1964-03-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to inform the house that the President of the Privy Council has assumed temporarily the responsibilities of the Minister of National Revenue, and the Postmaster General has been appointed to be the minister responsible for the direction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the administration of the National Housing Act.



BROADCASTING


Hon. Maurice Lamonfagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, the government received today the report of the board of broadcast governors on community antenna television. I should like to table two French copies and two English copies of that report.
The government immediately undertook a study of the report and, as soon as possible, it will announce its policy on this important matter.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the recommendations of the board of broadcast governors were tabled today, would the hon. gentleman assure the house that no changes in the regulations under the act will be made before the house has had an opportunity to debate this whole question?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As my colleague the Secretary of State indicated when he tabled the report, the government intends to give urgent consideration to these recommendations, and I can assure the hon. member that no changes in the existing regulations will be made until they have been communicated to the house in advance, so that all hon. members and everyone else interested may know what is intended.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I had
a question for the Secretary of State, but since he appears to have been called out of the house I would address it to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether in view of the widespread interest in the subject matter involved, the Prime Minister would agree to asking consent to have the report from the board of broadcast governors which was tabled today by the Secretary of State printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I would have no objection to doing so if the house would consent to that being done.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that this report be printed as an appendix
to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]



CEREALS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the British minister of agriculture, Mr. Christopher Soames, tabled in the British House of Commons yesterday a white paper containing details of Britain's proposed new arrangements for cereals. As the house will recall, I have on previous occasions referred to the close consultations which have been maintained with the British government on this matter.
These arrangements are, of course, of major importance to us. Canada, together with the other principal overseas suppliers, has been working out with the British a co-operative agreement designed to further strengthen and promote the mutually advantageous trade in cereals. Agreement has been reached in principle and it is expected that a formal exchange of letters will be effected shortly.

Non-confidence in Deputy Speaker
Details of these arrangements and the exchange of letters will be announced as soon as the agreement has been concluded.



MOTION OF NON-CONFIDENCE IN DEPUTY SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 18 consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregoire:
That, In view of the unacceptable actions of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont, during the sitting on Friday, March 13, 1964, from 8 to 10 p.m.
(1)	In transgressing the standing order of the house which requires that unanimous consent be given to waive the obligation for two days' notice of the presentation of a resolution prescribed by standing order 41;
(2)	In transgressing standing order 42 of the house which requires that the member who presents a motion of urgency, with the unanimous consent of the house, without notice thereof as required in standing order 41, must previously explain the urgency of the same; and
(3)	In depriving certain members of the house of a right and privilege recognized by standing orders;
For these reasons, be it resolved that the Deputy Speaker no longer has the confidence of this house.
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, when I interrupted my remarks on the censure motion presented by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I was wondering who was really responsible for that violation of the rules of the house.
Is it the Deputy Speaker? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it the party in office or all the parties, except ours? Those are so many questions which fill my mind.
What did the Deputy Speaker do or rather did not do on the evening of Friday, March 13, between 8 and 10?
Contrary to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) gave the house to understand, the Deputy Speaker never asked, as is done usually, the unanimous consent of the house.
Yesterday you heard the hon. member for Lapointe give clear evidence that the Deputy Speaker did not ask the unanimous consent of the house, not even once. Some hon. members, whom I congratulate, were even honest enough to say that we were entirely right.
Unless such a procedure be legalized. After I am through with these few remarks, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me whether an hon. member can seek the assent of the house in such a case without going through the Chair. For instance, could I introduce a motion without first requesting that the Speaker ask whether there is unanimous consent?


Yet, that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) did.
I cannot understand how the Secretary of State for External Affairs can persist in denying obvious facts. Even with the assistance of all the shrewdest lawyers you will never be able to deny patent facts.
There is only one thing to do, Mr. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and that is for you to repent and resolve not to do it again.
Who could have influenced the Deputy Speaker to follow such an irregular procedure? We find that question puzzling and for obvious reasons, because if the Speaker's decision were dictated by a party or a party caucus, it would be high time for serious members, although they may be small in number, to draw the attention of the house to this matter, and that would be really urgent.
I mention those facts to the house because I noticed that each of the irregular steps taken by the Deputy Speaker was dictated by the urgency of the situation. As evidence of that you have the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday that a world war may have been prevented.
We feel that instead of getting all excited as the major parties did last Friday, it would have been much better to abide by the standing orders and to take a hard look at the situation. Indeed, that is what other members of the United Nations did.
We are still wondering today whether it was necessary to put aside standing orders just to replace 3,500 British soldiers by 1,500 Canadian troops and whether it was worth while to betray the most noble traditions of the house to ensure that our soldiers would be first to reach Cyprus when other United Nations members have not yet finished the formation of their units.
Was it really necessary to jeopardize the very confidence in the rules of this house in order to make expenditures of $3, $4 or perhaps $5 million when England has ventured $1 million only and the United States $2 million for the purpose of settling, maybe, a little family quarrel?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned also yesterday, as an excuse, the need to keep one's word. This is indeed the Liberals favourite argument. For the sake of keeping one's word, nuclear arms are accepted; for the sake of keeping one's word, the rules are ignored, our small country with a population of 19 million people at the most is thrown into adventures which countries with 140 million dare not embark upon; for the sake of keeping one's word, everything is jeopardized for war, so that there is nothing left for peaceful endeavours.

The Prime Minister seems to have the idiosyncrasy of always committing this country and then forcing the house to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. member that he should only speak on the motion before us today and abstain from discoursing on other subjects.


Mr. Gauihier:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but it was simply meant as a reply to the arguments which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) put forward yesterday.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons for our objections Friday night, and if standing orders had been observed, we would have been able to submit those facts to hon. members before embarking on expenses which we were unable to meet.
However, the future will tell us who was right. Two days more would certainly not have changed anything as regards the fate of the world, but the principles of this house would have been preserved.
Anyway, according to the latest reports, our soldiers are now over there.
May this be a lesson to the house so that our great statesmen who long for honours, medals and titles may know, once for all, that in peacetime as in wartime, or even in the war for peace: "It is no use running fast, if there is no timely start." Indeed, the surest way is to follow the century old rules of the house.
We hold no grudge against the Deputy Speaker, whom we have in high regard and whom, moreover, we pity for having served as a scapegoat. We are acting in this way to remind the various groups of the house that the rules exist for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, the one who makes the law should submit to the law like everybody else.
When this principle is no longer respected, when this standard is bypassed, when party interests have destroyed this barrier, then there will be anarchy throughout the country.
Once again we do not hold a grudge against anybody, but we shall never allow the law to be scorned to such an extent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I hear some oh, oh's on the other side of the house. I wonder, in similar circumstances, if Liberal members had gone through exactly what we ourselves suffered last Friday they would be prepared to say oh, oh in the house, because the prerogatives and rights of certain members, in this instance the members of our group, were completely disregarded and brushed aside by the Deputy Speaker.
I shall say, at this point-
Non-confidence in Deputy Speaker


Mr. Lambert:: You were not even here.


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Friday afternoon, I objected to giving the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) leave to present his resolution with a view to sending troops to Cyprus.
At that time the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) were very well aware of the fact that our group did not accept that haste to bring that resolution before parliament while, 48 hours' before, a regular notice could have been given the house to the effect that such a motion would be introduced.
Now last Friday I had to be absent in the evening to go to Three Rivers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was aware of that. I wonder what happened during the supper hour, between six and eight o'clock, that the Deputy Speaker, at eight o'clock, decided to let the Prime Minister introduce his resolution, although some members of our group objected to the introduction of that resolution at that time.
That is what the Deputy Speaker said, and I quote from page 911 of Hansard:
The Prime Minister asked leave to present the motion and he is proceeding on that basis.
He is admitting that the Prime Minister had not obtained the unanimous consent of the house. But later on there was a request to put the Chair's ruling to the house, in view of the fact that the Chair had asked for the unanimous consent of the house.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a deplorable violation of the rules of the house.
Of course, the leader of the official opposition admitted during the debate yesterday, that parliamentary procedure had not been quite in order, and he blamed the government and the Prime Minister for introducing this motion with too much haste. I quote here what the Leader of the Opposition said, as recorded on page 1209 of Hansard:
For that reason I think some reference should be made to the motion. After all, as Leader of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion, I am an officer of this house.
All through the years I have been one of those who have strongly stood against the actions of any government which would trample on the rights and privileges of the opposition.
Why did the Leader of the Opposition not stand up, since he admits that he was in the house Friday afternoon and Friday night?
I took that view not only when in opposition but also when we enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the house. My desire has been at all times to preserve inviolate the rights and privileges of minorities in this chamber. If we should allow action to be taken that is contrary to the privileges and rules of parliament, then indeed

Non-confidence in Deputy Speaker it will not be very long before the rights of private members are lost. I preface what I have to say by these general observations.
But once everything is over the Leader of the Opposition finds that rules have been broken in his presence in the house.
And here he speaks of his love for minorities and for our small number of members; he goes on, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
I think the government was responsible for what happened.
The Leader of the Opposition is just as responsible as the government.
Certainly, there was haste.
It is somewhat late to admit it.
Certainly there was a desire on the part of members generally to carry out the responsibility of this nation.
Who are those to whom this nation has expressed the wish that the government introduce with haste a resolution for the shipping of troops overseas or to Cyprus?
When was the Canadian nation consulted? When did the Canadian nation authorize us, ask us to send troops to Cyprus or submit to the government the resolution which the Prime Minister introduced forcibly in the house last Friday evening?
Then the Leader of the Opposition himself goes on to say, as recorded on page 1209 of Hansard, and I quote:
He-
The Leader of the Opposition was then referring to the Prime Minister.
He had no leave. No leave had been asked for and no leave had been given.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday afternoon, but Friday he let the rules be violated and trampled down right here in this house.
When I say that, I in no way mean to imply that a refractory few should be able to hold up the operations of this house.
Just imagine. There are today minorities and small groups, and they would have fought to safeguard the rights of a member of the House of Commons duly elected by the voters. And he continues:
-I in no way mean to imply that a refractory few should be able to hold up the operations of this house. However, these are the rules. When the rules were brought into effect, parliament was not bifurcated or trifurcated or divided into a multiplicity of opposition groups.
I want the Leader of the Opposition to know that if a member of his political party in this house had been involved, I would have objected in exactly the same way. The Leader of the Opposition contradicted himself glaringly concerning disrespect for the rules.
[Mr. Caouette.l
And the Leader of the Opposition goes on:
I would be the last to fail to rise to defend the right of one member in this house against unfairness. What took place is past. What we are now being asked to do is to place the stigma of responsibility for wrongdoing on the Deputy Speaker. That stand I will not take.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state clearly that it is not through antipathy that we introduced a motion against the Deputy Speaker, for I have a great respect for my friend the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux), since he has always been up to now completely unprejudiced, but I am inclined to think that last Friday evening, a member of the government, either a minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself has used his influence on the Deputy Speaker to ask him to allow the resolution to be introduced so that it would be ready at 8.02 p.m. The government is to blame for this.
Mr. Speaker, if it is fully intended to have the standing orders complied with, whether by members of the Liberal party or of other groups in the house, it is up to the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to see to it. Now, we are told two days later that a mistake has been made.
I disagree with the allegations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said we had made a mistake, when he did not have the courage to rise in order to plead urgency. This matter seemed so urgent because our troops had to be sent without delay, and that was the reason for introducing this resolution.
Now, it appears that Sweden and Ireland do not have any troops in Cyprus yet, that Canadians are the only ones there, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware of that situation. Then, why such urgency? Was it for restoring peace in Cyprus or was it for the purpose of climbing another step towards a Nobel prize, in the near or the distant future?
Mr. Speaker, we are the first to wish to abide by the rules of the house and we are asking the other members to do the same.
In closing, I want to reassert that we have nothing against the Deputy Speaker, but let it not happen again.
When the government wants to introduce a motion, it should ask for the unanimous consent of the house, and if a member, whatever the party to which he belongs, is against it, the rules should be respected. The rules should be respected, otherwise we will see new disorder similar to what happened last Friday evening.
We do not have a grudge against the Deputy Speaker, but the Liberal members who try to intervene in the debate would be the

first to object if they were sitting in the opposition, they would be the first to condemn that violation of the rules of the house.
Mr. Speaker, we ask that, from now on, the rules be complied with and not only by one group, but by all members of the house.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member would like other members of the house to admit the mistakes they have made. Some of us did so yesterday, and we stand by the statements we made. Will the hon. member for Ville-neuve also admit that he made a mistake by not being here Friday night, in view of his interest in this matter, and that in fact he violated standing order 5 of this house, one of the rules which he says should be kept?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether this is a question or a statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I know the rules, and I know standing order 5. I know that the Secretary of State was aware that that night I had to leave Ottawa to go to Three Rivers, and I said so in French a moment ago. Usually we do not sit on Friday night. The motion came just before six o'clock while I was away, so I apologize for not having been here; but at the same time I say that had I been here I would have voiced my opposition to the presentation of the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you broke the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Lapointe that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, since members from all corners of the house seem to be making implicit or explicit general confessions yesterday and since everybody seems to recognize the truth of our statements concerning the events of last Friday, I would ask for unanimous consent of the house to withdraw our motion and to substitute the following motion therefor:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the procedure followed by the house on Friday evening, March 13, 1964, during consideration of the government's resolution, be referred to the house's committee on procedure and that the latter be asked to examine the matter and make a recommendation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the condition which has been imposed, may I submit to Your Honour and the members of this house that since all the rules of the house have already been referred to the committee, and since this matter concerns the
19, 1984
Non-confidence in Deputy Speaker application of rules 41 and 42, the condition imposed by the hon. gentleman is redundant.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say at the beginning that if the house cared to give unanimous consent I would have no objection to receiving this amendment. However, my duty as Speaker is to consider one motion at a time, and it strikes me that this second proposition, if I may put it that way, is not at all in accordance with the motion before the house. Short of unanimous consent I must make the ruling that this second motion to amend the first is in my opinion out of order and cannot be accepted at this time. In my humble opinion the house must deal with one motion at a time. We have one motion before the house and we are called upon to accept, reject, or withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would accept a question. In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, with which I think we will all agree, that all our rules and procedures have been referred to the committee on procedure, and in view of the fact that some of us can give the assurance that this matter will be considered in that committee, will he not ask leave to withdraw his original motion without attaching any conditions to it?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that the standing orders question has been referred to the committee on procedure, but the motion I have just presented is to the effect that the events which occurred on that evening be referred to that committee on procedure, and not standing orders as a whole.
That is the reason why I shall accept to withdraw the other motion only on condition that this one be agreed to, that is that the procedure followed on that evening be referred to the special committee on procedure^-*


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member, who must have heard the ruling to the effect that the second motion by way of amendment was out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I suppose all hon. members knew that the second motion would be declared out of order, and that is why I asked the house to pass it unanimously. Since unanimous consent has not been granted, I wish to say that we will abide by our original motion, and I will explain briefly why we have called the attention of the house to what we consider a typical case.

Non-confidence in Deputy Speaker
The majority of hon. members or at least many of them have admitted that a mistake or an irregularity was committed. Consequently, we cannot understand why experts on procedure have asked us to withdraw our non-confidence motion. Since mistakes have been made, why should we be blind to them, why should we relinquish our responsibilities and refuse to determine who is responsible for those mistakes and irregularities?
Mr. Speaker, we do not accept to ignore the breaches of the rules which took place last Friday, and that is why we maintain our resolution.
We would have been willing to ask the committee on procedure to consider what happened Friday evening, but since a vote is desired, we are ready to vote on the motion.
Moreover, I wish to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit one more question, and this is my last? Does he not realize that the reason some of us would like the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion is that we do not feel the Deputy Speaker should have votes cast against him for a mistake which was a mistake of the whole house? Does he not feel that it is, therefore, a reasonable request?


David Réal Caouette: It was not our mistake.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very specific on this subject. There are some who wish to call this a mistake. Personally, I do not call it a mistake.
We had in this chamber people as conversant with the procedure and the rules of the house as the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as well as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). But, when a mistake succeeds in slipping through all these competent men on procedure, I say there was blinking of the facts somewhere, and that is why I will not call it a mistake. On the contrary, it is indeed a flagrant transgression of the rules that was committed on that evening, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows it full well. In fact, as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) pointed out, we witnessed on that evening a general agreement to be blind to the infringement of the standing orders of this house.


Mr. Chretien:: Blah, blah, blah.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hear the argument of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) saying blah,


blah, blah. It is the most intelligent argument put forward by some members opposite who keep barking all the time.
If you want us to withdraw our motion, give us sound arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I will go further and explain the reason why we are asking for a vote. I am quite astonished to find that English speaking Canadians, and I commend them for it, who are always great upholders of procedure and the standing orders have today become sentimentalists, have, in fact, become French Canadians, and do not take the standing orders too seriously.
Mr. Speaker, we are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all hon. members will appreciate that the Chair has been extremely lenient in allowing the hon. member to sum up and conclude his argument. We are now discussing the motion, and if the house is ready I am prepared to put the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I only need a minute to complete my remarks. We conclude that there were irregularities. We think that, following our interventions that evening-we made seven or eight-hon. members and the Deputy Speaker persisted in their blindness. We feel that our conscience does not permit us to call this a simple error, for it is an obvious violation of the standing orders. That is why we ask for a vote on this motion.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-76, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of senators.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks primarily to make the Senate more Canadian, especially concerning the province of Quebec which, until now, was not governed by the same regulations as the other Canadian provinces. As you can see in the explanatory notes, it is proposed mainly to replace section 23 which states that a person must:
be over the age of 30, be a British subject, etc.
by the following:
1.	Be over 30 years of age;
2.	Be a Canadian citizen;
3.	Reside in the province which the senator represents.
I fail to see why the province of Quebec should be treated differently from the other provinces as far as the Senate is concerned.
The purpose of this bill is to give Quebec exactly the same rights and prerogatives as the other Canadian provinces.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, respecting the department of foreign affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, this bill simply seeks to change the name of the Department

Inquiries of the Ministry of External Affairs by substituting the designation "department of foreign affairs" for that of "external affairs".

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Labour and ask whether he would take the house into his confidence and remove the veil of mystery regarding the suddenness with which Hal Banks was removed from office, having regard to the report dated March 10 in which the trustees stated that his removal was to be dealt with by "persons and processes within the trade union movement itself".
Having waited 22 weeks, what happened during a period of eight days that brought about such a complete change in the attitude of the board of trustees? Was it because wiretapping was brought home to Hal Banks and those connected with him? Was it because of a shortage in the accounts of the union welfare fund? These are questions to which Canadians would like answers. Why would the parliament of Canada secure certain information in a report one day-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the next day
witness a sudden turnabout on the part of the trustees?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not addressed to the board of trustees any of these specific questions that have been raised by the right hon. gentleman, but it is my impression that the decision of the trustees to take this course of action was a result of long consideration-


John George Diefenbaker: Twenty two weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of the affairs of the seafarers international union and was not based on any particular incident of recent date. As was pointed out by the trustees in their report, they foresaw the removal of Mr. Banks in the absence of union action to remove him or if, in their judgment, his continued presence as the head of the union, or any person as an officer of the union, was prejudicial to the union itself or the welfare of Canada as a whole. I would think that the action taken yesterday by the trustees was fully consistent with the statement of policy contained in their report tabled in the house the previous day.
[Mr. Marcoux.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that consistency is not very apparent, but I am not here to make an argument. I ask the minister also whether Mr. Hall, the head of the union from New York, is in Montreal today along with members of his executive, and are they meeting with the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on this point I will tell the Leader of the Opposition that I received a wire at 1.20 this afternoon from Mr. Paul Hall, president of the seafarers international union of North America, from 95 Lakeshore, Pointe Claire, Montreal, province of Quebec, being a copy of the telegram which he addressed to the trustees protesting their action and asking the trustees to meet with him this afternoon at the headquarters of the S.I.U. I got this telegram just before I came into the house and have had no opportunity to find out from the trustees whether any meeting with Mr. Hall is contemplated or whether any discussions have been arranged.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman read the complaint portion of the telegram?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With the leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to read this telegram, which is addressed to the Minister of Labour:
The following wire sent today to the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions: the undersigned president of the seafarers international union of North America-A.F.L.-C.I.O.
protests:
1.	Arbitrary action in removing Hal C. Banks from the presidency of the seafarers international union of Canada depriving him of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.
2.	Unilateral appointment as president of our Canadian affiliate an employee of the government trustees who is not nor has ever been a member of any affiliated organization of the S.I.U.N.A.-A.F.L.-C.I.O
3.	Confiscation of hundreds of thousands of dollars of property and assets of this international union.
4.	Ejection of international union officer from the premises of the international union.
5.	Unnecessary utilization of police force in occupying international union premises including harassment and surveillance of staff by police forces.
6.	Precipitous action notwithstanding pending court action questioning the constitutionality of the maritime transportation unions trustee act.
Please be advised that the undersigned as international president of the seafarers international union of North America A.F.L.-C.I.O. shall present himself at the premises of the international union, 634 St. James st. west, Montreal, P.Q.-

an odd address-
.-on Thursday March 19, 1964 at 2 p.m. and suggest that such time and place would be ap-

propriate to discuss with you the matters outlined above.
This telegram was addressed to the trustees and sent by Mr. Hall.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What are the minister's views on the contents of this telegram sent by Mr. Paul Hall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting telegram.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether he can give the house a report on the role which has been established for the Canadian contingent of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus; whether he can tell the house what guide lines or terms of reference have been agreed to by the United Nations; whether it is true that it has been agreed that Canadian troops will not be allowed to disarm civilians carrying arms; and whether any other stipulations in the terms of reference have yet been agreed to?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the function of the United Nations force in Cyprus, in accordance with the resolution of the security council of March 4, is to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and as necessary to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of law and order and a return to normal conditions. The role of the Canadian contingent, and of the forces contributed by other countries, is to undertake such duties as may be ordered by the commander of the force to carry out this mission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The minister has missed part of my question. Is it correct that Canadian troops are not permitted to disarm civilians carrying weapons in Cyprus?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the disarming of civilians carrying weapons in either of the communities will not, according to the guide lines, be a function of the United Nations force.


John George Diefenbaker: That is too bad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether the
Secretary of State for External Affairs has agreed with this stipulation on Canada's behalf?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This does not mean, however, that the forces will not be allowed, as would be the situation in the case of any police force, to defend themselves.


Mr. W. B. Nesbili (Oxford):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Have any precise directives yet been given to the Canadian forces in Cyprus by the U.N. command?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The acting commander is in charge of the United Nations international force. The instructions which will be given to the forces will go from him and from the commander, General Gyani, who takes up his responsibilities on the 21st of this month.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he does not feel that the denial to the Canadian forces of their right to disarm guerrillas in fact emasculates the Canadian force and places the force in a position of great danger.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman. This was one of the questions which were the subject of considerable discussion prior to the decision of the government to answer the call of the secretary general. It was one of the subjects which I discussed with him a week ago tonight in his office at the United Nations. From all the information available to the secretary general and to others, it seemed in the circumstances that one of the best ways to preserve order was to leave to the government and to the communities concerned these responsibilities at this stage. I believe that if the force can establish peace and order, as thus far it seems to have been able to do, this would be a better arrangement. The secretary general has indicated that from time to time the situation will have to be re-examined in the light of events.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that the United Nations commander General Gyani has not yet taken over, under what precise directives are the Canadian forces there now acting?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: They are acting, Mr. Speaker, under the instructions being given to them by the secretary general. He has provided, in the guide lines, which have been made public, the following: First of all, he has stated to the security council that the U.N. force in Cyprus is in being; second, that troops of the Canadian contingent have been taken under command of the acting

Inquiries of the Ministry commander, Major General C.F. Paiva Chaves; and third, that the force will be established operationally when sufficient troops are available to it in Cyprus to make it possible for it to discharge its functions effectively.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be an opportune moment to give the house a message which was sent to our ambassador by the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant. He wrote as follows:
My Dear Ambassador,
I would be grateful if you would convey to your government my warm appreciation of its favourable response to my appeal for a contingent for the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. I know that the decision to provide a contingent in the circumstances of the Cyprus problem cannot have been an easy one to take and favourable action is all the more valued for that reason. The fine support of your government at this critical time has been a vital factor in the United Nations ability to meet its responsibility for trying to bring peace to the island of Cyprus. Already the knowledge that your government is making troops available is having a steadying influence on the situation and I am sure that the early arrival of those troops will make a far more positive contribution to the peace effort there. I look forward to close co-operation with you and your government on this question in the coming weeks.
Yours sincerely,
U Thant


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the force being operational. I wonder how he would reconcile "operational" with the restrictions which are being placed upon it, as we understand the matter; and would he not agree that it would appear to many of us who have had experience in this field that because of these restrictions the situation of our troops there is made absolutely hopeless?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I regret the statement of the hon. gentleman. I am sure that on reflection he will share my regret. This is a very difficult situation involving deep tensions and hostilities between two communities, in which there are a number of armed citizens who have been contributing to the tension and bloodshed in the island. The forces that will go in there under the command of General Gyani will be armed. They are, however, not in there as occupational troops. They are there for the purpose of preserving order, and it seems to us that troops that are sent to the island will want to emphasize that they are there primarily for that purpose and not to act in a way that could add to their very difficult assignment. They will be armed and they will have every right to take those precautions in advance which this house properly expects them to take. The situation in the island


continues to be one of calm and this has been contributed to undoubtedly-


Mr. Churchill:: There was an outbreak yesterday.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -by the decision of the United Nations to send in a police force. I am not going to say anything at this moment which, in the face of the situation in the island, will make it difficult for the force to carry out its obligation, an experience which Canadians have gained in many other areas where the terms of reference in general principles were the same as in this instance.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this house has learned from long experience that, the more difficult the position in which the minister finds himself, the longer he takes to reply. We take that for granted. I appreciate the problem he has raised. No one questions the difficulty of the situation but I ask him how he defines "self defence"? Can you only defend yourself after you have been killed?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would say to my hon. friend that you certainly do not define it by using the words my hon. friend used, by saying that the situation confronting the Canadian contingent was a hopeless one. It is not a hopeless one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course not.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is not hopeless because the United Nations forces are contributing to a situation that is getting better and better. My hon. friend asked a specific question. He knows the answer. Our forces are armed and they will take all precautions to defend themselves, but they are not going to conduct themselves in advance in a manner that will contribute to the lack of harmony in the island.


Mr. Speaker:: I have quite a line-up. I should like to start first with the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: While the Canadian troops have a right to defend themselves against attack, would the minister not think that if they are not empowered to disarm, then the only alternative is to kill all those who would oppose them with arms?


An hon. Member:: Or to be killed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to use language that is going to add to the problem of the United Nations peace force.


An hon. Member:: You do not know the answer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have two supplementaries for the minister. First of all, I ask him again, do the Canadian forces

in Cyprus at present have any specific instructions or precise directives as to what they are to do? From what the minister has indicated they must have, and I should like to know what they are. Second, has the minister considered requesting the secretary general to set up an advisory committee, as was done in the case of the problem in the Congo, to advise the secretary general how to carry out the terms of the United Nations resolution and to give directives to the United Nations command?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already answered the first part of my hon. friend's question. He may not be satisfied with the answer, but it is the answer which I have given. With regard to the question of an advisory committee, undoubtedly my hon. friend has in mind the experience in the Congo. This matter was the subject of considerable discussion between the secretary general and those who spoke for Canada. At this stage the secretary general does not propose to institutionalize the consultative arrangements, but I may assure my hon. friend that there are good reasons for the position he takes. I did not agree with the position he took last week, but after talking to him I appreciate the reasons and I am satisfied that at the present time they are good reasons. I may assure my hon. friend that Canada will be fully consulted.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister say the situation is getting better and better when a news dispatch today states that heavy fighting has again broken out and that there are casualties?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is true that today we were told by the press that some fighting had broken out in one particular area between the two communities. This situation has been going on for some time; but since the announcement by the secretary general that he had established a police force the situation has become calmer. I was told by the ambassador of Cyprus to the United Nations, who visited Ottawa this morning, that it was correct to say that as a result of the establishment of the force, a period of tranquillity had set in, and he hoped and believed that this would continue to be the situation. No one can guarantee this, but I am sure that the Canadians in the United Nations force and the force itself will do everything they humanly can to do what they have been sent there to do in the name of the United Nations, that is, seek to preserve order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the minister can seriously 20220-79
Inquiries of the Ministry describe as a condition of tranquillity a situation where people are being killed and murdered?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the minister can possibly answer that question.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if in his talk with the secretary general he made representations to the secretary general toward the securing of a firm undertaking on the part of Archbishop Makarios that all arms smuggling into Cyprus will be stopped immediately and, if not, as to the possibility of the police force being empowered to stop the entry of any more arms into Cyprus?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The secretary general has assured the Canadian government that the government of Cyprus and the two communities have given him every assurance of full co-operation with the mission entrusted to the United Nations peace keeping force.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have no desire to make the minister's task more difficult in this critical situation. I am sure he also appreciates the fact, however, that members of parliament, having committed troops to Cyprus, have a responsibility to see that they are given an adequate opportunity to protect themselves and to discharge their responsibilities. In view of the fact that it is difficult to see how a police force can act in a civil war unless it has the capacity to disarm guerrillas, I should like to ask the minister what is the basic objection to allowing the international police force to disarm guerrillas? Who takes this objection? Will the minister urge upon the secretary general of the United Nations the need for giving this authority to the international police force, not just the Canadian contingent but the entire international police force, in the event it should become necessary to use it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not propose to ask any question that would add to the problems that face the force.


An hon. Member:: He said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know he did, and I am assuring him that I believe that is the attitude of the hon. gentleman. That is why I am saying it. The course in this regard is not dissimilar to the powers given to the United Nations emergency force now operating in the Gaza strip or the United Nations peace keeping force in the Congo. The secretary general will shortly, we hope, be appointing a mediator whose responsibility it will be

Inquiries of the Ministry to mediate the dispute between the two communities; after the most careful consideration it is thought by all concerned that the responsibility for disarming should be left with the authorities in Cyprus at this stage.
The United Nations force is not in there as the authority. It is not in there, as I said a moment ago, as an occupational force. It is in there to seek to use, in this particular situation, whatever means are open for the best possible preservation of order. One could say that the force would have other powers; some of those powers I do not believe it is in the interest of the assignment to detail completely at this time. I may assure my hon. friend that the problem which he raises, as well as others which were implied in some of the questions today, were considered and will be part of the terms of reference for the forces in the difficult assignment that they have.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I had a
supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it correct, as reported, that a 14 point directive was issued by the secretary general covering the operations of the peace keeping force on Cyprus? If so, is the minister able to give the house the details of it, and was Canada consulted before the 14 point directive was issued?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I have already indicated, there was the fullest discussion with regard to the terms of reference which have been given by the secretary general for the use of the peace keeping force. As to whether or not full details can be given, I will give consideration to that and deal with it tomorrow.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. I also make it a question of privilege.
This morning we received in the mail a pamphlet showing the Canadian red ensign, which was undoubtedly published by the printing bureau, since it bears the signature of Mr. Roger Duhamel, the queen's printer. That pamphlet also says:
At present Canada's distinctive flag is the Red Ensign bearing our country's coat of arms in the
fly.
Then the story of that flag is given.
Consequently, here is my question. Do the Prime Minister and his government agree that

this is Canada's distinctive flag? Moreover, can the Prime Minister tell the house under what authority the queen's printer sent out the literature which was received this morning?


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the question of privilege is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I leave that in your hands. I have no desire or right to comment on it, if it is a question of privilege.
So far as the first question is concerned, the flag to which my hon. friend referred has official status as established by order in council in 1945. So far as the second question is concerned, I do not know the circumstances surrounding the issuance of this leaflet, but I will be glad to look into it.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does he intend to re-establish the payment to dairy producers of a subsidy in the amount of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk as existed previously?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his question, and I will take it as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. The hon. members on this side of the house wish to get information from the Minister of Agriculture and, to our regret, he is not here; in fact, he is always absent. Now, the Minister of Agriculture should be in the house to answer the questions that are directed to him by opposition members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I regret that I do not see any point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I am of the opinion that the continuous absence of the Minister of Agriculture is an insult to opposition members-


Mr. Speaker:: The remarks of the hon. member are more or less identical with the

remarks he made a moment ago. There is no question of privilege. If the minister is not here at the moment, I presume he must have an adequate reason for not being here.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. When does he intend to announce the resignation of the Hon. Harry W. Hays, who cannot get along with the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve)?


An hon. Member:: The same old bird.


Bruce Silas Beer: I am sure it would not be the wish of the Minister of Agriculture to bring about a mass exodus of members opposite. The minister is in western Canada on an important agricultural mission.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada; I have asked him whether he intended to announce shortly the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, since he is unable to get along with the Minister of Forestry.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: This habit of parliamentary secretaries answering in the absence of ministers impels me to ask the Prime Minister whether or not his attention has been directed to a statement made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as reported in Le Devoir:

I object to the students' loan project.

In other words, the parliamentary secretary declares himself against the loans system for students. Is it appropriate that parliamentary secretaries should be declaring their opposition to policies enunciated by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the alleged statement made by my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. 20220-794
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister, following the answer he gave to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Justice to consider the legal aspect of the proposed legislation in the light of the provisions of the Canadian constitution, and does he not believe that this legislation, bearing as it does on education, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not take legislative action unless we have satisfied ourselves about the constitutionality of it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if the Prime Minister, when he studies the declaration made by his parliamentary secretary, will refer to the book by Herbert Morrison, a noted British parliamentarian, which states that the doctrine of collective responsibility extends to all parliamentary secretaries, and if any were to publicly proclaim disagreement with the government his resignation would almost certainly be required.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I remember reading that book in connection with resignations from the recent government.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Since he understands English better, I will do it in that language.

Since the variations or interpretations of the word "soon" are rather limited, perhaps the minister could advise the house when the white paper on defence will come out.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Can the minister tell the house whether there has been any development following the submission of the Lea report concerning the building of a bridge at Three Rivers?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was able to inform the premier of Quebec just before we came into the house, about two hours ago, that Mr. Lea had made a verbal report yesterday in which he indicated that although there were some difficulties which might be encountered as a result of the construction of this bridge, there did not seem to be any adequate reason why it should not be proceeded with or the contract should not be let.
Perhaps, sir, if I might be permitted, I should like to express appreciation to the government of Quebec and the bridge company for holding off the letting of the contract until there was an opportunity to make an investigation into this important matter.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton Souih):: I hope the Minister of Transport is not going to make use of the snide remark he made to the effect that two hours have elapsed since we came into the house, and at a later stage imply that this was all the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is necessary to comment.



REPORTED CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister is reported in this morning's Globe and Mail to have said at a meeting in Hamilton:
A rigid stand to protect Canadian manufacturers at the forthcoming round of trade negotiations would be unwise and difficult to maintain.
How does the minister reconcile this with the assurance given by the Minister of Finance to secondary manufacturers in his budget speech, and referred to in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Wednesday, March 18?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I on these matters see eye to eye.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on the fact that a book is now on sale on newsstands in Canada entitled "The Pearson Phenomenon," and more accurately entitled in the United States "Pearson of Canada," written by Mr. John R. Beal, a Time magazine

representative in Ottawa, Canada. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether there is any relationship between the appearance of this book at this time and the appearance on the order paper of legislation dealing with certain periodical publications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, although of course this question is out of order I can assure my hon. friend that there is no relationship whatever, except in his suspicious mind.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES SUGGESTED REASON FOR FAILURE TO PURCHASE CARAVELLE AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based on an article published in the Montreal Star of Tuesday, March 17. According to that article Mr. Claude Dessureault, public relations director for Canadian Industries Limited, stated:

Mr. Dessureault claimed that in the recent dispute involving Trans-Canada Air Lines and the choice of a medium range jet aircraft, France's Caravelle lost because-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Gilles Grégoire: -all the plans and data submitted were in French.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize it is a point of order that perhaps I could have raised a dozen times today. When are we going to apply the rule that in asking questions it is not in order to read material and give information? I feel it is appropriate to raise this now, since we have been asked from the far corner to obey the rules of the house.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall willingly conform to the rules, even though I am not as familiar with them as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If I sometimes fail to abide by the rules it is because I do not know them very well.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he confirm whether the submission from Societe Sud-Aviation concerning the

building of Caravelle aircraft in Canada was turned down because plans had been drawn up in French only?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the rules were invoked in this particular case, I think perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might have invoked them in the case of those who more frequently ask questions which are out of order. I propose today to reply that while I have no knowledge on this matter, not having inquired of Trans-Canada Air Lines and not having had anything whatever to do with the transaction myself, I simply do not believe there is the slightest vestige of truth in that story. I am perfectly sure it would make absolutely no difference to the management of T.C.A. whether any submission was made in English or in French, because it would receive the same full, complete and equal attention.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The original question was out of order for at least three reasons.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I have given a ruling. There is no urgency in the question- even if it were a question. To me it was a statement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, then I make it a question of privilege.
I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has just stated to us so categorically, I believe that it is our privilege to ask him at least to make an inquiry on that matter before making a flat statement, as he just did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the fact that it is against the rules to ask whether statements in the press are true or not, in this particular case I will inquire and send a reply to the hon. gentleman; but I do not think we should take up the time of the house with it.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



CONSERVATION MEASURES TO PREVENT KILLING OF SEALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the heavy slaughter of seals taking place in the gulf of St. Lawrence, as reported in the Montreal Gazette, could the minister indicate-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Do learn the standing orders.


Gilles Grégoire: According to the standing orders, one should not take press reports as a basis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see how
there can be a point of order on a question which has not even been stated. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the minister indicate what steps are being taken to deal with this critical conservation problem?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in the house, this is a problem which has international repercussions. The matter has been dealt with as far as our jurisdiction would permit us to go.
We have established regulations, and this matter will be brought up at the ICNAF meeting next summer where we expect to have the co-operation of the different countries involved in the hunting of seals in north Atlantic waters.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a supplementary question, has any action been taken by the international commission on the northwest Atlantic fisheries to deal with this matter, as was recommended by Canada in 1961?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, preliminary discussions took place at their annual meeting held in Halifax last year and all the countries were instructed to prepare to discuss this matter fully at the next meeting to be held at Hamburg next summer. We hope to be able to come up with satisfactory regulations.
1248	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Fisheries, in view of the fact that this alleged butchering of baby seals is going on daily in the gulf of St. Lawrence and off the Magdalen islands, does this not come within the jurisdiction of his department and why are the regulations not being enforced?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the existing regulations are being enforced. My department has close to 100 officers and men now supervising the operation as much as is possible. As I said before, this comes under international regulations and we have no jurisdiction to go further than we do at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question, has the minister seen the film shot by two Montreal cameramen of the slaughter which is going on off the Magdalen islands?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the film, but just about an hour ago I asked my deputy minister to obtain a copy so that we could see it and see what we can do about it.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: As a supplementary question, is the minister in a position to assure the house that after May, 1964, the whole of the gulf of St. Lawrence will be under Canadian jurisdiction entirely and will no longer be an international matter?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A declaration to this effect has already been made in the house by the right hon. Prime Minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Did he, along with the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence meet on Tuesday evening with a delegation from the Sydney board of trade who, I understand, made representations against the closing of the Point Edward naval base? Could the hon. gentleman advise the house as to the results of these representations and any others which he has received urging that the base be kept in operation, or can he at this time give us a full report on this meeting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had a meeting with representatives of the board of trade and we have discussed the situation surrounding the decision to close


the Point Edward base. We also discussed the question of possible alternative employment for persons to be affected.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Minister of Labour indicate to the house just what those plans to provide alternative employment are, especially as they relate to men over 40 and 50 years of age who are working at the base?
While answering that question he might also indicate why the government still insists, when advertising positions, that the age of an applicant be given.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the minister take that question as notice. It seems to me that it has been asked already, not today but in the last two or three weeks.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order. The question has been asked on a number of occasions but answers have never been provided, though this is a most urgent matter in Cape Breton.


Robert Muir: On a question of privilege; this is an extremely important question, yet the minister continues to ignore it and slough it off. Why do we not get some answers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no doubt about the importance of the question. All questions, I assume have a certain importance. But some are more important than others, and some are more urgent than others. This is hardly the type of question to which an answer could be expected on the spur of the moment.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE CONSIDERATION OF STUDENT LOANS AND CANADA PENSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government, at the federal-provincial conference this month, to consider the proposal of the Canadian union of students that the provinces be permitted to make separate agreements with the federal government as to the method of implementation of student loans, in order that the plan might be started in 1964?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the hon. gentleman knows, this matter is being considered at the forthcoming conference and the representations made by the organization to which he refers, and which I have received, will certainly be borne in mind.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Now that Bill No. C-75 has been introduced,

will the question of provincial participation in the Canada pension plan be discussed at the conference which is to begin on March 31?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The pension plan is one of the subjects for discussion and consideration.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis).
Does the minister intend to request the resignation of the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) who dared express ideas in opposition to those of the minister and his government with respect to interest-free loans for students?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government plans to transfer 13 D.V.A. hospitals to the provinces, what progress has been made in negotiations with the government of Saskatchewan to transfer federally-owned and operated hospitals for Indians to provincial jurisdiction?


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



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Has the government offered to transfer the land, buildings and maintenance equipment at the R.C.A.F. station at Edgar, Ontario, to the county of Simcoe, or to any organization, for $1 or for a nominal consideration of a like amount?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No plans have yet been formulated for the future use of the radar station, about to be disused, at Edgar. However, the government is fully alive to the importance of making the best possible use of these national defence facilities and is exploring a considerable number of proposals to this end.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



REPORTED INTENTION TO MOVE PLANTS FROM QUEBEC TO ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production.
Can the minister tell us whether he has made inquiries to know the reason for the possible moving of many industries out of Quebec. What steps does his department intend to take to check this coming exodus to Ontario of many Quebec industries, according to what the acting manager of the association for the development of eastern Ontario indicated at a meeting of the municipal council in Pembroke this week?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this and I will consider the question as notice.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement by the hon. gentleman that part time students will be allowed income tax deductions in respect of tuition fees, would the minister say whether such deductions would include tuition fees incurred by professional or technical graduates attending refresher and postgraduate courses? Second, is this exemption restricted to tuition fees or are all costs, such as the cost of books, instruments, travelling and living expenses, to be included?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a detailed question requiring a careful answer; therefore it should be placed on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has received any official protests from the premier of the province of Quebec concerning the pension plan which is being proposed in this house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such protest.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. Pugh:: May I defer my question until tomorrow? Too much time has been taken up already today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: It was a question for the Minister of Finance, and I would not expect a reasonable answer anyway at this point.


An hon. Member:: You have spoiled it, now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Nielsen:: I too, Mr. Speaker, will not take up the time of the house.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Public Works?
Did the minister inquire or does he have a statement to make about the 1967 world fair symbol which was rejected by this house and, according to press reports, was nevertheless accepted by the world exhibition corporation?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to put that question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible to this house for everything which concerns the 1967 world fair?


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce the same question?
Has the minister made inquiries or does he have a statement to make in connection with the world fair emblem which had not been accepted by the world exhibition corpora-according to newspapers, has nevertheless been accepted by the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has already addressed an inquiry to the Prime Minister on this question, and I understand the Prime Minister will be replying in due course.
[Mr. Latulippe.l



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with regard to a question that was answered on Monday. This is the first opportunity, sir, that I have had to bring it to the attention of the house. I refer to my question No. 337. I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether a study into year-round navigation had been conducted by a branch of his department. The answer was that no study had been made. Reference was made to geographical papers. I have them and have looked them over, and the last one I looked at has a complete section in it with respect to winter navigation. The pertinent, last paragraph says:
In view of the severity of ice conditions in the gulf of St. Lawrence, the icebreaker fleet was eminently successful in the routing and convoying of shipping.
I am not blaming the minister, but some civil servants need smartening up on this matter. I object to two things; I object to the sloppy, non-factual way in which the answer was given, and I also object to the fact that the government is going ahead with investigating and planning to open up the St. Lawrence in the winter, without any authority to do so.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the answer which I gave on Monday was adequate and clear, and I think the hon. member's question of privilege today is quite out of order. I made it clear that our department was simply investigating oceanography and ice conditions in the St. Lawrence.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an anonymous Canadian bidder has made an offer to purchase Burns and Company Limited, the meat packing company in Calgary, and have any inquiries been made by his department to see whether this will bring about an extension of the combine in the meat packing industry which was discovered by the officers of his department in a previous investigation?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the title on the newspaper clipping just a few minutes ago, so I will take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the question very
pressing?


Edward Nasserden: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. A few days ago he kindly gave me an answer to a question with regard to the civilian employees at the R.C.A.F. station at Saskatoon. The question I would like to ask is this. Is the minister aware that many of the civilian employees at the R.C.A.F. station at Saskatoon are being offered alternative positions which reduce their remuneration by approximately $1 an hour; and if so, does he condone this practice?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the type of question that should be put on the order paper.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate which I adjourned the other evening I would say that one has had an opportunity to look over the budget address of my hon. friend in a quieter atmosphere than the rather frenzied aura which always prevails, and properly so, on the occasion of the presentation of the budget. I must say that, having read it over carefully in the past day or two, I sometimes wonder why I did not conclude the debate the other evening instead of going on for any length of time today, because there certainly is not a great deal in the budget presentation of the minister on which one can make any serious, critical comments, or critical commentary, as far as that is concerned.
It is so different from the atmosphere last year. Hon. members will remember the arrival of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) on that occasion, with all the solutions 20220-80
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan to the nation's problems wrapped up in his brief case, and he presented them to us. There was a whole bookful: they were going to rectify foreign ownership of Canadian industry; they were going to do this, they were going to do that, and they were going to do the other thing. For various reasons that budget, as I said the other night, has been improved upon from time to time because most of the provisions in it have since been dropped. Instead of having, shall I say, a superman arriving to present the budget as we had a year ago, this time we had Mickey Mouse coming in with a very, very small parcel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: This makes the position of an opposition critic, the financial critic or anyone else, rather difficult. I have a quote here which I should like to read to the house. I am not going to quote from newspapers this afternoon to any extent, Mr. Speaker, because I do not intend to speak at any great length; but I have one newspaper quotation which is apropos of what I have said, and which I came across only this afternoon. I am sure it will commend itself to the minister, because it is in keeping with the thought I just expressed. This editorial was in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph of March 18 and it says:
After a year of almost continuous labour, the mountain, apparently, has brought forth a mouse- It is a poor, timorous thing wrapped up in large swaddling clothes.
I do not think any better comment than that can be made on the budget. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not going into this matter at great length this afternoon. I do not think I can finish before five o'clock, but I shall not go very much beyond that. There are certain things, of course, in the budget of which we entirely approve. As I said the other night when I was asked about this on the radio, and the question was whether there was anything in the budget of which we approved, "I have not brought my microscope with me and could not answer that question at this time". But having produced my microscope in the meantime, I can say there are some things of which we do approve. We approve, of course, of the provisions with regard to educational advantages. We approve of the deduction of tuition fees for part-time students; the deduction by either a brother or sister for-if I may introduce a new term here-a sibling dependant attending school. We also endorse the proposed extension of family allowances and commend the minister and his associates for their remarkably quick conversion in this regard because, having voted against this most important provision

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan only a few weeks ago, they embraced it to their bosoms and brought it forward in the person of Her Majesty's Minister of Finance. This was really a remarkable conversion and one for which I would commend the Minister of Finance. I have used this simile before, but the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus was not as rapid as that of the minister and his associates in this connection.
We entirely approve, of course, of the incentives contained in the budget which, as the minister said, are directed toward certain areas in need of economic expansion. As I recall it, the minister referred particularly to certain areas in Quebec and also to the Atlantic provinces. I am glad to see that the minister is extending the period of these incentives so they will be longer in operation. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, just what the reason may be. It may be that the incentives have proven so useful that the minister feels they should be extended; or perhaps so far they have not been taken advantage of at all, or very, very little, and the minister thought that by extending the period for a year or two more he might be able to get some people to take advantage of them. I realize that these incentives are difficult to administer. I also doubt, frankly, the efficacy of some of the incentives which the minister projected.
It is not his fault that they are not effective, but I doubt very much the efficacy of them. I would suggest to the minister that in the province with which I am more acquainted than any other, namely the province of Nova Scotia, he will find the incentives and leadership given by the government of that province, through Industrial Estates Limited, in the development of industry have been far greater than that which has flowed from any of the incentives which he has put forward thus far. When we hear, as we undoubtedly will, from the Minister of Finance, who is, of course, a very modest individual, or perhaps from the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), as to the developments which have taken place in the province of Nova Scotia, I hope that they will-and if they do not, some of us on this side of the house will have to-distinguish between what may have flowed, if anything, from the incentives to which the Minister of Finance has referred, and to which he referred again the other night, and the work done in the province of Nova Scotia which has given a tremendous impetus to and leadership in the industrial development of that province.
In that connection I should like to make reference to the only newspaper report to which I will draw the attention of the minister this afternoon dealing with the matter of

incentives. It is an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for March 17 last, in which is discussed the question of incentives as particularly applying to the maritime provinces. This editorial says, in part, that the minister could, and should, have done more to encourage economic growth through further tax incentives. It points out what the paper looks upon-and I concur with this paper in this regard, although I do not always-as limiting incentives to specific areas, and suggests that there should be a more all-embracing area covering the province as a whole, rather than picking out one town in one county and another area in another county. That is not the way.
I cannot speak with authority obviously on a large province such as Ontario, with which the minister is thoroughly conversant, but in a smaller province like Nova Scotia you cannot pick out one town in one county, and another town in another county, and have the incentives apply as they should. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald recommends that these incentives be broadened so as to cover larger areas, and I think that is a suggestion which is well worth following. These are some of the matters, Mr. Speaker, of which one can speak with commendation to the minister for having brought them forward.
And may I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are glad to see you in the chair.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) referred to the budget the other night as small potatoes and few in the hill, a very pastoral expression which I think he must have picked up in the maritime provinces because I heard it used by my grandfather who lived in Digby county many years ago. But I should like to use a more apt description of the budget than the one to which he has referred and say that it is more like a timorous mouse.
I should like to discuss for a few moments, although I will not be able to finish my remarks on this point before five o'clock, one change which the minister has made and which has aroused a great deal of comment by the financial press during the last few days. I am referring to the changes which he has made in the withholding tax. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the minister proposed last year a withholding tax which we on this side of the house criticized very strongly. We said that it was discriminatory; we said that it could not be applied; we said that it would invite retaliation and that it would be necessary to negotiate a new tax convention between Canada and the United States if it was to be effective; and we said that time would not permit such a negotiation to take place.

The minister questioned these criticisms of ours and then went ahead with his program, although he altered and amended it in various ways during the next two, three or tour successive budgets which he brought down. But he still maintained the difference between the 20 per cent and the 10 per cent. It one did not accept a certain amount ot Canadian participation one would be required to pay a withholding tax of 20 per cent. On the other hand, if one did one would only pay a withholding tax of 10 per cent. He made a differentiation, as I told the minister last year, as between the good boys and the bad boys, and on that aspect alone we did not think that this proposal of the minister was a sound principle to bring into tax legislation.
This year the minister tells us that he was in Washington a short time ago, that he had found a new element had entered the situation, and consequently that he was going to amend the tax. The new element was that the United States senate had brought in a bill to reduce taxation, and for some reason which I am not going to try to follow for the moment-quite frankly, I cannot follow the minister anyway on this-he said that because of this new factor he was now prepared to amend his proposals; and perhaps I may be permitted to suggest how this should be done after we resume the debate at eight o'clock. However, I should like to point out to the minister at this stage that this new factor of the reduction of the tax-the proposal before the United States senate to reduce taxation-was before the United States senate last year, as I recall it, before the minister amended this provision for the second or the third time. So therefore it could not have been a new factor, because it was already before the United States senate. I think it was recognized by the United States press that this tax reduction bill would go through, so the minister cannot be heard to say today that this was a new factor in the situation.
However, I do suggest that the new factor is this. When the minister was in Washington a few weeks ago secretary Dillon told him that his proposal was bound to invite retaliation; that the increase to 20 per cent, of course, would require a new tax convention; and that it was impossible to renegotiate such a convention before December 31, 1964.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that a student in grade nine political science would know that this year, with the heavy legislative burden which is before the United States senate-without going into the details of it- with the protracted debates which have already taken place and which will, according to every newspaper report I have read, continue for a long while to come, and with an 20220-80i
Motions for Papers
election in the offing and one third of the senate to be re-elected, and with naturally the other two thirds supporting their colleagues taking part in the election either in the senate or the house of representatives, there would be very little hope for any renegotiation of a tax treaty. As we pointed out, if this was not done there would be an automatic 30 per cent withholding tax as at December 31 this year. Therefore this was not a new factor but was a gradual recognition on the part of the minister that the things which we on this side of the house said were true and correct, and he had to reconcile himself to them in his budget.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Grafftey:: That is what happens when they do not consult their officials.


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



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 12, consideration of the following motion of Mr. Bell:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, last week in the two or three minutes available to me I had outlined some of the background in relation to the situation in which we found ourselves in connection with the security of national defence property in general, and small arms and ammunition in particular. As I indicated, there had been some concern throughout a number of months with respect to the security of small arms, and steps had been taken to tighten up the security precautions in respect thereto.
Following the raid on the armoury in Montreal on January 30 this process was accelerated in order to remove the temptation to attempt another such incident from anyone who might be inclined to do so. As I indicated, on January 31, the very day following the raid, immediate action was taken. A commission was set up and that commission was asked to study the security regulations in respect of national defence property, and to make recommendations as to any steps which should be taken to improve the security measures.
Simultaneously some of the services issued orders to tighten up the observation of

Motions for Papers
existing regulations in respect ol security. Interim measures were taken which required that rifles be stored separately from their working parts, separately from the bolts and from the ammunition. Consequently, as I indicated, from that day forward no useable arms were taken.
When the commission reported, it recommended the immediate withdrawal of small arms until adequate security precautions could be put into effect. This was ordered at once for sensitive areas. As I indicated, it was carried out with zeal and there have been no losses since that time. Simultaneously across the country security measures already in existence were being enforced more rigidly than had been the case, and in a number of cases arms and ammunition were removed temporarily until such time as the regulations could be met. Arms and ammunition removed from various installations were placed in installations where they could be given round the clock security, and even in those installations where arms were no longer in inventory additional watchmen were required to provide more general surveillance of national defence property.
The suggestion has been made that round the clock guards should be put on all national defence installations, including reserve units. I really think that on reflection hon. members will appreciate that this is not a practicable suggestion. In this country we have had no history of providing round the clock armed security for our reserve units, with some exceptions, those exceptions being at times like the Fenian raids and when there was some indication of riot or insurrection. With those exceptions there never has been any attempt to provide uniform, round the clock security for our reserve installations.
The magnitude of the problem is really very great. If anyone felt that such a course should be followed, I think he would have to look very carefully at the manpower required and the cost in dollars which would be involved. To provide really adequate round the clock security for all our reserve units would require the employment of thousands of men and the cost would run into many millions of dollars a year. In my opinion this is not a practicable solution. In this regard another recommendation was made by the commission set up in the Department of National Defence and which, as I have indicated earlier, included a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Their recommendation was that other measures be taken which would provide adequate security, make it very difficult to effect the removal of small arms and ammunition and not require round the clock armed guards.
[Mr. Hellyer.l
These measures are being studied and will be implemented just as quickly as possible.
Many of the arms that have been withdrawn have already been reinstated in areas where this could be done under adequate security measures. This process will continue just as expeditiously as it is possible to do a proper job of inspection, and just as soon as the requirements can be adequately met.
I think the important point is that the action which was taken, as the result of a situation which we all regretted and deplored, has been effective. It has been commented upon favourably by a number of newspapers in their editorial columns, and we are grateful for their support. There have been one or two misapprehensions. For example, the Montreal Gazette in an editorial on February 25, I believe-I am not sure that was the date it appeared-fully supported the program of withdrawing serviceable firearms and ammunition from armouries and other reserve army establishments where security cannot be provided on a round the clock basis. The editorial went on to say:
This is the necessary move. It is imperative that it be taken now. It would have been preferable had it been taken earlier.
The editorial goes on to say:
But there is one aspect of the defence minister's statement that is uncertain. Mr. Hellyer says that orders have gone out that at least one person is to be on duty at reserve establishments at all hours of the day or night. Does this mean that firearms and ammunition will still be left in reserve establishments, provided that they have one armed guard?
The answer is no. I do not think there was any lack of clarity in the statement. The statement was that during this period at least arms and ammunition would only be stored where adequate round the clock protection was available; and the one person on duty at all hours referred to the defence establishments where there were no arms or ammunition but where other national defence properties were in inventory. I might also say that we received co-operation from people across the country, and I should like to pay tribute to them for their co-operation, which is very much appreciated. I have one letter I should like to read, with the indulgence of the house, which I think is indicative of the spirit of co-operation. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
Honourable Sir:
It is with disgust that I read almost daily of the sentiment of various M.P.'s as well as editors of newspapers across the country re the picking up of arms from the various cadet corps across the country.
As the chief instructor of one of the largest, if not the largest, cadet corps in eastern Ontario, namely, the No. 2403 St. Lawrence high school cadet corps, I must state that the person concerned at Ashbury College in Ottawa who is continually

complaining about the pick-up of arms from that college knew, and I am sure of this, that they would pick up the said arms and he was notified well in advance of same. I know this because I was notified at 7 p.m. and the rifles were picked up here between 12 midnight and 1.30 a.m. on the same day, and I didn't kick as it was my duty to be prepared.
So far all it is worth you can mention my name in the house and I will vouch for same. I am sure that all concerned were notified but there are some who fail to comply with an order even though they are members of Her Majesty's forces and have taken the oaths of office.
I commend, and I wish you would mention this in the house, the eastern Ontario area cadet training officer for the method in which he instructed his men to take out arms.
The majority of papers in eastern Ontario and also in Toronto have published news about matters they knew nothing about whatsoever and I deem it their fault that this has come to such a ridiculous stage.
I would also like mentioned in the house, if you see fit, that St. Lawrence high school has the crack cadet rifle team in Canada, and not Windsor. We have had various trophies come to Canada in the past few years from England, such as the Young Rifleman's trophy which had never been won before by a Canadian and this being won by the cadet who came first in Ontario and third in Canada in the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association at Connaught ranges.
I am pleased with my corps. I am pleased with the wonderful co-operation we have received from army headquarters. I am sure our hon. member L. Lamoureux can vouch for this.
I trust this has enlightened you some in your big job at present and if I can be of any further assistance to you in this important matter be free to call on me.
(Major) C. H. Paulin


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he an officer in the cadet corps?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He is the chief instructor. I think this is typical of the general attitude of co-operation which we have had across the country. May I again say how much we appreciate the indulgence of all concerned. Most people have, I think, recognized that the situation was difficult and that some unusual action was required in the face of the circumstances. They have been understanding and sympathetic in their reaction.
I do not believe I will take more time of the house, but may I reiterate that the armed forces have carried out with dispatch their assigned task of tightening up security in respect of small arms and ammunition, because they have them as a trust and it is their responsibility to make sure that they cannot be easily removed from national defence installations and fall into unauthorized hands. These tasks have been carried out very well so far. We have been completely successful in what we have done. I am sure we will have the support and co-operation of all members of the house in respect of this very difficult situation. I can also assure hon. members that just as quickly as the situation can be restored so that normal
Motions for Papers
training can be resumed in all parts of the country, this will be done. It will be done under circumstances which will limit, just as much as we possibly can with reasonable cost, the possibility of arms and ammunition falling into unauthorized hands in the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say anything about the motion that is before us, which is for an order of the house for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition. This is what is before us. The minister has simply put up a defence, in his opinion, of the action that was taken. The course of the debate has not been restricted entirely to the production of these particular documents. Certainly, in the light of the minister's reply, since he did not deal with the motion at all, I presume the debate is wide open.
The reasons for asking for this type of information were set out very clearly by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) on March 12 as recorded at page 841 of Hansard. It is rather unusual to request the production of documents which, you may say, are interdepartmental documents. However, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert pointed out, the circumstances are unusual. Reference has been made quite often by the minister to the fact that directives were not carried out in the same way in all areas. Naturally one wonders, therefore, if it would not be in the public interest to disclose the directive that he sent out, and then we would be clear. The letter which he has just finished reading to us mentioned the fact that orders were received. Were those the orders that came direct from the minister, or to what orders or directives is the writer referring?
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a most unusual and inappropriate action for the minister to read a letter from a cadet instructor, a letter addressed to the Minister of National Defence. In the first instance, I should like to know why a cadet instructor would write directly to the Minister of National Defence. There is a chain of command to be followed in the services. Apparently, the minister permits cadet instructors to write to him, and now encourages them by this public action. Does he get letters directly from other cadet corps instructors and from his navy, army and air force personnel in the junior ranks? It is a very strange thing indeed. I think the minister is seriously at fault in setting up one cadet instructor against another. Here you have one cadet instructor saying, in effect, pay no attention to the complaints from your people at Ashbury College

Motions for Papers
because everything went all right in our area; pay no attention to the complaints of other cadet corps instructors.
The Minister of National Defence, with responsibility for hundreds of cadet corps across this country, should not be publicly playing one off against the other. I think the minister had better re-examine the responsibilities of his position or we will have a rather odd situation in this country in which people ignore the normal means of communication within the services and are communicating directly with the minister. Then, you begin to wonder, for what purpose? If the minister is going to commend in this way one cadet instructor, why not commend them all or tell us the ones of which he does not approve? Why does he raise this particular issue here in the House of Commons? It is an absolutely inappropriate action.
There would be no motion on the order paper if the minister had been more forthcoming in the answers he gave to a whole host of questions that have been asked in the last several weeks. This trouble began with a raid on the armoury in Montreal which occurred almost 80 days ago; we are into the twelfth week now since this occurred and we have had no satisfactory answers from the minister concerning that particular event. There was another robbery at Shawinigan Falls and attempts elsewhere, and then we had this haphazard action in connection with the cadet corps. Had the minister given information to the house clearly and without evasion, we would not have this motion before us at the moment. He has not been clear and he has certainly been evasive.
Even in reply to a simple written question I put on the order paper, asking him to indicate the areas in which arms and ammunition had been taken from the cadet corps, he stated that it was not in the public interest to give this information. Yet we were reading in the press about one cadet corps after another where some incident had taken place, and he did not tell us to what cadet corps the weapons had been returned.
All of this had made the minister look a bit foolish, and we would like to find out whether or not he was clear in the instructions he gave to the people under his command. I think he must have been very confused himself.
I started this whole train of thought on Wednesday, February 19, as recorded at page 9 of Hansard for that date, when I asked him a question about the thefts, and in answer to that he said:
I also directed that appropriate action be taken to increase security measures at all military establishments at which weapons and ammunition were stored.

Then he went on to say:
Ammunition was removed and put in storage at protected depots.
That was his appropriate action. He did not give the date, but it followed some time after the theft from the Montreal armoury, and subsequently he apparently appointed a commission. This is what he does whenever a problem comes up; he appoints a commission or sets up a special committee. He has untold numbers of officers in the services who can be assembled at a moment's notice, without necessarily making them into committees or commissions, in order to get advice and immediately give instructions.
Surely this problem could have been handled by the chiefs of staff on the very day it came to their attention that there was some difficulty concerning protection for arms and ammunition in the armouries? But the minister said it was a very large problem and it had to be investigated very carefully. He had to find out how many armouries there were and where they were located, how many cadet corps there were and where they were located, but yet right across the country there were area commands where this information could have been available at a moment's notice. By one call on the telephone he could have had a report from every one of those areas; but no, he appointed a commission to look into it and then waited for its recommendations.
He also told us that after he took immediate action, that is, after January 30, no useable arms were subsequently removed. Is he prepared to say that the arms taken at Shawinigan Falls on February 20 were not useable? Rifles and pistols were removed from that armoury on February 20 and they have not yet been recovered.
Further, the minister talked about the impossibility of providing around the clock protection for reserve units. That is understandable, depending where the reserve units are, but it is not understandable with regard to the armouries which are not so great in number that they could not be protected. In some small towns, and areas where militia units have rented quarters, one could not expect around the clock protection, but surely the armouries, which are not that numerous, could have been provided with around the clock protection, and then there would be nothing for us to worry about?
The minister has done something else which has bothered me very seriously. When questions have been asked in this house he has shifted the responsibility. He did this only last Thursday, as recorded at page 846 of Hansard for that day, when he said:
Immediately the commission reported, action was taken the very next day to implement the recommendations made for immediate action.

Then he drew attention to the fact that:
-local commanders have been made responsible for the security of the weapons in their command, and for the carrying out of orders. It has been on their responsibility that a number of weapons have been removed and precautionary measures taken.
Surely it is on the responsibility of the minister. I interjected and said:
You are blaming it on the services.
He replied that he was not. I can give other instances where he shifted the responsibility and put the blame on the services. He certainly did not come to the protection of his serving officers when complaints were made in this house about these actions.
Just have a look sir, at page 457 of Hansard for March 3 last, where the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is recorded as asking the following supplementary question:
I want to ask the minister if these different interpretations are due to lack of clarity in the minister's order, or to incompetence on the part of the commanders, or to a desire on their part to embarrass the minister because he has been taking away some of their toy soldiers?
The minister had nothing to say. He did not answer that question, and I only wish the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were present in this chamber when I am speaking of him. I did not like that question. I thought the minister should have immediately accepted the full responsibility and said it was due to lack of clarity in his order. He should have denied that there was incompetence on the part of the commanders.
An accusation now stands on the records of this house that the members of the services are incompetent, and the Minister of National Defence had nothing to say in their defence. Surely he might have denied that if they took inappropriate actions it was not, in the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, due to "a desire on their part to embarrass the minister"?
Does he agree that these inappropriate actions, as he has indicated they were, were taken to embarrass him, and why did he not say something about the last phrase used by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-"because he has been taking away some of their toy soldiers"? There was not a word from the minister. That was just another one of those snide remarks against people in the services, against people in the militia, against cadet instructors and cadet corps. Who are these toy soldiers? I do not mind if people who have smelled gunpowder talk about toy soldiers, but why are we subjected to remarks like this by people in public life, without any defence on the part of the minister?
Motions for Papers


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not think at that time that the question was worthy of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I do not think it is worthy of the hon. gentleman to repeat it now, or rather the allegations contained in it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is no question of privilege. That is a statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not repeating it as a question. I am merely indicating that it is the type of question which the minister permitted to go unanswered, and I say the Minister of National Defence should at least stand up for the people in the armed services. They are not privileged to state their position here in the House of Commons. Is there to be acceptance in this country that they are playing at being toy soldiers? Remarks of that type were heard in the 'thirties. Those of us who were in the militia then can remember them, before the outbreak of the second world war. They were made in some areas by people who, perhaps, did not see the service of their country in the way others did.
For the Minister of National Defence to let a remark like that go by without comment was, it seemed to me, indicative of a somewhat discourteous attitude to the people under his command. If they were able to be present here they would reply in no uncertain terms. There is no question about toy soldiering going on now in Cyprus. People in cadet corps, people in the militia, are not playing at being soldiers; they are giving service to their country.
Why does not the minister tell us exactly what directions he gave to the officers under his command, to the militia units in this country and to the cadet corps? Why does he not make the position clear instead of coming to the house and reading some commendatory letter he has received from a friend? Had the minister been seized of the importance of this whole operation he would, surely, have done so. Instead, he has dealt with it flippantly, just as he has dealt with inquiries about the notorious, mysterious, undisclosed and, perhaps, never to be produced white paper.
Why has the hon. gentleman been so flippant about this subject? Why can he not give the House of Commons an indication of the directives he issued with regard to the security of arms and ammunition in this country? He still does not treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves. Sufficient arms and ammunition have been stolen to arm 140 men, and there are 4,000 rounds of ammunition to go with those arms. I am not talking about .22 ammunition which can be

Motions for Papers
bought anywhere; I am talking about this heavier ammunition. This is a serious situation. Adequate protection should be afforded to the storage of arms and ammunition across this country; but this can be done in an effective way, with some coolness, instead of building the operation up into what seems to be a mock display of military efficiency and holding up to ridicule the armed services of this country.
The minister must accept full responsibility for this. It is not part of the hon. gentleman's duty in this house to put the blame on his officials, and those who serve in the armed forces are officials acting under the authority of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I have concluded my remarks. I have intimated that the minister is quite irresponsible in his actions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would just like to say, on a question of privilege, again, that as the responsible head of the department I accept full responsibility for the action taken by the department. That is the way our system works and I have never shirked my responsibility, nor will I, nor will I attempt to back away from it in any way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you do not recognize that as a question of privilege. It is just a matter of debate. But if it is a question of privilege I would like the right of reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). There is obviously no question of privilege here.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this order for return, I should like to refer to what has happened in this house during the last two sessions when one member of the opposition after the other introduced such motions, knowing full well that it was unadvisable or impossible to give them the information they sought.
I wonder where we are going and what the intention is, here in this house, if we continue along that line, since we know very well that a minister is not always in a position to table certain papers.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in this case the Minister of National Defence should protect the general interests of the country, but on the other hand, he keeps as confidential all information liable to benefit his opponents or

those now involved I think he cannot invoke the prerogative, namely not to give all the information, in order not to give any information at all. Some information could have been given to the house and it would have probably satisfied most of us.
Once more, I realize that the opposition, when introducing this motion for the production of papers, was rather aiming at partisan advantage by stirring prejudices, as they have been doing for some time now. But this is an extremely dangerous demagogy, since this concerns the theft of arms and ammunition which may be used to start a revolution or a coup d'etat.
On the other hand, if such a situation exists in the province of Quebec and if arm robberies took place, we must remember that we share the responsibility, because we helped to arouse feelings which the present government keeps stirring up. It is precisely by practising demagogy in everything related to defence that we share the responsibilities. Newspapers also have their responsibilities, because they gave too much publicity by their headlines to this problem which now faces Quebec and Canada.
The Minister of National Defence is blamed for neglecting to take appropriate steps. If I refer to the early stages of that issue, I remember very well that the opposition at that time made a big fuss, directed questions to the minister to know what he was doing, what he intended to do and why he had done nothing.
Well, today, the opposition complains that the minister committed himself too quickly and that the army acted too hastily. By inference, we come to the conclusion that we have, in this country, three types of government with decreasing power, that is: the army, which seems to be the strongest government in the country, then the civil service, and then the cabinet elected by the people. I wonder if, in carrying out the orders given by the minister, the military authorities did not take priority over the elected authority, that of the cabinet. We can see how a minister can easily be discredited in the public opinion by his own officials and officers.
I think that, in all those succeeding actions, a certain boycott by the army can be detected of the policy worked out by the minister and on which the militia is not necessarily in agreement. The army would like to have a larger share of public funds while the minister, according to decisions taken since he is a member of the cabinet, must cancel certain projects. That new policy was bound to stir up reactions in the army which carried out the orders received with

alacrity and caused certain small difficulties like the one concerning arms stored in armouries.
That being said, I think it is up to the government to act on the problem facing us today.
In my opinion, the minister acted in good faith and knowingly-which is not the case for the opposition. I am quite sure that had the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) been the minister of national defence, he would probably have acted the same way, in such a situation, and not much faster, for the Conservative party has not been known for quick decisions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I deny that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if I rise today to take part in this debate, it is to state that I do not share at all the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), who belongs to a party the members of which are slaves to the government.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we ask in entirely logical-


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and that we are entitled to have these documents produced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is rising on a question of privilege.


Guy Marcoux: I ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to withdraw the words he said, because I am nobody's slave, least of all, the hon. member's.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, to go on with my remarks, I think that the motion submitted by the hon. member-


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling from Your Honour on my question of privilege. I think that the words used by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm do not apply and that he should withdraw them.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I named nobody in particular. If the hat fits the hon. member, let him claim it.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason for which I object to the hon. member's remarks; the hat does not fit me.
Moreover, when he mentioned members of the group of the hon. member for Lake St. John, he attacked me personally. The hat does not fit, and I would ask the hon. member to take it off my head to put it on his own.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps, the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm exceeded what he had in mind, and he might explain.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the question of privilege, I might perhaps modify my remarks and say that the government is the slave of the group of which the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) is a member. I think that would meet your request.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is altogether logical and in the public interest to ask for the production of these documents, of this correspondence as regards the instructions given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
In fact, I do not think that our request would endanger in any way the security of the state. I know that the Minister of National Defence received instructions from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to take such action, and I challenge the minister to put forward a sound and logical reason for not producing those documents.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister is not honest in this. He does not want to accede to the official opposition's request because the production of those documents would condemn him and, hence, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate with the government, but it is not through arrogance and in behaving the way they did since the beginning of this session and throughout the last session that they will obtain the collaboration of the loyal opposition. We are doing our duty. We are working in the public interest, and the Minister of National Defence should be the first one to collaborate with all members, in order to clear the situation for the general public on the event that took place.
If the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister are responsible for the present disorder and the lack of security in the various armouries, they should take their responsibilities and tell the house the truth, so that the Canadian people may know, once and for all, what to make of all this.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate for several reasons.
First, I feel that, from the time those incidents began, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has given the house just about all the information he was in a position to give and the people had the right to expect. Furthermore, all in all, I think this whole thing is but a tempest in a very cold cup of tea.

Motions for Papers
For some time members ol the opposition have acted as if those incidents were an extremely important matter. And yet, such is not the case.
The circumstances in which the incidents took place may have been unusual, and I realize it must seem strange to many hon. members to find that, for the first time in the history of Canada, our armouries have to be protected.
I think that as soon as it was possible to do so, and immediately after the first theft, the Minister of National Defence and the army authorities took the necessary steps to that end. Since then, the Minister of National Defence has also indicated in the house that there were two kinds of steps that had to be taken.
The first was an emergency measure: weapons scattered throughout the country in armouries and cadet camps had to be stored in safe places; complete security was necessary. People forget that even cadets have not only .22 but also .303 and automatic ones. No risk could be taken and we decided to store them in safe places.
The second step-the minister also pointed it out-was to put these weapons in a place which could be temporarily watched on a round the clock basis. During that period, we had to determine measures which could be carried out in our armouries and our militia establishments in order to assure a greater protection. When that second phase was completed, the arms would then be returned where they came from.
Mention was made of raids. That term was used by members of the opposition, and if the armed forces were held up to ridicule, I think it is due to the opposition.
During all the operations held throughout the country, there were perhaps one or two incidents difficult to explain; but I do not believe anyone is to blame, and certain opinions may not have been entirely well-founded.
It is unfortunate, that attempts were made to play politics with such a small matter.
As for the motion now before us, I believe that if we had to table all the orders and regulations that the Minister of National Defence and myself-and may I say that I accept also the responsibility for what happened-I do not know what would happen. It is possible that the national security may not be in danger, as suggested by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). But, even then, what purpose would that serve? We would establish a precedent and later on, the minister of defence would be required to table orders and instructions-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the minister allow me to ask a question? Does he consider the Department of National Defence as as crown corporation under the present administration?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not see the gist of the hon. member's question.
The Department of National Defence must necessarily decide what can be dangerous or what can affect the security of our country or the work we are trying to do. In this case, if we had revealed all the places from which weapons were to be removed, I feel we would have played right into the hands of those who seem to want to steal those weapons.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I claim we are right in refusing to table the orders and directives referred to in this motion.
I might add that there has been no dishonesty here, either on the part of the Minister of National Defence or on mine.
I feel that this should not incite any one in this house to make inaccurate reports which, after all, can only discredit the government and the ministers.
There is also another point which I would like to explain to the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), who seems to believe that efforts were made among members of the armed forces to embarrass the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend from Lake St. John that there was no such action. On the contrary, we received full co-operation on the part of all superior officers of the Department of National Defence as well as on the part of those who were in charge of those operations. I must say also that we had no doubt about the sincerity of the people in charge of the arms at those places where we took them to put them in a safe place, but that we were afraid, and rightly so, that the arms they had might not be in a safe place and might be stolen, as it had happened, which would have increased the existing danger.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the Minister of National Defence is quite justified to turn down the motion for papers proposed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to direct only one question to the minister. Would he tell the house whether the orders given by the Department of National Defence concerning armouries and ammunition depots in some parts of the country have been issued in the ten provinces of Canada or only in certain given areas of the country?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, we want to provide a little more security for our armouries, and that has been done throughout the country. All we want is to reach a level of security which will avoid the necessity of having a round the clock watch.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) has just said that this matter is a tempest in a teapot. He even went so far as to say the teapot was cold. I should like to suggest to him that if he were to come into my part of the country he would soon find that the teapot was not cold, but was quite hot.
In my area of Ontario, and in Wellington South in particular, this is a very important issue. The minister spoke of unusual action being taken. I would say that most unusual action in this regard has been taken in the house in the minister's failure to reveal the directions he issued, and other information asked for by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). It was also unusual action to issue the instructions he did throughout the country. For instance, in my riding the sea cadet corps were issued with instructions to box up their rifles and ammunition and send them to Quebec, the very province where all this trouble started. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the people in my area thought of that. Why did the minister not order the sea cadet corps to place their guns and ammunition in the armouries in the city of Guelph? Those armouries were built years ago and have walls three feet thick with bars on the windows. There is an iron fence around the building. A three eight-hour shift guard could have been put around the armouries. Lots of soldiers are available, as well as reserves, to do this job of patrolling the armouries, and these guns and ammunition would have been a good deal safer there than in the province of Quebec.
I also think this is unusual action to take in the other provinces throughout Canada, aside from Ontario. Orders have been issued and guns and ammunition have been sent away. In this case we know they went to Quebec, but in many cases we do not know whether they are placed in armouries or somewhere else. We asked the minister to disclose these directives but he has not done so. While these guns and ammunition are away, the reserve forces can no longer train. They are marking time and waiting for their guns and ammunition to be returned.
The minister has talked about unusual action, Mr. Speaker, but I have never seen anything so unusual as this directive which
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan was issued by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) in this particular instance. There are throughout the country armouries which are fortresses, but the minister orders these weapons to be removed from within their walls to some place else.
It is now six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so I move the adjournment of this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, before the house began to deal with private members' business at five o'clock I had been discussing the effect of the proposed changes in the withholding tax which the minister brought forward in the budget speech the other night. I was suggesting that the new factor to which he referred was one which was not so new, but was one which we of the opposition had impressed upon him on various occasions during the last year. I do not want to continue to discuss that at this time except to say one further word. The minister, in addition to changing the rate, and bringing it down to 15 per cent, thereby avoiding any break in the ceiling as set forth in the tax convention, also made the spread 15 per cent and 10 per cent. In other words, there is a spread now of only 5 per cent between the good boys and the bad boys. Heretofore it was 20 and 10 and now it is 15 and 10. There will only be that margin of 5 per cent in the withholding tax having regard to whether it is a Canadian corporation, if I may use that term for lack of a better one, or one under foreign control.
Without being unkind, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister must have decided that these inducements were not too effective and therefore he has now reduced the spread to only 5 per cent. I know the minister and I know he is an optimist, and obviously those associated with him must be if they think

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan they are going to be here next year, but it was suggested in one of the leading financial columns this morning that the minister has established a spread of 5 per cent so that next year he can close the gap entirely and provide other incentives, rather than in income tax as he proposed one year ago. Far be it from me to comment on this degree of optimism at the moment. I will leave that to the Canadian people to decide. I do not think there is any necessity to say anything further on the withholding tax at this time.
I was somewhat disturbed about a matter which is in the minister's budget speech, and to give the background of it I think I should first read a short extract from the speech he made the other night. These words were uttered with all the modesty of the gentlemen opposite who speak on behalf of the government. As found on page 977 of Hansard he said:
Businesses in Canada should make a conscious effort to purchase supplies and components Irom Canadian sources whenever these are competitive-
It sounds to me like good old Tory doctrine, rather than that of a progressive Liberal government. However, the minister no doubt can reconcile that with his conscience.
-to use Canadian professional firms and other services-
I make no comment on that.
-and to carry on in Canada all the industrial functions that can be performed efficiently here, including, particularly, basic industrial research and design.
I must say that I could generally subscribe to that statement but I was somewhat disturbed in reading the budget resolutions dealing with income tax. I do not propose to deal with this in detail because others of my colleagues will, but there is one proposal by the minister in his speech which is, as I said, rather disturbing. It is one dealing with research. I have not had a chance to do all the research work which one would like to do, although "research" perhaps is an improper term at this time. Perhaps I should say all the study which I would like to do.
As I recall the situation, since 1948 the provision in the Income Tax Act dealing with deductions for research has specified that the research work should be done in Canada. I believe this has been the policy of the governments of Canada since that time. At one time this was a matter which caused the government of which I was a member a great deal of concern. Formerly capital deductions could only be made to the extent of 5 per cent. In other words, if you had capital expenditures for research work deductions were allowed only up to 5 per cent of taxable income.

We felt that encouragement should be given to research in Canada and therefore we abrogated the 5 per cent provision and allowed any capital expenditure for research to be deducted from taxable income, provided the research was carried on in Canada. Then we had a problem with respect to encouraging research generally in Canada. We were quite well aware of what was going on. More and more of our scientists and technicians were being attracted south of the border to do research work there. The government of which I had the honour to be a member gave the matter very careful consideration and discussed it with various people in industry, including some who were affiliated with some of those corporations of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) takes a rather dim view; in other words, subsidiaries of American corporations. We were told by them that we could encourage research work to be done in Canada by giving a bonus and that would result in keeping here some of our students, some of our technicians, some of the men who otherwise would be attracted south of the border. After very careful consideration, of course, the government took the responsibility, or I did-I am not putting the responsibility on any of those with whom we consulted- by saying that we would permit a deduction or an allowance, because it is more than a deduction, of 150 per cent for increased research work which was being done in Canada. We felt this was a proper step to take to encourage technicians, scientists and others engaged in research to remain in Canada since they might otherwise be going to the United States or perhaps abroad. We did this after consultation, as I said, with many corporations that had a very broad experience in these matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the proposal which we have in the income tax resolution which will be before us shortly is that the deduction for research may be made when the research is conducted outside of Canada. I think this is a matter to which we should pay special attention.


Mr. Cowan:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Did I hear a point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member is seeking permission to ask a question.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would prefer to answer any questions afterwards, rather than try to do so now. It is a quarter after eight and I know there are hon. gentlemen representing the various parties here who would like to speak on this matter tonight before the house rises at ten o'clock. I should like to conclude

my remarks. I can assure the hon. gentleman I am not going to take very much time. Perhaps if he has a question when I have completed my remarks, I will be glad to deal with it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard this speech on the C.B.C. at seven o'clock tonight. I thought we could save the time of the house, because we all know he is going to continue to criticize the budget deficit and also the failure to remove the sales tax.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you issue another writ?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would suggest that the hon. member must have been listening to CJBC which has been changed to a French language station and he could not understand what was said. I have not been interviewed; I have not spoken to anybody in connection with anything I am saying tonight. If they had the prevision or foresight to deal with this matter, I congratulate them, and I suggest that perhaps my hon. friend will have a very difficult job trying to control them in the city of Toronto in view of the prevision they have shown.
Have we any more questions at this point, Mr. Speaker?
I could go into this subject at greater length, but I know the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and other hon. members will be dealing with the income tax resolution at greater length. I am simply indicating some of the matters with which we are concerned at the moment. Frankly, this is one of the more fundamental matters. There may be an explanation. I should say that the resolution indicates a retroactive factor going back to 1942. Generally, I know the Minister of Finance would agree with me, retroactive factors should not be included in taxation matters. There may be, and probably is, a very good explanation for it. Possibly there have been some technical flaws in the act heretofore which make it necessary to go back, and I am not quarrelling with that at all. However, I do say one would expect the minister or his parliamentary secretary to give an explanation.


Mr. Gordon:: May I suggest to him that I think the hon. member means 1962 and not 1942.


George Clyde Nowlan: If I said 1942, I meant 1962. I know the minister would have obtained more wisdom than he has today if he went back to 1942. He would not have made the mistake he has made. I meant to say 1962. I assume that the minister will give the house an explanation on this matter in due course.
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
The other matter to which I referred was, why are we departing from the principle that the research work had to be done in Canada in order to qualify for income tax deduction? Perhaps the minister can assure me that I am wrong in this connection. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that both of these questions will be explained fully by the minister when he replies, so I will spend no further time on them.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer, and perhaps I should mention it at this time, although I am not referring to these things in chronological order. The budget, of course, deals with various factors, various features of our economy. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is here tonight, because I intimated to him that I wanted to raise a matter which I knew would be of interest to him. We are all, of course, concerned with the expanding economy of this country, and our expanding economy generally is determined by our export trade. I must say frankly that I was somewhat disappointed by the answer the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave the other day when I asked him about attendance at the commonwealth conference, which I believe was held yesterday prior to the Geneva conference tomorrow or the next day and for a long time thereafter.
I have no illusions as to the possibility of extending commonwealth trade. I know there are many roadblocks in the way. However, I feel we should pay more attention than ever before to the possibility of at least maintaining, if not developing and extending, our commonwealth trade. I think we were all very proud during the past week, in the light of the reports which we have been receiving concerning the attitude of British troops operating in Cyprus and the way in which they have maintained law and order under great difficulties and great provocation. When we look around us and see the various arguments, such as those in NATO which almost erupted the other day, the problems of the United Nations where, as the Prime Minister said the other night, there can be no solution to our problems if we are going to operate as individual nations, when we think of SEATO and some of the other organizations, we can take some pride in the fact that the commonwealth is a very vital factor in the world organization today.
I think we should give most careful consideration to the maintenance of commonwealth trade relationships and, I know it is difficult, to the extension of them. As I say, I informed the minister I was going to raise
1264	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan this matter tonight. I think we are all disturbed when we read in the press of a conflict between the European common market on the one hand, the United States and Canada on the other, with the United Kingdom halfway between the two in so far as the importation of agricultural products is concerned. If you read the New York Times, for instance, last Sunday, you would find there was the threat of a conflict between the European common market and the rest of us because they say, as I understand it, there is not going to be any diminution, no accommodation, of tariffs on agricultural products; that is it. "However" they say, "we of course expect you, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries to make concessions in negotiations with you in industrial products". On the other hand we read reports in the newspapers in Europe and we see that is not in keeping with the real facts of the case.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I read in the press that there are consultations going on between officials of the Canadian government in Ottawa and officials of the United States government in Washington, and once in a while there are even consultations with the officials of Great Britain. You would think, from reading some newspaper reports, that this was something original, something new, something that had not happened before.
But none of my colleagues in the former government, and I am quite sure also the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, have to be reminded that these conversations and consultations between officials of our two governments are nothing new and nothing original. They have been going on for years, particularly with regard to the possible entry of the United Kingdom into the common market and later with regard to the GATT negotiations, the Kennedy round so-called. As I say they have been going on for two or three years, and the same officials who conducted the negotiations two or three years ago are still conducting them today, and Canada can be very proud of the officials we have representing us.
The only reason I raise this matter at this time and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-although I may have something to say about his estimates in a few moments, to which he might like to listen-is that I would hope during this budget debate he will intervene to bring the House of Commons up to date on a matter which is of vital importance to the economy of the country. I know that he has certain confidences he must maintain and that he cannot disclose all the consultations going on, but within those limitations I hope


he will speak in this debate. That is all I intend to say about the matter at this time.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am taking longer than I intended to take, but that sometimes happens with an Irishman, even after March 17. The Minister of Finance has referred, not in his budget speech but in the bringing down of the estimates, to the fact that a substantial error was made, apparently by me last year, in dealing with debt costs, interest, management and so on. He made reference to that on two occasions and, even though he did not refer to it in the budget speech, I think I should deal with it now.
It is true that I underestimated the costs of the debt charges when we brought forward the estimates for the year just ended; but that, Mr. Speaker, was not an error in the proper sense of the word. I myself raised this matter with the officials of the Department of Finance when our estimates were being prepared, and I was told it had always been the policy of the Department of Finance, rightly or wrongly, not to accurately estimate the debt charges because obviously, if one did, the experts, the ones with the sharp pencils, the ones who know the intricacies of finance would be able to forecast certain things.
I may interpolate here that the estimates usually come down first and then the budget. The minister, being anxious to get his budget through, brought it down very shortly after the estimates had been tabled this year, but usually there is a time lag of some weeks, and anybody who sees the estimates and studies them, if the carrying charges have been estimated accurately, would be able to estimate what the situation would be during the coming year. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I could not do it. With all due respect, I doubt if you could; but those in the business, those with the sharp pencils and trained minds would be able to do that.
Therefore not only did I make this error but so did my predecesssors, Hon. Walter Harris, Hon. Douglas Abbott, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Hon. Charles Dunning, Hon. E. N. Rhodes, and Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, going back to the I930's.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Hon. J. A.
Robb?


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not check with regard to Hon. James Robb but my hon. friend opposite, having been in the closet of the privy council throughout those years, will undoubtedly be able to tell me exactly what Hon. James Robb did.
I am not suggesting the Minister of Finance deliberately put an emphasis on this, but

when he referred to it as being an error- in fact he said it was a colossal error on the part of the former minister of finance- I would point out that there were very good precedents for the error which I made, which was in keeping with the policy of the Department of Finance since at least the 1930's.
Also speaking of the estimates perhaps I could interpolate here that apparently the practice is being changed this year. Apparently the minister, after consultation with his officials, decided that the estimates should be made more accurate in anticipation of charges rather than what was the practice heretofore. I have no quarrel with that. It might be, although I am not saying it is, the right practice to follow, but at any rate it will be a departure from the practice of the Department of Finance for the last 30 odd years.
The minister has made provision for education and, of course, as I have said, this was a very prosaic, pedantic budget, and one could understand why; but I would like to point out that within a year or two the minister will be dealing with tremendous demands for the extension of education in Canada. What he has done in this budget is not enough. Just to keep people in high school is not enough. We are going to have to provide facilities, and whether there will be loans to university students or whether there will be fellowships, or whatever there may be, there will have to be provision made for millions of dollars for the extension of our educational facilities.
In this respect I was rather disappointed that there was nothing in the budget which showed any imagination, any preview, any suggestion that we would be confronted with these problems in the future. As a matter of fact these problems are here now, and I rather deplore the fact that this forward looking minister and this government, which had all the answers, completely overlooked that fact in bringing down the budget.
To come now to what is usually considered the root of the budget, that is, the figures, the budgetary deficits, the expenditures and so on and so forth regarding the financial position of the country at this time, the major criticism which could be levelled against this government from this angle is its absolute failure to control the expenditures of the government. If you look at the estimates, pages 4 and 5, Mr. Speaker, you will find more than 50 items of expenditures and over 40 of them show increases over the preceding year.
The increases are very substantial. There are some, of course, which are inevitable. There is, for example, the world fair which
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan is an expenditure that the parliament of Canada has approved, and naturally the government should include that. Then there is the office of the commissioner for representation under our proposed redistribution bill. Obviously there is a substantial expenditure there, and no one can complain about that.
Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is here, perhaps for a moment I could refer to him. I have the figures of various departments but I do not intend to trouble the house with them. However, I should like to refer to this for a moment. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last year we created a Department of Industry. Whether there was a divorce or whether some other term might better be used, there was a separation between the old Department of Trade and Commerce and the industrial sector, presumably, so now we have two departments -the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Industry. I think we will all agree, without passing bouquets around at this time, that the Department of Trade and Commerce is one of the more efficiently run departments of the Canadian government. I have no hesitation whatever about saying that. You will remember, too, Mr. Speaker, that we had a Department of Defence Production. This was maintained, as I understand it, in a sort of cold storage but it was to be associated or affiliated with the Department of Industry.
Let us look at the figures for last year. In the main estimates for the year just ending, that is, the year ending on March 31, the Department of Defence Production had $22,700,000-I am dealing, now, with the main estimates, not with the supplementaries. In the coming year, with the creation of the Department of Industry, this figure, the figure for defence production has been reduced to only $17,799,000. But the new Department of Industry has $24,194,000 so that altogether the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry have available in the main estimates a total of $41,993,000- perhaps we could call it $42 million-or $19,200,000 more than the Department of Defence Production for last year and the Department of Trade and Commerce which, as I say, is very efficiently run and which has now been divorced of responsibility for industry-it does not have this responsibility at all-and these figures do not include expenditures in connection with the world fair or anything like that, the increase in expenditures for the Department of Trade and Commerce is $9,319,000. That is illustrative of the increase in spending which has taken place in almost every department of the government.
Now let me summarize the main estimates for a moment. The main estimates amount

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan to a total of $6,730 million. The Minister of Finance the other night quite properly estimated that the supplementary estimates might swell the total budgetary expenditure during the coming year to $7,125,000,000-of course, that is an estimate and the hon. gentleman is not committed to it. But this will be the first time our annual budgetary expenditures have gone over the $7 billion mark.
I know there is expansion on all sides. I know that progress demands expansion. I know our population is increasing. I know that old people are living longer, thank heavens, so perhaps I shall live longer, too. I know there are all these expenditures which have to be maintained. But I do think the time has come when the Minister of Finance and the treasury board should pay great attention to the situation which has been reached.
I cannot help wondering what is to happen with regard to the recommendations of the Glassco commission. The minister said in Toronto that various studies were being carried out by industrial research people to consider the recommendations of that commission. A year ago we were told that the recommendations of the commission would be implemented. Now we are told that four industrial research companies are studying the recommendations of the commission and I presume that when they have finished, there will be further industrial research corporations retained to study the findings of these four industrial research corporations. Well, that is not the way to control expenditure in this country.
To understand what is happening, all one needs do is to consider the figures which were given us the other day relative to the advertisements placed by the government in an attempt to secure employment for older men. We were told-and this information was contained in a press release dated March 10 to supplement information given to the house- that 936 people had been placed up to a date early in March, and that we had spent $199,511 on advertisements in connection with their employment. This amounts to the fact that we have spent $213 per man in order to find employment for a few people under this great incentive plan which the Minister of finance indicated as being the answer to our economic problems.
One could go on and on. I have an advertisement here in which I think the Minister of Finance would be tremendously interested. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be interested in it, too. I have an advertisement here for a civil service position. The advertisement is for a morbidity officer. If there is any government which needed a morbidity officer more urgently than the

present one, I have never heard of it. I presume he is to be appointed to the office of Minister of Finance because I cannot imagine anyone who is more morbid than he is.
Mr. Speaker, I promised some of my associates in this house that I would not speak for longer than 20 minutes. I beg their indulgence for having, as an Irishman, so near to March 17, given myself 20 minutes leeway. Having said that, I propose to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets that the government has failed to take any effective action to control increasing expenditures and its failure so to do, despite increased taxation imposed at the last session, has resulted in a substantial deficit.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I can understand the difficulty which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) had in dealing with this budget, because one of the Toronto newspapers which normally supports this government had a somewhat plaintive little headline in it the other day asking whether this Liberal government really could afford quite such a Tory budget. It seemed to me there was a touch of ingratitude in the tones of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) in his attempts to tear to pieces a budget that should have been right down his alley.
I was interested, too, in the amendment that he proposed. It struck me as a typical example of primitive Tory thinking of which, I may say, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is not altogether free, either. There seems to be an idea among a great many people-and it is very prevalent in the party to my right-that budgets can be divided into two categories: there are good budgets, and there are bad budgets; and there is a very simple yardstick by which to choose between them-good budgets are those that reduce the deficit; bad budgets are those that increase the deficit. It is a very nice, simple formula; but, of course, it has almost no relevance whatever to a modern, industrial society.


Mr. Fisher:: It did not have to them, either.


Colin Cameron: It did not have to them, either, as my colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has said. But I think it is as well, perhaps, that we realize this when loud cries are raised against the possibility that we are going to have a deficit, or when our Minister of Finance sticks his chest out and suggests that he is worthy of praise and accolades because he proposes to cut some 33J per cent from the deficit. There may be circumstances in which such a move would be

virtuous, would be wise; there may also be circumstances in which it is supreme tolly, and I suggest that this particular situation is not quite so clearcut as some would have us believe.
This budget, of course, is in very great contrast to last year's. It makes one a little bit nostalgic, perhaps. It really was great fun, of course, when our new Minister of Finance went skipping across the economic fields with all the rest of us and the business world in full cry after him. Then, of course, he stubbed his toe and came to grief. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it was a lot of fun. And events have proved us right; they have proved us to be perfectly right. It was a contradictory budget; he did adopt the wrong methods to achieve the right ends; and finally, of course, it was rather a failure as the chart to the shining new Liberal world that we were to have. But still, Mr. Speaker, I am a little nostalgic, as I say, for that other budget, because even though it was a silly budget; even though it was contradictory; even though it flew in the face of all economic reason, nevertheless it had some qualities that do not attach to the present limp and uninteresting document that we are discussing tonight-because it was an imaginative budget; it was a budget that was designed to accomplish something. The fact that they were foolish methods of accomplishing things does not alter the fact that this was a budget that, shall we say, could be regarded in the modern context; could be regarded as budgets should be regarded today, not merely as the government's housekeeping list but as the government's approach to the whole direction of our economy.
We may have disagreed with what the minister attempted to do, but I do not think any of us could disagree with the aims expressed in that unfortunate budget of last year. The very fact that it was regarded by the minister in a modern context was, I think, very important; and I think it is quite tragic that something has now happened and that, having gained the experience and learned, one would hope, the lesson of how not to accomplish these things, the minister has either chosen or has been unable to follow through with the same type of budget based on sounder principles. It was, of course, regarded, quite rightly, as part of the complex of economic measures by which the government proposed to deal with our complex economy; it was not to be just a housekeeping business.
I think that for a few minutes it might be well if we were to dwell upon what are the real purposes and functions of a budget in this modern age. All too often people seem to think it is merely a casting of accounts. They
The Budget-Mr. Cameron seem to forget that the budget is a complex piece of mechanism which can be used to produce almost any result which those in control of it wish to effect. I suppose one might say its first purpose is that it should be designed to promote an equitable distribution of income, as equitable as is feasible in a fallible world. That, of course, would include dealing with the question of unemployment; dealing with the development of our economy to make sure that all our people have the opportunity to attach themselves to a paying job. It will not do for the Minister of Finance to sweep the unemployed under the rug by labelling them with little figures and saying, "We have an anonymous object in Ontario, which we mark 3 per cent; another anonymous object in British Columbia, which we mark 4 per cent; a much larger anonymous object in Quebec, which we mark 6 per cent; and in the maritimes, where we mark it 8 per cent". These are actual men, women and children, and you cannot push them under the rug and say that because there are fewer of them than there were last year, therefore we do not need to worry very much about them. That, I think, is perhaps one of the first functions of a budget.
Another one, of course, which is connected very closely with it, is the expansion of production in order to effect a wider material base on which to live and build a civilized society. Then I would suggest there is an even more important function of the modern budget and one which is going to become more and more important as time goes on; that is, that it should improve the quality of life for the people of the economy for which it is set up. More and more this is going to become of overriding importance; more and more we are going to find that it is not sufficient merely to arrange that no one is going to starve in our midst, or even to arrange that most people will be living at fairly comfortable levels. Very shortly governments are going to have to assume the responsibility for the very quality of life within the confines of the country. That will entail quite drastic economic measures; not the rather gentle, hesitant ones which we have had to date. It may even entail a complete recasting of our concepts of the purposes of human life.
We are emerging right now from the virtuous Victorian era in which hard work was a virtue no matter what the end of that work might be. We are emerging from the era in which all beauty, shall we say, all the more civilized accompaniments of life had to take second place to the grim business of producing material goods that we could touch and feel and see. It is not going to be good

The Budget-Mr. Cameron enough merely to provide for the material welfare of people. They have to be given the opportunity to live satisfying lives; and they will not live satisfying lives in a barbarous society. Very often when I look on the Canadian scene, it seems to me that we do live in largely a barbarous society in which goals are held before our people that would be appropriate, perhaps, to the savages in Patagonia, perhaps to the native blacks of Australia who have not yet emerged to a higher standard of civilization. But for allegedly civilized people many of the goals that are held before us are trivial, are time wasting and are in fact destructive of the human spirit.
On this question of the equitable distribution of income we have, of course, been moving to some degree in that direction. All our social welfare measures, all our transfer payments, our graduated income tax have been steps toward effecting a more equitable distribution of income. But it has been almost, a snail-like pace at which we have been travelling; and just as snail-like, to my mind, before the fine, clean broom of the Liberal party as it was before the tattered, old besom of the Conservative party. We need to go much faster than we have gone, and there is plenty of room in which to make that progress.
Today I received from a concern in Vancouver, British Columbia, a most interesting little leaflet which to me points to some of the areas in which our Minister of Finance might have moved. I have before me a very tempting advertisement which offers me the opportunity to make tax free capital gains from a very modest investment, tax free capital gains which would be most encouraging, I should think. Certain stocks which one could buy had a low of $6.15 and rose to a high of $21.38, showing an increased book value of 247 per cent. As this advertisement says:
Find the easy way to get that "extra cash" you are looking for.. .tax-free.. .What you make -you keep-all of it.
Then follows a list of stocks which one is advised to buy. Of course, you can lose your shirt, but on the other hand if you do not lose your shirt then, according to this gentleman who has distributed this leaflet, you have great hopes of finally reaching million-airedom. Then there is this pleasant little comment about our modern economy:
Canada is one of the few countries in the world where millions of dollars can be made in the stock market without paying a cent in capital gains taxes. Thousands of traders and speculators from all over have made king-size fortunes here in past years and will continue doing so because of our nation's unlimited wealth in natural resources. We go so far as to suggest that the

profit opportunities will be greater this year than in any previous year in history. Read our financial service for investors, which we mail without charge every week.
One presumes that most of the people who, shall we say, play with this particular outfit will, as I say, lose their shirt.


An hon. Member:: What about Clarkson, Gordon?


Colin Cameron: No, I do not see their names here, and had they been here I might have let the minister know. But presumably there are people who have had more fortunate results from such operations, otherwise these people could not be in business. And they can only be in business because this government, like all its predecessors, Liberal and Conservative, has stubbornly refused to do anything to control capital gains in this country.
We had a striking example of this a few years ago in this chamber when the figures of the capital gains tax-free profits made by those who engaged In the trans-Canada pipe line were revealed. They were almost astronomical sums, and we were informed at that time that not even one five cent piece got into the national treasury. So I suggest that one area in which a more equitable distribution of income could be achieved is by preventing a grossly inequitable distribution of that income, as has taken place so often in the past.
The need for this is plainly evident to anybody who cares to walk through the streets of any of our cities. We do not need any vast tomes of social science analysis; all we need is to walk through some of the streets in the city of Ottawa and then go to some other parts of the city of Ottawa, and we will find a gross disparity of income among Canadians, a disparity that civilized people should be ashamed to maintain. I hope that when the government does come eventually to amend its taxation provisions perhaps it will call on the gentleman whose name I saw mentioned yesterday in the paper, which displayed an extremely attractive photograph and a speculative story that he might be entering the cabinet. I hope he will turn back to the speech he made a year or so ago when he was sitting on the opposition side of the house. I quoted it to him a few months ago and I am not going to quote it again tonight. It is an excellent speech and it will remain an excellent speech; and if, as I hope, and as I am sure all of us hope, this speculation is correct and this gentleman is to be translated to a higher sphere, then he can look forward to having that speech quoted to him quite a number of times, if he does not use the figures he himself

placed upon the record of this house to overcome some of the inequities of our taxation system, thereby improving, as I say, the inequitable distribution of income.
All of us agree that one of the aims of our budgetary provisions-I am speaking in larger terms than merely the housekeeping accounts -should be the expansion of wealth production in the country. This government brought forward a number of measures which were designed to achieve that and also to achieve a wider distribution of wealth producing facilities in the country. The latest reports one hears are that, in spite of the carrots dangled before industry, there have not been too many nibbles and not much anxiety to move into the designated areas, as these days we so politely call the areas not quite so prosperous as other parts of Canada.
I am wondering how long it will be before the government realize that the carrot method is not very efficacious and that something much more drastic has to be done: as drastic, for instance, as was done in Great Britain, not by a forward-looking, progressive Liberal government but by a stale, worn-out Tory government to induce industry to go into areas which they wanted to have developed, by investing large sums of public money in the building of plants and the renting of them to industries who would move in. The Conservative party's weakness, of course, was revealed in the fact that the British taxpayer was forced to subsidize any of these industries which went into such areas, because these industries were given plants at nominal rents. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before long our government will have to realize that if it is going to overcome the centripetal force that is drawing industry into a few areas of the country they will have deliberately to wrench it away by massive public investment in industry in those undeveloped areas.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be safe to do this, because in spite of the fears of extravagance expressed tonight by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) any of these industries which moved into a designated area are going to be under the control and direction of perhaps the most gimlet-eyed member of the cabinet, and one can hardly imagine too much extravagance being permitted under those gimlet eyes. But I suggest that now is the time that the government must think in those terms. It is not good enough for the Minister of Finance to tell us that because things are economically so cheerful today there is no need to do anything. He rather reminds me of the man who has a leaky roof, and who points out, quite naturally:
The Budget-Mr. Cameron "Of course, I cannot mend the roof when it is raining and there is no need to mend it when it is not raining."
It does not happen to be raining now, but we know quite well that clouds will be coming upon the scene before long and now is the time that our Minister of Finance should get out his little hammer and shingles and get after the roof, while he still has a number of shingles to use, instead of taking pride in having thrown a lot of the shingles away or having failed to obtain the shingles available to him to mend that roof.
I should mention another matter which I thought was, or perhaps should be, one of the purposes of a modern budget, and that is the purpose of improving the quality of life. This to me is really the most serious problem any government faces today. Anyone who observes some of the aspects of the affluent society, both south of the line and our more modest version of it north of the line, must realize all too well the need for vast public investment in what I would call intellectual stimulants badly needed by our people, so that we Canadians do not have, as we so often do, to grimace and shiver at the tastes which our compatriots display in comparison with the tastes displayed by people in more sophisticated areas of the world. But this can only be done by vast expenditures of public funds. Last year I was in Europe and visited a number of quite small cities, much smaller than the city of Ottawa. In fact, they would hardly be called cities in our country. In each case they had a first class symphony orchestra paid for from the revenues of the municipality, and encouraged, I suppose, because almost the whole population turned out to hear the high quality performances they put on. I wondered just what was the difference. Why do these people engage so readily in this sort of expenditure while we shudder away from the very thought of spending even a few dollars on a slight subsidy for a theatrical enterprise or an artistic enterprise of any sort?
I would urge on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) that it is part of his job to see that the quality of Canadian life is improved in this manner. It will take a vast investment of funds to do so. We hear a great deal about the necessity of expending funds on education, and no one supports this more enthusiastically than I, who had very little opportunity for an education; but it cannot only be formal education. There must be opportunities for people to see the best in art, to hear the best in music. There must be opportunities for people to develop sophisticated and worth-while tastes in the field of literature. Unless we do we are going to

The Budget-Mr. Cameron remain barbarians, and in a world that is rapidly moving we are going to find ourselves in a backwater.
Mention has been made of the drain of scientific brains out of the country, and of the expenditure of public funds by the Canadian authorities on scientific research outside of Canada. Very often we hear complaints made that we spend money on educating young Canadians only to have them leave and go across the border and devote their developed talents to the building up of another economy and another society. I was discussing this matter a month or two ago with a young woman in Vancouver who is an eminent scientist, and she told me that this is quite a wrong picture of the situation, that Canadian scientists have no desire to go to the United States, that it takes more than money to take them there. They are driven there by the fact that there are no employment opportunities for them in Canada. They just cannot find places.
She told me that she herself knew of many young scientists who would have been only too glad to obtain employment in Canada at substantially lower rates than they would receive in the United States, but there were just no places for them. There were no places for them because our Minister of Finance, for one, considers it a virtue to cut down the deficit, considers that he must make obeisances to those rather antiquated gods of orthodoxy when our country is crying out for the type of development that would create substantial employment for such people.
These are things that I think budgets and those who make them should have in mind. The great function of a budget is to improve the quality of life, to increase the quantity of wealth available for supporting that life and also, of course, to fit our country to take part in an effective way in the developmental program that must be undertaken by our United Nations organizations if we are going to have a worth-while world in which a developed Canada can live.
Before closing I should like to say a few words about another matter with which the budget is connected to some degree. Like most Canadians, and certainly, I think, like all intelligent Canadians, I have been disturbed and saddened by the growing rift appearing between two sections of our people, by the increasing bitterness of language, the increasing heat of the exchanges that are being made. I am reminded of something that happened long, long ago, something that I can see across the dark chasm and abyss of time of nearly half a century. I can see quite clearly before my eyes a certain sign that one saw plastered on the walls of every

building in France and Belgium, in estaminets, in cafes, on trains, everywhere where troops were likely to congregate. It was a very simple little sign. Taisez-vous. Mefiez-vous. Les oreilles ennemies vous ecoutent.

Where is the danger? Where are our enemies? Are they in France, in Montreal, in the province of Quebec or elsewhere? No, because we must not look for them without but within ourselves. Our worst enemies are our ears which hear the smallest insults and hurt our pride. They are more dangerous and more insidious than our enemies in France or Montreal.

They are the ears of our malice, of our stupidity, of our ignorance, of our sheer ill will, and those ears are hanging out today to catch every ill considered word, every hurting, wounding comment, every derogatory statement made by one side or the other in this conflict. I feel this very strongly, because unlike most of you here my Canadian national identity was not inherited. It is one I had to build myself bit by bit, and perhaps I built it more strongly or more clearly than at any other time when, as a young man in the uniform of Canada's army, I spent four years in northern Europe.
Significantly enough, a great proportion of those with me at that time were like myself, but there was not one of us there in northern France at that time who was not consciously there as a Canadian representing Canada. We knew, if we had never known before, that Canada was our home, and I suggest that at that time for the first time Canada emerged as a really distinct national identity, and some of us paid a very heavy price for that identity. It is about time we presented our bill and it is a bill which must be paid. That bill is this: We will not permit anyone to destroy that national identity upon which our own identities are based.
The other day when we sent Canadian soldiers to Cyprus the thought occurred to me that perhaps there were some people we might send with that contingent to very good advantage. We might, for instance, pick up the young men who use the term "frog" as an insult, pick up the young men who consider it is the part of patriotism to burn union jacks, and ship them to Cyprus. Take them to Limassol. Take them to Nicosia. Show them the bodies of men, women and children who are dead as the end result of this tossing of insults across the language and cultural fence. I can say from personal experience that there is nothing like a few corpses to induce some serious and salutary thinking in

even the most irresponsible heads on the brevity of human life and the irrevocability of death.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that even if we do not send these people from both sides of this country to see the end results of their folly, they may themselves be able to draw a lesson from this. I think most of us felt when the troops went to Cyprus that here was one occasion upon which all of us, whether we be pacifists, militarists or whatever we might be, could be united in our pride in the action being taken by Canada and in the service being performed by Canadians.
In order that we may be able to play a much more effective role in this field in the future, there are those of us who think we should be devoting an even larger part of our substance towards this sort of work. In line with that thought, I wish to present now an amendment to the amendment of the official opposition. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "any effective action", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"reduce defence expenditures so as to provide substantial savings which could be used for economic development in Canada and for increased aid to developing countries through the United Nations and its specialized agencies."
The amendment, as amended, would then read:
This house regrets that the government has failed to take any effective action to reduce defence expenditures so as to provide substantial savings which could be used for economic development in Canada and for increased aid to developing countries through the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like again to address a plea to those on both sides of this rift that has developed. My plea would be a repetition of that warning that was held before us in France. Taisez-vous, Mefiez-vous. Les oreilles ennemies vous ecou-tent.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: In rising to take part in this debate to comment on the contents of the budget, one is faced immediately with the problem of whether he should address his remarks to the contents of the budget or to the omissions from the budget. We in this party acknowledge that there are one or two important proposals in the budget. Having said that, we must hasten to add that there are several matters of even greater importance that received only passing reference. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that paramount amongst these omissions is the enormous increase in the public debt charges. Surely it would be erroneous to assume that
The Budget-Mr. Olson members of the government generally, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) particularly, are not concerned about the largest of all of the increases in annual public expenditures. If, however, he is concerned and yet did not even mention it in his budget review, then we must assume he does not know what to do about it. Has the minister resigned himself to the belief that this progressively accelerating cost of debt is tantamount to some kind of malignant disease for which there is no treatment or cure? I want to say more about that a little later.
Usually the members of this house, and of course the press, attempt to give a budget a name, a short title that sums up the contents of the budget in a word or two. This practice has been followed again this year. We have heard it called such things as, "stand-by"; a "hold the line budget"; and we have even heard it called the fifth chapter in last year's edition. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we see captions in the press referring to this budget as "the students' budget". There is very little substance in it, but the little there is is directed towards giving some assistance to young people. There is the extension of family allowances and the income tax allowance for part-time students. We have no objection to these provisions. I could quote, for example, from our election platform, and also produce a lot of correspondence that has passed between my office and the Department of Finance, to prove that we have advocated the adoption of this measure.
I am wondering whether or not the minister was thinking about the proposal to lower the voting age to 18 years when he prepared the budget. I am sure the minister and the government are very conscious of the fact that by amending the franchise to include the 18-year-olds we would be adding about 750,000 to the voters list. It is obvious this is not a pre-election budget, but perhaps it was a little precultivation which was considered to be prudent. I do not believe the minister had this sole purpose in mind, but when we look at the budget we find everything is the same as last year, except for some of these provisions.
There have been a number of charges levelled since the minister announced he was going to introduce the budget. Some people claimed it was too early; there seemed to be some unnecessary urgency to introduce it. There has even been the suggestion that this may have been done deliberately to harden the attitude of the federal government towards the provincial premiers when they meet in Quebec later this month. I happen to be one of those who believe budgets should
1272	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Olson come out and be introduced before the fiscal year begins with which they deal. Of course, this means they have to be introduced by the middle of March, and that is exactly when the minister introduced it. I am sure we can look back in history and find that the middle of March is the normal time for the introduction of the budget. Sessions of parliament have been thrown out of what might be called the normal pattern during the last two or three years because of elections. When we had the regular four sessions for each parliament, budgets were introduced in March, and I think there is nothing wrong with the timing.
There are one or two comments I should like to make about the minister's statement. I noticed that this year he only made a passing reference to the municipal development and loan board. Last year it was stated this was going to be one of the great new pieces of legislation introduced by the federal government to help the municipalities in Canada with their long term capital requirements problem. I read some of the speeches the minister gave at an earlier time. One of the things he mentioned over and over again when he was talking about the municipal development and loan fund was that it was primarily designed to create employment. I ask, is he satisfied now when we have 5.5 per cent unemployment? Is he satisfied that this and other measures the government introduced have reached their objective to the point where he does not need to extend the activities of the municipal development and loan board?
In his speech the minister referred to:
-the work that will he done, and the new jobs that will be created, as a result of funds made available by the municipal development and loan board
He also referred to the Atlantic development board; but I ask, is the reason that he has not expanded this plan because he is satisfied we have reached the point where there is sufficient employment being created?
At page 971 of his speech, referring to the matter of employment, he said:
This does not mean we can afford to be complacent. Our international deficit has been cut down, but it still remained more than half a billion dollars in 1963. And a level of unemployment around 5 per cent represents only progress-
If the municipal development and loan fund was so successful as he claims it has been, then on his own argument it should be expanded. He says this only represents progress, and that means only the jobs which have been created by the first $400 million, or whatever portion of that which has been spent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about regional incentives. The Minister of Finance had quite a lot to say about this


subject. I do not disagree that it is necessary and may have some desirable effects in some areas, but in my opinion having a three year tax holiday in these designated areas, and an accelerated write-off for income tax purposes, will have the effect of some industries being mislocated whenever these incentives are taken away. When that happens employees in an industry that has been improperly located will load a social problem on to the municipality concerned as soon as the incentives are withdrawn.
I should like the minister to take this point into consideration. I know there was one area in southern Alberta which was designated for this purpose. One industry which would have been better established about 120 miles away from that area-


An hon. Member:: In Medicine Hat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Budget-Mr. Olson Finance, and to put the increase in the 1964-65 fiscal year as compared with the figure for the 1963-64 fiscal year into proper perspective, I want to acknowledge the explanation made to the house by the minister on March 3 when he said that some of this increase was due to inaccurate estimates of the cost for previous years. Surely, one of the most astonishing statements we have heard in this house for years was that made by the former minister of finance this evening, when he told us that ministers of finance for the last 35 years have deliberately deceived parliament and the people of Canada when presenting their estimates in this regard. I want to know whether the present Minister of Finance is following that practice. Is this figure of $1,035 million also intended to mislead the house?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to answer the question. The answer is no; it is correct.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am glad we are finally getting some truth. Anyway, regardless of these explanations, the fact remains that the total for the coming year in interest alone stands at $1,005 million. The other $30 million represents amortization of discounts, premiums and commissions and so on. The comparable figure for interest alone for the year ending in 1957 was $508 million. In round figures, this amounts to a $500 million increase in interest charges during the past seven years. I do not think the Minister of Finance will disagree with that figure because it is in the blue books though, once again, I am alarmed to find that these blue books have been deliberately deceiving the house in the past.
This also means there has been an increase of almost 100 per cent during the same seven year period. Let us remember that this is not just a $500 million increase each year, compared with what we paid seven years ago, and every year from now it will go on, unless, of course, we pay off some of it. Projecting the same rate of increase into the future we find that by 1973 the taxpayers of this country will be paying $2 billion in annual debt charges alone.
Moreover, the interest on the debt in the year ending March 31, 1957, amounted to 11.5 per cent of our total expenditure. The interest on debt for the coming fiscal year calls for 15 per cent of the total estimated expenditure. If this pattern continues we shall be devoting 21 per cent of our total estimated expenditure to interest charges by 1973. This increase from 11.5 per cent of the total in 1957 to 15 per cent this year amounts to a 40 per cent rise in the portion of the expenditure incurred by the federal government in debt charges.


These enormous increases, both in themselves and as a percentage of total expenditure, are alarming enough, but even these figures do not tell the whole story. In 1957, current revenue was almost equal to expenditure. This year revenue will be $455 million below expenditure. If one calculates the increased cost of debt in relation to revenue, the percentage of increase appears, therefore, as even greater. This is what is happening, Mr. Speaker. We cannot turn our backs on it. We cannot ignore these charges, because we have to pay them. These debt charges represent by far the largest increase in any item for the year under consideration, yet the minister did not even refer to them in his budget speech.
There are, of course, two very obvious reasons for the tremendous increase which has taken place. The average rate of interest has gone up and the need for loans to meet the deficits of the past six years has added substantially to the principal of our national debt.
I do not have time in which to go into some of these other matters. But we thought we had the minister on the right track just after he brought in his last budget. We understood something was to be done to relieve the tremendous burden of municipal financing. But we do not see any extension of assistance in this regard. According to the latest figures available-and I obtained these figures only a few days ago-municipal debt had increased from $106 million in 1957 to $201 million by 1961. Projecting this rate of increase to 1965 it will be seen that there is likely to be substantially more than a 100 per cent increase during the intervening period. I do not know how much longer the minister thinks this kind of financing can go on, with up to 21 per cent for debt charges alone; municipalities, in some cases, paying 30 per cent to 35 per cent of their total budget for debt interest charges alone. We have heard nothing from the minister to suggest what he is going to do about it or how he is even going to slow down or reverse this trend.
We in the Social Credit party have advocated for years that some of this social capital in the beginning, progressively growing larger, could be subscribed by the Bank of Canada. We know there is an increase in the money supply every year. This year we are told debt charges amount to something like $1,035 million. Is there anything wrong with the Bank of Canada supplying some of the finance and paying it over to the federal treasury so it can be used for these social capital projects? This is all that we ask; we do not ask the government to flood the country with more money, to increase the money supply any faster than it is being increased

now. We think that with regard to some o f these things for which the municipalities incur social capital expenditure it is possible, reasonable and desirable for the Bank of Canada to provide some of the capital. Otherwise we can look into the future-and not too far into the future-to 1973, where the project is that we shall be paying $2 billion in debt charges on the national debt alone. The taxpayers of Canada will also be paying these enormous debt charges through the municipalities. We think the time has come to take the first step, even if it is not a great step, toward reversing this trend.
I think the municipal loan and development fund, if it were changed so that these funds were supplied by the Bank of Canada, would provide that first essential step for us to get back on the rails. I should remind the minister that the New Democratic party are not against deficits. I think if we go back over the years it is rather easy to convince oneself and anyone to whom you are talking that the only time we have had a reasonably high level of prosperity is when somebody has been incurring a deficit. The government, industrial expansion or the expansion of consumer credit, can increase the money supply in the country. But if we are going to have tagging along with it these debts and enormous interest charges that are going to cripple us as the years go by, I think we should be taking a long, hard look at the situation.
We do not ask the government to go all the way and suddenly change things. Perhaps it could be done a little at a time. The money that is required for social capital purposes is called social credit by our party; the New Democratic party call it social capital. This could be taken from the Bank of Canada in stages so we would not have these enormous debt service charges to meet. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the Minister of Finance to give some consideration to these proposals.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, when he entered triumphantly into the city of Orange, Julius Caesar had every reason to shout:
Veni, vidi, vici.
I came, I saw, I conquered.
About the current budget, one could say: It came, we saw, we gained nothing.
Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare asked:
To be or not to be?
Well, we might ask: "Budget or no budget?"
To turn to a French poet, Mr. Speaker, Francois Villon, in a short poem, may have expressed very well what I think of that budget. He wrote:
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire
Dans un vieux cimetiere
Un fossoyeur creusait
II fit jaillir de terre
Un crane qui dormait.
En veux-tu du vieux frere?
Me dit-il et je refusals.
That is somewhat the impression this budget gives me.


Douglas Mason Fisher: But Villon is the rogue's poet.


Gilles Grégoire: You will have to say it in French, my friend.

A chemist would define the budget as he defines clear water: something tasteless, colourless and odorless.

Tasteless, colourless, utterless.


Douglas Mason Fisher: "Utterless"?


Gilles Grégoire: Utterless. Crystal clear. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that this happens exactly the second year in office of this government and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
Does it mean that the present government and the Minister of Finance after only two years are so devoid of inspiration that we can see the results in the budget?
Does it mean that they could not give us more or that they did not think of giving us more in spite of all their election promises, since when their second budget is brought down, they did not have enough imagination to give us more than what we saw, a few days ago, in their second budget?
Short of breath. No imagination. It was only good for a year. Not even for two years.
Where are all those ideas they had before the election when they were in the opposition?
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the present Minister of Finance when he was sitting in the opposition. He had many ideas at that time. Then, he was able to do everything. Oh. He was really brilliant. He was to revolutionize this country's whole economy. But today, what has he got to say? His favourite word is "but".
He says: there is a great deal of unemployment still, but. . . Always the word "but". Then he says: We improved the balance of national accounts, but-


An hon. Member:: But all is well.


Gilles Grégoire: But all is well. And again, he says: I admit that there is still some unemployment, but-


An hon. Member:: All is well.

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire


Gilles Grégoire: That has been the main theme of the Minister of Finance: the little word "but", after each admission.
What progress did we make with the first budget? We remained at a standstill, we toed the line instead of going ahead.
I realize that after last year's budget, the Minister of Finance might be somewhat afraid. There is a saying: A burnt child shuns the fire. Perhaps that is what happened this year.
At any rate, the last budget is no progress, and where there is no progress, there is a set-back.
Deficits once more. Borrowings once more. A $750 million deficit is predicted. Taxes once more.
What difference is there between the Conservatives and the Liberals? Not the least.
1 am pleased to note that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) agrees with me. Nothing has changed. At least, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has the courage to admit it and I commend him for it. What difference is there between the budget just introduced and the one submitted by the Conservatives for five or six years? No difference at all. It is always the same. As time goes by, there is more of the same.
There is no use kidding ourselves, nothing has been changed. The Minister of Finance wants us to believe in the economic situation of Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, I too would like you to believe in the situation which now exists, and I may not see it with the eyes of an accountant or a Minister of Finance, but as we see it in our own offices when we meet electors, workers, farmers, unemployed people of our constituencies who have lost their jobs at the radar station of St. Sylvestre or Parent in the county of Chapleau, or when we talk with unemployed workers from the counties of Lapointe, Villeneuve, or those from the counties of Lake St. John and Lotbiniere.
They know what the situation is in Canada because they have evidence of it in their homes, within their families and all around them. I will try to describe to you the true financial, monetary and economic situation of Canada.
Let us start with the financial situation. The most striking fact about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it is disastrous. The national debt is disastrous, a disaster, that is, for Canada.
To realize that, you just have to refer to the 1963-64 Canada Year Book. Unfortunately, I cannot consult the French edition because I am told it will be published six months after the English edition, because the Minister of Finance is too poor to have the two editions published simultaneously.
Mr. Speaker, our national debt amounted to $17,923 million in 1954. Today, in 1963, it

amounts to $24,799 million, that is an increase of $7 billion. In 1954, the interest amounted to $476 million yearly; in 1963, it amounted to $883 million-pardon me, there is an error of $102 million, as the Minister of Finance pointed out the other day-which brings the interest on the debt to $985 million for 1963 and $1,370 million for 1964.
The interest is disastrous and so is the debt. Mr. Speaker, the government keeps on borrowing and the Minister of Finance has announced that he will seek to borrow $750 million this year.
That is the debt of the federal government. There are also the debts of the provincial governments, the school boards, the municipalities. In 1960-the last year for which a complete report is available-the debt of the federal government amounted to $21,369 million, the provincial debts amounted to $3,699 million and the municipal debts to $4,771 million, that is a total of $29,565 million.
A debt of $30 billion for the government, whereas the money in circulation to cover that amount is barely $2,500 million, plus the money in cheques; the money supply totals between $16 and $17 billion, probably even a little less, perhaps $15 or $16 billion this year, which means that there is not enough money in circulation to pay the whole debt.
The federal government debt alone amounts to $8 billion more than all the money Canadians have in hand, in their bank accounts, in companies' chests, in savings of all kinds and everywhere in Canada.
What is to be done when one has more debts than assets?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that, as an accountant, he will be able to give me an answer. I am told that his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Benson) is also an accountant. Here is my question. How do you call a company or corporation whose debts are greater than its assets? Do not be shy about telling us. It is a bankrupt company. Well, the federal government alone has a debt exceeding by $8 billion its assets in cash, cheques, legal tender, money supply or credit in circulation.
But notice, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government likes to be in debt. It likes to borrow. I wonder if it is still qualified to administer the country.
I was reading today what the functions of the government are with regard to boards and corporations and I found the information appalling.
It likes to borrow, and the best solution it has to offer Canadians is to get deeper

into debt. And you will realize it by the examples I shall provide.
First of all, there is the municipal loans board. Let us loan to the municipalities, this will help them.
We shall establish a commission to help students. We shall lend them money; we shall help them to run into debt.
There are also the loans to farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation, and under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Let us lend to farmers, let us involve them in debt. This will please my friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Let us involve them in debt.
There is also the industrial development bank. Let us lend to manufacturers.
And the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on the other hand, lends to Canadian taxpayers, so that they may be able to build houses.
Such is the federal government. It likes to lend. It likes to get everybody into debt.
There are also the loans for farm improvements. Again, let us get our farmers into debt.
And as concerns immigrants to Canada, let us lend them money, let us get them into debt, also and this, according to the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 325, section 69, paragraph (6).
And it was also necessary to lend to Indians. An Indian loans board was established, according to chapter 149, section 69, paragraph (6) of the revised statutes. Let us involve them in debt.
There are also loans to the international development association, 1960 statutes, chapter 32, section 5.
And what about loans to crown corporations? It is not enough to get everybody into debt, loans are also intended for crown corporations. The government sets up crown corporations and lends them money under Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 116, section 82, paragraph 4.
We have the small business loans. We even have loans for fishing operations. Briefly, everybody is being put into debt.
Mr. Speaker, I only quoted a few of the loans acts. And when everybody has been involved into debt, regulations are passed to control credit arrangements for the Canadian people.
Once all the taxpayers are well into debt, regulations are passed to assist the creditors.
Business of the House
Reference is made in our statutes to the Bankruptcy Act regulations.
We have regulations on arrangements between creditors and farmers, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 111, section 41, paragraph 2.
There is also a statute providing for the adjustment of debts contracted for seed grain loans.
Mr. Speaker, it means that the function of government has changed. It is no longer an administrator or a legislator. It does not exist any more to see to the welfare of the citizens, but rather to lend them money, to get them into debt. Loans are made to everybody.
Does the government suggest solutions or logical measures to help the Canadian people? No. It makes loans to them, it gets them into debt.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: And then, after that it is found that the Canadian people can hardly make a living.
Mr. Speaker, since it is ten o'clock I shall continue my remarks tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the day of solutions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if I might ask the house leader if he will live up to his commitment of last night and tell us what we are going to do next week; or is that pressing him too much?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in order to allow the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to complete his speech and reveal the mysterious solution he can offer us, we shall continue tomorrow the debate on the budget.
Monday and Tuesday will be the third and fourth days devoted to the consideration of the budget.
Wednesday we shall revert to the study of supplementary estimates and interim supply, to continue it Thursday, if it is not over. On the other hand, if this study is completed before Thursday, we shall consider other measures which will be announced later.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
20220-81J


[Stage Direction]
On December 31, 1963, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport issued a public statement in which they said that the board of broadcast governors-with the technical advice and in consultation with the Department of Transport-had been asked by the government to inquire into and recommend any legislative action that may be required to ensure that, so far as the constitutional jurisdiction of parliament will permit, the use of community antenna television for the dissemination of television programs is subject to similar regulation under parallel conditions to that applied to direct broadcasting.
A committee of the board of broadcast governors and the Department of Transport- and under it a working subcommittee of the same two agencies-has inquired into this subject over the past two months and has held numerous discussions and formal meetings.
Community antenna systems rely both upon radio links and land lines or cable relays. Complete control of all aspects of cable relays and closed circuit T.V. can be achieved only by complete federal control of land lines, a large portion of which are presently under provincial control in the absence of federal declaration or statute. This would involve complicated problems of provincial consultation. However, effective control over the major area of CATV could be achieved by amendments to the Broadcasting Act covering commercial broadcasting receiving stations and land stations where these stations are used to feed a cable relay distribution system with radio or television broadcasting signals or where the land stations are used to feed the distribution systems with closed circuit radio or television signals. These amendments should include:
(1)	a requirement that the Minister of Transport refer to the B.B.G. for hearing and recommendation of any applications for licences or for renewal thereof, including renewal of existing licences, and give the board the necessary powers for this purpose;
(2)	authority for the board to regulate such stations in regard to program content and
other non-technical matters (the Department of Transport would continue to deal with technical aspects);
(3)	extension of the objects and purposes of the act to commercial broadcasting receiving stations and to land stations feeding cable relay distribution systems;
(4)	a limit on foreign ownership of new commercial broadcasting receiving stations and land stations feeding cable relay systems similar to the limitations now contained in the act for broadcasting stations;
(5)	authority for the board to control interconnections (networks) of cable relay distribution systems when they are fed with signals from commercial broadcasting receiving stations or land stations.
(6)	authority for the board to enforce of its own action conditions of licences of stations in these categories where the conditions have been included as a result of a recommendation from the board; and to take action in the courts of violations of such conditions or of infractions of the regulations.
When authority is given to the board under the act, it is proposed the board should regulate the commercial broadcasting receiving stations and the land stations as defined in such a manner to ensure that, consistent with the public interest in the reception of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service, the board should to the greatest extent practicable maintain the Canadian identity and character of service available to the public and further the purposes of broadcasting as set out in section 10 of the act. The board would also regulate the relationship between licencees and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
The board may wish to consider regulations prescribing the time periods for programs delivered by commercial broadcasting receiving stations and land stations as defined for feeding a cable relay system, and respecting the alteration or curtailment of programs handled by these two sources for feeding a cable relay system. Changes in the authority for the reception of broadcasting stations by

commercial broadcasting receiving stations and the broadcasting signals carried by land stations as defined would need to come to the board for approval, as would a change in the area served through the medium of the cable relay system as specified in the licence.
The committee has examined the act in detail and is prepared to lend its assistance to the Department of Justice in suggesting the necessary changes and wording in the Broadcasting Act to cover cable relay systems.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 20, 1964