1964-10-28

Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-132, respecting the national game of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: At this time it gives me real pleasure to ask parliament to give consideration to this bill to make hockey Canada's national game.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Hockey is indeed a wonderful game, clean, fast and exhilarating. More than any game in Canada it has caught the imagination and enthusiasm of thousands upon thousands of people and has given them, and still gives them, great moments of enjoyment either as players or as spectators.
More especially is it favoured by the youth of Canada. Hockey with its dash, crash and smash truly represents the very tempo of our Canadian youth. Today hockey is recognized throughout the world as Canada's national game. During the period between the two world wars and for a long period after the second world war, when a very limited number of Canadians went overseas as tourists, or on business, or as politicians-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Time.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Just a minute-if it had not been for the game of hockey being played throughout the countries of Europe, Europe would never have heard the name of Canada. And this is something very, very important. Outside of war at that time-not now, but at that time-the only time they ever heard the name of Canada mentioned was when our hockey team played in their countries.
I should like to say this to the sports minded people of all these countries and also of
Canada. The words "hockey" and "Canada" are synonymous. Hockey is Canada; Canada is hockey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Now
that we have heard those very interesting remarks, I wonder if the hon. member would mind telling us the purpose of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSIONS


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish in Canada a comprehensive program of retirement pensions payable to contributors: to provide for the payment of supplementary benefits, including benefits for the widows and orphans of contributors and benefits to contributors who become disabled: to provide for the co-ordination of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act with benefits payable under the Canada pension plan and for the payment of adjusted pensions under the Old Age Security Act beginning at any age from 65 years: to provide for the adjustment of pensions and other benefits in line with increases in earnings and the cost of living; to provide that funds arising from the operation of the Canada pension plan shall be invested in securities of the provinces, provincially guaranteed securities of provincial crown agents, and securities of Canada: and to provide further that all expenditures under the Canada pension plan, including cost of administration, shall be financed from contributions by employees and employers and from contributions by persons in respect of self-employed earnings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Harkness: 1.	Since January 1, 1964, how many officers of the rank of commodore and above in the navy, brigadier and above in the army, air commodore

Questions
and above in the R.C.A.F. have ceased to be members of the permanent forces, or have been given notice that they would be retired, or have sent in their resignations?
2.	In each case, what is the name of the officer, the appointment held by him, his age and, where applicable, the number of years and months he would have to go to normal retirement age?
3.	In each of the above cases indicate whether the officer retired on reaching normal retirement age, whether he put in his resignation of his own volition, or whether he was asked to retire?
4.	How many officers of the ranks indicated in part 1 have been promoted in rank, what are their names, and ages as of the date of promotion?
5.	What will be the total amount of their pensions from the date of their retirement until their normal retirement date?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: 1. From January 1, 1964 to August 18, 1964-26.
2 and 3.
Length of time to normal retirement
Name	Rank	Age	Appointment	age	Remarks
R.C.N.					
H. S. Rayner	Vice admiral	54	Chief of the naval staS	9 mos.	Normal retirementhaving completed normal time of duty as CNS.T. B. McLean	Surg. rear admiral	54	Surgeon general Cdn. forces and Her Majesty's honorary surgeon	5 mos.	Normal retirementJ. V. Brock	Rear admiral	51	Flag officer Atlantic coast, senior officer in chief command, Atlantic, commander Atlantic sub-area and maritime commander Atlantic.	3 yrs. 2 mos.	By noticeH. L. Quinn	Commodore	55	Naval member-directing staff national defence college	Normal retirementA. B. F. Fraser-Harris..	Commodore	48	Asst, chief of naval staff (air and warfare)	6	yrs. 7	mos.	By noticeCanadian army	A. E. Wrinch	Major general	56	Major general survival	-	Normal retirementJ. P. Bernatchez	Major general	53	Vice chief of the general staff	11 mos. 14 days	Normal retirement. Position abolished.J. E. C. Pangman	Brigadier	56	Commander-Manitoba area	-	Normal retirementJ. R. B. Jones	Brigadier	55	Chairman-army rank and trade structure committee	-	Normal retirementJ. B. Allan	Brigadier	50	Vice quartermaster-general	3 yrs. 11 mos.	By noticeG. L. M. Smith	Brigadier	55	Deputy surgeon general (admin.)	-	Normal retirementA. F. B. Knight	Brigadier	54	Commander, New Brunswick area	-	Normal retirementW. J. Moogk	Brigadier	54	Commander, Camp Borden and target area headquarters Toronto	-	Normal retirement
IMr. Harkness.]
OCTOBER 28. 1964	Questions	9509Name	Rank	Age Appointment	Length of time to normal retirement age	RemarksC. R. Slemon	.... Air marshal	59	Deputy commander North American air defence	-	Normal retirementR. A. Cameron	
Air vice marshal	54	Military advisor Cdn. delegation Paris	-	Normal retirementM. M. Hendrick	.... Air vice marshal	54	Air officer commanding air defence command	-	Normal retirementW. A. Orr	53	Air member for personnel	6 mos.	Normal retirementG. S. Austin	
Air commodore	48	Chief of plans and intelligence	4 yrs. 6 mos.	Voluntary retirementR. H. Bray	
Air commodore	54	Deputy air member technical services	-	Normal retirementG. D. Caldbick	
Air commodore	54	Deputy surgeon general	-	Normal retirementS. G. Cowan	
Air commodore	53	Chief of materiel	-	Normal retirementE. L. Gerow	
Air commodore	55	Chieff of finance	-	Normal retirementR. J. Gray	
Air commodore	49	Chief-organization and management	3 yrs. 1 mo.	Voluntary retirementE. C. Poole	
Air commodore	53	Chief of telecommunications	-	Normal retirementN. W. Timmerman.	
Air commodore	51	Deputy commander 29 region NO RAD	-	Normal retirementJ. A. Verner	
Air commodore	52	Chief staff officer training command Winnipeg	2 mos.	Normal retirement4. Nine, Vice Admiral K. L. Dyer, 48; designation mentally retarded is not used and Lieutenant General J. V. Allard, 51; Lieu- therefore no data are available. There is, how-tenant General R. W. Moncel, 47; Air Marshal ever, a designation of mentally defective in C. L. Annis, 52; Rear Admiral R. P. Welland, the classification which is used by the	
46; Surg. Rear Admiral W. J. Elliott, 50; Air Vice Marshal M. P. Martyn, 51; Acting Air Vice Marshal M. Lipton, 48; Acting Air Commodore C. W. Burgess, 49.
5. $217,044.98.


DISABLED PERSONS ALLOWANCES TO MENTALLY RETARDED
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	In each province, and in Canada, how many mentally retarded persons are currently in receipt of allowances under the Disabled Persons Act?
2.	In each province, and in Canada, what is the annual disbursement to mentally retarded persons under the Disabled Persons Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The international classification of diseases is used in classifying the disabilities of recipients under the Disabled Persons Act. In this classification the
physicians in determining the type of total and permanent disabilities under the disability allowance program and data are available concerning this group of recipients.
Based on an analysis of the total case load as at March 31, 1961, the number of mentally defective recipients as at August, 1964, is estimated as follows:
Newfoundland	550
Prince Edward Island	260
Nova Scotia	924
New Brunswick	798
Quebec	6,865
Ontario	4,299
Manitoba	599
Saskatchewan	731
Alberta	698
British Columbia	748
Total
16,472

Questions
2.	The estimated total of federal and provincial expenditure for a 12 month period based on the above figures is as follows:
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
488.000
231.000
820.000
708.000
6.091.000
3.814.000
531.000
649.000
619.000
664.000
Total


$14,615,000 NATIONAL PARKS-LAUNCHING FEES FOR BOATS
Mr. Waison (Assiniboia): 1.	Do all national parks in Canada charge launching fees for boats?
2.	Under what regulations are these fees charged and when were these regulations passed?
3.	In what national parks are launching fees charged and what is the fee per day, and/or week?
4.	What is the reason for the launching fee?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. No.
2.	The national parks business regulations, passed on April 12, 1962.
3.	Only in Prince Albert national park, where the department spent to date since 1961 $526,625 on construction of a marina. This project has virtually been completed this year except for landscaping. The marina has been let to a concessionnaire and the purpose of the fees is to recover costs of operating the marina from the public using this facility. The approved launching fee is $1.50 per launching, in-out charge, or $5 per season, any number of launchings during the boating season.


CENTRAL PURCHASING AGENCY FOR INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. McCulcheon: 1.	Is there now a central supply purchasing agency for all Indian reserves?
2.	Is this a change in procedure?
3.	Does this agency call for tenders for the supply of materials to be used on Indian reserves?
4.	Are local businesses no longer invited to tender?


Mr. Huberl Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: x, 2, 3 and 4. No. Purchasing of supplies for Indian reserves is undertaken by the Department of Defence Production, the chief purchasing agent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and field offi-

cers of the Indian affairs branch, in accordance with the government contracts regulations. Local businesses are invited to tender where the circumstances warrant.


PROVISION OF AIRPORT FACILITIES, SAWMILL BAY, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: Has the Department of Transport reviewed the volume of traffic to and from the airport at Sawmill bay during the past year and, if so, does the department intend to resume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of this airport and, if not, will the department undertake such a study immediately with a view to providing adequate airport facilities at Sawmill bay, N.W.T.?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Air traffic at Sawmill bay, Cay wood field, during the past summer season consisted of one weekly charter flight by TransAir from Winnipeg, one weekly charter flight by P.W.A. from Edmonton, several additional charter flights by P.W.A. in support of mining operations and a variety of light private aircraft traffic generated mainly by five active fishing camps in the area.
This airport was built by Eldorado Mining and Refining Company in 1946 and has been operated and maintained by this company until leased recently to Great Bear lodge. The Department of Transport has no present plans to assume this responsibility.


PLANS FOR TOWNSITE, BAKER LAKE, N.W.T.
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the preparation of plans for a proposed townsite at Baker lake, district of Keewatin, N.W.T. and, if so, what firm of engineers has been appointed to do this work?
2.	Were tenders called for this work and, if so (a) from whom were bids received (b) what was the extent of the advertising of same?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2. (a) No; (b) N/A.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, ALMA, N.B.
Mr. Bell: Have discussions taken place between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick regarding responsibility for the bridge at the eastern approach to Fundy national park at Alma and, if so, with what result as to both responsibility and the commencement of construction?


Arthur Laing: In August, 1958, the federal government concluded that since this bridge was on provincial land it was a responsibility of the province of New Brunswick. The Department of Northern

Affairs and National Resources was authorized at that time to carry out repairs on the existing bridge because of its close relation to the operation of Fundy national park. However, the scheduling of construction of a new bridge at the eastern approach to Fundy national park at Alma rests with the province.


CREDIT POLICY OF BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada the power to grant credits to foreign countries and, if so (a) at what rate of interest (b) on what terms?
2.	Has the Bank of Canada ever used this power and, if so (a) what countries benefited by such credits (b) in what years (c) at what rate of interest?
3.	Can the Bank of Canada allow provincial and municipal governments to benefit by the same credit policy?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Under sections 18(1) (d) and (e) of the Bank of Canada Act, the bank may buy and sell short term securities issued by the United Kingdom having a maturity not exceeding six months from the date of acquisition by the bank and may buy and sell treasury bills or other obligations of the United States of America. Under section 18 (l)(m) of the Bank of Canada Act, the bank is authorized to place funds on deposit with foreign central banks.
(a) and (b>
Interest rates and other terms are not specified in the act.
2. (a) and (b) Aside from deposits with foreign central banks which have been used solely for working balances and securities of the United States of America acquired in the ordinary course of business, the following special arrangements have been made: In June, 1962, the bank entered into a reciprocal currency arrangement with the federal reserve system in the amount of U.S. $250,000,000 and at the same time the Bank of England placed an amount of U.S. $100,000,000 at the disposal of the Bank of Canada. These credits were fully availed of and had the effect at the time of increasing the Bank of Canada's exchange holdings by U.S. $350,000,000. These transactions had been reversed by December, 1962. At that time the arrangement with the Bank of England lapsed and the one with the federal reserve system was placed on a stand-by basis. In November, 1963, at the time of the assassination of the President of the United States, the stand-by arrangement with the federal reserve system was, on the initiative of the latter, implemented to the extent of U.S. $20,000,000
Questions
for a short period. In September, 1964, the Bank of Canada, in conjunction with a number of other central banks, agreed to place an amount of U.S. dollars on deposit with the Bank of England if the Bank of England so requested.
(c) Not a matter of public record.
3. Under section 18(lMc) the bank may buy and sell securities issued or guaranteed by any province. Under section 18(1) (i) and (j) the bank may make advances to provincial governments under certain conditions. The Bank of Canada Act does not authorize the bank to maintain deposits with provincial or municipal governments.


REPRESENTATIONS BY NIAGARA FALLS COUNCIL ON MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from the Niagara Falls city council deploring the increase in P.S.I. insurance rates, and recommending the early implementation of a national medicare plan and, if so, what has been their reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, the Minister of National Health and Welfare received a letter dated October 7, 1964, from the clerk of the city of Niagara Falls.
On October 15 the minister replied indicating that as Physicians' Services Incorporated is a private organization, the question of increased P.S.I. rate does not come within the purview of federal jurisdiction but that she had made particular note of the view of local 536 of the united electrical, radio and machine workers of America regarding the effect on their members of such increased rates.
The minister also drew attention to the recent report of the royal commission on health services and to the wide financial and program implications requiring considerable detailed analyses and stated that careful studies are now being made by the government. A copy of a summary of the recommendations of the royal commission was attached to the minister's letter.


WRITE-OFF OF SEED GRAIN DEBTS
Mr. Lamberi: 1.	What is the amount of the write-off of seed grain debts incurred by western farmers between 1876 and 1925 as recently announced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	What was the amount with respect to each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
3.	Can an estimate be made of the land involved in each of the three said provinces and, if so, what

Questions
is the respective amount of land cleared of liens by this action in each of the prairie provinces?


Arthur Laing: 1. $716,743.15. This amount includes $33,442.15 in book debts for which there is no security by way of liens against land or the personal covenant of the borrowers.
2.	Manitoba, nil. All Manitoba accounts were settled in 1955. Saskatchewan, $431,602.51; Alberta, $285,140.64.
3.	Manitoba, N/A. Saskatchewan, approximately 5,300 individual properties were cleared of liens. Alberta, approximately 4,800 individuals properties were cleared of liens.


AIR CANADA UNIFORMS FOR STEWARDESSES
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelstoke):
1.	What will be the cost to Air Canada of outfitting their stewardesses with new uniforms; broken down to show the cost of designing, promoting and any other costs to the company and the cost to the stewardesses?
2.	How many designs were submitted to Air Canada and who submitted them?
3.	Whose design was chosen and for what reasons and how much was paid the designer?
4.	Is there a contract for making these uniforms and, if so, were tenders called, who bid on them and who holds the contract?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advises as follows:
1.	The total cost of the new uniform is approximately $160,000, including purchase, design, etc. By agreement with the flight attendants, the company will pay about 75 per cent of this cost. No specific proportion of recent advertising of the company's new look can be attributed to promotion of the new stewardess uniform.
2.	More than a dozen designs were submitted to Air Canada by three firms; M. Robi-chaud of Montreal, Tip Top Tailors of Toronto, and B. Reig of New York.
3.	The uniform chosen was designed by M. Robichaud. It was chosen because it was considered to be the most functional, fashionable and economical. Designer's fee is included in 1 above.
4.	Tenders were called for manufacture of the uniform; five firms submitted bids, and the contract was awarded to Tip Top Tailors of Toronto.


DEATHS IN HUNTING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
In each province, In each of the last ten years, how many shooting deaths have occurred in hunting accidents?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Attached is a table showing the number of fatalities due to accidents involving firearms, 1954-1963. Of these, it is not known how many involved hunting accidents.


FIREARM FATALITIES IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1954-1963
[Stage Direction]
-	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963Canada	176	163	166	170	167	216	176	189	150Newfoundland	... 2	3	2	6	2	3	6	6	4	6Prince Edward Island	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-Nova Scotia	16	8	6	15	8	8	7	18	8New Brunswick	7	12	9	4	9	14	7	9	6Quebec	... 40	44	37	41	31	40	56	49	46	37Ontario	54	47	43	61	57	71	49	48	44Manitoba	... 13	14	12	13	12	10	11	12	12	9Saskatchewan	... 14	11	13	12	6	8	19	12	14	12Alberta	... 15	11	13	14	14	13	17	16	17	11British Columbia	... 17	13	17	21	21	18	12	16	18	16Yukon	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	-	-Northwest Territories	... 1	2	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1
﻿OCTOBER 28, 1964

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	Now that the Hamilton city council has agreed to take over Mount Hope airport, have federal funds been made available for the development of this airport?
2.	How much has been given, and for what specific purpose or purposes?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	For rehabilitation of essential aircraft manoeuvring areas, including a portion of the aircraft parking area, the taxiway along hangar line, a portion of runway 16-34, and certain other patching and repair work. Final cost has not yet been established but it is expected that total expenditures may be something over $200,000.


DEATH RATES RELATED TO INCOME GROUPS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government ever conducted a study of Canadian death rates relative to income groups and, if so, what were the results of this study?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has not conducted a study of Canadian death rates relative to income groups.


UNION DUES REMITTED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Muir (Lisgar): Questions
1.	For the years ending December 31, 1962 and December 31, 1963, what is the total amount of union dues collected in this country remitted to foreign countries?
2.	What is the total amount of such dues remitted to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. Information on the total amount of union dues collected in this country and remitted to foreign countries for the years ending December 31, 1962 and December 31, 1963, is being obtained under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. This information will be contained in the annual report which, it is hoped, will be available before the end of the year.


STUDY OF LIVING COSTS OF AGED PERSONS
Mr. Muir (Lisgar): 1.	Has the government made a comparison of the income and the living costs of the aged as between those residing in urban and rural areas and, if so, what are the findings of such study?
2.	If no such study has been made does the government intend to initiate such a survey?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): 1. Information is not available on living costs of the aged. Total income, by size, for the non-farm population, 70 years of age and over, by sex, for Canada, rural and urban, for the year ended May 31, 1961, is as follows:
	Rural
	No.
Without Income With Income	213
Under $ 500	994
$ 500-$ 999	55,220
$ 1,000-$1,499	13,589
$ 1,500-$1,999	7,712
$ 2,000-$2,499	4,369
$ 2,500-$2,999	2,723
$ 3,000-$3,499	1,912
$ 3,500-$3,999	1,301
$ 4,000-$4,499	816
$ 4,500-$4,999	692
$ 5,000-$5,999	780
$ 6,000-$9,999	1,191
$10,000-1-	564
Total Number*:	91,863
Average $*:	1,382
Persons without income not included. Source: 1961 Census of Canada, catalogue number 98-501, volume IV.
Males	Females
Urban	Rural	UrbanNo.	No.	No.1,464	681	5,5612,428	2,111	13,41894,279	61,373	195,62342,322	7,125	37,66129,002	2,121	18,96919,347	1,342	11,46314,525	551	6,67811,754	456	4,0868,258	217	2,8416,115 4,237	337	3,5106,237	9,091	* 415	6,0835,951 253,546	76,048	300,3322,321	888	1,221
Questions
2.	Studies such as indicated are not contemplated at present.


RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS IN MILK
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What have been the average levels of Strontium 90 and Caesium 137 in Canadian milk in each month of the last three years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Average levels of Strontium 90 in milk
1962(a)	1963(b)	1964(b)January	7.1	19.2	43.1(d)February	7.1	19.1	41.3March	6.9	18.7	40.6April	9.4	17.4	41.5May	13.7	24.5	46.4June	20.2	45.2	42.5July	26.5	46.4	37.9August	26.0	52.7	32.5September	25.9	52.3	32.7(d)October	32.0	45.0	-November	32.7	42.3	December	27.1	40.5	-(a)	Powdered milk samples, results expressed as picocuries per gram calcium.(b)	Fluid milk samples, results expressed as picocuries per liter. (1 liter contains approximately 1.2 grams calcium).(c)	Fluid milk samples, results expressed as picocuries per liter. (1 liter contains approximately 1.5 gram potassium).(d)	Preliminary estimate.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, MEGANTIC CONSTITUENCY, QUE.
Mr. Langlois: With reference to the construction of post offices for the municipalities of Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe, Coleraine Station, Leeds village, Garthby Station and St. Methode, in the constituency of Megantic (a) to whom were the various contracts awarded (b) who submitted tenders (c) what was the price for each of the various post offices, and (d) what were the dimensions of each of the post offices?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelefs (Minister of Public Works):: The only contract awarded to date was on September 25, 1964, for the construction of a new post office building at La Guadeloupe.
(a)	La Guadeloupe Construction Engr., La Guadeloupe, Que.
(b)	La Guadeloupe Construction Engr., La Guadeloupe, Que., Herve Lessard & Sigefroid Labrecque, East Broughton, Que., Claude Bourassa, Victoriaville, Que., Maquis Freres

Average levels of Caesium 137 in milk
1962(a)	1963(c)	1964(c)19.7	-	25419.6	63	25015.6	53	25120.3	80	24635.6	112	24577.8	187	227125.0	239	209106.5	260	17583.8	232	147(d)90.9	203	-90.3	230	-102.0	245	-Limitee, Sherbrooke,	Que., Girard Frere	Engr., Chicoutimi, Que.	(c)	$24,477. (d)	37 feet by 38 feet	-one storey.	[Text]	IDENTICAL TENDERS	FOR ROCK	SALT,


HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the restrictive trade practices commission investigated, within the past three years, charges of identical tenders for rock salt submitted to the city of Hamilton, Ontario and, if so, what were the results of such investigation?
2.	Was legal action taken on the basis of these findings?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes, complaints were received from a number of cities, towns and other municipalities in Ontario, including the city of Hamilton, and the inquiry dealt largely, but not entirely, with conditions in Ontario. As the facts fell short of establishing collusion between the two Canadian producers, the inquiry was discontinued by the director of investigation and research in March 1964 with the concurrence of the restrictive trade practices commission. The discontinuance of the inquiry is reported in the annual report of the director for the year ended March 31, 1964, at pages 27-28.
2.	Answered by 1.


NATIONAL DEFENCE BUDGETS
Mr. Pritiie: 1.	What was the total amount of the budgets of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1962-63 inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount of actual expenditures by the Department of National Defence for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1962-63 inclusive?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. $22,180,643,239.
2.	$20,773,247,021.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What are the plans for the establishment of an archives and library at Louisburg, Nova Scotia, including an estimated cost, the estimated space proposed, the number of books and documents to be housed, the scale and qualifications of the staff, the number of exhibition cases and tables, the kind of provisions made for the use of scholars, and the structure of the management in relation to other government departments?
2.	How much money is now being spent on research in England, France and the United States with regard to the Louisburg project?
3.	What historical data is being collected and how relevant is the data in so far as the reconstruction project is concerned?
4.	What are the names of the persons carrying out the research, their academic qualifications and experience and the amount and method of payment of their salaries and expenses?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, motion 178 is acceptable to the government. Would Your Honour please call motions 176, 177, 179 and 180. I ask that motion 170 be allowed to stand.


USE OF WHARF, PORT SIMPSON. B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 178-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport or any agency or branch thereof in British Columbia, and any person, group, or organization, since January 1, 1964, relating to the wharf at Port Simpson, B.C., and relating to the loading and/or unloading of freight thereat.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 176-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and letters exchanged between the Minister of Public Works, the
Motions for Papers
Postmaster General and the municipality of Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe in the constituency of Me-gantic, concerning the construction of a post office and the acquisition of land for this purpose, since January 1, 1958.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion came before the house last week, in the absence of the hon. member for Megantic I asked that it stand for two weeks. I have since talked with the hon. member and have cleared up the point that was disturbing me. He has asked for the production of all correspondence, telegrams and letters exchanged since January 1, 1958, between the Minister of Public Works, the Postmaster General and the municipality named in the motion. On the understanding that it is agreed by the hon. member that correspondence between the municipality in question, the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General will be produced, but not correspondence between ministers, the motion is accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 177-Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by officials of the Department of Finance concerning federal expenditures in each of the provinces of Canada.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I should say that there is no such report as suggested in the motion. At the same time I should add that work has been done by the officials, and is continuing, to provide information for the minister with which to answer the large number of questions that have been asked on this subject matter. In view of the circumstances I would respectfully invite the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the report we would like to have tabled is the one which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) promised October 7 last, when he denied certain figures mentioned in the motion. We believe that the Minister of Finance could at least table what he promised us October 7 last.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the precise answer given by the minister,

Motions for Papers
but I respectfully suggest that the hon. member put his question upon the order paper and I undertake to see that it is given attention.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the explanation of the parliamentary secretary I wonder whether it would serve any useful purpose to demand the production of privileged material. It seems to me that no particular purpose is being served, and I wonder whether in the circumstances the hon. member would care to withdraw his motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would request that this matter be discussed at five o'clock, Thursday, in view of the fact that those are not privileged documents, but material prepared by the officials of the Department of Finance and which the Minister of Finance said he would communicate to this house at the appropriate time. If those documents are too incriminating for the government, let him say so; otherwise he should produce them, since he told us on August 7 last that those documents existed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon. member, but I cannot accept the suggestion that there is anything compromising in the position of the Minister of Finance. The minister has been answering as expeditiously as possible all the questions that have been asked on this subject matter, and answered a very lengthy one today. I can only repeat the answer I gave a short time ago, and would again ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: I wish that this matter be transferred for debate at five o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).


WHARF CONSTRUCTION. NORTH SYDNEY. N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 179-Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North
and Victoria):
That an order of the house do issue for copies of the original and final specifications required in connection with the terminal development construction of a public wharf at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, the tenders for which closed September 30, 1964.
Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. 
Speaker, this motion refers to copies of the original and final specifications. I am advised that there is only one set of specifications, and on this understanding this motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged since 1954, between the Weather Engineering Corporation of Canada and the Department of Transport or any agency of the department.
Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has informed us that he is willing to limit his motion to the tabling of the correspondence between the Weather Engineering Corporation and the department on the sole subject of rainmaking. Subject to that reservation, there is no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the amount of controversy there is in connection with the sections of the labour code to which strong objection has been taken by the trucking industry, and the report today that the government does not intend to take any action to remove the differences between the industry and the department, would the minister for the sake of the record give the house some general idea of what he has in mind? He has told me on two occasions that he thought he had a plan whereby the criticisms which have been offered would be met and the dangers to

the industry would be avoided. My correspondence in this regard is very lengthy, and telegrams are being received, and the minister must be experiencing the same situation. Surely he would be willing, in order to let the industry know something of what he has in mind, to summarize his ideas in this connection.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable to the Leader of the Opposition I would be glad to take this question as notice and at the first opportunity meet his wishes.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister look into this and give us an answer tomorrow? At the moment we are dealing with interim supply and we do not want to go into this field. We would very much appreciate a statement, because the industry is quite exercised over the situation.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question. When the minister is answering the Leader of the Opposition I wonder if he would advise the house whether he has referred this bill to and got an opinion from the Department of Justice as to what industries are affected, so that Canadian industries and working groups will know to whom this bill applies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, I will not be in the house tomorrow, but perhaps I should indicate to the Leader of the Opposition today that I have under consideration a change to the transitional clause in part I covering hours of work.
At the present time it is possible within the terms of the bill for an industrial establishment to come forward and indicate that the operation of the hours of work provision will be detrimental either to the employees, the industry, the operation or the business. If that is demonstrated it is possible to grant an extension of 18 months for a period of adjustment. That possibility is included in the present terms of the bill and gives a considerable time latitude in adjusting to the requirements of the bill.
However, in addition to that I have under consideration a change under which, in certain circumstances and following appropriate inquiry, an extension of time would be granted beyond the present terms of the legislation. I think if this change is put into appropriate form it will meet the major objections of those operations which will find it difficult to implement the hours of work
Inquiries of the Ministry provisions at once, or even over a period of 18 months.
I believe that during the committee of the whole stage we can discuss this aspect and satisfy hon. members that appropriate steps are being taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask one more question, Mr. Speaker. Has the trucking industry, or any other industry to which reference has been made, had this suggestion submitted to it so the committee might have the benefit, through the minister, of their views and advice regarding the pertinence and also the effectiveness of these amendments he has in mind?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the various trucking interests and have indicated to them that this is what I have in mind. It seemed that a week or so ago when I met a large group of truckers this satisfied them. It may be that they have had further thoughts and that something of this kind, which I did not present in the detail I have given today, would satisfy them.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether there is any likelihood that he can give us a copy of the amendments so that we could study them prior to their presentation to the committee of the whole.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this whole procedure is irregular, because under the rules I should not be permitted to answer questions in respect of a matter on the order paper. I did so, however, to accommodate the interest in this particular case. I do not think the irregularity should be extended further by presenting amendments at this stage before we commence our consideration.


INQUIRY AS TO WINTER WORKS PROGRAM IN NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the announcement of the winter works program for Cape Breton national park, will the minister say when we can expect winter works programs for other national parks to be announced, and particularly Fundy national park where the work is desperately needed this winter?


Arthur Laing: I think there

Inquiries of the Ministry is a winter works program in mind for Fundy. We are endeavouring to accommodate the winter works program in that general area to a time which will permit us to accomplish it before what is regarded as the heavy snow period. We want to get started soon because there comes a time, in January I understand, when it is not possible to continue the work.


Thomas Miller Bell: Do I take it from the minister's statement that they expect snow in Cape Breton before it comes to Fundy?


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give consideration to the idea of expanding the winter works program as compared with what it was in previous years?


Arthur Laing: I believe the winter works program in Cape Breton national park is at least as high as if not higher than last year.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Will the minister take a look at the announcement made, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, with regard to the way the work force is divided up, primarily to the great advantage of the Minister of Labour?


Arthur Laing: I will, and I have.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but before doing so I should like to express our delight at seeing the Minister of Transport back in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are pleased that he has recovered from his indisposition, and we hope he will now be back to his old bouncy self again.
My question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is this. Has he as yet made a decision in respect of the case of Daisy Maud Henry? This case was referred to the minister about two weeks ago and I am inquiring regarding this lady who has asked him to reverse a decision of the appeal board regarding a deportation order which was issued against her.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave a reply to that question on Monday last.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the minister's explanation at that time, it was that he was going to look at the report when it was received. Has the minister decided to reverse the decision and cancel the deportation order?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement on Monday on this subject.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell us when the second part of the report of Mr. Justice Rene Lippe concerning the dockers retirement fund will be published? According to my information, the judge is already in possession of this report; we would like to know when it will be made available to the public.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to take this question as notice and answer the hon. member later.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a speech this week delivered by her parliamentary secretary on her behalf she issued a warning to the hospitals saying that their autonomy could be curtailed. Can the minister specify how much curtailment could take place, by whom and at what level of government the curtailment procedure would be initiated?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is obviously important and interesting, but perhaps it should be put on the order paper.


ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the introduction of a rather inferior medical plan in the province of Ontario, is the minister considering speeding up the introduction of the recommendations of the Hall commission, to provide a proper federal medical plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my hon. friend is referring to a headline in a Toronto morning newspaper which indicated that a report is being made to the provincial government. As yet there is no indication that they are going to bring in what my hon. friend has characterized as an inferior plan.
However, I would like to say that my department is working at top speed in order to have recommendations to make to the premiers of the provinces, but because it is a matter of such great cost and importance I do not think it would be possible to have an earlier target than that already selected and announced.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Some time ago the minister indicated that he would be making public the agenda for the dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs. Inasmuch as this conference is just around the corner, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the agenda is.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question directed to me by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I believe, 1 said that the members of the house who would express the wish to be made aware of the topics to be discussed during that conference could secure a list from me.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had expressed his interest, I sent him a letter listing the questions to be discussed. I
Inquiries of the Ministry will be glad to send all hon. members of the
house who so wish a list of the subjects to be discussed during that conference.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question relating to the answer given just a moment ago by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the agenda for the dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs. I understood the minister to say he undertook some time ago to send a copy of the conference agenda to members who expressed interest in it, but that is not what he said at the time he gave an answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on October 9. As recorded at page 8924 of Hansard for that date the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to send to the hon. members a copy of the agenda which lists the problems to be discussed.
Some of us have been waiting for the transmission of that document, or for it to be made public, so we can communicate the information contained in it to people back home. It is unfortunate that the words used by the minister on October 9 did not truly or accurately reflect his intentions.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the plural was used in the reference to "the hon. members", while what I said then, in reply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), was that I would be pleased to send "to the hon. member" a copy of the agenda. That is what I did.
However, I shall gladly send a similar copy of the agenda to all hon. members anxious to get one.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, following up a question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Regina City. Can he now tell the house whether a deliberate decision was made by the officials of his department that the Canadian red ensign and the stars and stripes would not be used as a backdrop for the
9520	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ceremonial signing of the Columbia river treaty, which took place in the railway committee room?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I made some inquiries, and I can find no confirmation for the alleged statement.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. On March 4, in answer to my question, the minister's parliamentary secretary stated that the Department of Industry had leased the entire 11 storey Macdonald building on Slater street in Ottawa, with the exception of the ground floor, at a rental of $384,000 a year, with 119 private offices, 59 shared offices and 29 general offices. Can the minister confirm the report that, because of additional personnel, the department is now taking over space in another building?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Perhaps I should-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless we can clean this matter up very quickly, it is a typical question for the order paper.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I can. There are a couple of points. First, the Minister of Industry has no parliamentary secretary. Second, the Department of Industry does not lease space in Ottawa; this is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. Third, the Department of Industry is not expanding its premises or personnel.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: My question concerns possibly two departments, the Department of Public Works and the Postmaster General. In view of the absence of the Minister of Public Works perhaps the Postmaster General can consult with his colleagues. Has the Postmaster General, in his capacity as minister responsible for housing, received requests from organizations or individuals suggesting that Laurentian terrace on Sussex street, the former girls' residence, be maintained as a residence for retired civil servants who only have small pensions as income?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper?


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, with all deference, I believe this building is slated for demolition soon and I should like to receive a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless demolition is starting this afternoon, I do not see the urgency.



VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE EVICTIONS FROM VETERANS HOUSING PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Has any progress been made in resolving the differences between C.M.H.C. and the group of veterans in the Vancouver Fraser view project who are refusing to pay the increased rentals demanded by the government?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is rather a difficult question to answer on orders of the day. I can say, however, that the deadline contained in the notices to the tenants does not expire until midnight Saturday night, and according to the last report that I got 50 of the tenants have not yet paid the increased rent. If they do not pay it, unless hardship can be established proceedings will be taken in an orderly way to enforce the eviction notices.
I believe not more than two cases of hardship were brought to the attention of C.M.H.C. and both these have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the persons concerned. I might add that one person, the lady whose name was mentioned during debate or in the course of a question period in this chamber, and who was referred to in the newspapers, said she had never authorized the use of her name, that she always had received good treatment and was quite happy.
Until midnight Saturday night I can make no other answer than that we are proceeding along the lines we have indicated more than once during the last few weeks would be followed.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question relating to the distribution of hate literature. Is the minister in a position to announce the composition of the board of review to which

he referred last Friday? Can he give the names of the members, the place of hearing and the date of hearing?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Wellington South is not here. He has put two questions on the subject, and I assured him I would be glad to give information to the house early this week.
I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that a board of review has been established. The chairman will be Mr. Justice Dalton Wells of the court of appeal of Ontario. The two other members will be Mr. Roderigue Bedard, Q.C., associate deputy minister of justice and Mr. G. Douglas McIntyre of the Department of National Revenue. The board will sit on November 23 and other days if necessary. The exact place of hearing has not been determined. It may be in this building or it may be in the justice building. This will be settled by the board of review itself.
There was another point mentioned by the hon. member for Wellington South. He asked if the meetings of the board of review would be in camera or would be open to the public. I would point out to the hon. member for Spadina and other members that while the responsibility for appointing the members of the board of review lies with the Postmaster General, the act goes on to provide that the board of review shall have the powers of a commission under part I of the Inquiries Act, so I presume it will be for the board of review to determine whether the hearings will be open to the public or held in camera.



OTTAWA-REFUSAL TO CASH OLD AGE PENSION CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General of which I have sent him notice. Is the minister aware that in Ottawa postal substation No. 47 a postal clerk informs customers that old age pension cheques will be cashed only if the money is to be spent in the store housing that post office; and will he look into this situation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of the question. I would draw the attention of the hon. member and the house to the fact that post offices, whether they are postal stations or otherwise, are not banking institutions; they are not set
Inquiries of the Ministry up to cash cheques. However, there is a provision in the manual on financial procedure that government of Canada and provincial government cheques, as well as cheques of crown corporations, may be accepted in payment of postal values and services, providing the patron presenting the cheque is properly identified. There is a further provision that this can only be done on the postmaster's own responsibility, with certain conditions attached.
I might say I had a field officer look into this matter after I received notice of the question this morning, and he informs me that about three weeks ago a person presented a cheque at the post office wicket in question with the request that it be cashed; that there were not sufficient funds in the postal till to cash it, and there was no obligation to cash it. However, the person was told that if he or she wished to cash the cheque it could be presented to the store in which the post office occupies a section, and if the proprietor of the store wished to cash it, it could be cashed there.



STAMP TO COMMEMORATE BIRTH OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question similar to but more urgent than the one directed to the Postmaster General by my colleague from Grey-Bruce. Is he considering issuing a commemorative stamp to honour the sesquicentennial of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald, which is now only about 10 weeks away?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and welcome him back to the house. For some time now I have been endeavouring to get space for a shipment of beans out of Canada. Before the minister left he directed the request to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This morning I received a letter from Cook Brothers to the effect that no space has been made available as yet.
9522	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give these beans a push.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, in the Minister of Agriculture's absence I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry a question which, I am sure, he will be interested in answering since he is aware of the demands made by the Quebec farmers at their fortieth annual convention. Moreover, this question springs from the reply given by the minister to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition last Friday.
Can the minister tell us whether he met the representatives of the Catholic farmers' union with a view to setting a date for a meeting between the Minister of Agriculture and the representatives of the province of Quebec and those of the farmers' union? If so, what is that date?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the regulations regarding unemployment insurance for fishermen specify that a fisherman may have a contribution paid on his behalf by the buyer only in respect of a catch which is delivered to that buyer in a face to face transaction, and as this regulation is working undue hardship on the fishermen of Nova Scotia, especially in the Chester area, where delivery of fresh fish must be made by common carrier, will the minister take action to amend these regulations so that in the absence of a real employer-employee relationship the landings of the fishermen may be considered eligible for unemployment insurance stamps?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister has heard the question, but perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper.
iMr. Cardiff.]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he was in touch with the head of the C.B.C. to ascertain the situation that was referred to by Hon. Bona Arsenault-I don't know what hon. gentlemen are laughing at. Perhaps my pronunciation is not the best, but I do remember that in the British House of Commons on one occasion Sir Winston Churchill called Sir Stafford Cripps Sir Stifford Crapps. Has the Secretary of State been in touch with the president of the C.B.C. in this regard, and have any investigations been made by the government of Quebec to produce supporting evidence on the presence of communists in the C.B.C. in Quebec?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the question as raised by the right hon. gentleman the other day has been referred to the C.B.C. I am quite sure that if we could have a definition of the phrase "left wing tendencies" it would certainly make things much easier for the C.B.C. to give an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I asked about communists. Is the minister in a position where he does not know what a communist is, and needs a definition?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Secretary of State intend to invite Hon. Bona Arsenault to come before the committee on privileges and elections, or another committee, to define what he means by someone who has communist or socialist tendencies?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Was it necessary for the department to reach into the ranks of the retired to find an

administrator for the proposed coastguard college at Point Edward?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, as is not unusual, has his facts wrong. No appointment has been made to this position, because the college has not yet been established. What I did was to approve a suggestion that in the planning phase we should take advantage of the undoubted abilities of Captain Brand, who has great experience and who was the main initiator of the idea which is going to give this college to Point Edward.


Malcolm MacInnis: I may say now to the Minister of Transport that I am not, as he tries to make out, usually wrong regarding these matters. A written announcement has appeared saying that Captain Brand has been appointed, temporarily at least, and my question was intended to find out from the department whether it was necessary, having in mind all the men in the services, particularly in the navy, who are being "cut", for the Department of Transport to go into the field of retired personnel. I am not question-ning the captain's qualifications.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question has been stated. I do not know whether there is any further answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Order has been called.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is raising a question of privilege and I should like to hear what he has to say.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have stated before, Mr. Speaker, that since it is your duty to call order in this house I do not intend to pay any attention to yells from the other side. All I want to say on my question of privilege is this. I am permitted to ask a question here, and if the minister so wishes he can answer it. If he does not wish to answer, that is something I must accept. But I also want an opportunity to answer what was not an answer to my question but a statement by the minister in reference to the question I brought up. He never gave any answer. He got up and made his usual political attack about what is going on. He made a statement rather than an answer to the question-
Interim Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity after ten o'clock to debate the matter by giving notice.


Malcolm MacInnis: I intend to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I ought to apologize to the hon. member. If I said anything offensive to him I did not intend to do so. But I had thought that the hon. gentleman, like the other members from Cape Breton, was so pleased that this coastguard college was being established at Point Edward that he would have been very glad we took the most competent man immediately available to get on with the job as quickly as possible. It may not have been necessary, but in this particular case it seemed to me that it was advisable. I thank the hon. gentleman for showing his affection and esteem for me on my first day back in the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary
question. Will the minister not agree that the idea of a coastguard school in Cape Breton originated not, as he said, with an idea of Captain Brand but with a co-ordinator appointed by the Stanfield government who raised this question with the previous government as, I suggest, will be found in the hon. gentleman's files?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think this is the time to go into ancient history, but I know that when I became minister Captain Brand was very keen to get on with this thing. He kept at me until action was taken and, I may say, we have got on with it.


William Heward Grafftey: I had a supplementary question I should like to put to the Secretary of State-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. We are already three minutes over our time. The time was up at 3.25.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: At ten o'clock last night I was discussing the need for more effective C.B.C. coverage in northern Alberta, and I was complaining that so often in these matters the government in power

and I am not referring specifically to any one government-is inclined to ignore the sitting member despite the fact that he often has considerable knowledge of local affairs and local needs. I am appealing to the minister who is in charge of the spending of the money to agree to at least consult the local member in these cases including, of course, myself.
I understand plans are on the drawing board to erect a television booster station in or near the village of Smith. These booster stations are expensive. I am interested in the taxpayers' money as well as in the provision of proper coverage for my constituents, and suggest that if the station were erected in or near the town of Athabasca television coverage would be extended to perhaps 20,000 people. If the station were built in or near the town of Smith it would only duplicate the booster station already erected at Grande Prairie, and would in no way improve reception in the area.
At the same time I should like to suggest that a similar station be erected in or near the Bonnyville-Cold Lake area, particularly in view of the fact that there are some 5,000 airmen and their families stationed in this area on duty away from home. If we budgeted properly for the C.B.C. and spent a few million dollars on providing reception in these outlying areas we would be getting better

results for our money than we will by building television palaces in cities such as Toronto and Montreal. I do not think that is a fair distribution of the taxpayers' money.
I think the corporation has done well in many of its programs, but I should like to add my voice to those who say the leaders of the C.B.C., the directors, should take another look at the programming to see whether we cannot reduce unnecessary sensationalism and give the family viewer a chance to send his children off to a show if some of the programs are considered by the parents a little too adult for juvenile consumption.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on the question of simultaneous translation, which is closely connected with matters of broadcasting and culture. I think the time is now ripe to have simultaneous translation of our debates in this House of Commons extended to the press and public galleries. If it is necessary for us here in the House of Commons to have simultaneous translation-and I am all for it-I think this service should be extended so that people who come here, and particularly those visting us from the province of Quebec, can hear the greater number of speeches that are still made in English translated into French and relayed to the galleries. In this way their visit to Ottawa would be fully instructive and they would go back home to the great province of Quebec knowing that we are in fact one big, happy country and we are trying here day by day to understand their problems and needs in exactly the same way as they understand ours.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could make this appeal in French. Personally I am doing my best to learn this language, and I would recommend this course to every member of the house. It is an enriching experience to try to become proficient in any language.
I hope that within a year or two, if I keep working the way I have been, I will be able to make this sort of appeal without the necessity of translation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I repeat, because I think it is important, that I believe it is time we translated these speeches for the press and public galleries, so that we do in fact have complete equality in this house as far as our two official languages are concerned.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks in this debate will be directed to the question of the C.B.C., and I hope to take just a little

different viewpoint from what has been taken by previous speakers. I would like at this time to comment on some of the things said by members who have taken the opportunity in this debate to speak on the C.B.C. and to express my opinion that they have contributed a great deal in making this a real, parliamentary debate. I pay tribute to speakers from both sides of the house who have dealt with both sides of the question. I think this is as it should be when we indulge in real, parliamentary debate. I believe a great deal of very useful information has been brought out in the debate and is on the public record in regard to this most important topic.
This afternoon I would like to speak in direct support of a parliamentary committee being set up to look into the question of broadcasting. I do so because I had the privilege of sitting on a previous broadcasting committee in which we had the opportunity to hear from officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe this served a most useful purpose, because many of the questions that were in our minds and which we thought were very vital indeed were answered to our satisfaction by the representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This was not always the case, but it was true in a good many instances. We had an opportunity to meet with and question the various officials who face this tremendous responsibility of satisfying the people of Canada as far as broadcasting is concerned. I believe this is all to the good.
Some accusations of a very serious nature have been put forward in the various speeches delivered in this chamber. These accusations have concerned the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would think, sir, that the members of this crown corporation would themselves welcome an opportunity of having a forum in which to present their side of the story; that they would welcome an opportunity of answering these various questions. They have a great responsibility in providing programming for Canada because this is a very complicated subject. Certainly the men who handle this tremendous sum of money do not make these decisions or undertake these huge expenditures without real consideration and a definite policy in view.
I fail to understand why the government, in its wisdom, would refuse to consider setting up such a forum in which the corporation could make known to members of parliament its views, purposes and contemplations with
Interim Supply
regard to future expenditures. Naturally, when we speak of $100 million and are considering such large amounts of money, every member of parliament is concerned. This is a great deal of money. I believe that the way in which questions have been answered, where no definite information is given, causes members of parliament to wonder whether something is indeed not as it should be. As far as I can determine, Mr. Chairman, out of the debates and the general opinion across this country, there is a growing opinion that parliament has absolutely no control over this crown corporation; there is a growing opinion across this country that they have a blank cheque as far as the government is concerned. In other words, no matter how much money they want, all they have to do is put in a requisition and it is given to them. There is a growing opinion across this country that this corporation is an entity unto itself; they make all their own decisions, they go their own merry way, they do not have any regard for anyone as far as their responsibilities are concerned, and the people of Canada will pick up the cheque.
This is what is bothering the people of Canada; this is what bothers people in my riding. We are in just a little different position than people in some of the ridings of hon. members who have taken part in this debate. This is because of our geographical location. Many members have said, "If you do not like the programs, turn them off". This is exactly what happens in my area. Because of our close proximity to the United States we have seven or eight alternate channels, some of them being United States stations, and this gives us a variety of programs. What happens is that people turn off the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program and turn to American radio and television. This is why we who live in the area are so vitally concerned that the C.B.C. programming be of the very finest calibre, in order that our children and the people in the area get the Canadian news, the Canadian facts and Canadiana; so we are not constantly subjected to American views and the American way of life. This is a problem as far as we are concerned.
It is true that there is much discussion, about the quality of the programming and some of the programs that have been termed off-colour. Certainly there must be some degree of dissatisfaction or we would not have received these complaints. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that for this reason a committee on broadcasting should be set up, so that the men responsible for the programming of the

Interim Supply
C.B.C. could come here and give their side of the picture. Perhaps there are very definite reasons for the programs which have been aired by the C.B.C.; but until their side of the picture is given, hon. members have a right to information as to the C.B.C.'s policy in this regard. Hon. members on the government side of the house have in one or two instances tried to explain why the policy of the C.B.C. should not be subject to examination; they have said that the C.B.C. should have an absolutely free hand. If the C.B.C. were to undertake the censoring of their own programs, which I am sure they do, then perhaps we would not have any of this dissatisfaction. But we want to know to what degree they do censor their own programs,
I think that most of the dissatisfaction to which I have referred arises out of the times we are living in now. We live in an era we find hard to understand; an era of irresponsibility to a degree among our young people; an era where justice and laws are challenged; an era where adults are not sure that their teachings to their children are going to be understood or obeyed. This is an era of the greatest unease which perhaps this world has ever seen. I am sure that much of the criticism of some of the programming of the C.B.C. in its television and radio transmissions, as well as matter appearing in magazines, periodicals and other lines of communication, arises out of this fear. We feel that these channels of communication and the teachings of adults today are not checking this trend in our youth who seem, in the opinion of the people to whom I have talked, always trying to keep just one step ahead regardless of which direction they are going. I think this is what is alarming our people today.
Is this state of affairs going to lead us to a greater breakdown in morals? Is it going to lead to a greater breakdown in our sense of responsibility? Are we paying taxes to this huge corporation which is running along without control in order to lead our young people in this direction? That is the fear which is expressed.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely feel that if a broadcasting committee could be set up it would have an opportunity, not of censoring but of questioning the men with the responsibility for programming. They could be asked what they feel is right, what they feel the nation needs and how programs should be presented in the future. In this way I think there could be more of a sense of confidence in this huge medium.
[Mr. Danforth.l
The people are alarmed at what they feel is this sense of irresponsibility. They are alarmed at statements to the effect that there is a communist infiltration in the C.B.C. In this day and age when something is unexplainable and not understood by the people they think communist forces are at work. We want to know as members of parliament what is the C.B.C.'s answer to this charge and how they are monitoring their entire set-up to guard against being the tool of such a movement in Canada.
Another matter bothering the people of the country is this. Last year the C.B.C. spent $85 million. This year their budget is $100 million. This means only one thing to the people: an enormous sum of money. People cannot picture it mentally. They have never seen such a sum piled up or counted. They have no idea what is $1 million, let alone $100 million; they have no idea how high it would be or how wide or deep. To them it is just a tremendous sum of money, and they want to know what is being done with that money. Is this crown corporation building a huge bureau, a huge edifice, to be used like an empire? The people see on reading various financial statements that a few years ago the C.B.C. operated with $20 million. Now they require $100 million. When people walk down the street and see the beautiful big building just completed here in Ottawa for the C.B.C. they want to know whether it was necessary that it be built. They want to know whether we have to spend millions of dollars here in Ottawa when people elsewhere in the country have no radio or television coverage; and I think they should have the answer to this question. Certainly these huge edifices in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal would not have been built unless they were needed; but the C.B.C. should have the opportunity of explaining why they were necessary and what is their program for the future.
When we had the broadcasting corporation before the committee previously we began to learn what a tremendous entity it was and what a complex and technical nature it comprised. I have heard it suggested in this house that the broadcasting committee should be divided into subcommittees, each one to deal with a particular facet of our broadcasting picture. I think that is very advisable because it has a complicated structure. I have heard it argued that we are not technicians and cannot supervise programming. It is true we know nothing of the technical aspects of broadcasting or television, and we do not

want to. But as representatives of Canadian citizens we do want to know what is going on, where we are going in the future and what is planned for this huge edifice.
We have heard rumours that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a gifted favour club; that there are certain reporters and newspapermen connected with the C.B.C. as well as certain television specialists and cameramen who are sent around the world on special news projects. The Olympic games was a prime example. No one who watched the broadcasts and heard the commentary at the Olympic games can voice any criticism; it was an excellent type of program. But I have heard it said in my riding that there were more C.B.C. personnel in Japan than there were Canadian athletes. The people want to know how much such a thing costs, and how much it costs to put on a program.
These are some of the main questions we are asked as members of parliament. This is why I think it is so necessary that we be given an opportunity to pass these questions along to the C.B.C. management. The minister responsible is questioned in the house day after day but gives us the stock answer that he will pass on these questions to the C.B.C., and that is the end of them. We have heard it said with regard to a certain program-I am not going into the details of it-that of 100 telephone calls received 70 expressed indignation at the program and 30 expressed approval. We want to know what happens when the public says it does not like a certain program. Is the program changed? Do the C.B.C. take into consideration the views of the people in future programming or are these views ignored entirely? Unfortunately no matter what the people say their views are entirely ignored by the C.B.C. We should like an opportunity to question some of these officials of the C.B.C. who are directly responsible and find out what are the channels. If a program is not liked or brings on tremendous public indignation, what is the approach to the C.B.C.? Whom must we contact, and what is done about the complaints?
These are some of the questions the C.B.C. could answer if there were a forum. Unless they are given this opportunity the people at large will be more suspicious than ever; and we members of parliament are going to be more suspicious too. When the estimates of the C.B.C. are before us we are going to be asked to grant this considerable sum of money. As was pointed out by other hon. members, we do not want to give an open cheque to this crown corporation when we 20220-603
Interim Supply
do not know what is going to be done with the money. That would not be fair. When the estimates of other departments of government are before the house we can question the very last dollar and get the answers we wish -or at least we have the opportunity to ask questions. This has never been so in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
By those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I have earnestly attempted to put on the record the views of the people of my riding. As I have pointed out before, our views are perhaps a little different because we have this variety of choice. However, I should like to repeat that the one regret we do have arises from the fact that people are prone to take advantage of United States television and radio rather than of our own C.B.C. That is why we are so concerned that there be nothing done at all, or allowed to be done, to downgrade the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its programs. That is why I make an earnest plea once again that this government seriously consider placing this entire matter in the hands of a broadcasting committee. Certainly this matter does not have a partisan flavour, but is something from which there can be no political gain. Surely this is something of concern to all the people of Canada because, after all, the taxpayer is footing the bills.
Mr. Chairman, all governments have followed the practice of placing matters, about which they require further study, in the hands of standing committees. By doing so I think this government would have the finest opportunity possible of solving two problems which now exist. It would provide answers to the questions people are asking generally in Canada about the C.B.C., and at the same time give the staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who I am sure are attempting earnestly to provide the very finest entertainment possible, an opportunity to present their side of the story.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred taking advantage of another occasion to draw to the attention of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is not present in this house at this moment, the application of his famous ARDA program in the province of Quebec, and especially in my district of Roberval. The minister will certainly defend his position and say that the projects must be submitted by the provinces, so the officials of his department may examine them.
Nonetheless, all those famous joint programs have a dramatic character: We never

Interim Supply
know who is really responsible for them, and I am inclined to believe that they were created in order to confuse the situation indefinitely, so that, i findividuals or groups of citizens endeavour to accuse the government, the latter may answer that it is not responsible for such a situation, and the provinces will claim that they alone are not responsible for such projects.
Thus, when the time comes to pay, or when numerous and bothersome delays must be explained, the responsibility is shifted from the federal government to the provinces, and from the provinces to the federal government.
The same situation exists in the ARDA program as well as in any other joint program. I will but mention a second one

the famous winter works program.
I wish to protest energetically against this practice of delaying payments. In fact, I do not know what is what, although I live in Ottawa and continuously attend the sittings of this house. Is it the federal government's fault? Is the government of the province of Quebec sleeping amidst its glory?
However, there is one sure fact: hundreds of farmers, labourers, heads of families, are still waiting for the money they earned last winter; they have not yet received one cent.
Mothers and children suffer for lack of the bare essentials, and this, because the two governments do not agree on how to solve their problems. Programs are suggested, studied and planned. In the meantime, children are starving.
Mr. Chairman, what I have just mentioned exists in two parishes of my county, namely Notre Dame de Lorette and St. Elizabeth.
One government is blamed or the other, when the two are not blamed at the same time. But no solution is ever found, nor does money ever come in. To punish the citizens of these two communities located in a designated area, they are told they will not have any work during the 1964-65 winter season. This then, Mr. Chairman, is how the two Liberal governments, in Quebec and Ottawa, solve the problem of winter unemployment in the electoral district of Roberval.
I particularly wish to point out this situation to the minister, since November 1 is drawing near and conditions are still at the same point as ten months ago in those two parishes. I am told that Ottawa is responsible for this, and I am pretty sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is quite

unaware of the situation. Therefore, we expect from the minister a clear and outright statement, so that the truly responsible one might be taken to task once and for all.
Second, I should like to revert to the matter I dealt with at the outset of my remarks, that is, the ARDA program.
I point out to the Minister of Forestry that the Quebec government has probably lost sight of the real purpose of this joint program.
The act actually provides that its main purpose is agricultural rehabilitation and rural development. In his speech of September 17 last, the minister specified this object quite well, when he stated at the beginning:
As Minister of Forestry, I am responsible for three distinct programs: the program on forest research, the assistance program for the transportation of feed grain and the ARDA program.
He goes on to say:
In order to include all those programs under a single department, a motion is now on the order paper of the House of Commons to change the name of the department to that of department of forestry and rural development.
On page 4 of that speech, the minister said:
In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of the ARDA program is rural development.
The minister makes a clear distinction between the three main points his department is interested in, that is forestry, transportation of feed grain and ARDA. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, after having established those three points, I will show the minister that in my region the ARDA program is not applied as he wanted it to be.
I go over the various press releases from the Minister of Forestry which I have received and very carefully kept.
We find that, in all the other provinces, an effort has been made to make use of the ARDA program, in some cases through a study, in other cases by developing several pastures, and in still other cases by undertaking drainage projects.
This is evidenced in the releases of May 29, 1964 when the minister announced a study to be made during a trip.
Early next week, two forest rangers of the federal Department of Forestry in Ottawa will leave Fort Nelson in a jet craft 28 feet long on a 1,200 mile trip on the Mackenzie river system.
The minister was announcing certain studies concerning rural redevelopment under the ARDA program.
And there was another project in Saskatchewan, a program of studies of the natural,

social and economic resources of the Torch river area, followed by two famous proposed studies which fitted very well in the ARDA program. Then came some wonderful projects in certain provinces, having to do with the establishment of new pastures.
Again through a press release, the minister announced a new pasture in Alberta for a sum of $315,900, another in Saskatchewan covering over 35,000 acres, another community pasture of 19,200 acres, another one in Alberta at a cost of $600,000, still another in Ontario at a cost of $140,000.
Mr. Chairman, all this goes to show that, in the other provinces, the work of the federal and provincial governments was really aimed at implementing the ARDA program.
The same thing applies to drainage in the other provinces. If you refer to the minister's press release, you will see that he announced a drainage project, in Manitoba, at a cost of $476,000.
Mr. Chairman, after this over-all review of those releases, let us see what has been done in Quebec.
The minister will probably reply that the government has transformed crown lands into blueberry fields. Since, as I say, that was done on crown land and not on farm land, as required under the ARDA program, it constitutes forest transformation rather than farm rehabilitation. It is not redevelopment of old bare farm land either.
It is not that I am against such clearing operations, that we may be sorry for in a few years, but I feel both governments took the bear by the tail. In my opinion, they have been concerning themselves with forest development instead of farm development.
If proper use had been made of ARDA, they would have started by rehabilitating existing farms which have always been marginal for lack of necessary governmental help.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, assistance should first have been provided to all farmers who own blueberry fields since, up until now, that is the only problem which has been tackled under ARDA in our district. Then, aid should have been given to those who have set up co-operatives for the rational growing of blueberries. After those two initial stages, it would have been time to set up the syndicates which have now been created for the production of those berries on a commercial scale.
Those syndicates are surely not farm organizations. In my district we call them patronage syndicates. Those are the organizations the minister has seen fit to subsidize.
20220-603i
Interim Supply
What has been the result to date? Political proteges have succeeded in making from $2,000 to $3,000 in the space of a few days. What will be the outcome of all that? Surely not employment for the 8,700 families mentioned in the minister's press release of August 3, 1964, which reads as follows:
The federal Minister of Forestry, Mr. Maurice Sauve, and the Quebec minister of agriculture and colonization, Mr. Alcide Courcy, announced jointly today... that an amount of $140,000 will be spent for the implementation of an ARDA project whose purpose is to find which areas are suitable for the growing of blueberries. The federal government will pay half the cost of the project.
To this day, nine blueberry fields have been set up in Quebec under ARDA. The new project is to determine whether it would be advisable to develop additional fields of that kind to provide increased income and employment for over 8,700 families in the Abitibi and Lake St. John areas.
In my opinion, those figures were established, not by the minister, but by government officials, who have been rather generous, considering that the expenditure of $135,000 for the setting up of a similar blueberry farm, not too far from my town, has provided employment for only 42 heads of families approximately, the rest of the money, that is $102,000, going to small political proteges to pay for their machinery and for other political advantages in connection with those works.
It is for that reason I say that even if the minister were to set up 20 blueberry fields of that kind, it is not with such works that he will create jobs for 8,700 family heads.
I want to repeat that if millions had been used-true, a few millions were invested in those projects-but if first things had come first, that is, first of all try to improve what already exists-and what already exists is the family blueberry farm-I think it would have been a worthy achievement in my region and then, I think work would have been done within the framework of ARDA, because it would have been a direct assistance to the farmer.
After that stage, grants could have been made to the many blueberry co-operatives that farmers have set up as a result of painstaking efforts in our region. Today, when they would be ready to produce, those same farmers are being frustrated in their rights and cannot get any money from the two governments so as to improve existing blueberry farms.
But what happened? Millions were voted to set up syndicates, what are called blueberry syndicates, to break new ground in

Interim Supply
the bush and try to grow blueberries-imagine the tremendous mistake-while land only waiting to be improved is neglected. Thousands of acres of growing trees are destroyed, cut down and burnt to try an experiment, while just close by, the same experiment has been carried out for the last 30 years.
That is where I believe the minister committed a serious error. I cannot accuse him directly, because I think that the government of the province of Quebec is also responsible to a certain extent, but when something wrong is done in a province, the one paying a share, that is the provincial government, to the extent of 50 per cent, should be alert and ascertain that the subsidies granted by the federal government to pay the farmers be used for the purposes for which they were intended in the estimates -that is, for the Canadian farmers, as provided for in ARDA.
Those are the two questions I intended to raise. If subsidies are still granted to those famous syndicates, and if the very basis of the most profitable industry in our region is allowed to deteriorate, in my opinion, we are heading toward catastrophe. We might wake up too late, if ever, because we will then realize that we have committed the greatest error of our lives.
I said, a while ago, that we are not directly helping the farmers through those syndicates because-and the minister probably does not know it-50 per cent of their members are not farmers. City people-plumbers, electricians, lawyers, notaries-compose the membership of the blueberry syndicates. The farmers who are members of those syndicates, who intend to operate blueberry fields are not at all encouraged when they realize that four or five political proteges direct those organizations in order to have the number of members required to be granted an operating permit and benefit from the subsidies. I am sure that most-I do not say all-of those who direct those organizations are more interested in taking advantage of the subsidies than in promoting the agricultural economy of our district.
I wish to draw the minister's attention to these points, because I know he will take them into serious consideration. I ask him to conduct an investigation because, after all, we pay 50 per cent of those grants. I would ask him to order an investigation in our districts. He would be amazed at the amount of patronage-not federal but provincial-being dispensed in that field. He would be amazed at

the sums of money appropriated for that purpose, which are not used to help our farmers, and even less to provide for agricultural rehabilitation and development as contemplated by ARDA.
That is why I stated at the beginning that the ARDA plan had never been used in our district. It is the forests that are being improved, instead of farm lands which could become profitable in our area, if only both governments would provide assistance.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the whole field of cultural affairs connected with the C.B.C. During the last few days criticisms have been voiced on both sides of the chamber about C.B.C. programming. I do not intend to go into the question of programming, although I do not agree with a lot of the things the C.B.C. has done, but this debate has focused attention on some of the problems besetting our national broadcasting policy.
I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for York East on the question of whether we still need the C.B.C. as it is presently constituted. Having been a member of parliament for six years, and having experience of our broadcasting committees, I do not think setting up another committee is sufficient for our purposes. While we might vent our own personal steam on what the C.B.C. is doing, we would come away from such a committee with the same results as previously. The C.B.C. would carry on, each year, in accordance with Parkinson's law, increasing its appropriations which, like Topsy, continually grow. This year it is asking for another $15 million for capital expenditures.
It is time we took a serious look at cultural affairs in Canadian broadcasting. It is time we took a serious look at the $100 million annually spent on the C.B.C., at the $6 million the national film board is using, and at the $380,000 that is necessary for the B.B.G. Mr. Fowler in his commission report on broadcasting in 1957 made some interesting comments on this problem. At that time we were discussing whether we should have a public system of broadcasting and the conclusion was reached that because of economics and geography we required a national broadcasting system subsidized from the public purse. But right at the beginning of his report Mr. Fowler said:
No politician in his sane mind could want to encounter the difficulties and criticisms and head-

aches of supervising a public broadcasting system if he could possibly avoid it.
This is what we have been hearing during the last three days. I think it is time we took a hard look at the difficulties we encounter in the supervision of this public broadcasting system. The C.B.C. was set up, as we know, in 1932 under the Bennett government and approved without dissension. But things have changed a great deal since those days. They have changed even since Mr. Fowler's report was made. We have entered the jet age, a new age of electronics. In 1957, at the time of this report, it was suggested we could not have a private television network because we could not afford one. What happened a few short years later, when franchises were made available for additional television stations in some of our major cities? There was really keen competition to get these stations. I think we should remember, too, that the Canadian broadcasting system was not set up by government alone. Even in the earlier days of radio and television they depended on private operators in certain cities to link in with their network to provide coverage across Canada. This surely should be the role of government-to supervise the broadcasting industry, to make regulations to ensure that the content of our television is Canadian, at least to a major extent. It should have some responsibility for seeing that communication is established with remote areas of Canada. These are responsibilities which rest on government in the broadcasting field.
In the years before 1957 we did not have a board of broadcast governors. We now have a board set up by parliament to regulate broadcasting in Canada. It does not matter what government is in power; it does not matter whether you have a committee set up to investigate the C.B.C. or not, there will be all kinds of complaints every time the C.B.C. shows a film which a block of the population does not like. It is not the function of government to push culture down somebody's throat. Culture is not generated that way; it has to be developed from the bottom, up. You do not suppress perversion by exploiting it; you do not suppress minority and hate literature by exploiting that. The C.B.C. has taken it unto itself to become a little government all its own. There can be no control by parliament, as the hon. member for Calgary North so ably pointed out yesterday. Parliament has no control over this monolithic giant which has grown up, like Topsy.
It is a very good question, whether or not parliament should have control over the programming of our broadcast system, as long
Interim Supply
as it meets certain standards. It is very easy to say to a government in power that it has twisted the arm of a government corporation to suppress a film or to show a film. Are we to go back to the example of dictator-like countries, where they all have a national broadcasting system which is primarily a propaganda instrument to keep governments in power?
The time has come when we should have a reorganization of our broadcasting facilities in Canada. We should take advantage of the board of broadcast governors and allow them to regulate broadcasting. If some television network steps out of line, this is the board which should be stepping on it. If we did that we could immediately save ourselves, not the entire $100 million, but a substantial part of it. I say this because I think the C.B.C. should continue in force, first to administer its overseas network, to provide a radio and television coverage in a mechanical way-I mean by this, technical facilities-and, second, to provide communication with the remote areas of Canada. We could immediately save ourselves at least $80 million a year. We could put up for sale the C.B.C. stations which are now operating in our major centres. We could add to the capital account of the federal government many millions of dollars through selling these tools used to do a job which should be done by private enterprise in any case. Put up the one in Edmonton; it would be sold very readily. Put up the one in Ottawa. Put up the stations in Toronto and Montreal.
In 1957, Mr. Fowler said:
We are satisfied that the volume of advertising revenue available in Canada is not in itself sufficient to pay for a Canadian broadcasting system.
This has been shown to be wrong. There is enough revenue to pay for another network and there is enough revenue in Canada to pay for competing networks. The situation is there in a nutshell. Allow the C.B.C. to continue to provide films through the national film board. If they want to take it over, that is all right with me because I do not think we need these different divisions in government. All that it does is add new buildings and more people doing paperwork. The national film board is responsible for advising the governor in council on film activities and is authorized to produce and distribute films in the national interest, in particular, films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations. Surely we have a vehicle here in the national film board to interpret Canada to Canadians. This is one of the

Interim Supply
responsibilities of the C.B.C., and surely we could go one step further, because the national film board is now spending $670,900 for films produced specifically for television.
We have all these things which are duplicating each other. I expect the national film board is growing each year, too, because we have to interpret Canadians to Canadians. In other words, we have to interpret ourselves to ourselves. Of course, once you get a good job under the government working for the national film board you are not going to sit down and wonder how you can cut down your appropriation; you are going to sit down and wonder how you can build a little empire for yourself. We have seen the C.B.C. grow. They have a lot of things they would still like to do. They would like to put up buildings in Montreal and Toronto and I am sure these will be magnificent edifices. I am also sure that if private enterprise was offered this network they would find very quickly that they did not need these magnificent edifices at all-that it could do at a quarter of the cost what the C.B.C. has been doing, and that the amount of commercial revenue the C.B.C. is now taking in would very nearly cover the starting cost for a new network.
This is basic economics and a basic reassessment is needed of where we are going in this broadcast field. We have to sit down and take a look at it, and do so right now. Are we going to continue this policy which was established in the 'thirties, this policy which said we needed a public broadcasting system in Canada? I agree that in the 'thirties we did, and maybe even up until 10 years ago we did. Maybe up to five years ago we did. But the time has come when the government of Canada is subsidizing General Motors or anybody else to advertise its products on a national television network. This in essence is what we are doing.
It is very fine to talk, to say what you like about drama and everything else. Some hon. members were saying yesterday that we were not fit judges of what should be on television, anyway. I agree. We should not even be bothered with it. We set up the board of broadcast governors to control broadcasting; we do not want to be concerned. Indeed we are very foolish if we are concerned because, as the hon. member for Calgary North said, there is really no control whatsoever. The ordinary person in Canada believes parliament does have control. Constituents say to us: "Why do you allow the C.B.C. to do this?" We tell them we do not have any control over 
the corporation, and they wonder what we are doing. But we have no control over the C.B.C. and we will have no control whether we have an inquiry now or at any time in the future. We will have a continuing, spiralling increase in costs, because they want to go into colour television. Imagine what is going to happen when they go into colour television: they will probably then have to rebuild all the facilities they now have, because they will not be just right to suit a government corporation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the Pearson film?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The Pearson film, of course, is a very good example and one of the prime reasons why it is time to cut off the C.B.C. from programming entirely. The C.B.C. should then be relegated to dealing with the technical side of things, to ensure that the people in the more remote areas of Canada have communication in both television and radio. We have this now, in a sense, in asking the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. to build our microwave networks; we are asking private industry to build these networks. All I am suggesting is that we should go one step further. Let us be sensible and businesslike; let us take this emotional nonsense about programming out of the House of Commons and give it to the board set up to regulate broadcasting. Let us forget about this spiralling, empire building organization the C.B.C. has become. I am sure there are other government departments that could move into the building on Bronson avenue here in Ottawa; there are other government departments that could take over the empty buildings of the C.B.C. I am sure that anybody worth his salt who is now with the C.B.C. can get a job in the private broadcasting industry. If he cannot, he had better look to his laurels and pull up his socks.
Can we as a nation and as a country afford this corporation? I say, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot afford to continue with this $100 million a year plaything that does not do anything except annoy the majority of the people of Canada. I know there are many organizations and people in Canada who say the C.B.C. is great. In our farm communities, in our own community at home, we enjoy the C.B.C. farm programs. We think they have done a service along this line. But there is absolutely no reason why the national film board could not take over this portion of the functions of the corporation and provide these films to private networks. After all, the

only reason government got into broadcasting in the first place, other than for the purposes of supervision, was because it was not economical to have a privately owned network across Canada.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: I wonder whether the policy of selling the C.B.C. to private interests is a policy that his party is advocating.


Mr. Starr:: He did not say that at all.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: What I said had nothing to do with the policy of this party. I am giving my views with regard to a subject with which I have been very deeply concerned for a number of years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a taxpayer.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: As a taxpayer, as my hon. friend says, and also as someone who has been involved with the medical care of patients. I believe that television is a force the potency of which has not even been reckoned with as yet. I believe it should certainly be regulated and supervised, but I see no reason whatever why government should continue to operate studios and produce programs, etc., other than in the national interest; and, as I say, we have such an organ in the national film board, which is already set up specifically to produce films which interpret Canada to Canadians. As I said previously, they are now spending money to produce these films for television. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we have the national film board doing it on the one hand, and we have the C.B.C. doing it on the other. The only difference is that the national film board has not yet found out how to get enough money and they are operating on a very minor level at the moment. I am not suggesting they should be given a larger budget; all I am suggesting is that we should not leave all these things to the C.B.C. I am not saying we are going to sell the C.B.C. I say, let us sell their properties and their franchises in the major areas.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member not agree that this is virtually disbanding the C.B.C.?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Not at all. The C.B.C. was set up, as I have already said, because it was not economically feasible to have a private network in Canada. Govern-
Interim Supply
ment has no business in soap operas; that is not the role of government, in my opinion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may be for the Grits, though.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: It may be. But
we have to take a really close look at this matter. If we let it go any longer we are going to be lost to this creeping bureaucracy and they will have so much power that we will not be able to do anything about it. We must start looking at the situation now and see that we have a change from the basic policy that has been propagated by one royal commission or inquiry after another. This basic policy is that we must have a public broadcasting system.
We must have supervision of broadcasting in Canada. I agree that there are types of films which are educational and which, using the words of the Canada Year Book, interpret Canada to Canadians. We need this kind of film still; but they could be made available through private broadcasting. We could do more in regard to providing communication to some of our more remote areas. As the hon. member for Athabasca suggested, when we cease to build these edifices in Toronto and Montreal perhaps we will be able to take modern communications into the hinterlands. The cost of television has of course changed very considerably from 1957 to the present time, and will change more as time goes on. As these methods of communication become more common and we have more scientific developments, we will of course have more efficiency and more economy in setting up a television network.
We have all seen what has happened in this industry. The first network was set up with coaxial cable, and so on; then along came microwave and this brought down the cost of network operations. Further developments will probably bring down the cost of network operations to an even greater degree in the future. We now have jet transport, which means it is only a matter of three or four hours to travel from east to west. All these things have changed the entire concept of this industry, even the 1957 concept of the Fowler royal commission. In their report they say that the overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to them compelled them to report that Canadians wished to have a Canadian broadcasting system. The report does not say "a public broadcasting system". We of course want to keep broadcasting as much Canadian as we possibly can; we want to develop the arts with Canadian personnel. All I am sug-

Interim Supply
gesting is that private industry can probably do it better than government. Then the Fowler report says that Canadians are willing, within reason, to pay for it. I wonder if we are still within reason in paying for it. I do not think that at the present time the majority of Canadians who are aware of the situation would favour a public broadcasting system. When one considers the history of this corporation, what has happened in the past, why we had it in the first place, and how it has developed throughout the years, he realizes that the time has now come for us to seriously consider its basic policy. This has been the policy of every government. The former government had the same policy toward the corporation, and the government before that had this policy, which is based on the assumption that Canadians want it and need it, and that it was an economic necessity to have a public broadcasting network in Canada.
I am suggesting that the necessity is no longer there from an economic point of view; that the majority of Canadian people who understand the situation no longer feel that we need to have a public broadcasting system; that we could save ourselves a great deal of emotional agony; that we could probably improve the broadcasting fare for Canadians if we were to suggest to the C.B.C. that they should reorganize their entire operation so they would be responsible solely for the technical side of broadcasting. This would include, for example, the remote areas, film boards, educational television advancement and international programs. If that were done I think we would get down to basics and save this country millions of dollars. For example, $100 million right off the bat would be saved and there would be a continuing $100 million a year.


Maurice John Moreau: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I fail to understand his point. He seems to be advocating essentially that we turn over the broadcasting field to private industry; at least that is what I understood. In view of the general support he is getting from the members on his side of the house, such as the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Ontario, may I ask whether this is an official party position?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: No, it is not. The hon. member should appreciate that over here we are allowed to express our views from our own experiences.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is putting words in my mouth. I have not made a speech on the C.B.C. If the hon. member for York-Scarborough, one of the trained seals of the Liberal party, wants to make a speech let him make one.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on C.B.C. television activities. It is my belief that the Canadian people are grateful to the C.B.C. for the excellent service they provide across the nation. Personally I admire the board of directors of the C.B.C. for the contribution they have made and continue to make. On their shoulders rests a great responsibility. Decisions made by them can and do have a tremendous influence on many people.
Some people resent the fact that the corporation is a power unto itself and that censorship from any outside source is frowned upon by that body. Many people feel that its work should be open to inquiry, subject to public scrutiny and answerable to public opinion. On the other hand, its progress could be impeded and its services damaged with too much supervision and too many inquiries.
It is understood by everyone that the C.B.C. should be non-partisan and free from political interference. Occasions have arisen when such suspicions were perhaps justified. Such circumstances should not be tolerated and regulations to assure this should be strictly adhered to; but I do think the Canadian people should have an effective liaison through which they might voice their disapproval of extremes that should be protested against and corrected without delay.
Several days ago I objected to certain C.B.C. television programs by way of questions in this house to the Secretary of State. No other course was available to me by which my constituents would know that I had made this appeal. Nevertheless the reply I received brought people everywhere to the full realization of how helpless are the government and the people of the nation to protest effectively a very undesirable program, a feature of our own crown corporation.
My disapproval was directed at the play "Feast of Lupercal" on the program "Festival" of October 7, and again at the same program one week later when two related plays were presented, "Mrs. Dally has a Lover" and "Today is Independence Day". Each play appeared to be an effort to outdo the previous one in vulgar language and in portrayals of

seduction and illicit love. My hon. colleague from Grey-Bruce went into some detail on these yesterday so I will not repeat his remarks. Thousands of television viewers across the country were alarmed and disappointed to think that the C.B.C. with its great influence would give time to such revolting plays, which not only displayed bad taste but could be instrumental in promoting immorality in our young people.
This sordidness has gone beyond the limit and should be discontinued at once; because we cannot continue to sow such vulgarity without reaping the demoralizing reward. There is plenty of good material that could be used which would be an inspiration to Canadian family life. There is an abundance of clean, informative, constructive and entertaining program material available to the C.B.C. which would assist parents in getting their children on good moral foundations and by which they, the C.B.C., could make a really creditable contribution to our way of life. The C.B.C. can be a nation builder.
Our young people are the strength of this country and we must demand quality in all ingredients that go into their physical, moral, spiritual and intellectual make-up. The C.B.C. can contribute much to the last three of these. The Canadian people deserve value for the $86 million C.B.C. operation.


Mr. Peters:: I had not intended to speak about the C.B.C. but, having listened to some of the comments which have been made, there is another side to the picture. At one time I asked the producer of a show which I considered to be way out why this kind of program was broadcast, and I think his answer is one which all hon. members should consider. He explained to me that because the C.B.C. was such a large organization and served large numbers of people in widely scattered areas of Canada, both the intelligentsia and others, there were programs which should be shown on a limited basis- probably 15 minutes a week-which were in the high class drama category, the sort of thing probably I would not understand. I agree it would be unfortunate if the only music the C.B.C. played was that of Don Messer, even though I happen to like it. If that were the case it might promote a nation of maritimers, which might not be in the interests of the development of this nation. However, I personally would give it a very high rating. My friends who consider themselves of the intelligentsia say that this is very low-brow entertainment. I think it is 20220-604
Interim Supply
true that many of the programs shown on the C.B.C. must reflect the interests of all the people in Canada. If we look at some of the programs which have been referred to and to which objection has been taken these are the types of programs which may meet the cravings of some of the more highly educated people in our society who feel that this sort of drama is necessary and is a good thing.
I believe the C.B.C. has done an excellent job. Those members who feel otherwise should question the farming organizations who appear before our committees. Surprisingly enough one category to whom the C.B.C. has brought television and radio coverage is our rural population. They have used this as their total means of communication in order to keep in touch with many other parts of the world. In some instances there is no daily newspaper these people can buy. Many do not have even a weekly newspaper, but depend on the C.B.C. radio and television service to bring them the events of the world, whether they be in the form of drama, other entertainment or news broadcasts. As I say, I think the C.B.C. has done a very good job in this regard although there are many other areas in Canada which still require coverage.
Some will say that the C.B.C. does provide a type of service to a very large percentage of the Canadian population. That is not true when we consider total coverage as far as television and radio are concerned. I think those people who believe in an extension of this type of thing should be sympathetic toward that part of our population which depends entirely on the C.B.C. or government sponsored services for their entire communications media.
The C.B.C. is a very large organization. A communications system in this country must of necessity be a large system. In Canada the C.B.C. operates both radio and television stations, and for the most part private service is provided in the form of networks to large communities, and through affiliates to the smaller communities. There is competition in this field in many sections of our country.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other communications medium which I think should be kept separate from the two I mentioned, and I refer to radio Canada. Radio Canada is providing broadcasting services to one segment of our population which has not been supplied this service by private enterprise.
In comparing various services provided by these three systems we must consider the field of news, entertainment, culture and

Interim Supply
philosophy. When considering the news aspect, I think we must agree that the C.B.C. is providing adequate coverage. I am sure every member of parliament watches the C.B.C. news programs closely and will agree that that organization has done very well in covering local, national and international affairs. Some of the outstanding events that have taken place throughout the world have been brought to the attention of Canadian viewers as quickly as possible through the facilities of the C.B.C. The demand in Canada for coverage of international events as quickly as possible has increased, and the C.B.C. has met this demand.
In considering the field of entertainment one must keep in mind the difficulties which arise because of the likes and dislikes of viewers. Sometimes I think advertisements are more entertaining than the programs. The C.B.C. has done a good job in this field.
The great difficulty which any organization providing a communications service must face is in the field of culture and philosophy. One of the previous speakers suggested the C.B.C. should be sold. In the event such a thing took place we would only have private television and radio outlets throughout this nation. What kind of culture or philosophy would we then have on our programs in this non-competitive but private system? Certainly such programs as "Quest", "Festival" and "This Hour has Seven Days" would not be possible, because the private systems are dependant entirely upon sponsors. Can anyone visualize a sponsor agreeing to sponsor a program such as "Festival"? I do not hesitate to say that I do not like that particular program, and I think the people who take part in it are a bunch of nuts. That is my personal opinion. I have not been trained in the school of drama, or in the field of culture. Perhaps that is why I think the way I do; but I realize there are a great many nuts in this country who believe this is a very worth-while type of program.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, this type of cultural and philosophical program in a private communications system would have to be sponsored, and I cannot visualize a sponsor sponsoring that type of program, knowing that he would probably have a telephone call the following morning cancelling 40 or 50 contracts because of it. Just because I do not like that kind of program I do not see why it should not be presented. If I were the almighty in the field of communications I would know and be able to pick out what was good for people and what everyone would like, but obviously I am not. I have made no

pretense in this regard, nor do I believe the C.B.C. has given any indication that it is the body which should decide what is good and what is bad. The C.B.C. has made a tremendously successful attempt to provide controversial subjects. Controversy is not bad for Canadian people, and I am quite proud of the program "This Hour has Seven Days".


Mr. Habel:: You should not be.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says I should be proud of it.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I said you should not be proud of it.


William Arnold Peters: I think I should be proud of it because it is a highly controversial program. Perhaps it creates controversy in a sensational way, but it deals with actual problems which face the world today.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It is destroying the world.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member suggests this type of program is destroying the world. This type of program is providing information to the people, and I believe it is by hiding information that people are destroyed.
I should like to refer to one statement made during this program the other night. The speaker was a man with whom I violently disagree. In his statement he asked what would happen if a segment of a population from another country was dumped into one of our major cities. I would suspect that anyone who did not think about that question, in the light of the way we solve our own problems, must have turned the set off. Certainly it was a controversial suggestion which in my view warranted some consideration.
With the advent of an entirely private television and radio system in this country we would have a lack of controversy, as a result of which we would be even less colourful than we are. Sponsors of programs would demand that they be non-controversial, because they want to sell their products to every viewer watching the programs. Those members who say they believe in free enterprise and freedom of initiative must have their wires badly crossed when they suggest that we should have a monopolistic control over this medium so there will not be controversy. Those are the kind of people who suggest there should only be one government or one political party-the one they support.
I have no objection to controversial programs. While the C.B.C. has made mistakes we must remember that the C.B.C. is

pioneering in this field certainly in this country, it not on the North American continent. It is perfectly proper for hon. members to stand in the house and say they believe that programs which contain interviews and discussions about things such as women's bosoms should not appear during the hours of t.v. programming when children are likely to be watching t.v. I agree that perhaps such programs should be directed toward adult audiences at a time after children have gone to bed. Those who are responsible for putting on these programs should exercise some judgment as to whether they are family programs or whether they should be viewed later in the evening when the children have gone to bed.
One of the amusing things about selling the C.B.C. is that I do not hear anyone say we should sell all of the C.B.C. They say we should sell that part in the large cities where the C.B.C. makes money. Let us look at what has happened in the major cities in which we have allowed a second television station. Did we really get a new type of program? Did we really accomplish very much by this except having the opportunity-and I am 100 per cent in favour of having the opportunity to choose between two or three stations-of choosing between stations? Have we really accomplished anything in a cultural sense as was indicated we would when the applications were made to the B.B.G.? We may have. Again, I may not be in a position to judge; I may not be trained to judge. When we talk of selling the C.B.C. should we not really consider the whole of the C.B.C. operation, rather than consider only those parts of it which are financial plums?
The B.B.G. was established several years ago to provide some control over the operations of the news media in Canada. I feel they have failed to do the job we expected they were going to be able to do. It may be that the board of broadcast governors act should be returned to parliament for amendment. It is quite possible we did not give them enough authority to be able to do the things we thought they were going to do. We know that they have been almost ineffective in policing the broadcasting services in Canada. This may be a field that should be referred to a committee on broadcasting.
This raises another question, Mr. Chairman. Why have we not referred the B.B.G. and the C.B.C., if that is our desire, to a committee of this house? Is this government 20220-604J
Interim Supply
so ineffective they have not been able to decide for themselves what changes in policy they wish to make in this field, and for that reason have not been able to establish a committee? Is it because there are enough committees of this house and this is not an important matter? I feel the government has a responsibility to tell us why they have neglected to establish a committee on broadcasting. Then, the question of cable television could have been referred to this committee. I believe there are things that we could improve, and certainly there will always be things we could improve. The
B.	B.G. could give us the benefit of their experience in a broadcasting committee and make recommendations for the changes they wish made. This opportunity should be afforded. We should not be in a position of attacking them and saying they have not done a job unless they have an opportunity to appear and suggest the changes that should be made.
I should like to close by saying that I believe the C.B.C. has done a remarkable job. They have brought to Canadians over a widely scattered area television and radio programs that are a credit to the nation. It would be safe to say there is not anyone in this house who does not violently dislike some program on the C.B.C. I believe it is safe to say also that there are Canadians who have a particular program and they will go to a great deal of effort week after week to watch it closely. One of the members referred to the field of culture, and this applies to rural Canada. There are many farmers who will make an extreme effort to take advantage of the opportunity to watch certain programs because they are of value in their farming operations.
I think we should be very careful, Mr. Chairman, about blasting the C.B.C. because of a particular program. I am quite happy that those who are responsible in parliament for the C.B.C., not only in this government but in previous governments, have rejected the idea that members of parliament should be able to discontinue a program on the
C.	B.C. just because it is objectionable to them, personally. This matter should be decided by responsible people. If the C.B.C. is not doing the job, then we should collectively look at all the problems of the C.B.C. and make the changes that are necessary. Then, once we have made them, they should be enforced. If we start telling the C.B.C. what type of program to put on, what the content of the program should be and when it should be put

Interim Supply
on, how much of the time of the C.B.C. should be allotted to culture, then I believe that medium will lose its effectiveness in Canada and will disappear as an influence on the Canadian way of life. I believe the majority of Canadians are proud of the C.B.C. and want it to continue. They should demand that members of parliament give the C.B.C. an over-all policy direction as to the extension of services into those areas that do not have service now, and continue to supervise in a general way the operations of the C.B.C., as has been our practice for a number of years.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to express to those who are responsible for the administration of the C.B.C. some of the views of the middle class citizens who pay part of the expenses incurred by this corporation.
The C.B.C. costs the federal treasury close to $100 million a year. Though this amount is large-very large indeed-this is not the only aspect with which the public at large finds fault.
As regards this budget matter, I believe that parliament-that is the representatives of the Canadian people-should be able to scrutinize the expenditures of the C.B.C. Should these expenditures be justified, nobody would object to their examination or, for that matter, to taking the advice of those who, after all, pay the shot.
The other aspect upon which the people at large would like to make observations is even more important. I am referring here to the programming, the choice of commentators, the selection of the ideas that can be suggested to our people by means of radio, and especially television. I must say, right now, that far be it from me to ask the government to control the programming or the appointment of radio and television commentators.
What this government-or this parliament- can and must do is to require that the board of directors and top officers of the C.B.C. should have good moral standards, in addition to intellectual and physical qualifications, so that they in turn may demand the same qualifications from their senior employees.
In this regard, I wish to repeat that the government, or parliament, should require the directors of the C.B.C. to be of strong moral fibre, in addition to their intellectual and physical qualifications, so that they might be able to see by themselves what is defective and what might mislead the people.

Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the influence of the corporation on public opinion.
Through the means at its disposal, the C.B.C. may form or deform public opinion. Through its programming and the commentators it selects, it may induce the majority of the population to be for or against someone or something.
If the officials of the C.B.C. possess the required moral qualities, it will not be necessary to tell them what to do. On the other hand, if voluntarily or through negligence, those persons in whom parliament rests its trust, do not assume their responsibilities, then parliament will have to interfere so the moral level of our population be not lowered through the influence exercised by broadcasting media.
In my opinion, the first duty of this crown corporation consists in giving news. The second should consist in raising the intellectual and moral level of our population, and the third, in offering varied programs for the healthy enjoyment of its listeners in their moments of leisure.
The function of a news service is to inform the people. What we expect from the C.B.C. is that it informs the Canadian people objectively on political, economic and social activities. You realize, Mr. Chairman, that if one day the C.B.C. wanted to give the people a false impression of a politician, it would be quite easy because day after day through its news service, it could spread the idea that this politician is a public enemy. On the other hand, if they wanted to build up another politician it would be quite easy for the C.B.C., with its large means of broadcasting, to gradually and slowly push up another politician.
Therefore, what we are asking is that in the political field-and this goes for parties as well as individuals-the C.B.C. through its broadcasting system should give objective facts. It should objectively inform the Canadian people on the opinions of political parties or on statements made by politicians.
I think that the C.B.C. should try to raise the intellectual and moral level of the people. Nowadays there is much talk about education, particularly in my own province. I welcome the efforts made by our school boards and our governments to give the people a higher intellectual level.
We know that the C.B.C. is providing popular education, but there again the accent should not be put only on intellectual education. There are three kinds of education: intellectual, physical and moral. Nowadays, advanced

intellectual education is provided, but moral education related to that intellectual education is too often overlooked.
If we consider only that we are living in a more realistic environment, that people are able to decide for themselves whether a program is good or bad, to distinguish between good and evil, and if the C.B.C. network puts on educational programs which may lead some people to feel that today everything is permitted, this will be disastrous.
On the other hand, if our population has a very high intellectual level but no moral education, I suggest we are still better off with a population whose intellectual level is lower but has a really solid moral education. Remember the days of our forefathers when people only went to school one or two years but were nevertheless receiving such a solid moral education that we could be sure they would make good citizens.
Mr. Chairman, people will say: but you cannot point to any C.B.C. program which is trying to put over an idea. For example, we heard recently some politicians, for instance the secretary of the province of Quebec, say that ideas expressed through certain publicity media are ideas always favouring the left.
Am I right or am I exaggerating?
Of course, when a public organization wants to feed a new idea to the people, a new idea which is contrary to what they have learned and to their moral principles, it can proceed a little at a time. For instance, by instilling daily a drop of vinegar into the minds of the people, they may be convinced that they no longer have to respect authority which is only established to enslave the population.
Unfortunately, that is what we can too often observe in certain informative programs or in the views of certain commentators who speak to the general public through the C.B.C.
There are also, Mr. Chairman, certain things that we must point out. If the C.B.C. were endeavouring to break up the present family concept, they would only have to show on the television screens continuous disputes between couples, divorces or matrimonial triangles in ever family depicted in the programs shown. Thus they would succeed in having our people think that disputes and divorces are natural and that it is normal that one day a couple has to separate.
To make up for these programs which seem to imply that family life is over, we should have more programs and more commentators outlining what a united family is, what is established order in a family endowed with moral sense; then the people would notice
Interim Supply
that not only matrimonial triangles are successful but it is nice to see harmonious families where all work together, not only for their personal happiness but for that of the community as a whole.
It is the duty of the C.B.C. to All the leisure of their audience in a sound way with varied programs, joining pleasure and profit.
I met one day a school teacher who told me: "Nowadays, with television, it is very difficult for us to teach our young people to respect their parents, to be honest, to live in keeping with the established order. When, from his earliest childhood to the time he is an adult, a youth sees on the television screens murders, thefts, friends at variance, he gets used to that and thinks those are normal things."
This teacher added: "Usually, a man has not the mishap to witness more than one serious automobile accident in his life. This man will probably not see more than one normal love, he will probably not witness more than a bank robbery with his own eyes. With television coming into our daily life, young people constantly see movies where murders are committed as a matter of fact, where someone robs a bank when in need of money and where attempts are made to break the law."
The C.B.C. should broadcast more and more educational and moral programs so as to compensate for those programs which seem to disrupt society.
In conclusion, also in connection with the C.B.C., I should like to mention something which happened on June 26, 1964.
I said earlier that the C.B.C. should follow a new policy in order to inform the public, both on the economic and the political level.
On June 26 last the farmers of the province of Quebec organized a march on the provincial parliament. On that occasion, 18,000 farmers asked the provincial government for a better fate, or new laws to raise their standard of living.
On the same day I left the house, after the question period, to listen to the C.B.C. news. At that time nothing at all was said about what was happening in the provincial capital. I went out to lunch and, before coming back to the house at two o'clock, I listened again to the C.B.C. news bulletin. Again nothing was said about this very important demonstration in the capital city of the province of Quebec.
I immediately telephoned the news director of the C.B.C. in Montreal to ask him if some-

Interim Supply
thing was happening in the city of Quebec. By this, I did not mean separatists causing a disturbance. He replied: "Yes, there is a farmers' march." I inquired:	"Why don't you
mention it?" He said: "The fact was mentioned. We are going to mention it again, but it has already been mentioned."
Mr. Chairman, I immediately communicated with the C.B.C. to find out how many times between nine o'clock in the morning and two o'clock in the afternoon, at the time of this march, the C.B.C. had mentioned the march of the Quebec farmers on its news network; I was told that between nine and two o'clock it was mentioned three times in short news bulletins. In these short news bulletins the people were not informed why the farmers were marching on the provincial parliament. It was simply stated: Mr. Lesage will receive the farmers at such or such time, and Mr. Lesage had the farmers informed that unfortunately he will be absent and will not be able to receive those thousands of farmers who will be there.
I am saying this to show the contrast between June 26, 1964 and what happened some time before, when a march was organized by the peace marchers at La Macaza. There was a similar march a few months afterwards, and on that occasion the C.B.C. showed on the television screens the peace marchers getting ready for this La Macaza march. One could see small groups of five or six people on lawns in the city of Montreal preparing themselves to resist the policemen, in case they should tell them to get out of the way. I have seen that myself on the television screen. And then, the C.B.C. went to this area, so as to show the public a few hundred people who were protesting, and rightly so, for they had a right to protest; I am not criticizing the stand of the peace marchers who were protesting against nuclear arms. The viewers were shown a group of objectors, but I wonder why the C.B.C. did not give the population at large more details and information when the farmers marched on Quebec, at which time 18,000 persons were also protesting who had every right to protest?
Those then are the questions we ask ourselves. Of course, we will be told that news was given, that we were told what the farmers obtained. Yes, we were told: that the farmers obtained this and that from the provincial government and, in this news bulletin which I have before me, we were even told that the farmers obtained a 25 per cent decrease in school taxes, and an increase of 20 cents per 100 pounds of milk. But, the city-

dwellers who heard these news bulletins had to pay the next day or the following day, 1 or 2 cents more per quart of milk, for which they tended to blame the farmers.
Instead, the population, the consumers should have been told why the farmers of Quebec had marched on parliament to explain their situation and to assert their rights with regard to the important matter of land taxes. The population should have been acquainted with the reasons which led these men to march on the provincial parliament.
I would therefore ask that the C.B.C., through its news service and general educational program, attach more importance to the field of agriculture. Every Sunday, the French network of the C.B.C. has a half hour program entitled: "Les travaux et les jours". We need more of these programs to show city people how our agricultural structures and organizations helped the country, to show the urban population what tremendous wealth agriculture represents in Canada, where it has supplied work directly or indirectly to more than 35 per cent of the labour force.
That is all I wanted to say about the C.B.C. and, for a few seconds, I should like to deal with another subject. My remarks are meant for the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve).
Last week we attended the fortieth convention of the U.C.C. in Quebec city, where we met hundreds of farmers who asked for immediate action from the provincial and especially the federal government with respect to the dairy industry. Today I put a question to the Minister of Forestry and he told me that no date had yet been set for a meeting between the federal authorities and members of the Catholic farmers' union.
Last July I made a proposal to the federal government in which I asked for a guaranteed minimum price of $3.50 per cwt of industrial milk and for a subsidy, retroactive to May 1, of 35 cents per cwt of milk for the first 100,000 lbs. Some members or ministers found that suggestion ridiculous. Well, today, farmers are not content with a minimum price of $3.50, but they are requesting $4 per hundred pounds of milk and ask the provincial government to provide a further subsidy of 40 cents per hundred pounds.
What I now ask the Minister of Forestry, who is largely responsible for agriculture in eastern Canada, is to show great diligence and not in 15 days or in one or two months, but immediately, take the necessary steps to increase the standard of living of eastern

farmers and more particularly those in his province, that is the province of Quebec.
If we make these requests and reiterate them to the government, it is because farmers have asked us to make representations. You may be sure that if the Minister of Forestry is to announce in the house some concrete measures to increase the standard of living of farmers, we will not be surprised at all. On the contrary, we will applaud him, because for more than a year and a half now we have been hoping that the minister would make a statement as soon as possible, and the sooner the better.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the human person, the priority of man, the individual and his institutions. Our society recognizes only the institutions-


An hon. Member:: This is a free country.


Henry P. Latulippe: -to the prejudice of the individual. Should we recognize both, or give priority to each individual? Should we allow each individual to have access to science, progress, institutions, vital economy, intellectual, moral and social development? When we speak about the good of the people, social welfare, common good; we speak about groups of people; we speak in the abstract, and this leads us to forget that in reality, in practice, all groups are made of individuals, human beings, living persons, made up of flesh, blood and spirit.
When one says that the common weal must have priority over individual interests, one also forgets that the common good is the sum of the individual, personal private good.
When a group of persons is visualized as a unit it is only under the form of an abstraction.
Thus a nation, a country, Canada are only abstract terms or an idea which actually represents all human beings living in a determined area of the world, or a part of the world specifically outlined by the process of the human mind.
What can a beast know about Canada? It is part of a herd. A forest is made up of individual trees. God created the earth, the world and mankind. Men divide the earth into continents, countries, provinces, cities, parishes and territories.
God created man as a human being, but men are the ones who establish families, groups, societies, companies, communities, churches, corporations, associations, and when a legal entity is given to those groups, it is still through a process of the human mind.
Interim Supply
In reality, those groups are composed of living and concrete units of human beings.
The family group is itself a group of distinct individuals, of living persons. The family as such only exists as a concept of the human mind. The family is always only a group of individuals of human beings.
In everyday language when we say that public good comes before private welfare, it does not mean that in search of private welfare, the individual well-being of the other people living in the same group, should be taken into account because the public good, per se, has no real existence, it is made up of the welfare of individuals.
This distinction in the language is so essential that confusion in the meaning of the words private good and common or public good, or perhaps social well-being, is responsible for all the social mistakes which complicate the general operation of our modern economy.
Such great importance has been given to this evolution of the social pattern, the company pattern, that today nearly all legislation is intended to promote the progress of the group to the prejudice of the human being, of the individual.
Companies are prosperous, make huge profits and accumulate lots of money while individuals are getting poorer, more deprived, lost and ignorant. The latter have to put up with inadequate housing, while the former are installed in vast manufactures or 500-feet high structures or 50 storey skyscrapers.
During the daytime the individual works in the best of sunlit skyscrapers, 10 or 50 storeys above the ground, but at night he must go back to small, inadequate and overcrowded lodgings or even to a damp basement.
Children are crowded into narrow and unsanitary slums, thus preparing a new generation of people who will have to be given hospital care at the government's expense or rather at the expense of their fellow citizens.
The state itself is but a group of living human beings. Will we ever understand that?
When a country like Canada enacts laws, erects monetary, economic and political systems, why do we allow institutions to pay a lesser amount of income tax on profits, why do we allow banks, for instance, to accumulate over and above the declared and permissible reserves as depreciation or for other reasons, secret reserves which are not taxable?

Interim Supply
If large corporations must accumulate such a large amount of reserves, profits and capital, why do our monetary, economic and political systems ignore that human beings and families also need the same proportion of reserves, profits and capital?
Why did we neglect the human being in this race toward wealth, in this thirst for progress, in this desire for profits?
Over a period of two years, between September 1962 and September 1964, the 754 big companies listed on the Montreal stock exchange have seen their capitalization increase from $44 billion to $72 billion, a $28 billion capital profit in two years, 24 months, a 62 per cent capital appreciation for the few people who can afford to invest money in stocks while so many citizens of this same Canada go hungry and are living in poverty. Why?
Why so much poverty in the midst of so much abundance?
When I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) say that Canada is a prosperous country, that it enjoys unparallelled prosperity-well yes, it is prosperity for those who handle the finance of the country. They are the ones who go up the ladder, but the others go down. Only because the common weal has precedence on the personal weal, only because one has forgotten that the common weal is the sum of personal welfare and that one has succeeded, by all kinds of economic sophisms, to cause people who are not as learned as our university trained economists to believe that things must be so because the Lord said that there will always be poor people and rich people among us.
Poor people-perhaps? But we do not have to put up with the idea of poverty-stricken people, of destitute persons.
Poverty compared to wealth means to own little instead of owning much, while indigence has nothing and lacks the bare necessities of life.
In any event, in the ordinary life, our monetary, economic and political systems are only instruments of administration, of production and of distribution of material, intellectual and spiritual goods and services among human beings, considered either as groups, families or single people, as living units, or as family or social groups.
All groups are made up of unities. All chains are made up of links. All our monetary, economic and political systems are able to operate and to provide decent means of living to all human beings in Canada merely 
through a new organization of the leadership.
Hence the strength of our institutions depends upon the strength of the unities, of the people making up our institutions, governments, banks, manufactures, communities, universities, churches, provinces, municipalities, school boards, colleges, corporations, cooperatives, associations with material, intellectual or spiritual aims.
All institutions are the product of the human mind, are conceived by the human intellect in the same way as the constitution of a country.
Do animals have constitutions, governments, companies, co-operatives, unions, except in La Fontaine's fables? And there again, they are imitating men.
When I speak of the evolution of our way of thinking towards our monetary, economic and political organizations, I do not want to take anything away from anybody. I do not want to change anything in our principles of operation. I do not want to creat anything new. I am only trying to consolidate the past, I rely on the present, and I look ahead to the future, to the future of every group constituting our country, Canada, and I want to give more to everybody, without taking anything away from anybody. I want to give something more to everybody, to each and everyone, child, teen-agers or adults, forgetting no one.
When I speak of evolution of our way of governing our country and our institutions,
I am not blaming anybody. I am not trying to displace anybody. I only want to improve customs established on old and outmoded basis which were once useful but which our own progress made obsolete; I only want to improve the way of thinking which served the progress of humanity but which are threatening to destroy that very progress, if we adhere to the status quo.
The present progress is not the final stage of the evolution. Having brought a tremendous boon to humanity through its scientists and university men, this progress must now reach to the social classes less favoured by nature or by society.
I am not attacking any particular classes, not even directors of banks and of important concerns, professors and university graduates, but my words of warning are meant for them, because it is their responsibility to adapt their systems to a more humanitarian progress to give greater consideration to the human being as well as to the needs of each

unity constituting the nation and the higher institutions.
The head must remain the head but one must not neglect the fingers.
The head must remain the head, and no longer neglect the arms.
The head must remain the head, and no longer neglect the limbs.
The head must govern the whole, and no longer neglect the units.
The head must govern the whole, and no longer neglect the various parts.
That is what everybody admits in principle, in abstracto, in the conception of ideas; but most of all, that is what facts must express in concrete action, in present monetary, economic and political terms by present governments, by present ministers, by the present Minister of Finance, who controls and holds all monetary, economic and political machinery as regards money circulation, that means of exchange, that social instrument which is used for all transactions between men in the material, intellectual and spiritual fields nowadays.
All this renovation of leadership toward the progress of the unit, of the human person, of the individual as a component part of the whole can and must be carried out within the regular frameworks of our present monetary, economic and political machinery, within the framework of free enterprises, of private property, under the powerful and able leadership of a truly democratic government, that is devoutly dedicated to the service of the people while protecting the interests and capital of large private enterprises.
A careful study of the program I am introducing today under the title "Personal Vital Right", will be sufficient to convince the most apprehensive masters and the most fervent devotees of our present tradition.
All the rights of man must be expressed in dollar signs.
That is the central point of all consolidation of acquired wealth.
The "Personal Vital Right" is a simple technique, a very simple formula of administration which requires no new legislation, no new institution, no new mechanism; it can be worked out within the normal monetary, economical and political mechanisms used at present.
I do not profess to have invented anything new.
Interim Supply
I do not profess to have discovered anything miraculous.
I do not profess to have dethroned the present scientists.
I do not profess to have superseded the present politicians.
I do not profess to have overthrown the present financiers.
I simply want to impart to you the results of my research and my findings while I watch you all.
The conclusion is quite simple. Do keep acting the same way, each one of you in his own place, in the same institutions, having in mind solely the new mentality, and striving, with your enlightened intellect, toward unity, the human being and his needs, at the same time aiming in your institutions at the capital gain.
All this may be done without changing anything almost without anybody noticing it. Everything takes place in the mind of the administration. If you belong to such administration, you alone are concerned, and nobody else. Other people will benefit from the result and congratulate you when the time comes. But the administration has to prepare the implementation of the program, of the technique, of the formula, which consists only in aiming at unity in order to reach the whole, in aiming at the human being to reach the whole, in aiming at the progress of each individual to attain prosperity for the country, the nation, your institutions.	.
If you hunt geese, you have to kill the birds one by one in order to get the flock. To milk a herd of cows, you have to milk them one by one. To build 1,000 Buick cars, even through mass production, you have to build them one by one. Every figure is a series of units, even in economy. A million is made up of dollars.
Even if the intelligentsia and the million-naires are used to abstract calculations in real life we have to abide by the unit. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is slow.
Even the most learned, the most famous doctor-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but it is six o'clock.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?

Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader whether there is any change in the government's plans for tomorrow, to carry on with interim supply?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will carry on with interim supply. I hope that will be completed reasonably early in the day so that we may go on with our consideration of the main estimates, departments of citizenship and immigration, forestry, national revenue and industry.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to ask the acting house leader a question? Would the government not consider calling at an early date, tomorrow, Friday or Monday, the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan? As the government knows, that debate is limited by our new rules to one
day and we would lose no time in getting the bill before us by following this course.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I may say that his suggestion will be given every consideration, but I must point out to the house, as I have done before, that at the moment nothing is of more urgency than interim supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not realize that the way this debate is going it would not delay the passing of interim supply if we took one day out for this important measure?


John Watson MacNaught: I think there is every probability that the debate will conclude tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Oclober 29, 1964