1963-06-05

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 5, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 5th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant.
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



COLUMBIA RIVER


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated the day before yesterday that following the talks with the government of British Columbia on the matter of the Columbia river treaty I would be making a statement.
Pursuant to this undertaking I should like to say that late yesterday representatives of the government completed two days of talks about the development of the Columbia river with representatives of the provincial government of British Columbia. The house will not, I am sure, expect an exhaustive report at this stage while matters are still under negotiation. I can, however, say that the main objective of the talks was to prepare the way for the basic agreement between the federal and provincial governments which will be necessary if further progress is to be made in the co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin. It seems to me only prudent that such a firm understanding with the British Columbia government should be secured before final negotiations with the United States are resumed. I can say, too, that the British Columbia government is in full accord with this view.
28902-5-43i
A good deal of ground was covered with the premier and his colleagues from British Columbia. The discussions were not final, not necessarily not final-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I said-and in case hon. gentlemen opposite find it difficult to comprehend, I will repeat-the discussions were necessarily not final. I am sure no one opposite thinks they could be. The reports of the two delegations will now have to be considered by the federal and provincial governments.
At the conclusion of the meeting late last night the following communique was issued:
Yesterday and today, talks regarding the Columbia river treaty have been taking place between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia at the ministerial and official levels. The British Columbia delegation was led by Premier Bennett and the federal delegation was led by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Associated with them were, for British Columbia, Hon. Robert Bonner, Hon. Ray Williston and senior officers of the British Columbia hydro and power authority and the British Columbia water resources service and for Canada, Hon. Arthur Laing, Hon. John R. Nicholson, Dr. Jack Davis and Dr. John Stewart and officials of the federal departments concerned.
Following a joint meeting with Prime Minister Pearson, the two delegations have held a series of intensive discussions on various aspects of the treaty and on the arrangements which would be required between the Canadian government and the British Columbia government.
The provincial and federal representatives have had a thorough discussion on the modifications and clarifications in the treaty which Prime Minister Pearson had suggested to President Kennedy in their meeting at Hyannis Port last month. The representatives of British Columbia and of the federal government considered that these improvements should be sought through some device such as a protocol to the existing treaty which would not involve the renegotiation of the treaty itself. In particular, the two delegations agreed that the price and other terms of sale for Canada's downstream power benefits generated in the United States should be further negotiated before any exchange of instruments of ratification which would bring the treaty into force. Such an exchange of instruments of ratification would, of course, only take place after action has been completed by the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament.
In addition to discussions on the treaty itself, during several working sessions the federal and provincial representatives drafted the provisions of an agreement designed to set out clearly the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments and to ensure that all of the arrangements under the treaty bring the maximum advantage to the people of British Columbia and the rest of

Columbia River Treaty
Canada. The agreement is based on the intention that the necessary modifications will be negotiated in the proposed treaty arrangements and that the way will then be open for ratification of the treaty. The agreement drafted over the past two days is being submitted to the two governments for their consideration.
Final decisions on the various matters, including the draft agreement, discussed during the present series of meetings can only be taken by the federal and provincial governments after they have had an opportunity to consider the reports from their representatives. The meetings have taken place in a co-operative and constructive atmosphere. Both delegations were anxious to make as much progress as possible.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the concluding words of the communique that was issued will be shared by all hon. members. We, of course, have had some experience since January, 1960 in that connection. A number of meetings were held between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. They were amicable and constructive but they ended without agreement.
It is well to look back over the years and realize that in January, 1960 when the treaty was signed it represented the consensus not only of the government of Canada but of the government of British Columbia. The government of British Columbia was represented. It agreed to the terms, the treaty was signed, and it was only then that disagreements arose as the result of a desire on the part of the government of British Columbia to have terms different from those already agreed on.
All of us would welcome proceeding with the development of the Columbia. At the same time the Peace river project is now under way. When these two projects are under way and power is developed, naturally the house will want to know what provision is going to be made for the marketing of what will be bound to be a tremendous surplus of power. Will there be action taken on the part of the federal government to bring about that which we advocated, namely a national grid to assure that future generations of Canadians will have available to them the vast power potentialities of our country?
Then, in so far as downstream benefits are concerned, the communique is veiled in uncertainty. Apparently the sale of these benefits is to depend on the price secured in the United States. We have always contended that, in so far as downstream benefits are concerned, if they mean as we believe they do, cheaper power, the major portion of the downstream benefits should be made available to Canadians. This phase of the situation was not dealt with except in generalities.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).I
I welcome the fine spirit that has prevailed as between the representatives of the federal government and the provincial government, but I point out this on the basis of experience in the past. Unless the government of Canada will do that which Premier Bennett wants done, agreement cannot be secured. In other words, if agreement is secured he will be the one who will determine the terms of the agreement.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do welcome the announcement today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the arrangements that have been discussed with the government of British Columbia. I should like to say it is my opinion that we have had some of the top men in Canada participating in these discussions on this subject. I am confident from the fact that we are now getting action in connection with this treaty, that the words of the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, sound very hollow indeed. The political implications of what has taken place in British Columbia in recent months certainly must show us in this house what some of the real stumbling blocks were in connection with getting anything done about the Columbia river.
We have now seen some action in connection with this matter. I am certain that with the type of individuals who are actually engaged in the negotiations we will be pleased, not only as people of British Columbia but as people of Canada, when the final arrangements are made. I have every confidence that this will be so.
In so far as the premier of British Columbia wanting his own way is concerned, why shouldn't he? Since he is the premier of British Columbia, he is there to represent these people, and why should he not get the best deal possible for the province of British Columbia? I am all for that. I think it is axiomatic that if he does so we will have the best possible program for the Dominion of Canada as well.
In so far as the Peace river project is concerned, I am pleased to see that the Peace river development has speeded up the need, in the general over-all picture of power, for the development of the Columbia. It is obvious that the development of the Peace river area is something that is badly needed in western Canada, and certainly a national grid to tap some of that power and bring it to the prairies and other places is something that should be considered by the government, and no doubt will be.

I appreciate very much the report that has been made, and we will be looking forward to further reports. I am sure that the $9 million which British Columbia has already spent on the Columbia river shows the province has not been lax in promoting the program and the project.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members will agree that it is the part of wisdom to conclude an agreement with the province of British Columbia before attempting to carry on any negotiations with the government of the United States. The present impasse we are in is due to the fact that this process was not carried through.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are three points about which members of my party are concerned. I wish to say first of all to the minister that we would like to have some undertaking that those who are affected by this Columbia river treaty plan, and any modifications or changes in that plan, will be given the opportunity to be heard. To the best of my knowledge they have written assurance that, in any modification or renegotiation of the treaty, they will be given ample opportunity to express their views and to be heard. I certainly hope this commitment, which I understand was made by the Prime Minister himself, will be fulfilled to the letter. Therefore I express the hope no final decision will be reached, and no final commitments made, until the committee on external affairs has an opportunity to review the entire matter.
The second point that gives us concern is the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that negotiations are going on regarding the price of downstream power benefits. This would indicate that the principle of selling the downstream power benefits has been accepted. We certainly would have serious misgivings about the acceptance of such a principle, particularly until the whole situation has been reviewed; because there is ample evidence of the fact that it would be much more economical for Canada, as a whole, and for the lower mainland of British Columbia in particular to have this power delivered to Canadian consumers rather than having it sold to United States power companies.
The third point is that we think the treaty itself needs to be re-examined to see whether it is the best treaty negotiable to make the maximum use of the resources under discussion. Many persons have been questioning why the original McNaughton plan was dropped. I understand it was dropped because the province of British Columbia preferred
Columbia River Treaty another plan, but the committee on external affairs and this house have the right to ask that General McNaughton be called as a witness, and that other experts be called to review the McNaughton plan.
The whole question of power has obscured the much more important question of the best use of our water resources, because the entire flow of one of our largest rivers, is being sold in perpetuity. The prairies are particularly interested in this matter of water flow, and I am told that even a 10 per cent diversion of the Columbia river could double the flow of water in the Saskatchewan river. This is certainly important in a country where irrigation and water conservation are matters of growing urgency. Therefore we would expect that while these negotiations continue no commitment will be made until the external affairs committee has had a full and extensive opportunity to review any modifications and changes in the treaty before ratification of the treaty itself.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report he made to the house today on the negotiations with the government of British Columbia.
Did these discussions touch on the question of the application by the government of British Columbia or any authority of this government for approval under the navigable waters act of the Peace river dam project? If so, was any undertaking, conditional or otherwise, given to the premier of British Columbia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member will appreciate, while we are in the first stage of negotiations it would be undesirable as well as improper to deal with subjects which were or were not covered by the negotiations. I can say no more at this time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement which he read to the house, a statement we shall have to study very carefully indeed in order to get all its implications. However, in the light of all the circumstances, can the minister assure the house that no final decision will be made by the government regarding any agreement between

Columbia River Treaty the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia until those persons who are concerned and interested have been consulted and heard?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I can answer the hon. member's question by saying this. There will be no ratification by Canada of the treaty until this matter has been discussed in this house and referred to the external affairs committee. That does not remove responsibility from the government for taking a decision as a government. This government believes it has a responsibility and it will take decisions in accordance with that responsibility.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will this undertaking to give the external affairs committee an opportunity to review the matter extend to the question of deciding about the sale of down stream power benefits?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: All aspects of the treaty, as well as all aspects involved in what I hope will be a firm agreement between the government of Canada and British Columbia, will be open for examination and discussion in this house and in the external affairs committee.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Can the
minister tell us whether any draft agreement which may be reached between the federal government and the government of British Columbia will be referred to the external affairs committee and the house prior to the resumption of any further negotiations with the United States regarding this treaty?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I can add nothing more to what I have already said, and I think I have answered the hon. member's question.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: May I ask the minister directly, then, whether any agreement has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia? Has the government of Canada agreed to facilitate the sale of downstream power benefits?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The conference of the last two days had to do with a proposal by the present federal government that before ratification there should be the clearest understanding, in a proper instrument, as to the situation between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. There is before both governments a draft agreement. This is now being considered by both governments.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether all the points regarding the Columbia river discussed between
[Mr. Herridge.l
himself and the President of the United States at Hyannis Port have been put to the premier of British Columbia?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: The matters which were mentioned to the President of the United States as being the kind of changes which would be required to be made to the treaty as it at present stands before that treaty would be acceptable to the present government were all taken up with the premier of British Columbia.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Winch: 1.	Are promotions on penitentiary staffs made as a result of (a) seniority (b) competitive examinations or (c) both seniority and competitive examination?
2.	In 1962 and 1963, have complaints been received relative to working conditions of penitentiary staffs and, if so, what is the nature of these complaints, and what action has been undertaken to consider and correct them?


Mr. Macdonald:: 1. Promotions of penitentiary staffs are made in accordance with P.S.R. 1.19, by competition. Written examinations are requested whenever it is considered necessary to test the applicant's technical qualifications and ability. Seniority is taken into consideration only when all other factors are considered equal.
2.	In 1962 and 1963, no individual staff complaints were received relative to working conditions of penitentiary staffs. However, the Civil Service Association of Canada made representations about:
(a)	alleged deficiencies in security and discipline at Kingston penitentiary. These were investigated and the commissioner, in his six page letter of February 14, 1962, to the national president, C.S.A.C., explained a course of action to rectify any verified deficiencies in security and discipline.
(b)	salary differentials between correctional officers (camps) and guards in main institutions. The whole penitentiary service pay structure is now under review by treasury board.
(c)	security problems at Dorchester penitentiary. These were fully investigated in January 1962, and corrective action taken by authorizing additional custodial staff.
(d)	consultation between the association and the commissioner of penitentiaries. Procedures were adopted to the satisfaction of the association.

(e)	salary schedules generally in the penitentiary service. These are now under study by treasury board.
(f)	commuting allowances for certain institutions. This is under review by treasury board.
(g)	cash payment for overtime. Where it has not been feasible to pay overtime through compensatory time off, cash payments have been made.
Ch) uniform issue schedules. This problem has been rectified as quickly as possible through production shop overtime, particularly by Leclerc institution.
(i)	perquisites allowed penitentiary officers. Treasury board, in their current review of salary schedules, has been asked to consider the whole question of perquisites.
(j)	health of penitentiary officers (contracting tuberculosis). The long standing policy of annual T.B. X-ray surveys for staff and inmates was explained to the national president, Civil Service Association of Canada.
(k)	compensation for overtime worked and also compensation for work done on a statutory holiday. Policy in this regard has been under study for some months and it is hoped a directive will be issued soon clarifying this situation.
(l)	pensions paid to widows and orphans of officers killed on duty. Changes in current legislation, particularly the Superannuation Act, would have to be made. Preliminary discussions have taken place with treasury board in this connection.
There is continuous liaison with the Civil Service Association of Canada for corrective action of legitimate staff complaints.
(Translation):
PASSES TO M.p.'s FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Caoueile: Does the government propose to increase the number of T.C.A. passes allocated to members of parliament?


Mr. Canlin:: This matter has not been considered.
(Text):


COMMITMENTS RESPECTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the government of Canada found out whether its predecessor entered into any commitment or undertaking with NATO or any government or person involving the use by Canadian forces of nuclear warheads in Europe or in Canada?
2.	If so (a) to whom was the commitment or undertaking given (b) what were the terms of such commitment or undertaking (c) was the undertaking explicitly or by implication revocable by the government and under what conditions (d) was the commitment or undertaking in writing and what was the nature of the document
Questions
(e) by whom was it given or made, and with what authority (f) what was the date of such commitment, if any, or the ratification thereof by the former government of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. Yes.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f):
In respect of Canadian forces in Europe the undertakings arise out of NATO processes. NATO does not enter into formal agreements or treaties with member nations regarding their military contributions. The military authorities of the alliance set certain requirements and individual countries determine what contributions they will make toward meeting those requirements. The whole process is accomplished by direct discussions with the NATO commanders concerned and is confirmed in an annual review process which is secret.
The acquisition of the Honest Johns and the CF-104's and the roles planned for them were the subject of this process in 1958 and 1959 respectively.
In respect of Canadian forces in Canada the undertakings arise out of allocations made by Canada in fulfillment of the NORAD agreement.
On September 27, 1961, Canada concluded an agreement with the United States providing for improvements in the continental air defence system in Canada. This included the establishment of Bomarc squadrons in Canada. There was no specific reference to the armament to be provided for the Bomarcs but no conventional warhead was ever developed for the Bomarc "B", the type planned for siting in Canada and ultimately installed. It was understood by the government of the day that the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile, to be effective, would require nuclear warheads (cf. Prime Minister, Hansard, January 18, 1960, page 73).
On June 12, 1961, an agreement was concluded with the United States whereby Canada was furnished with 66 F-101B (Voodoo) interceptor aircraft. The agreement specified that the armament was to be mutually agreed and the aircraft as delivered was designed to carry a mixed armament of nuclear and conventional rockets. Only the conventional armament has been acquired although it was known to the government of the day that without their nuclear rockets the aircraft were not fully armed.
(Translation):


ST. ISIDORE DE DORCHESTER  POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Boutin: Does the Postmaster General intend to act upon the request made by the population of St. Isidore de Dorchester that construction work on the new post office in that parish be suspended permanently?

Questions


Mr. Badanai:: Yes. Action was taken at the request of the people of St. Isidore de Dorchester and construction work on a new post office has been suspended. The order to stop work was issued on April 24, 1963, and a settlement with the contractor is now being negotiated.
(Text):


* MAINTENANCE OF SAINT JOHN RIVER WHARVES
Mr. Fairweather: Upon what wharves on the Saint John river and its tributaries is it proposed to spend public funds for either maintenance, rebuilding or repair in 1963?


Hubert Badanai: Repairs to the wharf at Wickham, Queens county, N.B., which were commenced last year, will be completed this summer.
There is of course the possibility of emergency damage making other repairs necessary, but this cannot be foreseen at the present time.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA RIDING
Mr. Aiken: Does the government plan to proceed with the following previously approved public works projects in Parry Sound-Muskoka riding (a) public building at Britt, Ontario (b) new wharf at Caribou lake, Ontario (c) wharf repairs at lake Cecebe (d) new wharf at McKellar, Ontario (e) new wharf at Skelton bay, lake Rosseau (f) new wharf at Wahwashkesh?


Hubert Badanai: (a) No. Due to the high cost of a suitable site, this project had to be deleted from the 1962-63 winter works program.
(b)	No. A new wharf was not previously approved at Caribou lake nor is it being considered at the present time.
(c)	, (d), (e) and (f) These items are under consideration.
(Translation):


BEAUCEVILLE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Perron: Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a post office in Beauceville and, if so, who was awarded the contract and what was the amount of the tender?


Hubert Badanai: Not as yet although tenders have been received and a recommendation made to the treasury board.
(Text) :


NEW CHARLES CAMSELL HOSPITAL, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: Has any decision been arrived at to continue with the plans for the ultimate construction of a new Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton and, if so, when is it anticipated that final plans may be completed and tenders called?


Mr. Haidasz:: As this is a matter of government policy any announcement will be made by the government at the appropriate time.
(Translation):


POINTE AU PIC
Mr. Belanger: Does the government intend to proceed in the near future with the repairs to the Pointe-au-Pic wharf in Charlevoix county?


Hubert Badanai: Yes. A contract has been awarded for repairs involving the replacement of fenders on this wharf; that work will be completed this summer. In addition small maintenance repairs have been authorized and will be carried out shortly.
(Text):


EXPENDITURES ON LIQUOR, CIGARETTES AND HEALTH RESEARCH
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the amount spent at retail level in Canada during 1960, 1961 and 1962 on liquor and cigarettes?
2.	What was	the estimated	amount	spent in
Canada during the same period on health research?


Mr. Dupuis:: 1.
1960	1961
millions of dollars
Personal expenditure on tobacco products and smokers'	accessories	702	719
Personal expenditure on
alcoholic	beverages	899	921
1962 data not available.
2.	Approximate expenditures for health research by	the Department	of	National
Health and Welfare only for the fiscal year 1960-63 were as follows:
1960-61,	$5,222,000;	1961-62,	$5,489,000;
1962-63,	$5,736,000; including extramural
grants and intramural research.
Total federal government expenditures on medical research for 1961-62 were estimated by the Glassco commission (vol. 3, page 234) at $11,024,000, including the 1961-62 item above.
Other expenditures on health research in Canada are made by provincial governments, by universities, by voluntary agencies, and by industrial laboratories. The latest figure available resulted from a direct survey in 1957 and showed an estimated allocation at that time of $4,735,000 from other than federal government sources.


REVISION OF BUILDING CODE RESPECTING EARTHQUAKE DESIGN
Mr. Scott: Has the government taken note of published reports that major Canadian cities are all in active

earthquake regions, and, if so, is the national building code being revised to take in all variables involved in the problem of earthquake design?


Mr. Drury:: The national building code of Canada 1960 includes proper provisions for earthquake design of structures throughout Canada in accordance with internationally recognized standards. A supplement to the code suggests the degree of intensity of earthquake shock that is a possibility in different areas in this country based on existing records. This latter information is prepared for the national research council and its associate committee on the national building code by the staff of the dominion observatory. A complete review of all records of all earthquakes in Canada is now approaching completion. When this further information is available the existing references in the national building code and its supplement will be revised accordingly if necessary.


* CONTAMINATION OF WATERWAY SYSTEMS BY RAW SEWAGE
Mr. Rynard: 1.	In view of the great increase of boats and people on the Trent and other waterway systems, and the increasing pollution of our waterways, is the Department of Transport considering providing sewage disposal systems for the increasing number of large cabin cruisers using such waterways?
2.	Are there any regulations requiring cabin cruisers to have installed facilities which would prevent the contamination of waterways by raw sewage?
3.	If no such regulations exist, is the department giving consideration to making such regulations?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The Department of Transport is presently installing flush toilets for the public at many canal lock stations and where flush toilets are not being installed earth toilets are being provided.
In addition, signs have been erected at all lock stations on the Trent and Rideau canals requesting the boating public to dispose of garbage in the drums provided and to use onshore toilet facilities wherever available.
2.	There are no Department of Transport regulations requiring cabin cruisers to have installed facilities which would prevent the contamination of waterways by raw sewage.
3.	The department is presently investigating the availability of suitable apparatus for installation on cabin cruisers for the purpose of containing raw sewage for ultimate disposal or its treatment by chemicals.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Kennedy: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of standard post offices this year at (a) Debert (b) Walton (c) Lantz, in Nova Scotia?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: (a) This project is being considered but no decision has been reached.
(b) and (c) No, as these are revenue post offices and the postmaster is responsible for the provision of postal accommodation under his terms of employment.


PICTOU, N.S.-RAIL FACILITIES FOR NEW PIER
Mi. MacEwan: Has the government received any submissions by the town council and the board of trade of the town of Pictou protesting the filling in of the indentations for rails on new pier C and, if so, what action does the government intend to take in order to give adequate rail facilities on the new pier?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, such submissions have been received. The installation of rail lines on pier C is the responsibility of the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Public Works made provision for the installation of single lines on each side of the structure by leaving indentations in the concrete deck. The railway company has placed rails on the south side of the pier extending just past the outer end of the warehouse. The remaining indentations are being temporarily filled with oiled sand topped with asphalt to remove the hazard of open indentations to vehicular traffic on the structure. This filler material can be easily removed should additional rails be provided.


REPUDIATION OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION BY SUPREME COURT
Mr. Caoueile: Has any provincial legislation been repudiated by the Supreme Court of Canada and, if so, in what years did this arise, and which provinces were involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This information is not available in the Department of Justice. The statistics sought may be obtained by an examination of the supreme court reports, which are available to the hon. member.
(Translation):


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What amount has been spent by the federal government for the trans-Canada highway in the province of Quebec since the inception of the work?
2.	What additional amount is to be spent for that purpose until the work is completed?


Hubert Badanai: 1. $12,324,788.76.
2. The estimated cost of the works now being carried out under the agreement is $49,407,787.99. The fraction of that amount that will be paid by Canada is estimated at $31,223,185.41. No estimation of the cost of additional works that the province will undertake will be available until the province has worked out its planning and execution projects.

Questions


PLESSISVILLE, QUE.  POST OFFICE CLOSING
Mr. Langlois: 1.	On what date was the post office closed at Plessisville, Megantic county, P.Q., and for what reasons?
2.	Would it be possible to have this post office reopened?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Being unable to find a postmaster, the department closed the Plessisville sub-office No. 1 on July 10, 1962. All efforts to find a suitable person for the job of postmaster had brought no result.
2. A new search is now under way along that line.
(Text):


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, FREDERICTON, N.B.
Mr. MacHae: Is it the intention of the government to proceed this year with the construction of a new terminal building, a fire station, and a garage at the Fredericton airport?


Jean-Charles Cantin: It is intended to proceed with the work; tenders will be called this month for a terminal building and a combined maintenance garage and fire hall.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF FAUTEUX COMMISSION
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government yet decided when they will implement the recommendations of the Fauteux commission that the federal government assume the responsibility for prisoners sentenced to one year or more?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The present building program of the penitentiary service is designed to accommodate those inmates who are sentenced to two years or more imprisonment. When sufficient accommodation is in sight for the inmates who are already the responsibility of the federal government, talks will be resumed with the provincial government concerning the implementation of the Fauteux commission's recommendation that the federal government assume the responsibility for prisoners sentenced to one year or more.


FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What member countries currently meet their financial obligations to the United Nations?
2.	What member countries have failed to meet their financial obligations to the U.N., indicating the amount and term of arrears for each?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answers to these questions are contained in a statement on the collection of contributions from member states as at 30 April 1963 published by
[Mr. Badanai.l
the United Nations secretariat in document number ST/ADM/SER.B/172. The following three tables list arrears in contributions with respect to the regular budget of the United Nations, to the United Nations emergency force special account, and to the Congo ad hoc account. They do not include the member states admitted to the organization at the seventeenth session of the general assembly since their assessments for 1962 have not yet been established. Furthermore, invoices, when received, for services rendered in connection with the contingents provided by certain states to UNEF and ONUC will be set off against the unpaid contributions of those states.
[Editor's note: For tables referred to above, see appendix "A".]
(Translation) :


TERM OF OFFICE OF C.N.R. PRESIDENT
Mr. Pigeon: On what date will Mr. Donald Gordon's term of office as president of the Canadian National Railways expire?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of the Canadian National-Cana-dian Pacific Act 1936 (repealed by the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter 29, Statutes of 1955), Mr. Donald Gordon was appointed president of the Canadian National Railway Company by its board of directors, such appointment being approved by the Governor in Council, effective January 1, 1950. The appointment is not for any specified term, but in accordance with the said statutes the chief executive officer holds office "during the pleasure of the directors". The normal retirement under company rules is at age 65. Coincident with the appointment as president effective January 1, 1950, and in accordance with the Canadian National-Cana-dian Pacific Act 1936, the Governor in Council appointed Mr. Gordon a director and chairman of the board. Directors are appointed for three year terms. Mr. Gordon's current appointment as director dates from October 1, 1960, to September 30, 1963, by Order in Council P.C. 1961-1382, dated September 27, 1961.
(Text):


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Kennedy: 1.	What is the total mileage of federally approved trans-Canada highway routes in each province?
2.	What mileage is now completed in each province under this joint cost sharing arrangement?

Questions


Hubert Badanai: 1.
Province	Miles
Newfoundland	540
Prince Edward Island	71
Nova Scotia	318
New Brunswick	390
Quebec	399
Ontario	1,453
Manitoba	309
Saskatchewan	406
Alberta	282
British Columbia	552
Total	4,720
Newfoundland	172
Prince Edward Island	71
Nova Scotia	119
New Brunswick	213
Quebec	9
Ontario	1,021
Manitoba	309
Saskatchewan	406
Alberta	281
British Columbia	469
Total	3,070
INGONISH FERRY, N.S.	WHARF	REPAIRS
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to withdraw this question for the purpose of rewording it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and question withdrawn.


INQUIRIES RESPECTING INDIAN AGENCY SUPERINTENDENTS
Mr. Howard: Have any inquiries been made into the administration or the conduct or activities of any Indian agency superintendent during either his tenure of office or after it and, if so, what are the names of each such person and the results of any such inquiry?


Mr. Munro:: Yes, it is routine departmental procedure to inquire into the administration and conduct and activities of all Indian agency superintendents.
This procedure has been carried on for many years. It would therefore not be possible to provide details with respect to individual persons for such an extended period of time.


FRASER RIVER FLOOD FUND
Mr. Howard: 1.	Was any money left unexpended from the fund established for the 1948 Fraser river flood and, if so, how much and in whose possession?
2.	What requirements must be met in order that this money may be used for other floods or the results thereof?

Question No. 182-Mr. Muir (Cape Breton
North and Victoria):
1.	Were tenders recently received by the Department of Public Works for repairs to the departmental wharf and freight shed at Ingonish ferry, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what were the names of those who tendered on this work, and the amount of each tender?
2.	Has a contract been awarded and, if so, when will this work get under way?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. Only one tender, from Mr. Patrick Williams, was received on February 26, 1963, at a price of $1,336.50.
2. The repairs were not proceeded with at that time because of the severity of the weather which made work impossible. Mr. Williams was asked on May 24 to see if he was still willing to undertake this work at


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is in agreement with me that the information he wants relates rather to the Red river fund than the Fraser river fund. If so, I think it would be quite possible to answer the question, but I cannot answer it today.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, that is true to an extent. I did not realize that the fund established for the Fraser river flood had been expended. From the explanation of the Secretary of State that the answer could be obtained if the question referred to the Red river fund, in 1950 I believe it was, that would be quite satisfactory.
Question stands.
his quoted price. The department is awaiting his reply.


FEDERAL ALLOTMENTS AND EXPENDITURES
Mr. Howard: 1.	For the fiscal year 1962-63 how much money, if any, was (a) allocated (b) spent for each of the communities of Atlin, Lower Post, Telegraph Creek, Stewart, Alice Arm, Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon city, and Aiyansh, and for what projects in the case of each such community?
2.	If no money was so allocated, what was the reason in each case?


SALE OF TIMBER OF MASSET INDIANS, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since July 1, 1962, has any timber of the Masset band of Indians been sold and, if so, how much by species and total acreage?
2.	Was the timber sold by bid and, if so, what were the names and addresses of the various bidders and the amount of each bid?
3.	In what manner, and by what stages, will the band receive the money for this sale, and for what purposes will this money be used?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes, 308 acres with an estimated volume of 16,500 C c.f. of hemlock and 10,500 C c.f. of spruce.
28902-5-441

Questions
2.	Yes, Flamingo Construction Ltd., Prince Rupert, B.C., bid $3.52 per C c.f. for hemlock and $5.76 per C c.f. for spruce. Cattermole-Tretheway Contractors, Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., bid $3.30 per C c.f. for hemlock and $5.10 per C c.f. for spruce. The tender of Flamingo Construction was the higher and was therefore accepted.
3.	Money will be received from timber dues and deposited into band funds as the wood is cut, over a period of three years. The proceeds will be used for various projects as may be recommended by the band council.


REQUEST FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING BY FRANK EDGAR
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1960, did one Frank Edgar of Masset, British Columbia, apply or otherwise ask, to attend a vocational or technical training school and, if so, what answer was given to him by (a) the superintendent of the Queen Charlotte Indian agency or (b) any other person?
2.	If Mr. Edgar's application or request was turned down, what was the reason therefor?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes. During the spring of 1962, Mr. Frank Edgar approached the Queen Charlotte office regarding the possibility of training in auto mechanics at the Vancouver vocational institute. He was requested to obtain a letter from the local mechanic with whom he had been working; he was also asked to submit a medical report in order that these might be forwarded to the Vancouver vocational institute along with his application. However, he did not obtain the letters referred to nor did he return to the agency office to discuss the matter further.
2. Not applicable.


*LAKE UNION AIR SERVICE LICENCE
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1959, has Lake Union Air Service had any licence to operate an aircraft cancelled or suspended, and, if so, upon what dates, for what reason, was any other penalty imposed and, if so, what?
2.	Was that licence subsequently restored or reissued and, if so, when?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to part 1, the answer is yes. The licence of Lake Union Air Service was suspended by board order No. 2592 dated August 19, 1960, for exercising cabotage rights within Canada in contravention of condition No. 7 of its licence No. 85 dated September 2, 1955.
A $600 penalty was levied under the Customs Act because a Cessna 180 aircraft of this firm had entered Canada on or about August 4, 1960, under an AG2 form covering aircraft used for "health and pleasure" whereas the aircraft was actually being used in commercial operations.

With respect to part 2, licence was reinstated by board order No. 2706 dated January 5, 1961.


TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION STAFFS
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government planning a new accelerated training program so that when the new correctional institutions, which it has announced are to be built, are ready, there will be a trained professional staff available to man these institutions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. The staff training program of the penitentiary service is being expanded to train the officers needed for the new correctional institutions.


U.N. PETITION RECOMMENDING BIRTH CONTROL
Mr. Pigeon: What are the names and addresses of the Canadian citizens who recently signed and submitted to the United Nations a petition recommending birth control?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government has had no information concerning a petition recommending birth control submitted to the United Nations by Canadian citizens. The government, however, would not necessarily be aware of such a petition if it were submitted to the United Nations by private persons.


URANIUM
Mr. Scott: 1.	What will be the effect on the Canadian uranium industry of the United States decision to rely on domestic sources of uranium?
2.	Will any areas of Canada be more particularly affected than others and, if so, what will be such regional effects?
3.	Will such U.S. decision result in a cut-back in Canadian production to about 1,000 tons a year from the peak of 15,000 tons in 1959?
4.	What preparations are being made to deal with the dislocations likely to take place in the uranium industry in Canada?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. The United States has not made a definite decision to rely on domestic sources of uranium. The general demand for uranium in the western world has fallen and it has been necessary to close mines not only in Canada but also in the United States, South Africa, Australia, Portugal and elsewhere.
At the moment domestic production in the United States is more than sufficient for their national requirements. This condition will last until the late sixties when it is expected that there will be an increase in the western world's requirement for uranium, and the U.S. needs may then exceed local production.
2. No one area in Canada will be affected relatively more than another. The firm contracts now held for delivery of uranium to

the U.S. atomic energy commission and the U.K. atomic energy authority terminate on different dates, which will cause closure of mines earlier in some areas than in others. The varying closing dates are due to the time of the signing of the original contracts and to the efforts that some companies have made over the last three years to stretch out their operations.
3.	Canadian production of uranium will drop to less than 2,000 tons by 1967 unless new contracts are written, but this is due to the termination of the firm contracts written a number of years ago and not to a recent decision.
4.	The Canadian government is urgently examining the effect of the closures of the uranium mines on the communities directly concerned.


LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMPANIES USING ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the Canadian nuclear industry requested the government to provide liability insurance of up to $100,000,000 for privately owned companies engaged in the commercial use of atomic energy and, if so, by whom were they made, on behalf of which private companies, and in what total amount?
2.	What was the response of the government, if any, to such requests?


Mr. Benson:: 1. No.
2.	Answered by (1) above.


FEDERAL POLICIES RESPECTING URANIUM INDUSTRY
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is the government giving urgent consideration to action which would make it practicable to avoid the early closing of the Milliken lake uranium mine?
2 Is there an agreement between Rio Algom Mines Limited and the government and, if so, what are the terms of such agreement?
3.	What is the nature of the government's long term policies to ensure the future development of the uranium industry?


Mr. Pepin:: 1. The government is urgently considering the effects of the closing of the Milliken lake mine. It is too early as yet to make any positive statement.
2.	Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, the crown owned company that acts as the government's agent in the buying and selling of uranium, has a firm contract with Rio Algom Mines Limited for the purchase of a fixed quantity of uranium, subject to a definite schedule of deliveries and prices, but as this is a contract in which a private company is concerned, it is not deemed to be in the public interest to reveal the terms of the contract other than that the uranium purchased under the contract is immediately
Questions
sold at identical prices to the U.S. atomic energy commission and to the U.K. atomic energy authority.
3. The demand for uranium will decrease until the late sixties, at which time a gradual increase in the western world's needs will become effective, but it will probably be into the early seventies before Canada's present developed potential for the production of uranium can be fully exercised. Policy decisions will be announced at the appropriate time.


HEALTH PROGRAM STUDIES, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has a federal government grant of $27,000 been approved for a study of the administration and health program of the city of Halifax, and are grants on a pro rata basis to be made to Lunenburg, Bridgewater, and Liverpool, Nova Scotia?
2.	Are similar grants to be made to all the cities in Canada?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. At the request of the province of Nova Scotia $21,700 has been approved under the terms of the national health grants for the fiscal year 1963-64 to assist the province with the costs of a study of the health program of the city of Halifax department of health.
To date, no request has been received for assistance under these grants with the costs of studies in Liverpool, Bridgewater and Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.
2. Similar projects have not been received to date in this fiscal year on behalf of other cities.


OVERDUE FEDERAL PAYMENTS
Mr. McMillan: As of March 31, 1963, what federal payments were overdue and still outstanding (a) in respect to any cost sharing or other arrangements with the provinces (b) in unpaid grants including those for new hospitals or other construction (c) in payments overdue to any contractors on government projects (d) in grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes (e) all other payments overdue but not included in the above?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Welland is agreeable to withdraw this question for rewording.


Mr. McMillan:: That is correct.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and question withdrawn.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR LAND IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION
Mr. Mather: Has the government given consideration to allowing, as deductible expense on income tax, the expenses of (a) picking rocks and roots and levelling on cultivated land (b) land protection Works undertaken in combating river bank farmland erosion and/or farmland flooding?

Questions


Edgar John Benson: Various requests for extending deductions for ; income tax purposes are studied during the review of taxes preceding the presentation of the budget and decisions are made known when the budget is presented or amendments to the Income Tax Act are introduced.


THRESHOLD. OF RADIOACTIVITY
Mr. Scott: 1.	Is there a threshold of radioactivity below which the individual escapes scot-free and, if so, what is such level?
2.	Does the government have a radiation protective guide such as that set out by the federal radiation council of the U.S.A. and, if so, what are its provisions?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. In general, it has been found that the effects caused by radiation decrease as the amount of radiation exposure decreases. However, scientists have not been able to establish whether or not there is a threshold, i.e. a very low level of radiation below which there are no effects.
2. The recommendations of such authorities as the international commission on radiological protection are normally used.


IODINE 131 LEVELS IN MILK
Mr. Scott: 1.	Does the government conduct studies analyzing whole milk for iodine 131 levels and, if so, how many locations are involved in such studies, and where are they located?
2.	How frequently are such studies conducted?
3.	What were the levels shown of iodine 131 in whole milk for each location in the year 1962?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, parts 1 and 2 of this question have been answered, but as the tables which are included in the answer to the third part of this question are very lengthy, I should like consent of the house to have these tables made an order for return, and I am prepared to table the return now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, order for return tabled herewith.


STRONTIUM 90 LEVELS IN MILK
Mr. Scott: 1.	What methods are used by the government to establish the level of strontium 90 in milk?
2.	How many samples are taken, in what parts of the country, and how frequently are they taken?
3.	Do such studies show any hot spots and, If so, where are they located?
4.	Are any such studies carried out for raw and processed foods and, if so, what is the nature of such studies?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. By collecting samples of whole milk from a network of sampling localities across Cahada, and analysing them in laboratories in Ottawa.

2.	Samples are taken three times a week at 16 locations. Composite samples from each location are analysed once a month. The locations are Calgary, Edmonton, Fort William, Fredericton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Regina, Saskatoon, Sault Ste. Marie, St. John's, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Windsor.
3.	No.
4.	With regard to raw foods the radiation protection division analyses milk and wheat regularly. For wheat, the amount of strontium 90 is determined; for milk, the amount of strontium 90, strontium 89, iodine 131 and cesium 137.


CRESTS OF MILITARY COLLEGES
Mr. Malheson: What is the emblazonment of the crests, and what are the authorities for same, of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean and the Royal Military College of Canada?


Mr. Hellyer:: The coat of arms in use by the Royal Military College of Canada is the coat of arms of the Canadian services colleges. It was designed at ministerial direction and approved by defence council in 1950.
This coat of arms incorporates the crest of the Royal Military College coat of arms, which was awarded by His Majesty King George V in 1920 and never retired.
The crest consists of an arm in armour, em-bowed, gauntleted holding a sprig of three maple leaves and ensigned by the imperial crown. The emblazoned motto is "Truth- Duty-Valour" on the Royal Military College coat of arms, and in modern French "Verite- Devoir-Vaillance" on the College Militaire Royal coat of arms.


FORT NELSON, B.C. AIRPORT
Mr. Leboe: What is the planned schedule of work to be done in the Fort Nelson airport?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Department of Transport has approval in principle to rebuilding runway 02-20, the associated taxiway and aircraft parking apron including lighting revisions at Fort Nelson airport. It is planned to commence construction this summer and complete the project in 1964.


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, JASPER PARK
Mr. Leboe: Has the government given consideration to the construction of the highway west of the town of Jasper in Jasper national park and, if so, when will the work commence?


Mr. Laing:: This project has been considered, and some preliminary work has been done, but no date has yet been set for beginning the reconstruction.


PAVING OF ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. Leboe: Does the government intend to proceed with a program of reconstruction and paving of the Alaska highway within Canada in the next year and, if so, will this depend on an arrangement with the government of British Columbia?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN SCHOOLS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given by the government toward furthering the adoption of a policy of assisting the provinces in a program for the distribution of milk in schools?


Mr. Beer:: As indicated at the time of the recent announcement of "dairy policy", consideration is being given toward providing assistance to school milk programs.
(Translation):


T.C.A.-INCLUSION OF FRENCH NAME ON AIRCRAFT
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Will the words "Air Canada" be added to the inscription "Trans-Canada Air Lines" which appears on aircraft flown by that crown corporation?


Jean-Charles Cantin: This matter is being considered by the board of directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines as there are both technical and legal problems involved.
(Text):


*C.N.R.  INCREASED PENSIONS FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knowles: Is the government giving consideration to the taking of the necessary steps to provide for an increase in the pensions of former employees of the Canadian National Railways who were retired prior to April 1, 1962?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Prime Minister in answering a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on orders of the day on May 30, this matter will be given consideration.


TRAINING FACILITIES UNDER VOCATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Mr. Lalulippe: Does the government intend to continue the provisions of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act under which it contributes toward the cost of providing training facilities, and will agreements signed with the provinces be extended beyond their termination dates?


Mr. Byrne:: Yes, subject to review from time to time. The present agreements terminate on March 31, 1967; the extension beyond this termination date will be considered at the appropriate time.
Questions
(Translation):


ROAD AND PARK CONSTRUCTION, QUEBEC
Mr. Lalulippe: Is it the intention of the government to subsidize the construction of belt roads and parks in the vicinity of certain lakes in order to stimulate the tourist industry and relieve unemployment and, if so, will such a program include the Megantic lake area which is part of a tourist region requiring development?


Mr. Turner:: Under the roads to resources program, the federal government shares in the cost of certain roads being built for the development of resources, including those related to the tourist industry. It pays also part of the improvement of picnic and camping grounds along the trans-Canada highway.
It is up to the provinces to initiate such projects and works under those programs. No proposal has been received from the province of Quebec concerning the development of the Megantic lake area.
(Text):


UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What is the total number of unemployed persons in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
2.	How many persons paid unemployment insurance on the last date for which figures are available (a) on a monthly basis (b) on a yearly basis?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. This information not available.


ADJUSTMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Lalulippe: Does the government intend to adjust family allowances to the cost of living and, if so, in what proportion?


Stanley Haidasz: As this is a matter of government policy any proposed legislation would be announced by the government at the appropriate time.


NEW TELEVISION ANTENNA, STATION CBWT, WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	Did the B.B.G. approve a C.B.C. application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel, and a change of antenna site, of station CBWT, Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If so, when was approval given and what changes are proposed in regard to video, audio, channel and antenna?
3.	What site was chosen for the location of the new antenna: when was the property purchased, from whom, and at what cost?
4.	Were any other sites considered?
5. (a) What is the total estimated cost of the project? (b) what is the estimated cost of the building proposed at the new site?

Questions
6.	When is this work scheduled to be completed and change of channel to be effective?
7.	What is the estimated cost to viewers for changes of antenna resulting from change of channel (a) on a per house basis (b) total cost for the interlake area (c) total cost for Manitoba?
8. Is there any guarantee that these changes will improve television service for the interlake area especially for areas like Riverton, Arborg, Fisher Branch, Hodgson, Eriksdale and Ashern (Ashern, at present, gets neither Winnipeg nor Yorkton) ?
9.	Should these changes fail to bring about an improvement in television viewing for the interlake area, what action will the B.B.G. or the C.B.C. take?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctantly asking to have this question stand, but I can assure the hon. member that in view of the name of one place mentioned in it I will make the inquiries as rapidly as possible.
Question stands.


TRADE MISSION TO HONG KONG .
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	When did the trade mission leave for Hong Kong?
2.	What are the names of those on the mission?
3.	What position, in what department or board does each person hold?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Canadian wheat board mission left for Hong Kong on May 30, 1963.
2 and 3. The composition of the mission is: Mr. D. H. Treleaven, London manager of the Canadian wheat board. Mr. V. L. Chapin, assistant director, international trade relations branch, Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. M. Sakellaropoulo, assistant director, international economic relations, Department of Finance. Mr. L. C. Howey, assistant chief dominion customs appraiser, Department of National Revenue. Mr. R. K. Thomson, senior Canadian government trade commissioner, Hong Kong.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE AGREEMENT
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What nations have signed the five year international coffee agreement?
2.	On what dates did each nation sign?
3.	Which of these nations are classified as importing nations?
4.	Have any nations made reservations or provisional accessions to this agreement and, if so, what are the reservations or the terms of the provisional accession in each case?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1, 2 and 3.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE AGREEMENT SIGNATURES
[Stage Direction]
Importers	Date
Argentina	Sept. 28/62
Australia	Nov. 23/62
Austria	Nov. 23/62
Belgium	Sept. 28/62
CANADA	Oct. 16/62
Chile	Nov. 30/62
Denmark	Nov. 29/62
Fed. Rep. of	
Germany	Nov. 19/62
France	Sept. 28/62
Italy	Sept. 28/62
Japan	Sept. 28/62
Lebanon	Oct. 12/62
Luxembourg	Nov. 20/62
Netherlands	Nov. 30/62
New Zealand	Nov. 29/62
Norway	Nov. 30/62
Spain	Sept. 28/62
Sweden	Oct. 5/62
Switzerland	Nov. 30/62
U.S.S.R.	Nov. 23/62
United Kingdom	Sept. 28/62
United States	Sept. 28/62
Total:	22
Exporters	Date
Bolivia	Sept. 28/62
Brazil	Sept. 28/62
Burundi	Sept. 28/62
Cameroon	Sept. 28/62
Central African Rep.	Nov. 16/62
Colombia	Sept. 28/62
Congo (Leopoldville)	Nov. 27/62
Costa Rica	Sept. 28/62
Cuba	Nov. 30/62
Dominican Republic	Sept. 28/62
Ecuador	Nov. 28/62
El Salvador	Sept. 28/62
Gabon	Oct. 12/62
Guatemala	Sept. 28/62
Haiti	Sept. 28/62
Honduras	Sept. 28/62
India	Nov. 29/62
Indonesia	Nov. 21/62
Ivory Coast	Oct. 24/62
Madagascar	Sept. 28/62
Mexico	Sept. 28/62
Nicaragua	Oct. 29/62
Nigeria	Nov. 29/62
Panama	Nov. 8/62
Peru	Sept. 28/62
Portugal	Nov. 29/62
Sierra Leone	Nov. 30/62
Kwanda	Oct. 2/62
Tanganyika	Sept. 28/62
Trinidad & Tobago	Nov. 30/62
Uganda	Nov. 21/62
Venezuela	Sept. 28/62
Total:	32
[Mr. Stefanson.l

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Importers	Date	Exporters	Date	CANADA	Nov. 20/62	Colombia	May	24/63France	Apr. 4/63	Dominican Rep.	May	8/63United Kingdom	Apr. 25/63	El Salvador	May	17/63United States*	May 21/63	Burundi	Dec.	4/62Gabon	Nov.	14/62Ivory Coast	May	6/63Rwanda	Dec.	10/62Peru	Apr.	4/63Tanganyika	Nov.	27/62Uganda	Apr.	16/63
Ratified but instrument not deposited with United Nations to date.

[Stage Direction]
Importers	Date	Exporters	Date	Argentina	May 15/63	Brazil	Oct.	17/62Australia	Apr. 3/63	Central African Rep.	Apr.	23/62Belgium	Apr. 8/63	Cuba	Feb.	1/63Italy	Sept. 28/62	Ecuador	Apr.	1/63Netherlands	May 17/63	Guatemala	Mar.	5/63Indonesia	Feb.	8/63Madagascar	Jan.	29/63Mexico	Nov.	26/62Nigeria	Mar.	12/63Portugal	Apr.	8/63Sierra Leone	Feb.	7/63Trinidad & Tobago	Nov.	30/62Venezuela	Jan.	29/634. Under the agreement,	no reservations are permitted.

Mr. Hamilton: 1.	Where do negotiations stand on an international sugar agreement?
2.	What nations are opposed to agreement on this international commodity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The 1958 international sugar agreement is to expire December 31st, 1963.
The operative provisions of the present agreement have not been in force since January 1, 1962, owing to the inability of the review international sugar conference to arrive at agreement in Geneva during September and October, 1961. Primarily disagreement stemmed from the insistance of Cuba to be allowed to export a sugar quota in excess of what appeared to the conference to be a realistic figure.
At a meeting of the international sugar council in London during the first week of April, the member governments concluded that it was not possible under present circumstances to negotiate a new agreement with meaningful marketing controls or export quotas. It was, therefore, agreed that, notwithstanding the suspension of the operative provisions of the agreement, it would be
desirable to maintain the administrative provisions and to continue the useful work being performed by the international sugar council.
During the first week of July, 1963, the secretary general of the United Nations will convene a short conference in London, England, to establish a protocol prolonging the present international sugar agreement without provisions for export quotas or controls.
The protocol is to prolong the agreement until December 31, 1964, or December 31, 1965, whichever of the dates the conference will decide. This protocol will enter into force on January 1, 1964, provided a sufficient number of member governments sign. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or accession will take effect on the date of their deposit. If it is determined that less than the required number (to be determined by the conference), of countries have become parties to this protocol by January 1, 1964, the governments which have signed, ratified, accepted or acceded to this protocol may agree to put it into force among themselves.
2. In view of the forthcoming meeting in July of the international sugar conference, it is not possible at this time to indicate those nations which are opposed to the international

Orders for Returns
sugar agreement since such information will not be available until the time that member governments have signed the protocol and indicated their intention to ratify.


* INDIAN POPULATION
Mr. Pigeon: What is the Indian population (a) of Canada (b) of each of the provinces?


John Carr Munro: (a) 198,220; (b) Prince Edward Island, 363; Nova Scotia, 3,834; New Brunswick, 3,524; Quebec, 22,373; Ontario, 46,172; Manitoba, 26,676; Saskatchewan, 26,483; Alberta, 21,807; British Columbia, 39,784; Yukon Territory, 2,096; Northwest Territories, 5,108.
The foregoing are the population figures as of December 31, 1962.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys given any consideration to or made any studies of the problems of the prospector; in this case 'prospector' meaning those individuals, not corporations, who scour the nation looking for claims to make on mineral prospects and, if so, what is the gist of the conclusions?
2.	If not, is the new minister giving any consideration to legislative acts that would improve the position of the prospector and increase the search for minerals?
3.	Has the department ever considered the possibility of grubstaking prospectors in Canada, with or without co-operation of the provincial authorities?
4.	Does the department know of any provincial authority which grubstakes prospectors and, if so, which ones and in what ways?
5.	Does the department share in the costs of any such provincial program?


Yvon Dupuis: Order for return tabled herewith.


IODINE 131 LEVELS IN MILK
Mr. Scolt: 1.	Does the government conduct studies analysing whole milk for iodine 131 levels and, if so, how many locations are involved in such studies, and where are they located?
2.	How frequently are such studies conducted?
3.	What were the levels shown of iodine 131 in whole milk for each location in the year 1962?


* MEMBERS OF NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Francis: 1.	Who are the members of the national capital commission?
2.	When were they appointed, and when do their terms of office expire?
3.	How much was paid, during each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1963, 1962 and 1961, to each member of the national capital commission as (a) remuneration (b) travel expenses (c) other expenses?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Winch:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of the findings as to the cause of riots in penitentiaries during 1962 and 1963; and instructions issued and policy decisions officially authorized to correct the situation in order to prevent possible recurrence.
Mr. MacNaughl:: The information asked for in this notice of motion is privileged. Governments over the years have taken the stand that such material should not be produced. However, in view of the riots which took place in the penitentiaries during 1962 and 1963 it might be desirable to make a summary of the causes of such riots. Accordingly, if the hon. member for Vancouver East is prepared to accept this, I shall ask the commissioner of penitentiaries to draw up a summary of such findings as the hon. member refers to concerning the causes of these riots and lay them before this house.


Mr. Winch:: I am somewhat surprised at the statement the hon. gentleman has just made because it would appear to me it is not altogether in conformity with my understanding with the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice told me with regard to this notice of motion when it appeared on the order paper that because of circumstances known to all cabinet ministers it was not desired to make known publicly certain matters passing between departmental officials. The Minister of Justice saw me yesterday in this House of Commons, but to one side, and gave me to understand that documents concerned in this motion would be made available to me in confidence but that, in addition, there would be filed with this house a report as to the causes of the riots and the action taken to deal with them as far as this information could be made known.
Is the minister now saying that a report will be filed on the lines I have just outlined and then, if I so desire, I may have access on a confidential basis to all documents and reports?


John Watson MacNaught: As far as the first part of the understanding is concerned, a summary will be prepared and filed with the house. As to the latter part, the undertaking by the Minister of Justice that he would allow the hon. member to see documents in confidence, I may say that the Minister of Justice did not tell me of this undertaking. However, I presume that if he told the hon. gentleman such a thing-and he must have told him, or the hon. member would not have mentioned it-he will carry it out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice is not here I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would agree to let the motion stand, and have a further conversation with my colleague. I do not think anyone in the house is fully informed on this matter. It would be most agreeable to the government if the hon. gentleman would see fit to follow this suggestion, and the motion would remain on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I would prefer the motion to be put now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, this motion has been on the order paper since parliament met. This information is most urgently desired. I accept what the minister has said as far as the report to the house is concerned, and I shall take my chance with the Minister of Justice regarding my understanding that I may have access to confidential documents. On this basis I believe the motion should now be put, because we want this information quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I frankly do not understand whether the hon. gentleman wishes to put his motion on the understanding that the summary is to be filed. If he is doing that it is quite agreeable to the government. If, on the other hand, he wishes to put the motion in the words which actually appear on the order paper, then for the reasons which my colleague the Solicitor General has given to the house it would clearly be impossible for the government to agree voluntarily to comply. But if it is the summary which the hon. member wants, the government would be only too happy to make it available. I am quite certain the Minister of Justice will carry out any undertaking he gave to the hon. gentleman, and I am sure the hon. member himself accepts that understanding as well.


Harold Edward Winch: I cannot understand why the leader of the house should have risen to speak further on this matter. We want this information as quickly as we can get it. The government has agreed to give us a summary. I will have a conversation with the Minister of Justice later as to the confidential documents which will be supplied.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the motion stands?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Barneil:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the recommendation of the international north Pacific fisheries commission in respect to the removal of the provision in the annex to the convention for abstention by Japan from fishing by the Japanese for halibut in the eastern Bering sea and herring in the offshore waters west of the Queen Charlotte islands; and a copy of the notification by the government of Canada to the commission of acceptance of these recommendations; together with a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and the commission and/or the government of Canada and the other contracting parties to the convention in respect to these recommendations; and. further, a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and other individuals or organizations in respect to these recommendations.
Mr. Robichaud:: This is a motion for the production of papers asking, among other things, for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the other contracting parties to a fisheries convention in respect of certain recommendations.
The practice has been not to produce confidential exchanges between the government of Canada and the government of another country. Such communications are considered as privileged. Subject to this reservation, however, I am prepared to ask the house to accept the motion.


Mr. Barnett:: I am sure all hon. members of the house wish to obtain as speedily as possible information in some detail concerning the subject matter set forth in this motion. I am therefore prepared, if the house is agreeable, to withdraw the words "and/or the government of Canada and the other contracting parties to the convention in respect to these recommendations" on the understanding that I reserve my right, should I so desire, to place as a separate notice of motion on the order paper at a later date the subject matter of the words which I am now prepared to have deleted.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4
Mr. Knowles:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any documents, communications. correspondence or other papers, dated since June 10, 1957, containing any commitments by the government of Canada to accept or acquire nuclear weapons for Canadian forces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre?

Motions jor Papers


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the practice is that I should intervene now to give the hon. member an opportunity to avail himself of the suggestion I am about to make. I think if the motion were read the house would be seized with the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, what is the minister speaking to?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am speaking to motion No. 4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should the motion not be put first? On a point of order, should the motion not be put before anyone speaks to it?


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will permit me, I think it is quite usual and customary to allow a minister to make a short statement. If the hon. member is not satisfied then he can, of course, insist on his motion being put.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I simply want to say to the hon. gentleman-and I bow to him when it comes to knowledge of procedure in the house-but I think he will agree that the statement I have made is correct. However, it has nothing to do with what I am now going to say.
The commitments entered into by the government of Canada to accept nuclear weapons for Canadian forces in NATO and at home are to be found, inter alia, in Canadian submissions under the NATO annual review procedure, in statements made in the Canada-United States ministerial committee on joint defence, and in the records of the discussions in the permanent joint board on defence. These documents include information the release of which could prejudice the national security of Canada and of its allies. It is for this reason that it has never been the practice to produce such documents and I therefore, with great respect, ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: There is none such to produce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister was permitted to make a statement before the motion has been put. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask him a question. If it is correct that there are documents which contain commitments and those documents are such that they cannot be tabled without prejudice to the security of the country, would it be possible to prepare a summary of some sort, such as was referred to on an earlier motion, so that the house might have the specific information that there were commitments identified in some particular

way. The time and place and the nature of the commitments should be made available to this house.
As the minister knows, it is a matter of some argument whether or not there were commitments. We have had statements made both ways. Now that I have presented a motion that would settle the question I do not think it is satisfactory just to ask to have it withdrawn. Is it possible for a summary of some kind to be prepared that might be brought down in answer to this motion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give careful consideration to the request that my hon. friend makes. This is a matter of the greatest importance. It involves cabinet decisions as well. I shall give careful consideration to the question and to the request made by the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if there are any documents containing commitments, let them be produced. We are not going to have a situation created whereby the Secretary of State for External Affairs will himself determine his explanation as to the documents in question. Let us have none of these ex parte productions. Either produce the commitments or be quiet about them.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the prime minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -the prime minister as of about two months ago, I simply wish to say that I am sure the house and the country will be greatly surprised that a man who has held the position of prime minister should think it is desirable and in the national interest to reveal documents that involve matters affecting the security of the state.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I say is that I am not going to take the minister's interpretation of what the commitments are. Let him produce the documents and not give evidence on what he would like to have the house and the country believe is contained in the statements he has.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We appreciate the fact that some of these documents may contain information not having to do with the question of commitments about which information is being sought by this motion. Would it not be possible to take extracts from those documents quoting the actual minute or actual words of the commitment? This would not involve other irrelevant material which might have to be withheld for security reasons. Could he not give parliament and the Canadian people

the actual commitments rather than having to depend on a summary? It seems to me that such extracts could be produced without any danger whatsoever of putting the security of the country in jeopardy or of giving information that would be treated as classified.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform hon. members, or advise them-I think the latter is the better word-that this type of motion is not debatable. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to allow the motion to stand or wishes to withdraw it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Several hon. members have referred to the discussion that has been going on as a discussion on a point of order, and I think it would be the desire of the house to have the discussion completed on that basis. Since a number of hon. members have already been permitted to speak on the basis of a point of order, and since a very important principle is involved, I would hope there would be no objection in any part of the house to having the matter concluded as a point of order if Your Honour would so agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise because you, sir, put a question to me. I still think we got into trouble by having this debate before the motion was put. However, in reply to your question I am prepared to accept one of two courses; either that the motion be passed subject to the kind of reservation that the minister might wish to make, or that it stand. But in the light of today's discussion I do not think I should be asked to withdraw the motion.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Subject to my reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances I shall put the motion subject to the reservation.


Mr. Churchill:: What reservation?


John George Diefenbaker: What kind of reservation?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I have clearly indicated that this information cannot be given for the reasons I have suggested, namely that it involves documents that have to do with the security of the state and also with that of our allies. But I did say we would give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as to the possibility of extracting passages that would meet their request. I have said we would give consideration to that. I did not say we would do it. Obviously
Motions for Papers
this is a matter that must be carefully considered, and that is the position; but with regard to the motion as such, obviously it cannot be allowed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understood that the minister was prepared to let the motion pass subject to his reservation. Those are the words the minister used, and I am prepared to accept the reservations he has now made. Obviously if the return that is brought down is not satisfactory I can ask further questions, but it seems to me that as the mover of the motion I have the right to suggest that I am prepared to accept the passing of it subject to the reservations the minister has now made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Not expurgated editions. Produce the record and that is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is as follows. Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mr. Douglas, moves:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any documents, communications, correspondence or other papers, dated since June 10, 1957, containing any commitments by the Government of Canada to accept or acquire nuclear weapons for Canadian forces.
-subject to the reservations of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Those in favour of the motion, please rise.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise, I suggest that the reservations be included in the motion. It is very important those reservations be there because we are asking for the complete record, not the expurgated record.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the
Leader of the Opposition is interesting, but I do think the record speaks for itself and I think the minister should take his own responsibilities and not the Speaker. Therefore unless there is serious objection I propose to put the motion as I have read it. Those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Division


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul), otherwise I would have voted for the motion.
(Text):


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Hays). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Aiken:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the motion on principle, but I was unable to learn, although I heard the whole discussion, what reservation the minister actually made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it was stated three times.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who were paired?



REPRESENTATIONS BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any directives or memoranda on the subject of representations to the Minister of Labour regarding employment issued by the unemployment insurance commission or any official thereof, dated at any time since November 1, 1962.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion, I am informed by officials of the unemployment insurance commission that directives issued by head office to regional or local offices are for internal use by officers and staff of the commission. In these circumstances I hope the hon. member would consider dropping this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether it could stand until I could have a word with the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Orlikow):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any agency or branch thereof and any other government, person or organization since January 1, 1959, relating to the proposal by the government of Manitoba or the Manitoba hydroelectric board to move the Indians from their present reserves at Cedar lake and Moose lake to make way for the Grand Rapids power development.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)
Motions for Papers
is not here, and because I understand there are one or two points that it was desired to look into before the position of the government was stated, it would be agreeable to have this motion stood until next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Motion stands.



REPORTS BY JOSEPH DREAVER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports of Mr. Joseph Dreaver who was employed to survey the Indians of Saskatchewan in respect of their reactions and recommendations concerning the findings of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs.
Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it will be agreeable to my hon. friend to let this notice of motion stand until next Wednesday.


Frank Howard: That is agreeable.
Motion stands.



RECOMMENDATIONS OF NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other government, person or organization since January 1, 1962, relating to the recommendation of the international north Pacific fisheries commission that the stock of herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands and the stock of halibut in the eastern Bering sea each be exempted from the abstention principle contained in the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a similar motion has been put by my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and I would like permission to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ESTABLISHMENT OF VETERINARY COLLEGE, PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government, person or organization since January 1, 1961, relating to the establishment of a veterinary college in the prairie provinces.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker, this motion is quite acceptable, subject to the reservation that the consent of the governments concerned be obtained to table the correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged with this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and other communications received by the Prime Minister, dated since April 22, 1963, concerning the need for an increase in the pensions of former employees of the Canadian National Railways, retired prior to April 1, 1962, and the replies thereto.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and other communications recieved by the Minister of Transport, dated since April 22, 1963, concerning the need for an increase in the pensions of former employees of the Canadian National Railways, retired prior to April 1, 1962, and the replies thereto.
Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the motion, but I must inform the house that there is no correspondence coming within the terms of the motion, and I wonder whether in view of that fact the hon. member wishes to put the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it can be withdrawn and I will replace it after the minister has received some of these letters.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CORRESPONDENCE ON SITE OF WORLD FAIR Motion No. 12


Mr. Pigeon:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and reports on the site of the 1967 world's fair exchanged between the government and the following other governments or bodies concerned: (a) international joint commission (b) St. Lawrence seaway authority (United States and Canada) (c) St. Lawrence river pilots' association (d) national harbours board (e) Canadian National Railways (f) Quebec hydro (g) city of Verdun (h) Canadian association for the protection of birds (i) Department of Transport (j) town of St. Lambert (k) government of the province of Quebec (1) Canadian world exhibition corporation.
(Mr. Douglas.]
(Translation):


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like this motion to stand and to be called at another sitting.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I accept this suggestion.
(Text):
Motion stands.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister can answer this question, but if he cannot perhaps he could postpone his answer. Is it anticipated, or have there been preliminary discussions on the matter, that unless an arrangement is arrived at on the question of the independence of Southern Rhodesia a prime ministers' meeting might be held on the political future of that country within the next few weeks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen nor heard any suggestion that there should be a prime ministers' meeting on this matter. There have been some exchanges of views between commonwealth governments on the problem arising out of the situation in central Africa, but no suggestion that I know of for a meeting of prime ministers.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask a supplementary question. When Lord Home, the British foreign secretary was here did he discuss this question-that is, the question of holding such a meeting-with either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not with me, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This matter was not discussed between Lord Home and myself.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I understood the minister to say yesterday that he thought he would be in a position to give us the names of the delegation which it was proposed to send to Washington in connection with the discussion of fishery treaty subjects within

the next few days, including the names of the two B.C. fishermen who were being appointed as individuals in a consultative capacity. I wonder whether the minister is able to give us that information today.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member may I also be allowed to reply to the question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Lake St. John.
(Translation):
The hon. member put to me the following question, as reported on page 1 of the appendix to Hansard of June 4, 1963:
Can the minister tell the house the names and duties of the members of the delegation who will go to Washington for next Thursday's conference?
The members of the delegation who will attend the international north Pacific fisheries convention due to open tomorrow in Washington are: Messrs. A. W. H. Needier, deputy minister of fisheries, Samuel Vincent Ozere, assistant deputy minister of fisheries, William M. Sprules, assistant to the deputy minister of fisheries, Keith Stuart Ketchen, of the fisheries research board of Canada, William R. Hourston, regional director of fisheries, Vancouver, John Murdoch Buchanan, of Vancouver, Roger Thompson Hager, of Vancouver, Frederick E. Koshe, of South Burnaby, Karl Giske, of Prince Rupert.
Mr. Jacques Asselin will also attend the convention as representative of the secretary of the Canadian embassy in Washington.
I shall accompany this delegation myself and speak at the first meeting tomorrow in Washington.
(Text):


Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries supplementary to the statement he made concerning the delegation that is going to Washington. Yesterday he said he would name the six members of the advisory committee. I wonder whether he would do so now?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me the information concerning the six members of the advisory committee, but I will have it on Friday when I get back from Washington.



SUGGESTED THREAT TO WEST COAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have two questions which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the lateness of the hour, perhaps if I tried to make them brief you would allow me to put my questions at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry
My first question has to do with a statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday announcing the 12 mile fishing zone. He said there were indications also that Canada's west coast fisheries may soon be threatened. I should like the Prime Minister, if he would, to tell us what those indications are.
My second question is this. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give a commitment to the house that at these preliminary discussions which are to take place in Washington shortly concerning the north Pacific fisheries, and which were announced by the Minister of Fisheries, no commitments will be made on behalf of Canada until we have had a full report to this house from the delegation that is going to Washington?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the hon. member, on reflection, will realize that the answer to his question as to what threats have been made to the-fisheries of the north Pacific would take quite some time. I feel it is a question which should be put on the order paper, because it is not a matter of such urgency that it should be answered on the orders of the day.
The second part of this question is concerned with an assurance that these north Pacific treaty matters will be discussed in the House of Commons. The government proposes to take its own responsibilities in its discussions with other countries and then follow the normal parliamentary constitutional practice of making available the decisions that have been reached in the discussions for decision by the House of Commons.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr,
Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Have any steps been taken toward the implementation of, or has any action been taken to implement, the suggestions in the Gordon report following the royal commission on economic developments?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question. May we have some details about those steps taken toward the implementation of these suggestions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is in order. It has not the element of urgency that is required on orders of the day.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



GASPE-INQUIRY AS TO STATUS OF RAILWAY PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration proceeding with the Gaspe railway project, the government owned railway initiated by the previous government, or is he considering cancellation of this project?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the projected Gaspe railway is now under consideration. I have no announcement to make at this time.



FROBISHER BAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I gave him notice yesterday. Will the decision of the United States air force to close its strategic air command base at Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories, result in a reduction of the Department of Transport's staff? If so, will the minister assure the house that every federal government employee so affected will be given an opportunity to transfer elsewhere within the D.O.T. establishment?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister seems to be absent for the moment.


Jean-Charles Cantin: We
will take the question as notice.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on May 22 last, I asked the Minister of Transport a question concerning the train service between Rouyn-Noranda and Tas-chereau and, as reported on page 138 of Hansard, the minister replied in part as follows:
I have also referred the question to the management of the Canadian National Railways for any further information they may have on the subject.
Could the minister tell the house whether he did receive any further information on that matter?


(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question under advisement and see what information is available.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will ask his parliamentary secretary to bring the question to his attention for a later answer. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the news dispatch that those arrested in connection with the F.L.Q. terrorism in Quebec are being held without formal charges having been laid, and in some instances without being able to contact counsel? Does the minister consider this state of affairs to be within the spirit of intention of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker,
I will accept the hon. member's suggestion and bring this question to the notice of the minister.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in that same vein I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday that he had referred a question to him respecting the status of at least one of those people who were arrested because of their alleged F.L.Q. activities. May I ask him whether he is prepared to answer the question today?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question it related to whether means were being taken to prevent the entry into Canada of persons of the category of one given person. I respectfully suggest that it would be unfair that I should be called upon to answer the question, because in answering it I would be identifying one person in a given category and therefore rendering an opinion on a matter which is now before the courts. If my hon. friend wishes to formulate his question so as to define one category I shall be pleased to answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. The one person in question, according to claims of newspaper reports, is a Belgian who was

trained in Cuba, and I should like to ask the minister if this person entered Canada legally.


Guy Favreau: I must accept the ruling of the courts in this matter.



MRS. LOUIE YUET-SUN  REQUEST FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have given him notice this day. Has his attention been drawn to recent press reports or has he received information from the Secretary of State or the Minister of Public Works relative to the desire of Mr. Harry Toy of Ottawa for consideration of landed immigrant status being given to Mrs. Louie Yuet-Sun, who was deported from Canada early in 1961, leaving behind her infant son? The deportation order was bitterly opposed by the aforementioned ministers when they sat on the opposite side of the house. If so, what consideration is being given to this man's worthy cause?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer the question to the following extent. First I thank the hon. member for having been kind enough to give me notice of his question. The only answer I can give to the question, because I have not seen the newspaper report, is that this matter has in fact been drawn to my attention by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Public Works, and it is definitely under consideration at the present time.



RETURN OF DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING CHINESE INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is he aware that people of Chinese origin, during the period of investigation into allegations that Chinese people had entered Canada illegally, had their landing papers, passports and citizenship certificates in some cases taken from them by the R.C.M.P. and that in many cases these documents have not been returned to the people from whom they were taken? Will the minister inquire into this matter to see that these documents are returned?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think this question might properly go on the order paper, as it does not involve that urgency which calls for an answer now.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if people have been deprived of essential documents which it would appear were taken from them improperly in the first place, surely it is a matter of urgency for these documents to be returned to them at the earliest possible date, and surely the minister should be prepared to look into the matter.


Guy Favreau: If the question is only whether I am prepared to look into the matter, I had already decided that as soon as the question was put.



HAY RIVER AND FORT SIMPSON-POLICY ON COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources; I have already given him notice. Will the minister please advise the house of government policy on compensation payments to the flood victims of Hay River and Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories?


Arthur Laing: I wish to thank the hon. member for having told me yesterday that it was his intention to ask this question. I have a document here two pages in length. I do not know whether the house would prefer it to be printed or whether I should read it. May we accept it as taken as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The document above referred to is as follows:]
Early in May, the Northwest Territories communities of Hay River and Fort Simpson suffered serious flooding. It was necessary to evacuate both communities; about 1,500 people left Hay River and about 650 left Fort Simpson.
The people evacuated from these two communities represent about 10 per cent of the population of the Northwest Territories. Most of them went to Yellowknife and Fort Smith which have a combined population of about 6,000. While the numbers are small, the proportions are startling; moving 2,000 into these communities is roughly equivalent to moving 100,000 on very short notice into Ottawa and Hull.
The evacuation was carried out without a single casualty or serious injury-a tremendous tribute to the people of both these communities and to those others-helicopter and air line personnel, local community leaders, the R.C.M.P. and other government agencies,

Inquiries of the Ministry the defence forces, and indeed virtually everyone who was directly or indirectly concerned with the operation. One must mention also the people of Yellowknife and Fort Smith who opened their hearts and their homes to the evacuees.
As soon as the scale of the disaster was apparent, arrangements were put in hand to re-establish the two damaged communities.
Immediately following the floods, arrangements were made for a team of assessors to appraise the damage. In accordance with normal practice, the damage was assessed on the depreciated value of the assets at the time of the flood. In other words, appraised damage is much lower than replacement cost.
The preliminary report to the appraisers shows total damage at Hay River of $614,573. This does not include damage to ships and barges and some relatively small items on which the appraisal is not yet complete.
While the situation at Fort Simpson was very serious, the actual damage was not as great as had at first been feared. The appraisers' report has not yet been received, but it seems likely that the figure will be of the order of $50,000. None of these figures, incidentally, include damage to federal property; they do include damage to business property and equipment as well as to private property and personal effects.
Under our Canadian constitutional practice, the primary responsibility for dealing with disasters of this kind rests with the provincial government concerned-or, in this case, with the government of the Northwest Territories. The federal government at once indicated its willingness to stand behind the territorial government, which has very limited resources of its own, in any reasonable arrangements which it might make for the compensation of flood victims.
The council of the Northwest Territories accordingly met in special session in Hay River on May 15 and May 17. The council appropriated $100,000-all that it could reasonably afford-toward the expenses of evacuation and rehabilitation.
The council also established a compensation policy which involves in summary contributions towards the cost of replacing or rebuilding damaged property on the following scale:
Personal real property-100 per cent of appraised loss.
Clothes, furniture, and other personal effects-80 per cent of appraised loss.
Commercial stock in trade-70 per cent of appraised loss.
Other business losses-80 per cent of appraised loss.


In the light of limited funds available, the council decided that compensation for business losses should be limited to individuals and firms carrying on their business wholly or largely in the disaster area.
Since this subject may be of interest to some members of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table copies of the statement of policy approved by the commissioner in council at its meeting on May 17.
As indicated earlier, the federal government has agreed to provide such financial support as may be necessary to enable the territorial government to carry out this compensation policy.
On May 27, a compensation office staffed by treasury officers from Edmonton was established in Hay River. This office is prepared to issue payments to flood victims in accordance with the policy established by the council and started writing cheques on May 30. (On May 30 and 31, payments totalled approximately $15,000). Preliminary reports from Hay River indicate that the procedure is operating reasonably smoothly and quickly.
The Northwest Territories council also arranged for a new subdivision on the mainland to be developed for occupancy this year.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the arrangements and policies established by the Northwest Territories government and supported by the government of Canada represent reasonable and generous financial support for the people of Hay River and Fort Simpson. However, we must recognize that there will be losses which government assistance cannot cover. To help in this regard, a Northwest Territories flood relief fund has been established under private auspices. It is my hope that this fund will help to relieve some of the hardship which inevitably results from a disaster of this kind.


Arthur Laing: I should like to add these words and say the opportunity was afforded to me at the time of the floods to visit the territory where, incidentally, I met the hon. member for the first time. I wish to pay tribute to all those people of the territories who demonstrated a measure of fortitude, kindness, and charity which, I think, is unexcelled in Canadian history. We transferred almost 1,800 people to cities where their arrival meant an increase in population of some 30 or 40 per cent. Everyone concerned showed a measure of charity which I think was utterly beyond praise. I wish particularly to comment on the work of the rescue squad of the army. I described the efficiency of these men as almost terrifying. I think, now, that this episode is coming to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion as a result of fairness, and, I believe, a measure of generosity on the

part of the people of Canada. A tremendous tribute should be paid to the people who participated in relieving the distress in these areas.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, who I understand is the minister designated to answer questions in this house concerning the world fair to be held in Canada. I wish to ask him what steps are being taken, or what plans are being laid, to ensure that our native Indian people, with their heritage and culture, shall be properly represented?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I shall have to take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: have given notice to the Minister of Transport of a question concerning the continuing serious overcrowding at one of this country's leading airports. Is the minister now in a position to announce the approval of plans for the new airport terminal at the Vancouver international airport?


George James McIlraith: No, but I should add that treasury board approval in principle for the detailed layout of the project has been received and I expect to be able to make a statement giving further details in a very few days.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, minister without portfolio who, I think, acts for the Minister of Agriculture, who is absent.
In view of the present emergency, especially in the province of Quebec, which is caused by agronomists leaving federal experimental farms to go to work for the provincial government, can the minister tell the house in the public interest, which steps he intends to take
Inquiries of the Ministry so that the agronomists and technicians who work for federal experimental farms in Quebec will stay with the federal government?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of experimental farms in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec is under study, and we shall soon announce a new policy respecting that question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether he will be able to make that announcement next week or early next week?


An hon. Member:: Order.



LOSSES FROM REDUCED SUBSIDY ON MILK

Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio who occupies the next desk.
Further to the announcement of the new dairy policy on April 29 last, is the minister aware that the effects of that policy were felt last week end on the money paid the farmers for their milk, in the form of a reduction of 10 and even 20 cents per 100 pounds of milk and has he received any protests?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the federal dairy price stabilization policy is set by the price stabilization board of the Agricultural Stabilization Board and price arrangements between producers and farmers come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no right to intervene in those arrangements. A new dairy policy can sometimes permit an increase in prices but the existing legislation does not allow the federal government to increase prices.


Clément Vincent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; is the minister aware that after the announcement of that new policy, even though some hon. members stated there would be no price reduction, in the case of about fifty cheques issued to farmers there was a reduction of 10 or even 20 cents per 100 pounds of milk?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister the intention of getting in touch with his Quebec friends in order to facilitate the settlement
698	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of this problem for which he is partly responsible in view of his recent decision to save $6 million?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is clearly out of order and the hon. member must know that.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I should like to know in what language the deliberations of the present federal cabinet are conducted? Are they in English only, in French only, in both languages, or are they taking place with the assistance of interpreters?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the question of the hon. gentleman is quite out of order.



OPERATION OP CAFETERIA IN CENTRE BLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her position as a member of the internal economy commission and in light of a question I asked two weeks ago. As she was so wonderful in bringing about a remedy at that time, and because I do not know anybody else to ask, may I ask her this question. While soup and sandwiches are now served in the cafeteria in this building, I understand that this cafeteria is losing money. I would ask her to consider a suggestion which has been made to me and which I have been asked to bring up in the house. Would she consider having the cafeteria in this building transformed into a restaurant with a French cuisine? I have been told by so many of the French Canadian members of this house that if such were done it would really pay a dividend and take care of the losses of the cafeteria in the west block and the losses of the parliamentary restaurant. Would she take this into consideration?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that I shall be pleased to take it under consideration, and also how delighted I am that his interest has now changed from milkshakes to gourmet food.



DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION OF FRENCH &quot;'HANSARD&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted at this time to refer to a reply I made to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm yesterday.
(Translation):
Yesterday I unfortunately misunderstood the question the hon. member for Joliette-l'As-somption-Montcalm asked me. He wanted to be assured that in the future the French text of the official record would be available at the same time as the English text.
He will excuse me I hope, because while I think of myself as being perhaps, partially bilingual, I am, alas, certainly half deaf.
I now wish to give a direct answer to his question. As the number of speeches in English is larger than that of French speeches, I think that because of translation the task of the editors of the French Hansard is heavier than that of the English Hansard editors.
I think that they deserve the highest commendation for their undeniable efficiency, and that it would be preferable not without any real need, to stress the rare occasions where they may let us have the French text of the official record a little later than the English text.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you very much. Your French is not very bad.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of recent meetings between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Atlantic development board, has a comprehensive investigation of the Chignecto complex been initiated either by the board or the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the board and its officials have been giving some preliminary study to such an investigation, but that up to the present time the board has not seen fit to retain experts and that the matter is still under very active consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that 44 days of decision have gone by and in view of the fact that there is not yet on the order paper any of the progressive labour legislation promised by the new government, can the minister say whether such legislation will be on the order paper before the 60 days have expired?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. gentleman's question I should like to tell him that these matters are at present under consideration and will be on the order paper in due course.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yesterday I was asked a question by the hon. member for Grey North concerning the announcement of the awarding of contracts. In so far as the contract mentioned is concerned, tenders were opened on May 8, and as of that date the amount of the tenders became public knowledge. Anyone who so wished had access to this information. The contractor was advised on May 31 that he was the successful bidder. The information in question could have originated from any number of sources, but not from the Minister of Public Works.
I should like also to refer to the question that was asked by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I would appreciate it if he would put his question on the order paper, because he did not give me enough information to enable me to answer it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a supplementary question. Will it be the policy of the minister's department to notify the elected member of the riding concerning these contracts?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Such a policy was instituted under the previous government, but not under this government.
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Martineau:: (Poniiac-Temiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion to the answer which has just been given by the Minister of Public Works. Does the government to which he belongs intend to inform the defeated candidate of the awarding of the said contracts?
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not feel that the elected representative should be advised, whether he is a member of the minister's party or any other party?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is now 25 minutes to 5 and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does seem to me that we are entering upon a debate and not a question that has arisen since the orders of the day for yesterday. This question might well be deferred for another time, or even put on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Secretary of State should be allowed to rise at any given moment and make a speech to the house or lecture the house as he is doing. He has no proper point of order to raise and no point of privilege. As a matter of fact, he is attempting to take over your duties, sir, and I feel you should take notice of this fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose on a point of order which I submit to Your Honour was a proper point of order. If I have offended the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am very sorry.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I addressed a question to the Minister of Public Works, and I ask for an answer from him.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have
nothing to add to what I have already said.


Mr. Speaker:: There is one more item of business still before the house, and that is a question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Then I do hope we can get on with our business. We have had nearly two hours of questioning.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you do not mean that. The statement is not in accordance with the facts, and I am sure you would not want to leave that impression. I am rising with the greatest deference. [DOT]-

Appointment of Defence Committee


Mr. Speaker:: May I just correct the statement by saying that your Speaker is getting slightly fatigued.
(Translation):



USE OF FOREIGN HARDWOOD IN NEW BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I gave him notice of this question.
Could the minister tell the house if he has received representations from the Canadian Wood Manufacturers' Association about the policy followed by the architects of his department and other departments or crown corporations who stipulate in their specifications hard woods from foreign countries for the furniture and woodwork needed by the .government or the crown corporations, when there are plenty of hard woods of the same quality in Canada?
If so, could he tell the house what measures the government intends to take in that respect?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, that notice reached me only at the beginning of today's sitting. I will inquire and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That a special committee be appointed to consider matters relating to defence and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; that it be empowered to adjourn from place to place; that standing order 67 be suspended in relation to the committee; and that the committee consist of 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I shall now go on with the remarks I started yesterday.
Before a defence committee is established, we would be very glad if the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), or the Prime Minister were to inform the house of the present government's intention concerning the defence policy.
In my opinion, this suggestion would serve the interest of the country. A committee to IMr. Speaker.]
[Stage Direction]
investigate on defence matters would be of some utility, but I think it would be more logical if the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister were to provide the house with a clear statement on the future policy of the government concerning all matters related to national defence. Thus the committee could direct its deliberation accordingly.
As I said yesterday, we want to co-operate with the United States but never to the prejudice of Canadian sovereignty. We do not want the Prime Minister of Canada to receive his orders from Washington. We want to keep our sovereignty and that the decisions be made in Ottawa. We want to cooperate with our neighbours in establishing our defence policy but we want a policy of our own.
Mr. Grafftey:: Masters in our own home.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We want to be masters in our own home.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important committee. I would not want it to be a kind of opium that would send the Canadian people to sleep, so that they would swallow the nuclear arms pill. That is why it is a matter of such importance that the Minister of National Defence take his own responsibilities and set out the government's future policy.
Surely, Ottawa should not be a branch of Washington. The fact that there are no missiles in Canada makes it possible for this country to play an efficient part in peace negotiations. Negotiations have saved the world up to now. As long as Canada refuses nuclear weapons, all hope is not lost for peace.
It is also a fact that Canada is just next door to Russia. If we were to have missiles in Canada, we would be immediately on the front line. In the event of an attack, thousands of Canadians would die in a few hours, and before the attack would reach the United States.
Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the acrobatics performed by the present Prime Minister of Canada these last few months, these last few weeks; many a time he unsaid what he had said. I have here a long list of the statements made by the Prime Minister, but I do not want to linger over that matter. First, the Prime Minister said he was in favour of nuclear weapons and then he re-

jected them. He went to Washington where he was instructed to say yes with respect to nuclear arms. We also heard the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), the member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, state that the candidates of his party were free to declare themselves for or against nuclear weapons, and he was supported on that point by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). Now, on the occasion of a vote in the house, the leader who had received orders from Washington instructed his members to vote against the motion introduced by the New Democratic party.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my remarks in submitting a proposal to the committee. It would be very important for the committee to go to Colorado Springs in order to summon Air Marshal Roy Slemon to appear before them. According to a Washington daily newspaper, Mr. Slemon has been vilifying the former prime minister of Canada.
In this connection, I now read an article published on February 27, 1963, in La Presse:
According to the Washington Daily News Air Marshal Roy Slemon, of the R.C.A.F., second in command of the NORAD forces, is actively campaigning against the nuclear policy of Prime Minister Diefenbaker, by indoctrinating carefully influential Canadians visiting the NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, at the expense of the Canadian air force.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very important, in the public interest, for that committee to summon Air Marshal Roy Slemon, or to go to Colorado Springs to question him on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the committee that will be set up should also study several matters:
1.	That a complete four-year course should be given at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, as it is done in Kingston;
2.	That the course given at Kingston be bilingual, if possible, as in St. Jean;
3.	That the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) define in law the bilingual status of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean and that the bilingual system be maintained as it is known today;
4.	That the ratio of 65 per cent Frenchspeaking cadets and 35 per cent Englishspeaking cadets in each new group admitted to the college be maintained;
5.	That the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean be officially affiliated to the University of Montreal, so that the academic course be perfectly suited to the cadets' background;
6.	That the complete course be given at St. Jean, so that the cadets will not be obliged to go to Kingston to carry their studies further.
7.	That the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean be made independent from Kingston
701
Appointment of Defence Committee and that it become a self-contained unit among the colleges of the armed forces in Canada.
8.	That the Department of National Defence ensure that all military or semi-military establishments be provided with schooling facilities for the children of military Frenchspeaking and Catholic personnel stationed there.
Mr. Speaker, furthermore it is important to consider a plan in order to increase the number of French Canadian or bilingual officers in our armed forces, especially in the navy and air force services.
We should also consider the opportunity to post bilingual signs on all properties belonging to the Department of National Defence, as well as on vehicles, ships and aircraft, as we did in the Department of Agriculture, when we were in office.
I suggest also that the French language be put on an equal footing with the English language within the Department of National Defence.
I suggest also the establishment of a French division at the civil defence college in Arn-prior, for the benefit not only of Quebec, but also of all French speaking Canadians. At the present time the lectures are given only in English.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest also that the federal government's financial assistance be increased in order to assist major cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in organizing their civil defence.
Mr. Speaker, if one examines the Glassco report, it will be seen that the headquarters of national defence are criticized for many reasons. In my opinion, the proposed defence committee should not examine only the general national defence policy but also the problems of organization with the Department of National Defence.
It is said that there are too many committees at the national defence headquarters. In fact, there are 350 committees there and more than 200 interarm committees.
And, according to the Glassco report, a stock of woolen socks that would last until the year 2043 was found in the warehouse of our military air force; and we know that it was bought by the former Liberal government when it was in office.
And what about the 20,652 suits of winter underwear in stock, when the army requisitions only 18 a year? The navy has such a surplus that it would need 1,000 years to get rid of them.
A supply of aircraft electric bulbs that will last for 170 years was also found.

Appointment of Defence Committee
The supply of cotton overalls will last for 197 years and they were bought in 1954. And it would take 190 years to dispose of the boots.
Mr. Speaker, those mass purchases were made by the former government, when the Liberals were in office. They made those purchases carelessly. They spent the money of the Canadian people carelessly and I think that the committee should study that situation to prevent the party in power from repeating the serious mistakes it made when it was in office for so long.
There is also the arsenal at Riviere-du-Loup, built by the government when our friends were in office; an amount of $285,453.50 was spent on construction, repairs and equipment. The same government sold that arsenal later for $17,500.
We just have to look at the official record of our discussions in the house to realize what waste there has been. Indeed, as we may see on page 4923 of Hansard, dated May 7, 1953, the late Mr. C. D. Howe stated:
If the services say they need a gold-plated piano, it is our duty to buy it.
Mr. Speaker, this is another instance of the way public moneys-I mean the taxpayers' money-are managed.
The Liberal government at that time bought four million dollars worth of ties. In other words, there was an average of 10 ties for each soldier, which, in 1952, led the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent to state in the house:
I do not know why millions of ties were needed.
Mr. Speaker, those are the things which cause the Canadian people to lose confidence in democracy. Those people who were then in power administered the people's money in a reckless manner and I think that the committee on defence should scrutinize to the utmost, not only the present organization of the national defence department, but also the future intentions of the government. Before concluding my remarks, may I repeat my suggestion to the effect that the minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence should assume their responsibilities and tell the house immediately what the government proposes to do in future with regard to national defence. The Canadian people want to know where it is going.
For many weeks, the head of this government has been contradicting himself. He goes to Washington where he is told: "Say that". When he returns to Washington, he comes back with another version. As I say, it would, in the public interest, be important that, before the committee starts sitting, the


present Minister of National Defence, who rose so frequently when he was in the opposition, rise this time to enlighten the Canadian people and clearly outline the policy in defence matters, independently of the United States. Let us not be an American satellite which receives its instructions from the Americans, and let the Prime Minister of this government (Mr. Pearson) not be a servant of Washington, as is now the case.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Certainly.


Vincent Drouin: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) made some very interesting suggestions about the Royal Military College of St. John.
Could he tell us if he made similar suggestions to the previous administration or whether it is the climate of confidence about biculturalism that has been the order of the day since the new government came to office which induced him to make such suggestions?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy that my hon. friend asked that question. I see that he does not read Hansard very often. If he did he would have seen that from 1958 to 1962 I raised the matter twice in the House of Commons and it was also our intention to consider this matter more seriously, but the Liberals in cahoots with the Social Crediters prevented us from successfully implementing our program and by defeating the government in the House of Commons.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion and offer a few opinions and make a few suggestions. First of all I must say that I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say that the committee would have an opportunity to discuss policy. However, my former experience on defence committees leads me to be less optimistic than some hon. members of this house as to what will result from this promise that the committee members can discuss policy. At the same time, I am not quite as cynical as some others have been in the debate with respect to this offer on the part of the Prime Minister. My attitude at this time in that respect is simply to wait and see. It is a question of, once bitten, twice shy.

Whenever questions relating to defence expenditures are under consideration in this house I am reminded of a statement made by the former hon. member, Major General Pearkes, V.C., who I am sure all hon. members will admit spoke as a result of long army experience and a long interest in matters military. I remember him on one occasion rising in the house and saying:
I have never in all my experience known an admiral or a general or an air marshal who did not ask for far more than he required.
I have repeated that statement, Mr. Speaker; it is more or less a text with which I have prefaced my speeches on defence estimates throughout the years. I would urge the committee to keep those famous words constantly in mind when listening to the pleas of those who follow in the tradition of those whom Major General Pearkes mentioned.
The opposition of this party to nuclear weapons is based on moral, military and economic grounds. The reasons for this opposition have been stated in excellent manner by our leader, and in a most eloquent speech last evening by the hon. and gallant member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). Correspondence, resolutions and editorials indicate a widespread concern with the moral aspects of this question. Let me say that although we have had a vote in this house, the present government is not free of discussion in the country with respect to its decision to accept nuclear weapons for our defence forces.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from an editorial in the Victoria Colonist which I think puts the question very well indeed. The article is headed "Nuclear burden" and says:
When the Canadian air division is fully operational it will have the nuclear capability of destroying the equivalent of 600 Hiroshimas, killing 48 million people and injuring another 22 million. In other words the R.C.A.F. European air division will be hundreds of times more powerful than the combined strengths of all the allied armed forces used in the second world war.
Under optimum conditions Canada's air division could, for instance, completely obliterate the British Isles, or Germany, or even a large part of the U.S.S.R. To be in possession of, and responsible for such enormous destructive power imposes an almost impossible responsibility upon any nation. And such a burden is now Canada's.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a good many people in Canada who will agree with that editorial and the burden it imposes upon Canada, we think unnecessarily when we realize that the United States are professing to produce one intercontinental ballistic missile a day. To show that further concern I 28902-5-45J
Appointment of Defence Committee want to deal with an editorial in the Vancouver Sun of May 25, 1963 entitled "Nuclear arms and the Germans". The article says:
"What has been proposed is that there should first be created an interallied force composed of existing (nuclear) weapons. Subsequently it is proposed that a mixed-manned force should be created. This mixed-manned element would be multilaterally owned, manned and controlled and not at the disposal of any one government.
"These proposals would not constitute in any sense a move towards proliferation of national nuclear forces".
In the foregoing words, the British government a week ago repudiated suggestions contained in a Soviet note which objected to the new NATO nuclear strike force as a move intensifying the arms race and, more horrendous, putting the feared former enemy, West Germany, in possession of nuclear armament.
What the Soviets fear or profess to fear came partly to pass this week in Ottawa when the NATO ministerial conference adopted the first proposal referred to in the British note.
The second proposal, which would result in setting up a surface fleet carrying nuclear missiles, manned by mixed crews under one command-a truly NATO force-will be discussed at a later NATO meeting, probably in December.
Then the editorial goes on to say:
Even though these Germans would not be serving as German soldiers or sailors but as part of mixed NATO units, there are many people even in Canada and Britain, and probably elsewhere, who see some reason in the Russian opposition.
I just have three or four more lines to read, Mr. Speaker:
The west Germans, however, are receiving the 75-mile Sergeant nuclear-tipped missiles from the U.S. for their land forces in NATO. The nuclear warheads remain under U.S. control. But it is the sort of thing that gives jitters to people with long memories.
And there are many in Canada with long memories. May I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to this order I wonder if there would be any possibility of concluding the debate and passing the motion to establish this committee if the government undertook not to take this private members' hour away-which we could not do anyway-but to see that the time was provided at a later stage. I believe there are only one or two speakers left, and it would be a great convenience to the government if this could be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I understand the desire on the part of the government house leader to get the business moving more quickly than

National Housing Act
it appears to be moving at the present time. Having been through this process for a period of four years, I fully appreciate his position. However, the House of Commons moves slowly but very effectively, and trying to rush things through prevents people having the freedom of speech which is the heritage we enjoy in this parliament. I think in the circumstances we should follow the normal course of events and not disrupt the program. Every hon. member of the House of Commons expects private members' hour now. Many hon. members may be prepared for it, and a sudden change would throw them out in their own personal schedules.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the provisions of the National Housing Act so that the mortgage provisions of the said act be extended to the purchase and sale of homes and dwellings that have already been completed and occupied.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion I should first like to make clear to hon. members of the house what I am hoping to achieve by presenting this motion to the house. It is essentially an attempt to end the discrimination that has been practised by successive governments in Canada, under the provisions of the National Housing Act, between the suburbs and the cities which are hemmed in. by these suburbs. What I am attempting to do in the resolution is to make the same financial mortgage arrangements available to people in our cities who wish to purchase older homes in the cities and live there. I am trying to see that they have the same financial arrangements with respect to the purchasing of their homes as those who live in the suburbs. I myself live in suburbia outside the city of Toronto and I enjoy it, but I realize that there are thousands and thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who would prefer to purchase a home and live their lives in the cities. What I should like to see is the provisions of the National Housing Act amended so that its mortgage arrangements can be extended to those who wish to live in our cities.
There are many factors in the National Housing Act which we should like to examine, and no doubt there will be a more appropriate time provided later for us to make this examination. I have deliberately restricted this motion to the very narrow ground I have outlined because it is one of the provisions of the National Housing Act that has always seemed to me completely

indefensible and actually silly. I do hope hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party who may speak in this hour devoted to this resolution will give us some indication why such a proposal was never accepted during their term of office.
Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the present situation the National Housing Act financing arrangements are restricted to homes which have not as yet been constructed. If you wish to purchase a home under the National Housing Act you have to have a vacant piece of land, take your plans to the local C.M.H.C. office, and if they approve them you can get a mortgage covering 90 per cent of the purchase price of the house. Since pretty well all the vacant land is outside our large cities, and since most of the vacant land inside the cities does not meet National Housing Act requirements, this in effect means that almost all the financing of individual dwellings in Canada under the provisions of the National Housing Act is restricted to new homes being built in the suburbs surrounding most of our major cities. This is not a criticism of the C.M.H.C. officials themselves but it has been the policy of successive governments that this should be the case. What this means is that if a young couple, or any other couple for that matter, wish to remain within our cities and to live there, they cannot obtain the advantages of the financing arrangements of the National Housing Act. If they want to buy a house with a low down payment and a mortgage they can adequately carry, they are forced to leave the cities and to move out into the sprawling miles and miles of suburbia. To me this seems to be a totally unfair form of discrimination which cannot in any way be defended or justified. I know that many hon. members in this house who have dealt with conveyancing problems in their private practices have run up against the many difficulties which this situation creates.
As to why a change is needed, one of the difficulties, as I have said, is that because the National Housing Act is administered in this fashion all of the new homes are being built in our suburbs. This has resulted over the years in a very strong push from the cities out into the suburbs by most of our young couples. This has created for our municipalities tremendous problems in meeting the demands which new houses create-demands for roads, schools, curbs, water mains and all the other facilities which must be made available for new housing. The result to the municipalities has been an ever increasing and indeed a crushing tax load to meet these urgent requirements.
This is particularly evident in the administration and the supplying of school facilities.

I understand that every 40 new homes creates a demand for a new schoolroom at a cost to the municipality of some $40,000. The mushrooming growth of our municipalities, and the school requirements this has created, has in itself imposed a tremendous debt burden and great financial problems on all local municipalities. I do not know why this should be the case except that most of the people moving to the suburbs seem to be young, and begin to raise very large families, which creates this schooling problem.
Another difficulty which this method of N.H.A. financing creates is the problem of young people in our cities who want to buy a house. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you wanted to buy a house costing $12,000 and live in one of our cities, you could only get a first mortgage of about $6,000. Therefore, unless a young couple has $6,000 in cash they either cannot afford to buy the house or else they have to buy whatever equity in it they can and give back a large second mortgage. Second mortgages run from five to ten years and create additional carrying costs for the young couple. When these mortgages mature at the end of five or ten years they have to be renewed if the young couple cannot pay them off. They are renewed with a bonus, which usually just about equals the amount of principal which has been paid off. There are many cases in my constituency, and I am sure in many others, where young couples are buying houses with second mortgages on them, and they will never own them because every time the mortgage is renewed the bonus attached equals the amount of money they have paid off the mortgage, so they will go on in perpetuity buying these houses and will never really own them.
Another matter which would be of advantage in this proposal is that under the National Housing Act the mortgages run for 25 to 30 years. This would be a tremendous advantage to young people buying homes. It would give a great degree of stability to their home buying. It would enable them to budget their income over a longer period of time and would enable them to plan their families and their entire married life together. Another thing it would do is to make these homes easier to resell. If a young couple today buys a house in the city they will find that after living in the house for four or five years the property is virtually unable to be resold because purchasers simply will not buy these older homes with second mortgages running out in one or two years after they purchase. So that the provision of N.H.A. financing for older homes in our cities would go a long way not only to help out the second mortgage victimization which is now taking place in Canada but would make it easier for young
National Housing Act
couples to resell their homes in the event that they wanted to move somewhere else.
There have been some moves in Canada recently to provide the higher mortgage financing which N.H.A. does not provide. There are some companies in Toronto who will give a mortgage of 80 per cent of the value of a new home. The only difficulty is that the interest charged is 8 per cent, which is much too high a rate for a young couple to be able adequately to carry. Indeed, I hope that at some stage we will be able to discuss the whole question of interest rates under the National Housing Act. For example, if you have a mortgage on your home at 6J per cent under N.H.A., this is what it costs you. If the amount of the mortgage is $14,400, at 6f per cent over 25 years you will actually pay back $29,366. If that same $14,400 mortgage is stretched over 30 years you will actually pay back $33,084. This represents a mortgage interest rate of 6f per cent, and I leave to the imagination of hon. members the fantastic return which would be made if they were to finance a home in Toronto at the present time and pay 8 per cent over 25 or 30 years. One would be paying something like $14,000 over 25 years. Action along the lines I have suggested should make it easier for people to live in the cities and to buy their homes there. Favourable comment on this proposal has come from sources almost too numerous to mention, including builders associations, many of the construction industries and real estate companies, such reputable journals as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Daily Star and community planners. All have recommended that steps of this kind should be taken. Even the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) while he was in opposition spoke eloquently in favour of this provision and I am sure he has not changed his views since and that I can count on his support.
In actual fact, the question is not whether this should be done but why it has not been done in the past. The present system of home financing is discriminatory and under present conditions it can no longer be justified. It was all right when the National Housing Act first came into being because at that time what we primarily wanted was new housing. But now conditions have changed and the time has come to reconsider the act. People should have freedom of choice regarding where they are to live-whether they are to live in the city or in the suburbs. At present the choice is weighted heavily in favour of suburban living. An extension of the provisions of N.H.A. into the cities would relieve pressure in the suburbs. It would relieve householders of second mortgage victimization and, in particular, it would help young people

National Housing Act
who are seeking homes. There are thousands of reasons which could be advanced in favour of this proposition but I do not wish to spend too much time discussing them because I should like to hear the views of other hon. members on this proposal.
I realize that in the hour we have available we cannot, obviously, consider all the ramifications of such a proposal as I have made. However, I think the resolution in principle merits support by hon. members. I should like to suggest that, following approval of the principle, by unanimous consent it be referred to the committee on banking and commerce in order that hon. members may consider it, call in witnesses and hear the views of experts. With the co-operation of all hon. members we could then draw up a bill which would meet all difficulties, and bring it back for consideration at a later time.
I want to review an appeal which was made the other day in this private members' hour that serious consideration be given to paying greater attention to the matters which private members raise during this period. I hope we can do away with the farcical treatment which private members receive in this house. When we go to our constituencies and tell our constituents that every day we spend an hour debating private members' business, that everybody loves the bill under discussion to death, that everybody spends so much time saying how much they are in favour of it but that no action is ever taken and the measure is dropped to the end of a long list and never to be heard of again-when we explain all this to our constituents it is no wonder they ask themselves why we conduct our business in such a witless manner.


An hon. Member:: What about the divorce bills?


Reid Scott: We shall get to them later. We in this group would be glad to get rid of divorce bills. It was not this group which blew up the agreement last year.
However, before I close I should like to renew this request that more serious consideration be given to private members' matters. In other parliaments this is what is done. In the British house of commons private members' bills do proceed after consideration to the stages of third reading and royal assent. Hon. members in all quarters of the house have matters of great importance to put forward for consideration. Many of the motions and bills put forward contain good ideas, and it seems to me that a motion such as this should receive assent and go to a committee where the views of all hon. members could be taken into consideration and where a considered piece of legislation could be assembled. I hope this can be done and

that my proposal will be sent to a committee where it will receive full consideration.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: In speaking to this resolution I should like to assure the hon. gentleman who has proposed it that it is my intention to give it serious treatment. I believe that the matter dealt with in this resolution is a serious one, and one of great import.
My own particular riding, as the hon. member probably knows, is a riding which could benefit greatly from the sort of change he proposes. We are a downtown urban riding where many of the houses are old. We do not have a suburbia. I know, as the hon. member has stated, that many of the people who live in my riding are paying first mortgages, and very high interest rates on second mortgages to try to own their homes. I also know that this presents a great problem to some of these people. There is a problem of mobility. Children get married, and parents are then stuck with a house which is too large for their needs but difficult to sell. There is no mobility, because financing is not available. I know, also, that the young people who move out of these homes are forced to go into the suburbs if they want to own their homes. This gives rise to all sorts of problems, including that of transportation to and from work, and possibly getting them involved financially in the purchase of a car and other things they would like to stay away from.
I also recognize that in making financing available in respect of older homes we would help to some degree the sale of new homes because it would allow for trade-ins on new homes. This would allow a certain mobility as between owners of old and new houses. The steps which the hon. member suggests would be very desirable, particularly bearing in mind the needs of my own riding. It is a step which during the election campaign I advocated strongly, and it is something I still advocate.
However, I must add that during the election campaign I also advocated that we must approach our legislative program with responsibility and that the first thing which should receive our attention is the problem of unemployment. We should try to solve this problem first and make it the first call on our resources and on our available dollars. When we get that problem under control we can turn to these other highly desirable social measures. It seems to me, then, that in considering this measure we must ask ourselves how it would fit in with our policy for dealing with the fundamental problem of unemployment. We must ask ourselves whether, in terms of priority, we can

link it with the measures designed to improve the employment position, or whether it ought to be held back for a period.
It appears to me that the first thing we should consider is the background of our housing legislation. The hon. member mentioned that this legislation tended to be discriminatory and he suggested there was no reasoning behind the legislation as it is now drafted. I take exception to that. It is true the legislation is discriminatory and that it does aid the people who want to buy new homes as opposed to those who wish to buy an existing house. But that is for a very good reason. I think the financing which has been available in respect of new housing has played an important part in supporting employment in the construction industry by enabling new houses to be built and I think we must all realize that this is an important source of employment in our country. Thus, we have to be careful that whatever we do to improve the situation with respect to the purchase of older homes we should not sap the vital strength necessary in order to assist new home building projects. If we were to do that it would have serious consequences on the employment picture.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Act now operates in a number of fields and I should like to give quickly from their annual report some indication of the sort of things they are doing. They are insuring mortgage loans on new housing made by banks and conventional institutions. They are also making, as we all know, direct loans for new houses. They are also working in the field of limited dividend housing where the purpose is to try to meet social need by providing rental accommodation at low rental rates. They are making loans to universities to assist in providing dormitory accommodation for resident students. They are making loans to municipalities to help them work on their municipal sewage problems. They are also doing another important thing which does get down to the area of older homes. They are providing insurance to banks on home improvement loans. This means that people who own older homes are not completely barred from help. They are at least able to make improvements to their homes with bank loans insured under N.H.A.
There are a number of other projects which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is working on, but broadly speaking the purpose of the legislation has been a dual one. The first purpose is to try to provide social help in the housing field, to try to meet the needs of the people with regard to housing.
National Housing Act
It has as its second aim, and this is very important, the assisting of the construction industry with respect to new housing and thus helping to provide jobs in that industry.
I want to give some figures so we will have some idea of the scope of the problem about which we are talking. In 1962 there were about 130,000 residential units constructed. This represents $1,587 million. Bear in mind that this is a substantial sum of money. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided financing for 48,000 units or roughly 30-odd per cent of the total. Of these 48,000 units, 32,000 were financed by conventional lending institutions insured under N.H.A. and 16,000 were direct loans under N.H.A. In addition, N.H.A. provided $21 million for university housing, $45 million in the field of sewage treatment and $3 million in the field of urban redevelopment. It guaranteed loans to the banks in the amount of $38 million for home improvements and in the field of new construction $384 million was lent on new housing through N.H.A. of which $163 million represented direct loans by N.H.A.
What does all this tell us? I think it tells us a couple of things. As I have said before, I think it tells us that the housing act is moving into areas of housing other than straight new construction. I think it tells us something about the amount of money involved. When we look at the dollars that we have pumped in, $383 million under N.H.A. into the construction of new homes, $45 million in the field of sewage treatment and $38 million in the field of home improvements, I think it tells us that the housing act has pumped a lot of money into employment creating activities, and this is something we must make sure continues.
During the recent election campaign the party to which the hon. member who proposed this notice of motion belongs was talking about massive doses of social capital being required to go to work on our unemployment problem. I consider the funds that have been pumped in under N.H.A. to be just that very thing, massive doses of social capital working in the field of unemployment. Our new government is working to try to solve the unemployment problem. We are proposing a municipal loan fund, we are proposing an Atlantic development board, we are proposing a national development corporation and a number of other measures. I think these things all have one factor in common and that is that they too are going to require large sums of money. We know, for instance, that the municipal loan fund is going to take $400 million. When we add to this the fact that we have had large deficits in the last few years and despite the skill of our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will probably have a

National Housing Act
deficit this year, I think we must realize that the problem of the federal government and Canada as a country is similar to that of any municipality or individual, namely that the amount of money you can borrow, the amount of debt you can carry, is limited. You can only go so far.
When we look at the problems we have I think we must realize that if we are going to tackle this business of trying to make loans available for older houses we are probably going to be restricted in the number of dollars we can use in the housing field to something approaching the level that we had last year. This being the case, if we are unable to put more money into this area and if we then make loans available for older homes we do so at the risk of siphoning money away from the field of new construction, at the risk of cutting down in this field which is providing so much in the way of employment. Therefore I think this is the first consideration, and a consideration that to me makes this desirable move one that must take its proper place in priority. In other words, I think it is highly desirable that we do it but we must do it at a time when we can put enough new money into this field so that we do not at the same time detract from the construction of new houses.
There is another thing that I think we have to look at and that is some of the ramifications of what we do. I admit this is a relatively secondary issue as far as I am concerned. If we put money into older homes and make financing available-


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David George Hahn: If you will allow me to finish I will be quite pleased to answer them.
If we make funds available for our older homes we have got to be careful that we do not make funds available for older homes on a rental basis. I think we have got to be sure that we do not encourage people to buy up with government financing a bunch of older homes in a downtown area and keep them in a rundown condition, and in effect run a rental slum empire. If we make funds available to people for older homes I think it is very important that we try to make sure or at least consider whether we should make sure that these funds go to the owners of homes rather than to a landlord who is going to rent. I think we could get into trouble if we allowed people to buy up with low cost N.H.A. loans a lot of older homes, keep them in a rundown condition, rent them at low rental rates and in effect perpetuate slum districts. There are other problems of that type.

To my mind these are problems that are involved in the mechanics of working out the extension of this type of financing to older homes. I believe these problems require study but I think they are soluble. However, in my opinion one problem that is not immediately soluble is that involved on the one hand, in the restricted amount of money that can go into this field and, on the other hand, in not taking away from the existing level of new building construction.
I have just one more point in this regard. Probably about two thirds of the funds that went into housing last year under N.H.A. came from conventional lenders. The balance is made up of direct loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I think it is a safe assumption that conventional lenders would prefer to continue to lend in the new housing field rather than in the area of older homes. This means that the need for funds in this area would have to be met in higher proportion by direct N.H.A. loans. I think it is a reasonable assumption, therefore, that to implement this program, if we are not going to take funds from our present home-building field, we are going to have to provide greater sums of money. I feel that just as soon as we can possibly implement this program it should be one with top priority. I hope that as soon as we can provide the funds in this area this government will do so, because it is something that is essential, it is something that is vital and it is something that I strongly support. I do recognize that it must be done at a time when it can be done properly, when funds can reasonably be made available for this purpose. I hope that time will not be very long in coming.


Reid Scott: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to indicate that he would reply to a question at the end of his remarks. In his speech, the hon. gentleman indicated his main reason for opposing the measure at this time is that it would detract from the money available for new home construction. Since the population growth will create a demand for new homes at the rate of 120,000 units a year in perpetuity, will the hon. gentleman indicate when, if ever, we can take money from this desirable purpose and put it to another purpose that is just as desirable?


David George Hahn: In answer to that question I may say that the time when that can be done will be the time when two things exist. The first will be the time when the federal government can put more money totally into this field, and I do not feel that the government can do that right now. I refer to the time

when the total resources available from the federal treasury for the building of houses are greater.
This is one condition. I think the other is that right now we are vitally concerned with the problem of unemployment. If we succeed in doing what we are trying to do, that is increase the employment level in our manufacturing industries, then at that point we will not be so dependant or so sensitive to the employment provided by the construction industry.
(Translation):


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this discussion in order to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott).
There are in Canada, at the present time, about 100,000 families which cannot afford homes of minimum standards. Every Canadian, every Canadian family, should have the possibility of buying his own home.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the program of the Conservative government included legislation which provided loans, at a low rate of interest, to the extent of 90 per cent of the building or purchase cost of low rental housing projects.
There are farm credit provisions which make loans available to farmers for the purchase of farms. We could have housing credit facilities which would help workers who are anxious to buy a house, either in the city or in the suburbs, in a town or even in the country. The inspectors of this housing credit board could recommend the granting of a loan according to the actual value of the buildings at a given location.
For instance, in my riding, many workers would like to buy a house of their own instead of paying rent as they do right now. Is there a finer ambition for any man, even the poorest worker, than to wish to own his home?
If loans were provided on houses which are already built up to a maximum of 90 per cent of the value of the property, those workers would be able to realize their dream, thus killing two birds with one stone. It would be advantageous to house builders and it would create a demand for the services of tradesmen. Considering that the building of a new house requires many hours of labour, there would be fewer unemployed. In addition, new constructions require a lot of materials which are produced by Canadians in Canada and in my riding in particular. That would also improve the labour situation.
National Housing Act
Besides, the construction of new houses entails the purchase of new drapes, new furniture and all kinds of goods. That again would increase employment.
This is why I was saying a moment ago that we would thus kill two birds with one stone.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dwell at length on this legislation for it is, I think, very important for the Canadian workers, for the workers who live in my county and who would like to own a house; unfortunately, it often happens that whenever they want to buy a house that is already built, their plans are thwarted. This is why I am asking the government to seriously consider this matter and thus make it possible for our workers to have a house of their own, with the help of a loan that could perhaps be similar to loans granted in the agricultural field. Apart from helping them to have a home, it would provide jobs for many unemployed people in Canada.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John);: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I wish to associate with those who preceded me in order to congratulate you on your appointment to the high office you now hold. It is my first opportunity to take part in the debates of the house.
The motion of the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott) is especially related to the re-financing or purchase of housing units already built, so as to enable some people to obtain from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the necessary funds for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the matter is worth thinking over. I cannot say, however, that we can give the matter our unqualified support.
I think that the purpose of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to promote the building of housing units and to improve their quality.
If this motion were to be adopted without restrictions, the result would probably be that very old houses would change hands; then the number of houses to be built would be reduced while the number of slums, which is already too great in this country, would increase. However, I believe that the proposal put forth by the hon. member for Danforth deserves our consideration.
Taking into account the fact that it is in the first years after a house is built that the

National Housing Act
owner, for various reasons, must sometimes give it up, I am of the opinion that the proposal has some merit.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could finance the purchase of a house built some years ago, provided it meets the C.M.H.C. standards.
Now, if I make certain restrictions, it is because I cannot accept this proposal straight away.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to outline the situation now existing in Canada. In the province of Quebec, especially in the Saguenay area that I represent, thousands of houses have been built. At the present time, in the Saguenay area, unemployment has reached a rather high level, and municipal and school taxes have increased, so that family heads with low income, who had built a house for their family, must make monthly payments of about $70 including taxes. But, because of present conditions, they are now paying $80, $90 and even more each month for their accommodation. Now, many of them wonder whether they will be able to continue paying this. To my mind, we might bring about some changes so as to allow those people who have made payments for five, six, and even ten years, to re-finance, and even obtain a reduction of their monthly payment.
Mr. Speaker, this will obviously bring about an increase of the interests which will have to be paid by those heads of families, but there again, I know that it has been asked for a long time in the house that the interest rate be reduced. I hope that, in a not too remote future, we might make available to Canadian citizens the necessary means for building a house, a simple dwelling, or a multi-dwelling unit, at an interest rate which would not be prohibitive like the one paid today.
It has been said earlier in this debate that, over a period of twenty or even of twenty five years, people had to pay double the value of the house. That is indeed a fact, and I hope that the house will take that situation into consideration and promote the development of housing in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that every minute counts, though I would have had a great deal more to say on the subject. However, I shall resume my seat so that the resolution may be accepted with some reservations.
(Text):


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to tell the

hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that I myself have bought a house wrapped in a mortgage.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, having heard the remarks made by those who spoke before me, it is readily seen that the principle itself is acceptable, but it is still necessary to consider some statistics.
As was mentioned by a member of the opposition a while ago, it was the intention of the then government, in 1962, to set interest rates which would be acceptable for everybody; it was about time that they should have thought of that because they were the ones who had given the interest rate a little boost, making it jump from 5j- to 6| per cent.
The principle according to which it would be possible to extend the benefits of the act to houses already built was given careful consideration. But has any thought been given to the speculation angle? It has been said that this measure could reduce unemployment, but was the exodus which has taken place in our ridings for many years taken into consideration?
We contributed to lending of close to $2,500,000 on mortgages and the present member for Chambly-Rouville prepared the legal documents for 250 titles.
Since 1958, we have noticed a raise in the interest rates. We are in an urban and semiurban area and, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Toronto-Broadview (Mr. Hahn) a moment ago, many people have moved due to the increase in transportation costs. We have presently in our municipality from 35 to 40 houses whose owners have difficulty meeting the monthly instalments due to the increase in transportation costs.
We considered the matter and we most seriously asked ourselves if financing of houses already built should not be abandoned to the private sector, i.e., banks or insurance companies.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a commendable effort as far as home improvement loans are concerned, and lent money at a reasonable rate in order that the owners may not be compelled to further encumber their properties.
In some areas, new houses were built with a very small down payment through secondary mortgaging.
We could ask ourselves whether we would not be promoting speculation if we refinanced houses already built. As a matter of fact

should we not leave to the private sector the assessment of property values or construction quality.
Please understand that we are not dealing with social aspects, we are only concerned with the construction of houses and the balancing of a precarious budget situation. We would like all Canadians to be enabled to build their own houses. However, Canadians must live according to their means and they will do this only if they buy the property they can afford.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible at this time to support the policy advocated by the hon. member for Danforth.
It was stated a while ago that some Canadians could not keep their property. In my opinion, no government whatsoever is responsible for that. When a mortgage is granted at 6 per cent interest, the terms of repayment do not change. However, municipalities have a responsibility so far as taxes are concerned and that is what may alter the terms of repayment.
Having said this about one of the sorest points, that relating to speculation and not the humanitarian aspect, one must come to the conclusion that the whole question should be left to private enterprise, as I said a while ago.
(Text):



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
5,	1963	711
Business of the House
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if the order of business as announced for Thursday and Friday remains unchanged?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not quite. Tomorrow we will continue with the debate that was in progress at five o'clock today, which we earnestly hope may be completed fairly early in the day. Then we will proceed as indicated with the resolution preceding the economic council. If that resolution stage should be completed, it would not be possible to take the resolution on the department of industry, or at least it would not be convenient, because my hon. friend the Minister of Defence Production has to be in Washington tomorrow. Therefore, if a third item is required we would take the resolution preceding the Atlantic development board bill.
On Friday, if the circumstances were that we had not started the Atlantic development board bill, we would go on with the resolution on the department of industry instead; but if we had started it we would go on with that resolution and then after that take the bill respecting the economic council.


[Stage Direction]
It being twelve minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
28902-5-46i

[Stage Direction]
Financial Obligations to United Nations

[Stage Direction]
Member States
1962	1961	1960	1959
Afghanistan	
Albania	
Argentina	
Australia	
Austria	
Belgium	
Bolivia	
Brazil	
Bulgaria	
Burma	
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
Cambodia	
Cameroon	
Canada	
Central African Republic	
Ceylon	
Chad	
Chile	
China	
Colombia	
Congo (Brazzaville)	
Congo (Leopoldville)	
Costa Rica	
Cuba	
Cyprus	
Czechoslovakia	
Dahomey	
Denmark	
Dominican Republic	
Ecuador	
El Salvador	
Ethiopa	
Federation of Malaya	
Finland	
France	
Gabon	
Ghana	
Greece	
Guatemala	
Guinea	
US $	US $	US $	US15,648.00	-	-	-611,362.00	315,815.00	-741,687.00	57,212.09	24,274.00	22,907.00	1,503.00	-2,391.00	-	-	-87,088.00	-	-	-24,746.00	Mill	-	-160,340.00	-	-	-2,650,814.00	z	-	-26,175.00	193.60	17,669.50	-	-	-9,231.12	-	-	-132,913.00	66,551.00	-	-549,255.40	15,854.89	-	-	-6,633.67	-32.203.00	9,601.0025.682.00	-Haiti	
Honduras...
Hungary____
Iceland....
India	
Indonesia,..
Iran	
Iraq	
Ireland....
Israel	
Italy	
Ivory Coast
Japan	
Jordan	
Laos	
24.949.00	23,582.00	19,436.00	1,667.0025.835.00	3,303.00	-	-365,819.00	259,841.00	-	-
24,746.00

I. STATUS OF CONTRIBUTIONS DUE TO THE UNITED NATIONS REGULAR BVDGET-concluded
Member States
Lebanon	
Liberia	
Libya	
Luxembourg	
Madagascar	
Mali	
Mexico	
Morocco	
Nepal	
Netherlands	
New Zealand	
Nicaragua	
Niger	
Nigeria	
Norway	
Pakistan	
Panama	
Paraguay	
Peru	
Philippines	
Poland	
Portugal	
Romania	
Saudi Arabia	
Senegal	
Somalia	
South Africa	
Spain	
Sudan	
Sweden	
Syria*	
Thailand	
Togo	
Tunisia	
Turkey	
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
United Arab Republic	
United Kingdom	
United States of America	
Upper Volta	
Uruguay	
Venezuela	
Yemen	
Yugoslavia	
Mauritania.. Mongolia.... Sierra Leone Tanganyika.
1962	1961	1960	1959US $	US $	US $	US $.	-	-	'	.. -	-	-	-.. -	-	-	-. [DOT] -	-	-	-' [DOT] -	-	-	-. -	-	.. -	-	-	-,. -	-	. 2,290.81	-	-	-' [DOT] 	-	-	--	__	. 25,958.00	2,831.18	. 26,175.00	13,925.00	-	-. 	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-. 140,000.00f	-	___. 	-	-	. 26,113.00	24,746.00	4,199.00	-. 	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-.	-	. 	-	-	-. 	-	-	-. 	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-. -	-	. 	-	-	--	-	. 2,392.00	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-. 32,356.00	-	_	. 	-	-	-. 	-	-	-. 	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-. -	-	. 	-	. 157,578.00	152,737.96	-	-. 	-	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-__	. 65,655.00	60,000.00	-	-. 	-	. 26,113.00	772.50	-	-[DOT] 	-	-	-6,079,947.39	1,014,018.33	25,138.00	1,667.00. 26,182.00	2,686.00	. 	-	-	-. 	-	. 26,182.00	2,686.00	-	-6,132,311.93	1,019,390.33	25,138.00	1,667.00
* For the year 1961 assessments has been shown against the United Arab Republic.
t This balance represents an amount withheld by the Government pending allocation of a credit of $140 000 from the Working Capital Fund which is the subject of consultations between the Governments of India and Pakistan. In the meantime, the sum of $140,000 is being held in a suspense account by the United Nations.

[Stage Direction]
Member States	1 January to 30 June 1962	1961	1960	1959	1958	1957	Total Dueus $	US $	US t	US $	US $	US $	us $Afghanistan	907.00 	
735.00	5,583.50 7,484.00	5.926.00 3.951.00	9.092.00 6.062.00	15.000.	00 10.000.	00	2.814.00 5.876.00	39.322.50 34.108.00Argentina	
Australia	
Austria	
18,442.00	103,291.00	109,594.00	168,180.00	285,000.00	171,869.00	856,376.00Belgium	
155,533.00 	
735.00	43,245.00 7,484.00	3,939.00	6,056.00	12,500.00	7,345.00	158,778.00 38,059.00Brazil	
Bulgaria	
3,720.00	29,938.00	15,826.00	24,257.00	35,000.00	20,565.00	129,306.00Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic	
Cambodia	
50,170.00	87,943.00	46,419.00	71,219.00	117,500.00	70,510.00	443,761.00-	-	-	-	-Central African Republic	-	-	-	-	"Ceylon	
Chad	
Chile	
China	
Colombia	
777.00 	
4,765.00 	
217,133.00	25,125.00 466,207.50	26,643.00 989,797.00	35,269.00 759.151.00	1,252,500.00	505,048.00	777.00 91,802.00 4,189,836.50Congo (Brazzaville)	
Congo (Leopoldville)	
Costa Rica	
Cuba	
Cyprus	
777.00 	
1,362.00 	
735.00 	
4,008.00	7.524.00 3.722.00 46,778.00	444.00 3,171.09 24,679.00	37.874.00	65,000.00	12,662.00	8.745.00 1.362.00 7,628.09 191,001.00Czechoslovakia	
Dahomey	
Denmark	
Dominican Republic	
Ecuador	
113,093.00 777.00 	
919.00	162,787.00 381.93 9,356.00	85,983.00	131,856.00	205,000.00	123,393.00	822,112.00 1,158.93 10.275.00El Salvador	
Ethiopia	
Federation of Malaya	
Finland	
France	
724.00 907.00	4,653.00 5,583.50	5,868.00	9,067.00	27,500.00	16,159.00	5,377.00 65,084.50714	HOUSE OF COMMONSGabon	Ghana	Greece	Guatemala... Guinea	Haiti	
Honduras____
Hungary	
Iceland	
India	
Indonesia___
Iran	
Iraq	
Ireland	
Israel	
Italy	
Ivory Coast.
Japan	
Jordan	
Laos	
Lebanon	
Liberia	
Libya	
Luxembourg. Madagascar..
Mali	
Mexico	
Morocco	
Nepal	
Netherlands.
New Zealand Nicaragua...
Niger	
Nigeria	
Norway	
Pakistan....
Panama	
Paraguay....
Peru	
Philippines...
	'
919.00 735.00	4.653.00 7.484.00
735.00 735.00 54,126.00	3.722.00 3.722.00 78,587.00
1,654.00	16,840.00
735.00 735.00	7.484.00 2.987.00
919.00	4,653.00
735.00	7,484.00
15.50 13,629.00	132,849.00
735.00	200.20
735.00 777.00	2,595.75 3,762.00
735.00 735.00 1,826.00 485.00	3.722.00 3.722.00 20,582.00
§88
4,915.00	7,566.00	-	-	18,053.00 8,219.003.951.00 3.951.00 41,516.00	6,062.00 63,627.00	97,500.00	67,572.00	14,470.00 8,408.00 402,928.008,854.00	13,623.00	30,000.00	5,627.00	76,598.003,951.00	6,062.00	10,000.00	5,876.00	34,108.00 3,722.004,938.00	7,576.00	1,759.00	-	19,845.003,951.00	6,062.00	10,000.00	5,876.00	34,108.0070,158.00	107,564.00	170,000.00	32,828.00	15.50 527,028.001 1 1	-	-	-	935.20444.00	-	-	-	3,330.75 4,983.003.939.00 3.951.00 10,817.00	6.056.00 6.062.00 16,649.00	12.500.00 10,000.00 37.500.00	1.289.00 5.876.00 7.034.00	28.241.00 30.346.00 94.408.00 485.00Member States	1 January to 30 June 1962	1961	1960	1959	1958	1957	Total Dueus $	US $	US $	US $	US $	US $	US $Poland	60,854.00	256,343.00	135,134.00	207,514.00	380,000.00	229,159.00	1,269,004.00Portugal	-	-	-	-	-	-Romania	30,816.00	63,618.00	33,406.00	51,442.00	122,500.00	73,448.00	375,230.00Saudi Arabia	1,297.00	11,227.00	5,915.00	9,087.00	17,500.00	10,283.00	55,309.00Senegal	971.00	-	-	-	-	971.00Somalia	South Africa	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Spain	15,720.00	174,013.00	91,643.00	140,826.00	277,500.00	167,462.00	867,164.00Sudan	1,297.00	11,227.00	5,868.00	9,067.00	27,500.00	16,159.00	71,118.00Sweden	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Syria*	915.00	20,000.00	11,752.00	32,667.00Thailand	2,940.00	-	-	-	-	-	2,940.00Togo	777.00	3,762.00	444.00	-	-	-	4,983.00Tunisia	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Turkey	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic	191,019.00	336,801.00	177,778.00	272,747.00	450,000.00	271,759.00	1,700,104.00Union of Soviet Socialist Republics	1,444,204.00	2,548,457.00	2,706,146.00	2,063,805.00	3,405,000.00	2,050,676.00	14,218,288.00United Arab Republic	
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern	4,574.00	59,876.00	31,477.00	48,432.00	87,500.00	52,883.00	284,742.00Ireland	-	-	-	-	-	-	-United States of America	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Upper Volta	777.00	7,524.00	444.00	8,745.00Uruguay	2,010.00	11,167.00	11,806.00	-	-	-	24,983.00Venezuela	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Yemen	735.00	7,484.00	3,951.00	6,062.00	10,000.00	5,876.00	34,108.00Yugoslavia	-	-	-	-	-2,376,825.50	4,813,634.38	4,691,588.09	4,313,974.00	7,201,759.00	3,957,676.00	27,355,456.97Mauritania	780.00	416.00	_	_	_	_	1,196.00Mongolia	780.00	416.00	-	-	-	-	1,196.00Sierra Leone	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Tanganyika	780.00	416.00	-	-	-	-	1,196.002,379,165.50	4,814,882.38	4,691,588.09	4,313,974.00	7,201,759.00	3,957,676.00	27,359,044.97
* For the years 1959, I960 and 1961 assessments have been shown against the United Arab Republic,
716	HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Member States
Afghanistan	
Albania	
Argentina	
Australia	
Austria	
Belgium	
Bolivia	
Brazil	
Bulgaria	
Burma	
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic..
Cambodia	
Cameroon	
Canada	
Central African Republic	
Ceylon	
Chad	
Chile	
China	
Colombia	
Congo (Brazzaville)	
Congo (Leopoldville)	
Costa Rica	
Cuba	
Cyprus	
Czechoslovakia	
Dahomey	
Denmark	
Dominican Republic	
Ecuador	
El Salvador	
Ethiopia	
Federation of Malaya	
Finland	
France	
Gabon	
Ghana	
Greece	
Guatemala	
Guinea	
Haiti	
Honduras. . . Hungary.. ..
Iceland	
India	
Indonesia___
Iran	
Iraq	
Ireland	
Israel	
Italy	
Ivory Coast.
Japan	
Jordan	
Laos	
Lebanon	
Liberia	
Libya	
Luxembourg, Madagascar.
[Stage Direction]
1 November 1961
[Stage Direction]
1 January to 14 July to
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
to 30 June 1962
[Stage Direction]
31 October 1961 31 December 1960
[Stage Direction]
Due
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
US s
[Stage Direction]
US $
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
7,949.00
[Stage Direction]
11,887.00
[Stage Direction]
14,529.50
[Stage Direction]
34,365.50
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
19,373.00
[Stage Direction]
33,664.00
[Stage Direction]
160,664.00
[Stage Direction]
219,911.00
[Stage Direction]
18,797.00
[Stage Direction]
399,372.00
[Stage Direction]
359,637.00
[Stage Direction]
65,335.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
424,972.00
[Stage Direction]
958,903.00
[Stage Direction]
1,287,766.00
[Stage Direction]
629,615.00
[Stage Direction]
2,876,284.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
19,373.00
[Stage Direction]
33,664.00
[Stage Direction]
163,940.00
[Stage Direction]
202,080.00
[Stage Direction]
44,922.50
[Stage Direction]
410,942.50
[Stage Direction]
31,865.00
[Stage Direction]
31,699.00
[Stage Direction]
77,491.00
[Stage Direction]
141,055.00
[Stage Direction]
415,604.00
[Stage Direction]
465,577.00
[Stage Direction]
227,630.00
[Stage Direction]
1,108,811.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
13,007.00
[Stage Direction]
27,298.00
[Stage Direction]
6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
6,418.50
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
12,814.50
[Stage Direction]
41,372.00
[Stage Direction]
53,492.00
[Stage Direction]
65,383.00
[Stage Direction]
160,247.00
[Stage Direction]
1,823,774.00
[Stage Direction]
2,481,426.00
[Stage Direction]
1,446,543.50
[Stage Direction]
5,751,743.50
[Stage Direction]
6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
2,131.00
[Stage Direction]
16,452.00
[Stage Direction]
11,196.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
11,196.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
34,989.00
[Stage Direction]
49,529.00
[Stage Direction]
121,080.00
[Stage Direction]
205,598.00
[Stage Direction]
935,266.00
[Stage Direction]
861,813.00
[Stage Direction]
421,358.00
[Stage Direction]
2,218,437.00
[Stage Direction]
6,246.06
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
6,246.06
[Stage Direction]
7,958.00
[Stage Direction]
9,905.00
[Stage Direction]
24,216.00
[Stage Direction]
42,079.00
[Stage Direction]
5,190.75
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5,190.75
[Stage Direction]
6,358.00
[Stage Direction]
9,905.00
[Stage Direction]
16,263.00
[Stage Direction]
7,949.00
[Stage Direction]
11,887.00
[Stage Direction]
14,529.50
[Stage Direction]
34,365.50
[Stage Direction]
4,746,601.00
[Stage Direction]
6,339,772.00
[Stage Direction]
3,099,642.00
[Stage Direction]
14,186,015.00
[Stage Direction]
7,958.00
[Stage Direction]
9,905.00
[Stage Direction]
12,108.00
[Stage Direction]
29,971.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
19,373.00
[Stage Direction]
33,664.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
447,646.00
[Stage Direction]
83,210.00
[Stage Direction]
203,414.00
[Stage Direction]
734,270.00
[Stage Direction]
31,823.00
[Stage Direction]
41,605.00
[Stage Direction]
25,853.50
[Stage Direction]
99,281.50
[Stage Direction]
14,324.00
[Stage Direction]
17,831.00
[Stage Direction]
43,589.00
[Stage Direction]
75,744.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
19,373.00
[Stage Direction]
33,664.00
[Stage Direction]
6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
3,320.50
[Stage Direction]
17,611.50
[Stage Direction]
7,958.00
[Stage Direction]
4,150.02
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
12,108.02
[Stage Direction]
7,949.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
z
[Stage Direction]
7,949.00
[Stage Direction]
6,394.00
[Stage Direction]
10,936.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
17,330.00
[Stage Direction]
III. STATUS OF CONTRIBUTIONS DUE TO THE CONGO AD HOC ACCOUNT-concluded
[Stage Direction]
1 November 1961
[Stage Direction]
1 January to
[Stage Direction]
14 July to
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Member States
[Stage Direction]
to 30 June 1962
[Stage Direction]
31 Octoberl 961
[Stage Direction]
31 December 1960
[Stage Direction]
Due
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
us $
[Stage Direction]
.. 6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
14,321.00
[Stage Direction]
.. 117,801.00
[Stage Direction]
140,664.00
[Stage Direction]
343,866.00
[Stage Direction]
602,331.00
[Stage Direction]
.. 22,282.00
[Stage Direction]
27,736.00
[Stage Direction]
67,805.00
[Stage Direction]
117,823.00
[Stage Direction]
Nepal
[Stage Direction]
.. 6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
137.16
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
6,503.16
[Stage Direction]
Netherlands
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT]
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
New Zealand
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
.. 6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
Niger
[Stage Direction]
.. 6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
1,065.50
[Stage Direction]
15,386.50
[Stage Direction]
Nigeria
[Stage Direction]
. .
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Norway
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT]
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
... 6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
... 6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
9,686.50
[Stage Direction]
23,977.50
[Stage Direction]
Peru
[Stage Direction]
... 15,907.00
[Stage Direction]
21,793.00
[Stage Direction]
26,637.50
[Stage Direction]
64,337.50
[Stage Direction]
Philippines
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
... 510,845.00
[Stage Direction]
678,553.00
[Stage Direction]
663,517.00
[Stage Direction]
1,852,915.00
[Stage Direction]
... 25,431.00
[Stage Direction]
39,624,00
[Stage Direction]
96,864.00
[Stage Direction]
161,919.00
[Stage Direction]
... 255,713.00
[Stage Direction]
336,800.00
[Stage Direction]
164,668.00
[Stage Direction]
757,181.00
[Stage Direction]
Saudi Arabia
[Stage Direction]
... 11,149.00
[Stage Direction]
11,887.00
[Stage Direction]
29,059.00
[Stage Direction]
52,095.00
[Stage Direction]
Senegal
[Stage Direction]
... 7,994.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,994.00
[Stage Direction]
... 6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
1,111.07
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,507.07
[Stage Direction]
... 423,528.00
[Stage Direction]
554,730.00
[Stage Direction]
271,219.00
[Stage Direction]
1,249,477.00
[Stage Direction]
Spain
[Stage Direction]
... 136,816.00
[Stage Direction]
184,250.00
[Stage Direction]
450,417.00
[Stage Direction]
771,483.00
[Stage Direction]
Sudan
[Stage Direction]
. . .
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
'
[Stage Direction]
Sweden
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Syria*
[Stage Direction]
... 7,955.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,955.00
[Stage Direction]
Thailand
[Stage Direction]
... 25,465.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
25,465.00
[Stage Direction]
Togo
[Stage Direction]
... 6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
1,065.50
[Stage Direction]
15,386.50
[Stage Direction]
Tunisia
[Stage Direction]
. . .
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Turkey
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic-
[Stage Direction]
... 1,582,482.00
[Stage Direction]
1,783,061.00
[Stage Direction]
871,774.00
[Stage Direction]
4,237,317.00
[Stage Direction]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-
[Stage Direction]
... 11,964,509.00
[Stage Direction]
13,491,828.00
[Stage Direction]
6,596,425.00
[Stage Direction]
32,052,762.00
[Stage Direction]
United Arab Republic
[Stage Direction]
... 39,775.00
[Stage Direction]
63,398.00
[Stage Direction]
154,982.00
[Stage Direction]
258,155.00
[Stage Direction]
United Kingdom
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
United States of America
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Upper Volta
[Stage Direction]
... 6,396.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
2,131.00
[Stage Direction]
16,452.00
[Stage Direction]
Uruguay
[Stage Direction]
... 17,499.00
[Stage Direction]
23,774.00
[Stage Direction]
29,059.00
[Stage Direction]
70,332.00
[Stage Direction]
... 82,778.00
[Stage Direction]
99,059.00
[Stage Direction]
121,079.50
[Stage Direction]
302,916.50
[Stage Direction]
Yemen
[Stage Direction]
... 6,366.00
[Stage Direction]
7,925.00
[Stage Direction]
19,373.00
[Stage Direction]
33,664.00
[Stage Direction]
Yugoslavia
[Stage Direction]
... 60,505.00
[Stage Direction]
69,341.00
[Stage Direction]
169,512.00
[Stage Direction]
299,358.00
[Stage Direction]
25,691,843.81
[Stage Direction]
29,945,435.75
[Stage Direction]
16,725,290.00
[Stage Direction]
72,363,569.56
[Stage Direction]
Mauritania
[Stage Direction]
... 6,400.00
[Stage Direction]
877.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,277.00
[Stage Direction]
Mongolia
[Stage Direction]
... 6,400.00
[Stage Direction]
877.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,277.00
[Stage Direction]
Sierra Leone
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Tanganyika
[Stage Direction]
... 6,400.00
[Stage Direction]
877.00
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7,277.00
[Stage Direction]
25,711,043.81
[Stage Direction]
29,949,066.75
[Stage Direction]
16,725,290.00
[Stage Direction]
72,385,400.56
[Stage Direction]
*For the years 1960 and 1961 assessments have been shown against the United Arab Republic.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 6, 1963