1964-04-01

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I raise this question of privilege at this moment because it will lead to a suggestion which may need to be acted on under motions, which we should reach momentarily.
Yesterday the house learned with, I think, an element of surprise of the precarious state of the unemployment insurance fund. Like other members of the house, we in this party feel that any concern over this matter should be allayed as quickly as possible. We feel arrangements should be made today for dealing with the item in the supplementary estimates which would provide authority for loans to be made to the unemployment insurance fund.
Therefore we of the New Democratic party feel that arrangements should be made for this item to be dealt with, and toward that end we are prepared to suggest, and we do so unanimously, that there be a sitting of the house tonight from eight o'clock to ten o'clock on the understanding that the item respecting the unemployment insurance fund be called not later than eight o'clock this evening.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman has made a suggestion. I had intended to rise on motions and suggest that since this is the eighth day on which the house has been considering these supplementary estimates-I say this in the spirit of trying to meet the proposal the hon. member makes, because it will be recalled that we dealt with supplementary estimates on the 13th, 16th, 25th, 26th, 30th and 31st of March, and we shall be dealing with them today-it does seem to me the hon. gentleman is right in suggesting that the consensus in this house is that it might be desirable for us to meet tonight. I would suggest that we meet between the hours of seven and eleven o'clock. This would be without any prejudice, of course, to a careful examination of the matters before us.
The suggestion the hon. gentleman has made is one which fits in with my interpretation of what I think is the feeling of the house, having in mind that we have been dealing with these matters this week and that we shall wish to continue this tempo of discussion. I would strongly suggest that the course proposed by the hon. member is one which we might take into account, and I suggest the hours between seven and eleven.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would point out that the hon. gentleman, with that capacity for being non-provocative, misstated the situation with regard to the time taken on these estimates. He mentioned "seven days". In fact the following is the time taken: on Monday the 16th, one hour; Wednesday the 25th, 30 minutes; Thursday the 26th, one hour. I point out that the suggestion that we sat for the number of days to which he referred is entirely baseless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I agree fully. I was not trying to suggest that the supplementary estimates had been the subject of discussion during the whole of those days. I just mentioned that we had discussed them on those days.


Mr. Ricard:: You were trying to suggest that we took the whole day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the high minded reason for the suggestion, but it is none the less completely ill founded. Having said that, we are here for the purpose of doing the business that is required to be done-


Mr. Habel:: Then get your members back.


An hon. Member:: How about you?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman making a contribution from his usual position?


Mr. Siarr:: Yes, the same position.


John George Diefenbaker: I find it very difficult to understand what has happened here. Excepting for the dollar item and the subsequent item we were given no explanation of the situation connected with this particular fund. We used to be told "Oh, if a new government comes in all these difficulties will end; there will be no overdrawing of the unemployment insurance account". I am not going into detail

Question of Privilege
in that connection, but I have the record here which shows that over and over again, when those who today sit-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they speak of the danger to seals. I warn you over there that you are in difficulty too in this house. These are the trained seals of the government.


An hon. Member:: Skin them alive.


John George Diefenbaker: I point out, sir, that what has happened results from the action of the government itself. The information I have is that there are some $15 million unappropriated in the 1963-64 funds-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Sit down. Don't keep interrupting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Bigg:: You made a touching little speech yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I could have debated the merits of this question, but I deliberately refrained from doing that because I made a proposal, under privilege, that arrangements be made for an item to be called at a specific time in order that we could debate that item. I am interested in the right hon. gentleman's remarks, but it seems to me they would be appropriate to the item when we get to it. My suggestion is that we get to the item as quickly as we can.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, the same point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. My point of order is that before the members of this house agree to sit any extended hours today surely we are entitled to hear from the government the true story of the fund as it is at the present time. We have not had any statement from the government side as to what arrangements have been made to provide additional funds, and we understand that arrangements have been made. Also, we do not know how long the new arrangements will last, as far as the fund is concerned. I think it is absolutely necessary that we know this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order. I think there is really no difficulty, procedurally, on this. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a very sensible suggestion that we should meet this evening-


Stanley Howard Knowles: From eight to ten.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Yes, from eight to ten; that was a modification of my proposal. The hon. member raised, as a reason for so doing, the desirability of discussing a matter having to do with the unemployment insurance fund.
I think this was a reasonable suggestion, and I am sure the Minister of Labour would be very anxious to co-operate in dealing with that matter. But this is hardly the moment to deal with that question in itself. The only question now before the house is a suggestion as to our procedure for the balance of this day, and the suggestion is that we meet tonight. I have suggested from 7 to 11, but if there is some objection perhaps we can compromise and meet from 7.30 until 10.30. The only question now is for us to have an understanding that we will meet tonight, and I suggest 7.30 until 10.30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eight to ten.


Murdo William Martin: Very well; we will meet from 8 to 10, and at that point seek to deal with the matter before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the right hon. gentleman, may I suggest I call the item "Presenting reports by standing and special committees" and then move on to motions; and if the Acting Prime Minister has any suggestion to make in particular with regard to the unemployment insurance fund or to hours of sitting, he can make it at that point. Then the Leader of the Opposition will be well within the rules and have ample opportunity, if that meets with the wishes of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was well within the rules a moment ago, if I may say so with deference. May I say I like that spirit of co-operation between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the government; because I was informed this morning that the minister was going to make the suggestion. However, in that fine spirit of co-operation which always prevails between the N.D.P. and the government, it was to be pretended that the suggestion came from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is as false as you usually are.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that motions is the proper time to make the suggestion which was made by my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre. We have stated our respective positions, and I do

not think there is any need to take up further time of the house. My suggestion is that we sit tonight from 8 until 10, and I hope this will be the consensus of the house. I may assure my right hon. friend that if there is any thought of lack of co-operation in his mind, there is no intention of it. We want to see whether we can agree in this house this afternoon on the procedure and the time we propose to take today on the discussion of the business before us. I have made my suggestion, and I hope it will meet the wishes of my right hon. friend and those who sit behind him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have always desired to co-operate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The degree of agreement is apparent from that response. I appreciate the approval that statement has received from the government side of the house. However, I would point out this, that the government has not come clean with parliament at all. They brought us back here, although there is no objection to that whatever because the business has to be done. But they concealed the facts regarding the unemployment insurance fund and now find themselves in a difficult position.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think it is about time the right hon. gentleman began to observe some of the proprieties of the House of Commons. There was no concealment whatever. On March 6 the supplementary estimates tabled in this house indicated the necessity for replenishing the fund, so there was no concealment whatever.


John George Diefenbaker: Everybody realizes there was an indication in the estimates and also in the supplementaries, so why did the government not go ahead instead of allowing the time of the house to be used for other purposes? They thought they could push us into a position where we would not look into this matter carefully. This is what they tried to do. As a matter of fact I am informed that they had available as of last night some $15 million unused, and all that was required was an order in council before the end of the year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to continue? I have the floor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order. The right hon. gentleman is debating the merits of this particular matter on orders of the day, or on motions. We will have an opportunity of dealing with the merits of
Question of Privilege
this question later when the item is called. In the meantime I would ask the Chair to ask the right hon. gentleman to observe the rules that every hon. member has to observe.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the facts hurt the hon. gentleman, and that is why he jumps up on imaginary points of order. The position of the fund is directly attributable to the bumbling administration of this government. I want to make that very clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman feels very keenly about the position he takes on this matter. I am sure, however, he will agree with me that at this particular moment, in this phase of our discussion, it is not in order to discuss a matter of substance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre showed forbearance in that regard. If we were to permit or if Your Honour were to permit a general discussion of this subject, it would mean that all hon. members would have a right at this moment, before the item has been reached, to discuss it.
We will have an opportunity of discussing it. The Minister of Labour will be very anxious to deal with this matter. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will agree that we want to regularize this discussion, and I suggest it is not in order at this time to discuss the merits of the question. We should wait until we reach this item, and we will arrange that that be done today. We will have an opportunity to discuss it, particularly as we may meet tonight between the hours of eight and ten.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not speaking on the merits of the proposition, I was speaking about the demerits of the government. I want to make that very clear. They are asking that the house sit extra hours, and to that we have no objection. I am simply pointing out the fact that what has happened is another result of the bumbling attitude of this government and the hiding of the facts by the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to cut off any hon. member who wishes to make a contribution, but it seems to me fairly clear, if I understand the situation correctly, that the Acting Prime Minister has moved-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: -suggested that this house do sit from eight o'clock until ten o'clock this evening, and that is the matter under discussion.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: take it that this is a motion which the Acting Prime Minister has moved and is therefore debatable.

Question of Privilege


Murdo William Martin: I did not move a motion. What I did was simply to indicate that I thought this would be the feeling of the house, but the house is master of its own rules. If this were the consensus, then no formal requirement would be necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In that case it becomes an order of the house, and we would agree to that. I rise simply for the purpose of saying, as my colleague has said, that we are quite willing to meet this evening from eight o'clock to ten o'clock on the understanding that the question of the replenishment of the unemployment insurance fund will be dealt with during that period, or at least will be dealt with during the day and that it be called no later than eight o'clock.
I want to say that in making this suggestion my colleague is certainly not acting on behalf of the government or in collusion with the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we have had this sort of insinuation on two or three occasions from members of the official opposition, and I want to say it is deeply resented. As a matter of fact the records of this session of parliament will show that we have voted against the government much more often than we have voted with them. As a matter of fact we only voted with the government on one amendment, and the official opposition also voted with the government against one of our amendments. We do not take orders either from the government or from the official opposition. We are here to facilitate and expedite the business of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and we will take an independent attitude in so doing. We support the suggestion of the Acting Prime Minister-


Mr. Bell:: You would not sit at ten o'clock this morning.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -but I want to say to the government that I hope the impasse into which the House of Commons has manoeuvred itself will be a lesson to the government not to bring in supplementary estimates and interim supply almost at the deadline, when parliament either has to rush through them without proper consideration or has to sit beyond the time when we intended to adjourn.
This has become an all too common practice. Supplementary estimates and regular estimates are left until the dying days or hours of the session and then are rushed through without proper consideration. It is true that some time has been spent on the agriculture estimates. I want to remind the government

there are a lot of estimates still to be dealt with, and this house need hardly be reminded that these are supplementary estimates, which means that the money has been spent. It is money which was not provided for in the regular estimates, which means that these expenditures were the result of an emergency or represent gross miscalculations by the departments in estimating their monetary needs for the fiscal year.
Members of the house have a right to expect from the government a very clear explanation why these additional sums are needed. They are not small sums. There is some $240 million of expenditures and almost $57 million in loans, investments and advances, a total of almost $300 million. In spite of the hour and the time I do not think we should be asked simply to slide these items through because the government was derelict in not presenting them to the house at an early enough date so they could be given proper examination and consideration.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared, subject to the conditions which I have already stated, to sit this evening, but we think the house should take whatever time is necessary to examine these estimates and pass them properly even though we have now gone into what was to have been the Easter recess.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are quite prepared to co-operate by sitting this evening. We would love to get down to business and deal with the matters at hand. I had to return to the house, and I might say I found that parliament and parliamentary procedure have reached a new low in the thinking of the people across the country because of what has taken place in the last few days. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a good thing if we could agree to get ahead with the business and leave all the wrangling for another occasion.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I go along with some of the members on this side of the house in that sometimes we have to put a great deal of water in our wine to digest the food that the government on the other side of the house feeds us. There is one thing I do not quite understand, and that is why this problem could not have been discussed a little earlier in the day, following the usual procedure so that members of all parties could have been made aware of the situation and could have come to a decision on it.
So far as we in this corner of the house are concerned, we are quite willing to sit the extra hours tonight, but we only hope the government does not make a habit of this

night sitting; else we are likely to start sitting on Sunday afternoons. Since the government puts its foot in the noose it can call itself lucky that sometimes the opposition is there to take it out.
I hope this will be the last time we have to sacrifice not only the Easter recess but also Wednesday nights, as this seems to be becoming a habit of the government, seeking 24 hour sittings and getting nowhere with them. We have a lot of estimates to pass and, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out, their presentation has been delayed to the last minute so they can be pushed through in one block and the opposition will have opportunity to say very little on them. I would ask the government to take this under consideration and arrange to have the Easter holiday at the same time as everybody else in the country, and the same applies to Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. By agreement it is ordered that this house do sit from eight to ten o'clock this evening.


Mr. Peters:: I hope you will point out, sir, with the caveat the government has given, that the labour estimate will be brought forward at that time if it has not already been called.


Mr. Jorgenson:: And, Mr. Speaker, could we have an assurance from the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that they will not block the passage of this?


Mr. Howard:: The last thing I have to do is concern myself with asinine questions like that.
[Later:}
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Did the urgency in regard to replenishing the U.I.C. fund arise overnight Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have stated already, the government indicated the necessity for this action in the item in the supplementary estimates; that is, that it would be required for the current fiscal year. The forecast of the commission was quite clear.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that the urgency was indicated in the supplementary estimates, which were placed before the house quite some time ago. Nevertheless the urgency of this matter had to be drawn from the Minister of Labour by way of questions on
Questions
this particular subject yesterday after the matter was brought to his attention.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the hon. member's question, please?


Malcolm MacInnis: The matter was brought quite clearly to the minister's attention on Monday evening.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Why, then, was it necessary to draw information from the minister on Tuesday by way of questions?



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Gendron: What progress is being made with respect to the surveys and works undertaken at the seaport at Gros Cacouna?
[Translation}
Answer: Preliminary technical work is nearly completed and the department will soon be in a position to prepare plans and specifications.


C.N.R. EARNINGS AT RADVILLE, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What was the total revenue earned by the Canadian National Railway at Radville, Saskatchewan for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
On branch lines, the revenues derived from traffic originating at stations where no agent is located are reported through the first agency station through which the traffic passes. Such is the case at Radville and Avon-lea, which are agency stations located on the Weyburn and Avonlea subdivisions respectively. As a result, available earning figures for those two stations include revenues derived from several other stations and are not representative of actual earnings derived from traffic originating at either point. To produce the requested information would involve considerable time and expense. However, when a study is undertaken preparatory to the filing of an application for abandonment of any line, it is necessary to extract actual earnings for each station. In connection with applications filed with the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of the Weyburn and Avonlea subdivisions, it was necessary to determine the actual earnings of each of the stations on those lines, and the revenues

Questions
tor the year 1959 at Radville and Avonlea were $115,896 and $119,050 respectively.


C.N.R. EARNINGS AX AVONLEA, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What was the total revenue earned by the Canadian National Railways at Avonlea, Saskatchewan for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: See answer to question
No. 240.


HOURS OF WORK OF C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Are C.N.R. train employees ever compelled to work 16 hours a day and, if so, are overtime benefits paid after eight hours?
2.	Do these employees enjoy the holidays recognized by other associations in this country?
3.	Are any of the stations on the Chambord-Dolbeau line open when the train comes through on Sunday mornings and, if not, has the company made any inquiry concerning the possible loss of passenger business by the C.N.R. as a result of this lack of service?

Answer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Running trades employees in road service cannot be completed to work over 12 hours. The men are sole judges of their condition and may advise a dispatcher with at least one-hour notice of their desire to take rest after 12 hours on duty. Their pay is based on mileage or hours, whichever is greater, for any one tour of duty, and any overtime is paid on this basis in accordance with the terms of the wage agreements.
2.	Statutory holiday provisions are not contained in the collective agreements for running trades employees in road service on any major railroads on the North American continent. However, statutory holiday conditions for daily-rated yard employees are comparable to those of other industries.
3.	Yes.


QUEENSWAY, OTTAWA  FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Smith: 1.	What total financial or equivalent contribution is the government of Canada required to make to the construction of the Queensway in the national capital area?
2.	To the 31st of December, 1963, what contribution has been made by the government or any of its agencies?
3.	To the 31st of December, 1963, what has been the total amount expended by all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, upon the planning and construction of the Queensway?
4.	In what stages is the Queensway being constructed?
5.	Of course, what stages have been completed?
6.	What is the target date for completion of the other stages?
7.	When is it anticipated that the whole project will be completed?
8.	Have there been any discussions between the government of Canada or any of its agencies, and

the government of Ontario or the corporation of the city of Ottawa for the purpose of endeavouring to expedite the completion of this project?


Mr. Deschatelets:: 1. Canada, through the Department of Public Works, contributes to the cost of the Queensway on the basis provided for in trans-Canada highway agreement which is 50 per cent of the equivalent cost of constructing a two lane highway. Canada's contribution, through the Department of Public Works, is presently estimated at $7 million.
Canada's contribution through the national capital commission is the land for the right of way of the Queensway, part of which is a former Canadian National Railway right of way crossing Ottawa from west to east, acquired as a result of a comprehensive railway relocation scheme-no value is placed on this former right of way-together with the additional lands required to widen the former railway right of way to a maximum width of 180 feet. The cost of the land required for the widening is estimated at $5 million. Further, the national capital commission is to landscape the right of way, approaches, exits, ramps and interchanges at an estimated cost of $450,000. The national capital commission will also maintain the landscaping of the right of way at an estimated annual cost of $35,000.
The extent of Canada's total financial contribution will not become definite until the design and construction of all stages has been completed.
2.	Department of Public Works, $4,917,943; national capital commission, $4,529,000 for the lands required for the widening of the former right of way, $348,000 for landscaping construction and $4,000 for maintenance of landscaping.
3.	Shareable cost as provided for in the trans-Canada highway agreement, $9,835,886; national capital commission, $4,881,000 as shown in 2 above. The federal government has no record of the non-shareable costs incurred by the provincial and municipal governments.
4.	Stage I, Rideau river to east city limits; stage II, west city limits to Carling avenue; stage III, Carling avenue-O'Connor street; stage IV, O'Connor street-Rideau river.
5.	Stages I and II.
6.	Stage III, the section of stage III from Carling avenue to Bronson avenue should be open in May 1964. The section from Bronson avenue to O'Connor street by the fall of 1964.
Stage IV, the section of stage IV from O'Connor street to Metcalfe street will be open in the fall of 1964. On the section from Metcalfe street to the Rideau river, final design to contract stage is not complete and

as the province is the construction agency and completion will involve decisions by all three levels of government participating in the agreements, I am not in a position to state a completion date.
7.	Answered by part 6, stage IV.
8.	A Queensway committee made up of officials of the province of Ontario, the city of Ottawa, the national capital commission and the Department of Public Works meets monthly to discuss Queensway matters, review proposed planning with the consulting engineers and to expedite the progress of work over the entire project.


C.N.R. RAIL LINES BUILT AND ABANDONED SINCE 1954
Mr, Cyr: 1.	How many miles of railroad has Canadian National Railways abandoned since 1954 and, what areas were serviced by those lines?
2.	How many miles of railroad have been built by Canadian National Railways since 1954 and what areas are serviced by those new lines?
[Translation\
Answer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Since 1954 the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has authorized the abandonment of 567 miles of line in various areas across the system.
2.	A total of about 585 miles of main track and approximately 550 miles of sidings and industrial spurs have been constructed in various areas across the system.


REPORT ON CRASH OF T.C.A. PLANE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When is a report expected from the investigators of the air crash of the DC-8F at Ste. Therese?
2.	Does a transcript exist of the tape made by the tower at Dorval of radio traffic with the aircraft and. if so, what does the transcript say?
3.	When did T.C.A. receive notice of the U.S. FAA ruling of 1961 that all U.S. jet aircraft must carry recorders?
4.	Was this ruling considered at any time by the board of directors or by the management committee of T.C.A.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy when the report of the investigators will be completed. However, it can be stated that the report will not be completed before early summer.
2.	A transcript of communication between the aircraft and the air traffic control units at Montreal international airport does exist. The transmissions are all of a routine nature and do not provide any indication that the fight was in difficulty.
3.	T.C.A. received original notice in August, 1957 with an amendment in July 1958, stating a requirement for compliance by U.S. air lines in May 1961.
4.	T.C.A. management considered this ruling, but due to certain limitations in record-
Questions
ing equipment at that time, elected (along with many other world air lines) to defer the project pending development of units of a more advanced type.
T.C.A. has now embarked on a program involving what it considers to be the best and newest recording equipment available.


NEW VOCATIONAL SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Slarr: 1.	How many new vocational schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from January 1, 1964 to date, and where are they located?
2.	How many new technical schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from January 1, 1964 to date, and where are they located?
3.	What student capacity has been added in the period January 1, 1964 to date?
4.	What is the total cost of these projects?
5.	What is the federal government's share of the cost?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Seven new vocational high schools have been approved under the technical and vocational training assistance agreement since January 1, 1964. They are listed as follows:
Quebec: Donnacona vocational training.
Ontario: Barrie North collegiate; St. Mary's district C.I. (additions and alternations); St. Catherines secondary; Saltfleet, Dewitt road composite (The school is located between Stoney Creek and Winona near Hamilton).
Alberta: Peace River, Peace River high school.
B.C.: Vancouver, Point Grey junior-senior secondary school (additions and alterations).
2.	Three new trade schools have been approved during the same period:
N.S.: Amherst, interprovincial trade school for the deaf.
Quebec: Montreal, institute of deaf mutes; la ferme, school of agriculture (Abitibi Co.).
3.	The student capacity of the schools approved since January 1, 1964 is 3,921.
4.	The total cost of these projects, including buildings and equipment is $10,461,930.
5.	The federal contribution approved for the above projects including equipment is $3,092,931 which represents 50 per cent of the cost to be borne by the province for buildings and equipment (excluding academic facilities). The municipal contribution to these projects is estimated at $4,276,070.
The federal contribution to expenditures by the province will be increased by 25 per cent when agreements are completed with the provinces pursuant to Bill C-105 which amended the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act to permit a 75 per cent contribution to training facilities to March 31, 1967.

Questions


MILK DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOLS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Does the federal government assist any provinces in the distribution of free milk in schools and, if so, in which provinces?
2.	What was the per capita figures of milk consumption in each province?
3.	How many pounds of surplus butter does the federal government buy annually?


Mr. Hays:: 1. No.
2. The per capita figures of milk consumption, in each province, as provided by the dominion bureau of statistics for 1962 is:
Purchases
1958-	59	72,966,653	lbs.1959-	60	74,570,888	lbs.1960-	61	76,015,753	lbs.1961-	62	101,320,765	lbs.1962-	63	81,695,766	lbs.1963-	64	*71,688,031	lbs.
Estimated and includes fire loss of 3,750,000 lbs.
Sales are estimated to exceed purchases.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, STORMONT, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is a wharf to be constructed at Stormont, Guysborough county, Nova Scotia and, if so, when will tenders be called?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The department is presently investigating the provision of deep water wharf facilities in the Stormont area of country harbour. Surveys will be undertaken this spring to determine costs. When this information is available the department will decide if the construction of a wharf is justified.


WHARF TENDER, TOBERMORY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	Has the lowest tender quotation of $2,291.30 by Percy Speers, Wiarton, Ontario (slip, ferry wharf, Tobermory, Bruce county Ontario), received final approval and, if so, at what date will construction of this project commence?
2.	H final approval has not been given, what are the reasons for not accepting the lowest tender?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes. Construction is expected to commence the middle of April 1964.
2. Not applicable.


EXPENDITURES IN CANADA BY U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How much money was spent in Canada in each of the past three years by the United States
[Mr. MacEachen.l
Pints per diem
Prince Edward Island	1.00
Nova Scotia	0.69
New Brunswick	0.72
Quebec	0.82
Ontario	0.82
Manitoba	0.93
Saskatchewan	1.16
Alberta	0.81
British Columbia	0.66
Canada	0.82
3. Purchases and sales of butter during the period May 1 to April 30 for the dairy years	
indicated have been in	
Sales		Difference
45,072,155	lbs.	27,894,498 lbs.56,679,316	lbs.	17,891,572 lbs.41,916,652	lbs.	34,104,101 lbs.37,108,772	lbs.	64,211,983 lbs.58,645,607	lbs.	23,050,069 lbs.*74,766,833 lbs.	**3,078,802 lbs.
government through its department of health, education and welfare and agencies like the national institute of health in research in the natural and biological sciences?
2. Has the government any information as to plans by these American agencies to reduce these grants in the coming year?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1 and 2. This information is not available.


STEPS TO REDUCE PRICE
Mr. Peters: To control and reduce the consumer price of sugar will the federal government consider (a) the establishment of an agency to acquire domestic sugar surplus from commonwealth countries on long term contracts (b) consider the establishment of a provincial-federal distribution agency to provide stable sugar prices to consumers (c) increase the subsidy to Canadian sugar beet producers?
Answer: For reasons which were indicated to the house on February 19, after there had been discussions with commonwealth and other producers the government concluded that it would not be in the interests of the Canadian consumer to enter into long term contract arrangements for supplies of sugar at that time. Since that time world sugar prices have been falling with an attendant decline in the price for refined sugar in Canada and the futures market forecasts still lower prices as the year progresses.
(a)	The discussions with commonwealth producers did not disclose any surplus of sugar available to be acquired on long term contracts at advantageous prices.
(b)	Stability of sugar prices in Canada is dependant upon stability of prices in the

world market from which the bulk of Canadian supplies are drawn.
(c)	The level of support under the agricultural stabilization board is being considered at present and an announcement will be made in due course.


CONTROL OF BULK CEMENT TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Peters: Is it the intention of the government to prosecute the cement companies for the establishment of a monopolistic control over the transportation of bulk cement by selected carriers?


Mr. Favreau:: No decision regarding prosecution or other criminal proceedings in respect of alleged contraventions of the substantive provisions of the Combines Investigation Act is made unless and until a report is received from the restrictive trade practices commission or evidence is referred to the attorney general of Canada by the director of investigation and research. No report regarding the industry concerned has been received, nor has evidence been referred to the attorney general by the director.


PROSECUTION OF SUGAR REFINERIES
Mr. Peters: Is it the intention of the government at this session of parliament to prosecute the sugar refineries who have manipulated the consumer price of sugar to the detriment of the general public?


Guy Favreau: No decision regarding prosecution or other criminal proceedings in respect of alleged contraventions of the substantive provisions of the Combines Investigation Act is made unless and until a report is received from the restrictive trade
Questions
practices commission or evidence is referred to the attorney general of Canada by the director of investigation and research. No report regarding the industry concerned has been received since the report of the commission concerning the sugar industry in eastern Canada dated February 3, 1960, as a result of which prosecution proceedings have already been taken, nor has evidence been referred to the attorney general by the director.


DESIGNATED AREAS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Mather: How many designated areas are there in the province of Saskatchewan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: None.


LAKE ONTARIO WATER LEVELS
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What has been the average level of lake Ontario each year commencing 1938?
2.	What has been the discharge or outflow from lake Ontario each year commencing 1938?
3.	What has been the average level at Ogdens-burg each year commencing 1938?


Mr. Laing:: 1, 2 and 3. The following table gives the mean annual water levels and flows for the period 1938 to 1963 inclusive at the points indicated. Annual mean levels of the St. Lawrence river at Prescott, Ontario have been substituted for those at Ogdensburg, New York, but as these points are on opposite sides of the river the water levels at one are reflected at the other. Water levels are expressed in feet above mean sea level referred to the international great lakes datum (1955) and flows, in cubic feet per second.
Lake Ontario	Average outflow	St. Lawrence riverat	from	atYear	Kingston, Ont.	lake Ontario cfs.	Prescott, Ontario1938	244.06	218,000	243.571939	243.93	215,000	243.481940	243.72	212,000	243.251941	243.68	210,000	243.241942	244.05	220,000	243.551943	246.07	257,000	245.391944	245.08	240,000	244.471945	245.80	252,000	245.161946	245.61	249,000	244.971947	246.18	262,000	245.441948	245.88	254,000	245.201949	244.76	233,000	244.211950	245.22	243,000	244.621951	246.40	267,000	245.731952	246.79	277,000	246.091953	245.64	260,000	244.981954	245.51	258,000	244.851955	246.02	267,000	245.33
Questions
Lake Ontario	Average outflow	St. Lawrence riverat	from	atYear	Kingston, Ont.	lake Ontario cfs.	Prescott, Ontario1956	245.29	254,000	244.621957	244.38	234,000	243.811958	243.70	220,000	243.221959	243.84	223,000	243.361960	244.60	238,000	244.001961	244.27	234,000	243.661962	244.36	209,000	243.861963	244.42	206,000	243.93


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, BRAS D'OR LAKES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has a hydrographic survey been carried out recently in the Bras d'Or lakes and has such a survey been completed?
2.	When was the last survey carried out?
3.	When was the first survey of the Bras d'Or lakes carried out?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. A hydrographic survey was made in August 1963 from McKinnons point to North basin and of the channel through the swing bridge at Grand narrows in Bras d'Or lake. This was only a reconnaissance survey and obtained the information required at that time.
In June 1963 a hydrographic survey was carried out of the northern entrance to Great Bras d'Or. This survey is completed.
2.	A survey of the Bras d'Or lakes, north of Grand narrows, was carried out by the Canadian hydrographic service-1941-1947. The northern entrance to Great Bras d'Or has been resurveyed periodically since.
3.	The first survey of the Bras d'Or lakes was carried out in 1852-1857. This is the only complete survey made of Bras d'Or lake, south of Grand narrows.


BREAKWATER EXTENSION, INDIAN BEACH, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Is consideration being given to the construction of an extension to the breakwater at Indian Beach, North Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such an extension and how soon will tenders be called for this project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


BRIDGES OVER TRENT CANAL
Mr. Stenson: 1. Has the Department of Transport had any negotiations with the Ontario department of highways regarding bridges to be built over the Trent canal system of Lakefield, Buckhorn, or Burleigh Falls and, if so, on what date will construction of the bridges commence?

2. Is the Department of Transport considering building new workshops at the depot in Peterborough?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The department has had negotiations with the Ontario department of highways regarding the construction of bridges at Buckhorn and Burleigh Falls but not at Lakefield. Dates for the start of construction of the former bridges have not been set.
2. Yes, in due course but not immediately.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Labour or officers of his department and officials of the national employment office, unemployment insurance commission, the competent authorities in Maine and Vermont, officials of the United States department of the interior and labor secretariat, and between the unions and the Canadian and American companies concerned with the problem of Canadian loggers permanently or seasonally employed in the United States forest industry who cannot obtain unemployment insurance benefits on their return to Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that this motion is to be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH LUMBER ASSOCIATION ON SALES TAX
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Latulippe:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Minister of Finance or any other officer of his department and the Canadian association of the lumber industry or one of their representatives or members, in connection with the 11 per cent tax on building materials.
Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion I should point out to the hon. member that there is no such correspondence, but the government is prepared to accept the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Langlois:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or any minister of the cabinet and Mr. Jean Lesage, premier of the province of Quebec or Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, minister of youth, concerning interest free loans to university students, as mentioned in the speech from the throne.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have motion No. 29 passed today if possible. I have contacted some of the ministers with respect to motions No. 30 to 52 inclusive, and I would like to have these stand seeing that quite a few of the ministers are absent from the house today.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Regarding motion No. 29, this is agreeable, subject to the usual reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all regulations, or letters or communications relating to, or directed to, employees in the public service of Canada who are employed at Terrace, B.C. and relating to the question of seniority being or no longer being the determining factor in the scheduling of annual leave.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. gentleman would be willing to have this motion stand today.


Frank Howard: I would be glad to co-operate in any way with the Minister of Transport on this matter.
Motion stands.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING BILL ON INDIAN CLAIMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government and any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group or organization since December 20, 1963 relating to Bill No. C-130 of the first session of the twenty sixth parliament entitled an act to provide for disposition of Indian claims.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we would have no objection to accepting this motion on condition that the word "and" at the end of the second line be replaced by the word "or",
Motions for Papers
which I think the hon. gentleman means. Otherwise there would be a demand for the filing of confidential information.


Frank Howard: Yes, that could be "or" or a comma, either one.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by 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]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group or organization relating to Indian reserve lands which are now situated in the Burns Lake Indian agency between the period of January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1962.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask permission to withdraw this motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


N.H.A. LOANS, KITIMAT, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any branch office thereof and the Aluminum Company of Canada, or any other person since January 1, 1958 relating to the question of loans under the National Housing Act in the community of Kitimat, B.C.
Guy Favreau: Could we stand this motion in the absence of the minister?


Frank Howard: Yes.
Motion stands.


QUEBEC-CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING UNIVERSITY GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or any minister of the government and any universities of the province of Quebec, regarding grants between December 1962 and March 1, 1964.
Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I request that this motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion which was just read, No. 69?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, No. 69 is to stand.


Raymond Langlois: I agree to have it stand until I meet the minister.
Motion stands.
1650	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


DIRECTIVES FROM MINISTER OF FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Jorgenson:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all directives, changes in regulations and authorization for expenditures from the Minister of Forestry from the period February 3, 1964 to March 13. 1964.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to withdraw motions Nos. 75 and 76 pending the investigation in accordance with the promise made to the house by the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Speaker:: Then motions Nos. 75 and 76 are withdrawn.
Orders discharged and motions withdrawn.


R.C.M.P. SPACE IN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, TERRACE, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all observations and reports concerning space or the location thereof for the R.C.M. Police as referred to in the answer given to question No. 300 of the present session of parliament.
Guy Favreau: May I ask that this motion stand so that I can look into the matter further?
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, following a question I put yesterday to the Minister of Justice. In this respect I refer to page 1600 of Hansard, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the selection of lawyers acting for certain crown corporations based on political considerations?
And the minister's answer was:
The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
The minister deceived the house and considered members as April's fools, since he makes a selection as regards lawyers and notaries acting for the government.
It seems to me that he favours only those who are recommended by Liberal members and defeated Liberal candidates.
The minister has what I call a patronage list.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the question of privilege of the hon. member
[Mr. Langlois.l
was out of order, since in view of its purpose it should have been raised this morning rather than yesterday.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, this morning we
did not sit.


An hon. Member:: April's fool.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to explain the postponement of the sailing of the Upper Lakes vessel John Ericsson, which I understand is one of the ships boycotted by the longshoremen in Chicago last year. Does this action indicate that the difficulties of last year on the great lakes are approaching settlement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would hope that the thought expressed in the right hon. gentleman's final sentence is correct. The decision on the part of the Upper Lakes Shipping Company not to send the Ericsson into Chicago at this time is a decision made by the company, likely in the interests of creating a favourable atmosphere at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: I take it from the minister's answer that this was not a decision which was determined by the direction or suggestion of the trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can tell the right hon. gentleman that the trustees have been anxious to work out a solution to the harassment on the great lakes in parts of the United States, and I think it would be correct to say that they may have expressed their concern to the president of Upper Lakes Shipping on this particular point.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: know that any decision by the federal government to give aid toward rehabilitating the people in the Albemi valley depends on an application being received from the government of British Columbia. However, in view of the fact that the people in that area and a committee headed by two mayors, of which the honorary president is the lieutenant

governor of the province, are making a nationwide appeal for funds to help those who are destitute and homeless, I wonder whether the federal government has made any decision with reference to the suggestion I put to them yesterday, that a substantial financial contribution be made to the Alberni valley disaster fund.


Arthur Laing: If I may say
so, I think the sequence of events now is such that we would have to await a decision or advice from the provincial government; because I have now had a wire from Hon. Wesley D. Black telling us that we will be advised of the extent of the damage after a provincial cabinet meeting to be held on Thursday. So I think any participation by the federal government should now await a request from the provincial government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I recognize that this would be true with respect to a general rehabilitation program. What I am asking is this. Would the government be prepared to consider making an immediate contribution to the fund designed to help those who are homeless at the moment?


Arthur Laing: I am certain that the remarks of the hon. member will be noted by the cabinet; but again, if we are to participate in the work of rehabilitation in that area which addresses itself principally to those who suffer as a result of the complete destruction of 45 homes, we should probably await a report from the provincial government because we have been dealing with them.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, may I say that a telephone call reached my office a few moments before the sitting opened to the effect that the damage runs into tens of millions of dollars and that some indication on the part of the federal government-with full respect, of course, to the constitutional proprieties to which the minister has made reference-would raise the hopes of those people and give them determination. I do not think the minister would be interfering with the constitutional division of power and the need for a direct request for assistance from the province of British Columbia if he could indicate-and I know he would receive support from all parts of the house in doing so-that a substantial contribution would be made to the disaster fund.


Arthur Laing: I sincerely hope that the estimate of the damage given to the house by the right hon. gentleman is inaccurate. I have from Mr. Black this morning a statement that
Inquiries of the Ministry the preliminary estimate made by the civic authorities is a total of $5 million, including the industries concerned in that area. I think in the light of these statements which have been made we should still await a report from the province, but I am certain that the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will be duly noted by members of the government.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of the implication left yesterday by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, is the minister aware of press reports in the Globe and Mail indicating that Outboard Marine Corporation will instal $100,000 worth of production equipment in Peterborough this year in order to manufacture snowmobiles, mainly for export to the United States?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I thank my hon. friend very much for this information, which I am sure is most welcome.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the hon. gentleman consider extending the winter works program to the end of May in the Thetford Mines district to relieve the situation which has arisen following the layoff of 600 men due to the closing of two asbestos mines?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is an appropriate time to suggest that that is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think my last question was one that should be put on the order paper. I asked the Minister of Labour whether he would consider extending the winter works program. Would the minister consider that solution, in order to help these 600 men who are out of work at the moment, plus the others who were out of work before that?
1652	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister just in the event that I do not have the privilege of the floor between eight and ten tonight. I am wondering whether the Acting Prime Minister would care to make any comment on the serious situation which exists in Canada with regard to unemployment. I do not mean with regard to the fund but with regard to the people unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that I ruled on this question last week.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronienac):: My
question is one for the Minister of Finance but in his unavoidable absence may I address it to the acting minister. Inasmuch as there has been an increase of 15.3 per cent in the number of bankruptcies in the year 1963 as compared with 1962, could the hon. gentleman tell us what action the government is contemplating to assist small businesses in Canada?


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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I should like to direct my question to the Acting Postmaster General and ask whether he can give a report to the house on the robbery that occurred last evening in mid-town Montreal, in which it is reported that $400,000 was stolen. Also, can he say if it is the policy of the department to leave mail trucks carrying as much as $42 million unprotected by armed guards?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I might read a statement which covers this matter.
At 7.30 last evening the mail truck for the service between the Montreal post office and the C.N.R. station was held up at the corner of Lagauchetiere and University streets in Montreal. Two trucks and six armed, masked men took part in the hold-up.
[Mr. Langlois.l
The post office vehicle was boxed in at the traffic light and the railway mail clerk, who was accompanying the mail, and the truck driver were taken from the post office truck, handcuffed together, placed in one of the other trucks and pillow cases pulled over their heads.
The post office truck and the mail have not yet been located. The information indicates that there were 31 money packets on board the missing mail truck and some of them are believed to have contained payrolls. The matter is being investigated by senior officials of the Montreal city police and post office investigators.
This morning's press and radio indicate the amount of the loot as $400,000, and have also indicated that mail trucks have carried as high as $42 million on a trip. It is not known where the press and radio obtained this information, as an accurate amount of the loss will not be ascertained until the respective banks have been contacted, and I have no knowledge of any mail truck carrying $42 million.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, last night at 8.20 p.m. the highway motor vehicle service between Valleyfield and Montreal was held up at Caughnawaga. Two motor vehicles were involved in the hold-up and at least two armed men took part. The truck and mail have been recovered in this case but the locked bags have all been ripped open. Investigators are checking to ascertain the loss in this particular case, but it is not believed that any money packets were carried. The matter is being investigated by the Quebec provincial police.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works who answers in the house for the Postmaster General in his absence?
Does the Post Office Department intend to ask Senator Azellus Denis to make an inquiry into those robberies?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister, in addressing the federal-provincial conference, suggested that the government of Canada was prepared to withdraw from the hospital insurance field in return for giving to the provinces a certain abatement in personal income tax. I want to ask the Acting

Prime Minister whether this means that the government has now forsaken any idea of extending the hospital insurance plan into a federal-provincial, comprehensive health insurance plan that will cover all health services.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would agree that as the conference is now dealing with matters having to do with health and welfare, it would be desirable to await the return of the Prime Minister, which I anticipate will be some time tomorrow afternoon.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is the 32nd day of this session I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as house leader and chairman of the striking committee for the standing committees of the house, when he might be in a position to announce the membership of those standing committees.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we will convene the committee at the first opportune moment and appoint the committee membership.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Your Honour requested me to put an urgent question on the order paper, which I did on February 27, and I have not as yet received a reply.
Kon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence): I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED &quot;HANSARD&quot; CORRECTION BY MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make two short corrections in Hansard? I do so only because confusion might be created. In Hansard of Monday, March 30, on page 1574, column 1, in line 4 of the middle paragraph, "we" should be "he".
Then on page 1576, the same date, column 2, the middle of the column, the phrase "One man against the truth" should be "Just standing for the truth".
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the correction to Hansard offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which he did with rapid-fire speed, perhaps in the hope that nobody would notice it. But I turned up the the page, and as reported in the second column of page 1576 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said:
One man against the truth.
I saw that remark in the blue sheets which were handed to me along with material of my own which I had to read. Now the hon. member is attempting to correct this for some reason known only to himself. I heard the statement as Hansard recorded it, and as I heard it, it was directed against me. But in Hansard it reads as though directed against the hon. member himself. Now he wants to change it. I suggest that Hansard stands as it is now, "One man against the truth", and with the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in front of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, in opening his remarks just now, accused me of making this correction in a rapid-fire manner so that no one would notice it. If I wished to make a correction without anybody noticing it all I would need do is to go to the Hansard office or to send back my proof sheets so corrected. It was precisely because I realized that this was a correction to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre might take objection that I made the correction publicly in this house. It is my recollection that what I now say I said is what I did say the other night; but if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wants to make an issue out of it and wants to have a vote of the house on it, I do not mind. Perhaps the best thing to do is to let the whole exchange between us appear in Hansard as a question of privilege and let the readers sort it out for themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the exchange speaks for itself.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the minister assure the house that Canadian soldiers stationed in Cyprus will be paid in Canadian money and not in U.S. money?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: According to the department's policy, our forces are paid in the currency mostly used in the country where they are serving.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In what currency will the Canadian forces be paid?


Mr. Dupuis:: In Diefendollars.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The dollar devaluation was an excellent thing for the Canadian economy.
In what currency are they being paid? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister going to reply, or is he taking the question as notice?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Up to now, Canadian troops have been paid in United States currency, but they will draw their pay in Cyprus' currency as soon as possible.



ARMOURY GUARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Defence the other day whether he would give the house information on the status of the guards who had been hired in the armouries. I wonder whether he has the information now.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received it as yet.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether today a time and place has been named for the hearing by the board of transport commissioners in regard to the contemplated abandonment of the Canadian division of the New York Central Railway known as the Canada Southern Railway Company?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.

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


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of External Affairs, vote No. le.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, we are still on agriculture, the big item.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night I believe we were on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, vote 172e. Since there are only four items left I wonder whether we can complete them before we go on to the other departments.


Guy Favreau: If I failed to tell any of the hon. gentlemen opposite that the government intended to proceed with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs first, then that is my error and I beg to be excused therefor. But if we cannot proceed with them today we will have to proceed with them tomorrow, because I understand the minister may not be available tonight.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think most of us were of the opinion that we were going to continue with agriculture. Personally I have no objection; it was just the way in which the Chair was calling the items.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I just explain so the committee will not be under the impression that the leader of the house is not taking hon. members into his confidence. I had asked, because I cannot be here tonight and perhaps for part of this afternoon too, that we might take my supplementary estimates first. My request was based on the possibility that we might not be here tomorrow, but as that is apparently not the situation, we can proceed with them later. But I did want to explain so that the committee would not think the house leader was not acting in the best of good faith.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote le carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. This is not my understanding at all, unless I am completely-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is quite right. I had just explained, Mr. Chairman, that as there is some disposition not to go ahead with external affairs today-although I had hoped we could-in view of the timetable I think we ought to proceed from where we finished last night.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
I72e. Special-Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization

account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board, including loss resulting from revaluation of inventory, as at March 31, 1964, $122,235,000.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would care to give the committee a breakdown of the amounts included under this item, which represents the bulk of the supplementary estimates of his department. I think the committee is entitled to an explanation of it.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned that possibly there might be some reason why the supplementary estimates were so large in some departments. I recognize the fact that the agriculture estimates represent over half of the total supplementary estimates, and this is due to the way in which the stabilization payments are handled.
There is a "guesstimate" in the main estimates as to how much will be required by the Department of Agriculture under the stabilization act. Since the commencement of this act the amount required by the stabilization board was always included in the supplementary estimates.
The amount of $73 million in vote 172e represents the total sum required under three different programs, and the difference of $48 million is due to a suggestion by treasury board that the payments be handled in a different way. They suggested that the amount of butter, butter solids, butter oil, and that type of thing, carried in the inventory should be shown at their market value. Therefore this is shown as a loss in the inventory and is a much truer picture than used to be the case when the cost price was included in the estimates. Therefore the difference between the $122 million and $73 million, approximately $48 million, which is required under the act is a revaluation of the inventory plus storage costs.
The hon. member is asking what this covered. There are three different ways in which the stabilization board operates. The first is the purchase of agricultural commodities at prescribed prices. This method is commonly known as the offer to purchase. The products we handle by the offer to purchase method are creamery butter, cheddar cheese, cattle, oats not under the Canadian wheat board and barley not under the Canadian wheat board.
The second method of support is the deficiency payment method. Products supported by deficiency payments are eggs, hogs, sheep, lamb, sheep wool, honey, soybeans, sunflower seeds, sugar beets and wheat not under the Canadian wheat board. This would be wheat grown other than in the prairie provinces.
Supply-Agriculture
Then the third method by which the stabilization board handles some products is by the payment of subsidies. The subsidy payment program covers milk for cheese, milk for butter, butterfat content of cream, dried casein and caseinates and tobacco. The total amount being appropriated is $122,235,000. I would be glad to give a picture of the inventories if this is what the hon. member wishes.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: This is what I asked.


Harry William Hays: In so far as butter oil is concerned, that is butter that was converted into butter oil in 1958, we had an estimated 2,124,468 pounds still in storage throughout the year. We sold 1,562,478 pounds and the loss amounted to $1,042,675. This was the amount of the loss on the 1958 butter oil. The 1959 butter oil amounted to 30,244,506 pounds, and of this we were able to sell 13,984,170 pounds. The loss was $9,448,661. In 1960 the inventory for butter oil was 47,179,352 pounds and sales amounted to 6,283,280 pounds. The loss amounted to $4,821,793.
I could go on and give all these figures, but if I may summarize the whole picture, including the amount of canned cuts and canned hams that still remain and that go back I think to some time in the sixties, it amounts to a loss of $6 million. The losses on this amount of inventory total $27,824,982. This refers to the program under which we purchase products.
In so far as deficiency payments are concerned, we supported eggs, wool, sugar beets, honey and that sort of thing. The net losses on eggs for 1959-60 amounted to only $37. The loss on wool for 1962 production year amounted to $29,912. The total including all the deficiency payments for 1963 amounted to $700,000, and that is for lamb, wool, and that sort of thing. The payment for sugar beets amounted to $720, which is down this year because of the high prices for sugar. I believe the floor price is $13.80 a ton, and I believe that even in Ontario the producers received something over $15 a ton. In so far as honey is concerned, the deficiency payment amounted to $75,000. The total cost for deficiency payments on milk used for cheddar cheese amounted to $4,301,297. Under the program in so far as butter was concerned, that is butter selling to the consumer at 64 cents, the support for the producer under this program cost us $11,947,372, plus $22,408,921, and for dried casein the cost was $1,878,520. The total amount was $41,353,027.
When you take all the program that I have just mentioned, the total amount was $73,776,260. The difference between this amount and the $122 million, is the change

Supply-Agriculture
of inventory which amounted to $48,458,986. I could give you the picture for all commodities.


Mr. Thomas:: Would it he possible to have these figures included in Hansard today?


Harry William Hays: I can see no reason why they should not be included in Hansard if the hon. member so desires.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I suggest that this be done.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to have these figures included as part of the remarks of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]

ESTIMATE OF NET LOSS FOR AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964
Pro-	Inventory	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated inventory	Preliminary cost calculation	Estimated cost January to	Estimated net cost ofduction	March 31,	purchases	sales	March 31,	Apr.-Dec. 31,	March 31,	paymentBasis of operation and commodity year	Unit	1963	for year	for year	1964	1963	1984	for year
Purchase and sale programs
Butter oil	
1958	lb.	2,124,468(a) Butter oil	
1959	lb.	30,244,506Solids	
19G0	lb.	1,617,280(b) Oil	
I960	lb.	47,179,352(c) Solids	
1961	lb.	59,589,892(d) Oil	
1961	lb.	2,159,421Solids	
1962	lb.	28,984,626Solids	
1963	lb.	nilDry skim milk	
1959	lb.	1,817,727Cheddar cheese	
1961	lb.	nil1962	lb.	nil1963	lb.	nilLamb	
1961	lb.	nilPork	
1958-60 canned cuts canned hams	10,944,990 4,306,836Deficiency payments Eggs (admin, charges) 	Eggs	
1959-60	nil1961-62	-	nilWool	
1961	-	nil1962	-	nil1963	-	nilnil	1,562,478	561,990	42,675	1,000,000	1,042,675nil	13,984,170	16,260,336	5,348,661	4,100,000	9,448,661nil	nil	1,617,280]	2,921,793	1,900,000	4,821,793nil	6,283,280	40,896,072]	nil	8,438,076	51,151,816]	3,178,482	295,000	3,473,482nil	871,466	1,287,955]	2,357,411	27,395,459	3,946,578	815,299	330,000	1,145,29973,800,000	38,100,000	35,700,000	767,634	125,000	892,634nil	1,817,727	nil	161,996	nil	161,9969,790	9,790	nil	406	nil	4066,173,288	6,173,288	nil	245,263	2,230	247,49316,153,300	16,153,300	nil	413,499	71,100	484,599nil	nil	nil	nil	64	64nil nil	10,441,638 2,397,782	503,352) 1,969,054/	5,005,880	1,100,000	6,105,880Sub total	18,901,588	8,923,394	27,824,982-	-	-	5,631	nil	5,631nil	nil	nil	37	nil	37nil	nil	nil	3,126	400	3,526nil	nil	nil	210	nil	210nil	nil	nil	29,112	800	29,912nil	nil	nil	nil	700,000	700,000
>
[DOT]t)
a



*>3
Supply-Agriculture
[The Deputy Chai:



ESTIMATE OF NET LOSS FOR AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD

[Stage Direction]
April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964
Basis of operation and commodity	Pro- duction year	Unit	Inventory March 31, 1963	Estimated purchases for year	Estimated sales for year	Estimated inventory March 31, 1964	Preliminary cost calculation Apr.-Dee. 31, 1963	Estimated cost January to March 31, 1964	Estimated net cost of payment for yearDeficiency payments (concluded) Sugar beets	1961	nil	nil	nil	nil	1,773	nil	1,773Honey	1961	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	720	nil	7201962	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	74,908	200	75,108Milk used for cheddar cheese	1903-64	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	3,451,297	850,000	4,301,297Butterfat content of whole milk	1963-64	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	10,147,372	1,800,000	11,947,372Butterfat content of cream	1963-64	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	18,158,921	4,250,000	22,408,921Dried casein and dried caseinates	1963-64	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	1,688,520	190,000	1,878,520Sub total	. 33,561,627	7,791,400	41,353,027Subsidy payments Butter	
1961	_	nil	nil	nil	nil	1,845	nil	1,8451962	nil	nil	nil	nil	3,434,977	nil	3,434,977Milk for processing	
1962-63	-	nil	nil	nil	nil	1,161,429	nil	1,161,429Sub total	. 4,598,251	nil	4,598,251
Estimated total net cost for year
73,776,260
(a)	Includes	fire	loss	
410,238	lbs.	butter oil	1959(b)	Includes	fire	loss	
3,077,168	lbs.	oil 1960(c)	Includes	fire	loss	
1,283,072	lbs.	solids 1961(d)	Includes	fire	loss	
371,466	lbs.	oil 1961.1658	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supp ly-A griculture
Harold Warren Danforth: May I just question the minister a little further on this inventory? I am not clear on this. The minister referred to the revaluation of the inventory and this loss of $48 million. Does this mean that if these products were offered for sale there would be this loss, or can the minister give me more information about this revaluation of the inventory?


Harry William Hays: Probably I could best explain it this way. Take 1958, and we find the butter oil inventory amounts to 561,990 pounds. Our sales of butter oil were made at something over 27 cents, 27J cents. Last year, if my memory serves me correctly, we had 81 million pounds of butter oil. Throughout the year we were able to sell, along with some we lost in the fire, something like 18 million or 19 million pounds. The remainder of that amount of butter oil, about 61 million pounds, is now valued, or the 1958 part of it is valued at 27 cents. This would be the seaboard price, possibly on board ship. We wrote it down at $398,000, and 1959 was written down at $11 million. The same is true of butter solids. The estimated selling price is 52 cents a pound, and if we moved any butter, as we did into the United Kingdom this year there would be a further loss if we were to receive less than 52 cents a pound. But at the moment the butter oil in storage is valued at 27 cents per pound or some such amount, and the butter at 52 cents a pound.


Harold Warren Danforth: In effect this is just a book or estimated loss of roughly $48 million and not a real loss.


Harry William Hays: Yes, that is correct.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: There is another point I should like to clear up. Last evening I asked if the amount of $122 million included the consumer butter subsidy. The President of the Privy Council said no. However, from the minister's explanation today I gather there is about $41 million for the consumer butter subsidy involved in the amount of $122 million.


Harry William Hays: Probably the President of the Privy Council did not quite understand the information I gave him. This $122 million includes all programs as well as the write-down. It includes all programs as well as inventory adjustments.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: And this goes all the way back to the beginning of operations under the stabilization act?


Harry William Hays: No, this is for the year 1963-64.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: And only for 1963-64.


Harry William Hays: Yes.
Supply-Agriculture


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understood the minister correctly, the breakdown of this $122 million is roughly something over $73 million for deficiency payments-


Harry William Hays: Of one kind or another.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think there is any need to question those. They are a very good investment in providing agricultural stability. The balance is some $48 million in inventory losses on agricultural products in storage.


Harry William Hays: And the operating charges.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. I wonder whether the minister has a breakdown of how much of the $48 million is due to price changes and how much is due to spoilage or loss of the actual products themselves. Would it be all due to price changes?


Harry William Hays: I think this is correct. There probably has been some spoilage. We lost some in a fire, of course, and in canned pork and that sort of thing there has been some spoilage, but other than that there has been very little spoilage up until this time. This is why we were so very anxious to start moving some of the butter oil that has been on hand since 1958. The butter that we have sold has been very well received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it there is no breakdown as between the loss due to spoilage and the loss due to price changes.


Harry William Hays: No, there is no breakdown.


Raymond Langlois: With regard to the spoilage resulting from the fire, if I remember correctly the minister gave some figures not too long ago. Was the loss by fire in that particular storage in the millions of dollars?


Harry William Hays: I do not remember the total amount involved in that fire. There was not too much that we were able to recover because the product was in the form of butter oil and it was almost impossible to put the fire out. Most of it was destroyed. We did sell some of it that was not fit to restore. I do not have the exact figures but I will be glad to get them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the stabilization board carry insurance on products in storage?


Harry William Hays: No.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I had a question along the line of the one just asked. I understand that the minister has no definite figures with him with regard to the fire at St. Denis Sur Richelieu. I also wanted to ask him about insurance. Why does the government not have insurance on these stocks?


Harry William Hays: I suppose it would be because the government of Canada is the largest business in Canada and probably the feeling is

Supply-Agriculture
that the government should carry its own insurance. Certainly this would seem a very sensible approach to me. Earlier in the year I did give exact figures as to the amount of butter destroyed in the fire, the amount that we were able to recover and so on.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I think the minister is going a little too far when he says he has given all the figures. I think at the time he did not have all the figures, and this was the reason I was prompted to ask the question. I would appreciate having the figures at a later date.


Harry William Hays: I will look into the matter and give the hon. member all the figures.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I think I perhaps owe an explanation to the hon. member for Middlesex West. Last night a question was asked by the hon. member for Huron relating to this item, and in answering it I pointed out there were two different parts to the item, one having to do with the loss on actual purchases and sales and the other having to do with revaluation. I related the subsequent question to revaluation. It will be noticed that the question asked by the hon. member for Middlesex West followed a question asked by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings while I was dealing with the subject of revaluation of inventory. His question appeared right after my remarks but it was actually asked while I was speaking, and I related the butter subsidy question to the question of revaluation. I am sorry if my answer in any way misled the hon. member, but that is how it came about.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if it would not be the proper thing to insure the butter in the warehouse at St. Denis Sur Richelieu. I know for a fact that the people there are quite concerned. They fear another tragedy which could be the cause of great loss. For instance, the butter oil, as it did the last time, could go down the drains and block all the drains of the municipality. The municipality are quite interested in this matter, and they would like to have an assurance from the minister that he intends to do all he can to make sure that what happened last fall will not again threaten this village. I should like very much to have the minister give me his assurance now that he will look into the matter and will do all he can so that the people of my riding, particularly those of the village of St. Denis Sur Richelieu, will be reassured.


Harry William Hays: I would be very pleased to send a directive to all people who store butter in Canada telling them to be sure not to have a fire.
[Mr. Hays.l


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the minister in French.

Was the storage plant which burned down at St. Denis Sur Richelieu owned by the government? I understand that there is no insurance in the case of government buildings. So, I should like to know whether this St. Denis storage plant was the government property?


Harry William Hays: I could not answer that with certainty. My understanding is that it did not belong to the government.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, if the storage plant, which was burned down did not belong to the government-and I understand that the government was paying so much a pound for butter stored-and if the facts prove to be true, I think that the person, or the company, which owns the storage plant has a measure of responsibility to the government whose products it stores.
If, for instance, a company takes my goods in storage, I shall assure myself before handing them over that the company is covererd by insurance to protect those items stored on my behalf. It seems to me, therefore, that the government should also before paying out many thousand dollars in storage costs, see to it that the firm, or the person who owns the storage plant is insured, because it is not up to the government to take up insurance on products it wants to store.
That is the government's responsibility. The government should see to it that its products are duly insured when they are stored elsewhere than on government premises.


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to look into the mathematics and pass them on to my hon. friend. I suppose there would be many different rates, with one rate for the storage of butter, but this is a situation concerning the storage of other things. I would be glad to give the hon. member information in some detail as to why the government does not pay insurance. It is probably cheaper not to pay it, and I can't tell him what it would cost to pay it.


Clément Vincent: That was not exactly the question. The question is why the owner of this storage plant is not paying insurance on the stock he is putting in storage for the government, because he is paid so much a pound to store this stuff.


Harry William Hays: In this case it certainly was not carried at his risk. He would want a different rate if it were carried at his risk.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The minister will remember that at the time of the fire at St. Denis I kept in close contact with him. I was asked many questions by the village council of St. Denis and he and I exchanged quite a few letters and also held many conversations. I would now like to ask him whether he has received a resolution from the village of St. Denis asking help from the government for that municipality, due to the excessive expense this municipality had to undertake because of the fire?
I want to tell him that the people there are under the impression that it is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture to give the necessary protection because this was material belonging to the government, and it is the government's responsibility to see that no damage is done to the municipality.


Harry William Hays: If the request has come into the department it has not been drawn to my attention yet. I am quite sure the storage people were paying real property tax and supporting the fire department, and the city probably felt it was their responsibility. I know that when I was mayor of the city of Calgary we would welcome the government storing things in our city and we would take a chance on looking after fires. That is what fire departments are for.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: But that is a big city compared to St. Denis.


Mr. Moore:: I would like to ask the minister how much less money was paid out to producers of milk used in evaporated and condensed milk plants since the 25 cents a cwt. subsidy was removed?


Harry William Hays: I do not believe I have that exact figure. We did not pay the subsidy on the milk that went into the manufacture of condensed milk or for soft cheeses, but we did pay a premium, not 25 cents but 30 cents, on milk used for the production of cheddar cheese. Those engaged in the production of soft cheeses had to bid for this milk and the producer received the same amount as the cheddar producer. I gave those figures yesterday.
If the hon. member is speaking of soft cheeses, the amount the manufacturers had to pass on to the consumers would be about half a cent for each small can, and it was less than 1 cent a pound on soft milk cheese. Therefore in order to get milk the people supplying the producers of soft cheese and the condensers, had to bid against the cheddar milk buyers and they passed this on to the consumer. The d.b.s. figures I gave yesterday indicated that the price of milk to the producer has increased in every province.
S upp ly-A griculture


Harry Andrew Moore: Well, naturally the price of distributed milk could be up because that is controlled by no one but the local provincial boards, but with respect to the condensed factory which I have in mind, and with which I am closely connected, they have raised the price of milk on their own to compensate for the loss of the 25 cents, and they naturally had to raise the price of a carton of condensed milk cans to the consumer. However, the rise in price was not enough to compensate the actual producer for the 25 cents a cwt. he had formerly obtained, and I cannot see that this constitutes a rise in the price of milk.


Harry William Hays: Our d.b.s. figures do not indicate this. They indicate the producer is receiving more for his milk than he did a year ago, including the subsidy.


Harry Andrew Moore: It may be only in the one area.


Harry William Hays: The d.b.s. figures cover all of the areas although there may be regional spots where possibly the price of milk was somewhat lower, but if producers were good operators, for the most part right across Canada they received more for their milk.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have here a copy of an invoice for a 3.3 test for Mr. Gilbert Bergeron of Ste Rosalie who sells his milk to Carnation, Waterloo. For a 3.3 test on June 15, 1962, his price per 100 pounds was $2.89. For a 3.3 test on June 15, 1963, his average was $2.80 per 100 pounds, in other words 9 cents less than when the Conservative government was in power. Of course, if the minister is going to compare a 3.3 test with a 3.5 or a 3.6 test he will certainly arrive at a greater amount for 1963, but I ask him not to compare a calf with a bull.


Raymond Langlois: I wish to speak on the question of insurance for the storage of butter and cheese, which was raised by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
May I ask the minister whether he does not consider it good reasoning to insure this particular government property in the same way as all other government property is insured. It might not be often that we experience such a fire as the one to which I referred, but once is enough, and I should like to know whether the minister is considering taking out insurance coverage in respect to such premises. I do not see why the government should take the risk of sustaining such heavy losses.


Harry William Hays: The policy of the government as it has existed, as I understand, for years and years is that no government property is insured, for the reason that the risk is so widely spread and the amounts involved are so high. I know many cities which do not

Supply-Agriculture
carry fire insurance on their buildings for similar reasons. Certainly, we could insure against such damage as the hon. member referred to. But if we consider the costs involved-90 million pounds of butter, 61 million pounds of butter oil-and add the fact that it was costing us until recently $350,000 a month to carry storage charges, it becomes apparent that it is probably cheaper for the government to carry its own insurance on the stock than to insure it.


William Arnold Peters: This is a very large item and 1 think the minister is to be congratulated on the clear explanation he gave, though the breakdown is still difficult to follow. There have, in the past, been suggestions that when items of this nature are set down in the estimates they should be broken down into divisions which make them more easily understandable. This particular estimate involves almost half the total supplementary estimates asked for and it includes most of the deficiency payment items, the subsidy payments as well as revaluation.
These, I would point out, are in unrelated fields. On one hand, there are two forms of making subsidy payments. On the other, there is revaluation. I think they should be kept separate. Those who are interested in agriculture in general wish to know how much is being spent on deficiency payments and to what extent agriculture is being subsidized through such payments. Not only those engaged in agriculture should have this information; I think the public as a whole should be aware of it. The vote speaks of an amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board, including loss resulting from revaluation of inventory. In my opinion we are dealing here with two entirely different matters. Revaluation of inventory must reflect a change of attitude on the part of the government toward this particular question. We have always been concerned about the disposal of inventory and I should like to know if there has been a change of thinking about the way in which these surplus products should be disposed of.
When the Liberal party was in opposition, their spokesmen on agriculture came out strongly against the selling of canned goods which had been held by the government for a lengthy period of time to the companies which had originally produced them. Objection was taken because such products were then sold on the market at their original prices. This is what happened in the riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam last year after a large transfer of inventory had been made in very suspicious circumstances. Well, the Liberal party were at that time much opposed to
[Mr. Hays.l
practices of this sort and it seems odd they should now bring in an estimate, thrown in together with a stabilization fund item, indicating that there has been a revaluation of inventory involving sales. I am sure the committee would appreciate a much more precise breakdown in connection with some of these controversial items, because it might then be possible for us to deal with these questions in a much more intelligent manner. I do not blame the minister, because he has nothing to do with this matter. But his department has, and all departments of government have an obligation to honour commitments which have been made. Those commitments have to be honoured by the civil servants. I am sure there are a number of them from the Department of Agriculture sitting in the gallery this afternoon. I charge them-and I think the charge is a good one-that they split these items up so that they are more intelligible and really portray what the estimates represent.
Even those who are very familiar with the workings of the Department of Agriculture would have difficulty in understanding what these figures refer to, and though I do not congratulate the minister very often I think he should be congratulated on the knowledge he has shown on this subject and the manner in which he has explained the subjects covered by this vote. However, it seems to me that the department has done a very poor job of breaking this item up and they should really do better if members of parliament are to have some understanding of the operations of the Department of Agriculture.
I think that before the main estimates are brought down the minister should explain to us what changes have been made in this inventory. If we add the two figures which have been given us we arrive at a total of $73 million, representing the amount paid in deficiency payments, subsidy payments and revaluation. I point out that there are a number of subsidies, or payments, which are I think handled in a different way from payments made with respect to such items as tobacco, milk, cream, casein products, and the rest. The picture is not very clear, and one of these days the committee will have to be given a much better account of how we are handling the commodities which we are collecting and subsidizing.
I should like to know whether the minister has anything to add to what he said about the disposition of canned products. Some of them have been in storage for so long that I think their value has been eaten up by the cost of storage.


Harry William Hays: I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words. I also wish to say a word about my department. I am perhaps one of

the most fortunate ministers in the cabinet in that I do have an outstanding group of civil servants. Perhaps it was my fault that I did not make a better distribution of the breakdown. It is all in the annual report of the stabilization board, and possibly I should have had this report distributed to all members, knowing that the supplementary estimates were coming up for consideration.
Canned pork which we still have in stock amount to 503,352 pounds and we value them at $227,968; canned hams account for 1,969,054 pounds and they are carried on the inventory at $1,076,284.


William Arnold Peters: Are any of these goods being disposed of by selling them to the companies which had produced them for distribution by those companies?


Harry William Hays: I do not wish to mislead the hon. member, but I think most of the canned goods have been tentatively sold on an option basis to firms awaiting an opportunity to sell them. This was arranged some years ago and now we are cleaning up. Today pork is supported under a deficiency program, so we do not have to buy it as such. When the price falls below a certain point we make a deficiency payment to the hog producers.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I realize it is a little early to ask about this, but has any consideration been given to disposing of our canned meat products and shipping them to the armed services overseas, in Cyprus for instance? I do not suggest that we should revive the bully-beef program of the first world war, or anything like that, but hon. members will recall that a few years ago small cans of pork were put on the market and those which carried the government of Canada label were a very good buy. I think most housewives missed these products when they were taken off the market. They were not a substandard grade of product but were an excellent grade. It might be possible for us to utilize some of these products for our armed services, military hospitals and some of the other agencies and dispose of them in that way. This would be a disposal at the market cost of the product.
I would suggest that we take a look at some of the ways in which we have been disposing of these products in the past and substitute for them other methods that will eliminate the surplus without causing havoc in the particular industries concerned. At the same time we could provide a product that would be sold on its true valuation. In other words, instead of writing off, in this case almost $500,000 in our inventory, we could utilize
Supply-Agriculture
the products that we have and would probably recoup this half a million dollars. It would seem to me this idea is well worth investigating.
We would not like this to be the sole diet of the troops, or anything of that nature; but I would think some of these products could be utilized in this manner. We could arrive at a much better method of disposing of them than has been the case in the past.


Harold Warren Danforth: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it is because I do not understand this matter thoroughly but I am still rather disturbed about this revaluation of inventory when it deals with a sum in excess of $40 million. The minister has stated that this in itself can be characterized as a book loss and this loss will not be accrued by the government until the stock is moved. In other words, we have over $40 million put down here as a charge when, in effect, it is not a loss until this stock is moved.
Furthermore, if my understanding is correct this $40 million is based upon the present market value of the inventory as compared with the value when these things were purchased. I believe I am right in this. In two months the market value could change upward 10 per cent or 20 per cent, or downward 10 per cent or 20 per cent, which would mean that this estimated inventory loss in excess of $40 million would be very wrong. I hope the minister will give us a little more detail on this matter. I would like to know why, in regard to this particular estimate, this new system was introduced, this change in policy, which in effect gives us $40 million that can be played with in the manipulation of the figures of the Department of Agriculture, because it is not a loss until this product is moved or sold.


Harry William Hays: I think it is quite a normal procedure in accounting practice to deal with something at the market value or the lowest cost. It is just the same as on any statement. If bonds drop $10, you value them accordingly and suffer a loss; and if they go up, you have made some gain. I think this was the thought treasury board had in mind when they asked the Department of Agriculture to take another look at the stocks they were holding.


Harold Warren Danforth: Can the minister say why this was done, Mr. Chairman? I am interested in this matter.


Harry William Hays: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, because it is good accounting practice; this is probably the main reason. It shows a much truer picture. We have disposed of some 18 million pounds of butter oil, as I said, at around 27 cents a pound. With regard to the

Supply-Agriculture
butter oil remaining, the cost of storage is now valued at this amount. We are selling butter at 52 cents a pound; the solids, or butter, are valued at 52 cents a pound. When you add what it costs to store it, and so on, the amount is considerably higher. I do not think this has been a true picture, and I think that today we have given a very true picture of the stocks now held by the Department of Agriculture.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 172e carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman; this is a very interesting point. Would it not be wiser to bring in a supplementary estimate much later this year, after these products have been moved? Why do it in advance of the disposal of the products? Supposing the butter oil is not sold at all; what do you do with the $48 million in the interval? Is it available for other uses, or will it be returned to the receiver general?


Harry William Hays: I think that to show a true picture in 1965 we should revalue this inventory and add the cost of holding these commodities. If the price is up, we will indicate that our stocks on hand have gone up in price. If there is some loss, I think we should indicate that. I think this gives a true picture to the Canadian taxpayer. He knows how much we have stored and what it has cost us to store it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware of the fact that the agricultural stabilization board has not put out its annual report for this year. Is he in a position to tell us if there was a surplus in last year's operation, or a loss, taking into consideration the question asked by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.)? Can the minister give us this information, in terms of last year's operation? Does the report show a loss or a profit in this regard?


Harry William Hays: This is the figure I gave, Mr. Chairman. It cost $73 million for the stabilization board to do business last year. This is for the support in connection with the three different schemes under which they support these various commodities, plus the breakdown of the inventory, which is an additional $44 million approximately. This gives us an operating loss for the fiscal year of $122 million.


William Arnold Peters: My question is in terms of the over-all picture. We are only dealing with the supplementary.


Harry William Hays: No, this is with regard to the whole operation of the stabilization board. It has always been done on supplementary estimates, because I do not think you would

know the position at the beginning of the year. It is a sort of "guesstimate" in the budget as to how much money the stabilization board will require for the coming year; but it has always been handled in the supplementary estimates. I think the hon. member has a very good point in this connection, and before this question is discussed we should distribute the agricultural stabilization board report so that hon. members will be more familiar with what has taken place. From time to time last year I said we would be supporting lamb at so much, we would be supporting sugar beets at $13.80, and so on. Some of this support was at 80 per cent and some was at 100 per cent. I think we should have the report of the board before we discuss this matter.


William Arnold Peters: How have we made the payments so far? What is the financial arrangement that permits these payments, because certainly some of this $122 million has been paid to date. For instance, the $73 million must have been paid over a period of 12 months at so much a month. How did we get the money to pay these things? Have we a revolving fund for the stabilization board?


Harry William Hays: This is done under the authority of the statute. For instance, we support hogs. We did not pay anything out in respect of hogs. With regard to lamb, for instance, we paid out $700,000. We pay this direct to the producer after he has marketed his lambs to the commission or packing firm. This is done after they have been graded because they are supported on a grade basis. This is the procedure under the stabilization act.


William Arnold Peters: What I am wondering about is the technique of getting the money. This $122 million includes the $73 million, which is the total amount. This is the final windup of the account. Have we provided for a revolving fund?


Harry William Hays: Yes, we have a revolving fund of $250 million.


William Arnold Peters: What is the state of the fund now? What is the balance in the fund? Does the $122 million bring it up to $250 million?


Harry William Hays: I do not exactly know in what position the fund is now but I am not getting any letters from people who have not been paid. I hope these might pass tonight because we are going to be about $73 million short.


Mr. Baldwin:: I want to speak about a matter which appears later, but am I not correct in pointing out that these items are put in the supplementary estimates-possibly the President of the Privy Council can bear me out on this-as a result of a recommendation made by the public accounts committee

in 1961, so that there would be a peg on which details could be provided before the money was spent? In other words, this is an estimate of a probable loss, and it permits members in this committee to discuss government policy which results in a loss of this kind before the money has been spent. Following the year's operations I assume there will have to be another item to cover the exact amount spent.
I think the report of the public accounts committee recommending this policy was filed a year or two ago. 1 assume that normally this item would be in the main estimates, in which case there would be an opportunity for a fruitful debate at a later date. Perhaps that may be confirmed.


Harry William Hays: I want to thank my hon. friend for explaining this much better than I could. I am just a farmer from southern Alberta.


Gerald William Baldwin: And I am just a farmer from northern Alberta.


Harry William Hays: In essence the hon. member is exactly right.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask two further questions. Is this the first time an inventory loss has been recorded in such a fashion, and second can we expect this to be an annual policy on the part of the government from now on?


Harry William Hays: Yes. This inventory will now be computed from market prices.


Raymond Langlois: May I refer back to the question from the hon. member for Timiskaming and the answer of the minister concerning the $250 million revolving fund. Is this $122 million taken out of the revolving fund or just the $73 million? If so, how do you put it back?


Harry William Hays: I should get my hon. friend from northern Alberta to explain this. There is provision made for a $250 million revolving fund. We have this amount to work with and to support all of the programs under the stabilization board. What we are now doing is recouping some of this amount. We have not used all of it but it is a revolving fund. It operates similar to section 88 of the Bank Act, where a farmer can borrow money through a short term loan, pay back some and borrow more.


Raymond Langlois: What I want to know is this. Is the $122 million taken out of this fund, or is the $44 million taken out, or just the $73 million?


Harry William Hays: It all goes back into the revolving fund.


George James McIlraith: It is going into it.
Supply-Agriculture


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that what the minister has said cannot be correct for the simple reason that what we are doing is revaluing the inventory. You cannot put the $48 million into the revolving fund because you did not take it out. Certainly the inventory must be separate from the revolving fund. If not, then we have been discussing two or three matters under this item which are not compatible.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, might I just attempt to explain this. The $250 million figure includes the inventory. The fund has an amount of $250 million in it and the inventory is bought out of this. Therefore your inventory value plus the cash on hand at the end of the year equals $250 million. If you value your inventory down by $44 million you have to put this amount back in cash in order to bring the value of the inventory plus cash on hand up to $250 million.


Raymond Langlois: Then at the moment there is only $73 million, because $44 million relates to the selling price of these products. At the moment you are therefore talking strictly about cash.


Harry William Hays: The present state of the agricultural stabilization board finances amounts to $250 million less $122 million, less the current inventory of $63 million, which leaves $65 million.


William Arnold Peters: Well, may I just ask for the assurance of the minister that when he brings in the main estimates there will be in future a breakdown in the supplementaries which will probably accompany the main estimates so that this procedure is more easily understood, because this is obviously quite a complicated financial arrangement. There are another three items here which are similar, and there should be a breakdown of each one so that the picture is much clearer to hon. members.


George James McIlraith: There is a breakdown of this item available, and if I have permission I could have it inserted in Hansard. I think it, together with the two sheets filed earlier today, gives all the detail asked for by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give a general indication of this document before he asks that it be placed on the record?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The production year and commodity is in the first column and the estimated inventory at March 31, 1964 follows. That shows the number of pounds or as the case may be. Then the unit purchase cost is shown; then other costs such as storage; then the current inventory; then the current unit market value; then the calculated inventory

Supply-Agriculture
value; and lastly the estimated operating and inventory loss. These columns are then totalled and a figure of $9,800,000 odd is arrived at for storage charges. Each column is totalled, and the estimated inventory loss amounts to $48,458,986.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the storage charges?


George James McIlraith: In round figures, $9,880,000.


Harold Warren Danforth: Does that give us the same breakdown and detail on the values themselves or on the operating loss?


George James McIlraith: It shows item by item in detail.


Harold Warren Danforth: The complete inventory?


George James McIlraith: Yes. I think this should answer all the questions asked.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that this information be printed in Hansard as part of the minister's remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Agricultural Commodities Stabilization Account-Estimate of Loss Resulting from Revaluation of Inventory
(1) (2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)Production Estimated year inventory at	Purchase cost	Other costs	Current inventory	Current unit	Calculated inventory value (unit purchase cost or market value*	Estimated operating and inventory losscommodity March 31,1964	Unit Value	Unit Value	(Col. 3+4=5)	market value	whichever is the lower)	(Col. 5-7)Lbs.	$	$	$	$	%	$Butter oil	1958	561,990	.7952	446,894	.1693	95,145	.9645	542,039	.2560	143,869	.2560	143,869	398,1701959	16,260,336	.7954	12,933,471	.1557	2,531,735	.9511	15,465,206	.2560	4,162,646	.2560	4,162,646	11,302,5601960	40,896,072	.7878	32,217,926	.1084	4,433,134	.8962	36,651,060	.2560	10,469,394	.2560	10,469,394	26,181,6661961	1,287,955	.7873	1,014,007	.0614	79,080	.8487	1,093,087	.2560	329,716	.2560	329,716	763,371Butter solids	I960	1,617,280	.6303	1,019,372	.1011	163,507	.7314	1,182,879	.5200	840,986	.5200	840,986	341,8931961	51,151,816	.6299	32,220,529	.0413	2,112,570	.6712	34,333,099	.5192	26,558,023	.5192	26,558,023	7,775,0761962	3,946,578	.5113	2,017,885	.0152	59,988	.5265	2,077,873	.5198	2,051,431	.5113	2,017,885	59,9881963	35,700,000	.5155	18,403,350	.0093	332,010	.5248	18,735,360	.5192	18,535,440	.5155	18,403,350	332,010Pork 1958-60	Canned cuts	503,352	.5867	295,317	.0262	13,187	.6129	308,504	.1600	80,536	.1600	80,536	227,968Canned hams	1,969,054	.8410	1,655,974	.0306	60,253	.8716	1,716,227	.3250	639,943	.3250	639,943	1,076,284102,224,725	9,880,609	112,105,334	63,811,984	63,646,348	48.458.98fi
'Market value is calculated as follows:
(o) Butter solids-Average value on a weighted basis according to location of product in each selling price zone.
(b) Butter oil-Canned pork-The estimated average value delivered at Canadian seaboard.	cn
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Item agreed to.
173e. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board account to cover the net operating loss as recorded in the account as at March 31, 1964, $1,018,400.
William Arnold Peters: This is another vote that requires some explanation of what we are carrying on account of the agricultural products board, and what were the losses?


Harry William Hays: This is the estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board for the net operating loss up to March 31, 1964 in the amount of $1,018,355. Perhaps I should read the explanation. The inventory of skim milk powder as at April 1, 1963, was 13,357,977 pounds, and purchases from April 1 to December 31, 1963 amounted to 22,167,224 pounds. Other costs amounted to $64,685. Sales to December 31, 1963 which included 7,036,039 pounds supplied to the Department of External Affairs for international relief purposes accounted for $3,322,988. You will remember when the hurricanes and that sort of thing were taking place, this relief was granted. The balance of skim milk powder to December 31, 1963 amounted to 3,875,099 pounds valued at $406,852. Anticipated purchases from January 1 to April 30, 1964-you will remember we are dealing with the figures to December 31-900,000 pounds, and inventory as at March 31, 1964, this is estimated, 3,875,099 pounds valued at $406,852.
The cost of the whole program, that is costs of sales and donations, amounted to $3,322,988. The recovery from external affairs, they gave it away and repaid us, amounted to $490,380, so our loss on the whole transaction amounted to $951,950. There were expenses amounting to $30,405, making a total of $982,355. The anticipated further loss on sales from January 1, 1964 to March 31, 1964, this is another estimate, is $36,000. This gives us a net operating loss as at March 31, 1964 of $1,018,355.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the minister if in this particular instance there was any revaluation of the inventory, whether it was included in this $1 million, or was included in the other vote? Has any revaluation been carried into this farm products board account?


Harry William Hays: In this particular case, I do not believe there has been any revaluation of inventory. I do not believe there was any revaluation carried in vote 172e.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
174e. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, $1,377,000.
Mr. Douceii:: I should like to ask the minister for an explanation of this amount
[The Chairman.]
of $1,377,000 for the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year just ending.


Harry William Hays: The amount of money the Farm Credit Corporation has lent to farmers is substantial. We lend it at 5 per cent and this loss of $1,377,000 is the difference between the price that the government has to pay for the money they lent to the farmers and the cost of operating. This is in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent or something like that. In other words, we may be borrowing money at 5f per cent, so it is costing us about a half of one per cent to operate.


George Henry Doucett: I should like to ask the minister if there is any breakdown of the amount of operating costs or the amount of difference between what is paid for the money and what is received for it?


Harry William Hays: Well, I can give the hon. member those figures, or if he wishes we could have them printed in Hansard. The interest on earnings amounted to $14,900,000; the accrued interest on loans from the government of Canada, $13,200,000; appraisal, supervision and legal fees cost $500,000; salaries and employee benefits, $2,767,000; travel, $306,000; office accommodation, $215,000; office supplies and services, $199,000; provision for depreciation, $37,000; miscellaneous, $53,000. Subtracting the earnings we come up with a net operating loss of $1,377,000.


George Henry Doucett: Has there been any change in the method of bookkeeping within the last year, such as was explained in connection with one of the former items?


Harry William Hays: No, there has been no change. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I deny the remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation.
The hon. member for Lapointe was misinformed and has been unfair to this corporation which, in my opinion, does excellent work and has a very able staff.
At the time the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister amendments were made to the Farm Credit Act.
We may say today, that, due allowance being made, the Farm Credit Corporation is lending just as much money in the eastern provinces as in the western provinces, but prior to the amendment to the act, it was very difficult for the eastern farmers to obtain loans from that corporation.
For the information of the hon. member for Lapointe, I wish to point out the fact that the province of Quebec and the maritime

provinces, due allowances being made, have obtained as many loans, if not more, than the western provinces.
As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we find that it is in a special position, being the only province with a farm credit organization of its own.
The hon. member for Lapointe has been unfair, I would even go so far as to say dishonest in respect of the federal Farm Credit Corporation, which does not practice discrimination in any province of the country, and I want to pay tribute to its devoted staff for performing excellent work in the interest of the farmers.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Farm Credit Corporation is still under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. I note that there is a loss of $1,377,000 brought about by the difference between the interest rate of 5 per cent charged to the farmers on the money they have borrowed and the rate of more than 5 per cent at which the government has to borrow money. What is the minister's personal opinion? Would he say that the rate of 5 per cent should be changed to balance out the loss, or would he be of the opinion that the rate to farmers should remain at 5 per cent as it is now?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the government is unanimous in anything it does, of course, and as this is a matter of policy anything that the government does will be announced at the proper time.


Reynold Rapp: As the minister is from the west I should like to suggest to him that the rate should not be changed from 5 per cent to a higher figure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Reduce it to 4J.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to ask the minister a question. Has he at hand the figure showing the number of farmers who did not meet their obligations in regard to loans they have made from the government? If he has, can he give a breakdown showing how many there are in each province who have not met their obligations?


Harry William Hays: I am sorry I do not have that information. I know the number is very small, almost negligible. I also know that the United States lends a great deal more money to farmers under their plan, and the number there who do not meet their obligations is also almost negligible.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I want to make only one or two comments. This is a large item and having regard to the way it is listed anybody looking at it might well think that 20220-106J
Supply-Agriculture
the farmers are not repaying the money they have borrowed, and that as a result there is a loss of more than $1 million. The minister mentioned that this amount included legal fees, and this reminds me of something I have wanted to say for a long time. In my part of Ontario politics are being played so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned. It was only a matter of a few days after the government changed when the lawyers in charge of these loan transactions were also changed. I think this is a disgraceful situation. I have no interest at all in these people.


An hon. Member:: They were the right ones in the first place.


William Arnold Peters: My friend can say that maybe they were the right ones in the first place, if he likes. I am not going to say whether or not these lawyers are competent, but I am finding that there is just about as much trouble in getting things done by the Liberal lawyers as there was with the Conservative lawyers.
Much of the delay taking place with regard to farm credit loans is the responsibility of the legal people involved in searching titles and arranging for sales. I believe that the changing of lawyers on a political basis is not advantageous to the farmers. The Farm Credit Corporation must be a non-political organization if it is going to function satisfactorily, and it must retain the services of the best lawyers available, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, N.D.P. or Social Credit in their political philosophy. What we are interested in is their legal capabilities, not their politics.
Anyone can check in my riding and he will find that what I am saying is true. This disgraceful action took place with the sanction of all the lawyers. I met several of them and they were laughing about the fact that the lawyers had been changed. The result was that transfers already in progress were held up for many months because new lawyers had been appointed on a political patronage basis to handle them.
I suggest this is one thing that the minister should investigate because it does not lead to satisfactory operations. In my opinion it makes the government look rather silly when it plays around with political patronage in a professional field. It adds insult to injury to those who expect legal people to act in an impartial way. How can they be considered impartial, how can farmers be expected to trust them if they know that they are only political hacks who are getting a few beans from the government by way of legal fees?
I hope this matter is given some consideration and that the responsible senior civil

Supply-Agriculture
servants will quit playing the cheap, political establishment politics that many officials in the Department oi Agriculture have been prone to play lor a long time. Such conduct leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the farmers in my area who were in the process of obtaining loans and then found that politics in the legal profession had interfered. A number of them came to me and complained.
I am quite happy to say that in the main the members of the legal profession in my area do not advertise their politics. I would find it very hard to say what the politics of most of them are, but it is very easy to realize that politics have entered into the matter when one sees the lawyers being changed a few days after the election and loans being held up because of this action. I am not suggesting it has meant a million dollar loss to the Farm Credit Corporation, but I do suggest it has meant a loss of prestige to the department and the Farm Credit Corporation, and it is not to their credit.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one comment. In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned we have one thought in mind and that is the servicing of the farmers. With regard to the Farm Credit Corporation, I can assure the hon. member that there are going to be more changes if the farmers are not serviced with greater dispatch than they have been in the past.


William Arnold Peters: It does not have to be on a political level at all.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, my question has been partially asked and partially answered, but as a strong booster of the Farm Credit Corporation, which the previous government initiated, I want to emphasize again the very good repayment record of the farmers. I wish the minister could give us some indication of just what the small percentage of loss is in that regard and also enlarge on the operating loss, because in the last report of the Farm Credit Corporation it says:
Costs of salaries, office accommodation, and other operating expenses increased from $2,466,717 in 1961-62 to $3,186,399 in 1962-63.
If there was a similar increase last year in the costs of salaries, office accommodation and other operating expenses I would think this would account for most of the operating loss. Would the minister explain if that is the case?


Harry William Hays: This is not exactly so. In 1962 the Farm Credit Corporation had loans amounting to $304,423,000. As at December 31, 1963 the amount was $320 million and it has

increased since that time. The cost per $1,000 of loan has not substantially changed. There have been increases in salaries for all these people working for the Farm Credit Corporation and this has to be taken into account in the increased costs.


James Ernest Pascoe: I have one more question with regard to the annual report. The minister said that a substantial part of the operating loss was accounted for by the difference between the interest rate on the borrowings from the Minister of Finance and the interest rate on loans to farmers. In the annual report it is stated:
To finance its lending operations, the corporation borrowed the following sums from the Minister of Finance during the fiscal year:	$26,000,000
at 4] per cent interest...; $11,500,000 at 51 per cent interest...; $22,500,000 at 42 per cent interest-
Most of the borrowings were at a rate considerably below the 5 per cent interest charged on loans to the farmers.


Harry William Hays: It costs about 1 per cent to operate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
175e. Estimated amount required to recoup the prairie farm emergency fund to cover the net operating loss for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, $1,940,000.
Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to take a few minutes on this, as I think I am entitled to, being a farmer from northern Alberta who helped to get a farmer from southern Alberta out of the bog in which he appeared to be. While last year was a good crop year generally in western Canada, in the Peace River country we sustained very serious crop losses, one of the few years that has happened.
As a matter of fact I think the Minister of Agriculture was up there, doubling in his capacity as a governor of Rotary-


Harry William Hays: And minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: -yes, and minister. I may say I found it hard to distinguish sometimes between his Rotary and his political discussions. However, as a result of this crop condition, in the Peace River country we have had almost every type of loss, loss as the result of drought, loss due to too much water, frost, crops covered by snow, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Social Credit?


Gerald William Baldwin: This is a blight which we have been suffering under for a long time. Under the previous administration we made benefits available to a great number of people under the P.F.A.A. aid program. At the time we did this it was pointed out it was a matter of trial and error, and further changes would possibly have to be made. In addition, we introduced the Crop Insurance Act which was



L 1964

[Stage Direction]
to supplement P.F.A.A., but in Alberta the provincial government has not seen fit to introduce the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act.
I may say here, parenthetically, that the people of this area have had the utmost cooperation and assistance from the staff, the inspectors, supervisors and the superintendent here in Ottawa. I have had great help from them, and so have the farmers. It has not been a case of administration, but I am suggesting that because of this condition it is an opportune time for the minister to take a look at both of these pieces of legislation which are designed to dovetail together. I suggest that in the north country we have a cross section of all the losses and all the problems which can be met by farmers, and the minister should have his officials take a look at the results which have occurred when the final figures come in after the P.F.A.A. aid program is completed, and apply their direction with a view to coming up with recommendations for changes.
What was done was excellent. In fact, if I recall correctly, the number of people who can be served under P.F.A.A. has been doubled; but now it is apparent we will have to supplement this program, as was intended when it was introduced. I would urge the minister to use this area as a model, and come up with suitable recommendations dealing with the joint program of the Crop Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide changes which we will require in western Canada.
William Arnold Peters: Are there any further developments in the hearing concerning a director and one of the members of the house, in relation to P.F.A.A.?


Harry William Hays: I would not be able to comment, as I think this inquiry is still proceeding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business as provided in section 3 of standing order 15.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

["Order. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30."]
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that perhaps we could suspend private members' hour and go on with the discussion of my estimates, as I cannot be here tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we suspend the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-External Affairs SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is it agreed that we take the external affairs estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration including the expenses of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ministerial meeting in Canada, May 1963, $56,000.
William Arnold Peters: We have waited for a long time for an opportunity to hear the minister report. If he does not say something now, there would be no point in our waiting for another time in the future when he would be available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we are all here not so much to hear the minister but to get the estimates through. However, I am willing to answer any questions, if my hon. friend has some. This particular item arises out of the net shortage in our communication services for the fiscal year 1963-64.


Michael Starr: Is that for Washington?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, this is our communication services all over the world, including NATO. The main estimates for 1963-64 included $1.3 million for telephones, telegrams and all other communication services. The shortage results from a heavier volume of messages from our embassies all over the world.
The expenses of the NATO ministerial meeting held in Ottawa in May, 1963, exceeded by $24,000 the original estimate of $380,000 provided for in the supplementary estimates for 1963-64. That represents the amount asked for in this first item.


Frank Howard: I would like to spend some time to express a point of view about the NATO organization. I have always looked a bit askance at our participation in NATO because of its structure, and because of the fact that for some years it has rested almost entirely upon the military basis, that being one of so-called massive nuclear retaliation. In fact that has been the situation since 1954.
If memory serves me correctly, the Liberal party was in office at the time of the formation of NATO when article II was put into effect, providing that NATO might be an international organization which would concern itself with economic advancement of the various NATO nations. While there have been general references to this purpose, nothing has been done in a determined way to move NATO from its military concept into one of economic co-operation and activity, except references made by delegates who

Supply-External Affairs attend the annual NATO parliamentary conferences. Delegates from all parties in this house have attended those conferences, and have found that parliamentary delegates from other countries on many occasions expressed great concern about the necessity for transforming NATO into an organization for economic co-operation and advancement, or least expanding the participation of NATO in the economic field. I think it is perhaps 15 years -this year is the fifteenth anniversary of the formation of NATO-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The anniversary will be on the fourth of this month.


Frank Howard: The minister informs me, and I thank him, that the fifteenth anniversary of NATO will be on the fourth of this month, a few days hence. Well, even though this was the great thought, the great anticipation that Canada had when it entered NATO, namely that NATO could be used to promote economic activity among various members of that organization, so far we have not made any step in that direction except as far as the parliamentary conferences are concerned, and their recommendations have not been heeded. To me, this is unfortunate. I am one of those who believe that the major threat which the communist nations present to the western world is a threat which arises from economic strength, not from military power. A few years ago, about 1957, the price of aluminum on the world market dropped tremendously. There was a curtailment in the expansion program in Kitimat in my own constituency, and a decline in aluminum production in North America and in other countries of the western world generally. After it was all over it took a year and a half or two years to realize what had happened. What had happened was this: the Soviet union had, in effect, dumped a volume of aluminum on world markets, undercutting the world price as it existed at that time, and the United Kingdom, an importer of aluminum, bought Soviet aluminum. This brought the world price down and resulted in an economic recession in that industry in the western world. The Soviet union took the action it did for a special reason, not because it had a surplus of aluminum but because it wanted to drive the world price down so that it could buy up the surplus aluminum in other nations in the western world at a price lower than existed then on the world market. This illustrates the type of damage which can be done to the economy of the western world by communist nations depending on economic measures rather than on military strength.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs nodding his head. I hope because of

his years in the house, his prestige and his experience, it is a nod of agreement with what I am saying. It makes me feel even more confident that I am on the right track than I would normally be.
It seems to me in these circumstances that what we must do is make sure that NATO is an organization which works to the mutual advantage of the nations participating in it. And I believe this advantage must come directly through economic activity and cooperation. It is true we have a free trade community, the sixes and the sevens, the organization for economic co-operation and development, and the like. But all of these have been superimposed upon the various nations of NATO and it seems to me that if article II is really to mean anything we must make far greater progress in its implementation.
Canada is in a special position to urge that this be done because, regardless of the fact that we now have nuclear warheads on our soil, we are still a non-nuclear nation. We do not produce nuclear weapons and I hope no one has given any thought to our producing them. In any event, we are not large enough to do so; we have not the finances at our disposal-perhaps that is the only thing which prevents us. In any event we are not a nuclear nation now, and because of the prestige we enjoy we could bring some pressure to bear on other countries in NATO to transform it into an organization for the economic development of all the participating nations. I should like to see this take place. I know the minister would like to see it. I know the Prime Minister would, too, because he was one of those responsible for article II being placed in the NATO charter. I am sure there is no one in the house who would disagree with the concept that NATO should be used for the economic advantage of the various nations which compose it, as well as of others, but up to the present time nothing has been done about it and it is for this reason I am reluctant to endorse the concept of NATO, not because of the potential which exists but because it rests exclusively on the so-called massive retaliatory nuclear force of the United States. To me this is detrimental, and a handicap to what we are trying to do in the councils of the world.
I do not think I should go much further now into this aspect of NATO. I wish merely to make known these views which are purely personal, and which may or may not represent the views of anyone else in the committee. But I would very much like to see the government take all possible steps open to it in the various ministerial meetings, in the

NATO council meetings and in the parliamentary conferences to drum away at this view that we have far more to gain by cooperating economically than we have by cooperating in a nuclear or military way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister would care to take advantage of this item in order to bring us up to date on events in Cyprus. In particular, can he tell us what the hopes of mediation are on that island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all, may I say to the hon. member for Skeena that I listened with interest to what he had to say and, as he had mentioned, I have indicated that with regard to the basic proposition that he outlined, I am in accord.
However, I think the hon. member would wish me to point out that it was never the intention to transform the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from a military into an economic alliance. As he says, article II of the treaty is one to which Canada attaches a great deal of importance. Both the present administration and the government headed by the Leader of the Opposition have always stressed our view that economic co-operation between the members of the organization was vital to the unity of that body, as well as being in the interests of the participating members. Nevertheless, article II, though an important article, is only one of the articles of the treaty. NATO was conceived as an alliance to provide for the defence of its members in the face of the intransigent position taken by one of the great powers in the United Nations. This intransigence resulted in a number of the members of the United Nations, particularly on the western side, being placed in a difficult position vis-a-vis the armed might of the Soviet union. There continues to be a need for the maintenance of this alliance in spite of the improved position which now exists as between east and west, particularly since the events of a year ago last November. I think it is only correct to say that there has been a very great improvement in the consultative processes of NATO during the last few years and particularly since the establishment of the organization for economic co-operation and development-the organization to which the hon. member for Skeena directed our attention-which is better known by the letters O.E.C.D. It is an organization that provides for the members of NATO, and certain European members that are not in the alliance, and for Japan which was admitted to the O.E.C.D. with the support of Canada when the right hon. gentleman was head of the government of this country.
In addition to the O.E.C.D. we have the Kennedy initiative for an improvement in the
Supply-External Affairs co-operative economic measures as envisaged by the President of the United States, and by other countries. Since that initiative was launched we have all endeavoured to improve the economic consultative processes and the economic welfare of the countries in the alliance and those not in the alliance which are members of the O.E.C.D. So that much of what was intended by article II-I do not say all-is now being done by O.E.C.D. and under GATT, particularly following the initiative of the late President of the United States.
I may say to my hon. friend that last November I attended for the first time a meeting of the O.E.C.D., which is directed by the former minister of finance of Denmark, the well-known economist Mr. Kristensen, who will be known to some hon. members of this house. I can say, from that experience and from continuing experience, that some of the work contemplated by article II is being very vigorously pursued by the O.E.C.D. In addition, of course, economic strategy vis-a-vis the Sino-Soviet bloc, to which my hon. friend so ably directed our attention, is discussed on a continuing basis in the economic advisory committee of NATO. My hon. friend may be sure that on that committee Canada, through its spokesmen, is vigilant in the pursuit of the objectives which are implicit in article II to which he attaches such importance and to which Canada under this, the preceding and former governments, has attached great importance.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would not be discharging my obligation as Secretary of State for External Affairs if I left the impression that there was not in the opinion of the government a continuing need for Canadian support and participation in NATO. There are, of course, differences of method being pursued by some members of the organization. There is, however, no basic difference as to the ultimate need and purpose of the alliance. Canada believes that it is in the interests of her defence at the present time to continue wholeheartedly in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Our defence is predicated on the existence of this organization as much today, in the face of the present level of armaments, as at any time since the organization came into being.
With regard to the question put to me by my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when I was in Geneva a few days ago attending the United Nations trade and development conference I took advantage of the presence there of Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant to discuss the participation of Canada in the international peace keeping force in Cyprus. There was also

Supply-External Affairs an opportunity to discuss this question with Mr. Spinelli, head of the United Nations in Europe and the secretary general's representative in Cyprus, and with Lieutenant-General Gyani, the distinguished Indian soldier to whom has been entrusted the command of the United Nations peace keeping force. There was an opportunity, during these discussions, of conferring on matters inevitably involved in an operation of this kind. The discussions had to do with the establishment of the terms of reference to be extended to the forces by the United Nations, the directives to the force commander and the role that the United Nations force would play in this whole operation.
The secretary general will be reporting one of these days to the security council. It is not possible for me, in the interests of the assignment that has been given to Canada and to other participating members in the United Nations force, to reveal the full directives. However, I am satisfied, and so are my colleagues and the other participating governments, that the arrangements thus far established for the operation of the force are designed to make effective the functions of the force in Cyprus. At the same time, they take into account the understandable interests of the participating countries, which at the present time include the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, and the forces from Finland and Ireland. In the case of Sweden, Ireland and Finland, the full complement of participating forces has not reached the island, but forces are coming every day from these countries. As they join Canadian and United Kingdom forces there is, in accordance with the security council resolution, a withdrawal of British forces, which will reduce to a total of 3,500 as compared with the total of 7,000 British forces in Cyprus when the force became operational last Thursday.
I saw the secretary general a week ago Sunday night. I discussed with him, not only the matters to which I have referred in a general way, but also the desirability of a mediator being appointed at the earliest possible moment. Under the terms of the resolution passed by the security council on March 13, the full authority for the appointment of a mediator resided with the secretary general, but he consulted with a number of countries including Canada. We made known our views to him, since he asked for our advice. While our concurrence in the appointment of the distinguished Finnish diplomat, a former prime minister of Finland, was not essential, his well-known qualities in the field of diplomacy and mediation seemed to us, as they did to others concerned with the island of Cyprus,

to indicate that he would be the kind of man to whom this very difficult task could be entrusted.
The arrival of Canada as a member of the force was greeted with gratitude by all sections of the island of Cyprus, notwithstanding some stories in the paper only yesterday that some criticism was made. There was general relief on all sides about the establishment of the force. Because we were the first to arrive, great satisfaction was expressed at the decision of Canada to participate in the force, and to do so on terms which did not demand any financing of our participation out of the resources supplied voluntarily by a number of countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom.
The other day Archbishop Makarios welcomed the United Nations commander and spoke with gratitude of the presence of the United Nations force in Cyprus. It is significant that a vice president who represents one of the other communities on the island also expressed directly to the commander- as indeed he did directly to the Canadians- his satisfaction at their presence and his assurance of co-operation. This is, as was pointed out by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam when we discussed this question a few days ago, a difficult operation, and we were wise to anticipate that the difficulties may be greater than they now seem to be. However I hope this anticipation will not be justified. We are ready, and we indicated when we joined together in supporting the decision for Canadian participation, to face the dangers which it is anticipated may lie ahead.
I am satisfied that the force went to Cyprus at a crucial time. We decided to participate in this force the day after Turkey indicated her dissatisfaction at the conditions prevailing on the island. I had an opportunity when in Geneva to discuss this matter in greater detail with Mr. Erkin, the foreign minister of Turkey. He expressed his country's satisfaction that the force had been established and that Canada was participating in it. I also had an opportunity when in Geneva to discuss with one of the ministers of the government of Greece matters involved in our participation. I need only report to the committee that the same satisfaction and gratitude was expressed by the government of Greece. So that we have all of the official bodies on the island, in Greece and in Turkey which have an interest in the preservation of order supporting our participation in this United Nations force.
Just to make my story complete, I should add that when the Minister of Industry was in Athens the other day attending the funeral

1S75
of the King, at my suggestion he discussed this matter with the foreign minister of Greece. This was before the establishment of the force. I am grateful to him for doing so, and as a result of this discussion we were able to take some steps which led to a decision.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that many in Canada are interested in the operation of this force. At no time would I take umbrage at questions related to the directives or the terms of reference given to the United Nations force, not by Canada but the United Nations. Once we joined the force, we recognized that we belonged to a United Nations body. My first meeting with General Gyani impressed on me that this commander of the United Nations force was, obviously and from his record, a very distinguished soldier. I am sure he is also a wise man who understands the delicate command which has been assigned to him. I know that he will discharge his responsibilities in a way which will assist the United Nations force in its endeavour to maintain peace on the island.
The functions of the force are different from the functions of the mediator. Under the terms of the security council resolution, there is no relationship between the two except the obvious one, which would be nonlegalistic. The United Nations force is a police body sent to Cyprus by the United Nations for the purpose of preserving order. It will be the function of a mediator to do what he can to unravel the regrettable and tragic differences which prevail between the two communities. We still have problems. I will not be expected to reveal the nature of these. What we all want is to see a force which will preserve order, and I would not want to add to the problems of the United Nations peace keeping force in any way as a result of any comments or responses I might make. I simply remind the committee that both with regard to the terms of reference and the directives which have been issued, we are satisfied that they should enable the force to discharge its obligations as effectively as circumstances on the island will permit; and thus far they have permitted the fullest and most effective operation of the force.
With regard to the status of forces agreement, that has not yet been finalized but the attorney general of the government of Cyprus has given the secretary general an assurance that we may count on the kind of status of forces agreement which existed for the United Nations force in the Congo. It took some three and a half months before that status of forces agreement was concluded.
Finally, in answer to my hon. friend's question may I say that the United Nations
Supply-External Affairs presence through this peace keeping force is essential. I am also satisfied, from all I know about this matter, that the participation of Canada is essential. I am satisfied that if Canada had not taken the decision which it did, we might have been faced with a situation which would have been much more serious-and I will not elaborate on that. I conclude by saying that this operation continues to be in the tradition of Canada under all governments so far as peace keeping obligations to the United Nations are concerned.
The method of financing this operation is by no means satisfactory. As the right hon. gentleman said when he spoke a few days ago, as a result of the ad hoc financing arrangement in this particular situation we may have established an undesirable precedent. I hope not. I believe there was a precedent before, in the financing arrangement for the less important but very desirable observation mission which is now operating in the Yemen, in which Canada plays a part.
The three months duration of the term of this force in Cyprus will come to an end three months from the day when the force became operational, and that was a week ago tomorrow. At that time, under the terms of the security council resolution, the force must come to an end unless in the interval the security council has renewed the authority of the secretary general.
I should like to think that the situation in Cyprus would improve by that time. I have no reason to believe it can or will improve sufficiently to warrant the withdrawal of the force. At that time, regrettably, the United Nations may be face to face with a situation similar to that which existed when this force was being considered prior to March 13. I hope that this whole experience in Cyprus, more particularly in Cyprus than in other similar situations, will cause the nations of the world to recognize that if there is a detente at this time in the relations between east and west, that can only be furthered by giving the United Nations which is the only available body for this purpose, the opportunity of providing for the kind of police forces that are essential in situations such as Cyprus.
I conclude by saying that this country need not have any second thoughts, in my judgment, about the wisdom of the course it took in the establishment of this United Nations peace keeping operation. Our participation was essential and we are honoured to discharge this function alongside countries like Sweden, Finland, Ireland and the United Kingdom and the forces of Cyprus, both communities. All this is designed for the purpose, not of imposing a political solution upon the

Supply-External Affairs people, but of preserving the peace in that very important and strategic area until a solution is found.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in the few
moments between now and adjournment, I want to assure that others shall have an opportunity of expressing their views, and therefore I am going to restrict myself to a few observations. I thank the minister for the outline of the views of the government based on his experience at Geneva following conversations which he has had with those whom he named. I know General Gyani very well. There is no one in the military world who, I believe, has the same capacity and ability to discharge a difficult and delicate position such as his. I saw him in operation in the Middle East command. He has not only military capacity, but above all he has that diplomatic finesse that enables him to communicate with those under his command, and also the people in the area in which the force operates.
I need not say, however, and I am sure the minister will not take this as criticism, that while the outline he gave was eloquent and couched in grandiloquent language, the information which he provided did not equal the diction which he used. He has told us nothing about the directives. I realize that it would have been within his discretion-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no discretion on my part. If I were to give those directives I would be violating the request of the United Nations itself, as well as the agreement amongst the participating countries. I am sure my hon* friend, who had important experience with the Congo, will understand why I am saying this.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot argue with that. When the minister says he has been advised not to give any information in this connection, I would be the last to ask him to depart from that admonition he has received. But it does impress me as being extraordinarily strange that Canada, contributing an 1,100 man force out of 7,000, should not have available to her people the basis, the general basis rather than the particular directives, on which the force will operate.
What is to be its role? In general, it is to be a peace keeping role. However, we do not know the circumstances under which it is to be discharged. Questions have been asked as to whether there would be power in the force to disarm guerrilla bands and the like. We have no information in that connection. It is not for me to conclude that the view held in some quarters is actually the correct one.

But generally speaking, the criticism that has been made of the force is this: It is a powerless force. I should like the minister to outline in general terms, keeping strictly within the circumference of the areas upon which he can give precise information, what is the authority of this force? We know what its purposes are. We know its objective is to maintain the peace until a permanent settlement can be secured. But surely Canada, making a contribution not only of manpower but also a large monetary contribution to the United Nations force, should be entitled to more information than the minister provided today.
Reading the editorials across the country, there is a feeling among the Canadian people as a whole, that Canada is entitled to more information than has been given as yet. I am not going to say any more in that connection. The minister, in general terms has spoken of the hope that the force will achieve peace, and that the United Nations will have available at all times a force to be used when the circumstances demand international action for peace. We believe that, and the minister was fair enough in his remarks to refer to the government of which I had the honour to be the head. We made available this force, the Royal 22nd, as the force which could be used at any time Canada decided a United Nations force should be dispatched. We believed that was necessary. This force, therefore, was available when difficulties arose in Cyprus which demanded that a force be sent there. Inasmuch as Canada took the lead in providing a trained force for the purpose of assuring mankind that Canada would play her part in peace keeping operations at any time under the United Nations, surely we are entitled to more information than we have had today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my right hon. friend permit me to interrupt. I know he does not want to give a wrong impression. Will he not agree that when the Congo force was established and when the government of which he was a member agreed to participate, the same position was taken by the government of that day as I have taken today? In the light of events at that time, it was the correct position, I am sure. There was no revelation of the directives to the force then. I say to the right hon. gentleman that we are not taking this course because we do not want to give information. If we were to give this information, we would not be contributing to the reason for which the force was established which was to try to bring about an accommodation and preserve the peace in the very difficult situation that exists.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the analogy at all. The Congo situation was quite different. I am speaking now from

recollection but I do not believe that there was any question whatever at any time as to the directives upon which that force operated not being made available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were never made public.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman says they were not made available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And should not have been.


John George Diefenbaker: We clearly stated what the purposes and powers were and the force discharged its authority in pursuance of the information we gave to parliament which was based on the arrangements made. I cannot understand the reason for the secrecy here. What possible reason is there why a force sent as a peace force should operate in a vacuum of secrecy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no secrecy. My right hon. friend should not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: The situation apparently is that the people of the nation which has contributed this force are to know nothing else but that a contribution was made in men and money. No one is to know how the force will operate and what the concept is upon which it will discharge its responsibilities. 1 must say that the words of the minister in that connection do not impress me. I feel we ought to have more information than is available to us in the newspapers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my right hon. friend-I know he has been very generous with my interruptions-allow me to call his attention to the statement made by General Gyani himself as found in the Times of London of March 28 and reported in these words:
On the question of what directives had been received... and what orders were being given... General Gyani could not, or would not, give any precise answer.
The reason is the reason I mentioned. I ask my right hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the minister with the greatest of attention-


Murdo William Martin: That is right. I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I also maintained silence, but the minister does not like what I am saying. Certainly General Gyani is not going to reveal that. General Gyani is the general in command of all the forces. We are here in the parliament of Canada and our hands are not tied in the way that the general commanding these forces would
Supply-External Affairs find his hands tied. Certainly I know what General Gyani said, but I am not speaking to General Gyani. I am speaking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada in the parliament of the country, and I am asking what the general directives are and how this force is to discharge them. Certainly the comparison between the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his own parliament and the general chosen to command the nationals of four or five countries blended together in the United Nations force is quite out of place. I do not want to keep the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam from having an opportunity to speak and that is the reason I conclude for the time being.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me a moment or two to say something. I wish to make two comments with reference to the outline which the minister has given. First of all, with reference to NATO, I do not have the time now to discuss this matter in any detail but I should like to say that I cannot agree that O.E.C.D. has really taken up the role which was assigned to NATO under article II. I think a much wider role was envisaged, a role of economic aid to underdeveloped countries, and in my opinion O.E.C.D. so far has not carried out this role to any reasonable extent.
Second, I had hoped that the minister would give us some information about the proposed multinational nuclear force because, while we in this party have supported NATO as a military alliance set up to provide a deterrent against Soviet aggression in Europe, the fact remains that a nuclear force under the command of NATO would in our opinion present a series of difficulties which we think would make it necessary for Canada to reappraise its whole association with NATO. I will not elaborate on that at the moment.
Let me say one word with reference to the Cyprus situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course we are not participating in the multinational force.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to know whether or not we are going to participate, whether we have been invited and to what extent we have committed ourselves. This is what I was hoping the minister would say, and if he does not do so on these estimates I hope he will say something on his main estimates.
If I may take a moment I should like to say something about Cyprus. I agree with the minister that Canada has good reason to be proud of the role she is playing. May I also say that the minister himself has played a commendable role in helping to bring about this force, and all Canadians are proud of

Supply-External Affairs this fact. But I think what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition is something which the government must take cognizance of. This parliament dispatched troops to Cyprus, and while we are heartened to have from the minister the assurance that the government is satisfied that the terms of reference and the directives are satisfactory, it should be remembered that the people of Canada have committed their sons and their treasure to what may be a battlefield. Therefore I think we have a right to know that they are amply protected and that they will not be hamstrung by the directives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may assure my hon. friend that they will not be hamstrung and the directives do not permit that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is what we would like to know. Is it true, as has been reported, that they will not be allowed to remove roadblocks?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The newspapers have reported that they will not be allowed to remove roadblocks. Troops cannot move in mechanized vehicles unless they can remove roadblocks and drive away any military forces that insist on restricting them. Second, I think the whole question of disarming guerrilla forces ought to be cleared up. If this is going to be left entirely to the Greek government, does this mean that the Greek government is going to disband only Turkish guerrillas and leave Greek guerrillas armed, or under the subterfuge of taking them into the national militia to allow them to roam about the country? What is the position of the United Nations force if it sees guerrillas attacking defenceless villages and helpless men and women? Can they intervene or are they there purely as a showpiece? Are they in a position where they can not only defend themselves, but can also intervene to prevent civil war?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would not want the country to get the impression that they cannot defend themselves. I assure my hon. friend that the directives will enable them to defend themselves to the full. I must say to my right hon. friend, the former prime minister that, knowing the responsibilities of government and knowing the situation in Cyprus, what he said today was not calculated to assist in the discharge of that very difficult assignment.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say to the hon. gentleman that that statement is uncalled


for and improper, and indicates that in order to get away from answering he resorts to that
subterfuge.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Out of the three minutes I had, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have taken one and a half, so I suggest that we call it six o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very sorry. I would be agreeable to go on.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
L27e. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed $55,000,000-To extend the purposes of vote L27a of the estimates for 1963-64 to cover requirements in the fiscal year 1964-65, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the very short statement, delivered by the Minister of Labour in a very casual manner in order to minimize the existing situation, but it is quite evident that the fund is broke. Of course the fund went broke a number of times in previous years. This is something we all know, but there was never an attempt made to cover it up. It was always the policy to come to parliament and give a straight statement of fact, so that parliament could vote the necessary authorization to lend money to the fund in order that those receiving unemployment insurance benefits would not be deprived of them.
The Minister of Labour has the faculty of always injecting political aspects into his statements. He goes back over the years and says the fund has dropped during those years, but on the other hand we hear him saying that conditions have improved tremendously and that unemployment is not in evidence in Canada any longer. If that is so, why is it
Supply-Labour
that over half a million unemployed Canadians are drawing unemployment insurance benefits?
I feel the government has pressured the committee to pass these supplementary estimates because this was the main item it wanted passed; but a lot of questions arose in our minds. It is easy to say that the supplementary estimates have been before parliament since March 6, the day they were tabled.
There was a $1 item. Surely at that time the government must have been advised
by the unemployment insurance commission that the fund was running out and that authorization to lend money was needed. I would not be at all surprised if they knew approximately, or exactly, when the fund would be dry. It would have been so easy for this government to have been honest and forthright. It could have come before parliament last Thursday and said: We need this item because the fund is running out and people will not be paid unemployment benefits. But they chose another course. They chose to sit quietly and demand that the committee pass all the items, including this particular item they needed. Now the cat is out of the bag. This is what the government wanted the committee to pass. This is why we are dealing with the unemployment insurance item today.
It is obvious that yesterday, when a question was asked so innocently and casually by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and replied to by the Minister of Labour-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not know the hon. member would regard me as innocent.


Michael Starr: -to the effect that the fund was running out and, later on, when the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Minister of Labour about this matter, that the situation was bound to be disclosed. As recorded on page 1595 of yesterday's Hansard, the Minister of Labour said:
-I certainly do not want to put this in a provocative way, but my information today is that unless the particular item is approved this week, the commission would be in difficulty to make benefit payments by the end of the week.
Surely to goodness the responsibility of a minister of labour cannot be left to the last minute. If the hon. gentleman was doing his job properly he would have known before yesterday that this fund was in a precarious state. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the unemployment insurance commissioners calling on the hon. gentleman yesterday and telling him they were going to run out of money at midnight? How could anyone swallow a story of that kind? But this is what the government hopes to get away with. Why did this government not take parliament into

Supply-Labour
its confidence on Thursday last? As I said earlier, we could have dealt with this matter expeditiously, as we intend to do today, and the house would have adjourned tor Easter, and the Prime Minister's promise would have been kept. We know, today, that this was the only item which had to be passed on a basis ot urgency. Why did members on the treasury benches opposite not tell us on Thursday that this was an urgent matter? They said nothing. They allowed the committee to believe they wanted all the items in the supplementary estimates passed, hoping no one would pay any particular attention to this $1 item- hoping it would pass unnoticed and that the people of this country would not have known that this fund is now bankrupt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But for my innocent question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right; a planted question.


Michael Starr: What happened yesterday? The Minister of Labour has not taken us into his confidence. Did the government get another $15 million yesterday. Was this appropriated for the fund? The hon. gentleman should answer this question honestly. If so, it must have been appropriated by means of the Governor General's warrant of last year and, in that case, what is the legality of spending this amount in the present fiscal year? Have members of the government sitting opposite conferred with the Minister of Justice to ascertain the legality or otherwise of using this money which they appropriated yesterday, or is this another example of illegality such as this government is getting into the habit of displaying? We had an example not too long ago of the law being broken. Here is another.
The first information we had of this situation was when the member for Winnipeg North Centre asked that innocent question. I repeat that the government tried to conceal the fact that the unemployment insurance fund was broke, and that in doing so they gave clear evidence of irresponsibility. The question arises: Who wanted to keep this information from parliament? Who got the idea that parliament should not be told that the fund was on the brink of bankruptcy? Was it the Minister of Finance? Was it the Minister of Transport? Whose idea was it? If it was the idea of the Minister of Finance, then he went to Quebec and left the Minister of Labour holding the bag. The Minister of Labour had been selected to go to Quebec and we wonder why he is here today. Was the bag left with him-empty? The hon. gentleman now admits that they hid this situation from parliament and today, when the situation has become acute, he asks parliament for approval to make this loan.

The minister should tell us now whether or not an appropriation of $15 million was made yesterday and whether it has been ascertained that the money appropriated yesterday can legally be spent during the current fiscal year. Regardless of the fumbling, irresponsible government that we see before us now, we as members of parliament have a responsibility to pass this item, so that over half a million unemployed Canadians shall not be deprived of their unemployment insurance benefit payments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose I should make it clear at the outset that I am not an innocent abroad. I realize that when the hon. member for Ontario used the word "innocent" he applied it to my question, not to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the hon. member guilty of?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am guilty of having asked the government and the house to schedule a debate on this item at eight o'clock tonight so that any concern or alarm which might be felt in the country as a result of yesterday's news can be allayed.
I am glad to join with the hon. member for Ontario in saying that it is the responsibility of this committee to pass this item this evening so that the people who have to draw unemployment insurance benefits can be assured positively that there will be money in the bag to pay their claims. As the hon. member for Ontario says, it was because of a question which I asked yesterday that the minister admitted that this difficulty was facing us. Hence our request today that we sit tonight, even though it is not usual for us to sit on Wednesday evenings, and get this matter cleared up.
I hope that in the course of the further remarks which I trust he will make the minister will make it clear that the passing of this item, even though it is only $1, has the legislative effect of ensuring that there will be sufficient money in the fund to pay all claims which may be presented during the period when the fund is being built up by further contributions.
It seems to me that, even though the whole question is somewhat technical, we should have a more detailed explanation than the Minister of Labour has yet given us. It has been my experience here that these $1 items are sometimes much more complicated than the items for millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. It has also been my experience that items in the estimates that legislate seem to have different results. I can recall items in the estimates, that I thought applied only to the fiscal year in which they were passed, having a continuing effect down

through the years. Then on some other occasion we find that an item in the estimates that had legislative effect seems to be spent by the end of the fiscal year.
Actually we are being asked in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1963-64 to extend the provisions of a supplementary estimate that was also passed in the fiscal year 1963-64. I refer to supplementary item L27a, which was in the supplementary estimates "A" for the fiscal year 1963-64, which authorized the making of loans by the Minister of Finance to the unemployment insurance fund up to an outstanding aggregate at any one time of $55 million. There is nothing in the wording of the estimate L27a, which was finally passed the night we prorogued in December, that puts any time limit on the lending power provided in that estimate.
I would like to have either from the Minister of Labour, the Acting Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice an explanation as to why this borrowing power ran out as of midnight last night, in view of the fact that there was no cut-off date in the wording of the estimate as it was passed last December. Was it because the full $55 million had been lent, or is there some other reason? I think that even though this is a technical situation, it should be cleared up. The vote that is now before us does not provide any more money. The vote we had before us last December provided $55 million and the authority to lend it. The vote tonight is merely for $1, which is the legislative symbol, but no additional money is provided.
I think this whole question of the relationship between the $55 million lending authority that we provided last December and the vote tonight should be made clear to us by the minister. If it is-and I assume it is- a fact that there is a legal requirement to get further lending power at this time, I think the minister should explain to us why he let this matter run down so close to the wire. If the government had authority yesterday to borrow money from the Minister of Finance for the unemployment insurance fund, and if there was some question as to when these estimates might get through, and if there was even some question as to whether Their Honours in the other place might stay here for such purposes as we call upon them, why did he run this risk? Why did he not borrow the money yesterday before the authority ran out at midnight last night? If I seem to be asking these questions in a critical vein, Mr. Chairman-and perhaps I intend to be critical in any case-it is because I think we should have an explanation so that we know what this is all about.
I can readily understand the concern of the hon. member for Ontario, though I am afraid I do not share his view that the matter
Supply-Labour
has been concealed. After all, it has been in the supplementary estimates that have been before us for two or three weeks, and if we did not see this item ourselves, some of the alert members of the press gallery saw it and came to us and warned us what it was all about; so we have known about this matter for some time. Therefore even though it was not concealed, in the sense that it was kept secret, I think we do have a complaint that the government did not tell us the importance of this item at one of the times when we were making arrangements for the business of this house. I think the government should have told us it was planning to go down to the wire and let the unemployment insurance fund become almost empty, and were running the risk of parliament not passing this supplementary estimate; and if the senators did not stay here to give royal assent to the bill, they were running the risk of letting the fund be emptied some time this week or next week.
I think it is unfortunate that even in one night's news, as it happened last night, the alarm was spread across Canada that unemployment insurance benefits might not be payable because of this complicated situation. Perhaps more needs to be said as we go along, Mr. Chairman, but I think the main impression that should be created by tonight's debate and by the passing of this item is that this alarm can be set aside; that the fund will have money to pay the claims. But I think to this house, to parliament, the minister and the government owe an explanation. When the minister is making that explanation perhaps he will tell us at the same time what the government's plans are at this session with respect to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act or, perchance, to a complete overhaul of that act. He will recall that when we were discussing his main estimates last November, we asked for certain things to be done at this session. He gave us a list of priorities, of certain things that were sure to be done and certain things that he would try to get done. I believe an overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act was one of the things promised for this session. However, it was not in the speech from the throne and so far we have not seen any legislation with respect to this matter. Surely if the fund is in this precarious position it is time that this promised overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act was proceeded with. As I say, Mr. Chairman, we want the main impression tonight to be one of certainty so far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned; this is what the public must learn from what happens

Supply-Labour
here tonight. But we in parliament have coming to us from the minister a very clear
explanation of the whole matter.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, now that the various parties in the house have agreed to pass this item of the supplementary estimates, in order to enable our unemployed to receive their insurance benefits, I shall only very briefly take part in this debate so as not to draw it out unduly. I just want to make a few remarks which, I think, are called for at this time. Last year the Gill commission, the cost of which was paid with public funds, submitted a report suggesting solutions for some problems among which the one we are facing tonight, that is an unemployment insurance fund without funds.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me appropriate to stress that we did not yet see any legislation in this house to enact some recommendations in this report. Personally, I would not carry out all those recommendations, but some of them at least might have eliminated the problem before us tonight.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, the unemployment insurance fund cannot be very long-lived considering its condition, and the rules will certainly have to be changed so that the situation which has prevailed for the past two or three years does not become permanent.
I certainly do not want the unemployment insurance benefits to be delayed because in the province of Quebec we have 173,000 unemployed at this time and in the whole of Canada almost half a million.
In my riding, more particularly with a labour force of 13,000 people, there are about 3,000 without jobs, which is almost 25 per cent.
I would hate to be one of those who would delay the carrying of these estimates, because that would delay the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed who need them badly.
My own area is very much affected by unemployment. I should like to tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) that the winter works program helped my area somewhat, since there are now 800 men working in my riding, a factor which eased the pressure on the fund.
However, following the ill-advised decision of the minister to shorten by a few weeks the duration of the winter works program, he will have more jobless to look after starting May 1.
That is why I am of the opinion that the Minister of Labour, following his decision to reduce the winter works period, will have to

find a new formula and to set up a new program which might be entitled summer works program, since the winter works program will be closed.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have one observation to make about the special sitting this evening, and it is that the press gallery seems to be more alert than some of our cabinet ministers. I know the government has a habit of taking 60 days of decision, but this time they do not have 60 days. As I mentioned once before this government has a habit of bringing things up at the last moment and getting everyone in a whirl in trying to force things through without hon. members knowing what is going on. I think the minister should have some explanation to make for our sitting tonight.
One question which comes to my mind is why his commissioners have not brought to his attention this state of affairs. The hon. member for Ontario mentioned this matter a little while ago. Everybody hoped and expected to have an Easter recess, but it appears the unemployment insurance fund would have been drained before the end of the Easter recess. I imagine the minister or his commissioners were up to date. If they were not, why not, and why was the minister not told about this? The unemployed have enough trouble trying to get work, or trying to squeeze a little money out of the government, without our having to tell them that the insurance fund is broke, a state of affairs which has resulted from the government's negligence through not voting the necessary cash. In my constituency two mines closed down a few days ago laying off 600 workers, and like the hon. member for Lake St. John I would be the last to wish these people more trouble, on top of the trouble they have already, as a result of their not being paid their unemployment dues.
Across the country there are over half a million unemployed. I was saddened to hear last night over the national network that the unemployment insurance fund was in a very critical state. Similarly this evening it was sad to hear that the house has to have a special sitting after the deadline for this fund has passed so as to vote the necessary funds in the form of a $1 vote under this item. I hope that the government will not require other additional sittings for a similar purpose in connection with other fields, or that I shall not hear another broadcast on the national network indicating the government was not up to par on its business, having forgotten to do something of this sort.
Another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Lake St. John, a matter

which I have brought up myself at different times-although the minister has always told the house he was taking it under consideration-concerns the Gill report which was presented some time ago. I am wondering why the government has not set up a committee to study this report. I do not approve of all of it, but there are some points in it which are worthy of consideration. In view of the high rate of unemployment in the country today every possible opportunity should be taken to reduce the figure and to help our unemployment offices across the country. I think the report has a few recommendations to make about the unemployment insurance fund, and if some of these had been put before us we might never have been faced with this situation tonight. At least, we would have passed these items before the Easter recess. Therefore I would urge the minister to consider the Gill report and to make sure he provides the necessary funds in the future, so if we do have an Easter recess we might take 10 days free of worry about whether or not the unemployment insurance fund is broke. The government should consider other possibilities which might present themselves, instead of bringing things in at the last moment. Although the members of my party are willing to sit here tonight because this matter requires discussion and clarification, it does not necessarily mean we will make a habit of it; I think everyone in our group is of that opinion. Nevertheless we are all expecting an explanation from the minister for this state of affairs today.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would not miss this opportunity of making some comments on the matter now before us. I think that on this matter I also speak on behalf of hon. members from the province of Quebec.
Once again it is our responsibility and the responsibility of parliament to come to the rescue of the government which manoeuvred itself in a deadlock.
I shall take only a few minutes, so that the government may get without further delay the assistance it needs so badly.
Mr. Chairman, it is in order to mention some things so that the Canadian people will be aware of what is happening in this House of Commons and of the stand taken by the government which is responsible for looking after the interests of the nation.
We have had similar situations in the past. And our friends opposite who were then in opposition could not find the proper words to qualify our lack of vision and good will in that matter.
Supply-Labour
I have before me some of the questions the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) asked when he was himself on this side of the house. I wish he were here tonight in order to recall some of the questions he then asked concerning the replenishing of the unemployment insurance fund.
In fact, when referring to Hansard of February 17, 1961, it is noted that the member for Essex East asked what step the government would take to replenish the unemployment insurance fund in order to comply with the vested interest of the eventual claimants under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
He asked a similar question as reported in Hansard of April 27, 1961. He again asked the same question on June 27, 1961, as reported on page 7111 of Hansard. On September 8, 1961, as reported on page 8108 of Hansard he asked a similar question. Finally, on January 31, 1962, once again as reported in Hansard, he asked the former minister of labour what he would do to replenish the unemployment insurance fund.
We have been led to believe by those who sit on treasury benches that they know the answers to all the problems, and as they claimed, there would be no more unemployment if they came into power.
In spite of the fine promises they made in order to assume power, there are still 500,000 unemployed in Canada, of whom 173,000 are in the province of Quebec.
No mention is made whatsoever by Liberal members from Quebec of measures that should be taken nor do we hear from them suggestions likely to help the minister to bring some relief to the unemployed anxious to work.
Mr. Chairman, I shall say no more, so as not to delay any further the business of the house and to prove that we, on this side of the house, are doing our utmost to help the present Minister of Labour to get out of the tight corner where he finds himself now.
I only wanted to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that when he was sitting on this side of the house, he was worrying much more about unemployment than he is at present.
If the members of the government would learn their lesson, if the fund deficiency would wake up the ministers into taking their responsibilities and the firm resolution to work more in the interests of the unemployed, I would be the first one to rejoice.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have only a few words to say on this particular matter. No one is more aware of the situation in Cape Breton than

Supply-Labour
the minister, and of course I have knowledge of what the situation is there. The fact that we are dealing with this item tonight is of no importance. The important thing is that something is being done, despite the fact that on Monday evening the minister was warned it was necessary to make this move. The information he gave to the house was given in response to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The importance of this matter was brought to his attention quite clearly on Monday evening.
I say this because I am most anxious to see that the thousands who are unemployed in Cape Breton will be entitled to the benefits that are due to them. In addition to that, I should like to remind the minister of the situation in Cape Breton today where the miners of district 26, numbering 7,000 in all, are now idle because of a strike. The miners are idle because the mines cannot be served with the necessary hoppers to carry away the production. I should like the minister at this time to clear up the question of whether or not those who refuse to work at a strikebound plant qualify for unemployment insurance. This question was brought up some time ago. I am quite sure the answer is that a man who refuses to enter a strikebound plant remains entitled to these benefits.
The railway unions are involved in this same dispute because their constitution does not require them to cross over any picket line. They are also, therefore, unemployed and are not aware of the situation in respect of unemployment insurance. These men are honouring their contract and, at the same time, are honouring the idea that no union man shall cross a picket line. I believe these men are qualified to draw unemployment insurance benefits because their contract calls for them to protect life, limb and company property. On this basis, these men have not crossed this picket line so I feel they are qualified to draw unemployment insurance benefits. I hope the minister has brought to the attention of union officials the request I placed before him, and has answered the union officials in that vein.
I would say also that it is fortunate we are able to sit tonight as a result of a change of mind on the part of the members of the N.D.P. who were not willing to sit this morning, but who were willing to sit this evening to deal with this very important question. A change of mind is always good. Yesterday they were unwilling to forgo private members' hour but today, to satisfy the legitimate request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, they changed their minds and we did deal with government business

during private members' hour. I would implore the minister to look closely at the situation in Cape Breton and the qualifications of the miners and the railway workers to draw on their unemployment insurance. I ask that everything be done to expedite this matter in their interests.


George James McIlraith: There is one point arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I think should be clarified and that is an explanation of the need for the vote in this form. If hon. members will read the item in supplementary estimates (A), they will see it reads as follows:
To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed $55 million.
Now, supplementary estimates (E), which are before us, contain the item we are considering, L27e, which reads as follows:
To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed $55 million-


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far, it is the same.


George James McIlraith: Yes.
-to extend the purposes of vote L27a of the estimates for 1963-64 to cover requirements in the fiscal year 1964-65, $1.
In other words, the item now before us merely grants authority to the Minister of Finance to credit the fund in the fiscal year, 1964-65. If the original item is looked at, it will be seen that the credit could not have been put in the fund last year for use in April and May of this year. That is the nature of the difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister point to the words in the vote of last December that limit its use to that fiscal year?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that will be found in section 2 of the Appropriation Act, and perhaps I could just read part of it:
The total of the amounts of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1964 as contained in schedule B-
And that is less certain amounts authorized by this act, and then I continue quoting farther down:
The amount authorized by this act to be paid or applied in respect of any item may be paid or applied only for the purposes and subject to any terms and conditions specified in the item-

It will be seen that the item and the sections of the Appropriation Act limit the item to the last fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far we just have to take your word for it.


George James McIlraith: I hope my word is correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The preamble to the act says that.


George James McIlraith: That is the difficulty. It is a case of not being able to use money of last year for the present fiscal year and not having the authority this year to make the transfer, so it is a matter of clearing up the rather technical requirements of the legislation as it stood.


Michael Starr: Was an appropriation made yesterday in the amount of $15 million either by order in council or in some other form?


George James McIlraith: No. I was rather surprised to hear the assertion by the Leader of the Opposition to that effect, but there was no such grant made.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, we live in a rather strange world. I have sat in the house for some seven years and in every one of those seven years have heard the minister of labour tell the house about how rosy the employment picture is, how it is improving all the time, how every year it is a little better than last year and how it is certainly better than when the terrible former government had the reins of office in their hands. In spite of this here we find ourselves sitting on a Wednesday night, which is a strange experience, in the middle of an Easter recess, which is also a strange experience, and once more being told by the Minister of Labour how much better the unemployment picture is than it was before, merely because we have lost another $14 million out of the unemployment insurance fund in the last year.
I am not sure of the exact figure but I believe that in 1957 when I came here the unemployment insurance fund stood at approximately $950 million or $960 million. I did a quick addition of the minister's figures tonight and, unless I got the figures wrong, the fund has dropped $879 million since 1957. We had $950 million or $960 million in 1957 and I distinctly recall that on two occasions the house voted $25 million to spruce up the fund. Last year we voted another $55 million, making a total in all of well over $1 billion. I would say it is about time that the house and the country should be given a few more facts in regard to the fund and a little less propaganda from the government of the day.
Supply-Labour
However, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak primarily on another matter tonight. It is a problem that disturbs me considerably and one that has been growing and growing as the months have gone by. I think the practice involved is becoming quite prevalent across the country because I have heard of it happening not only in my own area but in many other areas. In fact, I have even had workers in Ottawa come to me and ask me to try to help them out of similar situations.
At first I thought the practice was confined to some of the local officials in the unemployment insurance offices, but from a letter I received today from the minister I find that if the minister's office is not encouraging or implementing this policy they are at least going along with it holus-bolus. I think I have found something to indicate the reason that the loss in the unemployment insurance fund is not as bad this year as last year. It may be due in part to this practice which is growing up. In my opinion it is a very insidious practice and should be stopped.
The best illustration I can think of has to do with a man in my constituency who has a crippled leg. He was employed at the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake, some 80 miles from Timmins and about 50 miles from his home town of Val Gagne which is halfway between Kirkland Lake and Timmins. The minister states in his letter that his information is that this man was fired because he was caught sleeping on the job. But this is not quite as bad as it may seem, as expressed in those base words.
The man was employed as a cage tender. I would point out to those hon. members who are not familiar with mining terms that a cage tender is very similar to an elevator operator. On any job where an elevator or cage of this nature is being used and the operator is on the graveyard shift, and only gets a call maybe every hour and a half or two hours, it is quite understandable that if he is warm and comfortable he may doze off. I do not think this is a terrible thing because if anybody wants the cage all he has to do is ring the bell and the tender will answer it, unless he is sleeping so soundly that he does not hear it. My colleague says that as an old fireman I do not sleep through bells and that is very true. The mine for which this man was working had a policy that anyone caught sleeping would be automatically discharged. The man was discharged, and because he was discharged for cause he was subject to the normal six-week disqualification as far as unemployment insurance is concerned. After that time however he qualified for unemployment insurance. Some time later this man, who does not speak very

Supply-Labour
much English, received a form in the mail containing a whole series of very simple questions such as "how much would you like to earn". The man, being optimistic, said he would like to earn $75 a week. "What would you like to do?" He said he would like to drive a truck. After all, he has a crippled leg and cannot do every job. "Where would you like to work?" His wife and family live in Val Gagne so he said he would like to work there. However, what the man did not know was that he put his foot in six or seven carefully laid traps that resulted in his being disqualified indefinitely. He did not understand why he was disqualified indefinitely.
I went home on the week end and he came to see me. I looked at the correspondence and I showed him that he had disqualified himself because he had restricted his area too much and there were not that many truck driving jobs in Val Gagne. He said he knew that, but he would drive a truck in Timmins or Kirkland Lake where there are lots of truck driving jobs. But he had not said that. They asked him where and he said in Val Gagne.
As soon as I explained what he had done he went back to the office and reapplied. Lo and behold a letter came back saying that he was disqualified again because he only wanted to drive a truck. Their interpretation was that he was confining himself to driving a truck. This was not the man's intention at all. They asked him what he would like to do and he answered by saying that he would like to drive a truck. So he was disqualified again.
When I explained the situation to him he went back and reapplied but he was still disqualified. He was disqualified once for the area, once for the wages and once for the occupation. Finally they ran out of reasons for disqualifying him and they came back with a real dandy. They finally disqualified him on the ground of credibility. To date the man is still disqualified.
As I stated earlier, my objection is that the minister and his department seem to have swallowed this line holus-bolus because I have here the letter I received from the minister which reads in part as follows:
I understand that Mr. Julien subsequently completed a statement to the effect that he was restricting his availability to employment as a truck driver in Val Gagne only.
That, Mr. Chairman, is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion derived from a questionnaire sent out by the department which the man filled out very innocently, but the department drew their own conclusions from it and disqualified the man.
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .3


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Was the letter referred to by the hon. member signed by the Minister of Labour?


Murdo William Martin: Yes. He goes on to explain the fact that the man made an appeal to a board of referees from the insurance officer's decision and that his case was heard on November 20, 1963. I quote:
The board, after considering all the facts-
What facts, Mr. Chairman?
-unanimously dismissed the claimant's appeal and upheld the decision of the insurance officer.
He goes on to explain how he applied on two different occasions, and the reason he applied on two different occasions is because for the first time this man had explained to him just exactly what he had done.
I thrashed this out with the local officers in Timmins, and had them admit to me that if a man told the truth he would automatically disqualify himself, but if he turned out to be a real good liar he would qualify for insurance benefits. I ask the minister, is this a practice which is allowed to grow up in his department and in unemployment insurance offices across the country, and what is the reason for it? Is it to dress these figures up so that they will look a little better, so that we can hear more propaganda like we heard tonight, when the minister said the fund dropped only $14 million last year compared with $57 million the previous year?
How many of these cases exist across the country? If we find that out maybe we will find that the only difference between the figures this year and last year has been the number of people who have been disqualified by this insidious method. The minister should take a look at the situation immediately. Whenever it arises the people involved have to fall back on their communities and go on local municipal welfare. It is time something was done about it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is not my intention to detain the committee at length, but I certainly concur in the speech made by the hon. member for Timmins with regard to the case he has brought forward. I find that immediately one goes beyond the boundaries of the larger urban centres, with their complex situations with regard to labour unemployment, this is a very common practice. Exactly the same situation exists in my part of Ontario, and obviously this is a practice which is condoned by the minister's department to disqualify applicants in cases where a very few miles are involved.

The applicant is usually refused the advantage of benefits. He may be offered employment in an adjacent town, but in a lot of instances the job is gone before he gets there. The minister should take a close, long look at this practice because it certainly must reflect itself in the figures he quoted this evening. He would find a considerably larger number of people would be involved if a more honest approach were taken to such cases.
I listened to the minister giving the figures with regard to the amount of money required over the past few years, and with regard to the diminishing amounts required in the last two years. This in large measure represents the policies of the former government and the success which they had. In fact this was pointed out to us by the former minister of labour when he told about the employees of a large firm who assured him this was the case, and expressed their gratitude.
In regard to the importance of the critical situation which faces the unemployment insurance fund, it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South who first drew attention to it, as reported at page 1585 of Hansard for Monday, March 30, when he said:
Some of us are anxious to deal with other matters including the position of the unemployment insurance fund, which has dried up.
I understand, as stated by the President of the Privy Council this evening, that under the appropriations bill the government does not have the authority to make expenditures from the fund regardless of how much money was left in the fund after midnight of March 31, but I wonder exactly how much money is left in the fund. I do not think the minister has given us this and, as was stated by the hon. member for Ontario, the reason for this special sitting tonight is that this is the important item which must be passed, and this was the reason why the situation which existed last Thursday evening occurred.
I can see no other reason for the whole [DOT]development that has taken place up to this evening. Again no one has disagreed to sitting tonight in order to take care of this crisis. I shall have more to say about this next week when we resume the budget debate, but I blame the Minister of Finance for the situation, no matter how much responsibility falls on other ministers who are present this evening. He must have been a'ware of the situation or else he was delinquent in his responsibilities to the people, and particularly to the Minister of Labour, in not seeing that the situation was dealt with expeditiously last week.
The Minister of Finance is not present tonight and, as I say, I shall go into this further next week. I believe he should take
Supply-Labour
a close look at his responsibilities to the parliament of Canada and see that the business of the house is expeditiously handled, so that the Minister of Labour will not be placed in such an embarrassing set of circumstances.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) was saying a moment ago that he was speaking on behalf of the Quebec members. Apparently he is ashamed for he has been hiding behind the curtain ever since-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a question of privilege-


Lucien Plourde: He may very well speak on behalf of the eight Conservatives, but as far as we are concerned we can uphold our rights ourselves.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot rose on a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 1 was probably guilty of a slip of the tongue when I said a little earlier that I was speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) because I do not think it would be an honour to do so and I would rather not speak for him. I apologize. I intended rather to speak for hon. members of the Conservative party on this side of the house.


Lucien Plourde: For the eight Conservative members. However, I must say that it is not the hon. member for Quebec East but rather the hon. member for Quebec West and that the latter is still able to take care of himself when the time comes.
In the province of Quebec, especially in my riding of Quebec West, I know that there is unemployment. That is why I am happy to be here tonight to see that these estimates are passed, because I would not like those who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits to be deprived of them.
It is nice to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) say that unemployment is decreasing since, according to him, the amount that parliament has to supply for that item is lower this year.
On the other hand, if we had before us the amounts of the estimates spent on unemployment assistance, we might doubt his words because they bring to our mind, in a way, what the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) said a little earlier: They are going to great lengths to prevent workers from being eligible for unemployment insurance

Supply-Labour
benefits. Because a great number of unemployed who are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits are receiving unemployment assistance.
If the minister can tell the house what has been the increase in unemployment assistance this year, we might find out where is the trouble and see at the same time that the number of the unemployed has not decreased that much.
It was just a play on words: unemployment assistance for those not eligible for unemployment insurance, but those eligible for unemployment insurance are listed as unemployed.


Reynold Rapp: It is not my intention to speak for very long, but I should like to say it is gratifying for me to see the concern shown by the Minister of Labour and also by the committee for these unemployed people who receive unemployment insurance benefits. I should like to point out that there are thousands and thousands of farm labourers who, when they are unemployed, cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. These men also have families to look after and on many occasions I have had bills on the order paper asking this house to provide that they, too, might be included under the Unemployment Insurance Act in accordance with the recommendations of the Gill commission.
My bills were talked out, but I wish to use this occasion to urge the minister to give serious consideration to their subject matter the next time one is introduced. Indeed, if this could be done before my bill comes up for consideration it would be even more appreciated by the farm labourers and by the country as a whole.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not wish to prolong these proceedings to any great extent but, as other members have pointed out, we have now discovered what was being hidden from us last week. We have found out the main item in these estimates which required immediate attention by the committee-an item which should have been dealt with last week. I now wonder why people on the other side of the house failed to respond to our suggestion last Thursday, when the whip of our party twice asked them if they would disclose the essential items so that we could look at them and see if we could not pass them quickly. I myself said to the acting prime minister at four o'clock on Thursday: Extract from the list of estimates those which are essential and must be passed; let us have a look at them and see what we can do, and if they are not too great in number, and you will stand the other items, we will
[Mr. Plourde.l
accept an appropriation bill, not printed or typewritten, but in oral form, which would be a most unusual procedure. This was the co-operative spirit we showed on Thursday last, but no response came from the other side. And all the time they knew that this item needed immediate attention.
It is strange this should have been deferred. On Monday the Minister of Finance is reported to have said in the corridors: I am terribly afraid the press will find out about the unemployment insurance fund. What was he afraid of? Then the word began to go around that the unemployment fund was exhausted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is probably why he said it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then people across the country were disturbed as to whether their cheques would be available. I think it is disappointing that the Minister of Labour was not more forthcoming in his answers. On Tuesday, just yesterday-mention has been made tonight of the manner in which this matter was brought to his attention-he gave three or four answers. First of all, as recorded on page 1595 of Hansard, he said this:
_It is my hope that we will be able to deal
with the supplementary estimate providing for a loan to the fund within the next short period, so that the fund will be able to bear its responsibilities within the next week or so.
Note the words "within the next week or so". He went on:
At present the reserves are not adequate to finance the benefits beyond a very short time.
Well, he lulled everybody into calmness. He talked about "the next short period". He spoke of "within the next week or so" and "a very short time". I heard his answer and I thought: Well, everything is all right for a couple of weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the hon. gentleman read the answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I have them all underlined.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget half the words.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answers are these, and Hansard records them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a supplementary question:
Is the item in the estimates regarding this matter one of those that must be passed fairly soon?
The hon. member did not say "immediately". He said "fairly soon". Naturally he would say that, after the statement about "a short period" or "a week or so". And the answer given reads: "Yes, Mr. Speaker", a

straightforward answer. Then the Leader of the Opposition questioned the minister as follows:
Is it not correct that the fund is in such a position that the government will be able to provide the necessary assistance even if action is delayed for ten days? Is that not correct?
My right hon. friend was justified in asking that question, based on the answer given
earlier by the Minister of Labour____"the fund
will be able to bear its responsibilities within the next week or so".


George James McIlraith: No, read the answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am going to read the answer. I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition was justified in asking the question he did, in view of the previous answer by the minister which I have just read. Let me repeat this. The Leader of the Opposition was assuming that everything would be all right for another ten days. But the Minister of Labour, being concerned, then answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to put this in a provocative way-
May I interrupt the quotation here and say I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour should follow the bad example set in this house by the minister of external affairs, that of using a great number of words when just two or three would suit his purpose. I suggest to him that if he is looking forward to his future he will select someone else in his group as an example. He went on to say:
-my information today is that unless the particular item is approved this week the commission will be in difficulty to make benefit payments by the end of the week.
Note the phrase "my information today". He did not know the day before. He did not know last week-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Stick to the words he used.


Michael Starr: Use your patience now; do not get excited.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He spoke of the difficulty of making benefit payments. He did not say: The fund will be broke; we cannot get out the cheques. Finally, in a corner, the minister admitted that this item had to be passed in order that the cheques could be sent out this week. Why was that not said to us last week? Why could not the government have taken us into its confidence and admitted that this was the case? Why did they not say this was an essential item in the supplementary estimates?
But oh, no; there was concealment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was just in the estimates, that's all. That is concealment, is it?
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: There was concealment. You just stuck the thing in and didn't tell the house about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can't you read?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am receiving quite a bit of assistance, Mr. Chairman. I do not require this assistance at all, with respect to people on both sides of the house. Why all this concealment? The acting prime minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Transport. He interjected and said that the item was in the estimates. Of course it was; we saw that. But why would the Minister of Labour say that the fund would be able to bear its responsibilities within the next week or so and then, within a minute and a half, say the item had to be passed this week? Either he does not know what is going on in his department or he was concealing facts from the house, and this is what we object to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How childish.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Or else he was under the impression that some of the money that was made available by special warrants last year was still available. But the unemployment insurance commission would surely advise him as to what was required. However, Mr. Chairman, that is the situation. A full disclosure on the part of the government would have expedited the business of the house, but they kept this away from us.
The Minister of Finance was terribly afraid that the press might find out on Monday. What arrant nonsense. We are quite prepared, and would have been prepared last Thursday or earlier, to pass this item with regard to the unemployment insurance fund, because we naturally want, as does everybody in this house, people to receive benefits from this fund. But this is the treatment they have received from this government-just fumbling and bungling along. I think they are falling apart at the seams and are not long for this world.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is the same old clique.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that I concur fully with the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins. Never have I, in five years, received anything like the mail that I am receiving today and have received in the last few months from applicants applying for unemployment insurance to which they are undoubtedly entitled. Each and every day these letters are arriving.


An hon. Member:: How many?

Supply-Labour


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Quite a number. I would also like, sir, to ask the minister whether he, his department or the unemployment insurance commission have at any time issued a directive to the officers to disallow any doubtful claims or claims which might be disallowed on any grounds at all. I should like the minister to answer this question, because it seems very obvious to me that this directive has gone out. Day by day we hear that unemployment is dropping, and is dropping rapidly. I ask then, sir, what is the reason that time and again I see in the newspapers that the staffs in the unemployment insurance offices have been increased? These are questions I should like to ask the minister.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something in this connection because I am probably as confused as the Canadian public are going to be. There appears to be a doubt-and I hope the minister can clear this up-as to what money we need and whether there was any reason for requesting this special sitting tonight, and also whether the government is prepared to bring in an appropriation bill covering this $1 and ask us to pass it tonight so that the fund may be supplemented.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How ridiculous.


William Arnold Peters: Well, it is ridiculous for us to be here if we do not know whether it is necessary. It was not ridiculous for the Minister of Transport to try to make a deal to have four or five items passed which obviously we shall have to discuss under a separate appropriation bill. I am wondering whether it is necessary for us to be here, Mr. .Chairman, and I cannot see much merit in our doing this to satisfy the Senate before they decide to go home.
Last year the minister said that the depletion in the fund amounted to $14 million, but we did have the borrowing power, by statute, through a previous supplementary estimate, to raise $55 million. I am not sure, and I do not know whether hon. members know if we borrowed that $55 million. If we did, this amount would be added to the $14 million by which the fund was depleted, which would make a total cost last year of $69 million in connection with unemployment insurance. I do not know whether this is true and I do not think the country knows yet. Perhaps we are going to find out. I imagine the minister would have had an obligation to borrow money some time ago when he saw the fund going down to the breaking point, when we had spent $14 million, in view of the fact that the authority to raise more money had already been granted by parliament for that year.

The minister said that it would not be fair to borrow from the $55 million the day before the end of the fiscal year. However, as I understand it we have already spent $14 million and at least that amount of money would be a legitimate charge against the $55 million that we have already O.K.'d. I think these are matters which should be given serious consideration. There are other matters in connection with the unemployment insurance fund that I should like to discuss, and will discuss on this estimate; but I think we should know exactly what we are doing in relation to this extension of the power to raise another $55 million. If the $55 million was raised last year, I think we should know about this. If the $14 million was spent, I think a good question to ask is why we have not raised at least $15 million out of the borrowing power we already have. It seems very foolish to me to go within a week of a deadline before doing something to put more money into the fund. Knowing something about the operation of the fund and the payments from local offices, I know it is sometimes difficult to get the money from the bank to the local unemployment insurance office. I would therefore think that if there was no money at all in the fund at the end of March we should now be prepared to pass an appropriation bill for this statutory item of $1 so that the fund may be replenished- not a week from now but tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest. I think the minister owes us a complete explanation of just what are the borrowing requirements; how much he is prepared to borrow; how soon he has to borrow it, and how much money is still in the revolving fund with which the unemployment insurance offices operate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to try and deal with some of the questions that have been raised by my hon. friend from Timiskaming. However, before doing so I should like to deal with the suggestion that there has been any concealment as to the state of the unemployment insurance fund. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, in the characteristic fashion to which we have become accustomed in this house, has suggested that there has been some deliberate effort to conceal the fact that this sum of money was required to replenish the fund. This, of course, is quite untrue. The supplementary estimates were tabled in the House of Commons on March 6. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman read the supplementary estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh yes, I read them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder whether the hon. member for Ontario read the supplementary estimate-


Michael Starr: Yes. You are not the only one who is a member of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -asking for this amount of money. If he did read this estimate, when did he expect that these sums would be required to replenish the fund? In July or August of this year? Or does he remember from his years of experience as a minister that the months when replenishment is required are April and May? If he read the supplementary estimates he must have realized at once that the fund was in need of replenishment for the months of April and May of this year. That is obvious.


Michael Starr: May I ask the minister a question. Why did the minister and the government allow these supplementary estimates to stand for 25 days if the matter was urgent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it was reasonable for me to expect that the supplementary estimates would be dealt with in this session, as they have been in former sessions; if they had been dealt with in this session as in former sessions this would have been passed by now, as my hon. friend knows.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a question. What does the minister mean by "this session?"


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend need only refer to an elementary text to get a definition of the word "session". It is obvious that if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Ontario had read the supplementary estimates they would have known that there was a requirement for a replenishment of the fund, and that the government was coming to the house for funds in the course of these supplementary estimates. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had no difficulty in framing a question yesterday about this fund. His question was answered accurately. Every part of the answer was fully consistent one with another, and there was no effort to conceal any matter whatsoever. If hon. gentlemen opposite had wanted to find out about the fund, all they had to do was pick up a telephone any day of the week and call the unemployment insurance commission. Any of the commissioners would immediately have given my hon. friends the most recent available data on the fund.


Michael Starr: It would have been 30 days old.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Ontario have read the budget papers. If they have they would have realized-the papers were tabled some weeks ago-that the state of the fund is as I stated tonight in my statement. They 20220-107
Supply-Labour
would have realized that from reading the budget papers some weeks ago. We on the government side expect the opposition to do its homework and become informed from the information made available through documents tabled in the House of Commons.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask the minister a question. Did the minister understand, as we understood, that even if we had done that the passage of the supplementary estimates before last Thursday night was not necessary?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does that question mean?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not understand the question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Did the minister understand, as we did, that the passage of the estimates by last Thursday night before the recess was not necessary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was always evident to me that this supplementary estimate would have to be dealt with in order to replenish the fund for the months of April and May, and I suggest that any hon. member who had taken the trouble to read these supplementary estimates and the budget papers would have reached the same conclusion. That is why, when I was asked this question I answered it as a matter of course, and I was surprised that anyone else in the house should think that this information was novel or new in any way because it had already been made available in documents tabled in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question so as to bring us up to date. Does the fund need to borrow money this week under the terms of this vote? In other words, is it now necessary that this vote be passed this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is necessary.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is what I wanted to know.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Timiskaming raised a very important question with respect to the $55 million which has been authorized in the past fiscal year. It will be recalled that last April and May the commisison borrowed $35 million on the strength of Governor General's warrants. Later on these Governor General's warrants were validated by the house through the supplementary estimates to which the President of the Privy Council made reference. Under that authority the commission received a total of $35 million. It borrowed the money in April and May and it was repaid in June and July.

Supply-Labour
It has been suggested that the commission ought to have borrowed money on the strength of the remaining $20 million authorized by the estimate passed last year. I thought that this would be entirely inappropriate; that a drawing should be made on the last fiscal year appropriations, for an expenditure in the current fiscal year seemed to me to be inappropriate. Who would be more inclined to criticize the government for taking this course of action when at the same moment supplementary estimates were before the house for consideration than hon. gentlemen opposite?


Murdo William Martin: Would the minister permit a question?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some confusion concerning the borrowing powers of the unemployment insurance commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, have I still the floor?


Lucien Lamoureux: The impression of the Chair was that the minister had concluded his statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was being interrupted.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I yielded the floor to a question from the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: As I understood the minister, $35 million out of the $55 million authorized last year had already been borrowed. So that left $20 million. What is the difference between borrowing the first $35 million and borrowing the second $20 million?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The initial $35 million was borrowed for an expenditure in the fiscal year which ended yesterday. If an additional sum had been borrowed under that authority it would be for an expenditure to be made in the current fiscal year, which I thought would have been quite inappropriate, especially as this committee is examining at this very moment the supplementary estimate which would give the appropriate authority. Therefore I refused to take that course of action and relied on this supplementary estimate to give the proper authority. That is the situation with respect to that particular matter, and I think in that situation we acted properly.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Another question in that regard, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will permit, is this. Are we to understand from this discussion that the House of Commons should hold a midnight session on March 31 each year in order to fix up the powers of the unemployment insurance commission to

borrow? We need the money today. We could not borrow it yesterday. Therefore it seems to me that midnight on March 31 would be a suitable time to hold a special session each year in order to vote this authority.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion to sit tonight to deal with this particular item was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The government was delighted to accede to the suggestion because it was evident to us that this item had to be passed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not mind answering questions, but I should like to complete my statement, such as it is. Then, if hon. members wish to ask questions I will be glad to answer them.
I believe the hon. member for Timmins asked about the fact that the fund this year had dropped $14 million. At the beginning of the fiscal year there was a balance in the fund of some $9 million. The estimated debit balance at the end of this fiscal year is something like $4 million, so that the drop in the fund this year totals some $14 million. We are still in a position, despite the balance, as I have stated in the fund, that we will be able to make payments because of certain cheques that have been issued that have not yet been drawn down. This was rather a mystery to me, but it was cleared up in consultation with the commission.
Hon. gentlemen opposite suggested in their statements that the use of the word "today" in my answer of yesterday indicated that I had just learned at that moment of the condition of the fund. The fact is I used that expression because I had been talking to the commissioner and the director of the insurance branch just before I came into the house for orders of the day. It was most natural that I would use that expression because I had received recent information from those gentlemen in my office.
I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that, given the passage of this supplementary item and royal assent this week, I trust by tomorrow or Friday, of this particular item, there will be sufficient funds for the payment of benefits from the treasury officers of the commission on Monday of next week. In the light of that fact, potential recipients need not be concerned about the possibility of not receiving benefits.
Last session there was some discussion concerning the Gill committee report. The intention of the government, as stated by the Prime Minister, given parliamentary time is to proceed with action this session on the Gill

report, undertaking the fundamental changes that must be made if we are to overcome the difficulties that we are facing in this particular situation. It is a fact that the condition of the fund reflects the improved employment situation. I have never said that the problem of unemployment in Canada was solved. I have stated that the employment situation has improved. The payments from the fund and the number of claimants on the fund have both decreased quite considerably and have improved the financial condition of the fund. The improved employment situation is not only reflected in the condition of the fund but also in the employment statistics released by the dominion bureau of statistics. There has been no effort, Mr. Chairman, certainly not on the part of the Minister of Labour nor to my knowledge on the part of the commission, to decrease the financial obligations on the fund by a stepped up effort to disqualify any applicants. No directive has been sent out by the government to the commission on this point; certainly no change has been made and no instructions have been issued to the commission.
I believe all hon. members have expressed understandable concern about individual persons who have been disqualified. I have attempted to examine each of these cases, but I would remind hon. gentlemen that the commission is responsible for the administration of the insurance act. There is a procedure, beginning with a board of referees and going up to an umpire, by which these claims can be adjudicated. It is not possible for the Minister of Labour to adjudicate personally any of these claims or the possible findings of the commission or the ultimate decision of the umpire. I would be glad on the basis of the views that have been expressed tonight to discuss the matter with the commissioners with a view to at least making the situation more understandable to the individuals who, because of regulations, are disqualified.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred to a difficult situation that has arisen in Cape Breton. It is a very complicated situation involving several unions; one on strike, one refusing to cross a picket line and another with its members denied work because of the actions of the other two unions. The commission is investigating this situation to determine the eligibility for benefits of each of these groups, who are eligible and who are not.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hope the minister is not including in his reference to investigation of the qualifications of these different groups, the large number of mine workers. Has the commission not already ruled on the eligibility of a claimant, namely that he is not required 20220-I07i
Supply-Labour
to take employment at a strikebound plant? Does this ruling not qualify the railway men as persons who are entitled to unemployment benefits?
While I am on my feet I should like to put now to the minister a question that arose as a result of a remark he made. The minister stated flatly that the sitting tonight was at the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It may be that the hon. member brought this question up at the opening of today's sitting, but is the minister not aware of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister, in accepting the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, said he had every intention of asking the house to sit tonight not from eight to ten but from seven to eleven? Is there any liaison between the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour on this very important issue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the answer to that is quite clear. The Acting Prime Minister suggested extended sittings, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that the extended sittings deal with this particular matter. This is my understanding.
I do not want to adjudicate on the qualifications of workers for benefits in Cape Breton, but it is clear to me that the mine workers will be eligible, those directly involved in the work stoppage will not be eligible for benefits, and the other category is being investigated.


Frank Howard: I should like to pose a question to the minister and my question is related to the foresight of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre today in suggesting that this particular item be dealt with this evening. None of us, I expect, can forecast with any certainty that these supplementaries will be passed by any particular date. On the basis of that, and to guarantee that there will be sufficient money in the unemployment insurance fund to pay the claimants, would the minister, in consultation with his colleagues, be prepared to introduce a special appropriation bill covering the particular item before us so that we can guarantee that the appropriation bill will be passed and the money available, even though we might not deal with the other estimates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can assure my hon. friend that whatever procedure is necessary to ensure the payment of benefits, that will be followed by the government.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, would the minister like to take this opportunity to answer the charges made on national television on Sunday in respect of the situation at Bell Island? The national employment office was accused

Supply

Labour
quite openly of lack of co-operation in the labour situation there. If the minister is not aware of what took place on the program perhaps he would investigate the matter and it can be brought up later. If these charges are true I think they cast a very serious reflection on the national employment office, because of their lack of co-operation. I am not speaking about the employment situation there but simply the refusal of the officers to co-operate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I had not been aware that a complaint had been made and I will certainly investigate it because it is my desire that the national employment service should co-operate constructively in the situation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am sure that some of the minister's very loyal colleagues and friends from Newfoundland will be able to bring it to his attention. As there is a minute or two left I should like to make one comment. When the government sets up a timetable, as they must do, to get certain matters through, including this item, before the Easter recess they had better be careful that the Minister of Finance does not come along and upset the applecart, because he is the real culprit in this whole business. He is the reason we are sitting here.


Raymond Langlois: I should like to ask one short question relating to applicants for unemployment insurance. Is it a fact that the officers in some of the local unemployment insurance offices are not there to help applicants receive unemployment insurance? I have been told that by an employer and also by an unemployment insurance officer, that they are clearly and specifically not there to help men receive unemployment insurance. What is the man going to do who does not know how to read or write? Does the minister know anything about this situation and, if not, will he inquire from the commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to inquire on this point.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a couple of matters and one of them does not involve any action that would displease the house. If the situation is as it was originally portrayed, then I do think that the government on behalf of the commission should be prepared to move an appropriation for this particular item.
With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Timmins, I am sure that members of the minister's own party will

agree it is a fact that letters and directives have been sent out from the commission indicating that vigilance should be exercised with regard to people abusing the fund, and that in many cases this has been interpreted by local officials to mean a closer scrutiny for the purpose of getting rid of people already drawing benefits. The minister has said that these matters can be taken up through various channels. I have been a member of several boards of referees and I can assure the minister there is not a chance in hell of winning a case. I sat on one where the officials of the department were talking about married women who were pregnant. The girl in question certainly was not pregnant, and this was not a factor at all. Yet all the references that were being used had to do with married women who were going to have babies and therefore were unable to work. This was not the case at all, but these were the references that were being used. There is no chance of winning one of these cases.
I do not think there is any point in taking them to a board of referees because the operation has been very unsatisfactory, nor do I think there is much point in taking them to an umpire. On the board of referees there is a representative who is impartial, a representative of labour and a representative of management and so far as the board in North Bay is concerned I defy anybody to be able to say from sitting there and listening for an hour or so who represents what or whom. There is complete neutrality in representation.
Another problem has arisen which relates to some extent to the point raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert with regard to the television show the other day. The situation is that people who are no longer drawing benefits receive no assistance from the placement service of the unemployment insurance offices. This charge is being made in my area. I have investigated some of the cases and I think some of them have merit and some do not. But the fact is that young people who are not eligible for benefits receive very little assistance from the placement service, and I believe this situation is general across the country.
I would urge the minister to call together the industrial relations committee and submit the Unemployment Insurance Act to it for revision. There are abuses, and the fact that we have to borrow money for the fund and have done so on other occasions is an indication that the fund is not in a healthy state. This is not good enough for people who have paid their contributions, and when they now face the necessity of drawing benefits find that they have to wait on the whim of parliament to pass a supplementary estimate that will provide a loan to replenish the fund.

We have had the unemployment insurance commission before us in recent years and I believe that the modifications that were made to the fund were advantageous. I think the minister has an obligation now to refer the whole unemployment insurance problem to the industrial relations committee again, and I strongly urge that he call the committee immediately and refer the whole problem to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50e. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act-To extend the purposes of vote 50 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include a grant of $1,500 to the Canadian association for adult education to assist in defraying the expenses of the national seminar on guidance and counselling held in Canada in November, 1963 and to provide a further amount of $720,000.
Frank Howard: This seems to be an inordinately large amount of money. Surely they cannot have underestimated their expenditures to this extent, especially when almost half of the total appropriation, $350,000, is for office stationery, supplies and equipment. Could we have an explanation from the minister? Does this involve the national registration program, or just what is involved here?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the principal cause of this supplementary is to pay for expenditures in connection with the registration program, including office space in various parts of the country, equipment and so on. I can give the house a breakdown in a moment.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did I understand you to call item L27e on which we have spent the evening? Is that passed or is it not?


Lucien Lamoureux: It is passed. Shall item 50e carry?


Michael Starr: No. I think the minister is looking up some information to give the hon. member for Skeena who asked the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Howard: Before the minister proceeds I wonder whether I might say this. There are some other remarks and explorations we would like to make into this field of numerical designation for employees, and so on. I wonder if the appropriate thing at the moment would be to call it ten o'clock, and approach this tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in order to satisfy the very legitimate curiosity of the hon. member, and of other hon. members, may I suggest that you do not see the clock for a few minutes, so as to allow appropriate questions to be put on this item.
Supply-Items Passed


Frank Howard: You recall, Mr. Chairman, we specifically sat from eight to ten o'clock this evening for the sole purpose of dealing with the unemployment insurance fund, and I do not think a few minutes this evening or tomorrow will make that much difference. Tomorrow we would approach it with a fresher mind.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:
[Stage Direction]
Special-
172e. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board, including loss resulting from revaluation of inventory, as at March 31, 1964, $122,235,000.
173e. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board account to cover the net operating loss recorded in the account as at March 31, 1964. $1,018,400.
174e. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, $1,377,000.
175e. Estimated amount required to recoup the prairie farm emergency fund to cover the net operating loss for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, $1,940,000.
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
L27e. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed $55,000,000-To extend the purposes of vote L27a of the estimates for 1963-64 to cover requirements in the fiscal year 1964-65, $1.
A-Department-
Genera] administrationle. Departmental administration, $14,000.
5e. Economics and research branch, $5,500.
20e. Industrial relations activities, $10,000.
22e. Administration of the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act, $135,000.
25e. Civilian rehabilitation branch administration, $143,000.
27e. To extend from January 31, 1964 to March 31, 1964 the termination date in vote 27d of the supplementary estimates (D), 1963-64 of the period during which each full time worker 45 years of age or over may be engaged by an employer, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Government employees compensation-
45e. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $5,000.
48e. To deem members of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions and personnel appointed as provided in section 5 of the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act to be employees in the service of Her Majesty for purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $1.
49e. To deem any assistant light-keeper who is or was appointed on contract by a principal light-keeper to be or to have become, upon such appointment, an employee within the meaning of the Government Employees Compensation Act for the purpose of that act, and any amount received out of the consolidated revenue fund by or in respect of such employee, because of an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, to have been received as compensation under that act, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 2, 1964