1963-10-23

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all hon. members of this house. It concerns a motion which was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) relating to the production of a certain list of instructions, or what have you, to the members of the cabinet by the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis). The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Postmaster General have both denied the existence of this list, and in reply to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North for the production of this list a nil return was tabled.
The matter has also to do with the statement of Your Honour in this house yesterday. Subsequent to the transpiration of these events, namely the denial of the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General of the existence of this document, and subsequent to the statement by Your Honour in the house yesterday, certain events took place last night which I think justify the reopening of the whole matter. Your Honour's statement dealt with the propriety of a private member tabling a document which was in his possession, and also dealt with the denials of the Postmaster General and the Secretary of State.
Last night, while Your Honour was absent from the chair, the matter of this list again arose. Your Honour will find recorded on pages 3882 and 3883 of last night's proceedings the undoubted admission by the Postmaster General that this list actually is in existence. Only one of these statements can be true. Either the document exists or it does not exist. We on this side of the house are convinced it does exist. I feel that since the remarks of the Postmaster General last night give a clear indication that the document does exist, there has been a deliberate misleading of the members of this house both by the Postmaster General and the Secretary of State.
Because of the very fundamental questions involved here, including the integrity of two cabinet ministers and the privileges of every
hon. member in this house, in my view and in the view of several other members on this side of the house the matter deserves a more careful inquiry than it has received. We feel that these denials have been false. There should be an opportunity given to the members of this house to determine whether or not the document exists.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler):
That the matters raised in the statement made to the house this day-
That is October 22.
-be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections, and that such committee be instructed to report its findings thereon to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is any other hon. member who would like to speak to this subject, I would be glad to listen.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about this question. I begin by saying that I am not enthused about sending this matter to the committee in the light of what happened to the last deliberations of that committee and the way the house changed the spirit of the recommendations made by that committee. I should like, however, to say something about this matter because it arises out of a motion for the production of papers which I moved last week. This motion was to the effect that an order of the house be issued for a list of consultants prepared in the office of the Postmaster General for the guidance of cabinet ministers, and copies of all correspondence between ministers of the crown and the consultants in each riding.
Sessional paper 243, dated October 17, 1963, the return of the Postmaster General to this motion No. 99, was to the effect there was no such list and, therefore, no such correspondence. Now, it seems obvious to me that what I was asking for was a list prepared by the Postmaster General, or at least in his department, and used by the minister or other cabinet ministers. I think that was pretty obvious. The minister said in his reply that there was no such list and, therefore, no such correspondence. Last night in this house the minister said a number of things, one of which, as reported on page 3883 of Hansard, was as follows:
This document is a personal document to speed up the work. It is in order to prepare letters for my signature.

Question of Privilege
When the minister says "this document" he is in fact admitting that there is such a document, a fact which he denied in his return. Later on, as reported at page 3884 of Hansard, he said:
I might say that this document is for my personal use-
Yet, Mr. Speaker, in his return he said in fact there was no document and there had been no correspondence with any of the people concerned, the consultants mentioned. In the Winnipeg Tribune of October 8, 1963 there is a story concerning Rev. Fred Douglas, who was the Liberal candidate in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, and listing Mr. Douglas as the consultant in the constituency. Mr. Douglas is quoted as saying:
For the best information possible it seems logical that the government in power should continue to consult its constituency organizations-whichever government that happened to be.
Mr. Douglas has been listed as a consultant for his riding. Asked if he was in fact a consultant, Mr. Douglas said:
I am interested in the constituency and its welfare, and from time to time write letters. If people in the constituency want something I may bring it to the attention of the government.
Mr. Douglas said that he received notice that a new postal station was being considered and was asked if he knew anyone in the area suitable for the job. Here is a statement, Mr. Speaker, by a Liberal candidate in the last election to the effect that he was in fact written to by the department in connection with a postal station in the constituency. Yet in his return the minister said that there was no such list and no correspondence.
I do not know what good it will do to send this matter to the committee, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that if members of parliament cannot get ministers to give an honest and forthright answer to questions asked of them it is going to be virtually impossible for this house to do the business which the members have been sent here to do. Surely the basis for a parliamentary system such as we have is that if a member of parliament asks a minister a question he should get an honest answer. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I think rightly so, last week insisted that a minister's statement must be accepted as being factual. Hon. members on this side would like to be able to follow this position and to know that when they ask a question and receive an answer the answer does contain all the facts. If as we go along we find out this is not so we will have no alternative but to continue to cross-examine and badger ministers, and I think this will certainly affect the work of
[Mr. Orlikow.3
the house. I would like to see this matter cleared up as quickly as possible.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice) r
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we spent a number of minutes last night, in fact more than an hour, on this subject and other matters affecting questions and orders in the house. While the hon. member who has just taken his seat has not dealt with the subject matter of the motion but has taken advantage of the motion, which was raised as a question of privilege, to discuss matters which are extraneous to it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: How extraneous?


Mr. Chevrier:: Extraneous to this extent, that it seems to me that we in this house have other matters to deal with at this time which are of far more urgency and importance than the matter which has been raised just now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Douglas:: May I ask the minister whether he considers a matter relating to the veracity of a cabinet minister extraneous?


Lionel Chevrier: Having regard to the attitude to this question taken on more than one occasion by the hon. member, let me say to him that the Secretary of State made it quite clear, when the motion for production of papers came up on a former occasion, what the position was. I have nothing to retract from what I said a moment ago.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, let me say to you at once that as far as the motion is concerned we on this side have no objection whatsoever to the matter going to the committee on privileges and elections. On the contrary, we welcome it.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is not without a certain amount of difficulty and heat. It would appear in the first instance that this is a continuation of the debate last night. However, a question of privilege has been raised. I have given some thought to the questions raised last night and to the question of privilege raised today. It is, of course, my duty to say whether there is a prima facie case before I consider the motion moved by the hon. member for Yukon. If I may clear up some points of confusion I think it might be useful at this time to make a reasonably short statement to the house on how the Chair sees the matter.
At the opening of yesterday's sitting, I presented to the house my views concerning a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in relation to the existence of a document in the office of the Postmaster General.

I may briefly summarize my views in regard to that question of privilege by saying that in my opinion the matter was, in effect, a dispute between two members as to allegations of facts and, therefore, a prima facie breach of privilege did not arise in regard thereto.
Last evening, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose on a question of privilege in relation to the same matter and, as reported at pages 3884-5 of Hansard, stated in part as follows:
I realize that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the chair at the moment, but my point of privilege is that in all fairness to all the members of this house his honour the Speaker must now reconsider this matter and report again to the house upon it. We have been told by him we have to take the minister's word and that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has no point of privilege so far as the existence of this document is concerned. Tonight, the Postmaster General has admitted the existence of the document. He declares it has some different purpose than we might have thought, but he admits the existence of the document. He states, in his own words, what the purpose of it has been. I say that Mr. Speaker should reconsider this matter, if this document is now admitted by all concerned to exist, reconsideration should be given to the matter of whether or not it should be tabled, either by the member for Grey-Bruce, who has a copy of it, or preferably by the Postmaster General himself who has now admitted its existence.
The Postmaster General now comes under the citation in the book which says that a minister of the crown, having made a reference to a document, must produce it. The Postmaster General made a reference to the document. He has admitted its existence. He has made certain statements as to the use of that document, and therefore the rules of the house now require him to produce that document. I ask that Mr. Speaker reconsider this very serious matter that has arisen in the midst of this debate tonight.
At this juncture, I must say that I am not aware of having used certain words which were attributed to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, and I quote:
We have been told by him we have to take the minister's word and that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has no point of privilege so far as the existence of this document is concerned.
What I endeavoured to say was that the question was, in effect, a dispute between two members as to allegations of facts.
While I do not wish to enter into a debate on this question, it might be helpful if I were to review a few of the proceedings leading up to the incident of last evening.
On Wednesday, October 16, 1963, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) proposed a motion in the following terms, namely:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of "consultants" prepared in the office of the Postmaster General for the guidance of cabinet ministers and copies of all correspondence between ministers of the crown and the "consultants" in each riding.
Question of Privilege
Whereupon, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgili), as reported at page 3626 of Hansard, stated:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder could I raise a question of privilege with respect to this motion. I think Your Honour on reading it will see that the language of the motion is so obscure that it would not be possible for anyone reading the motion by itself- which is all that is before the house-to discern what the hon. gentleman was driving at. I have consulted the Postmaster General, who tells me that in his office no document of any description was prepared for the guidance of his colleagues, and therefore there could be no such document even if the motion were put.
Later on in the discussion the Postmaster General is recorded at page 3626 as having stated:
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State should know whether he has received such a list for his guidance, but I never sent out any list for the guidance of the Secretary of State or any other minister. It does not exist. Therefore I do not think we should answer in regard to something that does not exist.
The following day, Thursday, October 17, 1963 the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, rising on a question of privilege, held in his hand a document which he alleged to be the document that the hon. member for Winnipeg North sought to obtain by virtue of his motion.
It is a fact, of course, that the Postmaster General acknowledges the existence of a document that is kept in his office, but he contends that the document is for his own personal use. I would refer hon. members to page 3884 of yesterday's Hansard.
I need not refer again at this time to the discussion which arose last evening, but it seems to me that the debate which occurred last night brings us back to our original point of departure. The problem, as I see it, is a matter of debate. On the one hand it is claimed that there is no such document as described in the terms of the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North while, on the other, it is contended that such document does exist, and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce exhibited a document in the house which he contends fits the terms of the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
It is not the duty of the Chair, nor is he in a position to decide whether or not there is such a document. If the matter is debated the Chair cannot and must not participate therein. I need only remind hon. members that in this regard standing order 10 reads in part as follows:
Mr. Speaker shall not take part in any debate before the house.
Before terminating my remarks I might refer to part of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wherein he states:

Question of Privilege
The Postmaster General now comes under the citation in the book which says that a minister of the crown, having made a reference to a document, must produce it.
At page 460, May's sixteenth edition, it is stated:
Another rule, or principle of debate, may be here added. A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it on the table.
In Bourinot's fourth edition at page 337 it is stated:
It is a parliamentary rule that when a minister of the crown quotes a public document in the house, and founds upon it an argument or assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced.
At page 338 of the same publication it is stated in part as follows:
A minister who summarizes a correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it on the table.
The effect of the same rule is to be found in section 2 of citation 159, Beauchesne's fourth edition, wherein in part it is stated as follows:
2. A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
There is, I suggest, a difference between referring to a document and the citing or reading from the same. Using these citations as my authority, it seems to me that the rule referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not apply in this instance.
In conclusion I should like to say that it is not within the competence of the Chair to order any minister to produce a document that may or may not be in his office. In this regard I refer hon. members to a ruling of the Chair and a decision of the house thereon, which is to be found at page 237 of the Journals, April 28, 1952.
In my opinion, there not being a prima facie case of privilege, I do not feel that the motion as moved by the hon. member for Yukon is in order.


Erik Nielsen: On this question Your Honour has made a ruling, but I remain quite convinced there is a very serious question here to be decided upon and to be inquired into further, concerning the veracity of the two ministers concerned. It therefore gives me very great regret that I must appeal your ruling.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the appeal, perhaps I might be permitted to say that if the house would agree unanimously, without prejudice to the rules, to permit this matter to be referred to the committee on privileges and elections there would be no objection on 
the part of the government to having this done so that the truth can be established.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is so bold as to suggest that he has no objection to having this go to the standing committee on privileges and elections I certainly do not wish to force the matter, but I feel that the house should vote on the matter as ruled upon by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member for Yukon has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
"The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows:
"The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), rising on a question of privilege, referred to certain proceedings of the house and proposed that such matters be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. The Chair, having decided that the substance of the matters raised was in essence a dispute between two hon. members as to allegations of facts, ruled that the proposed motion did not raise a prima facie question of privilege. Whereupon the hon. member for Yukon appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair."


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State, on behalf of the government, has agreed to the matter going to a committee I should like, with unanimous consent of the house-*


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Now, if hon. members will hear me out instead of trying to howl me down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member for Yukon that he ask a question later, at the proper time.


Erik Nielsen: I should like, with unanimous consent of the house to re-present my motion, seconded by the hon, member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) which seems to be concurred in by members on the government benches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not the time to do that. There will be an opportunity later.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to move the motion which apparently the hon. member for Yukon was attempting to move. Do I understand that there is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have just indicated to the hon. member for Yukon that this is not the time to move this motion. There will be an opportunity later.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of State that he would like the house to get at the truth of the matters raised during our previous discussion, and in the light of the fact that he stated on behalf of the government that unanimous consent would be given to such a motion, I move, with unanimous consent, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce:
That the matters raised and the statement made in the house on October 22, 1963 by Mr. Speaker be referred to the committee on privileges and elections and that the said committee be instructed to report its findings thereon to the house.
The wording is the same as the wording of the previous motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion to the house, unanimous consent must be obtained. Does this house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Maritime Trusteeship Proclaimed


Robert Norman Thompson: With the unanimous consent of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard):
That the subject matter of motion No. 99 moved on October 16 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North which read:
"That an order of the house do issue for a list of consultants prepared in the office of the Postmaster General for the guidance of cabinet ministers and copies of all correspondence between ministers of the crown and the consultants in each riding."
-be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections and that the standing committee be instructed to report its findings thereon to the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, I did not hear Your Honour make any ruling on the motion which was put by me. It seems to me that unanimous consent of the house was given to my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I see the Secretary of State shaking his head to indicate that it was not, but I did not hear Your Honour rule on my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I will do so right now. Unanimous consent was not given; therefore the hon. member's motion was unacceptable.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is just a farce the way things are shaping up around this matter. One member moves a motion without obtaining unanimous consent of the house to its acceptance, then another member moves exactly the same motion and will obtain consent.


Lionel Chevrier: No, he has not.


Robert Norman Thompson: With due respect to the hon. member for Villeneuve, it is not the same motion at all.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise hon. members that the act to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees has been proclaimed today.
The governor in council, Mr. Speaker, has established the membership of the board of trustees. The chairman of the board of trustees is to be Mr. Justice Victor Leonard Dryer of Vancouver, a member of the supreme court of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Justice Dryer was created a Queen's Counsel in 1957. He was a member of the legal firm of Ellis, Dryer and McTaggart in the city of Vancouver. He was active for many years in labour relations, particularly representing unions in collective bargaining and conciliation work.
The second member of the board of trustees is Judge Rene Lippe, of the magistrate's court, Montreal. Judge Lippe has a wide reputation as an arbitrator, mediator and conciliator. He is a permanent arbitrator under certain collective agreements in the province of Quebec. Recently he was the mediator in the settlement of the longshoremen's strike in Montreal, and he has been appointed to investigate all trust funds being held for the benefit of longshoremen in Montreal, Quebec city, Three Rivers, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick.
The third member of the board is Mr. Charles H. Millard of Toronto. Mr. Millard has been for many years associated with the united steel workers of America and served as Canadian congress of labour vice president for many years. As a representative of the Canadian congress of labour he played an important part in the development of international trade unionism following world war II, as an alternate member of the executive board of the international confederation of free trade unionism. He retired last year as director of organization for the international confederation of free trade unionism.
I am pleased to advise, Mr. Speaker, that all these gentlemen have agreed to accept these heavy responsibilities and will meet in Ottawa today to consider their future activities.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I know the house will welcome the announcement that has been made and the quality of the membership that composes the board of trustees. I would add that we in this parliament, without regard to party, will uphold the rule of law in this country and will join together to ensure that the laws passed by parliament, the representatives of the people, shall not be flouted or mocked by the cavalier actions of anyone, however powerful.
I want the house to know that this is our attitude. We have pressed the government for action for several weeks. They have found that when an immovable inertia meets an irresistible force the result is lawlessness and anarchy. The government has acted now, we say belatedly; but belatedly or not, this parliament is united.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the government's action in proclaiming the trusteeship legislation and

appointing the trustees has not come a bit too soon. Last Monday evening I said that I for one was not prepared to criticize the government for the considerable time which it took in canvassing the possibility of a private trusteeship. But since that had apparently failed I felt then, as I feel now, that the government's record for decisiveness depended on what it did at this time. I am glad that the government has at last acted in this regard, because we have known since last Friday that the men have been ordered to walk off the ships. When I asked the Prime Minister the day before yesterday whether the government would consider setting up a government control over the shipping industry, he said, as reported at page 3815 of Hansard:
-I hope that the situation tomorrow will not require that kind of solution.
Well, "tomorrow" has come and gone and the situation is not better; it is worse. I think the government has not moved any too soon, because if it had delayed any longer the situation would have got entirely out of hand.
I think the trustees who have been appointed will commend themselves to most people in Canada. I am not familiar with the chairman, although I understand he has a good reputation. Judge Lippe is well known in the mediation of labour disputes; he has a good reputation and a good record of achievement. Mr. C. H. Millard, who has been absent from Canada for a number of years acting as world secretary of the international confederation of free trade unions, has gained a wide experience in the trade union movement throughout the free world, and I think he will bring to this task understanding and decisiveness.
But I want to say to the government that the personnel of this board, and their effectiveness, will now be dependant upon the support which they get from the government. They face a very difficult situation. Many of the S.I.U. locals have already taken votes not to return to their ships. This board of trustees will have to make some very difficult decisions. They will first of all have to separate the leadership of the S.I.U. from the membership. They will then have the task of trying to persuade the men to go back on the ships. If the men defy them I want to say to the government that we in this party will be asking the government to take the necessary steps to appoint a government controller over shipping so that this board of trustees is not left in an impossible situation.
I want to assure the government that any steps they take to re-establish shipping on the great lakes will have our support. We only hope they will neither drag their feet nor 28902-5-2484
Maritime Trusteeship Proclaimed pussyfoot, but will deal with this situation aggressively, as the present situation in Canada urgently demands.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) that the union trusteeship has come into force and will become an accomplished fact.
It was also mentioned that Mr. Millard would be one of the trustees. I had the privilege of meeting that smart union leader in northwestern Quebec and in northern Ontario. That man who first earned the confidence of the labour movement is now deserving of the confidence of the Canadian government.
The trustees will face impediments because when you take into consideration the dealings of Mr. Banks' organization in Canada, it is not too reassuring.
I think it is time for the government to appoint men of ability to tame those agitators in the seamen's unions as well as in various sectors of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, our group is perfectly satisfied with those appointments, and we think that under the circumstances, the government acted in the interests of the Canadian nation.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to the effect that the trusteeship has been proclaimed today and that the three trustees have taken up their duties.
We from the province of Quebec especially welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Rene Lippe. We know him well since we had the privilege to see him at work during various labour disputes.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that all hon. members recognize now the importance of the task entrusted to these three trustees. In fact, this is an extremely delicate and difficult job, pregnant with responsibilities and consequences, considering the actions that these men will be called upon to take in order to settle the dispute within the labour unions, since this trusteeship that is being applied today constitutes a precedent which may likely recur in the future.
It is therefore essential that those three trustees be very careful in the way they carry out their duties. They will have to enforce the law in all fairness and try not to become a third dictatorship, because, according to an item published in a daily paper this morning, one of the seafarers who are at the basis of this conflict stated that when the men chose the dictatorship imposed by the union leader, they had the choice

External Affairs
between two dictatorships that of the Canada Steamship Lines or that of Hal Banks, and they chose the one who paid them most.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that all hon. members in this house will have to keep a close watch so that this trusteeship does not become a third dictatorship, but rather a solution to this one problem.
I believe that we should also draw the attention of the trustees and of the house to the fact that those seamen are not the only guilty party, that they are not solely responsible for the present situation and that, if there has been a dictatorship of the shipping companies on the great lakes, this trusteeship will have to ensure that such company dictatorship does not repeat itself. Indeed, it will even have to take positive sanctions against the Canada Steamship Lines, which contributed to the dislocation of the existing order and tried to evade the law of this country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: On October 10, 1963 the Acting Prime Minister informed the house that the Canadian government was making available to the Canadian Red Cross Society an amount of $20,000 for relief to the Caribbean areas suffering from the effects of hurricane Flora.
I am pleased to inform the house that as an additional measure of assistance a total of 1,150,000 pounds of skim milk powder is to be provided by Canada to certain international relief agencies for use in the affected areas. Of the total quantity one million pounds is being made available to the United Nations international children's emergency fund, known as UNICEF, and 150,000 pounds is being provided to the Canadian Red Cross Society. Of this latter amount, 15,000 pounds has already been airlifted to the area.
It is understood that in addition to the Canadian government's donations to this area various Canadian individuals and firms have made both direct and indirect contributions to those suffering from the effects of this disaster.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any further decisions have been reached with reference to assistance to the people of the Caribbean areas whose lands have been devastated

by tornadoes? The minister said this was being investigated and some decision would be reached fairly soon.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman apparently must have been busy at the time, because on motions the Minister of Agriculture made a statement that covered this question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am aware of the statement about the butter-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Skim milk.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or milk powder, but I was wondering whether the much wider field of assistance has been investigated, and whether the Red Cross have been contacted to see if there is any clothing and other supplies needed by the people in the devastated areas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in these matters my hon. friend may be assured that the government is in touch with the Red Cross, but there is nothing I can add to what the Minister of Agriculture has said and to what has been said by me on other occasions.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. The minister has just announced the shipment of milk products to the areas stricken by hurricane Flora. Could the minister tell the house how much that shipment will cost?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not give the exact cost. I would be glad to take the question as notice and give this information to the hon. member tomorrow.



QUESTIONS

['1. The government is not negotiating directly with Great Britain for the sale of butter and butter oil. However, a short time ago, Great Britain, through the British board of trade, asked importers to submit firm applications for import from any source, including non-quota countries, of five thousand tons of butter. Delivery of the butter prior to November 15, 1963 had to be guaranteed.\nThe agricultural stabilization board quoted competitive prices to Canadian exporters who had received inquiries from British importers. To date the agricultural stabilization board has sold to Canadian exporting firms a total of 2,500 long tons of butter for delivery to Great Britain under this program.\n2.\tThe total amount of butter and butter oil on hand as at October 1, 1963 is as follows: 148,377,000 pounds of butter; 81,163,000 pounds of butter oil.\n3.\tSince May 1, 1962 a consumption incentive program for butter of 12 cents per pound has been in effect and during the 1961-62 dairy year approximately 50 million pounds more butter moved into domestic channels than in the previous dairy year. This program is, in effect, again this year and consumption remains relatively high. In addition, the agricultural stabilization board is at present seeking offers from the trade and importing countries for the export of its stocks of butter oil.']
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that we shall, today, answer the questions bearing the following numbers:	1,040, 1,214, 1,230, 1,231, 1,246,
1,249,	1,269,	1,283,	1,293,	1,296,	1,298,	1,300,1,305,	1,319,	1,327,	1,336,	1,337,	1,340,	1,355,1,357,	1,363,	1,380,	1,384,	1,388,	1,389,	1,395,
1,402, 1,403, 1,404 and 1,408.

If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions Nos. 1,206, 1,373, and 1,418, I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Orlikow: Has any department of the government (including the R.C.M.P.) equipment which is used for the tapping of telephone wires and, if so (a) what departments (b) for what purpose, and under what authority is this equipment used?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The policy of this government, and of previous governments, has been to decline to answer questions of this order as being contrary to the public interest, and there is no intention of changing this policy.
This policy is illustrated by the answer made to a similar question on February 26, 1962. See debates of the House of Commons, 1962 session, volume II at page 1245.


*C.N.R.'-USE OF BILINGUAL BILLS AND POSTERS
Mr. Ricard: At what approximate date will all the unilingual bills and posters now used in the stations, railway cars and other vehicles of the Canadian National Railways be replaced by bilingual bills and posters in order to implement the suggestions made to the Minister of Transport in letters addressed to him on June 5 and 18 and on July 23, 1963?


Mr. Cantin:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise us that the company is now dealing with all aspects of this situation, and that the memorandum regarding bilingualism in the company, tabled in the house on Friday, October 4, indicates the policy and progress made in this regard.


MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY TRACK, CAMP BORDEN
Mr. Madill: 1.	Has the government awarded a contract for the maintenance of the five and one half miles of government owned railway track in camp Borden and, if so, which company has received the contract, and at what annual price?
2.	What assurance has the government that the cost of the maintenance will not increase from year to year, and that the standard of maintenance will be kept at a level comparable to that when the work was undertaken by four men employed by the Department of National Defence.
3.	Is the government planning to contract out any other work at camp Borden that is now being done by civilian employees of the defence department and, if so, what security of employment will be offered to the present employees?
4.	Was the foreman who served for many years retained and, if so, at what rate of pay?
Answer: 1. No.
2.	The department has no assurance that costs of maintenance will not increase from year to year as such costs are related to the price of materials and costs of labour.
3.	No.
4.	The employee in question is still employed as track foreman at the rate of $2.03 per hour.


CHURCHILL, MAN.    SUGGESTED DIVERSION OF RIVER
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Does the government plan to investigate the feasibility of creating a salt water seaport at Churchill, Manitoba, by a diversion of the flow of the Churchill river?
2.	Has anyone proposed such a project to the present government or to any government department and, if not, will the government investigate the feasibility of such a project in order to bring about an extension of the shipping season at the port of Churchill?


Mr. Mcllraifh:: 1. No formal proposal of a project to create a salt water seaport at Churchill, Manitoba, by a diversion of the flow of the Churchill river has been made to the present government or to any government department. Brief reference to this matter appears in a report of the committee on Manitoba's economic future entitled "Manitoba 1962-1975" (section X, ch. 5, page 19) which reads as follows:
A more direct attack on the problem is represented by a proposal to divert the river at an estimated cost of $8 million, to flow into the bay south of the present townsite. This project would eliminate slush ice from the harbour and, at the same time, increase the salinity of harbour water and slow down freezing. This alternative also should be seriously studied.
On the assumption that such a proposal would involve works which would be situated within the limits of Churchill harbour, the national harbours board has been asked to acquaint itself with any such proposal and to get further details from the committee on Manitoba's economic future.
2.	See answer to part 1 above.


COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Nielsen: What progress has been made by the committee on agricultural possibilities and development in the Yukon Territory since its establishment in 1961, and what recommendations have been made by the committee with respect to agricultural development in the Yukon?
Answer: This committee was established in 1961 following a request from the council of the Yukon Territory for a study of the agricultural possibilities of the territory. Its report is at present being considered by the departments of agriculture and northern affairs and national resources and in due course the conclusions reached will be transmitted to the council.

Questions


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Bheaume: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Northern Transportation Company in the Northwest Territories during the navigation season?
2.	What is the total yearly payroll for all staff working in the N.W.T. during the navigation season?
3.	How many employees work at or out of each of the following locations in the N.W.T. (a) Bell Rock (b) Yellowknife (c) Hay River (d) Inuvik (e) Tuktoyaktuk?
4.	What are the various job classifications and salary levels for each classification broken down for each of the communities listed in part 3 above?
5.	How many of the persons employed by N.T.C. during the transportation season in the N.W.T. are residents of the N.W.T.?
6.	How many local people of Indian or Eskimo origin are employed during the current shipping season in the N.W.T.; what are their job classifications giving where they are located or work out of?
Answer: 1. 353.
2.	$920,533.
3.	Bell Rock, 88; Yellowknife,-; Hay River, 67; Inuvik, 14; Tuktoyaktuk, 158; Bear River, 26.
4.	The various job classifications for each of the communities listed above are enumerated in the three page attachment. Salary rates are considered private information
which it is not customary to publish.		
5.	82. 6.	Labourers [DOT]Bell Rock	16	
Hay River	28	
Bear River	2	
Tuktoyaktuk	9	55
Watchman		
Bell Rock	1	1
Forklift operators		
Bell Rock	2	2
Apprentice deckhand		
Bell Rock	1	1
Deckhands		
Bell Rock	2	
Hay River	1	
Inuvik	1	4
Pilots		
Bell Rock	1	
Hay River	1	
Inuvik	1	3
Apprentice pilot		
Bell Rock	1	1
	-	-
		67
Job classification-item 4 Bell Rock
Classification	Total
Masters	3
First mate	2
Second mate	2
Ch. eng.	3
Second eng.	3
Purser	2
Cook	2
Pilot	1
App. pilot	1
Oiler	1
Deckhand	9
App. deckhand	2
Mechanic	2
Ass. mechanic	1
Electrician	1
Carpenter	1
Forklift oper.	5
Truck driver	5
Checker	2
Labourers	12
Casual labourers	13
Cook	1
Second cook	1
Bullcook	1
Cookee	1
Dishwasher	1
Kitchen help	2
Radio oper.	2
Office clerk	2
Storekeeper	2
Watchman	2
Inuvik
Master	1
Ch. eng.	1
Second eng.	1
Cook	1
Pilot	1
Deckhand	2
Checker	1
Forklift oper.	1
Casual labourers	5
Hay River
Master	2
First mate	2
Second mate	1
Ch. eng.	2
Second eng.	2
Purser	2
Cook	2
Pilot	2
Oiler	2
Deckhand	6
App. deckhand	2
[Mr. Nielsen.}

Job classification-item 4 Hay River
Classification	Total
Steward	1
Mechanic	1
Ass. mech.	1
Electrician	1
Equip, oper.	1
Pumpman	1
Checker	1
Labourer	1
Office clerk	2
Casual labourers	31
Casual watchman	1
Bear River Rapids
Master	1
Ch. eng.	1
Cook	1
Deckhand	1
Foreman	2
Mechanic	1
Truckdriver	4
Forklift oper.	2
Checker	1
Handyman	1
Labourer	8
Cook	2
Office clerk	1
Tuktoyaktuk
Master	3
Chief eng.	3
Second eng.	3
Third eng.	3
Fourth eng.	3
Ass't. eng.	13
Standby eng.	1
Ch. officer	3
Second officer	4
Third officer	4
Medical officer	1
Chef	1
Cook	4
Chief steward	2
Steward	10
Baker	2
Second cook	2
Bullcook	1
Cookee	2
Kitchen help	1
Storekeeper	4
Ass't. storekeeper	1
Electrician	5
Electronics	3
Bosun	4
Bosun mate	2
Sailor	18
Questions
Job Classification-Item 4 Tuktoyaktuk
Classification	Total
Fireman	8
Seaman	9
Utility man	2
Wiper	1
Mechanic	1
Cat. oper.	1
Forklift oper.	1
Pumpman	2
Handyman	3
Radio oper.	2
Office clerk	1
Foreman	1
Watchman	1
LCM oper.	1
Labourers	9
Casual labourers	12


PROMOTIONAL COMPETITION, LANCASTER PARK
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Was a promotional competition carried out for the position of Technician 1 at No. 7 R.C.A.F. Depot, Lancaster Park, in or about the month of September, 1962 and, if so, who was declared the successful candidate in this competition?
2.	Has the successful candidate been appointed to the position in question and, if not, for what reason?
Answer: 1. Yes. Mr. Thomas Ray Whiteman, 8624-80 street, Edmonton, Alta.
2.	No. The Department of National Defence decided not to request that an appointment be made from this eligible list at the present time.


CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What are the criteria under which a national employment service area qualifies as a designated area?
2.	What tax incentive and winter works measures apply to such areas?
3.	In which provinces have no such areas been designated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Under the established criteria, a national employment service area qualifies as a designated development area provided:
(a)	it has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months (May to October) during the past eight years; and it has experienced an employment increase of less than one half the national average over the same period; or
(b)	it has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one third or more of the summer months (May

Questions
to October) during the past eight years; and it has experienced an employment decrease over the same period; or
(c)	it has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months (May to October) during the past three years; and it has experienced an employment decrease in each one of the past three years.
(d)	However, an area shall not be designated if the average monthly national employment service registrations for the three months of May, June and July, expressed' as a percentage of the total number of paid workers in the area,
(i)	is less in the current year than in the preceding year and less in the preceding year than in the year preceding that year, and
(ii)	is less in the current year than in the year preceding the preceding year by at least 45 per cent and the area would not, if the three months of May, June and July in the current year were considered to be a single month, have been classified by the Department of Labour as a substantial labour surplus area for that month.
2.	Three tax incentives are proposed for designated development areas. These measures will become effective as soon as the necessary amendments to the Income Tax Act have been passed by parliament.
(a)	A taxpayer in computing income for income tax purposes will be allowed to exclude the income earned by a certified new manufacturing and processing enterprise during the period of 36 months after it commences operations. In order to qualify, a new business must begin commercial operations during the 24 month period following the date of enactment of the amendments to the Income Tax Act. The date of commencement of commercial operations will be certified by the Minister of Industry when he certifies a new business.
(b)	New machinery and equipment that would otherwise fall in class 8 of the income tax regulations, which is acquired for use in certified new manufacturing and processing enterprises, shall be eligible for accelerated capital cost allowances. A rate of 50 per cent on a straight line basis will be permitted on new machinery and equipment acquired in the 24 month period following the date of enactment of the amendments to the Income Tax Act. This compares with a normal rate of 20 per cent on the diminishing balance basis.
It will not be necessary for a taxpayer to take these accelerated allowances during his three year income tax exemption. They may be deferred and deducted after that period.
(c)	New buildings acquired in designated areas will qualify for accelerated capital cost
[Mr. MacEachen.l
allowances at the rate of 20 per cent per year on a straight line basis. This compares with a normal rate of 5 per cent on a diminishing balance basis for most buildings, or 10 per cent for buildings of frame or similar construction.
In order to qualify for this accelerated write-off, the new buildings must be acquired in the 24 month period which will apply for the other income tax incentives in the designated areas.
Under the municipal winter works program as applicable to designated areas, the government of Canada will reimburse each municipality in these areas 60 per cent of the direct payroll costs of approved projects which are incurred during the period November 1, 1963 to April 30, 1964.
The federal government has accelerated for the forthcoming winter those government construction projects which are located in these areas.
3.	Under the established criteria, no areas have qualified for designation in the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.


H.C.A.F. STATION, PENHOLD, ALTA.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What was the date of the submission to treasury board of the proposal by the Department of National Defence to convert R.C.A.F. station Penhold, Alberta, for jet training?
2.	What was the date of the approval by treasury board of this submission in its original or amended form?
3.	What was the date of the approval of the tender call for works for such conversion?
4.	What was the date on which tenders were called, and what was the closing date of the tender period?
5.	How many tenders were received, and which firm was the lowest satisfactory bidder?
6.	Was any advice given to the said contractor either verbally or in writing that his was the lowest satisfactory bid?
7.	Was a contract ever signed with the said contractor and, if not, is any consideration being given to a compensatory payment for essential expenses by the said contractor as a result of the last minute decision to cancel the projected works?
Answer: 1. 22 May 1962.
2.	15 February 1963.
3.	20 March 1963.
4.	21 June 1963 with closing date 18 July 1963, later extended to 1 August 1963.
5.	Nine. McNamara Construction.
6.	A Canadian construction association representative was present at the opening of the bids and he would have advised the various bidders that McNamara's bid was the lowest satisfactory bid.
7.	No.


PURCHASES BY QUEEN'S PUBLISHER
Mr. Fisher: Has the proposed branch of queen's publisher issued any orders to purchase and, if so, (a) on what date did treasury board authorize the purchasing procedure, and (b) who has treasury board authorized as acting head of the proposed office of queen's publisher of which the purchasing procedure will be a responsibility?


Mr. Drury:: Yes, see answer to question 1,295, Hansard October 21, 1963, page 3807.
(a)	Order in council 1963-1450 dated October 3, 1963, transferred from the Department of Defence Production to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery the responsibility for the procurement of print for books and publications.
(b)	The queen's printer remains as deputy head of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, after the transfer by order in council P.C. 1963-1254, dated August 21, to the Department of Defence Production the control or supervision of the procurement, purchasing and stores branch, the production branch, the outside printing production branch and the supporting services contained in the departmental secretary's branch, the administrative services branch and the financial services branch of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.


PROCUREMENT AND PURCHASING BRANCH, PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. Fisher: Have the functions of procurement, purchasing and stores branch of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery been made a responsibility of the Department of Defence Production and, if so, (a) on what date did this responsibility become effective (b) will the superintendent of the branch remain in his post, and to whom will he be immediately responsible (c) will the chief purchasing agent remain in his post (d) will the chief print buyer remain in his post and, if not, to whom will he be immediately responsible (e) who, in the Department of Defence Production, is immediately responsible for the operation of the procurement, purchasing and stores branch?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.
(a)	By order in council PC 1963-1254, dated August 21, 1963.
(b)	Yes, and will be responsible to the deputy minister of defence production.
(c)	Since August 21 the operations and establishments of those sections of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery transferred to the Department of Defence Production have been under review.
(d)	Since October 3,	1963, the queen's
printer has had a purchasing agent for commercial printing. There is also a purchasing agent for commercial printing in the procurement, purchasing and stores branch.
(e)	Deputy minister, Department of Defence Production.
28902-5-249
Questions


GLASSCO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister of Industry progressed in implementing the Glassco commission recommendations pertaining to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.
1.	An organizational separation has been
made between the following main functions and related support services:	Publishing;
Printing; Procurement, with the exception of the procurement of print for publications which the royal commission on government organization specifically recommended should be part of the publishing function c.f. Glassco report No. 9, vol. 2, pages 304-6.
2.	Steps have been taken to delineate responsibilities between the queen's printer and the director of printing in regard to the printing requirements of parliament and the departments of government.
3.	The offices of the queen's printer have been grouped in one wing of the printing bureau.
4.	New procedures are being developed by the Department of Defence Production and the queen's printer in accordance with the changes in organization and administration which have been made.
5.	Referring to specific recommendations in report No. 9 of the royal commission on government organization the following is an outline of progress:
Vol. 2, pages 289-90, recommendation 1. The categories of printing covered by this recommendation are being defined.
Vol. 2, page 290, recommendation 2. The formula for costing cannot be applied until more is known of the workload implication of the previous recommendations.
Vol. 2, page 290, recommendation 3. When the appropriate formula for costing has been determined this recommendation will be implemented whenever possible.
Vol. 2, page 292, recommendation not numbered. The printing bureau has placed 67 per cent of its operations in the main plant on measured standards; the program will be completed in approximately a year's time.
Vol. 2, page 294, recommendations 1, 2 and 3. Financial planning is proceeding in order to implement these recommendations at the start of the fiscal year 1965-66.
Vol. 2, page 295, recommendation not numbered. It has been, and will continue to be, a practice to review the work done by all printing units of departments and agencies not now under the authority of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, with a view to centralizing direction and control whenever feasible.

Questions
Vol. 2, page 297. Implemented.
Vol. 2, page 300. By order in council PC 1963-1254 dated August 21, 1963, operating branches of the printing bureau were transferred from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery to the Department of Defence Production. Order in council PC 1963-1450 dated October 3, 1963, authorized the responsibility for the procurement of print for books and publications to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. The creation of the proposed post of queen's publisher and the related changes in legislation are under consideration.
Vol. 2, page 302, recommendations 1, 2 and 3. Consideration is being given to the implementation of these recommendations.
Vol. 2, page 304, recommendations 1, 2 and 3. These recommendations anticipate changes in the financing and costing of government departments recommended in volume 1 of the royal commission on government organization; the proposed changes are still under review.
Vol. 2, page 306, recommendation not numbered. Implemented in so far as the present queen's printer has been made responsible.
Vol. 2, page 307, recommendation 1. Implemented, in so far as the function has been transferred to the Department of Defence Production.
Vol. 2, page 307, recommendation 2. Implemented, in so far as the present queen's printer now reports to the Minister of Industry and the superintendent of printing reports to the deputy minister of defence production.


GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboial: 1.	What is the rate of depreciation allowed elevator companies in Canada on (a) terminal elevators at the lakehead (b) country elevators in western Canada (c) permanent annexes in western Canada (d) temporary annexes in western Canada?
2.	What is the storage rate per month that elevator companies receive for grain stored in each of the above?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Under part XI of the income tax regulations all of these buildings are depreciable on the diminishing balance basis. The maximum rates allowable are 10 per cent for buildings constructed of wood or galvanized iron and 5 per cent for other buildings.
2. (a) Terminal elevators, lakehead-storage for each succeeding day or part thereof after the first five days: 1/30 of 1 cent per bushel.
(b), (c) & (d) country elevators in western Canada-storage for each succeeding day or

part thereof after the first 15 days: 1/30 of 1 cent per bushel. This rate applies as well to country elevator annexes in western Canada.


BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL
Mr. Scott: 1.	Is the government presently negotiating with Britain for the sale of butter and butter oil and, if so, has any firm contract been signed, and what quantity of butter does it cover?
2.	What is the total amount of butter and butter oil on hand?
3.	What steps are being taken by the government to dispose of such surplus?


Harry William Hays: 1. The government is not negotiating directly with Great Britain for the sale of butter and butter oil. However, a short time ago, Great Britain, through the British board of trade, asked importers to submit firm applications for import from any source, including non-quota countries, of five thousand tons of butter. Delivery of the butter prior to November 15, 1963 had to be guaranteed.
The agricultural stabilization board quoted competitive prices to Canadian exporters who had received inquiries from British importers. To date the agricultural stabilization board has sold to Canadian exporting firms a total of 2,500 long tons of butter for delivery to Great Britain under this program.
2.	The total amount of butter and butter oil on hand as at October 1, 1963 is as follows: 148,377,000 pounds of butter; 81,163,000 pounds of butter oil.
3.	Since May 1, 1962 a consumption incentive program for butter of 12 cents per pound has been in effect and during the 1961-62 dairy year approximately 50 million pounds more butter moved into domestic channels than in the previous dairy year. This program is, in effect, again this year and consumption remains relatively high. In addition, the agricultural stabilization board is at present seeking offers from the trade and importing countries for the export of its stocks of butter oil.



NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT WATCHMEN, LYNN CREEK, B.C.

['Mr. Speaker, I would hope that within the four weeks and some days which still remain before that meeting it would be possible to get these returns, and I will do my best to persuade the departments to get them.']
Mr. Hellyer:: 1. Yes, one security supervisor and six watchmen.

2. Yes. (a) in accordance with the policy of the department.
(b) (i) The security supervisor who had planned to retire on account of age agreed to stay on until the N.C.O. commissionaire could take over.
(ii)	Two watchmen were reassigned to another naval establishment as cleaning service men on August 20 and September 13, respectively.
(iii)	One watchman was transferred on October 16 as a cleaning service man with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(iv)	Of the remaining three who had claimed physical incapacity for other types of employment, two are being retained as watchmen at Lynn Creek after confirmation of their claim by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and one is now employed as a cleaning service man by the Department of Veterans Affairs on a six month trial period, as recommended by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This man's position at Lynn Creek is being left open should it become apparent that his services as a cleaning service man are not satisfactory solely for medical reasons.



Mr. Crouse: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works plan to carry out any repairs to the breakwater at Feltz South, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia and, if so, what is the amount allotted for these repairs?
2.	What is the name of the company or individual awarded the contract, and the amount of the contract?
3.	What is the name of the inspector appointed to examine the work, and his qualifications?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. Yes; $1,700.
2.	The contract has not yet been awarded but is expected to be issued within the next few weeks.
3.	No inspector has yet been appointed.


CAPSTAN FOR WHARF, BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Rheaume: 1.	On what basis does the Department of Northern Aifairs and National Resources plan for the establishment of schools in various settlements of the Northwest Territories?
2.	Does the department have plans for schools at any of the following settlements in the N.W.T. (a) Rocher river (b) Sachs harbour (c) Yellowknife Indian village (d) Holman island (e) Bathurst inlet (f) Colville lake?
3.	How many pupils from each of the settlements mentioned in part (2) above were sent this year to school hostels, giving location of the hostel in each instance, for each community?
4.	How many cottage type hostels are now in operation in the N.W.T., and where are these located?
5.	Does the department plan to extend this program and, if so, when will this extension occur, and what communities will receive these cottage-hostels?
Answer: 1. On the basis of school age population.
2.	(a), (b), (c), (e), (f) No. (d) Yes, in 1964.
3.
No. of pupils
	attending	Location of
Settlement	hostel	hostelRocher river	2	YellowknifeSachs harbour	27	InuvikYellowknife Indian	village	15	13 Fort Smith 2 YellowknifeHolman island	11	InuvikBathurst inlet	20	InuvikColville lake	2	Inuvik4.	There are eight family type hostels now in operation, as follows:
Settlement Baker lake Belcher islands Cape Dorset Eskimo point Igloolik
No. of small hostels in operation 2 1 1 2 2

Question No. 1,336-Mr. Crouse:
Will the government give consideration to the installation of a powered capstan on the government wharf at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


RIVER DREDGING, NEW BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
5.	The small hostel program is relatively new and the effectiveness of its operation is under continuous study. The degree of success of these initial units will determine how greatly the small hostel plan will be extended. Construction of two small hostels began this summer at Pond inlet.
Mr. Crouse: Has the survey covering the necessary dredging required on the La Have river, New Bridgewater, Nova Scotia been completed and, if so, when will the work of enlarging the turning basin be started?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, the survey has been completed and the work will be carried out during the next fiscal year, subject to the approval of funds by parliament.
28902-5-249J


FAMILY ALLOWANCE AND OLD AGE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Danforlh: 1.	What amounts have been expended by the federal government on family allowances, by year, by province, since the inception of the program?
2.	What amounts have been expended by the federal government on old age security and old age assistance, by year, by province, since the inception of these programs?


Miss LaMarsh:: Family Allowances Payments
Fiscal Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon and NWT.	Total$	S	$	$	$	$	*	*	s	$	$	$45-	46	
46-	47	
47-	48	
48-	49	
49-	50	9,747,030	1,618,784 2,192,044 2,256,477 2,295,286 2,411,291	9,519,466 13,358,417 14,207,958 14,515,131 15,291,614	8,112,008 11,394,426 12,086,892 12,462,093 13,375,434	57,962,067 82,389,967 87,157,243 89,304,108 95,901,763	49,208,124 70,325,915 77,328,534 80,151,250 84,940,809	9,896,231 14,007,001 14,798,437 15,016,278 15,668,696	13,194,768 18,119,792 IS,561,330 18,527,408 18,953,600	12,262,073 17,159,488 18,181,662 18,695,325 19,822,387	10,693,139 15,722,046 18,012,189 19,347,837 20,813,661	165,507 471,376 574,470 595,063 587,749	172,632,147 245,140,532 263,165,192 270,909,779 297,514,03450-	51	
51-	52	
52-	53	
53-	54	
54-	55	. 10,224,103 . 10,613,908 . 11,038,875 . 11,497,719 . 11,967,775	2,467,257 2,495,987 2,522,830 2,558,097 2,590,704	15,660,003 15,949,541 16,297,170 16,716,374 17,147,920	13,708,198 13,892,907 14,287,535 14,700,819 15,073,324	99,558,247 102,883,811 107,084,124 111,441,302 116,057,182	89,034,871 93,207,144 98,303,868 104,409,819 110,492,480	16,235,520 16,703,467 17,283,660 17,979,854 18,705,349	19,237,071 19,424,562 19,723,352 20,244,540 20,894,790	20,762,273 21,573,430 22.575.584 23,958,081 25.390.585	21,952,569 23,063,643 24,399,859 25,904,496 27,405,872	625,349 649,273 680,828 702,801 739,983	309,465,461 320,457,673 334,197,685 350,113,902 366,465,96455-	56	
56-	57	
57-	58	
58-	59	
59-	60	. 12,414,789 . 12,881,415 . 14,131,153 . 15,162,900 . 15,566,372	2,621,722 2.640,585 2,824,311 2,994,334 3,062,692	17,596,685 17,973,392 19,400,494 20,560,462 20,932,794	15,451,544 15,779,360 17,074,970 18,201,518 18,588,795	120,389,838 124,368,344 136,080,634 146,278,435 150,462,531	116,604,314 122,539,123 136,706,313 150,186,253 156,681,500	19,418,713 19,888,717 21,520,779 23,091,594 23,730,765	21,401,114 21,644,971 23,241,829 24,789,278 25,363,936	26,752,793 27,953,311 31,029,720 34,122,637 35,765,854	29,097,077 31,029,472 34,969,036 38,409,308 39,984,176	786,437 819,150 907,321 990,349 1,074,944	382,535,026 397,517,840 437,886,560 474,787,068 491,214,35960-61	
61-62	
62-63	. 15,960,416 . 16,336,849 . 16,562,083	3,124,017 3,204,881 3,259,952	21,241,829 21,623,655 21,838,772	18,877,745 19,222,615 19,340,514	154,185,288 157,712,911 160,299,079	162,610,724 168,442,100 172,711,354	24,384,595 25,065,334 25,523,719	25,848,509 26,313,109 26,539,801	37,365,329 38,928,125 40,315,733	41,433,470 42,687,279 43,834,184	1,159,725 1,244,335 1,341,158	506,191,647 520,781,193 531,566,3493910	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Old Age Security Payments
Fiscal	Yukon
Year	Nfld. P.E.I. N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask. Alta.	B.C.	and Total


NWT. $ $ $ $ $
[Stage Direction]
51-	52
52-	53
53-	54
54-	55
55-	56
1,697,080
6,995,760
7,242,820
7,459,680
7,599,405
754,720 4,124,080 3,155,700 17,259,287 3,203,780 17,702,477 3,261,800 18,149,526 3,313,980 18,411,345
2,935,240
12,254,680
12,606,600
12,945,905
13,246,139
16,579,995 69,570,127 72,032,527 74,724,977 77,110,979
28,194,920
120,083,015
125,775,222
130,296,095
134,644,236
4,457,480
19,019,960
20,052,895
21,051,155
21,953,425
4,399,120
19,037,306
20,111,120
21,202,779
22,331,244
4,333,120 18,745,260 20,137,730 21,418,246 22,681,995
8,543,040
36,802,800
39,880,100
42,449,810
44,657,286
48,040 76,066,835 217,720 323,141,615 225,520 338,970,791 245,360 353,205,333 268,440 366,218,474
56-	57
57-	58
58-	59
59-	60
60-	61
7,758,205
9,490,737
11,012,906
11,131,339
11,354,705
3,371,370
4,139,668
4,809,942
4,823,008
4,944,372
18,706,153
23,008,418
26,780,353
27,012,650
27,610,488
13,528,005
16,747,674
19,583,702
19,906,303
20,350,402
79,650,588 99,490,164 116,993,184 120,318,812 124,321,715
138,792,796
172,804,153
203,257,138
208,616,082
214,625,682
22,842,472
28,562,399
34,029,850
35,046,515
36,088,676
23,334,799
29,420,360
35,099,989
36,311,467
37,572,791
23,942,472
30,443,217
36,534,769
38,153,437
39,688,023
46,923,834
59,408,009
70,769,169
73,155,743
75,451,417
230,680 379,111,374 344,305 473,859,104 408,856 559,279,858 411,690 574,887,046 405,012 592,413,283
62-63
11,947,626
14,013,832
5,151,999 28,895,584 21,291,111 131,711,372 226,065,413 38,085,361 5,962,922 33,817,492 24,858,331 155,359,915 265,742,644 44,617,405
39,621,029
46,334,646
42,270,129 49,787,140
79,622,315
93,362,860
439,865 625,107,804 524,445 734,381,632
Old Age Assistance Payments
Fiscal Year	Nfld.	p.E.r.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon and NWT.	Total8	$	$	$	$	8	$	$	$	s	$	$51-	52	
52-	53	
53-	54	
54-	55	
55-	56	833,899 896,429 898,973 877,213	6,532 66,313 85,986 98,531 99,660	95,673 . 893,060 1,028,756 1,063,165 1,046,927	165,638 1,113,921 1,248,339 1,288,095 1,303,189	690,081 6,919,081 7,187,259 7,392,923 7,357,373	672,512 4,586,573 4,726,153 4,858,705 4,918,966	106,690 1,036,022 1,112,322 1,119,639 1,111,604	133,393 990,377 1,017,535 1,089,704 1,150,402	144,051 967,948 1,017,190 1,165,332 1,240,452	262,668 1,701,854 1,863,052 1,872,909 1,788,308	4,258 15,131 21,162 24,080	2,277,238 19,113,306 20,288,152 20,869,138 20,918,17456-	57	
57-	58	
58-	59	
59-	60	
60-	61	1,015,306 . 1,300,185 . 1,715,386 . 1,736,291 . 1,707,883	98,143 142,330 191,624 204,935 218,870	1,020,529 1,323,845 1,611,400 1,619,495 1,608,129	1,271,433 1,504,537 1,829,346 1,788,696 1,746,572	7,107,138 8,754,706 10,592,641 10,688,586 10,977,319	4,659,319 5,668,930 6,707,398 6,608,363 6,629,557	1,058,780 1,304,183 1,572,880 1,580,928 1,600,650	1,154,375 1,440,626 1,763,551 1,757,281 1,769,035	1,211,188 1,547,613 1,876,625 1,955,780 2,008,821	1,665,347 1,983,502 2,291,628 2,353,789 2,332,521	29,237 39,132 52,810 55,249 59,439	20,290,795 25,069,589 30,205,289 30,349,393 30,657,39661-62	
62-63	. 1,672,510 . 1,987,213	248,608 375,350	1,569,349 2,007,871	1,760,484 2,065,950	10,896,302 13,793,745	6,903,031 8,458,293	1,652,229 2,001,606	1,761,718 2,220,539	2,000,899 2,523,720	2,283,927 2,675,208	61,528 69,562	30,810,585 38,179,057OCTOBER 23, 1963	3gil
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for repairs to the breakwater at Cape John, Nova Scotia?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers, and the amount of their tenders?
3.	To whom has the contract been awarded?
4.	What is the nature of the repairs, and when is the work scheduled for completion?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	R. A. Douglas Ltd., New Glasgow, $13,991; Joseph Almon, New Glasgow, $17,909.
3.	Not awarded yet.
4.	The renewal of damaged cribwork and timbers and to level and renew the deck of the outer 100 foot section of the breakwater. The work is scheduled to be completed within three months of the award of contract.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGREEMENTS WITH STATES
Mr. Dionne: Has the government of Canada signed agreements with any of the state governments in the United States with respect to unemployment insurance and, if so (a) with what state governments are such agreements in effect (b) are steps being taken to effect agreements with any other states and, if so, with which states?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.
(a)	The unemployment insurance commission has made agreements with all the states of the United States excepting Alabama, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire.
(b)	Yes, with Maine particularly although representations have also been made to New Hampshire.


*INCENTIVE HIRING PROGRAM FOR WORKERS OVER 45
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many persons over 45 years of age is it estimated will be employed during the coming year under the provision of the new program of the Department of Labour whereby incentives are available to employers to hire workers in this age group?
2.	How many additional staff members will be required to supervise and administer this program throughout Canada?
3.	Of the additional staff required, how many will be hired from the age group 45 years or more?


Mr. Byrne:: 1. It is not possible to estimate the numbers to be employed under the older worker employment and training incentive program as this depends on the response of the employers of Canada to the program.
2. No additional staff members will be hired by the national employment service or the Department of Labour to work exclusively on this program. The national employment service has been authorized to increase its establishment by 362 in order to strengthen the work of the national employment service
[Miss LaMarsh.l
generally and to enable it to play its appropriate role in the implementation of the new employment and manpower development programs which was announced on June 10, 1963. The Department of Labour has been authorized to add three additional positions to the establishment of its division on older workers to strengthen its work in the field of encouraging the employment of older workers generally and to assist in the administration of this program.
3. It is not possible to estimate the number of persons which will be hired who are over the age of 45 years as recruitment for the positions mentioned in answer to question 2 will be by open and promotional competitions under the Civil Service Act.


COST OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS
Mr. Mather: What is the approximate cost incurred by the addition of nuclear warheads to Canadian defence expenditures?
Answer: Estimated costs of storage buildings, handling equipment, custodial personnel etc. are as follows: Non-recurring, approximately $7,600,000; Annual recurring, approximately $8,800,000.


HOWARD WRAY
Mr. Clancy: 1.	Was Howard Wray recently interviewed on the program "Night Final" carried over station CBOT-Ottawa and, if so, (a) who did he purport to represent (b) what was the subject of his interview (c) did the C.B.C. verify the accuracy of his statements (d) was his appearance on the program in the nature of (i) a public service (ii) a promotional stunt (iii) free advertising (e) on what other C.B.C. stations was the interview carried?
2.	Was film of the interview flown from Toronto to Ottawa for the program and, if so, (a) at whose expense (b) on whose authority?
3.	Does the C.B.C. intend to allot free time to independent druggists to present their case on the question of prepaid prescription services?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. Yes. (a) He purported to represent himself only and was so presented in interview with C.B.C. T.V. news reporter, (b) Setting up of a drug store in a Toronto supermarket to sell to the public on a prepaid subscription plan, (c) The question of verifying the accuracy of his statements did not arise since they were presented only on the basis of their worth as personal statements, (d) The interview was carried by C.B.C. news on the same basis as any other item: for the information of the public and on the basis of its news value, (e) On CBLT Toronto night local news and distributed to Ottawa and other C.B.C. newsrooms.

Questions
2.	No, the item was given routine distribution on the corporation's daily closed circuit feed to C.B.C. newsrooms and the newsrooms of eight affiliated private stations which make up the C.B.C. national syndication service.
3.	C.B.C. News does not allot free time but in this, as in any other case, it is prepared to consider statements from other interested parties on the basis of their news value.


POWER INCREASE, RADIO STATION CFPR, PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: What plans are in existence, and what steps are being taken to increase the wattage of radio station CFPR at Prince Rupert, B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that an application filed with Department of Transport on August 6, 1963 is to be considered at a public hearing of the board of broadcast governors commencing October 22, 1963. The corporation is asking for authority to increase the power of station CFPR to 10,000 watts, transmitting on a frequency of 860 kc/s from a new site at Dodge Cove on Digby island.


GOVERNMENT FARM LOANS, QUEBEC
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	What is the total amount of government farm loans each year since 1958 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the county of Villeneuve?
2.	What was the average amount of these loans?


Harry William Hays: 1. (a)
Province of Quebec	Amount
1958-59	$ 891,650
1959-60	1,286,450
1960-61	1,646,550
1961-62	1,786,100
1962-63	11,434,700
1963-64	7,286,100
(to September 30,	1963)
(b) The Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis. However, the constituency of Villeneuve is made up of part of the municipal county of	
Temiscamingue and part of	the municipal
county of Abitibi east, for which municipal counties the answer is as follows:	
1958-59	$ 19,800
1959-60	41,950
1960-61	18,500
1961-62	4,500
1962-63	47,300
1963-64	179,800
(to September 30,	1963)
		Municipal
		Counties
	Province	of Temisca-
	of	mingue and
Years	Quebec	Abitibi East
	(to the nearest dollar)	
1958-59	$ 5,790	$ 4,9501959-60	7,187	5,2441960-61	15,533	9,2501961-62	16,386	4,5001962-63	14,222	11,8251963-64	12,476	11,238
(to September 30, 1963)


J. H. RICK, NORTHERN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Fisher: With regard to J. H. Rick, an employee of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, what are the details, of his birthplace, institution and place by years of his education, his diplomas and degrees, his experience in his field by place and institution his publications (titles and bibliographical notation), his citizenship and the dates and data on his civil service grading?
Answer: Birthplace: Regina, Sask. Education: B.A. in anthropology, University of Toronto, 1958. M.A. in anthropology, Un;-versity of Toronto, 1959. University of Indiana archaeological field school, summer, 1958.
Experience:	(1) Various excavations in
southern Ontario with University of Toronto, Ontario archaeological society, 1954-59. (2) Field supervisor, Saskatchewan museum of natural history; archaeological site survey in Saskatchewan, 1959. (3) Field supervisor, North Dakota state historical society; excavations in North Dakota, 1959. (4) Archaeologist, University of Pennsylvania museum's Tikal project; excavations at Tikal, Guatemala, 1960-61. (5) Laboratory assistant zoology dept., University of Florida, 1961. Publications: None.
Citizenship: Canadian.
Civil service grade: September 2t>, 1961: anthropologist 2; May 1, 1963: anthropologist 3.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL C F INDUSTRIES
Mr. Howard: What is the percentage of (a) foreign ownership (b) foreign control (c) United States ownership, and (d) United States control over the following industries:
1.	Machinery	13.	Explosives
2.	Mechanical transport 14. Leather
3.	Chemicals	15.	Clothing
4.	Clothing and textiles 16. Textiles
5.	Food products	17.	Electronic components6.	Shipbuilding	18.	Electrical equipment7.	Wood products	19.	Fruit and vegetable8.	Industrial	chemicals	products9.	Consumer chemicals 20. Animal and fish10.	Plastics	products11.	Rubber	21. Confectionery and12.	Fuels	beverages
Questions
22.	Cereals and prepared 32. Construction and agrifoods	cultural machinery
23.	Metal fabrication 33. Rail and other vehi-
24.	Machine and small cles
tools	34.	Shipbuilding25.	Light industrial	35.	Marine componentsequipment	36.	Pulp and paper26.	Heavy industrial	37.	Printing and publishequipment	ing27.	Scientific instruments 38. Construction prod-28.	Iron and steel	ucts29.	Non-ferrous metals	39.	Furniture30.	Non-metallic minerals 40.	Propulsion systems31.	Motor vehicles
Answer: Statistics showing percentage of (a) foreign ownership, (b) foreign control,
(c)	United States ownership, and (d) United States control, are not available for most of the subdivisions of industry requested. Calculations from financial data of this kind have only been made on an enterprise basis. The activities of enterprises are not usually confined to the small subdivisions of industry. The most recent statistics on percentages of foreign ownership and control of selected Canadian industries have been published in table XV, Canadian balance of international payments 1960 and international investment position, dominion bureau of statistics, catalogue number 67-201.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF INDUSTRIES
Mr. Howard: What is the percentage of (a) foreign ownership (b) foreign control (c) United States ownership, and (d) United States control over the following industries:
1.	Aircraft	22.
2.	Aerospace systems
3.	Aircraft components 23.
and accessories	24.
4.	Aircraft sub-systems 25.
5.	Organic chemicals 26.
6.	Inorganic chemicals 27.
7.	Protective coatings 28.
8.	Pharmaceuticals	29.
9.	Toilet and cleaning
preparations	30.
10.	Chemical specialties 31.
11.	Plastics manufacturers 32.
12.	Plastic fabricators 33.
13.	Rubber products 34.
14.	Petroleum products
15.	Propellants and explo-35. sives
16.	Footwear	36.
17.	Leather products 37.
18.	Men's clothing	38.
19.	Women's clothing 39.
20.	Cotton and woollen
mills	40.
21.	Synthetic textiles mills
General textile products
Knitting mills Electrical components Electronic components Wire and cable Electrical apparatus Control equipment Generation and transmission Appliances Communications Data processing Data acquisition Preserving and canning
Freezing and dehydrating
Meat processing Fish processing Dairy products Sugar and confectionery
Bakery products
Answer: Statistics showing percentage of (a) foreign ownership, (b) foreign control, (c) United States ownership, and (d) United States control, are not available for most of the subdivisions of industry requested. Calculations from financial data of this kind have only been made on an enterprise basis.

The activities of enterprises are not usually confined to the small subdivisions of industry. The most recent statistics on percentages of foreign ownership and control of selected Canadian industries have been published in table XV, Canadian balance of international payments 1960 and international investment position, dominion bureau of statistics, catalogue number 67-201.



Mr. Howard: What is the percentage of (a) foreign ownership (b) foreign control (c) United States ownership, and (d) United States control over the following industries:
1.	Beverages and tobacco21. Glass and industrial
2.	Grain milling	materials
3.	Vegetable oils and 22. Passenger and cornprepared foods
4.	Metal stampings
5.	Fabricated products
mercial vehicles 23. Motor vehicle parts and accessories
6.	Metal specialty prod-24. Agricultural impleucts	ments7.	Machine tools	25.	Construction machin-8.	Hardware and small	erytools	26.	Railroad equipment9.	Heating and	cooling	27.	Specialty vehiclesequipment	28.	Shipyards10.	Office and store	equip-29.	Marine componentsment	30.	Pulp and newsprint11.	Industrial equipment mills12.	Industrial machinery 31. Paper converters13.	Scientific and profes-32. Paper mills and spesional equipment	cialty	products14.	Jewellery and flatware33. Commercial printing15.	Iron and steel mills 34. Publishing16.	Pipe mills and found-35. Sash and doorsries	36.	Sawmills and planer17.	Structural steel	mills18.	Smelting and refining37. Plywoods and veneers non-ferrous metals 38. Structural wood prod-19.	Rolling, casting and	ucts
extruding non-ferrous 39. Furniture
metals	40.	Secondary wood prod-20.	Cement and clay prod-	ucts
ucts
Answer: Statistics showing percentage of (a) foreign ownership, (b) foreign control, (c) United States ownership, and (d) United States control, are not available for most of the subdivisions of industry requested. Calculations from financial data of this kind have only been made on an enterprise basis. The activities of enterprises are not usually confined to the small subdivisions of industry. The most recent statistics on percentages of foreign ownership and control of selected Canadian industries have been published in table XV, Canadian balance of international payments 1960 and international investment position, dominion bureau of statistics, catalogue number 67-201.


CANADIAN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ABROAD
Mr. Mather: 1. Has the Auditor General issued or caused the of Canadian assets abroad, and what was the distribution of these assets by countries?

2. As of December 31, 1962, what was the total Canadian liabilities to non-residents, and what was the distribution of these liabilities by countries?
Answer: Statistics showing Canadian assets abroad and Canadian liabilities to other countries are not yet available as of December 31, 1962. Some details for the end of 1961 are shown in table V, page 13 of the publication,	quarterly estimates of the
Canadian balance of international payments second quarter 1963, dominion bureau of statistics, catalogue number 67-001.


* ESTATE OF MRS. FLORENCE EATON-KAYE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,418*-Mr. Fisher:
1.	Has the Auditor General issued or caused the Department of National Revenue to issue a writ of execution or any other action of a legal nature in connection with the estate of the late Mrs. Florence Eaton-Kaye and, if so, when, and for what reasons?
2.	Is the Department of National Revenue aware of any actions before the U.S. courts which relate to this estate or the holdings of this estate?
Mr. Garland:: 1 and 2. The custom in this house has been to consider the affairs of taxpayers and the information submitted to the department by taxpayers to be confidential in nature. The Income Tax Act (section 133), the Dominion Succession Duty Act (section 54) and the Estates Tax Act (section 53) contain provisions to this effect.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Herridge:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Prime Minister or any member of the government and any private citizen in Canada with respect to the Columbia river treaty since January 1, 1963.
Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I understand after discussion with the hon. member that he has agreed to withdraw this motion and rephrase it in a form which will make it possible for him to have all the information he requires, but in the shortest possible time. If I am correct in that assumption, perhaps the hon. gentleman will withdraw the motion for that purpose.


Mr. Herridge:: I agree with the Prime Minister's suggestion. I am a most accommodating person when it is not a matter of principle.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Olson:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all tests given to persons applying for a commission in the armed forces and more specifically
Motions for Papers
those tests of a general nature that are used to evaluate personality characteristics, and intelligence levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw this motion because I have had a discussion with the Minister of National Defence and some of the information is going to be supplied to me.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Marlineau:
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, communications and other documents received from the government of the United States of America or any of its departments or exchanged between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada, or any of their respective departments, concerning the sale of wheat by Canada to the U.S.S.R., other communist countries and Japan, or pertaining to any representations made about the price of wheat sold to these countries.
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, to table confidential information of the kind requested by the hon. gentleman would be both a departure from normal usage in the intergovernmental exchange of confidential information, and not in the public interest. For these reasons I respectfully request the hon. gentleman to withdraw the motion. I have told the house on a number of occasions that the United States government was kept informed of the negotiations between the Soviet union and Canada, and generally speaking I think I have tried to keep the house fully informed about all developments concerning the recent sales of wheat by Canada and have tabled the relevant documents. It will be my intention to continue to keep the house fully informed, but for the reasons I have given I do hope the hon. gentleman will agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marlineau:: Mr. Speaker, the other day in explaining some of the guide lines concerning the production of papers you indicated that the fact that documents might be confidential was not a reason for not publishing them. With regard to the question of a departure from ordinary usage, I think the fact that the United States government has accused the Canadian government of price fixing is a departure from such usage, and that it is in the public interest that all the details and particulars pertaining to that charge be fully aired in the house. Because of these reasons I cannot see my way clear to withdraw my motion, although I would have no objection to having it transferred for debate on a later occasion.
3S16

Motions for Papers


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might help the hon. gentleman if I made two statements about these matters. I have looked at the files-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to stop the minister from giving information, but I do not think the motion is debatable at this stage. However, if the minister wants to debate it, it is quite all right with me.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules of the house I must put the motion as it stands or it must be transferred for debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Transferred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


PRINCE RUPERT, B.C., GRAIN ELEVATOR
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports received by the government or any agency or branch thereof dealing with the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, B.C., since January 1, 1959.
Mr. Beer:: Mr. Speaker, the minister respectfully requests that motion No. 101 for the production of papers stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member agree?


Mr. Howard:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


EXPANSION OF GRAIN ELEVATOR FACILITIES, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-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, letters and other documents received by the government or any agency or branch thereof or exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, organization or government since January 1, 1962, dealing with the possibility of expanding the facilities of the grain elevator in Prince Rupert, B.C., or dealing with the handling of grain through the said elevator.
Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable, subject to the reservation that the consent of any provincial government concerned is obtained to produce the correspondence with that government.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed subject to the reservation of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with reference to motion No. 97. I did not wish to interrupt you or I would have raised it earlier. I would point out to Your Honour that the effect of the
[Mr. Martineau.l
order of the house of last Thursday is that there no longer is a period on Thursdays-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was Wednesday.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry; I thought it was Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 104-Mr. Rochon:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Public Works or officials of his department and the members of La Corporation Inter-ur-baine de l'lle Jesus regarding the dredging of the Riviere des Mille lies and the Riviere des Prairies.
Hubert Badanai: This motion is agreed to except as to the tabling of personal and confidential papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-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 all communications received by the Prime Minister, or by any other member of the cabinet dated since April 22, 1963, from life insurance companies, private pension firms or consultants, private actuarial consultants, investment houses and chambers of commerce, concerning the proposed Canada pension plan, and a copy of all replies thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the text of the speech made in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the Canada pension plan at a meeting of the Canadian pension conference held in Toronto on Monday, September 30, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Rapp:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence reports or surveys received by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Canadian wheat board, the board of grain commissioners for Canada or officers of any government department or agency with respect to the construction of a grain terminal at Tisdale, Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a letter dated September 17, 1963, addressed by Mr. C. H. Sproule, chairman of the maritime

lumber bureau to the Minister of Finance on the subject of federal sales tax and a copy of any reply thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Peters:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all orders in council covering immigration for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959, and to include any corrections that have been brought to the attention of the government as a consequence of the Immigration amnesty order, together with recommendations instituted by members of parliament concerning individuals covered by such orders in council.
Mr. Lamoniagne:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had agreed that this motion would stand.
Motion stands.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN P.O. DEPARTMENT AND LUC LESSARD
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 113-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, by the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Luc Gilbert Lessard of Black Lake, Megantic county, on the other hand.
Mr. Denis:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to notices of motion Nos. 113 to 134 inclusive, there is no objection to the production of all the official documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Under our rules I will have to put the individual motions.


Mr. Fisher:: What other correspondence is there?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 114-Mr. Latulippe:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, between the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department and Mr. Cecil Dougherty of Lennoxville, in the county of Frontenac.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 115-Mr. Caoueiie (for Mr. Gregoire):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, by the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Rene Cot6 of 94 Fontaine st., Jonquiere, on the other.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 116-Mr. Caouette:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, by the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Stephan Cuddihy of Rouyn, Villeneuve county, on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 117-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of	all	correspondence	exchanged	since	April	8,
1963, by the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Theo Beaudry of Chapleau county on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Belanger:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of	all	correspondence	exchanged	since	April	8,
1963, by the Postmaster General or any employee of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Merede Bouchard of St. Gregoire, Montmorency, on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Beaule (for Mr. Boutin):
That	an order of the house do issue for a copy
of	all	correspondence	exchanged	since	April	8,
1963, between the Postmaster General or any officials of the Post Office Department and Mr. Francis O'Farrell, 984 Salaberry street, Quebec city.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 120-Mr. Plourde:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, between the Postmaster General or any of the officials of the Post Office Department and Mr. Jean-Paul Nolin, 152 Belanger street, Quebec west.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Beaule:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post office Department and Mr. Albert Parent, 2110 boulevard Sainte-Anne, Quebec city, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
3S18	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Gauthier:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8. 1963, between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department on one hand, and Mr. Albert Garant, P.O. Box 456, Roberval, P.Q., on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Rondeau (for Mr. Perron):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, by the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Jean-Paul Racine, of St. Honore de Shenley, county of Beauce, on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Rondeau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 3, 1963, between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department on the one hand, and Mr. Gerard Lacaille, St. Paul d'Abbotsford, on the other hand.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before orders of the day are called may I ask the Secretary of State, in view of the fact that on June 26 last, approximately four months ago, the government agreed to make returns to my motions Nos. 19, 22, and 33 relating to federal-provincial questions, and in view of the fact that the federal-provincial meeting is coming up in a very short time, would he agree to have these returns made as soon as possible, so that I could begin my study of them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that within the four weeks and some days which still remain before that meeting it would be possible to get these returns, and I will do my best to persuade the departments to get them.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a


question to the Minister of Justice and ask him, in view of the action announced belatedly today by the Minister of Labour, if he is now in a position to advise the nature of the prosecutions, if any, that will be taken by the government in pursuance of the recommendations of the Norris commission.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I presume that what my right hon. friend had in mind in the latter part of his question was the procedure in pursuance of the report made by the two counsel. In answer to his question I must say that I did spend an hour with the two counsel this morning. I am seeing them again this afternoon, but unfortunately at this time I am unable to make any statement.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him how long or how many days he will wait before he imposes sanctions on the men who are out on an illegal strike and who are actually acting in defiance of his order to return to work. I refer to the seamen of the S.I.U.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no time limit has been set, in the sense in which the hon. gentleman has put the question. The government has today proclaimed the trusteeship act, the trustees have been appointed, and at the same time the government has under consideration what further steps might be taken to bring this matter to a settlement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Inasmuch as several weeks of delay have taken place already with regard to action to enforce the law and to undertake prosecutions as recommended in the Norris report, I would like to ask the minister whether this is as a result of a conflict of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government; and if so, is he prepared to introduce legislation whereby we can settle this problem?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there has been an inordinate delay. I have told the house that there was an interim report on this matter which my officers were discussing with the two counsel. I added, in answer to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, that I had met with the two counsel this morning, and I am leaving now to have another meeting with them. I think the house, and particularly my hon. friend, would not want me to go any further at this time in view of the seriousness of this situation.



RECOMMENDATIONS BY COMBINES BRANCH RESPECTING PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he received since yesterday suggestions or recommendations from the director of combines investigations, in regard to the sudden and recent increase in the price of sugar?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker.



SELLING PRICE OF BEET SUGAR PRODUCED IN WEST

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the monstrous increase in the price of sugar, whether he is in a position to answer the question that I asked him yesterday relative to the sale of beet sugar produced at the refineries in Winnipeg and Lethbridge, which is selling at a price which takes into consideration the freight from Montreal to the places of production, rather than the freight rates from the places of production.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to the question which the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday. Perhaps I had better read into the record the question as he posed it then:
Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would ask the minister whether in so far as western Canadian beet sugar is concerned which is refined at Winnipeg and Lethbridge, the people in western Canada are being penalized by having to pay the world sugar price, plus freight charges, as if the sugar was shipped from Montreal, when in fact it is coming from one or other of those two refineries.
The answer that has been given to me by the director of the combines investigation branch is as follows: Generally speaking, the refinery price of cane sugar in western Canada is equivalent to the Montreal or Vancouver price, whichever is the closer point, plus freight, the price of beet sugar being slightly lower. The director advises that such a situation can exist without there being any offence against the Combines Investigation Act.
As stated on a previous occasion, the increase in Canadian sugar prices is attributable to the increase in world raw sugar prices. Because of increasing world consumption and production difficulties there is unlikely to be any immediate improvement. Since the increase in refined sugar prices is a direct reflection of world market conditions over
Inquiries of the Ministry which Canada has no control, action under the Combines Investigation Act cannot be expected to correct the situation. The director is, however, continuing to keep the matter under close scrutiny, and should any aspect give him reason to believe that an offence against the act is being committed, he will take the action that the statute requires.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I would have directed it to the Minister of Industry but since the Minister of Finance spoke on the same subject last night, according to newspaper reports, I am sure he is in a position to deal with this matter. I wonder when the house will be advised of the details of the proposal made by the Minister of Industry in Washington, which has been a subject of controversy and debate in the press in the United States for the last 48 hours?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Industry made any statement of policy in Washington. My recollection is that he said early this week that as soon as he had a statement to make he would make it in the house, and he hoped to make it before the end of the week.


George Clyde Nowlan: As a supplementary question, can the minister explain how the secretary of commerce of the United States cabinet is able to discuss these matters with so much intelligence that he can threaten retaliatory action against Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am unable to speak for the secretary of commerce of the United States, or to comment on whether his remarks were intelligent or otherwise.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, was the Minister of Finance announcing new government policies when he said new steps would be taken following those that are now to be taken in regard to the automobile industry, to increase production in other industries and, if so, can he tell us what industries will be affected?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not announcing new government policies.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the minister answer the second part of my question? He is reported as having said that moves will be

Inquiries of the Ministry taken to increase production in certain other industries, moves along the lines taken for the automobile industry. The question is, will he name what industries he has in mind?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send the hon. member a copy of the speech I made last night, and when the Minister of Industry has anything further to announce I am sure he will do it in the house.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. In his absence perhaps it could be taken as notice. Is the minister aware of the comments of the premier of Manitoba and his minister of industry to the effect that costly duplication of the excellent Manitoba industrial development plan is occurring in setting up the new federal department, and that this arises from a failure of the government to consult with the provinces in areas of joint responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have serious doubts about whether the question is in order. In any event I think if the hon. member would put his question on the order paper he would receive a more detailed reply.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the letter he received recently from Mr. Edwards, the president of the civil service federation of Canada, which he wrote on behalf of retired civil servants, will the minister say whether the government will reconsider the decision which apparently it has taken not to do anything in this session about amending the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the government has no plans to reconsider the decision that was taken some weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement in his letter to the civil service federation of Canada that these people must wait until the Canada pension plan becomes law, can he tell us when that might be?
[Mr. Martineau.l


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what the Prime Minister has already said on this subject.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister inform the house as to which steps he intends to take against the members of the catholic farmers' union who refuse to pay their income tax if the government does not give cause for satisfaction to the eastern farmers as regards the purchase of their feed grain?


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



APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OF STABILIZATION BOARD OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It dates back to a question I asked him on June 26 in regard to whether the officials of the stabilization board would be brought before the committee on agriculture. At that time the minister said he would take my question as notice, but we have not heard anything about it since.


Harry William Hays: I am sorry the hon. member has not received an answer. I will take his question as notice today and see if we can reply to it tomorrow.



PROVISION OF FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it is of vital importance at this time both to our eastern and western farmers.
In view of the fact that ice will soon put a stop to navigation on the St. Lawrence seaway and that the catholic farmers' union of the province of Quebec has reported that grain production in that province is now 45 per cent below average, does the minister intend to allow the Canadian wheat board to carry western feed grain to Quebec, in order to bring some relief to the farmers of that province?

Inquiries of the Ministry
[Text]	Agriculture. Will the minister assure the


Harry William Hays: There are two questions here, and if tion of the Toronto-Montreal grain exchange the hon. member would put them on the with regard to grain coming in from the order paper I think we could answer them in western provinces for sale in the eastern detail.	provinces?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the question is put on the order paper, there will again be a delay before a reply is given.
This is the third consecutive day that we have been asking this question in the house and we have been told to put it on the order paper. In my opinion, the Minister of Agriculture who stated a few minutes ago that Canada has sent several thousand dollars worth of food and merchandise to the victims of hurricane Flora, should at least give us a quick reply so that Quebec farmers may get as much assistance as the victims of hurricane Flora, in the Caribbean area.


Harry William Hays: Perhaps I could answer the question in a way that would satisfy the hon. member until tomorrow. I should like the house to know that we have more feed grain on spot than at any time in the history of the feed grain policy, and we have more in store ready to ship than at any time since 1941.


Raymond Langlois: We all know that; but what Quebec wants to know is, is the Canadian wheat board ready to extend its powers so that it has charge of the wheat from the lakehead to Quebec without going through the grain exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest respectfully that this question should be put on the order paper and an answer expected shortly.


Edward Nasserden: A supplementary question was asked a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if any special action is contemplated to put barley at the disposal of the feeders in eastern Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: In a general way, let me assure the hon. member and the house that the Canadian wheat board is giving very high priority to the requirements of eastern feeders in moving grain to eastern positions before the freeze-up and thereafter.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper. The hon. member can hardly expect an answer to a question like that asked on orders of the day.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INSTRUCTIONS TO ROYAL COMMISSION RESPECTING PUBLIC MEETINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the President of the Privy Council. Can the minister advise the house whether he instructed the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism to obtain public clarification of the scope of their assignment by means of public meetings across the country, the first such meeting having been advertised for November 7, 1963, in Ottawa.


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of any other meetings to be held across Canada?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware of any such meetings, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, my question was along the same line as the one just put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister have another look at this question of the discontinuance of bus commuter allowance at the various military establishments, particularly the naval ordnance depot at Renous, New Brunswick, having regard to cases of hardship and inconsistencies in other departments of government?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been looking into this question of

Inquiries of the Ministry commuting allowances and it has been decided that at the base at Renous and others in the maritime provinces we will not continue the commuting allowance after November 1.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister realize that this means a reduction in their salary of about $35 a month, and that this policy is also inconsistent with that of the Department of Transport and other departments of government, because in so far as they are concerned this extra consideration is given to employees?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, that question has been looked into very carefully and we are doing everything we can to achieve uniformity.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch what the minister said in his reply, but he did mention something about the maritime provinces. I am wondering whether this applies to all establishments, particularly the Point Edward naval base in Cape Breton.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN U.S. AIRLIFT TO GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
I am sorry but I was able to send him notice only at the opening of this afternoon's sitting.
Could the minister inform the house as to whether Canada will participate in the operation "Big Lift", namely the air lift which will be set up between a NATO airport in Europe and western Germany?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we are not participating in this operation "Big Lift". We are of course, as the hon. member would understand, supplying air space for the transport of these aircraft on their route. This is our only participation. We will, of course, be interested in the results of the whole operation.


Raymond Langlois: I did not quite catch the beginning of the minister's answer. Are there any Canadian soldiers taking part in this operation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, there are not.



FORT CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to answer a question asked of me by the hon. member for Churchill concerning service postings to Fort Churchill. I am now in a position to reply.
In view of the consideration being given to service establishments at Fort Churchill to which I referred on October 14, while postings to Churchill have not been frozen, the number of such postings being implemented are being reduced pending a final decision.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Now that the whole riding of Roberval has finally been recognized as a depressed area, can the minister give us some hope of an exemption from the sales tax on building materials that will be used for winter works carried out under this act?


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



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: I should like to address a question in French to the Prime Minister.

Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether all provinces have signed the agreement with the municipal development and loan board?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question when I came into the house. A draft agreement was drawn up some time ago by the federal authorities and was submitted to the provinces. There has been an exchange of views with all the provinces on that draft agreement, and as a result of that exchange we hope there will be agreements signed with all the provinces very shortly.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that the province of Quebec, which has not yet signed the agreement with the Municipal Development and Loan Board, now declines to do so?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. As the Prime Minister has indicated there have been negotiations with the provinces about the terms of the agreement. A final draft of the agreement was forwarded to the province of Quebec on Friday, October 18, and I have every expectation the province of Quebec will find this agreement satisfactory and will sign it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question relates to the business of the house and is based on the fact that there are 27 government orders on the order paper, but that only four or five of them have been indicated to us in recent weeks as having the kind of priority that would ensure their being called for discussion. I wonder if the Prime Minister at an early date could make a statement to the house telling us the government's plans for this session, which of the items on the order paper have priority, and whether or not there are any other pieces of legislation to be placed on the order paper by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a very useful suggestion. I hope to make a statement along these lines shortly.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the government, in deciding to extend the increase of $10 to disabled and
Inquiries of the Ministry blind persons, will make it retroactive to October 1, in the same way as the old age pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the hon. member for his question, and refer him to an answer I gave earlier in the house with respect to other co-operative schemes with the provinces, and the necessity for discussing them with the provinces in November.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Does the right hon. gentleman intend to invite the new chancellor of West Germany to come to Canada following his trip to Washington, towards the end of November?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of an invitation has not yet been considered by the government. I understand he is going to visit Washington in November, and I am sure the new German chancellor would be welcome in Canada. I think we should consider now extending an invitation to him.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. Before I do so, may I ask him if he was talking about the postmastership at Enterprise, Ontario?
I want to reply to the question, Mr. Speaker, because I want to correct some of the statements made. In his question the hon. member said that the lady in question was a veteran. I looked in the file, and she is not a veteran. The hon. member stated also that, with her ability and personality she had increased the revenue of this post office by $2,100. The fact is that the total revenue for one year in this office was $1,410. Later on he said that he wrote to the Postmaster General but to no avail. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac never wrote to me about it. If I remember, the only letter was dated October 10 and it arrived on October 11. It was sent to the proper service on the 15th, the 14th being a holiday, the 13th

Procedure Committee
being a Sunday. I want to correct the impression that he wrote to me personally. I do not want the house to think that I had not bothered to answer. Moreover, in a newspaper he is reported as having said that Mrs. Stewart had been replaced by a young Liberal. I have information which indicates that she will be replaced by one Mrs. Dillon, who is the mother of 10 children.


Mr. Monleith:: All Liberals?


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the facts are as I gave them in the house. The lady in question was the young widow of a veteran and had five children. The report I got was that since taking over the postmastership she increased the revenue in the amount of some $2,100.


Azellus Denis: The total revenue was $1,410.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I will produce a copy of the letter I sent to the Post Office Department.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson (for the Secretary of State):
That a select committee be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedures and organization of this house, for the purpose of suggesting any changes that would assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business and would strengthen parliament and make it more effective; that the committee have power to send for persons and papers; that it report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house; and that it consist, in addition to Mr. Speaker, of 14 members to be designated at a later date.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall only require a very few minutes to complete my contribution to this debate, as I am sure the house is anxious to deal with this matter and get the committee set up so that it can go to work; and when the committee reports later on its activities we can debate its recommendations.
When I finished the other day I was talking of one change which might be useful, and that was to extend and make more effective the committee work of the house. Last January the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) who was then in the opposition, when discussing this matter asked some questions which I think bear repetition because they do deal with this question in a very succinct and useful way. As reported on page 3284 of Hansard he said:
I ask myself whether there are Important changes which can be made in the rules of the house which would effect real economies in time. We have reduced the time on the address. Shall we reduce it two more days and thereby deny more

members the opportunity to take part? Shall we reduce the budget debate and thereby deny more members an opportunity to take part? Shall we reduce the number of supply motions and deny private members an opportunity to raise votes of non-confidence against the government? Shall we reduce the number of readings of a bill? Shall we have only one reading and pass the bill at one stage? This is the kind of important change which will have to be made in the rules in order to effect real economies.
I think, Mr. Speaker, he could also have asked another very pertinent question: Shall we do away with the resolution stage of a bill?


Mr. Winch:: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The resolution stage had very great meaning in earlier years, particularly in the 18th and 17th centuries, but it does not seem to me to have the same kind of meaning today. It takes up a lot of time and results in a good deal of repetition of debate on a particular subject. Perhaps this is something which could be changed, though I agree that the committee would have to look into matters of that kind very carefully. While the committee can, and I am sure will, do a thorough job under your leadership, with the learned assistance which you, Mr. Speaker, will receive, perhaps there are things which we can do at once by agreement of the house after discussion among the leaders of the various parties. Perhaps there are things we can do now while the committee is at work- and it may take many weeks, indeed months, to complete its work-which will increase the effectiveness of this house during this particular session.
This subject was discussed a year ago, in November and December of 1962 and January 1963, during the previous parliament. I remember speaking in that debate in respect to the proposals which were made at that time to speed up the work of the session, proposals which incidentally did not come to anything. Perhaps these might be revived now, and after discussion with the leaders of the parties we could put them into effect immediately. I said, as reported at page 2835 of Hansard for December 19, 1962:
We have agreedand by "we" I meant our own party which was then in opposition, and other opposition parties-


Mr. Churchill:: No, that is not right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right, I will refer to our own party. We discussed this matter with other opposition parties at the time, and with my hon. friend too; but I will restrict my observations to my own party. I said:
We have agreed to the allocation of time to specific legislation. That would be done by agreement, and it is a very important concession for an opposition to make.

This would mean, Mr. Speaker, that by agreement-and this is done regularly in Westminster-we would allocate a certain number of days considered appropriate for each piece of legislation to that legislation, and at the end of the agreed allocation of time the vote would then be taken on the various stages of the legislation. We on our side, when we were in opposition last year, agreed to that. Then I went on:
We have agreed to a reduction, if it is a reduction, to 30 minutes of the time spent on orai questions on orders of the day-
Speaking on this same matter a few weeks before, a very distinguished member of the government of that time had this to say, as reported on page 2011 of Hansard for November 26, 1962:
I think that the number of these questions could be greatly reduced: and if we were also to have a self-denying ordinance that, under ordinary circumstances, we would not go over half an hour on questions before orders of the day we would save 15 full days in an ordinary session without, as I see it, losing any ground that might be gained through questions or in any way interfering with the rights of the opposition.
That was the position taken at that time, Mr. Speaker, by the right hon. gentleman who was then prime minister and who is now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). There is something else which by agreement we could surely consider at once, because I believe a year ago we had come to virtual agreement on it.
Then a third proposal which we put forward, with which we in the official opposition were in agreement at that time, was this. I said in my remarks on December 19, 1962, as reported at page 2835 of Hansard:
We have agreed to the prolongation of each day's sitting beyond ten o'clock if that should be necessary to complete the current business before the house or the committee of the whole.
These were three specific suggestions put forward at that time and given a great deal of consideration by the other parties. They were proposals which would have resulted in increasing the effectiveness of the work of the house; and I would hope that while this committee is going into this matter in depth perhaps we could agree to those three proposals which were discussed last year. We could agree to them at once and, perhaps, discussions could be held without delay for that purpose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Prime Minister state to the house why those proposals were not accepted by the house as a whole? They were acceptable to the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And to the official opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am speaking for this party, which was the official opposition at the time.
Procedure Committee
We accepted those proposals. I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding the situation, but I think it would be better to let the leaders of other parties speak as to their own attitude. I believe it is more important to see whether we can reach agreement on this matter now than to worry about why we were not able to reach agreement on it a year ago.
I commend this resolution in the hope that the committee will be set up and that its findings will be acted upon as soon as possible. May I also express the hope that we can, pending the report of this committee, agree on certain measures which will speed up our work and make the House of Commons more effective.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that everything possible should be done to bring about efficiency of operation and the expedition of business, provided the inherent rights of parliament are not interfered with. The right hon. gentleman spoke the other night of the cynicism toward parliament which finds expression through various persons outside the House of Commons. They speak of parliament as a place where work is not done and where wrangling takes place. They often claim that business, if it operated in the same way, would not be very successful.
Well, we have had a number of businessmen come into parliament in recent days and weeks and they have found that the methods of business are not entirely in keeping with the deliberative nature of parliament. I have not anybody in mind at the moment, but I feel sure there is one or another among those sitting opposite who would entirely agree that the expressions uttered by him or them before coming into parliament have been greatly diminished, in the light of experience, and with a greater knowledge of the operations of parliament and its traditions than could be gained outside this chamber.
I believe, with the Prime Minister, that the parliamentary machinery needs to be examined from time to time and that we must make parliament effective, for a parliament which is not effective can lead to the establishment of dictatorship as an alternative. Parliament is judged by the way in which it transacts business. Again, I say that expedition and efficiency are important. At the same time, there must be no sacrifice of the essential rights of parliament. What I intend to do is to refer in general to some suggestions and ideas which have come to me during the years. I think that on three occasions when I was prime minister we brought before the house a motion to set up a committee such as this. There was a fourth occasion when

Procedure Committee
one of the members of the Social Credit group did the same. Parliament today includes a number of members who sat on those committees. There was a surprising degree of unanimity that something should be done. Changes were made as recommended. Other suggested changes were not put into effect.
When I read all the criticisms of parliament, my view, after many years of membership here, is that while parliament has shortcomings, without it there cannot be freedom. To overcome these shortcomings while remaining a bulwark of freedom, parliament must constantly change in order to meet changing conditions, at the same time remaining changeless in its basic concepts and traditions. The Prime Minister dealt with the old days of parliament, with the beginnings of parliament. There has been bitterness in debate in parliament in every generation. The traditions of parliament carry us back four or five hundred years. The space between the Prime Minister and myself, as everyone knows, is that distance which will allow our sword points to touch; beyond that we can go no further. We do not carry swords any more. We use, on occasion, rapiers of debate which do not require this distance between us. But the tradition remains.
I, for years, have felt that to raise the debating strength of parliament one of the first things we might do is to remove these desks. In the mother of parliaments, debate is much more effective, because of the difficulty of finding a place on which to lay one's notes, than it can ever be in a place where all of us have before us our notes or supporting material. I read of Salisbury, Disraeli, Gladstone and Asquith who were able to speak almost interminably without notes. It was said of Balfour that most of his great speeches found their entire outline on the back of an envelope. Again, we must realize that they spoke in days when there was not that complexity, that variety in affairs, which denies anyone today the possibility of fully absorbing all the information necessary to discuss these various matters and to deliver speeches thereon with few notes.
I had that in mind-the removal of the desks. I will be frank and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the idea was not very popular among some of those within my own party. A member once said to me, "If you do that, who is going to speak?" The same applies to members in all parts of the house. However, if we were to bring about this change, which I found myself unable to do, I think we would establish the number one prerequisite to a great House of Commons. The result would be shorter but more effective speeches.

In the old days the members of this house used to make long speeches. One has just to look at the debates of the House of Commons in 1885 on the Riel rebellion to realize how long speeches were in those days. I think the first four or five speeches were four or five hours each. Sir John felt he could summarize the whole matter in four hours. Those were the days of long speeches and short parliaments.
What are some of the suggestions that I should like to place before the house? The Prime Minister has mentioned the question of committees. I believe in committees, but experience has proven to me that if we endeavour to place controversial matters before committees they are not effective. Committees operate well in the field of external affairs. The public accounts committee has worked out very well. My suggestion brought about a change whereby you, Mr. Speaker, became chairman of that committee and whereby today the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is chairman of that committee. But I have seen many other committees operate in which questions of a controversial nature were being discussed and which emasculated those committees and made them ineffective.
What are some of the suggestions that might be followed? One that has been made before concerns research facilities. There is not available to any member of parliament, except those on the treasury benches, the research facilities that should be available to all members. How to bring this about is a difficult question. We cannot communicate with the civil service. To do so would be unfair to them. It would place them in an impossible position. But I think one matter that should be studied carefully is how to bring about in connection with the House of Commons a group of research officials that would be available to all members.
Mention was made by the Prime Minister of the limitation of question time. When I first entered the House of Commons Mr. King was prime minister, and if there were more than one or two questions we thought that bedlam had broken loose. From about 1949 on the number of questions has gradually increased. When we were in government the number increased to an extent beyond anything that had been seen before. Today a similar situation prevails. Provided the answers given by the government are not evasive, provided they place the facts before us, provided they do not hide and cover up, as was alleged today and last night, I would be inclined to believe that if, in addition to the regular questions on the order paper, we all agreed to the self-denying ordinance to which the Prime Minister made reference, oral questions

could very well be limited considerably. To what extent would be a matter for determination and recommendation by the committee. In the United Kingdom the period is an hour and that covers written as well as oral questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it is not every day.


John George Diefenbaker: As the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) says, it is not every day. Speaking from recollection, I believe it is four days in the week. But when ministers start to hide and conceal and fail to reveal the true facts a private member in the United Kingdom then has the right to give 12 hours notice that there shall not be adjournment at ten o'clock but that he shall be able to bring before the house his cause of complaint. This is a very effective method. If it were introduced here I think it would be very helpful because it would assure that if the opposition was restricted in its questions it would be able to place before the house and the country the failure of the government, should it fail, to give proper answers.
I picked up at random Hansard of the British House of Commons for July 10, 1963. The house was ready to adjourn at 9.55 p.m. Mr. Patrick Wall, the member for Haltem-price, placed his views before the house and, having done so, the house finally adjourned at 29 minutes past ten o'clock. While the time during which questions can be asked in the British House of Commons is restricted, when the answers are not in keeping with the facts or for any other reason a member may move, and the motion is always accepted, that the house do not adjourn this evening at ten o'clock.
I come now to another matter raised by the Prime Minister, the question of whether or not there should be a debate at the resolution stage. I believe there should be and that it should be continued. There are some pieces of legislation where it is not necessary. There are others where suggestions, recommendations or criticisms made in the house cause the government to change its viewpoint. We have had a number of examples of that during the present session to which I am not going to allude at the moment. But it was as a result of the opposition's stand in the debate on the resolution stage, which some people called obstruction, that the great plans of the government were changed.
As far as the speech from the throne and budget debates are concerned I sometimes think that we take more time than is necessary on them. There used to be unlimited time, and when there was unlimited time for discussion on this matter parliament took little more time than it takes today with the
Procedure Committee
present limitation because, sir, as soon as you impose a limitation as a maximum that limitation tends to become the minimum.
In the days when the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) first came into the house, we had the right to speak at great length. We had 40 minutes; but as the minutes were reduced the time for debate continued to be as long as previously. People spoke at shorter length, but if today an hon. member having the opportunity to speak for 40 minutes speaks for only 20 minutes everybody wonders why he did not use up his time. This is one of the effects of placing limitations on speeches.
Something else which has brought about the interminable length of discussion is the multiplication of parties. They all want their say, and it is much easier to arrive at rules to bring about expedition in parliament when there are two parties than when there are four and a half, or five.
What about supply motions? We fixed the time for two days on supply motions and used those two days on practically every occasion. I have often felt that if we were going to have six supply motions in a session it might be well to reduce the time to one day for five of them, with two days devoted to the first. I also feel that we could make a change whereby the government would move supply immediately after the speech from the throne, and have a two day debate at that time so that the estimates of various departments could come before the house, and so that we could put our teeth into something immediately without unnecessary delay.
What about the votes? Well, if there ever was anything more wasteful than the way in which we register a vote I do not know what it is. The other evening we waited and waited for an hon. member who apparently was having dinner or something. I am not going to identify him but we waited a long time for him. He represents a small party that has shown a pathological adherence to supporting the present government. The house was kept waiting for him, and this has happened on other occasions.
I do not suggest the introduction of mechanical devices. I have seen them in operation. We are in the age of automation, but I dislike seeing some of these pushbutton appliances whereby red or blue colours are shown when a vote is registered. I do not know what the disposition of colours would be for the parties to my left, what they would be in this present spectrum, but that is the way these appliances operate.
However, we waste 15 or 20 minutes waiting until hon. members are brought into the chamber. Why should we not be able to vote at 8.15 o'clock instead of waiting until almost

Procedure Committee
8.45 as we did last evening? Mr. Speaker, do you realize how long it takes for a vote in the United Kingdom parliament? The time taken is about two minutes. Members either go into one lobby or another and the speaker designates two tellers. It takes three minutes at the outside, and I ask why not make that change?
One year we had some 60 votes. Multiply 60 by 12 minutes and you have several days that are used up in voting. This is something that will not detract in any way from the dignity of the house. The British parliament introduced it in 1906 and there has never been any question about it since. I might read from May's Parliamentary Practice on this subject:
The present method of taking divisions in the House of Commons was introduced experimentally in session 1906... On a division being called the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, gives the order "clear the lobby", and the tellers' doors in both lobbies are locked. After the lapse of two minutes from this direction the speaker or chairman again puts the question, and the ayes and noes respectively declare themselves.
There, sir, is something simple but effective in saving time without interfering in any way with the dignity of this chamber. I have seen nothing undignified in a member standing, being identified by the teller and then by the clerk, and finally the totalization being placed before you.
There is also the question of the working hours of the house. We extended the hours recently, but I see no reason that we should not be sitting longer hours right from the beginning of the session. I know the difficulties of the government and I know the load that rests on the Prime Minister's shoulders is very great. But in the British House of Commons the prime minister does not come into the house every day. When questions are asked he is there for the questions asked of him. He answers those questions and he leaves. There is no reason today that a man occupying the position of prime minister-except when'there is a controversial matter before the house-should be here and be required to stay throughout the period of orders of the day.
There is a change that could be made by altering the present system for questions. In the British house the government is never taken by surprise. The questions appear in numbered form on the order paper, and when it comes to No. 40 the questions to the Prime Minister appear. The only oral questions are the supplementary ones. I think our whole question period and the manner or carrying it on should be considered in detail and some recommendation made.
Then there is the organization of business. How often I remember hearing the Secretary
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
of State speaking about organization, with the knowledge he gained from being in the gallery as secretary to a prime minister, not as the grey eminence but as an eminence behind the prime minister. He used to ask, "Why don't you organize? What is wrong here?" He said to us, "Why don't you get along with the business?" He is not saying that any more, because he is the organizer and has found that the difficulties with the rules make it impossible for him to proceed with that sense of direction and certainty, qualities that were his when in opposition. I have often thought that the orderly dispatch of business would be more effective if a matter was brought before the house and proceeded with until concluded. If that rule were in effect, it would have played havoc with the pensions scheme; it would have played havoc with the Canada development plan. Both these measures seem to have become covered with weeds, weeds of uncertainty.
I mentioned the question of the estimates, in passing. I think that one of our responsibilities is to carefully examine and scrutinize the estimates. That is not done today; the important estimates are not brought in until near the end of the session. There is the Department of Agriculture. That is a very important department. All of us are looking forward with anticipation to hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) let us in on the secrets of his department. He has been denied that opportunity. And so I could go on. This and other important departments have not been touched. In connection with the question of estimates, I think we have possibly gone too far in the matter of debating the individual items. If the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were called and hon. members could say they wanted to deal with this, that or the other phase of those estimates, I think we would save a great deal of time. In the United Kingdom their debates on the estimates are effective, but they are not concerned with the individual item, excepting in so far as it is a matter of particular attention.
Many of the estimates, those which concern non-contentious departments, could be sent to a committee for study. We have found how this system operates in fields that are non-controversial. I read criticism in the press with regard to obstruction. That has always been charged. When we sat on the other side of the chamber we contended- and at the moment I am being far from partisan-that we were being obstructed. Today those occupying the government benches say the same thing. But, sir, is it obstruction to stand firmly against something

that you believe to be wrong? If it had not been for the stand of this opposition would the 30 per cent securities tax not have been continued? We saw it was wrong, and we said so. If it had not been for the opposition, would there not be today an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery? If there had not been an opposition would the old age pensioners be getting the $10 extra at this time that was promised them? The government always contend that any argument against their policies represents obstruction.
I look at the order paper. Mention was made of this matter today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I ask hon. members to look at this order paper. What are we obstructing? What is the government's program? Where is it? Well, there are 27 items here. There are only one or two measures on this order paper that require early attention. The first item on the order paper is the surcharge measure. Then there is the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act, and the bill respecting the Nunassiaq territory. There is the measure to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act; that is No. 4. The fifth item concerns public harbours in Ontario; the sixth concerns the Bankruptcy Act; the seventh has to do with the Income Tax Act. We are all paying this income tax, but the bill has not yet been passed.
Then there is the bill to amend the National Harbours Board Act, and that concerning the Carriage by Air Act. There are eight items in a row that, with the exception of the income tax measure, are not by any stretch of the imagination matters that are part and parcel of the government's plan. Next is the Department of Agriculture, the division into east and west. When we watch the Minister of Agriculture in action we wonder why they want to divide him up. Then there is the measure with respect to the Canadian National Railway Company; then the measure to further Canadian participation in the development of industries and undertakings in Canada and development of our resources and industries. This measure is also concerned with the setting up of the Canada Development Corporation. That seems to be one of those things that was thought of, written of and now, when it is to be brought to the House of Commons, this troubled government finds it will have to be changed.
The measure to amend the National Housing Act is of some importance. Then there is the resolution concerning the setting up of a joint committee to inquire into the question of consumer credit. There is the matter concerning the setting up of the committee on
Procedure Committee
railways, air lines and shipping. Mr. Speaker, that is No. 15. No. 16 is the measure to establish the Canada pension plan, which was born in hope and died in despair. They failed to obtain the agreement of the provinces and it now seems to belong to the ages.
One could go through the remainder of the items on the order paper. There is the measure to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act in order that the authority may borrow additional money. Nobody is going to discuss that item at length. There is also the resolution in regard to grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund. There is the measure to pay a salary not exceeding $400 a year to a surrogate judge in admiralty. These are not important matters. There is one exception: The measure in respect of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act is important. There are only four pieces of legislation in that whole list which are of importance, and if they were brought before the house I am sure there would be general agreement in support of those principles.
The organization of the house is what is necessary, as the hon. gentleman has said on so many occasions. I read in the press about the obstructive tactics of parliament. I mentioned the other day something that I hope hon. members will take the trouble to look into. I refer to the debates in the Canadian House of Commons in 1912 and 1913. I would ask hon. members to first read what Sir Robert Borden said in his memoirs at pages 411 to 420. The debate began on January 14. They apparently went on day and night and the debate dragged on until February 27, when a motion was made that the bill be not proceeded with until after redistribution. Read what Sir Robert Borden writes. These were the great days, remember; the days of Borden and Laurier, when parliament was so effective. What happened?
Sir Robert goes on to say:
-at midnight Sir Wilfrid asked for adjournment and I asked for progress. At one a.m. I again asked progress and he asked adjournment. At two a.m. he moved a dilatory amendment. At 3.45 a.m., I went home leaving the opposing forces in line of battle: and I returned at 9.45 a.m.
Those were the great days of parliament. Today, we are criticized for not being in the house. Well, in those days the debate went on night and day until Saturday, March 8, at two o'clock in the morning.
Then, Sir Robert says this:
Members on each side were divided into three relays or shifts and were on duty for eight hours at a time. We had to adopt unusual precautions because we did not know at what hour the opposition might spring division and have a majority concealed and available.

Procedure Committee
Sometimes when I look over at my hon. friends opposite, I watch the Secretary of State as he goes through the counting process. Sometimes when he comes over to this side of the house I suspect that he is looking around to see whether or not the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and those associated with him are still here.
I return to what Sir Robert has to say:
On Monday March 10 I held caucus-
On Friday, March 14, and again on the following day the debate became so violent as to occasion apprehension of personal conflict.
I am just reading the account of one debate. Those were the days when the debate was so bitter that there was danger of violent personal conflict. Then, he said:
After two hours' sleep. I had returned to the house on Friday afternoon. As midnight approached the Speaker twice had to take the chair amid scenes of great disorder.
The point I am making is this: People talk about obstruction now, but there was no criticism in those days when strong men took strong action. Finally, he says that things quietened down after he spoke briefly in French. I am sure if the right hon. Prime Minister or I ever tried that we would not have the same soporific effect. I continue to quote:
Considering in retrospect these weeks, the most strenuous and remarkable that have ever occurred in Canadian parliamentary history, I am satisfied that it was a mistake to carry out our tactics during the second week-
During that week the nerves of members on both sides were so frayed by excitement, strain and exhaustion that they lost in great measure their usual self-control.
This was parliament in the great days of Canadian parliamentary history. Then, he says that he went over to Sir Wilfrid, who was very angry, and Sir Wilfrid stated that he would give consideration to his request. Later on, Sir Wilfrid told him he was not prepared to make any arrangements. Sir Robert says:
I became greatly exhausted by the intense strain of the long debate, the night hours and the tumultuous scenes-
As was anticipated, Sir Wilfrid became violently enraged and his rage was shared by all his followers who made loud demonstrations.
Sir, when there are issues that divide us there must be nothing to restrict the freedom of debate. Furthermore, and this is as true today as it was when it was stated by Bagehot, the lack of great issues means the multiplicity of parties. In other words, when we have a great issue on which to fight we tend to coalesce. In those days to which I have been referring, this parliament stood out in its greatness and in some of the tumultuous scenes that are sometimes seen today.

I hope, sir, that we will be able to bring about changes in the rules. The failure of parliament to discharge its duty leads to contempt of parliament and parliamentarians. Without prestige you cannot discharge your responsibility. In those days, if any person were to flout parliament he was brought before the bar. In 1906, 1911 and 1912 the supreme court of parliament punished those who treated it with contempt and refused to follow the supreme laws that it had passed. The great danger in making too many changes in the rules is that this brings about a condition of affairs whereby the cabinet becomes even more powerful than it has been. The trend has been in the last 35 or 40 years for the cabinet to become all-powerful.
In the United Kingdom Lord Home assumed the prime ministership the other day and was the 45th prime minister since Walpole. However, the changes that have taken place since the last five prime ministers have held office have completely altered parliament. More and more the private member of parliament is of less and less importance. More and more the prime minister and the cabinet become all powerful. It is for this reason, as private members of parliament, we have to guard against too great changes in the rules. If there are too great changes, we may very well deprive the private member of rights of which he ought not to divest himself.
What we want to assure in parliament, as I see it, is that in debate we will provide the people with the information and facts. Only when the people know the facts can parliament properly operate. No matter what is said in parliament, unless it is given publicity either in the press, T.V. or radio, it is ineffective. The strength of the British parliament has been that the views of both sides, government and opposition, have received attention in the press. In other words, in order to stimulate interest and to maintain parliament, there must be the widest dissemination of news. I picked up a copy of the London Times when I was in my office and noticed something which I think is important. This is a July issue when parliament was sitting. This is the way parliament and its activities are described in the British press. There is a reference to the house of lords; then, the questions in the house of commons. Over here is the back bench and miscellany; "Macmillan brings M.P.s news from Moscow." There is almost three quarters of a page dealing with each and every member who participated in debate, thus enabling the people to have the facts. These are the elements that make for a strong parliament and give members a desire to bring up the things that they have in mind.

The important things are the ability to cooperate amongst ourselves; the ability to cooperate with the government on the things in which we all agree and to disagree strongly when we do disagree. Above all, the people as a whole should be provided with information as to what is happening in the house. The people should be given the story of parliament as it is. There is nothing more distressing to a new member of parliament, or even a backbench member who has spent time preparing a speech, than to find that, having worked on it for days and having made a study of the subject, he does not get any reference in the press. On the other hand, if the same member were to use language which was unparliamentary he would then be assured of publicity.
What I have said this afternoon has simply been a desire to indicate that we of the opposition, and I as Leader of the Opposition, want to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the government and leaders of the other parties in bringing about in this house rules that will make parliament more effective than it has ever been before.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic party have already indicated their willingness to pass this motion setting up the parliamentary committee, either without any debate at all or with a restricted debate. We believe that the main discussion should take place in the committee and that we should get the matter to the committee just as quickly as possible. Therefore, unless the debate is an extended one we certainly will not be doing anything which will protract discussion on this motion.
However, I want to make a few observations. The New Democratic party believes that far reaching changes are necessary in parliament's methods of conducting the business affairs of this country. The reputation and functioning of parliament are in doubt. We ought to be frank and face the fact that there is growing criticism of parliament, some of it unjustified but most of it deserved. Parliamentary democracy is on trial today, and hardly a month goes by but that we read of some country in which democratic parliamentary institutions have been swept aside and replaced by a dictatorship of one form or another. If parliament is to survive as an institution it must be able to adapt itself to the pace and complexities of this modern age.
There is no doubt about the need for streamlining parliamentary procedures. There are more decisions to be made today and there is less time in which to make them. Communications have so improved in our modern society that the public is better able to assess
28902-5-250
Procedure Committee
what parliament is doing and whether or not it is doing an effective job. The public are demanding more efficiency in the conduct of business and they are asking for speedier processes in the reaching of decisions. It is true that parliament is a forum for the discussion of public affairs, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is also a workshop where the country's housekeeping business is done.
The point we want to stress, a point which we hope the committee will keep in mind, is that this question which we are referring to them is not something for experts alone. In the past we have tended to look upon parliamentary procedure as the sole prerogative of insiders who are steeped in legal precedents and historical practices. We believe we have to bring this whole subject out into the arena of public debate and take a fresh look at the role of parliament. The mere reshuffling of the rules is not enough; the role and function of parliament itself needs to be examined. I hope that when the committee is set up it will call witnesses, bring in some of the professors of political science across Canada and people who have made a study of parliamentary government, so that it can take a broad look at this question and not merely spend its time tinkering with a few of the rules.
I am sorely tempted, Mr. Speaker, as must be every other hon. member who speaks in this debate, to suggest changes which the house ought to make in its procedures, such as sending more departmental estimates to committees, appointing a permanent speaker, a daily roll call of members, a reorganization of the question period, the elimination of the resolution stage in introducing bills, and empowering committees to sit between sessions of parliament. All of these are things one might like to discuss and elaborate. But that is not the purpose of this debate; it is the function of the committee to look at matters such as that, and to discuss them.
There is one thing the committee might consider, and it is that one or two of these more self-evident changes could be submitted back to the house in an interim report, on which the house could act fairly soon, the broader question being left to the committee to report on in its final report. The purpose of this debate, as I see it, should be to state guide lines for the committee, not to start doing their work for them. I think we should be suggesting to the committee the need for a reorganization and a re-examination of parliament's basic functions in an age of speed, in such a way that parliament can best serve the needs of a complex and industrial interdependent society.

Procedure Committee
It seems to me that if we are going to have this re-examination of parliament's basic role in our democracy, there are two factors we should keep in mind. The first factor is that there is today a greater complexity in the conduct of public affairs. Government now touches people's lives at more points, and government decisions are of greater concern to the average citizen than they were 50 or 75 years ago. Because parliament is not geared to deal with this complex interdependent society, the tendency has been to vest more and more power in the hands of the cabinet, and especially in the hands of the prime minister. Consequently, there is a real danger that parliament will become a mere rubber stamp the function of which will be to debate cabinet decisions, with no role whatsoever in the decision making process itself. I think this is the reason why so many members become frustrated and impatient. I think the average private member wants a role which is more meaningful than merely pounding his desk for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition when they engage in verbal fireworks.
Not only must we look at the role of parliament in this complex society, but I hope the committee will give some thought to evolving an effective role for the private member both on the government side and on the opposition side. As I see it the opposition is not elected just to oppose; that to me is an invalid proposition. I think opposition members have a responsibility to scrutinize all public expenditure, to offer alternative proposals and to put forward new ideas for consideration by the government. To do this, they must have information and they must have access to vital material through appropriate parliamentary committees. If they do not get this information, the opposition has no function other than one of tawdry deviousness or petulant needling combined with shrill partisanship, which tends to emphasize points of difference rather than areas of agreement. Secrecy always leads to mistrust. The best way to remove suspicion is to give the private member the right to be informed.
I think government members need to have a more effective role to play. They should not be looked upon just as a voting bloc to approve cabinet decisions and force them through the house. We need to devise methods by which members on the government side have a part to play in the decision-making process itself. In this as in every parliament, a great deal of talent is going to waste, particularly on the government side, because opposition members can, of course, use their time asking questions and doing a great many other things. I think we need to devise a parliamentary system which would loosen

the reins of cabinet control and give private members a more effective part to play. This will not be done by merely changing a few rules in the rule book. We need a new concept of the role of the private member in a democratic institution.
Having said this, I agree readily that in the final analysis the successful operation of parliament must depend on the sense of responsibility which is exercised by individual members. No amount of alteration of the rules will improve the situation unless we have a government and an opposition which are determined to make parliament an effective instrument. If we have a government which is indecisive or autocratic, on the one hand, or an opposition that is obstructive and irresponsible on the other, then certainly parliament will lose the respect of the public. The final appeal to all of us must be to put parliament before party and to put democracy before partisanship.
The house is giving to this committee a heavy responsibility at a time when democracy is undergoing careful scrutiny and examination. As far as we in the New Democratic party are concerned we assure its members of our co-operation as they seek to make parliament a more effective instrument of the people's will.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I
say on behalf of the Social Credit party that we readily lend our support to the motion to set up this committee. We think it should come into being with a minimum of debate or, if possible, without any further debate, because I believe it is the responsibility of the committee to make the recommendations which all agree are so urgently needed.
The events in parliament this session, even those of today and last night, as well as of the last few days, show clearly enough how greatly a complete overhaul of procedure is needed. In the wisdom of hindsight, I sometimes wish the Glassco commission had been asked to take a look, even if in confidence, at the workings of this body of which we are all members. There is much criticism today throughout Canada regarding the functioning of parliament. Some of us may say it is not justified. Some of us might say the press has overemphasized certain aspects. But I believe there is no way whatsoever in which we can justify some of the things which take place in this house. I was shocked when I picked up a copy of the Ottawa Citizen of October 8 and read that 13-year-olds who had visited this house were ashamed of the antics in the Commons and had stated the reasons for their opinion. At about the same time Toronto newspapers carried a condensation of editorials which

had appeared across Canada on this subject. Invariably these editorials called attention to examples of the gross inadequacy and inefficiency of our operations here. This is the image of parliament that is being put before the people. Certainly, people living in a democratic society such as we have in Canada ought to have much more reason to take pride in the institution of parliament.
The Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon that there might be some things with regard to which we could take immediate action, if agreement could be reached among the various groups in the house pending the report of the committee. I think that is a positive suggestion and we would be happy to co-operate in any possible way in which this could be done. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the preservation of freedom as it relates to the basic rules of parliamentary procedure. I suggest that a few changes which would help parliament to function more effectively will not destroy the freedom which, we all agree, centres on a democratic House of Commons such as this is. On the contrary, they will strengthen it. We must not deceive ourselves by allowing ourselves to become encrusted with the attitude which develops through spending long hours in this building, forgetting what the people outside are thinking.
It seems to me that much of what goes on here is done with a desire to play to the galleries, in the hope that someone will get a headline, instead of working toward the objective, which should be our responsibility, of getting the work done which we have been sent here to do. It is therefore imperative that we arrive at some basic reforms in our procedure. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that it is not just a few alterations to the rules which are needed, but a complete overhaul in order to adjust the functioning of this house to the times in which we live. The improvement in communications alone makes the situation today entirely different from the situation which existed in the days when many of these rules and regulations under which we now operate were formulated.
One of the dangers we face is that the bigger and bigger schemes which the government is continually introducing cannot be adequately supervised, because the supervisory machinery of parliament is becoming so overloaded that it is breaking down. That is one good argument in favour of a private enterprise society. We should all keep this consideration in mind as new plans are introduced for still more far reaching activities on the part of the federal government.
28902-5-250J
Procedure Committee
We, as a house, now cost the country more money than we did twelve months ago. The cost of our wasting time is correspondingly higher. Therefore we have the added responsibility to make sure that we do provide at least some measure of efficiency. The rules of procedure in this house have often been compared with the rules of driving. Let us remember it is not simply good rules that are necessary but good drivers. In our case it is good parliamentarians. Everyone notices the bad driver, just as they do the politician who makes the most noise. The good driver and the good parliamentarian, I believe, is usually the man who gets on with the job without attracting too much attention or causing annoyance to his fellows. In this regard it is important that we remember the human element. We must also remember that it is the welfare of our own citizens and not the political parties to which we belong that we are paid to represent in the House of Commons.
I am not as experienced with the functionings of parliament as many members of the house are, but it has been my privilege to visit, observe and study the functioning of democratic parliaments in many different countries. It has even been my privilege to sit on committees that have been responsible for the setting up of parliaments initially in some countries where parliaments in the democratic sense of the word had not been known before.
Just recently I have been to New Zealand and Australia and I should like to share with the house some of the things I observed there, in order to show that other legislative houses pledged to the same freedom and the same type of democratic, parliamentary government that we are, have met some of these problems ahead of us, and as a result are much more effective and efficient in what they are doing.
In New Zealand, for example, there are no Monday sittings at all. There are 23 hours of sittings a week extending between Tuesday afternoon and Friday afternoon. In New Zealand the question period is limited to 30 minutes and unanswered questions have precedence the following day. An urgent question for oral answer must be submitted in writing to the minister concerned and to the Speaker, and it is in the Speaker's discretion whether he allows it to be asked. The last 30 minutes of each sitting day are taken up with a debate on the adjournment with speeches limited to five minutes in order that half a dozen speakers may have an opportunity to participate in winding up the debate. The normal length of speeches allowed to any individual member is 20 minutes. Division

Procedure Committee
bells are rung for only three minutes. Only three speeches are allowed to a member in committee, the lengths of time of those speeches being 10 minutes, 5 minutes and 5 minutes. Except immediately following the budget, the government has the right to go into committee of supply without a debate. These are a few points that were very interesting to me as I watched the New Zealand house functioning.
In Australia the situation is a little different, but they also have solved many of their problems long before we have. Because of distances in Australia being comparable to ours, their situation may be somewhat more applicable. In Australia the problem about which we have been concerned here for the last several weeks, regarding the seating arrangements in the house and what constitutes a party, would never have arisen because they have a few simple regulations that spell out, a, b, and c, what constitutes a party and what constitutes the order of precedence in the house. There would have been no argument at all.
In Australia I was impressed that the house there sits only from Tuesday morning until Friday noon. The objective is to put the member of parliament back in direct contact with his constituents as much as possible. Their house only sits three weeks out of every four. You may say that this does not give them much time to get their work on legislation done, but their hours of sitting and their rules are such that I believe they get as much done in three and a half days a week and three weeks per month, as we do.
This arrangement permits cabinet ministers to catch up on the administration of their departments. It permits the government to plan its policies. These are the reasons as they were explained to me. It permits cabinet ministers to visit the country and to keep in touch with their own administration. It permits the members of parliament to do their work at the constituency level. Most of all, it permits the members of parliament and senators to find out what public opinion is and what their own constituents are expecting them to do. Members are allowed travel and telephone connection back and forth with their constituencies. Furthermore, their rules place the member's main responsibility to his constituency, and the government supplies a constituency office for every member. That is where the member's permanent secretary is.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the leader of the official opposition with regard to benches. Neither the New Zealand nor the Australian parliaments have desks like we have. They are debating forums and because of that I think they are much more

realistically effective. I had originally disagreed with this idea until I actually watched these two parliaments functioning with no desks, in the same way as does the mother of parliaments. Having had some experience in this house I became convinced that this was a good idea.
Those are some of the ways in which these countries have met these problems. Australia has a controlled question hour and their regulations are quite similar to those in New Zealand. In addition, they have a permanent voters' list and as a result every person, whether he happens to be in hospital or in the foreign service in some other part of the world or in some other part of the country at election time, is able to vote because the annual voters' list is prepared and every voter's name is on the roll. This is a little outside the function of this committee, but it is an interesting point.
In an attempt to finish my remarks quickly, may I simply say that I think this committee has a great and urgent responsibility and that the members of the committee have an opportunity to perform a real service not only to this house but to their country. I might close with a few suggestions that I think are important, not that I think we should be telling the committee what to do but only by way of reviewing some of the things that are being talked about and which have been brought to our attention in the discussions we have had in the last several years. It is just about six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I will only take two or three minutes to complete my remarks if I may have that privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much. I think that our question periods should be limited and the rules permitting oral questions and oral answers should be more clearly defined. This period is one of the most fruitful of the day, but at present there is a great deal of unnecessary time consumed.
We believe that a time limit should be imposed on certain types of debates. The most glaring example is the unlimited time allowed for debate on the motion for interim supply. During the first session of the twenty fifth parliament the Liberals, then in opposition, abused the privilege just as much as the Conservatives in opposition are abusing it today. In fact-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw that remark.


Robert Norman Thompson: -I recall that on one motion for interim supply the Liberals took seven days when the Conservatives were in office.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going to insult one of the parties, in a debate which has been kept on a high level, we will have to call it six o'clock.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am not insulting anybody.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was prepared to go on for another half hour or hour to finish, but we are not going to sit here and listen to insults from a fairly junior member of the House of Commons.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am not insulting anybody-


George Clyde Nowlan: Six o'clock.


Robert Norman Thompson: -and if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre thinks I am, his conscience must be very tender.


George Clyde Nowlan: By the time you have been here for a year or two more you will know more about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understood that a few minutes ago there was unanimous consent to giving the hon. gentleman three or four minutes more, and I hope we are not going to spoil this debate by withdrawing the consent already given. I believe I have an indication that there will probably be only one other speaker who will only be two or three minutes. I think the whole house would feel better if we could get this thing through tonight.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, what I was attempting to say was not to insult anybody but rather to show that the fault exists in all parts of the house and it is time we put away some of the party differences and party lines that prevent us from functioning more effectively as a parliament. After all, each one of the 265 members of the house has his or her responsibility, and is involved.
I think what we should do is have a vote on interim supply the same day as it is introduced. Likewise, there are repetitious debates on government business that should be avoided. A full scale debate in the resolution stage, and a further wide open debate when a bill is introduced, takes up unnecessary time and is very repetitious.
The period allowed an individual member to speak in debate could likewise be reduced, but very careful attention should be paid to private members' bills. The rights of private members must not only be safeguarded but extended. This applies to a greater use of committees and also to private members' bills. In a modern parliament the backbencher can no longer be relegated to the role of a nonessential appendage.
Another aspect which should be carefully considered is the challenging of the Speaker's
Procedure Committee
decision by an individual member. What we find here is that the right of challenging the Speaker's decision has become a tool for political manoeuvering instead of being the privilege it should be. It would be well for the committee to consider this aspect, particularly in view of the instances which have occurred in the last few weeks, when we have seen misrepresentation to the public, with the obscuring of the real issues originally involved in challenging the Speaker's decision.
During the last two parliaments there has come a greater responsibility upon the opposition in assisting the party with the largest majority, that is the government, to govern. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that it is our responsibility in the opposition not just to oppose but to assist the government to govern. Co-operation in the house is not in any way a one-way street.
Some solutions will be very difficult to agree upon, but I trust this committee will at least be able to report on some of the glaring faults in our procedure where unanimity can be achieved. The nation looks expectantly to us to make an honest attempt to correct many of our weaknesses and move forward with the business that we were elected to do. It is our conviction and determination in this party to lend the greatest degree of co-operation we can towards that end.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make several remarks concerning the appointment of a committee on parliamentary procedure but, as it is already after six o'clock and in view of the fact that we shall have the opportunity to express our opinions and to advance arguments in committee, I think that it would be inappropriate to prolong the debate at this time.
We welcome the appointment of this committee on procedure because the procedure in this house has been inadequate for a long time since it does not cover all the events which may occur here. For instance, our group-maybe more than any other-has felt during the last fortnight the effects of that procedure, when events which had not been foreseen, did occur.
Therefore, we hope that, when the committee on procedure meets, it will move the adoption of an order to prevent, from now on, debates as long and as useless as those we have witnessed, when a decision could have been reached much more quickly.
We will support, on this side of the house, the setting up of this committee on procedure in order to give new strength to parliament and do a better job.

Procedure Committee


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to begin a lengthy speech but I hope to make some observations because, of all hon. members in the house, I think I am unique in having occupied positions on both sides of the house and, in addition the chair that Your Honour now occupies.
I do not think this is the time to enter into a litany of those matters where the rules might be amended. I would simply ask, without elaborating at any length, that if rules are to guard against irresponsibility, and we are assured we need more rules, have we therefore become more irresponsible? I do not think so.
I think the rules as they exist could lead to more effective business in the house if they were observed, and the question of observance of the rules is first of all a matter of knowledge of the rules. Here we can all say mea culpa, and some of us can say mea maxima culpa, but then comes the further point, and that is the sense of responsibility in the observance of those rules.
As I have said many times previously, the role of the Chair requires the active co-operation of the house, and if hon. members observed the rules of relevancy I think the problem the Prime Minister indicated about elimination of the resolution stage prior to a bill could be solved. If we were truly relevant we would not have this repetition of debate, because the resolution stage offers the opportunity to put forward alternatives. If we were truly relevant then on second
stage we would stay within the confines of the bill under discussion.
I think the work of the committee will be very interesting, and I hope to be a member of that committee as there are many things on which I have very decided opinions to express.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one question with regard to the business for tomorrow. Would the house leader let us know what estimates will be taken up tomorrow night, and also on Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. Tomorrow night we would like to take up the Department of Fisheries and, if it should be concluded before the end of the evening, either the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport would be available as a stopgap. I will let hon. members know later which one it will be because I have not consulted my colleagues. On Friday evening we will take up the Department of Justice, and the same provision for a second possible department would apply.
I take it, sir, that we could consider there is an order of the house that with the income tax measure, whatever stage we have reached at five o'clock tomorrow would be adjourned until Friday, so that we would quite definitely know we were going into supply at seven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 24, 1963