to tell them to produce.
The government has never accomplished anything alone. It is private enterprise which has made Canada what it is today. Why wish to punish private enterprise now? To meet the needs of government, those of socialism and even communism are trying to permeate everywhere in our country, in the western world and throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, we have production. Producers do not refuse to produce. Moreover, when they have money in their pockets or in the bank, consumers do not need the government to tell them what to do and what not to do. They do not need the government either to tell them what they should buy and what they should not buy. As a matter of fact, it is at that time that the consumer, the individual, the human being really fulfils himself. We also find that a human being enjoys freedom and security when he can choose what he wants with his purchasing power.
It seems that the government has always caused trouble for consumers and producers, both throughout the country and in every province individually.
Mr. Chairman, Social Crediters have a solution. The first is the monetary reform. In fact, everybody knows that this is the most important question. But they cast it aside in order to deal instead with private enterprise. As governments tried to do in the past, they stir up consumers against producers. On the
28902-5-202J
Interim Supply
other hand, they refuse to deal with the monetary problem. They say to themselves: Let us forget about that, we cannot concern ourselves with that.
Let us now see what happens here. At a time when we should be considering the bill providing for an increase in old age pensions we are asked to consider interim supply so as to delay somewhat the examination of the old age pension bill. Later on, when we examine interim supply, we will be accused of having delayed the adoption of the bill to increase old age pensions.
Now, what was to stop the government from introducing that bill this afternoon-and it would probably have been adopted today-to enable treasury board officials to pay the increase to old age pensioners throughout Canada.
But no, they are trying to play politics and later on they will accuse us of delaying the adoption of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, our purpose in taking part in the debate on interim supply is not to delay the increase in old age pensions but to express our views on urgent questions, and especially on monetary reform in Canada.
I know that both Liberals and Conservatives find that funny. They imagine that Social Credit advocates the use of a money printing press.
Well, that is not what Social Credit is; that has never been its policy and our opponents know it.
Gentlemen of the Liberal party, you repeated such things during the election campaign but you knew that you were not telling the truth to the people. We know that and the people are more and more aware of it.
I said yesterday that during the election campaign all members of the Liberal party were discrediting Social Credit throughout the country, saying that it was a hoax. They said that Social Credit had existed in Germany and that it had proven to be a complete failure. And they were also saying: give us a stable Liberal administration in Ottawa and you will not get any tax increases while your pensions and your family allowances will be increased. In fact, not a single Liberal candidate mentioned tax increases during the election campaign.
Yet, once they were elected to power, the first thing the Liberals did was to raise taxes.
We know that in his first budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) suggested a 30 per cent tax on foreign capital. American interests compelled him eventually to abolish that tax, and then the American government lost no time in levying a 15 per cent tax on American investments in Canada. United States citizens grow wealthy on our natural resources, they batten on our toil and

Interim Supply
our sweat. We know also that American interests were responsible for the Liberal victory in Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, Social Crediters have a solution. Instead of listening to financial interests and of deriding us, the government would be well-inspired to lend an ear to the voice of the people, who demand just and equitable laws.
We should listen to the voice of our electors, of the entrepreneurs in our country, of the true builders of Canada, because they are the ones who need us to ensure the economic progress of our country, to create employment of course and to build a prosperous Canada, free from American finance and able to govern itself with its own finance and through the Bank of Canada. In my opinion, it is only if we create such a situation that we will have results.
Mr. Chairman, I said, not only in Quebec but all across Canada: you want to rebuild the Canadian economy? You have no solution, no way to create employment. I said also that we should try an experiment and see the results two years from now, because the results would not be any longer in coming.
I suggested the distribution of $100 to each Canadian citizen, credit based on the wealth of Canada, not extravagance, not an unlimited allowance. I suggested to the people that we should try that.
A family of ten would have received $1,000, a family of five $500, a single person $100. That way we would have put into circulation in Canada a sum of $1,800 million. This would have enabled 80 per cent of the citizens at present involved with the finance companies to pay their debts. This would also have enabled us to sell our produce which is only waiting for buyers at the present time, as it would have enabled us to give industry a new start and to create jobs. Shopkeepers and wholesalers could have increased their staff.
And instead of having his plant in operation only three days a week, the owner could have had it running five days. Then you would be really fighting unemployment efficiently by putting more buying power into the hands of the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, there you have an experiment that should be tried. But some people just will not accept the things Social Credit is asking for. All we ask is Canadian credit based on Canadian wealth. We are not asking for credit based on nothing-


An hon. Member:: It is not worse than the $500 grant.
other hand, everybody knows that in our area it costs $500 more to build in winter. So those $500 would not be of much use.
Mr. Chairman, we must increase the income of the Canadian citizens and more particularly family allowances. On the other hand, they should not be increased only by a dollar, as the Liberals did some 10 years ago. Family allowances should be raised in proportion to the cost of living index. This would be a lot fairer. As it is recognized that the cost of living increased considerably since 1945, let us raise family allowances proportionally.
Let us give also a national dividend to everybody, and poverty among abundance will vanish.
What solutions did they bring in the United States? One could read recently in the newspapers that President Kennedy suggested a reduction in personal income tax in order to increase the people's buying power. In doing so, the government actually loses nothing, because indirect taxes are included in the price of goods. Now, if the consumer spends more the government receives almost as much. The consumer stirs the products and activates the economy of the country.
It is also the means we suggest. Let the government reduce the taxes, and so increase the purchasing power of the consumer, of the human being, and then the consumer shall buy more. With increasing purchases the government will collect indirect taxes which are included in the price of goods, and it will not be deprived of any source of income. Moreover, the producers will be satisfied to sell their products to the consumers in the country.
Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, let me say that I hope we will act according to the mandate under which we were elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I hear some members applauding. Let me say to them that in view of the system and the government they are putting up with at the present time, they will not win applause from their electors, and that will happen soon.
Mr. Chairman, I wish no evil to my colleagues, but I feel that we should act directly according to the physical possibilities which exist in Canada today. Only then will we have served truly our country and our fellow-citizens, consumers or producers, all those


David Réal Caouette: It would be along the line who work for the good of our country and the of the $500 grant proposed by the hon. Min- growth of our economy, thus enabling Canister of Finance to assist those who will be ada to hold its own against any country in building homes during the winter. On the the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am availing myself of the first opportunity which has presented itself since parliament reassembled to register a protest against the action of the government in entering into an agreement with the United States for the acceptance of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces without submitting this agreement to parliament. Indeed, the government has gone much further and has refused to allow parliament to see the agreement upon which this commitment is based. The only document we have which tells us anything about this agreement is the official communique issued by the Prime Minister's office, and therefore I think I should place it on the record since it is, as I say, the only document we have giving us any information at all. It is dated August 16, 1963 and says:
The Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, Prime Minister, announced today that as a result of negotiations begun three years ago and resumed by the present Canadian government after taking office the Canadian and United States governments have reached agreement on the conditions under which nuclear warheads will be made available for Canadian forces engaged in North American defence and assigned to NATO. The weapons systems affected are the "Bomarc B", the Voodoo interceptor, the Honest John artillery rocket and the CF-104 Starfighter strike-reconnaissance aircraft.
In accordance with the requirements of national security and with NATO practice, details will not be published. The arrangements relating to custody and control satisfactorily protect Canada's national interest and conform with the position Canada has taken internationally on the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons.
When the stockpiles are established the warheads will remain in United States custody, and for this purpose small units of United States custodial personnel will be stationed at the Canadian storage sites at bases which will, of course, remain under Canadian command and control. With custody remaining with the United States the arrangement does not add to the numbers of governments having nuclear weapons at their independent disposal. It is also to be noted that provision is made for the application at all times of the most stringent safety measures. Finally, these nuclear warheads cannot be used operationally without the authorization of the Canadian government. Joint control is thus assured.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points with reference to this statement. The first is that the Canadian government has no right under our parliamentary democratic system to make commitments on behalf of the Canadian people without the approval of parliament. The Prime Minister's statement last Monday, September 30, to the effect that this is an agreement and not a treaty is to my mind sheer subterfuge.
This agreement between Canada and the United States does three things. First, it commits Canada to accept nuclear warheads from the United States. Second, it requires Canada to station United States military
Interim Supply
personnel on Canadian soil, and third, it involves a partial surrender of our national sovereignty under conditions of which we, the members of parliament, have no knowledge. We in this party insist that control of all commitments being vested in parliament is a basic tenet of our democratic process. This has long been established in Canada and one would have taken it for granted.
I refer to a statement which was made by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King when he was Prime Minister in 1928. This is what he said:
The day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves, without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings.
In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not confine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the like. I feel that parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far reaching character.
I quote from a little book called "Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age" written by one L. B. Pearson. At page 43 the Prime Minister of Canada says this:
No democratic state-as I have already said-can or should countenance commitments secretly entered into, or adopt policies or make engagements without the people knowing about them and the legislature passing on them.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that there is no word here about treaty. It says that they should not-
-adopt policies or make engagements without the people knowing about them and the legislature passing on them.
May I now refer to another well-known volume called "The Liberal Way" written by J. W. Pickersgill, with a foreword written to it by the Prime Minister in April 1962. On page 133-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could interrupt the hon. gentleman. I do not think he gave the correct title of that book.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "The Liberal Party".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the hon. gentleman said "The Liberal Way".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry. I meant "The Liberal Party".


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is quite a difference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. It has turned out to be
the Liberal give-away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, it was sold.
31S8

Interim Supply


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, the Liberal party has given itself away so palpably that it might well be called a Liberal give-away.
Then, on page 133, it says:
The Liberal party believes that Canada can make a more appropriate and effective contribution to the joint defence of this continent and to the military alliance of the free world by strengthening the so-called conventional armaments of the Canadian forces than by seeking to become a very junior nuclear power with a limited supply of nuclear weapons which, in present circumstances, could not be under Canadian custody.
That is precisely what we are doing. We are becoming a junior partner in a nuclear complex with nuclear arms stationed on our soil, arms over which we do not have complete custody. I say it is sheer subterfuge for the Prime Minister or for any minister of the government to maintain that they do not need the consent of parliament and are not required to place before parliament the details of this agreement on security grounds. I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the Polaris sales agreement between Great Britain and the United States signed on April 6, 1963, has been tabled in the United Kingdom house of commons. This agreement providing for the purchase of Polaris missiles by the United Kingdom government has been made completely public in a document which covers some 11 pages of fine print. In making this information available, the United Kingdom government did as one would expect a democratic government to do, namely to make all the facts available to members of parliament and allow them to express their opinions on the matter. I say that the action of this government in refusing to submit this agreement to parliament and in refusing to allow parliament to even see the agreement is an affront to this parliament, and an attempt to commit the Canadian people to a course of action without having secured the approval of their elected representatives.
Even worse is the fact that they insist that the agreement be treated as a security document. The elected representatives of the people sitting in this chamber do not even know the terms and conditions upon which these warheads have been received. We do not know what machinery has been set up for determining their use. Will a final decision to use these nuclear weapons rest with the commander in the field? In the case of NATO, will it rest with the commander of the NATO forces, or will the use of these nuclear weapons require the joint consent of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States? We do not know. We are simply told that this is a secret agreement which has been entered into by the government of Canada-an agreement which may have far reaching and serious implications

for the people of Canada-but that their members of parliament are not to be allowed to know anything about it or to express any opinion concerning it.
The Liberal party has always talked loudly about its devotion to the supremacy of parliament. Well, that claim has a very hollow sound now. Just a little over a year ago, Liberal members, many of whom are now sitting across the way, made a great deal of noise about the Conservative administration levying import duties without referring the matter to parliament. We agreed with their criticism. We thought the imposition of these import duties should have been referred to parliament. But, surely, the signing of an agreement providing for the acquisition of nuclear warheads has far more serious implications for the people of Canada than did the import duties measure. For any party which professes, as the Liberal party does, to believe in the supremacy of parliament and control by parliament, to take the action they have taken in signing this agreement without reference to parliament, and refusing to let parliament see the agreement, is to be guilty of conduct contrary to the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy.
The second point I wish to make is that this agreement has been signed at a time when the whole international situation has changed and when defence requirements have radically altered. It is now apparent that the two great nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet union, have reached a stalemate. The test ban treaty was the first step in reaching a rapprochement with regard to nuclear weapons. We are in the course of entering upon a phase of defence strategy which has already passed. Defence secretary McNamara made it clear what a relatively unimportant part nuclear warheads on Bomarc missiles play in the present world situation when he appeared before a congressional committee, as reported in the Toronto Star of March 29, in which the following story appears under a Washington dateline:
Defence secretary McNamara says one of the uses of Bomarc anti-aircraft weapons is to draw enemy ballistic missile fire in the event of war. But he agrees that the Bomarc has turned out to be "a very expensive target" for this purpose.
He said he would remove the Bomarcs altogether but for the fact that the annual maintenance costs are no more than $20 million and "X think we are getting our money's worth."
The article goes on:
"If there were any real amount of money to be saved, I would propose taking them out," he told the congressional appropriations committee in closed-door hearings.
The story then continues:
Rep. David Flood (D., Penna.) suggested that if the Bomarcs are pulled out, "we have stuck the Canadians for a whole mess of them and we have another problem on our border."

The fact is that the nuclear warheads which the government is now proceeding to acquire belong to a phase of military activity which is past. We have entered upon a new situation and military men are beginning to recognize this.
In this morning's Globe and Mail there is a report of a speech made by General Macklin. His views are reported as follows:
Canada is throwing away billions of dollars on an ineffective, unco-ordinated defence system, a former adjutant-general of the Canadian Army said yesterday.
Speaking at a luncheon meeting of the Optimist club of Toronto, Maj.-Gen. W. H. S. Macklin suggested unification of the three services and development of a fully-equipped mobile force capable of being moved anywhere at speed.
Later in the report it says:
He suggested the air force should be equipped with transport to move the force, and that there should be tactical aircraft to help the army.
As a matter of fact, there are indications that the Minister of National Defence and some of this advisers are slowly coming around to a new concept of Canada's military role. It is certainly about time, because we have never clearly defined our military role, and for Canada to talk about having a nuclear role in the world of giants, when the two great nuclear powers already have stockpiled sufficient nuclear arms to destroy the human race ten times over, is sheer nonsense. Our role is a role, as military experts are now coming to recognize, of supplying a mobile, highly trained airborne army to provide service either under NATO or as part of a police force for the United Nations. The Toronto Star of Wednesday, September 4 last carried this news item:
A new defence policy based on a small, mobile and airborne army with tactical air support is beginning to take shape, informed sources say.
Object is to create a conventional multipurpose force which could serve the North Atlantic alliance or the United Nations. This will mean eventual integration of the armed forces into a single service, long an idea of Prime Minister Lester Pearson.
It goes on in the latter part of the article to say:
Canada is expected to drop its jet interception role but maintain its detection and warning systems in North America and the North Atlantic in cooperation with the United States.
The background to the emerging defence policy is the nuclear stalemate. Authorities here say the nuclear missile forces of United States and Russia are invulnerable to the extent that neither could knock out the other at the first blow. Thus neither would dare to attack the other.
In these circumstances, officials see no meaningful nuclear role for Canada once the Voodoo jet interceptor and Bomarc anti-aircraft missile have served their time-another two or three years.
I think it is pretty apparent that the government, for some reason best known to itself, is entering into a military agreement
Interim Supply
which might have made some sense in the 1950's but which has no meaning at all in the 1960's. They are under the impression that the previous government three years ago made certain commitments. I have no desire to get into the argument whether commitments were or were not made. Let us at least give the present government credit that they think certain commitments were made. But surely it is the height of stupidity to continue to make agreements on the basis of commitments which were given when circumstances were entirely different from what they are today. The international situation has changed. Canada's defence role in the world has changed. Yet here is the government entering into an agreement which is a sheer waste of money and which will involve Canada in the expenditure of millions of dollars which could be better used.


Mr. Pugh:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


David Vaughan Pugh: With regard to our having an agreement, was the hon. gentleman's view the same in January of this year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not sure what my friend is asking. My view has not changed since January.


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member has just finished saying that one should remain flexible in government as well, and that a person has a right to change his mind and also the government. Were you of that view in January of this year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think that is the most muddleheaded question I have ever heard asked.


David Vaughan Pugh: Well, I am asking it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech he can make one. There will be lots of time to take part in the debate. We will be very glad to hear what his views are on this question. Certainly anybody ought to have flexible views. I am simply saying that if the government feels that the previous administration made commitments under given circumstances this does not excuse them now continuing these commitments and entering into an agreement when circumstances have entirely changed. The international situation has changed. There is a thaw in the cold war. We now have a nuclear stalemate. Canada's defence role has completely altered, as all military experts now seem to be agreed, and at this time it is a sheer waste of money and the essence of stupidity to spend

Interim Supply
hundreds of millions of dollars preparing Canada for a nuclear role when there is no possibility at all of her being called upon to fill a nuclear role.
Therefore I want to conclude by urging the government to reconsider this matter and to submit the agreement regarding nuclear weapons to the parliament of Canada for its serious consideration. I also ask that they revise their defence policy in the light of changed circumstances so that it will fit in with the most effective role that Canada can play for the preservation of world peace.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a moderate speech by the leader of the party sitting close to the gangway. Because of some of the observations he has made it is important that we should set aright the procedural situation with regard to this matter. My hon. friend speaks as though the government had just announced a policy which it was preventing parliament from discussing, or in connection with which parliament had been denied the opportunity of expressing its views.
First of all, the hon. gentleman said that the government refused parliament the right to see the agreement which was signed with the United States on the 16th of August last. I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will agree that is not the situation. The government has not refused parliament the right to see this agreement. Parliament yesterday decided that it was not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in the interests of the security of this nation or the security of the NATO alliance-


An hon. Member:: Of the Liberal party.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -that an exchange of notes of this nature should be made public at this particular juncture. That was the decision of parliament yesterday based on a motion introduced by the right hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How did you vote on it?


Murdo William Martin: What the government did yesterday is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition said was the right course to adopt when he was prime minister. The present Leader of the Opposition said in the house on February 20, 1959, as found on page 1223 of Hansard:
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective. It will of course be some time before these weapons will be available for use by Canadian forces.
Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

The government, as soon as it is in a position to do so, will inform the house, within the limits of security, of the general terms of understanding which are reached between the two governments on this subject.
That is precisely what this government has done.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Murdo William Martin: The right hon. gentleman says "not at all". We will see if that is not the case. On the 16th of August the Prime Minister of Canada announced that an agreement had been concluded with the United States in this matter and, in the terms referred to by the present Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister gave what information was consistent with security.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What general terms did he use?


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend
has read the release. Those were the general terms. Those were the very terms underlined by the former prime minister in limitation on the information which, in the interests of security, could be given to the nation. It is not a case of the government of the right hon. gentleman, or of this government or any other Canadian government not trusting the membership of this house or the people of this country. There are others, however, who would be very interested in knowing the terms of this agreement.
I may say to the right hon. gentleman, knowing something of the role he played as prime minister in certain negotiations with the United States, I found it a little difficult to understand how he, in the light of his experience and position could have urged this house to persuade the government to produce the documents which he himself said on February 20, 1959, could not fully be produced because of the limitations imposed by security.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman this? Did he read the question the day before yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister whether he would bring before the house those portions that would not violate security, and he said no. I can only conclude, as I am sure he would conclude, that the selectivity was based on the political security of the government.


Murdo William Martin: In a matter of this importance, I do not propose to engage in an emotional debate with my right hon. friend. I say to him, as a former prime minister of this country, that he knows quite well that to give a portion of some document would amount to production of the entire document in this particular case.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says, "not at all". I ask him to recall his part, and that of the former government in negotiations, to examine the agreements that came before him and his colleagues, and to conclude, as I am sure he will, that the statement he has just now made is one that cannot and could not under any circumstances, in the interests of our security, be justified.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not agree with that at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says this government has secured an agreement with the United States in a matter of great importance without giving this house the right to pass upon the government's policy. Let us examine the facts in this regard. In the month of January last, the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, in a speech in Toronto announced the policy of the Liberal party in regard to the proposal to enter into an agreement with the government of the United States for the storage in Canada of nuclear warheads for the use of Canadian forces in respect of certain weapons systems which would be valueless without the nuclear warheads. This was an announcement of policy and there was nothing secret about it.
Then, the government came into office on April 22. Shortly thereafter in this house, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister announced the government's policy. I want to read what he said. His words are to be found in Hansard, page 65, for May 20, 1963.
I can also state that regarding the obligation to discharge certain commitments for the common defence undertaken by the previous governments, the commitments to carry out certain roles which cannot be carried out effectively, as the right hon. gentleman has so often pointed out, without the use of nuclear ammunition for the warheads and weapons required for the role, in order to discharge these commitments we have entered into negotiations with the United States, taking up where the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues left off some time ago. We have begun these negotiations for a bilateral agreement between our two countries, without which no technical agreement can be made, for the joint control of nuclear warheads. The bilateral political negotiations to this end which were carried on for such a long time by the previous government have been resumed. They will cover defensive nuclear weapons systems for Canada, as well as other matters which have been the subject of previous discussions with the United States including, of course, the role of the air division and the use of the Honest John weapon with our forces attached to NATO in Europe.
This was a statement by the Prime Minister of Canada in the first speech he made in the first debate in this house after the present government was elected to office. It was in that very debate that my hon. friend moved
28902-5-203
Private Bills
the following amendment, as recorded on page 85 of Hansard for May 21, 1963:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces, thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
My hon. friend took issue, as he had a right to do, and he did it with dignity and force. He took issue with the government's policy as announced by the Prime Minister. There was a vote on that amendment in this house and that vote sustained the position of the government. Therefore, when my hon. friend says that this parliament has had no opportunity of expressing its view on the decision of the government to enter into an arrangement with the United States concerning the storage of nuclear warheads in Canada for use by Canadian forces, he has overlooked what we decided in this house in the month of May last.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. gentleman will look at my words he will see I did not say that the government had acted without parliament discussing the question. I said that they had acted without parliament having had any opportunity to express its opinion on this agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, that kind of refinement, I am sure, will not really be taken seriously by the hon. gentleman or by other hon. members in this house. The policy is now embodied in the agreement, and we say that in the interests of security that agreement cannot be tabled in this house. It cannot be tabled in the parliament of any NATO country, for the reason I have mentioned, for the reason the right hon. gentleman himself mentioned in 1959, namely, security.


John George Diefenbaker: That is misconstruing what I said.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, it being five o'clock I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ryan for the second reading of Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Mr. C. A. Gauihier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, since this bill seems to be a repeating one, brought forward every week during the hour reserved for private members' business, we realize here perhaps more than anywhere else that strangers need only have money to take over the Canadian economy. We will not stop repeating it here in this house until all hon. members present, representing all the Canadian people, are convinced that the company must have at least 25 per cent Canadian capital to operate in our country; otherwise, we have not even made the first step toward the repatriation of our economy. We have opposed this bill and we will oppose it again if we are not satisfied with its terms and conditions.
We agree to let this bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce to know all the details and all the amendments they say they want to make. Let the authorities of that company be assured that our group will be watching for this bill on third reading and that if we are not satisfied with the proposed amendments, we pledge to reject it.
We think it is time this government should take its responsibilities. It is time you learn that you are here not only to tax, but to protect our Canadian institutions and the public generally.
We have had enough of the old parties making this parliament a mere taxing-machine allowing foreigners to become rich at our expense.
During the debate before third reading, Canadians will be able to judge between those who are protecting finance and those who are doing the duties for which the citizens have elected them.
I do not want to delay the study of this bill any further. We will give Allstate corporation an opportunity to become Canadian by allowing them to explain themselves. I also invite before this committee those who vilified our great French Canadians on television.
Concerning this bill, I think that, after a serious and extensive study, we will be able to make a decision once and for all on the life and death of such a company.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, being one of those-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. To begin with, I must ask whether the hon. member has already spoken during this debate. The record available to the chairman shows that the hon.
[The Chairman.]
member had the floor during this debate on July 25 last. Therefore, he cannot speak a second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Louis-Joseph Pigeon: the second reading of Bill No. C-21, with respect to hospital's and university sweepstakes.

He said: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is with regret that we learned about the resignation of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) as whip. We knew the hon. member had very heavy responsibilities since he is also parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and, as his colleagues say, he has done an excellent job.
May I also say how happy I am to see that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) has been named to replace the hon. member for Hull and to congratulate the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), who will act as deputy whip. To both of them, my best wishes.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that Bill C-21 will be passed by parliament. I feel it is time the Criminal Code be amended to enable the provinces to have their sweepstakes if they so desire.
At various times, I inquired from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) if the government intended to amend the Criminal Code for the benefit of the provinces, at least those who may wish to hold sweepstakes. The minister went a bit off the track in his answers and gave me to understand that it was impossible for the government to amend the Criminal Code and thus allow the provinces to conduct sweepstakes if they wished to do so.
We know on this side of the house and members of the government also know that the premier of the province of Quebec, in his ultimatum to the federal government, asked that the Criminal Code be amended so that the province of Quebec might establish a sweepstake, in view of the fact that the provincial statutes already contained legislation to that effect.
I have been quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the answer given to me on some occasions by the Minister of Justice since, during the last election campaign, as evidenced in La Presse of March 4, 1963,-the hon.

member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), as his party's spokesman, said in Malartic the following:
A Liberal government would allow provincial lotteries (Mr. Rouleau)
Malartic-The Liberals are quite prepared to give the provinces absolute freedom in a field which can surely be of importance for many of them: that of provincial lotteries.
Following the election, April 8 next, a Liberal government, said yesterday in the federal parliament, the member for Dollard, Guy Rouleau, lawyer, will amend section 179 of the Criminal Code in order to allow the provinces, which will choose to do so, to set up provincial lotteries.
Speaking in Malartic, following the Liberal convention, the member indicated that the matter of a provincial lottery had been discussed on many occasions, especially in the province of Quebec, during the last few years.
Then, the hon. member proceeded along the same line.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the government, at the outset of this session did not announce, even in the speech from the throne, that it would introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code so that the provinces may have lotteries. Since the hon. member for Dollard was his party's spokesman during the last election, this is an official commitment. Either the hon. member for Dollard is not influential in his party, or the party has not fulfilled its election promises. Mind you, -it would not be the only time a promise made by this government would not have been fulfilled, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, the government whose friends are in power in Quebec should please the premier of the province of Quebec, offer him a gift for all the insults and abuses that province has been subjected to from the Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) on the one hand, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) on the other hand, and even from the Prime Minister, (Mr. Pearson) as they constantly criticize the policy of the Quebec administration. The central government could then correct itself by acting in a positive way, that is in amending the Criminal Code.
Moreover, we shall see, Mr. Speaker, when the 12-month ultimatum has expired, which attitude Mr. Lesage will adopt. I say to the Quebec government: the federal government has already assumed rights, even without requesting the authorization of the provinces, including the province of Quebec. Now, I say that, when the 12-month ultimatum has elapsed, if the federal government has not amended the Criminal Code, the government of the province of Quebec should nevertheless set up lotteries. If Mr. Lesage follows this course of action, he will have the approval of Quebec citizens, in other words, if his ultimatum has not been heeded.
28902-5-203i
Sweepstakes
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to be too long. I know that certain members want to speak about this bill, but I wish it would be adopted.
There is at the present time-the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) knows something about it-a black market of lottery tickets. I would not be surprised if all members in this house have or once had lottery tickets in their pocketbook.


Mr. Rouleau:: Do you have some yourself?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have had, and when I have the opportunity to buy some, I do. I say this most sincerely, because I am not going to lie in this house. I know that the hon. member for Dollard, in view of the speech he made in Malartic during the last election campaign, has bought some tickets, I am sure, and he probably has some on him now.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I will not permit such a statement without taking issue with it. I do not have any lottery tickets with me and I never bought any, because that is illegal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that humility.


An hon. Member:: He is a Puritan.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Look at the shocked maid. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will allow the passing of this bill which is absolutely logical. The country has to withstand at present an outflow of several million dollars, which are going abroad. I hope that this bill will be approved so that the provinces who wish to initiate the sweepstakes they have in mind will be able to do so.
Should the federal government object-I repeat-should it refuse to amend the Criminal Code, I advise the provinces who wish to have sweepstakes to set them up just the same, for it would be illogical and ridiculous to do otherwise.
The state of New Hampshire is presently setting up sweepstakes in its own territory-


An hon. Member:: I protest.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are protesting?


An hon. Member:: We'll all become protestants.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I know that the government will be consistent and that it will keep the election promise made by the hon. member for Dollard and that once Bill C-21 is passed, the Criminal Code will at last be amended.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for

Sweepstakes
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) lor giving me the opportunity to speak about this question.
We all know him. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, as usual, thinks he is Don Quixote and tilts at windmills. In his premise, he said that the present government had insulted, through his Prime Minister and through cabinet members, the premier and the cabinet members of the province of Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I deny any such an assertion, for the present government wishes to co-operate with the governments of all provinces in the interest of the people of every province of this country. And the province of Quebec, if I am not mistaken, is part of the Canadian confederation.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that during the last election campaign I, for one, recommended an amendment to our Criminal Code, in order to allow the provinces, if willing, to create a provincial lottery. If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had read, from beginning to end, the newspaper dispatch which he has mentioned and which was published by La Presse, on March 5, 1953, he would have seen that-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: 1963.


Guy Rouleau: I am sorry, I mean 1963-he would have seen that what I said was:
The Liberal government, which Mr. Pearson will head after the April 8 election, after it seriously studies the problem, will only give back to the provinces one more of the rights they are entitled to.
In the Hansard of June 10, 1963, on pages 845 and 846, we read the answer of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) to a question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who wanted to know whether the government intended to amend the Criminal Code. The minister stated on that occasion: "I am carefully studying the question".
It is quite true, as I said, that during the election campaign, I advocated an amendment to the Criminal Code which would allow the provinces, if they so wished, to have a lottery within their borders. I still think that such an amendment would be a good thing and that all the provinces of confederation should benefit by it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that it is rather amusing to see the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm submitting such a bill today, while, during the six years the Conservatives were at the helm, he could easily have influenced the then government and persuaded it to amend the Criminal Code in the way he is now suggesting.

We are bound to think that either the hon. member never really attempted to put across his ideas in private talks or that he had no influence whatsoever over the Conservative government.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm speaks of the influence I could bring to bear on the present government. May I remind him that, in that field, things get done mostly through team-work and cooperation between all members of the house. We know for sure today that the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm did noJ have much power in the Conservative gov ernment.
Indeed, what is, in the field under consideration, the record of the Conservative party which governed our country during six years? The previous government did nothing to amend the Criminal Code so as to enable the provinces to set up their own lotteries.
That is quite understandable when one considers that every single bill that was introduced during the Conservative regime to amend the Criminal Code was talked out not by Liberal members but by government members.
As an example-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Let the bill pass.


Guy Rouleau: Wait. I have concrete evidence to support my allegations.
For instance, during the 1960-61 session my hon. friend introduced Bill C-18, but it was remorselessly buried, as reported in Hansard of that year. Now, it was not a Liberal member who talked out the bill but a Conservative.
That same year, a similar bill was sponsored by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Brown). That measure was given the six month hoist by none other than the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), a Conservative.
In 1962, the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Brown) introduced another amendment to the Criminal Code and once again it was put off by a Conservative, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More).
The same year, a similar bill in the name of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) was talked out by the Conservative member for Acadia (Mr. Horner).
In spite of the fact that all those bills were talked out by Conservative members, if the hon. gentleman from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had had some influence with the government of the day and especially with the then minister of justice, he could have expressed his views to the government and convinced the latter that the Criminal Code should be amended to enable the provinces to set up their own lotteries-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Guy Rouleau: I will be glad to.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member give us the names of the Liberal members who talked out a similar motion before 1957?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to assess the Conservative party's record in that respect and give concrete evidence of what was done in that regard under a Conservative government. Knowing that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is a very talkative man, I am convinced that he will take part in the debate himself. If he wants to criticize the previous Liberal governments, he will have the opportunity to do so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a brief question.
The hon. member for Dollard seems honest in what he says. Therefore, I ask him, if he is sincere, particularly after the statement he made in Malartic, if he would advise the government to let that bill be adopted, in the interest of the Canadian people and the provinces who want it?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will let me get on with my remarks, I am convinced he will know quite soon what I am driving at and will get his answer.
I was saying that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Asssomption-Montcalm did not have much influence within the government that was headed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
And I find additional evidence to what I have said a while ago in the remarks of the minister of justice of that time, when questions were directed to him on the matter now before us. In reply to a question put to him by an hon. member on the government side, the minister of justice, as reported in page 1294 of Hansard for February 27, 1962, said this:
Practically speaking, the question of amending the Criminal Code to authorize the organization of lotteries by provincial governments is obviously one which concerns all the provinces. It would therefore be difficult, if not improper, to get in touch with one province only, without consulting the others. We have not consulted them and I am therefore not in a position to make an official statement.
But the minister of justice was still more explicit the following year. In fact, in reply to a similar question directed to him by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), he stated, as reported in page 3436 of Hansard for February 5, 1963:
I have had some correspondence with Premier Lesage. In it, of course, I made no attempt to comment on the legality of such operations. Premier Lesage asked if the federal government was
Sweepstakes
prepared to sponsor legislation to legalize lotteries conducted by provinces for revenue purposes. The reply I conveyed to him was that the government does not contemplate the introduction of any bill at the present session to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, if we judge by the answers given by the minister of justice of the time, one of the leaders of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, we realize that he did not have much influence on the Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, my position is clear and definite. I believe I speak on behalf of my colleagues from the province of Quebec when I say that we are in favour of amending the Criminal Code in order to allow those provinces within the Canadian confederation that wish to do so to set up provincial lotteries.
In that connection, I refer to a statement made in 1961 by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets). As reported on page 8 of the appendix to Hansard for March 10, 1961, he said:
I see many problems at this time in the establishment of a federal lottery. We must have regard for the views expressed by some provinces which do not seem prepared to agree. Well, in Quebec, we are ready and I do not see why an amendment to the Criminal Code could not be introduced permitting the establishment of a lottery in order to give effect to the wish expressed by the people of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we are now faced with a problem that is relatively easy to solve. We are up against enough difficult situations at the present time, and I feel that we should find an answer to the problem of provincial lotteries in order to give satisfaction to the provinces wishing to establish their own lottery.
As federal members of parliament, our first duty is towards our Canadian fellow citizens. Since we form part of a confederation, it is our duty to see that confederation is respected, that is, we should also act in the best interests of every province by amending the Criminal Code in the manner suggested by my hon. friend. By doing this, we would not be depriving any province of their rights, but we would be granting them what they want. Briefly, the provinces wishing to establish a provincial lottery will be able to do so if we amend the Criminal Code. As for those that do not wish to establish lotteries, they will not have to do so.
I am from the province of Quebec, and I know that the premier of my province expressed the wish to organize a provincial lottery to give assistance to the hospitals and to education.
May I point out at this time that the government of the province of Quebec under the leadership of Hon. Jean Lesage accomplished more for education and public health than was

Sweepstakes
accomplished in the 16 years the province was led by a man about whom I will not talk since he has gone to his reward.
I do not regret any of the remarks I made in the last election campaign when I advocated an amendment to the Criminal Code enabling the provinces to establish lotteries.
I mentioned a moment ago the reply of the minister of justice on that point, and I am sure that after examining the whole file that data it contains will be of service to all those concerned.
I am sure that it will be under the government of Hon. Lester B. Pearson with a Liberal minister of justice from the province of Quebec that the Criminal Code will be amended to allow all the provinces who so desire to establish a provincial lottery.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, so that a vote can be taken on the bill, as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) requested. I take pleasure in supporting the bill on my own behalf, as on the whole it respects provincial autonomy.
It is clear, as the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) so properly said that we, in Quebec, want the matter to be settled once and for all so we may stop talking about it.
The sponsor of the bill may be assured of my support. Unfortunately, he lingered, as usual, over political and partisan considerations and, therefore, incurred a rather sharp reply from his opponent. I deplore such things, but I may assure him of my support as member for Lake St. John.
I approve the bill because, to my mind, it is excellent and will have splendid results. It will enable us to keep a small part of that revenue which flows regularly out of this country every year. Some people may be somewhat embarrassed about the situation, but I think that lottery tickets are sold in all Canadian provinces. We see, from press reports, that individuals, residing from Vancouver to Halifax make considerable profits at this game. This means that lotteries are accepted by people, in a general way, everywhere in Canada.
I think that an amendment to the Criminal Code would enable those provinces who wish to do so to pass a similar legislation and insert it in their own statutes. This would be a true observance of provincial autonomy which would enable the provinces to make their own decisions in the matter.
That is all I have to say and as I have already said, I support the bill.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to add a few words to the discussion of this proposed legislation. I think

the measure before us is non-political in the sense that members in all parties have their own views for or against the principle of extending the licensing of lotteries. I am in favour of the proposal which is before us. I am in favour of extending government control over sweepstakes and lotteries. It seems to me that when thousands of Canadians participate every year in the purchase of lottery and sweepstake tickets, with the result that millions of dollars leave our country, a situation is created which might well be remedied by legislation such as is before us. Indeed, money would be encouraged to flow into the provinces from sources outside this country as people abroad bought Canadian sweepstake or lottery tickets.
As things stand we already have in Canada something like 28 operations which are in conflict with the present law. The results of public opinion polls across the country continue to show that in a large measure the public would support the steps contemplated in the bill now before us. It represents, of course, a step toward government operation and legalization of sweepstakes. I am opposed, as are other members of my party, to hospital or educational boards setting themselves up to derive direct benefit from the sale of lottery tickets. Like my colleagues, I think this field should be strictly one for taxation. However, I approve the idea of extending to the provinces the right to license lotteries which would bring in money for general revenue purposes. It is clear we have already accepted in principle in the various provinces the idea of sweepstakes or lotteries, whether it is churches which promote bingo games or governments which derive provincial revenue from the operation of such things as parimutuel racing. Extension to the provinces of the right to run sweepstakes and lotteries would simply provide for a do-it-yourself tax which would allow the people to have a little fun while contributing something to provincial revenues.
I have much satisfaction in supporting the proposal before us. Having said that, I shall resume my seat in the hope that the house may be encouraged to come to a vote.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time I should like to advise the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) at the outset that I am 100 per cent in favour of his motion. I sincerely hope the government headed by our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will bring in laws and regulations to enact this bill, that is, to amend the Criminal Code so that the attorneys general of the provinces may authorize sweepstakes on behalf of universities and hospitals.

I must say, however, it seems somewhat ridiculous that we should be debating a principle which is largely accepted throughout the country, even though it may not have been legalized. No fewer than three members of the federal cabinet have already admitted by their actions that drawings or lotteries are acceptable to them. There was an occasion not so long ago when a member of the cabinet rose in his place and reporting on two identical bids which had been received in respect of a large amount of concrete necessary for the South Saskatchewan dam, advised this house that since he did not know how to settle the question he intended to put the two bids in a hat and make a drawing. Drawings and lotteries are the same thing.
Another cabinet minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) himself, the hon. gentleman who is responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code, has also expressed an attitude, if only indirectly. I was interested to read in the Ottawa Journal, a paper which is widely read by hon. members of the house, an article on June 26 listing the names of three holders of Irish sweepstakes tickets. Included among the list of ticket holders printed on page 41 of that newspaper we find, in the second paragraph:
One of the ticket holders in Cyril Rich, 34, 41 Ashburn Drive, an employee of the Justice Department. He holds a ticket on Vic Mo Chroi.
I personally drew the matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice and I wondered whether the hon. gentleman would be congratulating Mr. Rich for having secured a lucky ticket or whether he would be condemning the man for breaking the law of the land. I received a smile in reply. A day or two later a picture of Mr. Rich appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, again giving his name and address. He had won something like $30,000. My congratulations to him. I would simply point out that the Minister of Justice took no action and we can therefore take it that what is being done by the people of Canada in this regard is being condoned by the Department of Justice. Frankly, I should like to see their actions legalized.
Then we come to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). He, too, approves lotteries, drawings, or games of chance. We have a member sitting in this house today who was elected on the flip of a coin, as was admitted in a widely publicized statement by the returning officer. If this hon. gentleman can hold his seat on the flip of a coin after all that publicity, and if the Secretary of State takes no action, I maintain that yet another member of the cabinet is approving games of chance and is in favour of altering the aspect
Sweepstakes
of the law with regard to lotteries which Mr. Pigeon would like to have legalized throughout Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I be permitted to remind the hon. member that he should not refer to another hon. member by name but by the constituency he represents.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have in my hand three tickets on the Cambridgeshire, the date of which is to be announced in the public press any day. I know of no reason why I should conceal the fact that as a member of parliament I buy these tickets. I would point out that in two of the provinces of Canada the attorneys general are now conducting lotteries. I am not the greatest moose hunter in the world but I am an ardent one and I have had many a happy fall hunting season in the area which is represented by my good friend, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel). I have often hunted there and I expect to hunt again this year.
When I was speaking the other day to a member from New Brunswick about my moose hunting hopes for this fall he said to me, "You are lucky; you must have won the lottery". I said to him, "Lottery? What has that got to do with moose hunting?" He said, "Down in New Brunswick people who want to go moose hunting are so numerous that the government of the province regulates them. These people make application for the right to hunt, send in their fee, a drawing is made by the New Brunswick government and the first couple of hundred names drawn are given moose hunting licenses." People win the opportunity of going moose hunting in the province of New Brunswick. This has been going on for some years and it is known as a draw in the province of New Brunswick.
I hold in my hand page 4 of yesterday's Montreal Gazette. The Canadian Press reports from Quebec city that 37 moose have already been killed in Laurentide park, but the interesting thing about this story is the last two sentences.
The Quebec government has allowed a special short season in the park since last year. Only 300 hunters are allowed into the park, and they are chosen by lot before the season opens.
If the law forbids attorneys general to conduct lotteries, I wonder under what pretence the attorneys general of New Brunswick and Quebec are O.K.'ing the drawing by lot of moose hunting licences in those two areas.
In the province of Ontario the little town of Penetanguishene on Georgian bay has organized, as a wonderful pastime and business developer, one of the largest and greatest winter carnivals held annually in Canada. It

Sweepstakes
is now in its seventh or eighth year, and each year thousands of people come. The feature of this winter carnival is fishing through the ice. For $1 the people who come there are given the necessary bait, a small fishing line and a small rod and they fish through the ice for a period of two hours. The person catching the largest fish wins a boat and outboard motor valued at over $1,000.
Some people who did not like the idea of a boat and motor being given away for the largest fish protested the matter to the attorney general of the province of Ontario. I should like to tell you what the Hon. Kelso Roberts, attorney general of Ontario at that time, had to say. He said that the Pene-tanguishene winter carnival, where a boat and motor are given away for the largest fish produced in the fishing derby, is "the largest legal lottery in Canada" and he was unable to take any action as attorney general of Ontario because in his opinion it was legal. He termed it "the largest legal lottery in Canada".
I would also refer to Ralph Day, a former mayor of the city of Toronto where I reside, and who is still prominent in public life. At one time he was the chief magistrate of the city, and I emphasize the fact that he was the chief magistrate. However, after his term in office was over and he retired into the shade, where ex-mayors reside he bought some Irish sweepstake tickets, as I do and as I believe the majority of Canadians do, and he won a $100,000 prize. My hat is off to the ex-chief magistrate of the city of Toronto. I welcome his good fortune. I trust he has enjoyed his winnings. But I ask hon. members: What action has the federal government taken against the former chief magistrate of the city of Toronto? It is no trouble to find him. Everybody knows where he is. He is a member of the Toronto Transit Commission at present and the government could locate him without any difficulty whatsoever.
I have shown that the purchase of lottery tickets or taking part in drawings is recognized by Canadians from coast to coast and I have mentioned men prominent in public life who should know this is against the Criminal Code. I might point out that at the first Penetanguishene winter carnival the boat and motor were presented to the successful winner, a resident of the city of Barrie, by the then deputy speaker of the House of Commons, the late William Robinson. Following his death his constituency has been represented by the present member and I should like to point out that the hon. member for Simcoe East (Dr. Rynard) has always been a regular attendant at the Penetanguishene winter carnival along with me. We enjoy the

day we spend together at Canada's largest legal lottery.
After 40 years in the newspaper business I do not care to mention the names of newspapers, but another interesting aspect with regard to lotteries is that some of these papers write thundering editorials condemning lotteries as a terrible drain on the public purse and a detriment to the morals of the nation. The papers that write the most thundering editorials, of course, are the ones that run the numbers of the tickets drawn in the Irish sweepstakes in order that they may increase the sales of their papers.
In fact, I know of one paper that every year sells thousands of extra copies to one of the biggest sweepstakes tickets operators in Canada. He has an interesting use for these papers. He mails them to the United States because they contain a list of the numbered tickets drawn. It is illegal in the United States for any newspaper to publish the numbers of the successful tickets in draws, so this man takes these Canadian newspapers and mails them to his sales agents in the United States, of whom there are thousands. He says, for example, "See, in the state of Ohio you are selling tickets numbered A1267532 and so on, and you will notice that tickets very close to that number are in the list in this Canadian paper I have sent you. Show it to the people in Ohio so they will know they are getting the real McCoy and are buying the real Irish sweepstakes tickets." The amazing thing is that this paper, which sells thousands of extra copies, at the same time condemns lotteries as being immoral.
Most hon. members know that in 1956 Great Britain introduced national premium bonds. I have here the parliamentary debates for April and May, 1956 at which time Prime Minister Macmillan introduced the national premium bonds and it can be seen here that Lady Tweedsmuir endorsed them and persuaded Mr. Macmillan to expand the sale of these bonds into the commonwealth countries. She said that their sale in commonwealth countries would tighten the bonds of empire. Maybe it does but, as a former speaker said, it takes money out of Canada which remains in Great Britain for some years.
These premium bonds bear no interest. Those who buy them do so on the basis of chance. It is all right for the moralists to tell you and me that is is wrong to rely on chance. True. In the ninth chapter of Ecclesiastes we read in the tenth verse:
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.
That is a good injunction and I hope all will take it to heart. But in the very next

verse the writer of Ecclesiastes, the wisest man that ever lived, says:
I saw... that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
All my life I have been forced to listen to longwinded statements by puritans decrying the evil influences that would emanate from the legalizing of lotteries in Canada, which influences would in time undermine the entire moral fabric of our Canadian nation and ultimately lead to the disappearance of this great country as we know it. Always these puritanical folk have stressed that if only the people of this country would follow the Biblical injunction to tithe their earnings every week then, ipso facto, there would be more than enough money for all good works, including hospitals and universities as mentioned in this bill. But, they urge, if people are allowed to purchase lottery tickets, then they would not accept the obligation to tithe their earnings and the country would suffer from the lack of good works.
All my life I have been hearing this sort of argument, and all my life the taxes imposed on the people by themselves-because in a democracy all taxes are in the final analysis imposed on the people by the people-have been climbing and climbing and climbing. Now they have reached such a point that today finance ministers and provincial treasurers reiterate that the rate of taxation has finally reached the breaking point find they do not know where to turn for more revenue. But I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all within the sound of my voice, that as the years have rolled along more and more of the good works that are demanded of us are being performed by the people under the heading of taxation, rather than church givings. If you will stop to analyse the division of the moneys raised in taxes today you will be amazed and pleasurably surprised at the vast amounts that are devoted to good works.
Gone are the days when hospitals are erected only under the protection of religious organizations. Gone are the days when a hungry man could only hope for succor by calling at the parsonages or rectories of the nation. Gone are the days when instruction could only be secured from the educated clergy who introduced schools and universities in this country. Today the cost of hospitals comes primarily out of the taxes of the country. Our annual levies are spent in erecting schoolhouses and universities across the land and relief or welfare is available to those in need from government operated agencies.
Sweepstakes
If you will consider the vast amounts of money spent today by municipal, provincial and federal governments in the dispensation of welfare, in the administration of justice, in the relief of widows, orphaned children, prisoner rehabilitation, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, safety on the waterways of Canada, safety on the highways, you will see that God-fearing Canadians from coast to coast are to be counted "among the blessed of our Father, for their works do follow them."
Paul tells us in his great epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7, verse 5, "They . . . who receive the office of the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of the people", and in the 27th chapter of Leviticus we read, "And all the tithe of the land whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree is the Lord's; it is holy unto the Lord".
The practice of tithing is a blessed one but we are also urged "to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers." We are advised in St. Matthew's gospel that on judgment day the Lord shall say to many, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world for ... I was sick and ye visited me . . . Then shall the righteous answer him saying: Lord, .	.	.
when saw we thee sick . . . and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." In all reverence I say that the Lord will not ask you whether you tithed through a church or paid for your good works through taxes which were devoted to good works, but will bless you for having healed the sick, cleansed the lepers and visited the fatherless in their affliction, even if it was under the guise of government operated welfare agencies.
I say, Mr. Speaker, with unlimited admiration for the people of Canada, that if they are given due recognition for the manner in which they spend their income through taxes for good works they are tithing every day and every year. Statisticians provoke me when I read from time to time that one of them has uncovered the fact from income tax reports that the charitable givings of the people of Canada are 2 per cent or 3 per cent or some such distressingly low figure. But do those long-faced mathematicians stop for a moment to calculate how much of the income of those income tax paying Canadians has already been spent in charitable endeavours through the medium of their municipal, provincial or federal governments? Seldom if ever, I have to answer.
Surely, if the taxpayers of Canada are meeting their obligation of tithing through

Sweepstakes
their own taxes, the tax exemptions which they grant to churches and local charities and the share they pay of corporation taxes, plus their givings, they are entitled to "a little flutter" for themselves, if they so choose. I support the bill wholeheartedly.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, we do not have too much time today to cover the many points pertaining to the bill. I do want to bring before the house a little of the history of lottery legislation which I think might be pertinent and interesting to the members of the house before they go so far as to vote on the bill.
In my research, Mr. Speaker, I determined that the first time that lotteries were ever invoked by any government was by the government of France in the early eighteenth century. They were suggested to the government of France, in fact propounded and operated for the government of France, by a gentleman by the name of Casanova who is better known for activities of another type. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any affinity between the sponsor of this bill in this house and his historical antecedent Casanova, who introduced the bill before the government of France. I point out that in a book in which Casanova tells how he introduced this bill to the government of France he says he was enjoined to raise $30 million for a military school. The government wished to get this sum without a charge on the state or emptying the treasury. Casanova answered that it was God alone who had the creative power. Casanova, out of his genius, evolved a lottery such as the hon. gentleman is doing here and obviously he, along with Casanova, has the divine, creative power.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since all the hon. members agree, I would ask that the question be put immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must admit that there is no question of privilege here.


John James Greene: I might point out that at the same time Casanova was suggesting this piece of legislation to the government of France by means of which a lottery would be created, he was told by one of the officers of the government that the government would lose on the first lottery because this would be an incentive to the people to invest even further sums in the lotteries in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hour appointed for private members' business having expired, the house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.


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.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in challenging the refusal of the government to table the storage warheads agreement of August 16, has cited the United Kingdom Polaris agreement which contains 11 pages of detailed information. I say to him that this is quite a different matter and one that does not involve the disclosure of classified information. It deals with the acquisition of weapons delivery systems and is comparable to our unclassified agreements with the United States to acquire the Bomarc and the Voodoo.
With regard to the former, that is the Bomarc, the details were given by the government, and that document is to be found in the Canada treaty series. I regret I do not have the date. The one dealing with the Voodoo, which is part of the triangular swap deal, was published as No. 5 of the Canada treaty series, of June 12, 1961. None of these involved the disclosure of information which could be prejudicial to national security.
In the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman said that Canada was becoming a junior partner in arrangements to establish nuclear weapons on our soil without our having complete control over them. The hon. gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, will not misunderstand me when I say I thought this was a very strange argument to come from him, because of his sincere desire, which I share, that there should be a limit on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The logic of my hon. friend's argument is that Canada should have insisted on complete national control over the warheads for the Voodoo and the Bomarc, but the disastrous effect of any such insistance on our part would be to breach a principle underlying all U.S.A. and NATO arrangements concerning nuclear weapons, and which has been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations in the Irish resolution opposing the dissemination of nuclear weapons. Therefore I say that I find this argument coming from him to be a very strange one indeed.

We are not, by the agreement the government signed on August 18, acquiring nuclear weapons. We are not joining the nuclear club. The custody of these nuclear weapons continues to be with the United States. In no sense of the word can we be accused on the basis of this agreement, which has to do with the storage of nuclear weapons for defensive purposes on this continent, and in the case of the CF-104 in Europe as in any way participating in an expansion of the nuclear club.
When my hon. friend says that we do not even know what the arrangements are, to the extent that these arrangements can be spelled out without violating the principles of security I would refer him to the release to which he drew our attention today. The final paragraph of it contains the kind of information, and the only kind of information which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said in 1959 could be given-


John George Diefenbaker: That is a misinterpretation of my remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -when he presaged what would happen. That is what the right hon. gentleman said. I have reread what he said and I cannot agree with the observation which he now makes. Here is what the release says:
When the stockpiles are established, the warheads will remain in United States custody, and tor this purpose small units of United States custodial personnel will be stationed at the Canadian storage sites, at bases which will of course remain under Canadian command and control. With custody remaining with the United States, the arrangement does not add to the numbers of governments having nuclear weapons at their independent disposal.
-which is the purport of the Irish resolution.
It is also to be noted that provision is made for the application at all times of the most stringent safety measures. Finally, these nuclear warheads cannot be used operationally without the authorization of the Canadian government. Joint control is thus assured.
My hon. friend says that the argument on which the government bases its case, namely, that commitments were made by the previous administration, is no excuse for going on with the role. I would ask him to be good enough to recall what I placed on Hansard when I reported the conclusions of the NATO ministerial meeting of last May. What I said will be found in Hansard of May 27 last at page 305, and I think what I said then is relevant to the discussion now before us:
I want to make perfectly clear that Canada has undertaken no new commitments at the meeting just concluded. It is, however, the policy of this government to take the steps needed to make it possible for the Canadian forces to discharge the role accepted for them by the previous government. This was as long ago as 1959. That role would not disappear if Canada failed to carry it
Interim. Supply
out; all that would happen would be that some other member or members of the alliance would have to shoulder the obligation in our place.
The kind of forces Canada agreed to contribute were to meet part of an established NATO military requirement, and I am sure that no hon. member of this house would wish Canada to be placed in the position where it would be foisting upon others a task voluntarily assumed by Canada through the former government as part of the collective defence effort of the alliance.
So, I believe the argument of commitment is relevant. The honour of the nation was at stake. The extent of our participation in the alliance is involved. The question of our relations, not only with the United States but with the other members of the NATO alliance, is definitely involved. These were the considerations that the right hon. gentleman opposite I am sure had in mind when he spoke about this matter as he did in 1959 and which we, confronted with the responsibility, had to consider with regard to this very important matter.
The hon. gentleman said today, and I can well understand this observation, that since the international situation seems to have changed, the nuclear role was now meaningless. I will at once admit that if one could see the evolving events following the signing of the test ban agreement, he might find some comfort in the observations of the hon. gentleman. But what are the facts? The facts are that the test ban agreement, important achievement that it is, marking an obvious and sincere detente, I think, between the Soviet union and the United States in particular, the Soviet union and the United Kingdom, the United States and the western world generally, was made possible not only because of a willingness on the part of the Soviet union to sign this agreement with regard to the three environments involved, but it was encouraged strongly, I suggest, by the events of last November arising over what Mr. Gromyko called the other day in the United Nations the Caribbean situation or, more particularly, the situation arising out of the placing of offensive nuclear weapons on the soil of Cuba not far from the shores of North America, and also by the fact that the Soviet union is absorbed with other important considerations.
I say all this without in any way wishing to depreciate the extent of the steps that have been taken in the newly evolving understanding between the Soviet union and the west. But I think it may well be argued that we have been able in part to achieve this happy situation, which we hope will continue to grow, as a result of the fact that we in the west were able to argue from a position of strength. In the face of the present world

Interim Supply
situation one must not forget that this situation governs international relations, regrettable as that may be.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman mentioned something about the efforts being made to reduce the nuclear armaments that now confront both east and west. All of us in this country are anxious to see progress made in the field of disarmament. But the nuclear test ban treaty is not a disarmament treaty. It is an arrangement outside of the consideration that now governs the deliberations of the 18 nations who have been conferring in Geneva and who, I hope, shortly after the conclusion of the disarmament discussions in the present general assembly of the United Nations will return to their task. I do not deny that the test ban treaty may be an encouragement for success in these disarmament deliberations. But does anyone seriously argue that the policy of the government of Canada is inconsistent in any way with the desire of this country and of the people of the west under conditions of security to minimize the occasion of war by accident or by miscalculation merely because we resort to steps which I believe have been partly responsible for our ability to sit down at the bargaining table and bargain from a position of strength?
If one were to adopt that argument, he would have to apply it to every member of the NATO alliance; and it must not be forgotten that in the important talks which have been taking place between the three great powers in Europe, two of them are members of the NATO alliance and share much greater burdens in that alliance than does Canada, great as is our obligation and burden. We will work for disarmament. We will recognize the difficulty of achieving it in the face of an absence of decision with regard to the major political problems that divide east and west. But we will pursue every course that we can, through our spokesman in the person of General Burns, to try and bring about some understanding that will add to the detente which now seemingly is under way between the Soviet union and the nations of the west.
I would suggest that there is reason for optimism. There is reason for believing that some progress can be made. There is reason for believing that it can be made before the meeting in Geneva of the 18 states of the disarmament committee shortly after the general assembly of the United Nations. There are three areas now in this field of disarmament in which I think we should strive for agreement at the earliest possible moment. These have been mentioned by the President of the United States, they have been referred to by the foreign minister of the Soviet union,

and the day before yesterday they were underlined by Lord Home, the foreign minister for the United Kingdom. They are, first, an agreement by the United States and by the Soviet union for the outlawing of nuclear weapons in outer space. Second, the establishment of control posts and inspection teams on both sides of the iron curtain; and third, steps to be taken for the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons. Those are the three areas of possible agreement, one of them, I hope within the course of the next two or three months, the other two possibly only at Geneva. They are far from being a comprehensive disarmament arrangement but they do represent important steps. The one having to do with the placing of inspection teams would serve to eliminate the possibility of surprise attack. In the growing understanding, which I believe to be solid and which I hope will continue to be firm and represent a sincere desire on both sides, we must recognize the limitations which confront those countries who have not yet had placed before them the ultimate result of this detente. So I say to the hon. gentleman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister permit a question? I am just wondering, with regard to the third area in the disarmament conference proceedings, the prevention of the further dissemination of nuclear weapons, would he say that Canada is now going to be able to argue from strength, having agreed to have nuclear weapons placed on her soil?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly. Nothing that we are doing in the policy that has been announced by the government, as I said a moment ago, is contrary to the Irish resolution which deals with the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons. There is nothing inconsistent between the policy of this government and that resolution. We have not joined the nuclear club. The custody of these weapons will be, and will continue to be with, the United States. It is only when there is a question of operational use that the element of joint control arises.
These are the facts. I know my hon. friend, is sincere in this matter. Over many years I have had with him a community of interest in this problem. He and I and a former member for Greenwood, Mr. Denton Massey, went as young members from this house to Geneva to join with the voices of other young people from this country and the world to try to bring about some understanding between peoples of various countries on both sides of the iron curtain. Nothing that we are doing in this policy, nothing that this government, headed by the right hon. gentleman who has done so much for peace and for the United.

Nations, is doing can in any way be regarded as an abrogation of these ideals and these former efforts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit one more question for clarification. What does he mean by the dissemination of nuclear weapons? Does he mean the dispersal of them in other countries than the United States, Great Britain and Russia, or is there some other meaning attached to this term?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no hidden meaning. The nondissemination of nuclear weapons is defined in the resolution introduced by the ambassador for Ireland at the United Nations two years ago. Canada subscribed to that resolution. An analysis of the resolution will show that present government policy is perfectly consistent with it. That resolution sought to limit the number of nations with nuclear weapons under independent control. Only four countries in the world now have that kind of nuclear capacity. Canada is not one of them. As I have argued tonight, I hope sincerely and with moderation, that is the position of the government. I believe that is the position of this house. That is the position which is embodied in the government's policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are just a chore boy for the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I intend to detain the committee for only a few minutes. I just want to say that in my opinion the minister has made a very sincere attempt to defend a position which is indefensible. He tells this committee that, having himself on behalf of the government signed an agreement for the acquisition of nuclear arms for Canadian forces, this does not make Canada a nuclear power; nor does it entail Canada joining the nuclear club.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to make one intervention here? I did not say that we had an agreement for acquiring nuclear weapons. I said we had an agreement with the United States with regard to the storage of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has signed on behalf of the government an agreement under which Canada acquires nuclear warheads on Canadian soil under the custody of United States military forces. He says that this does not mean we have become a nuclear power and it does not mean we have joined the nuclear club. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs really thinks that
Interim Supply
anyone will accept this kind of hocus pocus. The government of Canada may say that this does not make us a nuclear power and that it does not mean we have joined the nuclear club, but certainly the attitude of other nations will be that we have become a nuclear power and that we have joined the nuclear club. The mere fact that these nuclear weapons are under the partial custody of the United States does not remove the fact that they are on Canadian soil and are in the hands of Canadian forces.
May I remind the committee that it is not many months ago that nuclear weapons were placed in Cuba; they were not in the hands of Cuban forces, they were in the hands of Soviet forces. This did not stop the United States and ourselves and other members of the western alliance from being alarmed that nuclear arms were in Cuba. We did not take the position that because nuclear arms were in the custody of Soviet forces Cuba had not joined the nuclear club and constituted no threat to western hemispheric security. Not at all; we took the position that they should get those nuclear arms out of Cuba, and get them out fast. The minister is not fooling anyone by saying that, because these warheads are in United States custody, this does not put us in the class of being members of the nuclear club or make us members of a nuclear society. As a matter of fact it is only a year and a half ago that the Liberal party was taking the position that the acquisition of nuclear arms by the Conservative administration would have made Canada a nuclear power and would have put her into the nuclear club.
The other thing is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made mention of the fact that I had criticized or referred to our being a junior member of a nuclear complex with the United States. I certainly was not suggesting that nuclear arms should be in Canada solely under Canadian control. My statement at that time related to a quotation from the book "The Liberal Party" written by the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, in which he said that the Liberal party was opposed to accepting nuclear weapons, not only because it was not a suitable role for Canada and would lessen the chances of peace, but because there was no possibility of Canada having custody, and therefore we would be surrendering part of our national sovereignty. My objection was to Canada's surrendering part of its national sovereignty without reference to parliament.
The secretary of state has gone all around the subject and not dealt with the main question I raised. I was not saying that we had never discussed nuclear arms in this house.

Interim Supply
I agree that the government went to the country last April and that the present Prime Minister, as leader of the Liberal party, announced that if his government were elected they were prepared to enter into some type of agreement for nuclear arms. They came back to this house with the largest group. But I certainly deny that they got a mandate from the Canadian people. They are a minority government. I also agree that in the speech from the throne debate this general question was discussed and was voted on. What I am saying is that having entered into a specific agreement, and particularly an agreement signed by a minority government, that agreement ought to be submitted to parliament for approval and parliament should know the terms and conditions under which we have been committed.
It seems to me amazing that a party which has talked so much about the supremacy of parliament should now be beating all around the bush talking about disarmament and the hopes for the future, talking about everything except the subject relevant to this discussion, namely, why has the government not given this parliament an opportunity to approve and ratify this agreement? The President of the United States, who under their constitution has far broader powers than has the Prime Minister of Canada, would not dare enter into an agreement like this committing the United States to a certain course of international action without first submitting the matter to the congress of the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to point out that he is talking about something else. This agreement, for instance, is not being put forward for the examination of the congress of the United States, just as it is not being put before parliament in specific terms, consistent with its classification as a secret document.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is very apparent, Mr. Chairman. The United States already has the legislation which has made it a nuclear power, and the United States already has the legislation by which it can grant nuclear warheads to other nations under bilateral agreement. The United States does not have its status altered in any particular by virtue of this agreement; but I suggest that the signing of this agreement has altered our status in the eyes of the world. It has altered our commitments, and these commitments ought not to have been entered into on behalf of the Canadian people without reference to the elected representatives of the Canadian people.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The admission having been made that we have now sacrificed a degree of our sovereignty under this agreement, I

am wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs may not be able to say that the reason for not wishing to disclose the full terms of this agreement to the house indicates that there is a further and more serious loss of sovereignty within that agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to that question, I would deny the hon. member's initial observation about the loss of sovereignty. With regard to what he said later, he knows perfectly well the limitations which are placed on anyone with regard to a classified document. I recall to him the words of his own leader spoken in this house on February 20, 1959, which were:
We are confident we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States an appropriate means to serve a common objective. It will, of course, be some time before these weapons are available for use by Canadian forces. The government-
-that is, the government of the right hon. gentleman, as of that day-
-as soon as it is in a position to do so, will inform the house within the limits of security of the general terms of understanding which are reached between the two governments on this subject.
That is exactly what we have done.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what you have not done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if the United States government has asked for this document to be kept secret, or whether this decision was reached by the Canadian government of its own accord?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a classified document and that secrecy is observed by every NATO country with regard to its own people and its own legislature.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am sorry to interrupt such an interesting discussion as the one which is before the committee at the present time but I should like to take this opportunity to protest another of the ill-conceived and discriminatory pieces of legislation which have gone to make up the Pearson plan. I refer to the legislation setting up designated or distressed areas in Canada as announced in a press release on September 6 by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Industry. At that time some 35 designated or distressed areas in Canada would qualify, it was stated, for special measures of federal assistance.
I point out, first of all, that this was announced in a press release. That is how we seem to find out about most things. I had to get my copy by coming to Ottawa; I do not think any hon. member of this house received a copy of the release. I know that

some hon. members were very much interested in this question as it affects southwestern Ontario. I am thinking, in particular, of the hon. member for Waterloo South who, I am sorry to learn, is ill and unable to be with us. I know that the hon. member for Perth, the hon. member for Oxford, the hon. member for Wellington-Huron, Waterloo North and others did not receive copies of this press release.
Even the mayors of the municipalities concerned were not notified. What did they have to say? I should like to read from the Guelph daily Mercury of September 12, in which the mayor of Guelph had this comment to make:
The federal government should at least tell the public what constitutes a depressed area, what special considerations are involved and when this became effective.
The report continued:
When the depressed areas were first announced, the mayor of Brantford was surprised to know he was living in one. It should be publicly known just what constitutes a depressed area.
Having in mind the public relations branches attached to the two departments of government concerned, I think the least that could have been done was to have advised every member of this house of this important piece of proposed legislation.
What are likely to be the effects of this measure? I am speaking not only as one who represents a particular area of Canada. This proposal affects all areas of Canada. This ill-conceived piece of legislation, like so many others introduced by this fumbling and bumbling government, was certainly not carefully studied or considered before it was introduced. The government did not take time to analyse the conditions which cause depression and, above all, did not stop to consider what reaction the designation of a particular area in the heart of an industrial district might have on neighbouring cities within a few miles of each other. For example, let us suppose we have a father with four children. They are all in one room and the father gives one of the children a ten dollar bill without giving the others anything. You have a family row on your hands immediately.
Here we find a similar situation. Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener, Waterloo, Stratford, Preston and many other smaller communities were all one happy family in this area. The government has given to the city of Brantford concessions, in this case worth $400,000 to one particular industry. Similar concessions are not available to the other members of this happy family of towns which are all in that area-towns which had been getting along nicely and which have been competitive in
Interim Supply
getting industry and in improving economic conditions. They were getting along well until this government interfered.
Let us review the steps leading up to the introduction of this discriminatory legislation. It was announced on September 6. The criteria for designation were set forth in the same announcement and I think that for the record I should read the main ones. They are these:
A national employment service area qualified as a designated area provided-
(A) it has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months (May to October) during the past eight years; and it has experienced an employment increase of less than one half the national average over the same period; or-
So it goes on, with "and" and "or" and "or" and "and". If you can understand it, you are better than I am at deciphering things, Mr. Chairman. However, no consideration is given to the present or future employment potential of an area.
I should like to read, now, from a brief presented to the Minister of Industry in connection with this discriminatory move. This is a brief which was presented to the Minister of Industry by the mayors and reeves of the municipalities concerned. It states:
As you, Mr. Minister, know, farm machinery manufacturing has long been a major industry in Brantford and to some extent must bear the blame for some of the gyrations that the city of Brantford has experienced. But surely some of the misfortunes that have befallen Brantford during the past five years were unique and by this we mean the closing of the Cockshutt plow plant several years ago. and the razing of the Massey Ferguson's Market street plant. But the fact that these industries are now being replaced by new plants must certainly be considered now. It is known that a new $13,000,000 Massey Ferguson plant is under construction at the present, as well as a new division of Cockshutt Farm Equipment, which is now a subsidiary of Oliver Farm Corp., U.S.A. The increases in employment and assessment that will result from the construction of these two plants and their eventual operation will, no doubt, once again put the Brantford area in the vanguard of progressive communities in southern Ontario.
So nothing was said in the criteria about the present or future potential with respect to the employment picture. Then we move along to the time after the announcement was made and the criteria were laid out. The policy of the government was that of central control and sidestepping the municipalities and the province. The government took the matter into its own hands and said to Brantford: We will name you a designated area. The municipality was not consulted.
The government also sidestepped provincial autonomy. Just a few years ago the provincial government brought in legislation to prevent municipalities competing with one another for industries. The situation had got to the

Interim Supply
point where a municipality would offer an industry freedom from municipal taxes for so many years in order to entice it to come to that area. This went on and on until things got out of hand. The provincial government then said: No, this must stop; and legislation was passed to that end. Here we have the federal government stepping in, going over the provincial legislation and saying: Brantford, you are a designated area and we will give you this and that.
The federal government is sidestepping municipal autonomy. They are not even consulting the municipalities. They are not even asking them: Do you want to become a designated area or not? In the criteria that have been established, too much emphasis has been placed upon statistics. I should like to place on the record an editorial headed "... and Statistics", which appeared in the Guelph Guardian of October 2, 1963. It reads:
Brantford may well be statistically a depressed area according to the formula used by Ottawa to determine that state of affairs; but if it is, then the formula should be changed.
It is absurd for the taxpayer to foot the bill to give industries concessions amounting to more than $400,000 to establish in Brantford, rather than in Guelph or some other community.
There are said to be lies, damned lies and statistics. It is only on the basis of far from convincing statistics that tax money is being used in this curious way.
Under the principle of cabinet solidarity the government presumably is in accord with the answer given the delegation from this area by the minister they interviewed, the Hon. Charles M. Drury, who represents Montreal St. Antoine-West-mount. Mr. Drury simply stands or falls by the statistics. It is a reasonable prediction that such simple faith in statistics will lead the minister into more troubles than his ability will get him out of.
This is a case of a statesmanlike measure being applied in anything but statesmanlike fashion. There would be little objection to the taxpayer's money being used to transfer plants to, say, a one industry town that had lost that industry; or to a community under special difficulties which could not provide a reasonable standard of living for its citizens.
But Brantford is a highly industrialized city vith higher wage rates, for instance, than Guelph, and certainly no greater unemployment problem than this or many other cities. Reconsideration of the policy is urgently necessary, and the sooner the better.
And so these were the steps taken. How does this affect a community? I can give you a concrete example of just how it has affected the city I represent, Guelph. Last August it was announced by the city that a company was coming into our community. A lease was signed for 10 years. A few weeks ago the contractor had the footings in and the ground plumbing installed. Two thirds of the steel was on site. Overnight the company heard that if they went to Brantford, a designated area, they could receive concessions up to

$400,000 over the next five years. These concessions are arrived at by taking into account the legislation which provides a three year holiday from income tax, a 50 per cent writeoff on new machinery and a 20 per cent writeoff on buildings. You cannot blame the company for taking advantage of these concessions which have been handed to it on a silver platter.
Here we are, as citizens and taxpayers of that great metropolitan area of western Ontario, contributing taxes to the federal government so that we can sit back and whistle and watch factories going over to the Brantford area, and this after we in our area and many other areas throughout the region have developed an industrial basin and have spent millions of dollars to attract new industries. We were aggressive. We worked hard to build up these industrial basins and now we must sit back and watch industries flit by our doors on the way over to establish themselves in Brantford.
I ask the minister to reconsider this discriminatory piece of legislation; and when amendments to the Income Tax Act come before this house, to make possible these provisions for depressed areas, I hope hon. members will think twice before they vote for such amendments to the act.
I point out to members from industrial areas that something else can happen. Do you know that an old, established industry in your city can move to a designated area, change its name, build a new factory, put in new machinery and make a new product and thus be eligible for these concessions? I say to any member who has an industry in his riding that that industry can move to a designated area and get these concessions.
Some may say that if I were a member for a designated area the situation might work in reverse. Yes, it can work that way. A member can represent a designated area tonight and tomorrow morning on the say-so of the government it will no longer be a designated area. You may have been negotiating with a company previously to come to your riding and establish a plant. You may spend one to two years trying to get the company to to your area as a designated area; but then overnight by the stroke of a pen you are no longer a designated area and all your work is of no use. It works both ways.
Briefly that is the situation. In conclusion, I would ask the government, particularly the Minister of Industry, to revise their thinking as to this type of legislation. First of all, respect municipal autonomy. Consult the municipalities and ask them if they want to be designated areas. Revise the criteria by

which a designated area is established. I think we will all agree in principle that there are areas in Canada in need of help, but let those areas come to Ottawa and ask for assistance. Do not put so much emphasis on statistics but rather on the practical application of the scheme. Think about the distance between a designated area and non-des-ignated areas. Keep out of highly industrialized areas. I do not think for a minute that this legislation was ever intended to apply to a highly industrialized area and thus start a family row among all the cities and communities in that area. Do not override the provincial legislation already in effect. These areas should not be selected on a patronage basis. I am not accusing the government of doing that, but I do say that 63 per cent of these designated areas in Ontario have Liberal members. There are five areas that have Liberal members, two are Conservative ridings, while one is an N.P.D. riding. I say that 63 per cent of the designated areas in Ontario are represented by Liberal members or Liberal senators.
The government should prevent further steals of industry from one city to another. If you want to help this situation, then help move the employees from one area to the other. The area of which I am speaking covers a radius of 25 miles, and today people can commute easily. If there is a need for help in one area, it is not a problem for people to commute a short distance like that.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say to this government they should do one of two things. They should either remove Brantford from the list of designated areas, or give the rest of us in southwestern Ontario the same concessions. We would rather not have these concessions. It hurts our pride. We do not not want this help. We would rather go it alone. We are not happy about the cartoon published in the Globe and Mail which showed the mayors of all these municipalities playing violins in the street and begging for support. We would rather go it alone and get industry into these areas as we have done in the past. This problem requires immediate and serious thought on the part of the government, which introduced this legislation in a hasty and ill-considered manner in order to beat the 60 days of decision. Then they found themselves in a real muddle. If you do not believe me, just go into southwestern Ontario, and talk to the people in the area to which I have been referring and have the honour to represent.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, only a few short days ago I had the privilege of having lunch with the New Zealand ombudsman. We discussed the cases that he had had come to him during his first term of office. It thrilled me to hear him express satisfaction
Interim Supply
with the part he had been able to play in bringing justice to a great number of people who, as a result of bureaucratic government, found themselves in difficulty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I do rise on a point of order. It should be understood that the subject matter introduced by the hon. member for Wellington South may be continued, even though there is a break now when the hon. gentleman discusses another matter. I have no objection to this. On the other hand, I refrained from speaking a while ago on the question of nuclear weapons because I realized it was a subject of great importance and if I were to break in the result would be that the debate could not be continued. If it is understood in the committee that, after the hon. gentleman has spoken about the ombudsman, hon. members may speak in this matter which particularly affects the economy of this country, then I have no objection. Otherwise, I raise the point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: My understanding is that since we are in committee there is no difficulty about the point which has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: They can come in at any time.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is quite right.


Robert Norman Thompson: If the Leader of the Opposition would be just a little bit patient he would find I will not be breaking the trend of the discussion that has been started. I will be dealing with very much the same problem as that to which the previous speaker was referring.
In any event, I picked up a newspaper last night and I read where this same ombudsman in New Zealand had presented his first report to parliament. The government was so satisfied with the first year's operation of his new office that they are going to expand his powers. A few months ago I had the opportunity of presenting a bill before this house that would have given us in Canada an ombudsman. However, Mr. Speaker saw fit to disqualify my bill and throw it out. Now, I am rather happy that he did so, although I am convinced that before long we are going to have an ombudsman in Canada, because bureaucratic government requires that we have one.
If this office had been established, I am afraid that every citizen in Red Deer would be appealing to him tomorrow because of the injustices that have been perpetrated upon them in the last couple of days. The reason for this is simply the bureaucratic actions of

Interim Supply
government departments, in this case the bungling and inefficient administration of the transport and defence departments in relation to the Penhold air base and its development into a jet training base.
As long ago as seven years, plans were being made to develop this important training centre into a jet training base. At that time the government was well aware of the implications that would be brought about through the newer developments in aircraft training. This awareness carried right on through the Conservative government's administration. These plans have finally come to a head. This meant the purchasing of the Tudor jet aircraft which would lead to a program whereby young men would go directly into training on jet aircraft. In recent months plans developed to the point where the government, carrying through the policies of the previous government, had let the tenders for the construction of the necessary runways. The tenders had been opened, and even the treasury board had considered the expenditure of approximately $3 million, or, to be exact $2.8 million for this purpose. The contractor concerned had moved in equipment planning to begin work on runway construction. In addition to this, the air force moved in a lot of equipment. Not only that, but they had called for a program of additional housing in the city of Red Deer which, just the night before last, was cancelled. Last Monday night the city council had given approval for this $1 million housing program. As late as three weeks ago, both the mayor of Red Deer and myself were informed that this program was going to go through, and we were informed by the defence department.
Then, suddenly the project was withdrawn. What has been the result? Well, the contractor has lost thousands of dollars because the contract that had been more or less assured has been cancelled. We find that a $1 million housing project has likewise been cancelled after the city had reserved the area and made the necessary plans to supply the essential services. The whole community of central Alberta is upset because of this decision reversal.
We investigated and we have found out that as long as nine months ago negotiations had been carried on by the two departments concerned, at departmental level, regarding the safety requirements relating to air traffic lanes and buffer zones. All through these discussions it had seemed to the air force that they would be going forward with the project, and the outline I have given is proof of that. Then all of a sudden a new regulation was introduced and this regulation or recommendation-no matter what it is called it amounts to the same thing-set up a 20 mile

buffer zone on either side of the normal air traffic lane, making it absolutely impractical for the air force to use this area as a training centre, because the air space was not sufficient for the high speed aircraft involved.
What is the result? It is a waste of taxpayers' money. It has caused a great deal of confusion and distress for a great many of our citizens. Half the village of Penhold will find itself empty because the people living there are working at the air base. Many of them will have to move elsewhere or become unemployed in the city of Red Deer. In the case of Penhold debentures were floated in order to provide the essential services for a housing program. These will have to be cancelled, and now the village is in extreme financial difficulties, and is even facing the threat of bankruptcy. This is the problem we find because there is not the proper consultation and co-ordination between two government departments that there should be. This is the danger that is involved when governments become as vast as they have become today.
I demand that the government publicly and fully make known what has happened in this matter, and that appropriate action be taken to clear up what appears to be vast interdepartmental blundering.
This is only an illustration concerning one constituency of the chaos that exists between all levels of government. One department simply does not know what another is doing. Were I to go into the number of instances where provincial and federal government programs do not coincide and are not coordinated, I could take more time than the rules of the house allow. We have already seen first rate examples during this session of parliament.
The Canada pension plan, introduced with such a flourish a few months ago, is now in a position where the government cannot go forward with it without the co-operation of a single provincial government. We, the duly elected members of the house find that we have been wasting our breath, time and efforts becoming acquainted with this vast subject, because in the end we have found that the future of this proposal does not depend on our efforts but on the whim of a single provincial government.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not think a question is necessary at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure he would like to clarify my mind-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the hon. member who has the floor does not yield to the hon. member asking a question, then he should be allowed to complete his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will ask my question later when he has finished.


Robert Norman Thompson: Another example is the municipal loan fund. This was also introduced with a great flourish. When he spoke about it in the city of Toronto the Prime Minister said something like this, "Come on and get it boys. It is here for you." However it did not take very long before it was discovered there were problems relating to it, and a conference of provincial premiers had to be called. As a result this loan fund has not been implemented in the way it should have been, nor has it met with needs it was intended to meet.
What could be a better example of this bungling between governments, provincial and federal, than that set forth by the hon. member who preceded me when he spoke about assistance for distressed areas? How does the federal government know which area in any province is a distressed area? I can give an example in my own province. One particular town has been named. I do not deny that that town is not in a needy area, but what about the other areas adjacent to it? What about other areas in other parts of the province?


An hon. Member:: Penhold.


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, Penhold will be one too, unless something is done. How can the federal government know the needs of the municipalities, and what right has it to designate, over and above the authority of a province, what is a special, needy area? This is just another illustration of the problems we face when there is not adequate consultation between governments at the various levels.
I can give another illustration. What about the history of the Columbia river treaty? How long has it been held up for this very same reason? Because there has not been proper co-ordination, discussion and planning between the provincial government and the federal government, the result is that the economy of the nation is held back.
The announcement of bold plans that quite obviously affect provincial governments, before those governments have been consulted, has led to a great sense of ill-will on the part of provincial governments towards the federal government, and what better illustration of that could we find at present than the province of Quebec? The need for government by consultation is one of the most urgent things facing us.
Interim Supply
I have previously demanded that the government establish a department of federal-provincial affairs. It should be a full-scale ministry, having the prime purpose of dealing with those matters that concern the different levels of government, federal and provincial, and the provinces one with another on a broader scale. To me it seems just as important that the provinces be consulted, ahead of time, on matters of federal action and policy that will affect them, as it is that every piece of legislation and order in council be examined to assure conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights. The need is self-evident and does not require further emphasis from me at this time.
Several provinces have seen the need for such a department and have themselves set up departments of provincial-federal affairs. If that could be done in every province, with the lead being given by the federal government, then how much easier would it be to deal with the problems that resolve around legislation such as the Canada pension plan, the municipal development fund, and that relating to distressed areas? We must have an even greater degree of co-operation in the future between the provinces and the federal government. We all realize that it will not be too long before a power grid is necessary across the whole country. We know we are in desperate need today of a national highways program. What about the tax sharing problem? I am sure the Minister of Finance realizes this better than any of us in the house at this time.
If we are going to have unity-and I mean unity of purpose-among the different levels of government in this land, if we are going to avoid the faux pas and cost to the taxpayers caused by the bumbling and the rivalries between different levels of government that go on at the present time; if we are going to avoid a potent source of friction between provinces and the federal government; if we are to make the whole machinery of government run smoothly at all levels in Canada, then I say a department of federal-provincial affairs within this government is a necessity.
I therefore call on the government to show their initiative in setting up such a department in order that it will save us the distress and the problems that face us at the present time with regard to the various pieces of legislation I have mentioned. We need only consider the budget to realize the problems that have been raised. Certainly the problems that arose out of the budget as they related to the tax on construction materials would have been avoided altogether, I am sure, had there been a little consultation among the

Interim Supply
people who were in the know, and who understood the problems that would inevitably have arisen and which we know have been brought about.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the government to take action along this line in order to bring about the efficient operation of our government and the more efficient and effective spending of our tax dollars.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member one quick question, if I may. While I agree with much of what he said with regard to the jet training base, he referred to one single provincial government in Canada having blocked the Canada pension plan. I wonder if he would enlighten me and other hon. members as to which single government he was referring to.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I was
referring to the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare just the other day, when she said that it depends upon the provincial government of Ontario whether they are going to be able to go forward with the Canada pension plan at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am in slight disagreement with the hon. member. I think there is more than one, and I am glad he has enlightened me as to which one he thought it was. I thought it was Quebec.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was referring to a specific instance, Mr. Chairman, and I am correct in that reference. If there are other provinces so involved, then the hon. member can make his own speech about them.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on this interim supply motion I feel it my duty as member of parliament for Waterloo North to express my views and those of others in the house on behalf of my industrial area and the surrounding districts, especially with regard to the designation of depressed areas which was so well explained by the hon. member for Wellington South.
The Minister of Industry has been advised of the storm of regional protest by a protest delegation which came to Ottawa last Friday. This delegation was arranged by my friend and neighbour the hon. member for Wellington South, whose city of Guelph was first affected in our area by the designation of certain industrial centres as "depressed" or "slow growth" areas. The method being followed by this government in applying these regulations is typical of the method they have followed in other fields, such as the pension plan. There is a lack of consideration and consultation. Under the previous government, experts were sent into these areas to be designated as labour surplus areas. These

experts consulted with municipal authorities; they consulted with the officials of the national employment service; they talked to industrialists and businessmen.
The present government has not seen fit to follow this procedure. As usual, they are in too much of a hurry to do the job properly. As a result we have had the same confusion, misunderstanding and complaints surrounding the application of this measure as we have had with such measures as the municipal loans program and the winter works program. It is surprising that this government does not seem able to undertake the most ordinary and routine administrative responsibilities without botching up the job. When they bring in legislation, they cannot get it accepted. An example of this, of course, is the budget, with regard to which they had to withdraw, retreat or revise their original plans.
With regard to depressed areas, these are important measures brought forward by the Waterloo and Kitchener city councils as well as many others in my area. Such proposed legislation could, and will, affect the economy of our country. It is impossible to get business by panic methods. Evidently the watchword of this government is "scramble". They scrambled up the municipal loans program; they scrambled up the pension scheme; they gave us a scrambled budget, and now they are scrambling up this distressed area measure. Everywhere it has been applied, it has caused distress.
Consider the situation in Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener, Galt, Waterloo, Hespeler, and my home town of Elmira. I am sure that if the hon. member for Waterloo South were here he would explain the situation in this way, as would the hon. member for Wellington South.
If there had been even a minimum of consultation with local authorities this situation would not have arisen. There was none of this trouble with the previous Minister of Labour. There were no complaints from the provinces; there were no complaints from the municipalities. The present government set up a new department to handle things formerly handled by the Minister of Labour, together with his other duties. The result has been only to add to the confusion. During the debate on the measure to appoint a Minister of Industry I suggested that this minister look after this department and not try also to cover the work of defence production. After seeing what has happened during the last two or three weeks I believe my suggestion at that time was a good one and the fears I expressed have become reality. There should be one job for one man.
My complaints do not originate with the opposition. There is no obstruction here. These

are complaints originating with responsible municipal and civic bodies, people who have no partisan axe to grind, people who have an interest in the prosperity and welfare of their particular municipalities. These are people who feel that a decision such as that designating a distressed area in my district and other places, without consultation, is doing damage to the Canadian economy at the provincial, municipal and national levels.
Other legislation that has brought criticism is shortening the season for the winter works program by six weeks. Mr. Chairman, they have courses with essentially the same school program as the former government, but with no new schools being built this winter. The tax on building materials was vigorously protested by the Kitchener-Waterloo home builders association and other people across Canada. All these things, rather than helping the economy are making it that much more difficult for provinces and municipalities to cope with their problems.
Resolutions from the twin cities mayors and councils, and others in my area, have been sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and other members in the House of Commons. These resolutions have strongly opposed the announced intention of the government of Canada to include the city of Brantford as a designated depressed area.
While agreeing in principle with the necessity of some type of assistance for fully qualified depressed areas, these councils oppose the designation of Brantford as a depressed area, which designation is apparently based on unemployment statistics in the past, with no other factor being considered, including present and future employment potential.
Further, these councils feel that the other designated depressed areas in southern Ontario should be revised to include only those making convincing representations to the federal government and proving actual distressed conditions. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record of Tuesday, October 2, 1963, in an editorial had this to say:
Seven municipalities in the Grand River valley complex are combining to battle the federal government on its recent designation of Brantford as a distressed area. They are afraid they will lose industries to Brantford under the special assistance offered to plants to locate in the officially named area. The opposition is understandable.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that such legislation would rule out future fair competition for industry, and in such industrialized areas as Waterloo North and Wellington South, where progress and stability are combined, this would be disastrous. May I ask the Minister of Industry to give this matter a second look-yes, a very serious second look.
Interim Supply
Mayor Bauer of Waterloo has summed up this criticism with a sound explanation. He said he could not understand why Brantford is classed as a distressed area because two industries from there are advertising in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record for labour help. Mr. Chairman, surely such remarks should make the minister sit up and take notice regarding this serious problem.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, may I use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee, in particular to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a matter which affects several thousand people in this country. I refer to the fact that a great many immigrants to Canada are denied citizenship because of the arbitrary power given to the minister by section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Not only can the minister, one man, by himself deny applications for citizenship but, what is worse, he does not have to give any reason for his denial. It seems to me that this is arbitrary authority of the worst kind and runs counter to what we generally consider to be the best principles of British justice.
There are undoubtedly reasons for denying citizenship to some persons. They may not have learned either of our two official languages or they may have criminal records, which it seems to me constitute valid reasons for denying citizenship. But we know that persons are denied citizenship because of their membership in certain social and political organizations, and it is about this that I wish to speak at the moment. This was admitted a year ago when the then minister of citizenship and immigration replied to a question put at that time by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Here I quote from a news story which refers to the reply given by the minister to the hon. member. It is dated April 5, 1962, and is a United Press dispatch:
The federal government has disclosed that membership or association with organizations believed to be subversive could bar new Canadians from obtaining citizenship.
Immigration minister Ellen Fairclough, in a written reply to a question asked in the Commons, said such membership or association was taken into consideration when deciding whether applicants had "an adequate knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of Canadain citizenship."
Mrs. Fairclough revealed that from January 1947, when the citizenship act came into force, until January 1 last 3,317 applications for citizenship had been rejected and 582,299 granted.
As far as I know, there has never been published a list of those organizations considered to be subversive. In this respect the government of the United States is more forthright than we are. They do publish such a list. I do not know which persons determine which organizations are considered to be subversive and undesirable, but at least a new

Interim Supply
immigrant to the United States knows where he stands. If the Canadian government authorities in charge of these matters feel that certain organizations, political as well as social, are subversive, then I think we ought to know about them. Perhaps we should go further: if they are undesirable and subversive they should be made illegal. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that as we stand at the moment even the communist party of Canada is not an illegal organization. But the fact is that citizenship is denied people because they belong to certain organizations, and we are never told what these organizations are.
I complain, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is vested with arbitrary power. To make matters worse, there is no appeal from his authority. Over 3,000 persons have been refused citizenship since 1947, and we assume that a great many of them have been denied citizenship because of membership in certain organizations. Many of these persons have resided in Canada for many years, some for 40 or 45 years. There are many specific cases here which could be cited. If a person is not ready for citizenship after all that time in Canada, then perhaps the logical thing to do is to send him out of Canada.
I believe there has been general satisfaction with the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. A number of members have told me that he has given very sympathic hearing to individual cases involving immigration and citizenship matters-cases which members have taken to him. In fact, I understand that he has personally reviewed many cases where he felt an injustice had been done. But I think that we need more than a sympathetic minister; I think we need a change in the procedure. I think we should have a removal of the arbitrary power of the minister. I also feel, along with that, that there should be a right of appeal from a denial of citizenship, and preferably a right of appeal to a judicial body, to a court, rather than to an administrative agency. And it would follow that when Canadian citizenship is denied, a person should know why he is being refused.
The present minister was in Vancouver recently, and on September 23 spoke to the Chinese community there. As hon. members know, the Canadian Chinese have suffered certain discrimination regarding immigration. The minister seems to be taking a sincere interest in removing these discriminations, and I should like to conclude with a short quotation from his speech to the Chinese community of Vancouver at that time. He said:
I have been distressed by the accusations of discrimination which have reached me. If prejudice exists in immigration matters it must be eliminated. True Canadianism permits no discrimination.
[Mr. Prittie.l
All citizens are equal in rights and responsibilities, regardless of ethnic origin or creed. It is with this view in mind that I am most sincere in my effort to weed out discrimination and prejudice.
You can count on me to work in the interests of all ethnic groups and to seek a fair and just solution to the vexing problem of Chinese immigration to Canada.
I like the attitude of the minister in these matters, and my only purpose in speaking this evening is to urge on the minister and his cabinet colleagues a review of this situation whereby arbitrary power is held by the department to refuse citizenship, and to set up fair procedures and let people know where they stand. I think that we have to do away with the type of system we have at the present time, where an informer can inform the department of the activities of certain persons but never has to face the person upon whom he has informed. I would appreciate very much if the government would take under consideration a reform of the procedures for applications for citizenship.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inform the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond that I will certainly bring his comments to the minister's attention. I am sure the minister would want me to indicate his gratitude for the kind references he has made.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, now that we come to the discussion of an expenditure of public funds, and particularly the distribution of these outlays, may I call the attention of the government to the Charlevoix riding which I have been representing for about a year now.
If I call the attention of this house to that county, it is because, in my opinion, it has been forgotten in the last few years in turn by the members of the Conservative and the Liberal administration.
In the course of a speech made during the early part of this session, an hon. member gave us a poetical description of the charms and beautiful scenery of that county, for which I congratulate him.
But, Mr. Chairman, what is spoken of a great deal less, because it is truly shameful for the older parties which are responsible for it, is the economic situation with which the people of that county are trying to cope desperately but without much success.
I can tell the house that, as the member for that riding, I have inherited a dreadful situation, owing to the inefficiency of the previous governments and particularly the representatives of that county.
The county of Charlevoix is one of those in the province of Quebec which suffers most

from that terrible plague called unemployment. That is why I request that this county be included in the designated areas in order to receive special economic benefits.
In that part of the riding which, geographically, makes up the county of Charlevoix live about 8,000 families. The statistics published during the month of March by the La Malbaie unemployment insurance office, indicated that there were then 3,000 unemployed.
That also means hardship, worry and lower standards for those families who have not deserved that fate and I wonder how much longer those people will accept placidly to remain in such conditions.
The economic situation in my county began to go downhill in 1954 and has not improved since, although we have had in office during that period a Liberal, then a Conservative and again a Liberal government.
But what is most urgent today is not so much to determine who is responsible for that situation but rather to face the facts and try to find a solution to the problem.
Many things would have to be done to revive industry in my county. To mention but a few, may I be allowed to say that one reason why trade is slowing down more than anywhere else in that county and why very few industries are going there is that we have no modern or speedy means of transportation to encourage them to do so, apart from the fact that that county is located far from the large centres of the province, in spite of the fact that it has the shortest road to reach the territory where lies the greatest potential in ore and other resources of the province and probably of all Canada as well.
To cope with the situation, and although I do not pretend to be an expert in such things, may I be allowed to suggest that the government should consider the possibility of making highway 15, which goes from Quebec to Seven Islands, and even beyond, a section of the trans-Canada highway. I am sure that it will be proven in the future that such a section would be more useful to Canadians than the present laying-out of the highway on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Nobody can deny that the territory located on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, from Quebec city to Labrador, includes many times the land located to the south over the same distance.
Moreover, that territory's natural potential constitutes the determining factor of future economic activity as, up to now, enough of it has been discovered to prove its extraordinary importance.
Interim Supply
It is only logical to reverse, in a suitable way, the present trend which causes the industrial, commercial and tourist traffic to make use of the south shore in order to reach the north shore.
Another suggestion, which could be put into practice immediately would be the removal of the tolls collected for crossing the Saguenay, as they are a hindrance to trade. I have not tried to find out whether these tolls are warranted or not, but I had occasion to ascertain that trailer-trucks had to pay up to $9 to cross the Saguenay, which is about a mile wide.
I suggest consequently that the government should enter into some sort of an agreement with the company concerned and subsidize it, so that these rates could be cut down or altogether abolished. Besides, the government should make a few inquiries about the material and financial possibilities of building a bridge across the Saguenay.
Under the ARDA program, the government would be wise to take stock of the land under cultivation at the present time, so as to decide upon the best methods. In my part of the country, the farmers eke out a bare existence, mostly because there are very few transportation facilities towards the marketing centres.
The harbour facilities in Charlevoix county should be studied and the necessary improvements brought about as soon as possible. Thus, one would kill two birds with one stone, by allowing hundreds of families to find work and, at the same time, by promoting trade in that part of the country. Many harbours and wharves need improvement because they are dilapidated and represent a loss of money for the government. Some money was rightly spent at those places but it would not be reasonable to let them deteriorate and it would be illogical to waste money for their destruction as it is presently done in the case of the wharf at Port-aux-Saumons.
I am thinking for instance of the wharf at Pointe au Pic, the wharf at St. Simeon; those I will only mention to say I appreciate the fact that this government is now spending money appropriated last year for rebuilding. But there are other small wharves such as those at St. Fidele, Ste-Irdnee, Baie Ste Catherine and many other places and there are many wharves which could be useful to facilitate shipping and stimulate the tourist industry. But what is most urgent, in my opinion, is to build a deep water wharf at Baie St. Paul, because this would help the development of the mining industry. An iron mine is now in operation on a very small scale but its production would be increased if the necessary facilities for shipping the

Interim Supply
ore were available. I am informed that it thorough examinations were made other places could be found. On that same subject, concerning the mining industry in my riding, the government should look for means to promote research and prospecting because I have often been told that the rock formations in the Charlevoix hills indicate possible important mineral deposits.
Another way to remedy unemployment in that depressed area would be to promote the tourist industry. There has been a good start, part of which was the building of a landing field at Ste Irenee, which the government should keep in good shape during the winter season. Charlevoix is well known for its unique scenery, its lakes full of fish, its mountains and forests, where one can hunt fine moose and deer-in the proper season, of course. I trust that if the government made the necessary publicity, the tourist industry would develop considerably.
There is another point which I would like to mention. An attempt is being made now, at great cost and with incomplete success, to maintain navigation and keep the Quebec ports open for the whole winter season. With regard to this matter, I would have a suggestion for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcll-raith). He should send some engineers to examine the deep water wharf project undertaken at Beaupre by St. Ann Paper Limited. This wharf, though yet incomplete, might, I think, easily be acquired from the said company and completed, so as to give to the district and city of Quebec a deep water wharf where navigation might be kept open all winter, because the river never completely freezes at that point which is only 20 miles off the city of Quebec. Ships of all sizes might load and unload there all year round. Then, highway 15 becoming the trans-Canada highway, and with the railways serving the district, we would be able to solve that almost insoluble problem of winter navigation in the port of Quebec.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are some suggestions I am making to the government to help it forget the errors of the former administrations which made of the county of Charlevoix one of the least developed areas of the province of Quebec.
I even urge the government to act as quickly as possible in order to rectify the intolerable economic conditions now prevailing in my county of Charlevoix. The suggested projects are by no means all those which the federal government might carry out in my riding-they are mere indications.
To come back to the estimates, I am surprised to see that, in spite of several economists being present-


Mr. Nugent:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a rule of the house against reading speeches. The hon. member is obviously so doing and, not only that, he is doing it in a manner that makes it look like he has never seen it before. He might at least give us the name of the author. [Translation]


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member knows that as a general rule, it is not permitted to read a text or a speech. But every hon. member might have realized that on several occasions, speeches have been read and the chairman of the committee, until now, has been lenient for the speakers who were out of order in that way.
But hon. members are allowed to follow notes to refresh their memory and I would suggest to the hon. member to do so.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Interim Supply
come about only when, according to its promise, the government will increase family allowances.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, during the debate on interim supply, we heard a while ago-and I think this question should be brought up-about the acquisition of nuclear weapons by our country.
Many events took place during the summer. First there was the signing of a nuclear test ban agreement by the big three: the U.S.S.R., the United States and England, and that agreement was approved and signed by several other countries, including Canada. At that time, people were talking of an easing throughout the world and it was said that the cold war was getting hot.
Barely a few days later, our country, in turn, signed with the United States a treaty or a commitment to acquire and stock nuclear weapons on our soil.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the nonsense of those two actions. Canada cannot proceed with nuclear tests. Canada is entirely unable to make tests today, and yet she signs the agreement. Whether she signs it or not does not change a thing. Canada never made nuclear tests, she never exploded a nuclear or atomic bomb. She cannot do it. She cannot do it, but the Prime Minister nevertheless signs the agreement. What obligation does that impose on him? He will not explode nuclear weapons. And yet he signs the agreement. He has no risk to run, and he says: "Here, we take part in the easing in the world". He cannot do otherwise, because he is unable to explode a nuclear bomb.
But what he could have done for the easing of the situation, the part he could have played to warm the cold war, was to refuse nuclear weapons. He was able to do that, but he did not do it. He says he will do what he cannot do, but he does not do what he can do. That is exactly what our present government did. It acquired nuclear weapons and it is ready to stock them on Canadian soil.
Well, Mr. Chairman, only a few days after Canada committed itself to acquire nuclear weapons and to store them on our territory, I had the opportunity to attend the annual session of the United Nations. I must say that in the climate prevailing at that time, when every country of the world was talking of eased tension, Canada cut a sorry figure indeed, since our country was the only one in the world to have taken a further step in the direction of nuclear weapons and world destruction, by accepting such weapons on its territory. All the others were talking of disarmament and Canada was the only one, since the signing of the Moscow treaty, to acquire nuclear arms.

What was our position at the United Nations before the other countries of the world? I heard the Prime Minister of Canada make a fine speech, but I could not help thinking: those are only words, words and words, but nothing practical, nothing real, except the acquisition of nuclear weapons by our country and their storage on our territory.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, two days later, I heard at the annual session of the UN the day after President Kennedy proposed to Russia to co-operate and set up a joint Russian and American expedition to the moon, the minister of external affairs for Dahomey said in very simple terms: "Americans and Russians, when you go up to the moon hand in hand, just ask yourselves then if you have performed your duty towards your brothers remaining on earth." And he added: "For us, the greatest country is not the one who will first land on the moon; for us, Africans, the greatest country in the world is not the one who will have the most destructive bombs, but the greatest country will be the one which will have done the most on earth to fight illness, ignorance, hunger and destitution throughout the world."
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, there was another member of the house between the Prime Minister and myself and I could not resist looking at him and saying: "That is a role suited for us, a role that we can play. We could fight sickness, ignorance, hunger and misery throughout the world. That is a role cut out for Canada. It is a role for Canadians because we can co-operate in that field instead of trying to find out who will stockpile the greatest number of nuclear bombs in our country, a military role which will inevitably lead us to use those means of destruction one day. On the other hand, if we help other countries and the United Nations to fight sickness, ignorance, hunger and misery, as all other countries advocate, then we will be acting as human beings who are more concerned with the welfare of their fellow men than with knowing whether hay, wheat or barley grows on the moon.
Mr. Chairman, I notice it is ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair I wonder if I might appeal to the committee to see if there would be any possibility of getting interim supply completed this evening because in order to carry on the business of the country, in order to pay the public servants, it is necessary that this money be voted. We have spent the whole of one day on this subject now, and I wondered if there would be any possibility of getting cooperation to complete interim supply this evening.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I must inform you that we do not intend to end the debate on interim supply either tonight, tomorrow or as long as the privileges and elections committee has not remedied the ridiculous and illogical situation which prevails in this corner of the house. We tried to do it and it was supposed to be done as soon as possible. Last Monday, the house asked that the situation be settled but it has not yet been done. When the committee met this morning, I asked that a solution be found to the problem but nothing was done about it. A resolution was introduced calling for a new meeting of the committee tomorrow morning but it was voted down. The committee is to meet Monday morning. Because of that, the leader of the Ralliement des creditistes and I will have to
Business of the House
make a special trip by automobile at that time to be here for ten o'clock. Well, we are not ready to end the debate tonight.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I just wish to ask the house leader to inform us whether he intends to continue with interim supply tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I think the government would have no option but to make every effort to get the necessary funds to carry on the public business of the country which is, of course, the first business of this house.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
28902-5-204J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 4, 1963