1964-06-29

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. members were greatly saddened to learn over the week end of the untimely death of the hon. member for Waterloo South, Mr. Gordon Chaplin. In the brief two years that he was in this house his thoughtful, wise and mature approach to his responsibilities as a member and to the subjects that came before us in this house won for him the respect and friendship of members of all parties from all parts of the country.
Those of us who were privileged to remember his father when he too served Canada in the House of Commons were prepared to find in our late colleague the same fine qualities of quiet ability, friendliness and devotion to duty, and we were certainly not disappointed. His premature passing is a very great loss to his country, to his province, and certainly to this house.
On behalf of the government I would like to extend to his widow and his two sons our deepest and most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I think this is the fourth occasion during this parliament on which we have been called to pay respect to the memory of colleagues who have departed this life during this relatively short period. We appreciate the references the Prime Minister has made this afternoon to our colleague. Many of us here and on all sides of the house have lost a friend, in some cases a very close friend, and all have lost a colleague who had won the confidence of hon. members.
Quiet, unassuming, a man of integrity, trusted and respected by all those who had the privilege of sitting with him, he had inherited and developed a position of preeminence in the business world of this country. As the Prime Minister has said, he was the inheritor of a proud political tradition, 20220-305
his father having been a member of a former government in this country and he himself having been a member of the legislature of Ontario for some years before he finally came to this house. His time here was altogether too short, and during the time he was here he was dogged by ill health. But he did take part in debates; he did take part in some committee discussion, and all those who had the privilege of hearing him or sitting with him realize the contribution he could have made had he been given more time.
We on this side have lost a friend and colleague. We appreciate the sentiments which were expressed by the Prime Minister. This parliament and the country are the poorer for his untimely passing, and to his widow and to the family we express our most sincere and deep sympathy.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: The members of this party wish to join in expressing our profound regret at the passing of the late member for Waterloo South, Mr. Gordon Chaplin. Although he was here only a short time we all came to admire him for the sincere and conscientious discharge of his duties as a member of parliament. The members of this group wish to express our deep sympathy to his wife and his two sons, and to convey our regret to his colleagues in the Conservative party and to the people of the constituency of Waterloo South in the great loss they have sustained.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: The
members of the Social Credit party would like to join in the expressions of regret on the passing of the late member for Waterloo South.
As has been brought to our attention, this is the fourth time during this parliament we have been called upon to pay tribute to members who have been taken from us, all of them men who were held in the highest esteem. Certainly the late member for Waterloo South was one of those. We often refer to the fact that this is the highest tribunal of the land, but times such as these bring to our attention the fact that eventually all of us will be called upon to stand before the highest tribunal of all. Perhaps we can re-echo the

The Late Gordon Chaplin prayer of one of old: "Teach us to number our days so that we may apply our hearts to wisdom".
We join in expressing our sincere sympathy to Mrs. Chaplin and the two sons, and to the Progressive Conservative party which has lost a valued colleague.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Ralliement Creditistes join their voices to those of their colleagues of the other parties to express their sympathy to the family of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) who departed suddenly. It is a loss for the Conservative party, the house and the whole country.
We all knew the hon. member for Waterloo South as an honest, sincere, generous and hard-working man. Some people will perhaps even say that he was daring, but it must be remembered that temerity, in the case of a soldier, is a virtue.
At this time we can say of Mr. Chaplin that we express, with deep regret, to his family and friends, as well as to the Conservative party, our sincere sympathy.
This also reminds us that even though we are in charge of the nation's business there is always just a certain number of days ahead of us and, whatever happens, we will have to meet, some day, the supreme parliament.
Once more we express our sympathy to Mrs. Chaplin, her two sons and the Conservative party. The official opposition lost a colleague, and the house a representative of the Canadian people.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FRENCH CULTURAL DELEGATION AND AMBASSADOR OF FRANCE

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to call the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a cultural delegation from the French national assembly, along with His Excellency the ambassador of France.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FOOD AND DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on food and drugs-Mr. Harley.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition-the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pigeon:: Another retreat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are those who would think that would be an advance. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that at 12.30 today the hon. member for Kingston, Mr. E. J. Benson, was sworn in as Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure all members wish him well. I would like also to announce that Mr. Benson will be succeeded as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, Mr. Lawrence T. Pennell.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with a great deal of interest and approval to the announcement by the right hon. Prime Minister of the elevation of the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to a position on the treasury benches as Minister of National Revenue. We noticed as we came in that his appointment had been made today, because we saw where he was sitting.
We on this side of the house want to congratulate him on this promotion, and possibly we should also congratulate him on the fact that he has perhaps escaped from the onerous task of being parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and might find life, if not less arduous at least more interesting in the position in which he now finds himself. I think all departments of government have an impact upon individual Canadians, some more than others. For instance, citizenship and immigration, veterans affairs, health and welfare, all have a direct impact on many individuals; but speaking from some years of experience I think I can say that no department has a greater impact upon millions of Canadian than does the Department of National Revenue, to a greater or a lesser extent, sometimes to a very substantial extent, involving large sums of money. There are severe and heavy responsibilities placed on this minister. However, his professional

training and experience as well as the experience he has gained since he came here will assist him in this portfolio.
In addition, he will have the assistance of a large group of able civil servants on both sides of the family, customs and excise on the one side and taxation on the other, whose advice he will receive and will have to consider. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that during the years I occupied that portfolio I enjoyed it tremendously, and I am sure the hon. member will have the same experience. We congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in his new role.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to associate the members of this party with the congratulations which have been extended to the new Minister of National Revenue, and to say that during the time he has been parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance he discharged his duties in a very able manner. We are sure he will bring to his new position the same ability and vigorous discharge of his responsibilities.
As one who took part in the Saskatoon by-election I feel that I may have made some small contribution to the hon. gentleman's elevation to his new post. We certainly wish him well, as we do the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, who is now to be parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I overlooked the announcement made by the Prime Minister as to the appointment of the new parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I am sure we on this side of the house join in our congratulations to him, he having done so well as the chairman of one of the standing committees of this House of Commons.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend the very sincere congratulations of this party to the hon. member for Kingston on having been appointed to the post he now holds. I think all hon. members of the house will agree that he distinguished himself as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. In fact, more than once I have seen him answer for the sins of commission as well as the sins of omission of both the immediate past and the present ministers of finance in a way which was certainly a credit to him.
We also wish to extend our congratulations to the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, who has been appointed parliamentary sec-20220- 3054
Coal Production Assistance Act retary to the Minister of Finance. Many members of the house are members of the committee on privileges and elections as well as the committee on banking and commerce, and they appreciate the good work he did and the very sincere and non-partisan way in which as chairman he conducted these committees. Therefore we are satisfied and assured by his past performance that he is going to do a good job as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the appointment of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) to the position of Minister of National Revenue. We know that department carries heavy responsibilities, but knowing the wide experience of the hon. member for Kingston and the way he discharged his duty as secretary to the Minister of Finance, we all know he will have no trouble in his new office.
I also wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member who was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Having taken part in the work of the committee on privileges and elections and knowing his vast experience in that field, I also know that he will also carry out his job with efficiency.



COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act to extend until the 31st day of October, 1969, the period during which agreements may be made under section 3 of the said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting

Questions
to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of allowances of $10 per month to parents in respect of dependant youths between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are maintained by such parents and are attending school or university or are precluded from so attending by reason of disability.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What is the value of contracts awarded without public tender by the Department of Public Works, in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac since April 22, 1963?
2.	What was each of these works, where is each located, who was the contractor performing the work, and what was the value of each project?

Answer: 1. $9,735.83.
2.-Type of Work Federal Building, Cookshire Repairs to door frame Interior painting Repairs to front doors Instal steel plate on safe
4 minor works under $25. each
Federal Building, East Angus Repair 2 mechanical fire boxes Exterior painting Repair window frames Repair mechanical fire box Repair lobby doors Levelling grounds Transfer of stoker 14 minor works under $25 each
Federal Building, Lac Megantic Exterior painting Installation of ventilation system
Repairs to fence Snow removal
11 minor works under $25 each
Federal Building, Sawyerville Installing flag pole
Interior cleaning 4 minor works under $25 each
Federal Building, Scotstown Repairs to metal fence Repairs to masonry Repairs to chimney Snow removal Exterior painting 3 minor works under $25 each
Contractor
Gedeon Roy, Cookshire Emile Vermette, East Angus Couture & Freres, East Angus Sherbrooke Structural Industries, Sherbrooke
A. Couture Inc., Sherbrooke Sam Vermette, Cookshire Felicien Poulin, East Angus A. Couture Inc., Sherbrooke Felicien Poulin, East Angus Gaston Tardif, East Angus A. Couture Inc., Sherbrooke
Claude Beaudoin, Lac Megantic Development Lac Megantic Inc., Lac Megantic
Garage Mercier, Lac Megantic Willie Roy, Lac Megantic
Corporation of Village of Sawyerville
William Mattison, Sawyerville
J.	D. Poirier, Scotstown
J.	D. Poirier, Scotstown John P. Matteson, Scotstown Town of Scotstown R. C. Stokes, Bury
Amount
$	26.76
1.635.00
550.00
26.65
30.86




SENIOR OFFICERS IN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Pigeon: What are the names of persons In the three armed forces who have the rank of general, major-general, brigadier or an equivalent rank in the navy or the air force and what are their salaries?

Answer: Consolidated rate of pay annually, F. R. Miller, $25,000; C. R. Dunlap, H. S. Rayner, C. R. Slemon, G. Walsh, $23,000; S. F. Clark, W. R. MacBrien, $22,000.
Total pay and allowances monthly, J. V. Allard, W. A. Anderson, C. L. Annis, W. W. Bean, J. P. Bernatchez, D. A. R. Bradshaw, J. Y. Brocks, J. B. Caldwell, R. A. Cameron, C. J. Dillon, K. L. Dyer, F. J. Fleury, C. H. Greenway, J. B. Harvey, M. M. Hendrick, G. Kitching, W. M. Landymore, W. J. Lawson,
L.	G. Lilley, M. D. Lister, T. B. McLean, H. L. Meuser, V. P. J. Millard, J. B. Millward, R. W. Moncel, W. A. Orr, D. W. Piers, E. M. Reyno, J. M. Rockingham, R. P. Rothschild, R. Rowley, M. G. Stirling, C. B. Ware, $1,584; J. B. Allan, A. J. Bailley, K. M. Baird, F. W. Ball, J. A. Bennett, L. J. Birchall, R. M. Bishop, A. G. Boulton, R. H. Bray, H. E. Brown, H. G. Burchall, C. D. Caldbick, F. B. Caldwell, D. C. Cameron, F. S. Carpenter, J. A. Charles, E. N. Clarke, P. S. Cooper, E. D. Danby, M. R. Dare, S. M. Davie, J. Deane, J. A. Dextrase, G. C. Diamond, W. J. Elliott, E. G. Foote, E. L. Gerow, W. P. Gouin, H. V. Groos, R. J. Gray, R. L. Hennessy, A.
Questions
F. Knight, R. J. Lane, G. C. Leech, M. Lip-ton, H. W. Love, M. P. Martyn, D. McClure,
K.	H. McKibbon, D. Menard, W. J. Moogkr W. S. Murdoch, W. F. M. Newson, J. C. O'Brien, S. E. Paddon, E. C. Poole, R. L. Purves, H. L. Quinn, J. S. Ross, N. H. Ross,, F. R. Sharp, G. L. Smith, G. H. Spencer,. P. D. Taylor, G. A. Turcot, J. A. Verner, D, A. Waldock, R. P. Welland, R. B. Whiting, H. A. Winnett, $1,434; F. E. Anderson, G. S. Austin, A. G. Chubb, J. B. Clement, S. G. Cowan, R. M. Cox, J. M. Doull, G. H. Elms, A. B. Fraser-Harris, H. R. Foottit, E. B. Hale, D. M. Holman, A. C. Hull, M. J. Jette, L. E. Kenyon, H. C. Ledoux, B. F. MacDonald, H. A. McCandless, J. S. McConnell, R. W. Murdoch, G. H. Newsome, C. A. Peck, M. E. Pollard, J. C. Pratt, C. G. Ruttan, H. N. Sterns, R. C. Stovel, A. J. Tedlie, N. W. Timmerman, G. J. Wattsford, E. H. Webb, W. Weiser, R. C. Weston, N. G. Wilson-Smith, $1,384; H. A. Phillips, $1,367; C. R. Charle-bois, $1,317.


STAMP TO COMMEMORATE CHEDDAR CHEESE PRODUCTION
Mr. Nesbilt: Is the Post Office Department considering the issue of a stamp to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the commercial production of Cheddar cheese in Canada, which industry was started by Mr. Harvey Farrington near the village of Norwich in the county of Oxford in 1864?


Mr. Nicholson:: No. From time to time the Post Office Department issues postage stamps publicizing primary industries such as mining, forestry, fishing and agriculture, which are of major significance in the economic life of the nation as a whole. The number of such subjects and of others which contribute to an awareness of our traditions, accomplishments and history, or foster a spirit of international good will and understanding, is such that it is not possible to honour in addition the specific products of our primary industries or of the hundreds of branches of these industries. The program for special commemorative stamps for 1964 was completed some months ago and there are no openings for additional issues. Normally 18 months to two years are required to produce a postage stamp.


CONTRACT FOR ICEBREAKER
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	On what date was the contract granted for the construction of a Canadian icebreaker?
2.	What firms submitted tenders and what were the amounts of these respective bids?
3.	To what firm was the contract awarded and what was the amount of the company's bid?

Questions
tTranslation]
Answer: 1, 2 and 3. One complete tender was received from Canadian Vickers Limited in Montreal in the adjusted amount of $18,719,075; treasury board has approved the placing of the contract with this firm for this amount.


MOVING OF NATIONAL DEFENCE PERSONNEL. PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: What moving and tracking firms are listed for the electoral district of Pictou, Nova Scotia, for the moving of personnel of the Department of National Defence?
Answer: The following moving and trucking firms have been invited to participate in the movement of servicemen's household furniture and personal effects in the electoral district of Pictou, N.S.: English Movers, New Glasgow; Vet's Transfer, New Glasgow; Dickson Brothers Transfer Ltd. Stellarton.


CONSERVATION OF AREAS AS ECOLOGICAL UNITS
Mr. Irvine: What is the policy or policies of the present administration toward the conservation of the unspoiled areas of the country as ecological units?


Mr. Sauve:: The forest research branch is sympathetic toward the preservation and conservation of unspoiled samples of the natural landscape, and natural areas have been set aside at a number of forest experiment stations. Natural areas are defined as tracts of the native landscape, dedicated to the preservation of the endemic flora, fauna and terrain features for their intrinsic scientific, educational, aesthetic and cultural values. Exploitive activities that would destroy the values of natural areas are prohibited, and an attempt is made to exclude all disturbances caused by man and his works.
At the Petawawa forest experiment station, Ont., 17 natural areas taking in an area of about 500 acres have been set aside. At the Acadia forest experiment station, N.B., 12 natural area totalling 270 acres have been set aside. On the Riding Mountain, Manitoba, about 1,000 acres have been reserved in nine natural areas. At the present time, arrangements for larger ecological reserves in southeastern Manitoba and in the Prince Albert national park are being made.
In Ottawa the Department of Forestry is supporting the national capital commission in acquiring the Mer Bleue, an area of swampland and forest that will form an eight to 12 
square mile ecological reserve on the eastern side of the city.
The forest research branch has supported the acquisition of natural areas in the belief that they have two research uses: the study of specious and ecosystems as subjects of intrinsic scientific interest, and the study of how the twin goals of preservation and aesthetics in the native landscape can be attained and maintained.


WINTER HOUSE BUILDING APPLICATIONS, ASSINIBOIA CONSTITUENCY, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many applications under the winter house building incentive program were received from the electoral district of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan?
2.	How many applications were approved for payment in the electoral district of Assiniboia under this plan?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. There were 57 applications for certification under the winter house building incentive program received from the electoral district of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan.
2.	Of these applications three were cancelled by the applicants and two other houses were not started. Of the remainder, 46 qualified for the incentive payment.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO EXHIBITIONS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the government given consideration to reinstating federal (building) grants to exhibitions and, if not, is consideration being given to the matter as requested by the Nova Scotia association of exhibitions?


Mr. Hays:: Major capital grants, under the exhibition grants regulations, were suspended in June, 1962 and this suspension is still in effect. Annual grants including those for permanent improvements, judges' fees and junior activities are still available.
Consideration is being given to the reorientation of federal assistance to fairs and exhibitions from one essentially aimed at assistance for capital construction to one of augmenting the prize lists of fairs and exhibitions for certain classifications. In these classes, utility and efficiency will be emphasized.
A pilot project along these lines is being conducted this year. This pilot project will be used as a basis for assessing the direction that federal assistance to fairs and exhibitions should take.


PURCHASES OF BUILDING MATERIALS, FUNDY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	How much money was spent on building materials and supplies at Fundy national park, New Brunswick, in 1963?
2.	What is expected to be spent in this category in 1964?
3. Who was the major supplier of (a) plywood (b) cement, and (c) wallboard, at this park in 1963 and 1964?
4.	Are Cassidy Building Materials, Sussex, New Brunswick, given an opportunity to quote on building materials and supplies for Fundy national park?


Mr. Laing:: 1. $12,647.00.
2.	Approximately $7,000.00.
3.	(a) Plywood, Moncton Lumber Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B.; (b) cement, Maritime Cement Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B.; (c) wallboard, none was purchased in 1963.
The companies listed in (a) and (b) submitted the lowest quotations on these materials.
4.	Yes.


FARMS AND FARMERS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What is the total number of farms In the province of Quebec?
2.	How many farmers in the province of Quebec have a gross revenue of more than $1200 per year?
3.	What is (a) the address of the appeals office for the agricultural credit society in the province of Quebec (b) the number of sub-offices (c) the composition of the Quebec office?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: 1. and 2. In the 1961
census, a farm was defined as an agricultural holding of one acre or more with sales of agricultural products during the past 12 months of $50 or more. The number of 1961 census farms in the province of Quebec was 95,777 of which 62,497 had a gross revenue of more than $1,200 per year. However, a considerable number of farms are occupied by persons employed principally in occupations other than agriculture.
3.	(a) The Farm Credit Corporation appeal board has not yet been established; (b) See (a); (c) See (a).


OTTAWA-LAND EXPROPRIATION BY CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Who are the members of the national capital commission's land committee, and what previous affiliations did they have with the national capital commission before being named to this committee?
Questions
2.	Is market garden land acquired or leased by the national capital commission in the province of Quebec, dealt with differently than similar market garden land in the province of Ontario?
3.	Did the national capital commission permit the erection of a $100,000 motel in the Gloucester township area of the green belt and, if so, was the property expropriated approximately 10 days after opening?
4.	Has settlement been finalized on all properties expropriated since 1959 and, if not, on what properties are settlements outstanding?
5.	Do the original owners of expropriated land have the same opportunity to lease their former land as do other people?
Answer: 1. Chairman: Lt. General S. F. Clark, also chairman of the national capital commission.
Members: Major General Howard Kennedy, former chairman of the national capital commission; Mr. P. S. Secord, no previous affiliation with national capital commission; Mr. M.	M. MacLean, a former member of the national capital commission; Mr. J. N. Morin, a former member of the national capital commission; Mr. A. K. Hay, former chairman and general manager of the national capital commission.
2.	No.
3.	Prior to the expropriations carried out in June 1961, the commission had no authority to prevent the erection of buildings on lands in the green belt which it had not purchased up to that time. Although there was an agreement with the township of Gloucester to advise the commission when building permits were taken out for erection of buildings in the green belt, the fact that this motel was under construction was not brought to the attention of the commission until the building was substantially completed and the roof was on. The motel in question was started in the fall of 1960.
4.	No. Attached as Appendix "A" is a list of owners located in the green belt whose properties have been expropriated and with whom settlement of compensation moneys have not been completed.
5.	Yes. Preference is given former owners to lease back, after settlement of the expropriation, the property which they have owned.
The following expropriated properties in the green belt have not been settled as of June 19, 1964: James V. Sheehan, Independent Coal & Lumber Co. Ltd., T. Giles, G. J. Thiessen, Urbain Thiverge, O. R. Scharfe,
N.	E. Olmstead, F. E. McHugh, Garnett Munro, George Blair, Wilfred Cleroux, William Cleroux, Lois Kemp, Marion A. Kemp, Michael Budd, Est. of Theresa Budd, Gabriel Renaud, Allen Leclair, J. G. Seguin, Roy

Questions
Henderson Cuzner in trust, Aristide & Lorenzo Cloutier, Yvon and Bernadette Giroux, John Wadsworth, Paul A. Renaud, L. Lamesse, Fred Crabtree, Henri Renaud, Noel Renaud,
L.	P. Perrault, Lucien Leblanc, R. Labee, Louis Cyr, R. Walker, Liliane Frigon, Levine Realty,
J.	O'Donnell, Levine Realty, Harold Munro, Rita Guibault, K. Alexander, E. Macartney, Christine Langford, F. & M. Burke, J. A. Lafortune, Mrs. Brunell, H. A. Macartney, A. D. Smith, Leonard Heafey, Ronald Sugrue,
S.	F. W. Hagen, E. J. Bryan & V. L. A., Mabel Whyte, J. A. Whyte, D. Campsall,
K.	W. Davidson, J. Risto, W. A. Heron, R. G. Colgate, B. Dowler, Beeanbee Theatres Ltd., G. W. Barrett, George Andrews, F. W. Fraser, A. Bellai, J. Bornemisza, J. B. Boyd, E. Duford, G. P. McKenny, R. R. Brady, Frank Varga, M. G. McKay, R. Dawson, J. S. Kelso, Ilona Nanasi, N. Reznick, D. R. Park, A. Lefebvre, G. R. Lefebvre, W. L. Reid, M. Lynch, J. E. Heagle, A. E. R. Bennett, Mc-Kinlay Transport, Mrs. M. G. Shearman, Harold G. Clark, J. Stanley, Alfred Francis,
L.	Landry, Jean Boucher, G. Boulerice, Eva Grace Soper, Donat Lafrance, Jessie M. Baird, J. H. F. Read, F. Dillon, Wm. G. M. Sher-mann, Albert E. Chenery, John W. Adams, P. R. Cummings, R. N. Lillico, Lottie Blake, J. H. Johnson, Karl Wagner, Peter and Helen Diak, Edward Popovicz, E. B. John Burke, Mary Potvin, Frederick West, Amy Loughran, Harry James Turner, Harold Serson, Catherine E. Chaput, H. E. Armstrong, J. P. McCaffrey, C. P. Magladry, Eric Magladry, F. C. Bowie, D. Perry, Texaco Oil Co., A. C. Stinson, D. MacDonald, J. M. Griffin, J. S. Davidson, D. A. Brownlee, I. W. Emmerson, Norman and Alfred Baird, E. A. Hopewell, Campbell Sandstone Quarries, G. H. Thomas, Elmer Henry, Est. of Dr. H. B. Moffatt, Phyllis B. Earner, Eva E. Leftly, Walter S. Craig, Est. of Clara B. Craig, P. Kealy, Wm. Bergin, Board of Trade, Orville Scharfe,
M.	A. Christie, R. J. Foster, L. F. Foster, J. M. Baird, Gustave Berthold, N. E. Good-fellow, John Bompas, Robert Campeau, C. M. Sheahan, Reginald Bruce, Mona Kustaski, Henry Steendam, L. E. Duck, L. O. Vincent, J. J. Florence, Ableson & Marcus, Bruce Macdonald, Pyrofax Gas, H. J. McFarland Construction Ltd., Lorenzo Leduc, K. Cale-goure.


EXPROPRIATION OF LAND FOR GREEN
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Have the provisions of the National Capital Act in matters of expropriation of private property 
for green belt purposes ever been challenged in the courts and, if so, when and with what result?
2.	What is the real purpose of the green belt?
3.	What other uses does the national capital commission plan for expropriated green belt land?
Answer: 1. No.
2.	To control the location of growth of the urban population; to provide sites for parks, beaches, golf courses and other public recreational areas; to reserve land for government use in the future; to prevent urban sprawl and ribbon development along the main access highways, thereby providing attractive approaches to the capital; to utilize marginal farm lands for reforestation and conservation of wildlife; to protect land for continuing use as general and specialized farming and market gardening.
3.	Such other uses as may be approved by the governor in council from time to time.


RESALE OF EXPROPRIATED LAND
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What was the price paid for land in lots 26 and 27, Ottawa front 2 expropriated by the national capital commission on March 31, 1964 under expropriation order 319750?
2.	What profit was made by the national capital commission by subsequent resale of the major portion of this land?
3.	What profit has the national capital commission made since its inception by expropriating land from private citizens and subsequently reselling it?
4.	Is land expropriated from an individual and subsequently shown to have been expropriated unnecessarily, offered back first to the original owners at the price for which it was originally expropriated and, if not, for what reason?
Answer: 1. $8,750 plus $839.17 for assumption of liability to hydro, totalling $9,589 for 3.9 acres.
2.	Some 3.2 acres of the property expropriated by instrument No. 319750 were sold to the Ottawa public school board on May 10, 1960 as part of a block of land comprising 18.2 acres which was sold for $72,800. Thus, the cost in 1954 was about $2,575 per acre and the selling price in 1960, averages $4,000 per acre indicating a profit of about $1,525 per acre or a total of $4,880.
3.	Profits made by the national capital commission since February 8, 1959, for properties which have been expropriated and subsequently sold, amount to $310,272 for 48 parcels of land comprising 4,386 acres.
4.	The national capital commission requires the authority of the governor in council to carry out expropriations. It does not expropriate unnecessarily, although occasionally after an expropriation, plans change which

might require the disposal of property. Should this occur, immediately after expropriation, authority is sought for the government to return the property to the former owner by sale or abandonment, should the former owner wish to regain title to it. After it has held the property for a reasonable length of time adjacent urban developments generally preclude turning back the property to the former owners.


EASTERN EXTENSION OF PARKWAY
Mr. Thompson: 1.	In view of the recent statement by the associate minister of defence that the R.C.A.F. will retain Rockcliffe airport, what plans does the government now have for the eastern extension of the Ottawa river parkway?
2.	Had the national capital commission approached the R.C.A.F. authorities about the use of Rockcliffe airport for the proposed parkway before engaging in expropriation of homes to the east of the airport?
3.	Has the national capital commission departed from the principles of the Greber plan, in connection with the protection of the property rights of riverside owners in the development at Riverside Parkways?
4.	Has the national capital commission expropriated private homes because "houses of different shapes and sizes and colours are not wanted along the driveway"?
Answer: 1. When the fiscal situation warrants, it is proposed to extend the Ottawa river parkway from Rockcliffe park easterly along the Ottawa river across Rockcliffe airport to the vicinity of Green's creek.
2.	Yes, discussion with officials of Department of National Defence.
3.	No.
4.	No.


EXPROPRIATION OF HOMES IN ROTHWELL HEIGHTS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Has the national capital commission considered the routing of the eastern driveway along Duck island and, if so, was this consideration made prior to or after the expropriation of homes in Rothwell Heights?
2.	Has this alternative been rejected and, if so, on what grounds?
3.	Have the affected resident been allowed to make any technical submission on the matter as they requested and, if not, has their right of a fair nearing, as guaranteed under the bill of rights been protected?
Answer: 1. General consideration was given to the routing of the parkway along Duck island prior to the expropriation but detailed consideration to the proposal was not given until after the expropriation of the homes in Rothwell Heights.
Questions
2.	The use of Duck island was rejected as being a much poorer location for the parkway since it would be traversing a comparatively narrow island, would be aesthetically less attractive and it would be more costly.
3.	Yes.


ARDA-PROJECTS COMPLETED AND UNDER STUDY
Mr. Gauthier: With reference to ARDA, for the period ending 31 March, 1964 (a) how many projects have been completed in each of the provinces and in what amounts (b) how many projects have been forwarded to the federal government, by each of the provinces (c) how many projects are still under study for each of the provinces and, in what amounts (d) how many projects have been proposed to the federal government relating to Ro-berval constituency and, in what locality is each situated (e) how many projects were completed in Roberval constituency, in what amounts and, in what localities (f) how many projects in Roberval constituency are still under study, in what amounts and, in what localities?

[Editor's note: The answer to this question appears on page 4924-1 [Text]


AERIAL SURVEYS OF JAMES BAY DISTRICT
Mr. Laprise: 1.	For what purpose is the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys carrying out a series of aerial surveys of the James bay islands and territories?
2.	Will these surveys be used in the realization of the Grand canal project?


William Moore Benidickson: 1. The surveys being
carried out by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in the James bay area are required for completion of reconnaissance maps presently being compiled by the department and to provide more detailed maps of areas in Quebec and Ontario where geological, forestry inventory and water power investigations are under way.
2. These surveys and the resultant maps will be of value to the study of any project that might be proposed for these areas. The surveys had been requested and planned long before there was any suggestion of the so-called grand canal.


KEJIMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: Will the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources advise on the progress being made on the development of the Kejimkujik national park in Queens county, Nova Scotia?


Arthur Laing: Until the land is transferred by the provincial government, development of the property cannot go beyond the planning stage. The boundary survey has been carried

Questions
out by the provincial government and the acquisition of private properties by the province is about two thirds complete.
The national parks branch has in hand planning surveys, including ground surveys this summer, for use in preparing an overall development plan in anticipation of an early start on development of these lands after they are turned over to the federal government as a national park (see also my reply of May 25, 1964 to 
question No. 1,061- Hansard, page 3530).


* TERMINATION OF PRINTING OF BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Loney: Was any direction given since April, 1963, by any member of the government, either directly or indirectly, to the queen's printer to terminate the printing of further copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in illuminated parchment form and, if so, by whom, and on what date?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


INFORMATION ON LIFE INSURANCE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was the superintendent of insurance ever asked by Professor J. J. Brown for figures concerning term or any other form of insurance as stated at page 136 of his publication "Life Insurance- Benefit or Fraud" and, if so, was such information provided?
2.	Did the superintendent of insurance refuse to provide such information and, if so, on what grounds was such refusal made?
3.	What was the percentage of term sold in Canada, by the Brown definition of it, in the last year for which the government has records?
Answer: 1. The department has no record and the superintendent of insurance has no recollection of ever having received such an inquiry from Professor J. J. Brown. If an inquiry was received, the information could not have been provided since it is not available from the department's records.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The data supplied by the annual statements of the companies deposited in the department do not show the amount of renewable and convertible term insurance separately from other term insurance; hence the information requested is not available from the department's records.


CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION REQUEST RESPECTING CANNED FISH
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the request of the consumers association of Canada that the Department of Fisheries review government grades for canned fish sold in Canada, and to establish regulations to enforce the compulsory use of these grades?

Answer: The department is aware of requests by the Canadian consumers association of Canada and will give close consideration to this matter.


RECOVERY OF CANADIAN PROPERTY IN POLAND
Mr. Kennedy: What action is the government taking to assist Canadian citizens to recover their property in Poland, which was lost to them due to action of the authorities of that country?


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Representations have been made to the Polish government through diplomatic channels with a view to negotiations toward a settlement providing just compensation for claims of Canadian citizens in respect of nationalized properties. There is at present no agreement between Canada and Poland on the basis for such negotiations but the question is under active review and every effort is being made to achieve some progress on these claims.


OWEN SOUND, ONT.  HARBOUR LADDERS
Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works been informed that the ladders on the walls of the Owen Sound harbour are not out of reach of anyone falling into the water, and may have contributed to a drowning there last week?
2.	If so, would the minister give prompt attention to having these ladders lengthened as well as installing more ladder accommodation?


Mr. Deschalelels:: 1. The department was informed of the condition of the ladders in a letter dated June 17, 1954, from the city clerk of Owen Sound.
2. Yes, the department has instructed the district engineer to take whatever remedial measures that are necessary.


* PROSPECTIVE LOSS OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY FINANCE MINISTER
Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister of Finance any indication that the government service is losing one of the assistant deputy ministers of the Department of Finance to private industry and, if so, has the minister any indication of the reasons for such a separation?


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Pigeon: For each federal electoral constituency, what is the name and address of each lawyer and notary

who has acted on behalf of the Department of Justice since April 22, 1963?
Return tabled.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 884 was made an order for return. That question was asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). I understand he feels the answer or the documents brought forward in reply cover substantially question No. 909 and, therefore, he is prepared to withdraw that question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in reference to the question I asked the Postmaster General last Friday about a contract that had been awarded to the original tenderer and has been extended, starting tomorrow, for another four years when there has been another bid this year at a lower price.
Last Friday the parliamentary secretary told me the minister would answer the question, and today I received a letter dated June 24 which reads:

This is in reply to your letter of June 12, to which was annexed a copy of a letter from Mr. Marcel Pinette, 524 Letoumeau street, Thetford Mines, Quebec, who would like to tender for parcel delivery in Thetford Mines.
As mentioned in your letter, the present contract concerning this service expires on June 30. However, I must tell you that tenders will not be invited for the service, because we have authorized the contract renewal to the present contractor for a four year period commencing on July 1, 1964.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is to the effect that the minister has written in black and white that he has awarded the contract to the present contractor for a four year period, while this letter was written on June 24.
20220-306J
29, 1964	4813
Inquiries of the Ministry

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the holder of this contract died a week ago last Friday. I do not know how the Postmaster General could award a contract to a person who has been deceased for a week and who, prior to that, was paralysed and in hospital for four months. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I said it would be cheaper to have a second tender called, but now I find that original holder of the contract was deceased at the time the minister wrote me this letter and at the time he granted a renewal of this contract for another four years.	,
In the light of the answer given to me by the minister I would ask him to clarify these points and inform the house as to the motive of the department in refusing to ask for new bids on this contract. At the moment I am under the impression-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must make up its mind as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. It is obvious that there is a ground for complaint, but as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege I very much doubt, especially in the circumstances. However, the hon. member has made his complaint. I am sure it has been noted, and I am sure that steps will be taken to correct any injustice.


Raymond Langlois: I agree, Mr. Speaker; the only thing I should like to get clear is that if the minister does not clarify the point he either lied to me or he is completely incompetent to do the job he is doing now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister have a statement to make to the house following the extraordinary cabinet meeting this morning to which he had convened all the ministers at nine a.m., including the Minister of Forestry who had to cut short his holiday in Italy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing extraordinary about the meeting of cabinet this morning, and not all the ministers were recalled. There were some who were absent

Inquiries of the Ministry who I asked to turn up because I thought they could cancel the engagements they had undertaken. The meeting was a normal meeting to discuss the situation with regard to a program for work in July arising out of the discussions in the house last Friday.
As a result of this cabinet meeting this morning, certain proposals were submitted by my hon. friend the house leader to the house leaders of the other parties. These proposals were, I believe, considered at noon today as a possible program of work during the month of July. I understand there is to be another meeting to continue these discussions tomorrow.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it still the intention of the government to proceed with the flag debate before adjournment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should not make a statement until the meetings have been completed. I understand they have been adjourned until tomorrow. I should not like to make any announcement until these meetings are completed, although an announcement will have to be made tonight, at the end of today's sitting, as to the business for tomorrow.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us on what day or days the resolutions preceding the student loan legislation and the latest version of the Canada pension plan will be placed on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the house the exact date. But this is also under consideration, as my hon. friend knows, in the timetable of priority legislation, and I can assure him that the legislation which it is agreed should be considered before the recess will be ready for such consideration.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
order to celebrate the elevation of the Minister of National Revenue I wish to ask him a kindly question. Would the minister inform the house why the income tax branch forwards refunds due residents in Quebec


to the provincial ministry of revenue direct, and would he inform the house as to the legal basis for such an unusual procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member this is a good question for the order paper.



BELLEVILLE, ONT.-QUARTERLY PAYMENTS BY PENSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Sienson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the new Minister of National Revenue and at the same time offer him my congratulations on his appointment. Would the minister look into the problem that has been created by the tax department at the Belleville office? Many pensioners who for the last ten years have been paying their income tax at the end of each year now find themselves assessed a penalty for not remitting their tax every three months, yet these people have never had any notice that they should pay this tax quarterly. Does the minister not feel these people should have been informed of this before being assessed such a penalty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would put this question on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received any communication from the railways as to whether they reject or accept the majority report of the conciliation board in connection with the non-operating employees dispute.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, I have received no communication from the presidents of the railways.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Minister of Labour tell the house the basis upon which the dispute regarding the ship in New Westminster, was settled last week end? The minister will recall that members were disturbed by a dispute which had arisen over a ship, the Alaska. Press

reports said it had been settled, but no information has been given as to the basis upon which it was settled. I wonder if the minister could tell the house something about it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend will be aware that a representative of the board of trustees announced on the west coast that the matter had been settled. Basing my information on the announcement of the settlement, I may say that apparently the S.I.U. has agreed to withhold negotiations pending efforts by the trustees to create a seamen's union representing ships' officers in Canada. Officials of the merchant service guild and the Canadian transport and general workers have agreed to withhold attempts to reach an agreement or attempt certification on behalf of the officers of the vessel. The statement does add that the unions have found no common ground for agreement on the issues involved or on the proposed single union for officers.
However, the unions, apparently acting in the public interest, have agreed to suspend, or at least settle the matter at this stage, in an effort to prevent any disruption of shipping. This is all the information I have with regard to the settlement, and presumably it was with the voluntary consent of all parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the matter has not really been settled and there has been merely a temporary armistice, may I ask the minister if the representative of the maritime trustees will continue to attempt to find some common ground so the matter can be permanently settled.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be my expectation that the trustees would continue their efforts to reach a long term settlement. It may be that the issue will hinge on a single union for officers. The trustees have already expressed their views on this matter. They have refused to recognize the establishment of S.I.U. jurisdiction over the officers on this particular ship.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make inquiries concerning the story that the trustees ordered the unions concerned to stop picketing? If that is true, what right had they to do that? Will he also make inquiries as to whether the trustees approved the sending of engineers from Montreal to Vancouver to fill these positions, when there were unemployed engineers in Vancouver at the time?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the trustees did issue a warning against picketing in the interests of calming the situation on the west coast. It is obvious that the trustees would have no jurisdiction over the longshoremen in this situation, so that whatever statement was issued in their connection would be purely an admonition. With respect to the second part of the question, I shall be glad to ascertain whether in fact the trustees were aware or did approve of this particular movement of officers from Montreal to the west coast.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: May I
ask the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker, if he will tell the house whether on the assumption of his new functions he is going to be responsible for C.M.H.C. in this house.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih):: I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the reply of the Minister for National Revenue that he will not be responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the enormous amount of work which will be required to implement the far reaching changes we adopted recently with respect to the National Housing Act, would the Prime Minister consider the need to appoint a full time minister of housing in charge of a ministry of housing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This would, of course, require legislation, and I cannot contemplate legislation of that kind, however important or desirable it might be, receiving the approval of the house in the immediate future. But I would be glad to give consideration to this request, because I appreciate the importance of the work.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the Postmaster General not responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? Was it not transferred to him some time ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right. The Postmaster General is now responsible.

Inquiries oj the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



REPORTED INVESTIGATION RESPECTING HANDLING OP FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is an investigation respecting funds going on within the R.C.M.P. and, if so, will the minister undertake to give the House of Commons a report on this matter so the good name and high reputation of this distinguished force will not be besmirched by a lot of speculation that may be unfounded?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as there are always a number of disciplinary matters being investigated within the R.C.M.P. under the act and the regulations, I believe it would not be in the public interest if, for the moment, I were to divulge any of the matters presently being considered. However, I may tell the hon. gentleman and the house that to the extent that a report on the outcome of any such matter as has been alluded to may be given to me, I shall be pleased to report to the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question I would like to draw to the minister's attention that reports have already appeared in the press to this effect. Therefore I would ask him does he not think in fairness to the R.C.M.P. that some kind of statement should be made to exonerate the R.C.M.P. from this kind of speculation?


Guy Favreau: As is well known, Mr. Speaker, the R.C.M.P. deals with all disciplinary matters in a way which is independent from the minister, although eventually reports have to be made to the minister on them. There is a minimum of intervention on the part of the minister at a certain stage, and I repeat that it would not be in the public interest if I were to comment on this situation now. For that reason any report which may have been given in the press ought to be considered as at least speculative.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. When will the minister take the
IMr. Pearson.]
members of this house into his confidence with respect to the government's proposed new policy on Indian affairs, as outlined by Mr. Walter Rudnicki, director of the welfare division of the department, in today's Globe and Mail?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the statements made by Mr. Rudnicki which only deal with minor changes in the policy of the department concerning Indian affairs.
I hope very soon that I will be in a position to announce a comprehensive program on the community affairs of Indians.


Richard Russell Southam: As a supplementary question, would the minister advise the house at that time whether he will be prepared to make a statement on the establishment of an Indian affairs claims commission?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the department is considering at present the requests and recommendations made by various Indian groups in this country and I hope to submit very soon changes in the legislation concerning Indian claims.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether these statements, which he says were in relation to minor matters only, were policy changes.


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, these are administrative changes only. As soon as a new general policy is established, I shall make an announcement to the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
Could the minister tell us if any progress was made in the negotiations concerning tariff concessions to the Peugeot and Renault enterprises designed to facilitate their establishing themselves in the province of Quebec?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: statement on motions tomorrow on this Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that matter the matter, other day and I would ask the hon. member
not to question me on it.	TRANSPORT


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to know whether any progress had been achieved in the negotiations.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: Could the minister tell us if the Peugeot and Renault company has already taken an option on some land in the Thetford Mines region where survey operations are now being carried out?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not say. IText]



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Department of External Affairs carrying out any investigation into the claim of the Dartmouth chamber of commerce that officials of Canada house indicated to three British doctors that they should go to other parts of Canada to settle, rather than the maritime provinces, because of the depressed economy in that area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard of this matter. I shall be glad to inquire into it.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of an answer he gave me on Friday regarding an inquiry into the economic effects of separation. In view of the statements by the Leader of the Opposition over the week end, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider making a statement of clarification on motions so that other members might comment upon it, and perhaps in this way set at rest the quite unwarranted fears being raised by the irresponsible statements of the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to make a



REPORT ON PROPOSED CROSSING OF NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether he plans to table a report, recently made available to the government, regarding studies on a proposed crossing of Northumberland strait by means of a bridge or tunnel?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be in order at this time to table the report. Phase 1 report is now under examination by consultants, but as soon as it is possible to make any announcement with respect to this project this will be done immediately.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Would the minister be so kind as to give serious consideration to the possibility of having further naval refits allocated to Point Edward naval base to retard the weekly layoff of personnel now going on and assist in preventing the unemployment rolls from increasing?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can inform the hon. member that although it would not be possible to have another frigate refitted at the Point Edward naval base, consideration is being given to having auxiliary vessels refitted there.



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN STAFF REDUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: May I
address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence, who I understand is the minister responsible. In the light of complaints about the procedures being followed or not being followed with regard to the reduction of defence staff, is the minister reviewing this situation, and will he be making an announcement in the house shortly so that

Inquiries of the Ministry the fears of many people in the defence forces who have mortgages and other payments to meet may be allayed? I am receiving information personally that a great many of these people are disturbed. Seniority is not being completely followed, and they feel there is discrimination. I know the minister has received complaints. I wonder if he would review these procedures and make a statement to the house in clarification of this situation.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No complaints have been made to me personally. However, 1 would be happy to look into any complaints which the hon. member may have received.



ARMAMENT OF EUROPEAN AIR DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence when he is going to fulfil his obligation to make the Canadian air division in Europe an effective fighting force. I ask this in view of news reports that it has no armament, nuclear or conventional, at the present time.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I must advise the hon. gentleman that he should not give so much credence to news reports. No. 3 wing and No. 4 wing in Europe have been operational for some time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does that mean they are equipped with nuclear arms and that some of the planes are standing on quick action alert?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a further question concerning the air division in Europe. How many of the squadrons of the air division in Europe are armed with conventional weapons? If there are none, is it his intention that some of them shall be so armed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The policy has been clearly stated a number of times. The primary role of squadrons in Nos. 3 and 4 wings will be a strike role and they will have a secondary non-nuclear attack role. The primary role of the squadrons stationed at No. 1 wing at Marville will be reconnaissance. They will have a secondary, non-nuclear support role.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister mind answering my question? Are any of the squadrons now equipped with conventional weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All squadrons in No. 1 wing are being equipped with reconnaissance equipment. I do not know whether this qualifies in the hon. gentleman's terminology. If he means other non-nuclear weapons, the answer at this moment is no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does a photographic camera come under the heading of conventional weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not really know, after the hon. gentleman's opinion with respect to what small arms were; I am not sure how he uses this terminology.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he followed with great interest the march on the Quebec legislature of 12,000 or 15,000 farmers and that he noted that approximately 10,000 producers of fluid milk obtained an increase of 20c. per cwt. on the milk they sold $5 per cwt. This is my question. Does the minister intend to recommend an increase of 20c. per cwt. for the 60,000 Quebec dairy farmers who at present obtain from $2.80 to $3 per cwt. for their milk, before those farmers decide to march on parliament in Ottawa.


Harry William Hays: In answer to the hon. member's question, tomorrow I will prepare a report on the basis of figures from the Canadian bureau of statistics giving the exact price for milk. I believe he needs more information. The price is much better than he insinuates.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to forward this information to the farmers who are now getting ready to come to Ottawa?



CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CROP REINSURANCE LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister tell the house whether it is his intention to proceed with the crop reinsurance legislation before the start of the summer recess?


Harry William Hays: I suppose a lot would depend on how we progress with the present legislation.


Raymond Langlois: Would the Minister of Agriculture consider extending these crop insurance provisions to cover eastern farmers, too?


Harry William Hays: The crop reinsurance bill will apply to all the provinces and all the farmers in Canada when it is passed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, following the questions already asked, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent problem to be settled, is it the intention of the government to put on the order paper, before the summer recess, a measure concerning feed grain, so as to assist the eastern farmers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The program of work before any summer recess can be considered is now, as I have just said, under consideration by house leaders.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he inform the house whether the crop reinsurance legislation is on the priority list to be dealt with before the summer recess starts?


Harry William Hays: I do not think this will be dealt with before the recess.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Would the Secretary of State now answer a question, which I am sure he had time to inquire into over the week end; that is the question I asked
Inquiries of the Ministry him on Friday concerning whether resignations had been tendered by some C.B.C. staff over the Pearson film fiasco?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the C.B.C. that the answer is still no.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply at the same time to the question the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me last week. I received the following information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The C.B.C. has already informed the house that its board of directors had decided not to show the said film. The board of directors feel that to sell the film would simply run counter to the decision already taken.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I gave him notice.
Following his interview in Ottawa with the representatives of the city of Montreal and the Quebec government, can the minister tell the house whether an agreement has been reached regarding the taxes which will be levied on the exhibitors at the world fair by the three governments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As a result of the meeting referred to by the hon. member, the federal government has announced to the public the way in which taxes will be applied to foreign governments, provincial governments and commercial exhibitors. My understanding is that the provincial government in so far as sales tax and income tax are concerned are applying similar rules, and the city of Montreal will probably do likewise. So I can say to the

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman that we have reached agreement as to the appropriate taxes to be paid, and we are trying to work them out in parallel.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his capacity as minister responsible for the world fair. Does he intend to grant the request made by public bodies and exempt exhibitors from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as foreign and provincial governments are concerned, the 11 per cent sales tax does not apply. It would only apply to commercial exhibitors, and there is no intention at the present time of exempting them.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Knowing that meetings are now taking place and will take place in the next few days concerning the water level in the great lakes and in Montreal harbour, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government of the state of Michigan has invited the Canadian government to attend the said meetings?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into it. I know of no invitation to any such meeting.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house whether the negotiations between Canada and the United States with respect to cost sharing of the Alaska highway improvement are yet concluded; and if not, is an early conclusion contemplated by the minister?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of conclusion at the

moment, because the discussions with the United States are just starting. In addition, the Department of Public Works is making a survey of the highway as it exists today, to get some estimate of the requirements which might be necessary in relocation and with regard to costs of improving and even paving those sections that can be paved or are ready for paving at this time.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Because it affects something that is happening right now, I hope Your Honour will allow me to ask the direct question at this time. All members coming into this house see the concrete work that is going on outside the peace tower, and I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether this contract was let on a time, material and profit basis. I think it is an important question, because every morning when I arrive at 8.30 I find they are rebuilding this tubular scaffolding, and they take it down at night. Why in the name of heavens, on a job like this, would you tear down the scaffolding every night and rebuild it the next morning?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I think I should take this question as notice and report to the house tomorrow.



APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (for fhe Minister of
Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-105, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1965.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the understanding which we had late last Friday afternoon when we passed the resolution preceding this bill, when it was understood by the house that we would be able, on the first clause, to discuss matters of general

Importance in the same manner as we could had we the resolution before us, I shall speak for a very few moments-and I emphasize "a very few moments"-not because the matter to which I am going to draw the attention of the committee is unimportant but because I know there are other members of the committee who wish to speak on this matter. I do not want to take up too much time, so other members may be able to deal with this matter fairly quickly.
I am glad the Minister of Industry is in the chamber because I wish to refer particularly to the matter of industrial development, to which reference has been made from time to time, with particular reference to the province of Nova Scotia. This matter has been discussed at various times, and it was discussed particularly during the last election campaign. I am not going to take up the time of the committee by putting on the record lengthy statements which were made by hon. members opposite in connection with this matter, but I am going to give one or two short quotes. I hope that as a result we will have not only a discussion by hon. members on this side of the chamber but also by some on the other side including the Minister of Industry.
During the last election the then leader of the opposition, now the right hon. Prime Minister, said that a federal agency for the -development of economically backward areas would be created by this government. He also said that these areas would prosper with the rest of Canada if Liberal policies were carried into effect. He went on to say that a few parts of Canada would benefit especially, such as the maritime provinces, if this legislation were enacted.
The present government took over the treasury benches and various steps were taken. The Minister of Finance brought in certain incentive legislation to provide an impetus to the establishment of industry in the maritime provinces and other areas of Canada. I am not sure of the value of those incentives. This has yet to be proven, because the incentives will depend upon the co-opera-ration of the federal government, provincial governments and particularly private industry. It may be they will have some effect and purpose; it may be they will not.
We are now facing a situation in this committee where the minister who is responsible for the inauguration of these policies, the minister who is responsible for the development of these areas, made a statement in the house, or outside it, a short time ago with
Appropriation Bill
reference to certain contracts which were applicable to the maritime provinces and to Nova Scotia, saying that these would be terminated and the subject matter of the contracts would be transferred to other parts of Canada, and in one particular case to the province of Quebec. We have heard these ancient arguments-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. member to say that I had made a statement in the house to the effect that this was going to be done?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure whether the minister made the statement in the house, but he made a statement to the effect that certain contracts would not be renewed and that the basic work which had hitherto been carried out in this area would be transferred. In the case of one firm in Nova Scotia, Fairey Aviation, this work would hereafter be transferred to another part of Canada.
We in Nova Scotia have been rather surfeited with the ancient arguments as to why industry could not be established in the maritimes, and Nova Scotia in particular, to the effect that it was too far removed from the centre of Canada and that transportation costs are too high; therefore, unfortunately, it would be impossible to establish or maintain industries in the province because of the geographical factor.
This particular contract to which I have made reference has to do with equipment and material manufactured for anti-submarine work. It has to do with contracts which have heretofore been carried out by plants on the Atlantic seaboard, particularly the plant of Fairey Aviation Company on the Atlantic seaboard, which supply and furnish material for anti-submarine work on the Atlantic coast and in the Atlantic ocean. There is always the necessity for anti-submarine precautions on both coasts, but I think the members of this committee and the public generally would agree that there is a greater need for the development of anti-submarine projects on the Atlantic coast.
So there we have a plant which is efficient, which employs a large number of people, and which is producing material and equipment required at its very door. There can be no question of transportation costs there. There can be no question of being removed from the market. It seems to me very ironical, in fact it is the height of irony, that the minister responsible for the development of these great programs for these areas which they promised is the one who has stated that some of these contracts would be terminated.

Appropriation Bill
It is true that since then he has said in the house that this decision would be reconsidered, and that gives us some ground for optimism and for hope. For we know from our experience of this government that when a certain matter is reconsidered the policy is usually reversed and something else is developed, so we have some reason to think that having said they will reconsider the matter we will have these contracts reestablished on the Atlantic coast.
This is only one example of several which could be given, but I will not take the time of the committee by going into other areas. However, I should say by way of explanation that I am not suggesting for a moment that the province of Nova Scotia is necessarily one of the backward areas to which general references were made during the election campaign. When you read the record of what occurred last week in Nova Scotia and realize that the premier of the province took part in the inauguration of a huge refinery costing millions of dollars and in the opening of another fishery plant costing, I think, $10 million, you could hardly state that Nova Scotia was a backward area. But we do say that when this government was in opposition they promised the policy, a policy which appealed to the people, that they would inaugurate projects to assist that area. This particular industry-and this type of manufacturing has particular appeal-is centred in an area where all the advantages are in its favour, and we do not propose to have the old argument that it is away from the market and so on re-established or repeated.
In addition, we do not propose to have reestablished in other parts of Canada industries which have been established in our part of the country; industries which are successful, efficient and economic, and which should have the support of the government. The government of which I had the honour to be a member saw that the company to which I have referred received contracts in that area for development of anti-submarine work because it was a company particularly fitted to do this type of work, one which, as I said, had the market at its very door.
We have succeeded in establishing various industries in this region. A question was asked this afternoon-indeed several questions have been directed to the minister in this connection-regarding the establishment of an automobile plant somewhere in Canada. We blazed the trail and established an automobile plant in Nova Scotia; a great international company set up a plant there. We

hope the present government will be successful in establishing plants wherever they may deem advisable in other areas; but in this particular instance we are dealing, as I said, with an area which is particularly qualified to serve a particular industry, and we do not intend to stand idly by and see contracts which have been in Nova Scotia for some time and for which the firm concerned is especially fitted and suited transferred to other parts of the country, or to see the industrial life of Nova Scotia diminish at the expense of other parts of Canada.
That is why I am speaking briefly to this matter, and I speak briefly because I realize other hon. members have other matters with which they wish to deal. The minister may, if he likes, reply now, or he may wish to hear other references which will be made. With that I will leave this particular matter at this time because, as I said, there are other hon. members who may have something to say in connection with it.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with close attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and I can assure you that what he has said regarding Nova Scotia in particular and the maritime provinces in general has my full support and, I am sure, the support of all members of the House of Commons who come from that part of Canada.
My constituency of Cumberland finds itself in a position not dissimilar to the constituency of Halifax with regard to cut-backs in defence work. I would also say that the situation in my constituency is not dissimilar to that of many areas in the maritimes. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made mention of the statements of visiting politicians during the 1963 election campaign, and to the pie in the sky atmosphere they endeavoured to create in our area of Canada regarding the great and wonderful things which would be done if only a Liberal government were elected to office. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the people of the maritime provinces have now had a taste of a Liberal government after watching one in action for a year, and after having seen a Conservative government in action for six years prior thereto. I am sure if given the opportunity they would far rather have the pie in the sky which was offered and contributed to by the Conservative government than the type of pie which has been provided by the present government during its short stint in office to date.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but it we go back beyond 1957-I do not want to take a great deal of time in going back to the 22 years of Liberal government this country was forced to put up with-I am sure many will recall statements made by Liberal speakers of the day who told us that while they could not attract industry to our area, they would assist us by establishing national defence projects which would give stability to our economy. Even though we would not be allowed to have the type of living which might be available to other areas of Canada, we would be provided either with a lower standard of living which we would get used to or we would be provided with a one way ticket out.
Now, unfortunately, we find ourselves in the position where another Liberal government is cutting back on the very thing which they once told us would form the base of our economy, namely defence establishments. Over the years a great many defence establishments have been located in the maritime provinces, and certainly they have provided a great deal of employment for the people. In many instances defence establishments were located in areas where other types of employment were not available and in many cases still are not available to the people. All of a sudden the government finds it is not able to balance the budget as it told the people of Canada it was going to do. It is not able to do a great many of the things that it told the people of Canada it was going to do. As a matter of fact, it is so hard pressed for money that it has started to cut back on the commitments made by the former Conservative administration with regard to national defence. In making these cut-backs it has not shown the consideration it should have for the maritime provinces as a particular area of Canada where chronic unemployment is a factor that must be given special consideration. It has proceeded to cut back and slash defence contracts, and thus throw people out of work in areas where they cannot just walk down the street to another plant and secure the employment they desire.
At the same time the province of Nova Scotia, as the hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings has stated, has been pushing forward and doing a tremendous job locating new industries. But it would be difficult indeed for the province to keep pace with the cutbacks and lay-offs that have taken place in Nova Scotia since this government took office. There must be a change of attitude on the part of this government or Nova Scotia,
Appropriation Bill
even with the enlightened leadership it is receiving from Premier Stanfield and the great industrial growth it is experiencing at the present time under his leadership, will still encounter tremendous difficulties because of the slashes now being made in a very unorthodox way by the present government.
I should like to deal specifically with what has happened in my area since the government took office, and compare the situation with what took place during the period we held office. In this regard I should like to quote from Hansard for May 5, 1964 at page 2963 when, during the period between 10 and 10.30, I raised this matter. I brought to the attention of the Minister of Industry the problems that were being created at Enamel and Heating Products aircraft division at Amherst as a result of the lack of overhaul and repair work from the Department of Defence Production. At that time the minister had this to say among other things:
Seeing this coming, the Department of Defence Production has encouraged aircraft overhaul orga-izations to seek production sharing work and has been prepared and has in fact provided considerable assistance to firms in securing contracts on a competitive basis with United States firms.
As the hon. member for Cumberland has pointed out, Enamel and Heating Products Limited have been more than usually successful in this particular regard. In this field they are one of the more enterprising and more successful companies. The Department of Defence Production has been concerned to see that the base from which they make their competitive bids in the United States will continue in operation, this base being provided by contracts from the Department of Defence Production for overhaul and repair of R.C.A.F. aircraft.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that agreement has been reached with the company on what I think is a workable arrangement. a workable and practicable level of work which will enable them successfully to carry out the contracts in the United States.
I was very pleased with the statement made by the Minister of Industry in the house that evening. Indeed, I am not saying at this time that he is any less enthusiastic about keeping the word he gave me that evening than he was then. But I must say to him, and I am sure he will agree I am being fair, where is the work? Having had a good deal to do with the securing of contracts for this plant, I realize that you do not make a decision today and have it carried into effect tomorrow. That is not the way contracts of this nature develop. At the same time, however, that was May 5; we have almost reached the 1st of July, and the men who were laid off at that time are still unemployed. The company is still without the necessary work load to enable it to achieve

Appropriation Bill
the necessary production costs to honour its commitments so that the company will not face bankruptcy.
I do not know just where the matter stands now, but I do know that when I was home recently I found that the employees of that plant were in a great state of consternation as a result of the long lay-off which they had not anticipated once the minister's statement had been made. I found the union, which is endeavouring to negotiate a contract with the company at the present time, in a very difficult position with respect to its members. I have no doubt that the management of the company are in a most difficult position with regard to the union. How can the company negotiate a wage contract with its employees when it has no idea exactly where it is going to stand tomorrow or the next day or the day after? I also had my attention directed to a copy of a telegram which was sent to the minister and which reads as follows:
Following your pronouncement in the House of Commons on May 5/64 we received advice from your department as well as Canadair that steps were being taken to restore our defence activity to a work level and we passed this information on to the union to maintain excellent labour relations, but as a result of the long delay they are becoming quite restless and losing confidence in our promises.
Furthermore, acting on this promise we proceeded with negotiations with American contractors and have so far received additional American contracts for about a million dollars but due to the delay and the large loss we suffered in operations in May and so far this month we will have to take steps to abandon these contracts and lay off further men in order to husband our resources as well as effecting the economies in every direction including the cancellation of our participation in the Department of Trade and Commerce Glasgow fair and other foreign exhibitions. At the request of your department we have withheld giving information to newspapers and other government circles, but Fairey is evidently supplying newspapers with considerable inside information and in as much as Halifax is one of the most prosperous areas in the maritime provinces and receive the largest proportion of government expenditures we feel that the Halifax newspapers who advocate assistance to depressed areas are giving every good reason why the proposed contracts should be placed with us immediately even at the expense of Fairey because we are operating in a depressed area.
Certainly there is no good news for the minister in that telegram. There is certainly no good news for my area if this company should follow through with the allegations made in the telegram. It would be a dark day indeed for the county of Cumberland if the aircraft division of Enamel and Heating were to close down and throw out of work what remains of the usual work force of 265 people.

At the same time this plant, which has a rolling mill division in my constituency, suffered a great misfortune through fire last Wednesday, June 24. The result will be that another 200 employees will be out of work in my constituency. I do not know for how long they will be out of work. Certainly this is a substantial operation and has been a very successful one. There are a tremendous number of contracts, as the minister is aware, waiting to be filled. The damage to the equipment by fire will delay the filling of these contracts, and I do not know how long we will have to wait before the operation will be revitalized.
I should like to make a few more comments about the aircraft division which I hope will give the committee an understanding of the aggressiveness that was displayed by the management of this firm during the period we were in office, and even today. If I may refer back to the telegram from which I just quoted, mention is made of the fact that the company recently secured another $1 million worth of work from United States firms under the defence production sharing arrangement. I should like to quote some figures to give an idea how this firm has procured progressively a greater amount of work from United States firms, and what the result has been from the defence production point of view with regard to the aggressiveness they have shown.
In 1961-62 government contracts coming from the Department of Defence Production amounted to $1,540,000. This was coupled with defence production sharing contracts amounting to $223,000, making a total of $1,763,000 worth of contracts in the plant in that year. In 1962-63 the Department of Defence Production provided $1,500,000 worth of contracts for the plant and the company secured $165,000 in production sharing contracts from firms in the United States, for a total amount of $1,665,000. This was the last full year we were in office.
In 1963-64 the amount of work secured from the Department of Defence Production was cut from $1,500,000 to $575,000, almost by two thirds. However, the company managed to secure contracts from the United States amounting to $1,243,000, which gave them a total of $1,818,000 for that year. In 1964-65 they suffered still another cut in the amount of work available from the Department of Defence Production. The amount they received directly from the defence production department amounted to $384,000, but they managed to secure $1,305,000 from

United States firms, giving them a total of $1,689,000.
Now, if I may give the comparison of production sharing work on a percentage basis, I think we will have a still better indication of the aggressiveness displayed by the management. In 1961-62 it was about 13.5 per cent; in 1962-63 it was less than 10 per cent; in 1963-64, it was 68.5 per cent, and in 1964-65 it will be over 75 per cent. When you compare this with what is happening today you almost wonder if the plant management would not have been better to sit on their fannies and let the government feed them work rather than go out, as they have done, into the United States to obtain work so the plant could be kept in operation. In other words, every time the company secured a contract from the United States as a result of its own aggressiveness, work was taken away from it by the Department of Defence Production in Ottawa. This is not exactly the type of reward one would expect the plant management to receive for outstanding effort in securing work.
I noted in the Saturday edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, that one of the Halifax members indicated he was making application to the government in the hope that there might be a solution that would allow Fairey Aviation of Halifax to keep the Argus repair and maintenance contract and subcontract the work out to Enamel and Heating, thereby providing them with much needed work if they are not going to close their doors as a result of high production costs which would result in the cancelling of the contracts now on hand from the United States firms.
The hon. member is to be commended for coming forward with a solution that might provide employment both in his area and in mine. However, I should like to say this. I do not usually throw cold water on a suggestion of any hon. member which might benefit the economy of Nova Scotia. However, I found in my dealings with the Department of Defence Production during the time I was a supporter of the government that there was always a great deal of difficulty associated with subcontracts. Enamel and Heating have had subcontracts with Fairey Aviation in the past and they have not worked out so far as I am concerned. As a matter of fact, I took steps to try to have the work come forward from Ottawa as a firm contract rather than as a subcontract so that difficulties would not develop between the two firms.
Appropriation Bill
My view is that we in the maritime provinces need all the defence work we can possibly get. Far be it for one firm in the mari-times to be fighting with another firm in the maritimes about how much work either one of them has. I believe this situation develops when you have subcontracts of the type that must be awarded to these firms when either firm might be able to do some of the work.
Then one firm says "I should be doing that work" and the other firm says "No, according to my contract it is quite justifiable for me to do this part of the work; therefore I am going to do it." That is the only concern I might have with the possible solution put forward by one of the members for Halifax.
There is a lot of merit in what he is endeavouring to do, and a solution must be found because both areas of Nova Scotia are going to suffer substantially unless we are able to secure a work load for our defence and aircraft plants that will allow those people presently employed in the plants to continue working. Certainly I think members from the Halifax area would be most concerned in view of the fact that only recently the Blandford radar base was closed and a great many people were thrown out of work.
If they are to be faced with another lay-off on top of the problems they already have with regard to the shipyards and unemployment related to shipbuilding, mainly as a result of the cancellation of the all purpose frigate program, they must appreciate, as I do, that the economy of our area cannot stand the knockout punch it is receiving from one cut-back after another.
I would like to make a special appeal to the Minister of Labour, who is our Nova Scotia representative in the cabinet, to endeavour to get construction of the penal institution at Springhill started as quickly as possible. A great deal of needless delay has been associated with this project, mainly resulting from patronage, something which should never have entered into the matter. We are now a year behind the scheduled construction of that institution and we are still without a firm date for the beginning of construction, and this in an area that must have the sympathy not only of the Minister of Labour but of people in all areas of the country. I refer to the hard luck town of Spring-hill which is so valiantly fighting back from almost complete disaster. I hope the minister will get together with his colleagues in the cabinet to see to it that tenders for this institution are called early in July and that

Appropriation Bill
work is undertaken as quickly as possible thereafter.
I know there are other hon. members from Nova Scotia who wish to take part in this debate. I hope they will emphasize as clearly as possible that Nova Scotia cannot continue to see a government effecting cut-backs in almost every area of defence. The province is only able to continue because of the very aggressive leadership it is receiving from Premier Stanfield.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on the general subject mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and to touch on a few of the comments made by the hon. member for Cumberland.
There is no question but that because of the nature of scientific developments and the easing of tensions there have been some cutbacks in defence spending during the past two years. We in the Nova Scotia area, being adjacent to the sea, were in the position that a substantial portion of the amount of money spent on defence was expended in our area. A substantial portion continues to be spent there, and I was somewhat appalled to hear the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggest that the defence cut-backs were something new, something that had occurred only since the Liberals came into office.
I recall only too well that in years gone by, when the hon. gentleman sat on the treasury benches, he said that Camp Aider-shot, located in his own constituency, would never close so long as he was in the government, but in time the only sound of marching feet in the Aldershot area was that of the army of the unemployed. The changing needs of scientific warfare and of our national security will always be such that military expenditures and military bases will come and go with the changing techniques.
I think all of us on this side of the chamber would agree that government defence funds should not be spent for the sole purpose of charity. While we in the Halifax area felt it was extremely unfortunate that the radar station at Beaverbank had to close, I think no one in Beaverbank would suggest that the base should be kept open at government expense if it were serving no useful purpose to the security of our nation. It is true that we have had some cut-backs in the field of defence expenditures in Nova Scotia, but if one looks at the national percentage of defence cuts that have occurred as a result of the easing of tensions one will

find that we in Nova Scotia, percentagewise, had a very high allotment of defence spending in that area and we suffered a smaller percentage cut in expenditures than many other areas in Canada. Of course on the other hand, because so much of our economy is based on the defence industry it can be more severely affected by cuts.
One has to look at the over-all economic picture. Despite the defence cut-backs that may have occurred in the Nova Scotia area, today the unemployment level in the province of Nova Scotia is lower, and substantially lower, than it was at any time during the years of the Conservative government. That, I suggest, is an over-all test of the policies of the government. I think the area development agency and the Department of Industry in general have been looking very carefully at the needs of Nova Scotia, as well as those of other regions, and I have very high hopes for this department and believe it will result in great benefits to our area.
At the present time we do have an unusual situation in defence cuts, involving Fairey Aviation and Enamel Heating, and I am fully in sympathy with the aims of the hon. member for Cumberland in maintaining employment in the Amherst area as well as in the Halifax area. Enamel Heating, like Fairey Aviation, has been an efficient plant, a plant that greatly aided the economy of the province. Unfortunately the aircraft industry in Canada today is such that across the country bases dealing with the overhaul and repair of aircraft have had to make serious cuts in employment. Some of them have gone completely out of business, and I believe the over-all cut-back in the amount of work available has been in the vicinity of 45 per cent. Fortunately these cut-backs were not felt in Halifax prior to now, and I am confident that when the minister has ample and full opportunity to explore all the elements of the matter no cut-backs will occur at this time.
We are in this position; while we in Nova Scotia accept cuts in defence spending when they are necessary, that is when a program is being phased out or when a weapon is found to be obsolete, we feel it should be the policy of any government to spend as large a portion as possible of defence production funds in the maritime region, and that industries in the area connected with defence production should receive priority. Otherwise the whole idea of the program of the Atlantic development board and other such bodies would be meaningless. So, while we say we

accept cut-backs in defence, we cannot accept proposals to transfer defence expenditure out of the maritime region to other regions. What we have we hold, in the field of defence expenditure. This must be the case if the economy of the maritime region is to have an opportunity to develop and become less and less dependant on government spending. This must surely be our policy in the maritime provinces because of the necessity of making cuts in other areas of the defence field.
With regard to Fairey Aviation, I wish to say that this industry was established in Halifax by the previous Liberal government. It is an efficient industry with a wonderful record. It has provided a great deal of employment, and today continues to provide more employment than all the industries set up by Industrial Estates in Halifax, Kings and Colchester counties put together. I do not say this in order to belittle in any way the efforts of Industrial Estates, because it is a fine organization-


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the hon. member give us the figures of employment in Fairey Aviation as opposed to the industries which have been assisted by Industrial Estates? Let us have the figures.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. gentleman is interested in figures, and that is good. But I was speaking of industries which were established. He referred to industries which were assisted. For instance, E. M. I. Cossor Ltd., in Dartmouth, was also established and brought into the constituency by the previous Liberal government. It was transferred from one plant site to another at a later time, but it was brought into the area by a Liberal government. It was in production in the Halifax area for some years.


George Clyde Nowlan: Could I have an answer to my question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. gentleman would like to have the exact figures. I will tell him that employment at Fairey Aviation is now in the vicinity of 750. While I cannot give him the exact figure for each of the small industries which have been established in those three counties, I suggest that if he takes the trouble to take the whole group and add up the numbers employed, he will find the result will not come to a larger number than 750 in those three countries. I would be very happy to hear from the hon. gentleman when he has done that.
As I was saying, Fairey Aviation has been a very important part of our economy, and
Appropriation Bill
we feel it must receive special consideration from the government accordingly. The Enamel Heating plant has an enviable record in the maritime provinces, and I want to say here and now that I am in a position, from conversations I have had, to know that contrary to the words of the hon. member from Cumberland, who seems to be expressing concern about employment at Enamel Heating a little late in the game, the Minister of Industry and Defence Production has been particularly concerned for some time about the problems of Enamel Heating and has been making every effort to find contracts for this plant at Amherst.
I would also say on the question of the Argus program, which has been discussed here today as it affects Fairey Aviation, that the company has itself shown every interest and desire to be of assistance in helping Enamel Heating. It is, perhaps, the problem of Enamel Heating which brings this question to the fore.
I wished to say these few words on the subject because I think it is a matter of great interest to Nova Scotia. While over the years we in this area have received a great amount of defence expenditure because of our geographical position on the coast, at this time, when some programs have had to be phased out, it is extremely important to us that no contracts should be transferred out of the maritime region. The partial transfer to Enamel Heating of some work from Fairey Aviation may be considered in a different light entirely.
But even as the United States government has followed the policy of attempting to spend government funds on defence production and other government programs in areas of lagging development, I suggest the same policy must surely be followed here in Canada; and I am confident that this government, which has done so much already for the Atlantic region, as exemplified by funding the Atlantic development board with $100 million as well as by other similar provisions, will show the same concern in the matters now under consideration. I am sure the action of the Minister of Industry and Defence Production in carrying out a full and lengthy investigation into this whole problem shows his concern and his willingness to try to work out some policy which will be equitable for us and result in satisfaction for all.


Robert Muir: I should like for a few minutes to take part in this debate. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister will classify this as obstruction-

Appropriation Bill


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Shame.


Robert Muir: There are those who take that view. I wish the silent member over there who never gets to his teet would not interrupt me. There are those who say we are obstructing business when we speak in this house. However, this is a subject of serious import, and those who are affected by it would not consider my intervention as obstruction. I might refer to the hon. member for Halifax-how am I to distinguish him; the one with the least hair?-who mentioned the closing of defence establishments and was shocked, he said, to hear that the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings had had something to say about it. Camp Aldershot had closed, and so on; the former minister, my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings had said it would not close.
Well, for the information of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), a former minister of national defence-I think his name was Campney; he went out of the house in 1957- announced the intention to close Aldershot, but it was continued for some time after that. This was when the great movement was on to Gagetown. I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), was as far at sea with regard to that as he was with regard to some of the other matters he mentioned. He said, somewhat vehemently, "What we have, we hold". I understand that he is now, along with other members from Nova Scotia, making an attempt to hold some of the things which came to Nova Scotia during the period 19571963.
I should like to say something now about the ferry service at North Sydney. On March 14 there was a board of trade meeting at North Sydney, and an annual dinner. The chief entertainment for the evening was provided by the Minister of Transport, who was the guest speaker. Incidentally, I hope he is feeling much better. I regret he is not in his place today. I understand he is quite sick. I hope it will not be long before he is back again and in a position to read the remarks I am making now, and provide us with some sort of answer. At that annual dinner the food was good, but the entertainment was not very good. On that occasion the minister announced that there would be a ferry operating between Argentia and North Sydney. This was one of the projects for which money had been put in the estimates by the previous administration; it was also one that had been announced by the former minister of transport during the latter part of last year, before he was

demoted. Then the Minister of Transport went to North Sydney and reannounced it. Plans for this project had been under way for many months. The unique part of his remarks are reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. of March 16, the Monday edition, and I should like to quote from that newspaper:
Mr. Pickers^ill, now in Newfoundland, told the Chronicle-Herald after the meeting that the proposed third ferry would take on loaded box cars and have them unloaded at Port aux Basques.
The announcement appeared to have caught off guard some 200 persons at the North Sydney board of trade meeting.
Under the proposed new arrangement, trucks, as well as railway cars, will be unloaded at Port aux Basques, instead of at North Sydney. For shipment on the existing ferry, William Carson, goods are unloaded from the cars.
So under this program it would appear that the new ferry would take loaded railway freight cars aboard the vessel at North Sydney and they would be shipped loaded to Newfoundland. On March 23 I posed a question on this matter to the minister. As usual he was quite evasive; I have not been able to get any information from him. At that time he stated that freight was increasing every year through these ports and as a result there was increased work. This is quite true; freight is increasing annually and I hope it continues to increase. But should a system of this nature be put into effect, very little work will be available in North Sydney, as far as freight handling is concerned. To enlighten the committee a little more on this matter I would like to quote from the Cape Breton Post of March 16, in which there was a story as follows:
While hon. Mr. Pickersgill did not elaborate on or outline details of the new ferry for the North Sydney-Port aux Basques run, it is understood here that it will be in the form of a car-freight ferry, one which would transport loaded freight cars from here to Port aux Basques.
These cars, it is reported, are ones that would arrive here loaded, and then be placed aboard the ship as are.
So we go on, and we find that this situation has been causing a great deal of anxiety among many people in Cape Breton, boards of trade, members of town councils, unions, and so on. The Cape Breton Post of June 5 carried a report of a meeting of the board of trade at North Sydney. The article is entitled "Transshipping of freight hit", and it says:
-in the event of transshipment handling of freight at Port aux Basques could "in time deal a pretty vital blow to the labour picture of North Sydney".
This was a statement made by the president of the board of trade. Then there was a

meeting of the town council in Sydney Mines at which the secretary of the union, local 1259, I.L.A., appeared and presented his case. He asked for support. Then I understand the representative from the union approached the Minister of Labour on the subject, and the following appears in an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of June 12. The article is headed, "Some facts first-meeting later":
William Quirk, recording secretary of local 1259, I.L.A., sent a letter to Mr. MacEachen stating that the local's membership was "greatly disturbed" by the "persistence of strong rumours and some solid facts" that create a strong impression of impending disaster to the union and town of North Sydney.
The Minister of Labour reported to the newspaper concerned in Halifax that he felt this was one of the questions raised last fall when a delegation met with him and other ministers concerned with regard to the shipment of freight through the port of North Sydney. At that time he said the concern expressed was somewhat exaggerated and he would look into the situation as it then existed. In their letter to the minister the longshoremen said it was their understanding that a special tariff was issued to provide through rates to inland ports in Newfoundland that would make the service highly competitive with the C.N.R. This is a separate item altogether from the proposed new ferry. They went on to say that what was even more disturbing was an agreement that had been made between the C.N.R. and C.S.L.-Clarke Terra Nova services, giving the latter the privileges of transporting from Montreal all the freight shipments originating in Ontario and a large part of Quebec that were not specifically marked "via C.N.R.". The association asked the Minister of Labour for his assurance that their fears were groundless or that definite steps would be taken to provide an immediate equal opportunity for alternate employment for this group. Those are two very important items, Mr. Chairman, about which I wish some information, with regard to the construction of this ferry. We want to know whether any arrangement has been made whereby competition is provided with the help of government incentives which work to the detriment of the port of North Sydney.
Here again there is an article in the Cape Breton Post with regard to the joint meeting of the two town councils of North Sydney and Sydney Mines. Another item in the Cape Breton Post of June 13 is headed, "MacEachen optimistic". Since my very good eol-
Appropriation Bill
league from Cape Breton is an eligible bachelor, I am glad he is still optimistic; but this would appear to refer to something else:
Mr. MacEachen said the elimination of freight handling jobs would depend on the growth of traffic business and, with the possibility of increased traffic, would mean increased employment through the years.
That is quite true, provided we are not going to have the type of ferry that has been suggested. All we want is an explanatory statement from the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour with regard to the type of ferry that will be operated on this service. On another occasion the Minister of Transport said, "The hon. member knows"- referring to myself-"that this is two or three years in the future, and there will be plenty of time to look into the matter of employment." I say that now is the time to look into the matter, not two or three years from now, because employment will have been eliminated in North Sydney by that time. The minister should investigate the situation immediately, make some statement on behalf of the government, and thereby alleviate all the worry that is being caused to the people of the port of North Sydney, the town of Sydney Mines and the surrounding areas from which men come to work at the port. In another article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 13 it is reported that the Minister of Labour said he felt the volume of freight traffic through North Sydney would increase in the future. We have heard this story all the time, that freight is going to increase. That is good; I like to hear it. But I do not like to hear that we are perhaps going to have a freight ferry that will take loaded railway freight cars from the port of North Sydney and they will be unloaded at Port aux Basques, in Newfoundland rather than in Nova Scotia, and the handling will be done in Newfoundland. At one time I asked the Minister of Transport whether this meant the standardization of the railway in Newfoundland, and he said, "Definitely not". I could not draw that conclusion; the only conclusion I can draw is that there will possibly be a yard set up at Port aux Basques with narrow gauge tracks and the freight will be transferred from the standard gauge to the narrow gauge tracks for distribution throughout Newfoundland at Port aux Basques.
Another meeting was called for the purpose of organizing a port commission, which all the interested parties of the area attended. According to the Cape Breton Post for June 16, 1964:

Appropriation Bill
Mayor Hartigan In his opening remarks referred to the interest and concern of Sydney Mines in the local labour picture at the C.N.R.'s terminus, due to the fact that many Sydney Mines people were working here.
He also stressed the very great importance of a "united front and effort" if any move to combat possible setbacks are to be counteracted successfully. "We should not," he said, "under any consideration or circumstances make any kind of political issue or football out of this situation".
I can understand why the mayor would make a statement like that. He is a non-political person and does not take part in politics, although I must state he is past provincial president of the Nova Scotia Liberal association; but I am sure his heart is in the right place and that he is willing and anxious to do anything he can to assist in this problem.
A few days ago I posed another question to the minister about this matter and again got no reply. I see the Minister of Labour with us today and I should like to ask whether he is in a position to provide some clarification so as to clear up any misunderstanding about this. I trust that anything we have heard is only rumour and that freight will always be handled at North Sydney. Another point I should like clarified, one with which he is familiar because we met on several occasions in this regard, concerns the possibility of another steamship line receiving certain preferences, priorities or incentives to assist the taking of freight away from North Sydney, thus causing more unemployment and further competition for the C.N.R.
Another point concerns increased employment, and this question was mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). We are all pleased to hear about this increase, but may I quote to him a statement issued by the Minister of Labour on Monday, April 20, which appeared in the Cape Breton Post. The minister said at that time:
Since 1961, the labour market on Cape Breton island has improved, and there has been a consistent increase in employment in the service industries and in the manufacturing of steel, pulp and aluminum products.
That was in 1961, and if I recall correctly the present administration was not in office at that time.
Before going on to something else, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to certain areas facing cut-backs, reductions in force, and so on. This matter concerns a number of ministers. I am sorry the minister of northern affairs is not here. He was here a moment ago and perhaps he is behind the curtains and will hear me. There has been a very

considerably reduced work program in the Cape Breton highlands national park, and much remains to be done. This park provides employment for the many people deserving of that employment. Incidentally, I suggest the works program at the park in the past year has been the lowest for quite a number of years. I am receiving representations from many people in the area who are looking for employment of some type. They are not in a very good way financially. I am pleased to say that I made representations to the Minister of Labour on their behalf and I hope and trust he is doing his best to find employment for them. I have received letters from the clergy in the area, who have advised me there are people in destitute circumstances in Victoria county. If more work were provided in the Cape Breton highlands park this would fill the bill somehow.
Another matter I should like to raise with the minister of northern affairs is this. I should like to know whether he can advise the committee whether the Liberal councillor at South Ingonish is the hiring agent now for the park. I am curious about this. The information I have received suggests that the Liberal councillor in South Ingonish beach provides the names of people who would like employment to the superintendent of the park, and the superintendent in turn telephones the national employment office and informs them whom he wants.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Did you appoint them before?


Robert Muir: I hear an interjection from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), who asks whether I made the appointments. When we were in government I was pleased to play some part in placing men in work there. This was done with the assistance of clergy of all denominations in the area. It was done through representatives of the Legion and different public figures in the areas concerned. One other matter. We tried to distribute this work all through Victoria county from Bay St. Lawrence to Ingonish, where the headquarters of the park are, and to do it in an equitable and fair manner.
To get back to my main point, I should like the minister to find out whether it is correct-I suggest to him that it probably is -that the Liberal councillor in South Ingonish is the hiring agent, although it could be a coincidence that of the people employed in the park the greatest majority come from South Ingonish. This matter was also raised

by the now Minister of Transport when he was in opposition, and it is all on the record. He asked how we handled this problem when we were in office. We were assisted by the clergy in the area, who I am sure were not political agents for any party. I see the Minister of Labour smiling, but that is the fact; and if he checks Hansard he will find letters quoted which reveal how we handled the problem.
This is an important matter and should be investigated at this time. In the years prior to 1957 if one's father or one's grandfather or one's relatives voted Conservative he could not get a job in the park. That was a known fact; but the position definitely changed after 1957. We are now back to the old system again. I do not care who are hired or what are their politics, but please distribute this work equally among all the areas, Dingwall, North Ingonish, Cape North, Neil's Harbour, Bay St. Lawrence and so on. This work should be shared around.
There have also been reductions in public works projects. Nothing of major importance is being constructed at the present time. Tenders have been awarded for the continuation of the Dingwall project, which we started and which had been written off by a former minister of transport by the name of Winters. He wrote it off and we re-established it and spent quite a bit of money when we were in government. It has been of much benefit to the fishermen in the area. At Bad-deck there will be a small extension to the wharf. This is nothing new because plans were all ready for this when the present government came into office. In Ingonish some work is going to be done on the wharf, owing to storms of last fall and winter. I urge the government to look into this matter and to see whether major spending cannot be carried out by other departments. We are not asking for too much. We are asking only that the amount of spending be brought up to the level of that of the former government. We are always looking for more, of course, but if the level is restored to what it was previously, which was the highest level ever reached in public works and northern affairs and a number of other departments, we will be content.
When the Minister of Labour visited Cape Breton recently, according to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for Saturday, May 30, he said:
"I have never been more confident of the future of Cape Breton than X am today," federal labour minister Allan MacEachen said Friday after he cut
Appropriation Bill
the ribbon at the formal opening of Cape Breton county vocational high school.
Incidentally, this is one of the schools initiated by the former minister of labour. The article continues:
"Real progress is being made with the immediate problems of this area and a good start has been made towards finding ways to its long term prosperity," he said.
"Cape Breton has served Canada well in the past."
I fully agree with that statement.
"Now, in turn the rest of Canada has a responsibility to Cape Breton to do what it can to see that it shares, as far as possible, in the benefit that technology is bringing. We recognize this responsibility in the federal government."
I am very glad to read that the minister has said that. He announced at that time that many departments were really investigating and digging into the records to try to see what type of work each department could carry out in Cape Breton in order to encourage spending in the area and provide employment. Let us know what projects are going forward, and how soon.
With regard to the naval base, every week a certain number of men are receiving their lay-off notices. That is why I posed a question today to the Associate Minister of National Defence, and I was very pleased to hear him reply that some steps are going to be taken to try to provide further refits of some type for the base. I must say I am very glad to hear that news. This will help to alleviate unemployment in the area and will maybe help to keep the men now working employed a little longer. I do hope that the work will be prolonged and carried on as long as possible.


An hon. Member:: What about the satellite tracking station?


Robert Muir: Yes, I could mention the satellite tracking station. I have been trying to secure some information about it, and I think the Minister of Labour is familiar with the situation. There has been some hold-up, I believe due to technological changes, but I would think that by this time the point must have been reached where the progress that was made prior to this government taking power could be continued with regard to this tracking station, which is a project of the national aeronautics and space agency of the United States and the United States weather bureau, on the one hand, and the Department of Transport and the telecommunications branch

Appropriation Bill
of Canada on the other hand. I hope the Minister of Labour will be in a position to provide some information on that matter.
There are so many matters that could be brought to the attention of the government at this time, but I do not wish to prolong the committee any more than to say that I trust and hope that the Minister of Labour, who is here today, will be in a position to provide some information with regard to the ferry which I mentioned. If he is not able to do so, maybe the Minister of Transport will, when he returns. I hope his illness will not be too prolonged and I trust that when he returns to the house he will be in a position, to give us further information on this matter, because it is most important.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the two matters raised here today have been fairly well explored by the speakers who have taken part in the debate in the last half hour or so. I was pleased to note that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings brought to the attention of the minister matters of which he was aware. Certainly he was made aware of them by members of his department. He has been made aware of certain economic realities of the province of Nova Scotia by my colleague and myself, and by other members from the Atlantic provinces, in the last two or three weeks. I am delighted that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has added his words of wisdom and judgment to this debate. After all, his experience as a former minister of finance would certainly give him the capacity to observe economic realities. This is one thing we share in common.
I am fully satisfied that the minister is aware of the difficulties inherent in the particular problem of readjusting or rationalizing the expenditures of the government in the field of aircraft overhaul and repair. I am fully convinced that a strong and well documented case is now before the minister. That case, which has been made in written submissions and in oral observations in the house, is that there is every justification to try, if at all possible, to maintain the work load to the maximum possible degree at both Enamel and Heating Products Limited and the Fairey plant in Halifax.
I am not as knowledgeable as I should be on all the things I ought to be knowledgeable about, but to the extent of my capacity to judge facts and relative aircraft plant capacities I am fully satisfied that a strong case exists not to transfer any work of the kind
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) .1
proposed from a plant in Nova Scotia to a plant in Montreal. Even if there was a small differential in terms of dollars in favour of a company in Montreal, Toronto or somewhere else in central Canada, the great advantage to all Canadians that would be derived from continuing industrial growth and additional work opportunities in the Atlantic provinces far exceeds any minor difference that may exist at the moment.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly this afternoon on the situation of farmers in the province of Quebec.
You know that, last week, nearly 10,000 farmers marched on the capital of the province of Quebec.
This march was intended to force the population, and especially the provincial government, to realize the situation of the Quebec farmer faced with constantly rising land taxes in that province, to which farmers have to contribute more and more, and also to force the population to realize the fate of the farmer in that province.
When the Liberal government came into office in Ottawa we were entitled to expect, particularly after the great promises which had been made during the campaign, that this government, during its famous first 60 days, would find a magic formula to solve the problems of Quebec farmers. Unfortunately, during the 14 or 15 months the present government has been in power, not only has the position of the Quebec farmer not improved, but it has deteriorated from day to day, not only because of events, of trade in general, or of the market situation, but also because of the attitude taken by the present government.
It should be kept in mind that under the present government, the situation of the dairy industry in Quebec, far from improving, is worsening. Instead of meeting the wishes of our farmers, the government abolished the 30-cent subsidy per cwt. of milk delivered to cheese factories. It also abolished the 25cent subsidy per cwt. of milk delivered to butter factories. It is reported that all this will save from $6 to $8 million.
I realize that the government must save money, but why must it always be at the expense of farmers? It is against this that we are protesting.
It must be borne in mind too that the government has also reduced the 12-cent subsidy on butter granted by the previous government in order to dispose of butter supplies

and, at the same time, to maintain the subsidies paid to farmers, especially milk producers of the province of Quebec.
The government failed to appreciate the situation. It failed to realize that the expenses of our farmers increase constantly and that their income, instead of increasing proportionately, remains the same or is decreasing.
In this morning's issue of Le Devoir, there is an excellent editorial by Mr. Claude Ryan, in which he explains very clearly the situation of eastern farmers whose purchasing power is decreasing. According to Mr. Ryan:
All surveys indicate that the purchasing power of the farmer has been constantly decreasing for 20 years. The farmer is now earning a few dollars more than previously, but this increase of the gross income is insufficient to meet the increase of the cost of necessary services and equipment.
The present government refused to face the facts. It is true that during the election campaign, we heard about the famous department of agriculture for eastern Canada which was supposed to solve all our problems. This department was a magic formula and worries were to disappear. This government has been in power for 15 months and we are still waiting for a department of agriculture for eastern Canada which is supposed to be a magic formula to remove every evil and smooth out the difficulties of our farmers.
There is of course the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who is partly responsible for ARDA and the redevelopment of our rural areas. It is a long term plan but up to now, in view of the relations between the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec and the Minister of Forestry, it is obvious that the efforts of the new minister are not particularly welcomed by the Quebec farmers, especially when one hears a Liberal minister, such as the hon. Mr. Courcy, who makes no bones about appearing on T.V. to give a good scolding to the federal minister responsible for rural development. It was an unusual sight, but there must be some grounds to warrant such a situation. Is it the reason why the minister of rural development has felt it necessary to go on holidays in Italy for a rest?
I do not know, but, in any case, when the minister is no longer contemplating long trips around the world, I hope he may find the time to consider the problems of the Quebec farmers.
One day, I was visiting the rural area of my constituency of Three Rivers, which has many farming communities, and I was talking to a farmer whose family had tilled the same
Appropriation Bill
land for nearly 200 years. He was an old gentleman, very much respected in the parish, and the owner of beautiful farm land which can be advantageously compared to any in the province of Quebec. This old gentleman said to me: Mr. Balcer, you, the politicians, will definitely have to do something. I asked him: Why? And he answered: Listen, my family has been on this farm for almost two centuries, and today, when everybody says that there is prosperity in the whole western world, when we are told that in Montreal, 50 storey skyscrapers have been built as well as tremendous speedways, at this very moment, for the first time in seven or eight generations on the same farm, my family will have to leave the land which has fed our forefathers for the last 200 years.
And he explained why. He told me that he had two sons working on his farm, who were excellent farmers, and laboured from daybreak to sunset; but unfortunately, all the father could give them for their petty expenses was $5 or $10 a week, while, just beside them, lived two boys who, though not exactly hard workers, had found positions in a Shawinigan Falls plant, where they earned a salary of $100 a week working from eight in the morning until five in the afternoon. They were coming back to the village with a shiny new car and dated the prettiest girls in the community, because they had a car, and so on.
Now, the old gentleman told me: Would you tell me, Mr. Balcer, why our two boys would want to remain on the farm and keep up an age old tradition?
This problem recurs throughout the province and throughout all eastern Canada. With that problem to face, the government does not assume its responsibilities, but takes the following attitude: The eastern farmers' problem will always remain a problem, let us be satisfied with the status quo.
Now, we are speaking about an important class of our society, which gives outstanding service to the country as a whole. This is a category of people with old traditions which have their roots in this country's history, and these people should not be abandoned and left to their fate.
At all costs, the government must come to a decision with regard to feed grains for the eastern farmers. This is a question the government must solve. It must build warehouses in the east, in our harbours on the St. Lawrence river; it must also pay for the transportation, from the west to the east, of such feed grain, and also for storage. In

Appropriation Bill
addition the government must establish a board which will look after the purchasing of feed grain and see to it that there is no undue speculation detrimental to our farmers. All that must be done.
A crop insurance scheme for our farmers must be initiated. Stabilization of farm prices must also be achieved. But mainly the government must find new markets. The government is not looking for any outlets for our eastern farmers. The problem must be tackled with vigour, because the situation is much more serious than we think.
When we consider that 10,000 farmers marched as a group to Quebec in order to lodge a protest with the government, I say to this government that, before long, those thousands of farmers will gather in front of the parliament in Ottawa, if the government continues its easy-going and forsaking policy regarding eastern farmers.
IText]


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the hon. member? Admitting the problem, may I ask the hon. member what he did, 14 to 18 months ago, when he was a cabinet minister on the other side?


Léon Balcer: We did quite a lot. We increased the subsidies on butter production. We brought forward the 12-cent subsidy to the consumer to increase the distribution of butter. We also brought forward a very good act to increase farm credit. We increased the subsidy on cheese, the subsidy on turkeys and the subsidy on poultry. Well, we Mr. Chairman, it might take me too long to enumerate everything we did, but at least we did something. We did a lot of things. The present government seems to be completely lacking in imagination in so far as trying to find any new program is concerned; but they will have to do something.


Harold Edward Winch: Are these subsidies still in effect?


Léon Balcer: Many of them have been decreased by the government, saying it had to save $8 million. I do not mind if the government saves money, but it does not have to take that money out of the pockets of the poor farmer in eastern Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Maurice Sauvé: Would the hon. member for Three Rivers allow me a question?
If the agricultural policy of the Conservative government was as efficient as he says

it was, how is it that, when we came into office we found agriculture in eastern Canada in such a deplorable state?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have just explained that. We did all those things and little by little the present government is destroying what we did; it shows no imagination at all and is incapable of introducing a single measure to help the eastern farmers.


Maurice Sauvé: That does not answer my question. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), in a remarkable speech, deplored the state of agriculture in eastern Canada, and I think that the Conservatives had just lost power then. There is no reason to believe that the situation is worse because the Conservatives no longer administer the country. Everyone knows that the present government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Maurice Sauvé: -made some changes with regard to the agricultural policy, but it did nothing that could have worsened the situation.


Léon Balcer: I do not want to keep the debate going forever, but I just want to give an example. We had on the order paper, when the government was defeated, a measure that made it possible for farmers to get feed grain at a reasonable and stable price.
The present government has been in office for 14 months and has not yet found its way clear to introduce in the house a single measure to continue what we had done. Not only has the government not introduced any legislation, but when we have suggestions to make concerning feed grains, it defers the matter to a committee where it is discussed for months and months while farmers are waiting.


Maurice Sauvé: Would the hon. member permit a question concerning feed grains?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Make your speech instead of going to Italy.


Maurice Sauvé: Does the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm know that I was in the house at the adjournment, Friday night, and that I was present this afternoon? What I did during the week end is none of his business.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I put a
question? Has the minister read Le Devoir of this morning which comments on his trip to

Italy? Would the minister visit farmers during the week end in order to know them better instead of journeying to Italy?


Maurice Sauvé: Does the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm know that I went to Lotbiniere, Chicoutimi, Matane, St. Anne de la Pocatiere and that next Saturday I will be in Mont Joli where I will meet hon. Mr. Courcy on the occasion of a visit to the eastern Quebec development office?
I have done more to gather information in these last months than many former ministers did in the same situation.
As the former minister of transport speaks about feed grain, would you authorize me, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words to him?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it in order?


Maurice Sauvé: On June 13-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Villeneuve was recognized by Your Honour several minutes ago, before the question was asked by the minister. Surely the minister does not think he should go into a speech now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. If the Minister of Forestry has a question to ask I would recognize him again, as I did previously; but if there is a speech to be made I would recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Caouette:: Has the minister a question to ask-because he was not asking a question; he was making a statement. He was the finest, the nicest and most appropriate minister of the crown at this time.

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the former minister of transport in the Conservative government tell us about the 10,000 farmers who went to Quebec city last week to ask the provincial government to grant them certain benefits and to recognize their very existence in the province of Quebec.
At the same time, we heard the former minister of transport refer to feed grain and ask us what the present administration had done to enable farmers to buy feed grain at better rates than in the past.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to listen to the minister of transport in the Conservative government talk to us about feed grain and the benefits and assistance his party brought to eastern farmers. Only, when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) was a minister in the Conservative cabinet, just 14 months ago as he said himself, 20220-307
Appropriation Bill
what did the Conservatives do to allow eastern farmers to benefit from prices granted for feed grain? What did they do to help eastern farmers obtain western grain at better prices than in the past? It is nice to hear the former minister praise Canadian agriculture. It is also interesting to have him explain to us the grievances or the misunderstanding that might exist between the Quebec minister of agriculture and the Minister of Forestry who, under the circumstances, acts as minister of Canadian agriculture.
Next Wednesday, that is in two days, a convention will be held in Noranda in my riding, where all the agricultural experts of the province of Quebec will meet. This will be their annual convention. I hope that the hon. member for Three Rivers will be present, because I shall attend it.
I shall ask then the provincial and federal authorities which will be represented: What have agricultural experts been doing to promote, to establish an adequate agricultural program in Canada which would enable the small farmer to keep his family farm and to give his family a decent standard of living?
Mr. Chairman, in the past, when speaking of agronomists-and there are some in the house-either under the Conservative government or under the former Liberal government, we used to say that an agronomist was a guy who had completed his classical course, failed his law examinations and turned agronomist. As a matter of fact, I see my good friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and I am sure he agrees with what I have just said. And why is it so? Because at that time we did not grant due recognition to the schooling, the education and the training of an agronomist. As a matter of fact, that profession was not recognized in the province of Quebec and we thought that an agronomist was a citizen of second, third and even fifth class, or that he had to play second fiddle.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not intend to delay the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve and even if I am an agronomist myself, I shall put my personal feelings aside to say, on behalf of Quebec agronomists, that they are not a group of failures or people who turned to agronomy because they had failed their law examinations. Indeed, I know that the hon. member for Villeneuve shares my views on that point.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that agronomists were failures. I merely

Appropriation Bill
stated that agronomists were represented to the people as a group of men who had failed to qualify for the bar and who had taken up agronomy because they had found nothing better to do. In that connection, I should like to point out that, in last Saturday's edition of he Devoir, it was stressed that most Quebec agronomists are employees of the government who earn from $5,000 to $5,700 a year, which is absolutely illogical. It must also be remembered that 30 years ago, in 1934, people were advocating a return to the land in Quebec. Agronomists were right at the time, but no one listened to them. Personally, I feel that they can be of service to farmers of Quebec and of eastern Canada just like their professional colleagues helped farmers out west.
Mr. Chairman, I know that at a certain time politics entered into the picture and that western farmers were told that they did not have to produce and that they would be paid so much per acre for not seeding their land, for not reaping a crop. Yet, that policy never existed in the province of Quebec.
A few weeks ago, after having got in touch not only with agronomists, but also with political authorities of the province of Quebec, it was found that whole areas had been affected by drought, torrential rain or dust. Therefore, many Quebec farmers will have no crop next fall. Never have we seen in the province of Quebec federal authorities concerned with problems respecting our agriculture, whereas we were interested in those of western farmers. Never have we opposed the assistance the federal government might extend to western farmers.
However, not too long ago I heard the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) ask the help of the federal government for the farmers in northwestern Quebec, with lands, in some cases, on the border of Ontario, because they had just lost their lands, their properties, etc. following a terrible hurricane which had devastated that area. At that time, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) stated: We have received no request from the province of Quebec, we cannot help the farmers in northwestern Quebec. But barely a few months ago, when Alaska, which is not a Canadian province but an American state, was devastated by a tidal wave and Canadian citizens living south of Alaska had to face difficulties not greater than those the farmers in northwestern Quebec had to face, requested the help of the federal government, the Prime Minister informed us of the concern of the federal government and the help that
[Mr. Caouette.l
it might give to farmers in western Canada who live in British Columbia and south of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, we agree that we must help those citizens when their area is depressed or when they have difficulties. But why did farmers of La Sarre, Palmarol, Macamic and Authier not get help from the federal government when the hon. member for Chapleau spoke on behalf of his constituents? Did politics have something to do with it, or discrimination, as we have seen so often in the past?
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak further on that matter, because we will come back to it later and with evidence to show that the government does not take all its responsibilities.
That does not mean that the Conservative government, including the hon. member for Three Rivers, were assuming their responsibilities. They have this unfortunate habit of blaming the Liberals for things they themselves neglected to do when they were in office only 14 months ago. They have the habit of blaming everyone except themselves.
For instance, with regard to feed grain, I wonder why the hon. member for Three Rivers was not, in 1962 and in 1963, asking for help for the farmers of his own constituency in order to help them to get feed grain supplies at the price foreign countries could buy them in Canada?


Léon Balcer: The measure was on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, what was keeping the hon. member for Three Rivers, who was then minister in the federal cabinet and who is today deputy chief, who is not really a deputy chief and will never be, but who expects to become deputy chief, from asserting his voters' interests? This former minister tells us that his government could do nothing. He himself has never done anything for his own electors, and we have had enough of Conservative assertions telling us that the Liberals have done nothing, while they themselves have not done anything during the five years they were in office, when it would have been possible for them to settle the situation of Quebec farmers. Why did they not do so, when they ask us today to put the full blame on the present government? We are ready to blame the government to the same extent as does the hon. member for Three Rivers, but we are also ready to blame the member for

Three Rivers who was not able to assume his responsibilities when he was a crown minister.
On both sides of the house, members are trying to indulge in petty politics and to play politics.


Mr. Ricard:: You have never done anything else.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the hon. member for Three Rivers just said. He has never done anything else in all his life; that is all that he has been doing, and what he is doing at present.
We shall keep on exposing and pillorying those who have failed to take their responsibilities, and we shall not put up with the virulent attacks of the official opposition which was in power barely a year ago. What we want for the eastern as well the western farmers is fairness, we want justice. We want our farmers to be able to settle and live in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces, in the same way the federal parliament permitted western farmers to live a decent life, in all fairness and justice, regardless of the administration. As long as justice is assured for each Canadian citizen, we shall support the government with all our might.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not know whether or not the hon. member has completed his remarks, but there is no private members' hour this afternoon.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that information. I did not know that private members' business, that is private or public bills, would not be considered today. I just got back from Rouyn, and it is quite a distance from Three Rivers.
Mr. Chairman, we just heard the former minister of transport telling us the great admiration he has for the farmers in the province of Quebec. As I said and repeated, he was minister for over five years, precisely, for six years. He was sitting on the other side at the time; he was in office and us, we were asking for grain elevators in the province of Quebec, in Berthier, Quebec city and Montreal. At that time, this minister from the province of Quebec did not know what solution to adopt-


Léon Balcer: Will the hon. member for Villeneuve allow me to ask him a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.
20220-307i
Appropriation Bill


Léon Balcer: Does not the hon. member know that we built close to $12 million of grain elevators in Montreal, $3 million, in Quebec city and that, besides, during our term of office, huge grain elevators were built in Baie Comeau? Some were built in Three Rivers, where the elevator capacity was doubled.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to learn from the former minister of transport whether this amount of $12 million plus $3 million and $5 million, making a total of $18 or $20 million, did not benefit the contractor rather than the farmers of the province of Quebec? Let the former minister tell us-


An hon. Member:: Now, you are making
sense.


David Réal Caouette: I always make sense. Let the former minister tell us who benefited by grain elevators under the Conservative administration and then I shall resume my seat. But I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that grain elevators built in the province of Quebec were built for exportation and not at all to assist the farmers in the province.
As recently as half an hour ago I received a telephone call from a prominent member of the catholic farmers' union of the province of Quebec who told me: We held a demonstration in front of the Quebec parliament and we will hold another one in front of the Ottawa parliament, on behalf of eastern Canada agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, we do not wish to add insult to injury, as they say, but we want agriculture in eastern Canada to be treated on an equal footing with western agriculture.
To come back to what I was saying a while ago, the former minister of transport talked about the great solicitude and love he felt for farmers in his own riding and in the whole province of Quebec. But I shall reply to him what I have said before: Farmers in eastern Canada get up at four o'clock in the morning to milk their cows while some people, like my good friend the hon. member for Three Rivers, gets up at ten to milk farmers.
Mr. Chairman, the flamboyant and wonderful observations we heard a while ago concerning the farmer in French Canada or in the province of Quebec have already been heard during every election campaign. We heard the Liberals just like the Conservatives tell us their love for the farmers. That matter has been discussed for 25, 20, 15,

Appropriation Bill
five years, and now for one year, and it is discussed again today. It is not with words, with rhetorics nor with philosophy, and even less with high-sounding speeches that we will save agriculture in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada. It is with action, and such action was lacking when the Conservatives were in power. It is still lacking now that the Liberals are in office.
I heard a while ago my good friend, the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), tell us how well he knew the farmers in eastern Canada and what a high opinion he had of them. He could not get along a few days ago with the Quebec minister of agriculture, Hon. Alcide Courcy-an agronomist, mind you- with whom I will be in Noranda Wednesday night.
A few hours ago I was on a plane with the Quebec minister of lands and forests, Hon. Lucien Cliche: he was going to Quebec city and I was coming to Ottawa-we are of the same area. Hon. Lucien Cliche is anxious to develop his area, his province and Canada as a whole. He told me that my friend, the Minister of Forestry, is a man with whom it is very easy to get along. I believe so, but we have in the province of Quebec, as in the rest of this country, people who are afraid and think that everything we do here in parliament can be in the interest of the province of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Chairman, such is not the case. Perhaps no group is more Canadian than the group I represent. I recognize for western Canada the same rights we must have in the province of Quebec, but at the same time I recognize that we must not have lesser rights than those the other provinces have obtained up to the present. It is not a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of mutual understanding and co-operation. I am convinced that the Minister of Forestry will admit that when he met the Quebec minister of agriculture and colonization, he realized that he had something to learn, just as the Quebec minister had something to learn from the federal Minister of Forestry, who actually is responsible for ARDA.
Mr. Chairman, there is a possibility of agreement, understanding and co-operation between eastern and western Canada. But as long as we are looking in one direction only, where our personal interest lies, we will never come to an agreement in any part of the country. But this possibility exists, provided we are men of goodwill.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, there are in Canada three categories of people only, as anywhere else in the world: men of goodwill, men of ill-will and men without will. Let us be men of goodwill, instead of men of ill-will or no will at all. We will then save, not only Canada and confederation, but the human being who works for the development of his country.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to make some brief remarks on the interim supply bill that is before us, but I wish to speak on a different subject. It arises from a question I directed to the Minister of Labour asking whether the Gill report on unemployment insurance would be debated during this session. He replied that if parliamentary time permitted this was one of the matters which might be dealt with during the session. Mr. Chairman, the Gill report was presented to parliament in November 1962. A couple of months later there was an election, following which there was a change in government. During the time the present government has been in office there has been ample opportunity to bring in the Gill report on unemployment insurance, but nothing has been done. Not only that, but we have still not had word from the Minister of Labour as to when the matter will be debated in the house.
My interest in the report and the recommendations is well known to the house, particularly that part of it which deals with unemployment insurance for the farm labourer. Not very long ago I presented a bill to the house which was talked out, which does not mean that there is no justification for bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I should like to put on record a report from the national employment service, which reads as follows:
The present shortage of good farm labour on the prairies appears to he more serious now than at any time in the past 10 years, says the April monthly report of the national employment service.
The N.E.S. also said the number of transient workers available in 1964 is much lower than it was at the same time one year ago. The number of these workers has been seriously depleted through heavy recruiting of workers for jobs in various mining operations on the prairies.
In Manitoba, the N.E.S. offices report they cannot keep up with the demand for good farm workers. There is a serious shortage of couples for dairy farms and farm machinery operators anticipated, the report said.
A number of farm organizations have suggested that training programs be established to educate prospective farm labourers in handling and maintaining farm machinery.

Not so long ago there took place a meeting in Winnipeg, as a result of which the unemployment insurance fund will be asked to include farm hands under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. According to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix this recommendation was made:
Winding up a two-day meeting in Winnipeg Wednesday, the prairie regional employment committee recommended that unemployment insurance coverage be extended to include farm labourers. "Farm labourers should be entitled to the same benefits as city construction workers", F. C. Cron-kite of Saskatoon, chairman of the 15-man committee said, commenting on the resolution.
The reason I have placed bills and motions on the order paper in the past is due to the serious situation which has developed in the agriculture industry of this country. The Gill report says that insurance for farm labourers is not easily provided, but I submit that the report should be presented and the recommendations discussed. What annoys me most is this, that in the dying days of 1957 the then Liberal government provided unemployment insurance for self-employed fishermen. I am not going to stand up here and say that these self-employed fishermen should not receive assistance; but the point I do make is that if the former minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, who represented a constituency on the west coast, as well, I am sure, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, were instrumental in bringing about this change in the Unemployment Insurance Act, I am puzzled why the ministers in the cabinet who come from the prairies have not demanded that farm labour should also be included under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As a result of this omission the farmers both in the east and west have suffered and lost money because they cannot get insurance coverage for farm labour. If the Unemployment Insurance Act can be applied to self-employed fishermen it is certainly much easier to apply it to farm labour.
I should like to read what was said in the Gill report about implementing unemployment insurance for fishermen. I refer to paragraph 26, page 110:
One area of existing coverage where an employer-employee relationship does not in fact exist is that relating to the coverage of self-employed fishermen. This question is discussed subsequently in this chapter: consequently it will be sufficient here to state our view that this group should not be covered by the unemployment insurance plan that we are recommending. We recognize that there are many economic and social problems in connection with fishermen and the fishing industry in general-
Appropriation Bill
I do not dispute that, but insurance should also be extended to farm labour-
-but they are not being satisfactorily solved, in our view, by the attempt to make the existing unemployment insurance plan apply. Indeed, this attempt is leading to difficulties and distortions within the fishing industry and in the application of the plan to other groups.
So apparently they felt the plan was not satisfactorily workable as far as farm labour was concerned.
In 1956 some coverage was extended to those in agriculture who were concerned with the raising of poultry and egg grading, and the raising of race horses, saddle horses or light harness horses; but according to the Gill report the commission found it difficult to administer unemployment insurance for farm labour. According to paragraph 20 on page 108 they state:
We recommend that the general principle be followed of extending coverage as broadly as possible so long as the necessary administrative procedures may be carried out to see to it that the rules of the plan are adhered to in a satisfactory fashion.
If unemployment insurance can be administered in the case of self-employed fishermen, I cannot see that there should be any difficulty in extending unemployment insurance to farm labourers.
The Gill report has been before parliament for the last two years and nothing has been done. I remember well that at the time the commission was appointed it was said: All we need is the Gill report and as soon as the Gill commission's recommendations are made steps will be taken. How long do we have to wait before the Gill report comes before the house for debate and discussion? The report contains valuable information as well as valuable recommendations. Although in some areas the recommendations as far as farm labour is concerned may not be to my satisfaction, nevertheless ways and means can be found whereby unemployment insurance can be made to apply to farm labour.
I took this opportunity to speak on interim supply. As I said, I have brought several bills before the house on this matter but they have been talked out. One reason for opposing them that has been put forward is that the Gill recommendations have never been presented to the house and that until the report is debated and discussed in the house no steps can be undertaken.
I think there is an urgent necessity for this report to be debated. As I indicated, there is a big shortage of farm labour on the

Appropriation Bill
prairies at the present time. When our farm organizations recommended that training programs should be implemented to teach men how to operate machinery, I think it is time for the government to take this matter into its hands and see that unemployment insurance for farm labourers is provided in order to help to deal with this problem.
I have met many farm labourers, and these men prefer farm work, but they have to try to get other types of work because if they work on farms they cannot receive unemployment insurance when the work ends. I am sure that if unemployment insurance were extended to them the problem not only of the west but all over Canada will be solved, to the extent that some of these labourers will be available to work on the farms all year round.
As I have done on many other occasions, once again I urge the Minister of Labour to give serious consideration to having the Gill report on unemployment insurance brought before the house for discussion, so that steps can be taken in this regard because, as I have said, the problem is a serious one and the longer it continues the worse it will get.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, having had the privilege of living in an area where, with the possible exception of the St. Hyacinthe area, the most generous farm land in the province is to be found, I feel it my duty to say a few words, this afternoon, on interim supply and especially on the farm situation in eastern Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec.
This last week end I had the opportunity to meet many farmers in my constituency, some which took part in this march to the Quebec parliament, a march that gave the directors of the catholic farmers' union occasion to get over 10,000 farmers together so they could tell the Quebec government about the really difficult situation of Quebec agriculture. I asked some of them: Why did you go to Quebec when you know very well that the stabilization of agricultural prices comes under the federal government? They all told me: It is useless to go to Ottawa because we will never get help from the Pearson government.
I was not surprised, Mr. Chairman, because the facts are there. If you consider the actions of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), you find in him an auctioneer; on the other hand, you have a student minister who
(Mr. Rapp.]
seems to want to promote ARDA in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec.
I would not dream of underestimating the knowledge of my hon. friend from lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), but since he has lived in our country's great metropolis, I do not think that he had the advantage of coming in contact with farm people and becoming acquainted with their needs. I realize that the minister has studied a great deal apparently, since he was asked to represent the interests of eastern farmers, but he should not remain a student all his life. Even more important, his studies should not weary him so much that he has to go way out of the country only to be called back to a cabinet meeting on Monday morning. I know he is trying to familiarize himself with the problems of agriculture in Quebec and to secure all the information he can from hon. Mr. Courcy, but whether it is because the latter is too impetuous or because the Minister of Forestry does not understand anything, the fact remains that their relations are quite strained. There again, unfortunately, this is detrimental to Quebec farmers. At the time of the 1963 general election, Quebec farmers thought at last that the new government would bring them heaven on earth.


Mr. Bechard:: That is right.


Rémi Paul: I hear the hon. member for Bonaventure say: That is right. It is realized that it is a far cry from promises to facts, and there is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. I would suggest to my hon. friend to ask farmers about the situation of the farming people in the province of Quebec, and the obvious difference between a Conservative administration and the present government.
You can go and ask farmers the difference between the income they are now getting, following the removal of the 30 cents subsidy per 100 pounds of milk, and what they used to get.
My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) will go and explain all that to the farmers of the underdeveloped Gaspe peninsula, and I hope also that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) will see his way clear to develop that region, so that it too may benefit from the economic expansion of the province of Quebec. I am not saying agricultural expansion, for never have the Quebec farmers been so ill-treated and neglected as under those two Liberal governments, the Pearson government and the Lesage government.

Mr. Chairman, the income of the farmers of my region has been considerably reduced because of the farm policy of this government. The farmers had been promised that a minister of agriculture would be appointed to look after eastern Canada. We thought that, at last, the federal government, either Tory or Grit, would understand the real farm problems facing eastern Canada. There was promise of such a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. I understand, however, that the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) should speak of all the other problems, because he is not very interested in agriculture. But the farmers had placed their confidence in this government.
Well, I say to the Liberals, go before the people and ask, for the second time, for the confidence of the farmers. They will be weighed and found wanting.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to be making some remark. She has so many problems with her pension plan that I hope she will take part in this debate. I hope she will be able to explain to the house what plans the government has to save agriculture in the rest of the country.

I hope the other members of the province of Quebec are going to rise and support the present endeavours of the Minister of Forestry. I pay him tribute for the commendable efforts he is making to save agriculture. But the minister is alone, and he is to be pitied because there is not another member in the cabinet who really intends to do any planning in order to save our eastern agriculture.
I heard this afternoon the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) during his weekly attendance in this house, blame the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) for certain measures-


Mr. Belanger:: Where is John?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I wonder who is yapping in the corner?


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Where is John?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I hear the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) asking "Where is John" and I must tell him, for his information, if he does not know already, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to attend this afternoon the funeral of one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin).
Appropriation Bill


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: He went and preached separatism in the west.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, once again you just heard the parrot.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: We are listening to one right now.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, during the last general election we heard members of a certain party promise pie in the sky and just this afternoon, the hon. member for Villeneuve blamed the seeming inaction of the hon. member for Three Rivers and the former Conservative government, as far as assistance to eastern farmers is concerned.


Mr. Boutin:: What have they done?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) that he can take part in the debate later on, and I believe that he should take that opportunity because, after the next election, we may not have the privilege of seeing him again.


Pierre-André Boutin: What have you done?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising to hear these hon. members speak in that way, particularly after we heard their leader declare: Mr. Chairman, it is five o'clock. However, the hon. member for Villeneuve has been sitting in the house for two years. If he does not know the rules of the house, how can the disciples be superior to the master? They want to know what we have done. Well, when the Conservative government was defeated on February 5, 1963, there was on the order paper legislation providing for the establishment of a wheat board for the east, which would really have been efficient to help the farmers obtain feed grain under very favourable conditions.
The Conservative government had also increased from $5 to $7 per ton the subsidy on transport of western grain toward eastern Canada. They had the ARDA legislation passed. Also, the Farm Credit Act was improved and the agricultural stabilization board was established. Moreover, the Conservative government included a minister who really understood eastern agriculture and who wanted to consider the problems and the needs of agriculture in eastern Canada. But, the very people who yelp the loudest today contributed to defeat the government of that day, for they were anxious to go again to the people in order to try, once more, to exploit human misery and stupidity, and also in the hope of forming a government able to better

Appropriation Bill
apply an unexplainable, illogical and unrealizable monetary theory-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Rémi Paul: Certainly.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member explain the present monetary system, if he understands it?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, the present monetary system is based on common sense, and not on theories which Social Credit members themselves do not understand.
During the last election we heard members belonging to the group on the far left promise $100 per month per capita in the province of Quebec, until the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)-who was head of the party at that time and who certainly showed more intelligence than those who are interjecting at the present time-warned the Canadian people that such a theory was impracticable and that it was not the monetary policy of the Social Credit party.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that those individuals have much to their credit to help eastern agriculture and I feel that we can legislate without their help.
I am happy to see the interest with which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is following the debate. I ask him to believe that the suggestion I want to make is free from any political consideration and free from any criticism.
Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the Minister of Justice could not consider the possibility of setting up a commission to find the reasons why feed manufacturers are always exploiting the farmers. As a matter of fact, when the price of pork, eggs and chicken goes up, the feed manufacturers never fail to increase the price of their products; therefore, the farmer is in their power to such an extent that he is no longer master in his own house.
Mr. Chairman, I must say to the Minister of Justice that this problem is very serious and deserves to be studied. I think that all eastern farmers would benefit from an investigation which, in my humble opinion, would prove very clearly that there is an understanding between the feed manufacturers who combine their efforts to enslave the farmers while they unfortunately do not have the income they need to meet their obligations.
When that committee is instituted, I wonder if it should not inquire also about the ever increasing prices of farm machinery which the farmers cannot do without to work their
farms competitively because, in that field also, there are abuses and scandals.
I know that the Minister of Justice, although well-meaning, lacks experience. That is easy to understand, because there is not a single farmer among the Liberal members from Quebec.
The minister should consult experts in agriculture. He should have the problem explained to him as it is. He should ask the government to bring in a legislation that will really give an income to our farmers. It is very fine to amend and improve the Farm Credit Act, but here again this does not provide farmers with the income they need to operate their farm. As a matter of fact, farmers do not lack borrowing facilities, but they lack the income which would enable them to face their obligations.
I wonder if we should not give serious consideration to the points made many times in this house and which were so well taken again this afternoon by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). I refer to the urgent need of implementing that part of the Gill report which would have unemployment insurance apply to farm workers, because farmers are also faced with a serious problem today. Some of them are unable to operate their farm adequately and have to hire helpers, but a few of these, unfortunately, do not want to work there since they are not protected by unemployment insurance.
I am sure the government will realize that those farm workers need to be protected just the same as it was realized that professional fishermen had to be.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to ask the Minister of Forestry to try and convince the Quebec minister of agriculture of the need for the provincial government, to pass legislation which would parallel that which we have in our statutes concerning crop insurance. We have federal legislation in this field and the provinces have to legislate on the same matter in order to receive the support and assistance of the federal government. I know such a measure is also required to save eastern agriculture. I cannot overlook the many problems facing tobacco growers in the constituencies of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm and Berthier who, often enough, have tremendous losses inflicted upon them by the destructive elements of nature.
I hope that the Minister of Forestry will find a way of convincing Hon. Alcide Courcy, if relations improve. I trust that
[Mr. Paul.)

the hon. minister will suggest to the government of the province of Quebec to legislate in this matter. More particularly, I hope that the government will find a way to help agriculture indirectly introducing some legislation to remedy the problems of unemployment.
In the former parliament, we had an expert in matters of unemployment, that is the present Secretary of State for External Affairs who, at that time, had a solution for every economic ill in this country.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has no time to examine the problems of domestic policy, but the farmers as well as the industrial workers and employees hope and wish that this government will find some tonic, some remedy which will give work to the 112,000 unemployed still to be found in the province of Quebec at this time, without speaking of the others who have no job and are not registered as claimants at the unemployment insurance office.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the government will find the way to create that paradise on earth it offered to the population of Quebec, and the whole of Canada, during the last election. I am sure that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) will offer some advice and suggestions, so that Canada may really know the economic prosperity which all citizens hope for, not only for the welfare of eastern farmers, but of every farmer and everybody else in Canada.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention to speak about this matter, because I thought that enough time had already been wasted by the Conservatives. Now, I notice that they spent the whole afternoon in politicking, criticism and filibustering, trying to refurbish their political coat of arms. Judging by all I have heard, it does need a good deal of refurbishing in the province of Quebec.
I just heard the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) say earlier today, that the group sitting on the extreme left was the one which had promised a pie in the sky to everybody in the last general election. But I only notice one thing, that the Social Credit bread we offered in the province of Quebec has not yet been digested by the Conservatives. If it lacked yeast for the Conservatives there was enough of it for the electors at the time.
The Conservatives dare to say that the province of Quebec has no chance in the House of Commons when it supports Social Credit.
Appropriation Bill
Now, in 1958, they held 208 seats, and after the clean sweep of 1962, they lost 92 seats. That was the loss sustained by the Conservative party. In 1963, it did not fare better, since they again lost some seats and only kept 94. That is how the people are going about getting rid of the Conservative party.
The Conservatives should have put into practice the advertisement so often heard on radio and T.V., on a program sponsored by a well-known tooth paste. If they had done so they would have reduced cavities in their cabinet by some 49 per cent.


Rémi Paul: Could the hon. member for Megantic tell me how is it that he is so familiar with the cabinet?


Raymond Langlois: It is because I have been sitting in the House of Commons for two sessions, the longer of which is still to come. It was very easy to get familiar with the first government, no mistake about that.
Besides, a great number moved out before the second election, and it is not because they were too well organized. With bad organization, things do not go too well, of course, and if the people do not throw them out, they move out themselves.
As for the cabinet, I think the public saw about moving quite a few of them at the last general election.
I now come to the references made a while ago by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere about the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). He seemed to suggest that the hon. member for Villeneuve might not be the appropriate leader. I think we could take a look at the other side of the medal and consider the official opposition. We can see to what extent the leader of the Conservative party has kept the confidence of his followers since he is now walking on a tight-rope, not knowing whether he can pass the next national convention. We should, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I venture to remind the hon. member to whom I have been listening attentively for a few minutes, that he must limit his observations to the bill now before the house.
Before the beginning of these discussions, we agreed that hon. members would be entitled to discuss general matters, but despite that latitude, which is recognized to hon. members, they must, just the same, limit their observations to the matter now under discussion, that is interim supply.

Appropriation Bill
I do not think that strictly political matters, such as the one just discussed have anything to do with government business.
In other words, what we must discuss and consider at the moment is government administration as it is affected by interim supply.
I must therefore suggest to the hon. member that he should relate to the bill now before us the observations he wishes to make.


Raymond Langlois: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1	was referring to the remote causes of our problems but I was just coming back to the point under discussion. If the estimates now under study have not been passed yet, it is due to the research of the Conservative party. One must stick to the facts. Although we have been discussing these estimates for a week, they have still to be passed.
We too will be blamed, being in the opposition, for not voting supply, when it is well known that this is due to the official opposition's obstinacy.
It may be a good thing not to grant supply in a hurry, but in the speeches made in the house this last week by the members of the official opposition-they have spoken 95 to 96 per cent of the time-they did not suggest very many solutions nor did they make any constructive criticisms likely to help the government with regard to this supply.


Mr. Nasserden:: On a point of order. I think it is very clear that the statement we occupy 96 per cent of the time is not in accordance with the facts.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I will take off
2	per cent. I have given approximate figures. There may have been an error. I should perhaps have said 98 per cent. At all events, I will not persist. I said 96 per cent. There may be a margin of 2 over or 2 under.
Coming back to the question raised by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) who was speaking a moment ago-


Edward Nasserden: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is now saying that 98 per cent of the time might have been occupied by us. I think that is a misleading statement to place on record, considering the contribution made by each of the opposition parties to this debate.


George James McIlraith: I think I have been reasonably patient but I wonder whether we cannot
[The Deputy Chairman.]
get back to the clause of the bill before the committee and see whether we can make some progress.


Raymond Langlois: I will get back to the clause, because as far as I am concerned we would like to get these grants through. I agree with the minister that as long as we are talking about the Conservative party we are wasting our time, either here in the house or outside it.


Edward Nasserden: I have only a few remarks to make and I will make them brief, since I understand it is desired to get through before six o'clock. First, I should like to impress on hon. gentlemen opposite the desirability of bringing forward amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act before the recess. This legislation is urgently required by farmers who wish to purchase harvesting machinery in western Canada. Those who are familiar with the situation there know of the need in this regard.
I should like to say a word about the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This act is a good one, but throughout the years it has been in operation certain deficiencies have become apparent. This is especially true with regard to price support of both eggs and hogs. The situation with regard to eggs has been serious in the province of Saskatchewan and, to a lesser extent, in Manitoba during the last several months, and I should like the men on the treasury benches to give this question some consideration.
Earlier in the session I asked the Minister of Agriculture and the government if they would place this whole matter before the agriculture committee for consideration. The minister and the government have played around with this request and we have not been able to take the matter under review. This act has been in operation for approximately seven years and the time has come when the committee should be able to take a good look at it to see whether some improvement could not be made. Surely, over such a period of time the need for certain improvements becomes evident, and surely hon. members of the treasury benches would like an opportunity to deal with this problem. I believe farmers will be asking a number of questions about the neglect which has been shown in this regard.
I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Three Rivers and those other members who have spoken about the agriculture problem in the province of Quebec. We on this side

know something about conditions in that province. At the time we were swept from office we were about to embark on a total onslaught upon the agricultural problems in that province. Members on the other side ridiculed the stand taken by our members and by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle in this regard. I remember the Prime Minister going up and down in Quebec and the mari-times during the last campaign saying: We will do for you what John Diefenbaker did for the prairies. He got his representation, especially from Quebec, and what has he done? Fourteen months have passed since the last general election and not a piece of legislation worth its while has been placed on the statute books. This situation has culminated in a march on the capital of Quebec, an event which indicates that this matter has not been dealt with in a proper way.
I should like also to congratulate my hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale for bringing forward again his measure urging unemployment insurance for farm labourers. This question has been brought to my attention more than any other in my riding during the last two or three years. I remember that when we appointed the Gill commission to study this problem we were accused of delaying, although we merely wanted to get the facts with regard to this situation. Now the government has had the facts for 14 months but has still not come forward with legislation. I ask hon. gentleman opposite to give this matter, too, their serious consideration.
I think that in view of the hour I will forgo the rest of my remarks I had intended to make to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a word. I am sorry the Minister of Industry is not here to reply to a number of requests made by members from Nova Scotia. It seems to me we could let the bill pass, but I would hope that within two or three days the minister might answer the point which has been raised about work at Fairey Aviation. I take it this request is being assented to by the President of the Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: Yes. The Minister of Industry was trying to get an opportunity to reply, but unfortunately he had to leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure we would all agree to give him an opportunity to make a state-20220-3081
National Defence Act
ment within the next two or three days on orders of the day.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Guy Favreau: By consent, before the house adjourns until later this evening, I must point out that there has been a mistake made in the motion proposed on Friday with respect to the extension of the hours of sitting which appears on page 4755 of Hansard tor June 26, 1964.
We read in the fourth paragraph the words: "That when this house adjourns at 6.00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 1964..." That was a mistake. It should have read: "When this house adjourns on Tuesday, June 30, 1964...", and so on.
I understand the house leaders agree that this has been a mistake and there was never any discussion or understanding among the parties not to sit until 10.30 tomorrow evening. By simply deleting the words "at 6.00 p.m." the motion will agree with the understanding reached between the parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this evening is as follows:
The hon. member for Kootenay West: Quebec refunds made to provincial ministry.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
National Defence Act
An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-Duties of chief of the defence staff.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, surely we are to have a word from the minister. We had second reading of this bill some considerable time ago; it was referred to the special committee on defence, it was discussed there, expert witnesses were called, and the minister is now coming back to the house asking the house to approve the bill. But he does not want us to be just rubber stamps, surely. Can we not hear from him as to the type of evidence that was given at that committee and the general criticisms, if any, of the bill as it was presented? Let the minister outline for us now what has been the decision of the defence committee. We surely should have a report before we proceed any further.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-90 was discussed at some length on second reading in the house on May 8, 11 and 12. Debate at that time included many aspects of defence policy not directly related to the bill, but on May 12 second reading was given and the bill was referred to the special committee on defence. This committee started its deliberations on May 26 and the associate minister and I appeared before the committee at this and subsequent meetings. The committee also heard a number of outside witnesses, including the deputy minister and three former serving officers. Finally, the committee agreed to refer the bill back to the house unamended.
I might say that this committee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Broadview, continues to set an outstanding example of how a committee of this house should conduct its affairs. In view of the lengthy and detailed discussion which has already taken place, I do not think it is necessary at this time for me to add anything further. Bill No. C-90 calls for an amendment to the National Defence Act, substituting one defence chief of staff for the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and the three chiefs of the individual services. This bill

implements government policy set out in a white paper on defence and is the necessary first step to bringing about integration of the three headquarters leading, we hope, to increased efficiency and a reduction in overhead expenditures. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we might now proceed with clause by clause discussion of the bill and then to third reading.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Taking part in the debate, I have no intention of pretending to be an expert on defence matters but I would like to make a few remarks. First of all, as it is the first time I am dealing with defence, I would like to congratulate the minister for having been chosen to preside over the discussions aimed at ensuring our country's defence.
I would like to have forgotten the remarks made by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) when a few years ago I had had a promotion, and offer him my congratulations and convey to him my best wishes for success in his duties.
This being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall to my friends on the opposite side, and particularly to those of the province of Quebec, that there was a time, on account of the name that had been made for the Conservatives, when it was more or less prudent to profess to be a Conservative in the province of Quebec. You will recall that after the war of 1914-18-


An hon. Member:: We remember.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -under a union government led by Right Hon. Robert Borden, conscription had been enacted for overseas service. At the time the Liberals had promised, as they have continued to do, that conscription would never be enacted under a Liberal government. It was a union government and, during the years that followed the war of 1914-18, as my friends from the province of Quebec remember, because they benefited from it many times and even took advantage of the situation to turn into ridicule those of the Conservative party and to present them as being enemies, and this more particularly of the French Canadian nation. They were accused of having sent the best of our sons from French Canada to be slaughtered.
That happened because the Liberals of thal time had not wanted to take the responsibility that was theirs as much as that of the Conservatives.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member in order to remind him that under the rules, the discussion at the committee stage must be strictly pertinent to the measure under study. I admit that on the first section of a bill, hon. members can embark on a general discussion, but it must be pertinent to the measure under study. Now, if the hon. member reads the explanatory notes, he will see that the purpose of the bill is to make some appointments or changes in the general organization of the Department of National Defence, and I suggest to the hon. member that he should restrict his remarks to the bill now before the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your remarks; this proves that I was right when I stated at the beginning of my remarks that I did not intend to pose as an expert on national defence matters.
I merely wanted to use these few remarks as a preamble to other observations I want to make, for I intend to recall for a few moments memories which are perhaps a little bitter to my friends from the province of Quebec, by speaking of nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, our friends from the province of Quebec especially committed themselves during the last election campaign, particularly during the 1963 campaign, to prevent the use of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, and everybody knows the various phases of the negotiations which finally resulted in the storage of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that our friends opposite do not like us to remind them-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Once more, I take the liberty of calling the hon. member to order. I will not repeat the remarks I made earlier, and I ask him to limit his comments to the bill before us. Moreover, I do not believe that the nuclear arms issue is included in the subject under discussion.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the fact that I had but a few moments to prepare my remarks, I, like you, am not surprised to find out that I wander a little, but you must acknowledge the fact that I was still speaking on the matter under consideration, the purpose of which is this country's defence.
In view of the fact that this new measure has to do with the integration of the defence facilities, I would suggest to the Minister of
National Defence Act
National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to take full advantage of the advice of his associate minister. And I would suggest to the latter that he consider his responsibilities as being different from what they were at the time he used to speak to the former associate minister of national defence. I am convinced that he has realized the necessity of those functions and we shall await with eagerness the results of his efforts for the common good.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on the committee stage of this bill can be very brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If I get that much applause I may be encouraged to prolong my remarks. We explained the views of this party oh second reading of the bill. We explained that in our view the bill was a useful piece of machinery in that it led toward the idea of integration at the top level, which we thought was a good thing. Since then our representatives have sat on the committee on defence which spent several sessions going in great detail into the provisions of the bill, as explained by the minister and others. I just want to say that perhaps it is a rather extraordinary circumstance that the committee unanimously agreed to report the bill back without changing one comma or one word in the bill. This is probably a fairly unique record, as far as the house is concerned.
However, I should just like to point out to this committee that that does not mean that we have reached the millenium and arrived at a completely non-partisan view in all matters relating to defence. It just so happens that this particular piece of machinery is one that the minister has succeeded in persuading us is necessary and advisable. We thought so before, and we have not been persuaded otherwise. While on the subject of defence much is to be said about nuclear weapons and integration, this particular bill, which only deals with one aspect of the matter, namely substituting a chief of the defence staff for a committee of the general staff chiefs, we believe will be helpful. We look forward with a great deal of interest to seeing how it works out and we will avail ourselves of later opportunities to discuss the Wider issues of defence.	yi
I may say to the minister that I have grave doubts, as he knows about the policy announced by the government in the white paper, and our willingness to accept this

National Defence Act
bill readily and with the minimum of debate is not to be taken by him or by anyone else as any indication that we will not be vigorous in our attacks on defence policy generally, which we thought, despite the plaudits received by the minister from many quarters, is subject to serious doubt and question in our minds. But this does not seem to be the right opportunity to go into that matter. There is nothing about this bill to complain of, so I think the most sensible thing for us to do, when we have nothing to say, is to say nothing. Therefore I will resume my seat.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence or the associate minister. Perhaps they would make a note of them and either answer them when I finish or when the minister closes the debate.
Would the minister advise whether, in the drafting and preparation of the bill by him and his officials, he had the benefit of the experience of other nations of comparable size or greater size than Canada who have attempted integration of their forces in the past decade or two. If he has had the benefit of that experience, would he advise what that experience showed. I understand that in the forces today there has been a certain amount of unification in the chaplaincy corps, the medical corps, and in the dental corps. It is my understanding that even though these services have been unified there has been no real saving in the final analysis. I think in the case of the chaplaincy corps, it resulted in more senior officers in the corps than before unification took place. I should like the minister to give us his advice about this matter.
Finally, a question which disturbed me in the committee. We have a deputy minister of national defence and an associate deputy minister, and in talking to these officials it seemed to me that the duties of associate deputy minister were rather light and sketchy. There seems to be a waste of talent here, if the associate deputy minister is not given more duties than he has been up to the present. Perhaps the Associate Minister of National Defence would care to comment on that particular matter later.
From what I have seen of the forces in the last few months there seems to be a considerable loss of morale, especially in the air force. I think a great many of the men are uncertain about what will happen to them. The announcement that some four or five hundred officers are to be discharged has had a disquieting effect, so perhaps the minister

will report on what he has found in his travels among the forces with regard to the suggestion of integration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too long, but I am interested in the terms of the bill and the provision concerning the appointment of a chief of defence staff. I presume he will be chief adviser to the government. We all remember that during the election the Prime Minister said that he considered Canada had made a commitment in respect of nuclear weapons but that he would do his best afterward to commence to negotiate out of the nuclear role on behalf of Canada. When the minister replies to the various questions I should like him to inform the house if the chief of the defence staff as the chief military adviser to the government will be asked to consider this question, and to make proposals that will assist the Prime Minister in his negotiations with other countries in order to escape from the present nuclear role that we occupy.


Mr.   Paiierson@: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few brief observations on this measure. In the course of the debate on May 8 I stated that I thought the minister should be commended for taking a step that was long overdue, because I am fully convinced that in matters of national defence as in so many other fields a streamlining of organization and operation is absolutely essential. I think we are more or less in agreement that is what is needed in parliament, and if we go right across the whole field of endeavour I think we have to bring our organization and operations up to date. That means streamlining in order to make them more effective and more efficient in this modern age.
Therefore I believe that in establishing this one particular post in preference to the several we have had before we are moving in a direction that is absolutely essential and I would suggest that possibly it accentuates the importance of maintaining complete civilian control. One military man will now head up the organization and, as I have said, it seems to me that this should impress upon us the necessity of seeing to it that strong, civilian control is maintained over our whole defence establishment. We believe that the bill as it is now before us is a good measure. The principle is a good one. Therefore we support the bill and we reserve other observations for the various clauses.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, from the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Greenwood and other hon. mem-

bers who have spoken on this very important bill the impression seems to have been left that the committee on defence approved of the bill completely. It is true that technically it was passed without any amendment, but to draw from that the conclusion that the committee thought it was perfect or even a good idea is not a correct assumption. As a matter of fact the bill, although it is a short one and seems innocuous-because in effect all it does is to replace the three chiefs of staff with one chief of the defence forces, together with some consequential amendments-is a most important one. One might get the impression that because of the brevity of the bill it is not one of very great importance. Nothing could be further from the fact, because in the bill we are embarking on two principles as far as national defence is concerned, or we are perhaps embarking on one trend and continuing another which already exists in the National Defence Act.
The fact of the matter is that some members of the committee and numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee, such as Brigadier Malone and, speaking from memory, Air Marshall Curtis and some others, had very grave doubts about the wisdom of proceeding in this manner. In listening to the minister give evidence from time to time before the committee I could not help but get the feeling, and I do not say this in a critical sense, that there was a frightening naivete in that there seemed to be a subscription to the principle that progress is automatic, that all you have to do to achieve progress is to change things and if you change them it is progress. This, of course, is a very dangerous principle on which to proceed. We have to recognize that changes can be retrogressive as well as progressive, and that you do not just go blundering around changing things for the novelty of it, like some neurotic woman who is always changing the furniture in a room because it gives her a sense of relief or something. I have a feeling that there is a bit of this in the planning of the Department of National Defence.
As far as integration is concerned-and presumably this is the first step in this important matter-I think there is a lot that can be said in favour of it, although not for the replacement of the three armed services by one. I would violently oppose such a program. If we scrap our traditional three forces entirely and substitute therefore one force, perhaps with a green uniform or something of that sort, if we do away with all the traditions that have grown up over the years in
National Defence Act
the army, navy and air force, especially those army traditions that have grown up within the various units, if this first step we are now taking leads eventually to a program which will have that result, I think it will be a very unfortunate result.
However, the bill does not go that far. It only substitutes one chief of defence forces for the present three chiefs. But in this regard it can be looked upon as the first step in the direction of amalgamation of the three forces, or the replacement of the three forces with a new superforce, or perhaps just the co-ordination of the three forces, a knitting together more closely of the three forces by means of task forces made up of elements and personnel from all three of our forces for a particular duty. If the objective is the last name, I would support this trend fully; but if by starting on this road we end up by having one defence force, one uniform, no traditions and a complete obliteration of the marks of difference between the three forces that exist now, I would have very grave doubts about the wisdom of proceeding that way.
As I said when I commenced my remarks, the bill seems to be brief and to the casual observer a rather innocent sort of thing. It simply seeks to have one man replace three, which seems to be a good idea. But I was rather amazed at the minister's reasoning when he introduced the bill on second reading. He paid tribute to the Associate Minister of National Defence and said something to this effect, that if it had not been for the associate minister and all the work he had done in this connection it would have been impossible for the department to proceed as far as it had in certain directions. Then the minister proceeded to introduce a bill to replace three men with one. Following the same logic, the chief of the defence staff will be able to accomplish only one third as much as the three present chiefs of staff and half as much as the two national defence ministers.
He is going to have quite a job. From now on, we are going to have one chairman of the defence staff reporting to two ministers, whereas up to now we had at least three defence chiefs to keep two ministers occupied. One wonders, if this principle is followed, why it would not apply to the ministry itself. Why should we not combine the two portfolios into one, or perhaps even three portfolios? If you are combining the three chiefs of staff, why not combine the three ministers -the minister, the associate minister and the

National Defence Act
Minister of Defence Production-into one portfolio, or something of this sort, to eliminate waste and duplication? Presumably, this is the sort of thing we are doing in connection with the armed forces.
Then of course this procedure might run afoul of another government policy which was to divide some departments, such as the Department of Agriculture which, at one time, was to have a minister for the east and a minister for the west. Northern affairs might want to have a minister for the north and one for the south. We have a Department of National Defence with two ministers. I am not complaining about that fact. My remarks in this connection might sound a little facetious, but they are not intended to be. They are simply a test of this theory that by replacing three men with one you are going to effect economies. I do not believe it necessarily follows, because this one man may need far more men to help him in his immediate job than the three men put together required. The savings may not be as great as anticipated.
However, there is another and more important concept, so far as national defence is concerned, in relation to this bill. I want to talk about it for just a few minutes, Mr. Chairman. If one peruses statutes of Canada, he finds that there are fairly extensive acts setting up the various departments of government. Parliament has been quite specific in these acts in outlining the responsibilities of these departments and the various acts that are to be administered by them. In the case of the Department of National Defence, the National Defence Act is very brief so far as setting up the framework of the department is concerned. Practically all it does, in essence, is to appoint the chiefs of the various defence forces and set out some other main points of this type. Then, there is a great deal of detail with regard to non-public funds and matters of that sort, which really are not involved in setting out the framework of the department. However, the putting of the flesh on the bones, as it were, of the Department of National Defence is all done by orders in council, regulations, directives of the chiefs of staffs, and by some other means. There are no details set out in the National Defence Act that correspond to what is done in the acts of parliament which establish the various other departments of government and which give to the departments the various acts for which they are responsible. This leads me to a very grave problem which we fear this bill seems to ignore.

The government is consciously embarking on this type of policy and therefore it is the responsibility of the government. You can argue both sides of the case, as many witnesses did before the committee. You cannot therefore prove categorically that one thing is right and the other is not so good, or one will work under certain circumstances and not under others. The main question is this, whether parliament shall have, in effect, one individual, in this case the chief of the defence staff, who is going to be answerable to the minister for the defences of the country, or whether you are going to have a council, each member of which is appointed as a result of legislation and whose duties are specified in that legislation, so that he can be held responsible if a particular phase of defence is not up to par. There have been times in the past in British history when they had the chief of staff concept, that is total responsibility of a single individual rather than the committee system. Back in the last century, they found that there was grave danger in this system because inefficiency in the defence forces could grow up without parliament being advised sufficiently of the situation or without parliament being able to pin the responsibility on a particular individual.
In this system, the minister finds himself, in the last analysis, completely dependant on the advice of one man. If that man has particular theories as to what defence should be, it is only natural he will gather around him other senior officers who think in the same way as he does. He will then be in a position to have unanimity in the planning of the defence forces. If someone disagrees with him, he is only an adviser and can be replaced by someone who is more amenable to the points of view of the commander in chief concept which we have in this bill-one chief of the defence forces. As various witnesses pointed out in the committee, it is absolutely essential in a theatre of war, under wartime conditions, that the commander of the forces should have absolute control as to what he should do and that his orders cannot be questioned by a committee, countermanded at will, and so on. This is not a military operation. We are talking about the administration of a department of government which is set up to safeguard the country as best it can by having defence forces and administering them efficiently.
Now, how they operate in the field is a question for the military experts. This is not a question for civilians who are not trained

in that particular profession. But when it comes to the general question of administration, it seems to me the minister would be in a far sounder position if, as is the case in Britain, we had the committees system where the various members of the appropriate defence committee are responsible to the minister. I am using this term loosely, not in the technical sense. In Britain they have particular names for these committees, depending on whether they are for the navy, army or air force. There is the air force board, the army board and the admiralty board in the United Kingdom. In effect the members of a board are directly responsible to the minister and are not just in an advisory capacity to the chief of that particular branch of the armed services. In this way valid differences of opinion become known to the minister.
I want it clearly understood that it is not because of any lack of confidence in any particular individual that I have doubts about the system proposed. It is just because human nature being what it is nobody is perfect, and in my judgment when you have one man with total responsibility for large segments of the defence forces, and for policy, there is a certainty that, being human, he is going to make mistakes. Then there is a danger that these mistakes will not become known and recognized as quickly as they should be, because it is human nature to tend to defend one's position, whether it is right or not.
When you have this sort of set-up there is a danger that a bad decision will be defended for a long time, in fact until a great deal of damage has been done, and it will not become evident that there is a mistake until a lot of effort and possibly money has been wasted pursuing a particular course.
If we even had an inspector general of the defence forces, that would be an advantage, because then you would have the effectiveness of the forces under review by a technical expert who would be reporting directly to the minister on any flaws which his judgment told him existed in the armed forces. This would be a reasonable precaution. Otherwise the minister would be in the very difficult position in that his chief adviser on defence matters would be the man responsible for the shape, posture and condition of the defence forces. Under those circumstances weaknesses in the set-up would tend to be screened from the view of the minister, so long as it were possible to do so. In fact there might not even be a con-
National Defence Act
scious screening of dangers from the minister. These dangers might be pointed out to the chief of the defence forces but, because in his own mind he sincerely believes the forces are the best possible under the circumstances, he would inform the minister of his own view and the minister would not be made fully aware of other points of view.
I do not want to prolong this discussion. I have spoken longer than I expected to, but I just wanted to point out that members of the defence committee and witnesses who appeared before it raised grave doubts as to whether this is an improvement or a retrogression. Such doubts could be cured by having a defence council. There should be some latitude as to who the members of that council should be, but their positions would be specified by a bill, similar to this one, amending the National Defence Act. In fact this could be done, whether we had separate defence forces with three chiefs of staff or just one chief of staff. This is something that should be carefully examined by the government.
I, and many others far more expert than I would ever hope to be, have misgivings about this proposal. In other words many of us are not sure whether certain aspects of the bill are advancement or retrogression, in so far as efficiency of defence work in peacetime and the administration of it by the department are concerned. However, presumably on the best advice it could get, the government has embarked on this program. It is the government's responsibility to do that. All I can say is, heaven help it if it is a blunder.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the position of our party in this connection was set out by the hon. member for Calgary North, when he said during the course of the committee hearings:
Mr. Chairman, I have really no further questions to put to the minister. I am not going to take up the time of the committee to repeat the points already made here, but I would like to say that I think that a lot of the points that Brigadier Malone brought up, which the minister has dealt with, chiefly in regard to the dangers of what amounts to a supreme commander, and particularly from the point of view of leaving the minister, whoever he may be, in the position of having only one military adviser, is a very dangerous precedent. It is a matter of going back, as Brigadier Malone pointed out, to a system which was tried for a long time in Great Britain and other countries and found wanting. I regret that the type of organization, more along the line of the one which exists in Great Britain or the type of thing which was suggested by Brigadier Malone, is not being put into effect.

National Defence Act


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at some length prior to this bill being sent to the special committee on defence, but there have been some points raised during the committee hearings that I feel I must underline once more.
As a member of the defence committee and on behalf of the official opposition I do say that while the principle of the unification of command is endorsed by us, yet we have some reservations about some of the consequences thereof. First I want to reiterate what my colleague, the hon. member for Queens, has said-and the minister knows my represensations and queries on this-that we are not satisfied the minister has the necessary framework of civilian advisers responsible to himself, rather than to the department.
Second, so long as we are talking about the unification of command, that is one thing; but there has been a great deal of loose talk about integration.
Frequently from the government we hear some odd predictions as to what may happen by July, 1967, without really thinking it out. I must warn the minister in this regard that there should be as full a disclosure as possible. Speed need not necessarily be the principal motive of the minister. I have had an opportunity during the last few weeks to talk to many of our servicemen and, let me assure the hon. gentlemen, there are a lot of questions in their minds. I do not know to whom in the armed services the minister has spoken. I know what happens when a minister visits a military establishment. He gets the official view, but no one dares to talk frankly from the lower levels. This is endemic in the system.
As a consequence of the reduction of personnel there were some 500 airmen selected for release recently. I believe we have seen headlines saying that 10 per cent of flight crews were to be released. This information may be reasonably accurate, or it may not. In any event I must say there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the air force about what is happening in connection with these releases. I should like the minister to tell us what criteria were used to establish which men should be released. I have heard stories that young pilots whose careers were entirely ahead of them, men who had been trained at tremendous cost, are chiefly among those to be released. And where are they going? I am told many of them are going south of the border to obtain employment with United States air lines. I am informed that in training one unit where there were eight

instructors, seven of them have been slated for release. I would wish that this information were inaccurate, because if it is true it represents a monumental blunder to take seven eighths of a unit's training instructors and release them. What sort of efficiency results from a decision of that kind? If it is intended to release personnel from the army and the air force there are hundreds of jobs where men are piloting desks-jobs being done by men who are approaching the end of the road and serving their time before drawing their pensions. Those should be the men to be released at this time, rather than young men who have been trained and from whom we have so far received little return.
The minister may not know this, but actions of this type are seriously affecting morale. It may be true that within the junior ranks the prospect of integration is popular in certain sectors. However, I am speaking about these present releases. Actions now being taken have really shaken morale. I should like the minister, as I say, to give us some indication of the criteria being used to select personnel for release. Is it being done by using an IBM machine- certain cards being put into the machine, and out they come for release, those with certain qualifications or characteristics? We need some clarification of all these things; otherwise we can only be critical of the action of the department in selecting the personnel who are being released at this time. If the operation is carried out in this way in the air force, what is going to happen in the army? Is it the intention to take young officers who have been trained at high cost and from who we have received little in return, and release them, first?
I can assure the minister there are many other sectors within each of the services where the administrative set-ups could be combined. The recruiting services are an example. The practice on some occasions has been to take a pilot from overseas and put him in a recruiting office. Surely the department can do better than that. Surely you do not need an officer from each of the services to man a recruiting office. Take movement control of personnel; Every service has its own way of doing things. Pay is also handled differently. These, I suggest, are the areas in which real economies of personnel could be secured without a reduction in efficiency. The armed services are still fighting a considerable paper war, and the men employed in the services are the people who will tell you they are doing this.

Since I have spoken before, and since other members on this side of the house have made some inquiries of the minister, I think I will end my discussion of this item and bring it to a close.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we should examine this bill which has come back to us from committee very carefully.
I am not suggesting the committee did not do an effective piece of work in examining the measure, but on reading over the evidence taken before that committee I express some disappointment that the subject was not covered in more detail.
The committee heard a statement from the minister and then listened to certain expert witnesses including Air Marshal Curtis and Major General Macklin. Officials of the Department of National Defence gave evidence also, and the committee heard a considerable statement from Brigadier Malone. But I do think the committee might usefully have made a study of the Lord Esher report which has been referred to on several occasions, as well as a study of the system now operating in the United Kingdom, and incorporated its findings on these two matters in the report.
As a matter of fact, I asked for this on May 8 as reported at page 3091 of Hansard. My words at that time were:
So I sound this cautionary note at this time for a consideration of the matters drawn to our attention by Brigadier Malone-
This refers to various articles he had written
-for a study of the Lord Esher report, for a study of the system operated at the present time in the United Kingdom, so that we do not, in the haste for reform, make what might become a very serious mistake.
That is the situation which faces us. Eagerness for reform should not lead the government or the House of Commons into an area of error, and I believe there is a chance for very serious error in the reform measure put before us in the present bill.
I realize that the minister has had a first class piece of public relations done on his efforts, and there has been the usual brainwashing with regard to his activities. People are led to believe that this is a major step forward and that something like this should have been done years ago. As my seatmate the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) has pointed out, it may turn out to be a major step backward because-and I said this on second reading of the bill-the minister is reverting to something which was in effect in Canada 60 years ago, something that was in effect in Britain 60 years ago, and it was changed in
National Defence Act
both places. Why is he reverting to something that was found faulty in those years. In the interval I do not doubt for one minute that certain discrepancies have crept in, not only here but in Great Britain, and adjustments have had to be made.
We have had the experience in Canada of the blunders that were made in the first world war, and they were numerous; and the blunders that were made in the second world war, and they were numerous. We also had a situation in Korea when we were not ready for that type of action and had to draw hastily from the militia units to throw up a force to dispatch to Korea; and when the 27th brigade was set up in Germany, we had to improvise and draw from various units in this country to provide a composite brigade for that operation. So I would say that although our experience in war has some worth-while aspects, we have committed as a country a great many blunders.
We should be very careful that we are not committing another blunder at the present time. That is why I think very careful consideration of the proposal of the minister is required. I would not be taking up the time of the house on this matter tonight were it not for the fact that I consider this step to be of very great seriousness. I do not profess to be an expert on warfare, but I have made a study of the conduct of war over the years and I am familiar with some of the problems that have faced governments in time of war, the difficulties of commanders in chief commanding in the field, and I have read quite a bit about the difficulties that have beset governments in dealing with the administration of defence departments in this country and in other countries.
So let us not just lightly rubber stamp this bill and say, "Oh, this is a very bright idea from a rising young star in the Liberal party", which is about what is said in the press releases which go out about the minister. He wants me to believe those press releases, but not the ones that pertain to the air division over in Europe, as he said today in the house. 1 am to believe the complimentary press releases. Let us not be in too great a haste about this matter.
What is the minister attempting to do? He talks, but has not explained this very clearly to the public and the services, about the unification or integration of the services. I think he should make clear in the house tonight exactly what is the situation in so far as the three services are concerned. I read in the committee report of Air Marshal

National Defence Act
Curtis talking to scores of officers, and he finds that in the services there is uncertainty as to what is happening. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent upon the minister to make a clear statement right here in the House of Commons so that the people in the services will know where they are going and what is ahead of them. Let him tell us whether we are going to have everybody in one type of uniform, all integrated together; or are we going to keep the three distinct fighting services and unify them in combined operations as was done in war, and leave it at that? Is his unification going to apply only to the administrative services, and that level? These are things that should be said, and said by the minister so that the responsible word can go out.
We do not want to lose able young men from the services, or able older men, just because of a scheme of integration which is not well understood. Why should men who have put many years into the services be now considering getting out in a hurry before some unknown change happens? The minister should give reassurance to these people who for years have been performing commendable service on behalf of their country. These are some of the uncertainties that should be cleared up, and cleared up now when we are discussing this bill which will set the pattern for future activity in this connection.
I mentioned the fact that I hoped the minister would have given us tonight a full report on the examination that the defence committee conducted with regard to this bill. The minister continually disappoints me. He gives a very short statement; he attempts to lull us into sleep, and we are to pass things just because everything is all right in this best of all worlds. Why did he not give us an exact, clear and comprehensive account of what transpired in that committee? He did not even mention the names of the expert witnesses. I noticed that when he was dealing with some of the statements made by Brigadier Malone, he brushed them aside. Brigadier Malone had made his presentation earlier to the committee, on about June 3, and on June 9 the minister offered his rebuttal. There is this interesting paragraph in the proceedings of the committee:
In commenting on what Brigadier Malone had to say, I think that in fairness to him I should point out that he himself admitted that, due to the fact that he had been out of the country recently, he had not been able to follow the proceedings of the committee prior to his appearance. Thus, he

was not aware of the discussions that had previously taken place, including my statement to the committee on May 26.
The inference there is that Brigadier Malone, having missed the statement from on high on May 26, was of course, not apprized of what really had been going on and was not competent then to offer criticism. I have read the statement that was made on May 26, and I cannot say that I learned much more, if anything, from it than what the minister had said when we debated this subject in the house. So the minister attempts to brush aside Brigadier Malone.
Let me point this out to the house, because the house has to take the responsibility; we do not foist this off on the defence committee. The house must know what it is about. It is the house that passes this bill after study by the committee; it is the house that has to make the decision. I find that there were three points of view presented to the committee by these three distinguished gentlemen who appeared there. Air Marshal Curtis, as I take it, did not like the idea of abolishing the heads of the three services. Major General Macklin was all for that change, and in his usual forceful and forthright manner he expressed his opinion on quite a number of subjects pertaining to defence, and one of them had to do with that. I have the greatest respect for Major General Macklin and have followed his career with a great deal of interest. I had the pleasure of working with him for a short interval toward the close of the war; I have followed his writings over the years with intense interest and have agreed, I think, with about 99 per cent of them. But 1 note that Major General Macklin had this to say with regard to the appointment of one person as supreme commander. As reported at page 210 of the committee report he said:
The whole thing depends upon the wisdom of the government in selecting the right chief. That means a man in whom they have confidence and who is qualified.
That is the nub of the matter, and this statement will apply to any government as the changes are made.
Now, what happens if the government selects the wrong chief? The system breaks down. This was the testimony that we got from Brigadier Malone, as he based it on the experience in England. I think from our knowledge of the first and second world wars we would say that that is where the danger lies. You do not always select the right man, and then trouble occurs between the minister of defence and the commander in chief. One

or the other has to give ground. We were not free from that in the second world war, when the government, I judge, was in a bit of a quandary for quite a while with regard to its commander in chief in the field before we invaded Europe. There was quite a little trouble in the first world war with a minister of national defence who caused endless concern to the people serving under him, and even more concern to his cabinet colleagues. So that getting the right man for the job is not easy.
As Brigadier Malone pointed out from the experience in Britain, that is where the trouble arises. You may have a very strong minister and a weak supreme commander. Or vice-versa; you have a very strong supreme commander and a weak minister, and you get into trouble. One or the other has to give way.
I should like to put on the record what Brigadier Malone said about this in his submission to the committee, as reported at page 146 of the report; and I would hope that the committee of the whole house would weigh some of this evidence. He said:
Assume for a moment that we could find a paragon of all the virtues to occupy the post of chief of the defence staff. In fact, a commander in chief. Look at the position in which he would be placed. All his professional associates would be junior to him, accepting his directions and orders and therefore not likely to challenge his decisions and no power to veto his projects. Above this one, top expert or professional soldier are the amateurs or civilians, in many cases not qualified or prepared to question his professional advice. It is hard to believe that such a top chief would not have some blind spots, some professional biases, some personal prides or fixations which would cause disaster. Surely the matter of national defence and the huge costs involved should not be subjected to such hazards. Certainly from an individual standpoint it is much easier to operate by yourself and be the complete boss and not have the problem worked through a committee, but it is not the individual interest we are thinking of here but the question of what is the right thing for the country.
The late Mr. Grant Dexter wrote on this subject back in 1942, and although Mr. Dexter and I disagreed on political matters I always respected the very able research that he put into any subject on which he wrote. This is what he wrote in 1942, and it is applicable to this particular case. He is speaking of the action taken in England in 1904:
The commander-in-chief was abolished for reasons which the Esher committee regarded as decisive. They were expressed by Mr. Balfour in the British house of commons and they apply to any minister who tries to control the army without the aid of an army council. To retain the commander-in-chief, said Mr. Balfour, meant that
National Defence Act
he would advise the secretary of state-then minister in Canada-and thereby the secretary must be destroyed. He would inevitably become only the nominal head-the puppet of the commander-inchief, the mouthpiece only. ...For a minister to deal directly with individual military experts is to place both minister and expert in a 'false position'. The minister must either confirm the expert's decision, in which case his position as superior authority is a mere form, or he must enter into the reasons for and against and decide afresh, in which case the expert becomes superfluous. It is bad organization to have two men (the minister and the expert), one over the other, to do the same business.
Brigadier Malone observed with regard to that:
It is my own conviction that the defence forces of Canada will be much more effectively directed by a defence council of both military and civilian personnel, rather than by a single officer directly under the minister. I would further suggest that each member of the defence council should be specifically charged by statute with clearly defined responsibilities. In my own opinion areas of actual responsibility are far too vague under our present system. I am convinced that these senior service members of the defence council should take their orders from the council as a whole not from a single commander-in-chief-or chief of the defence staff-call him what you will.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the nub of the matter. Do you have one supreme commander, or do you have a defence council which gives instructions to that commander?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. gentleman quote the source of the article to which he referred?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That last statement was Brigadier Malone.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought that was Grant Dexter you were quoting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the submission of Brigadier Malone immediately after he had read the comment made by Grant Dexter.
The minister attempted to answer some of the questions which Brigadier Malone put in front of him when he made his submission to the committee on defence, and I should now like to bring the minister back into the picture again. As reported at page 212 he said:
I would like, therefore, to take each of these questions in turn.
These are the questions put forward by Brigadier Malone.
The first: "Will the proposed chief of defence staff be accepting orders, directions and decisions from the defence council, or will he, in fact, be imposing his decisions on this council?"
The ministers goes on as follows:
The answer to this is that the chief of the defence staff will be accepting orders from the

National Defence Act
minister and associate minister. These orders will be based on decisions taken following full discussion within the defence council.
So here you have two men, the minister and the chief of the defence staff, and the chief takes his orders directly from the minister. The minister may not know anything about defence.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Does this one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What position does this put the chief of the defence staff in? I continue quoting:
His second question was: "Will other members of the defence council be in a position to question him or overrule him or veto his decisions?"
The minister replied:
The defence council will be the senior policy making group within the Department of National Defence under the chairmanship of the minister and all members of the defence council will be perfectly free at all times to ask any questions they so desire and to express their opinions on any subject which is before the council.
He did not answer the question except in part. The question was: Will they be able to overrule him or veto his decisions? The minister simply says that they can express their opinions on any subject which is before the council. That is what he says to us here: You can express your opinions on any subject with regard to defence. I recall that when I asked him last year in the defence committee if he wanted the advice of that committee he said "no". We sat for week after week knowing that the minister did not really want our advice. He does not want mine tonight, but I am giving it to him.
The third question was: "Will other members of the defence council be junior and subordinate to him?"
To the chief of the defence staff. The minister replied:
The answer to this is...that the membership of the council will consist of the minister, the associate minister, the ministers' parliamentary secretaries, if applicable, the chief of the defence staff, the vice-chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister and the chairman of the defence research board. Of these, only the vice-chief of defence staff can be considered subordinate to the chief.
Then there are some other questions which I do not think I will go into at this time, with the exception of this one:
"Will the chief of the defence staff be the chief adviser to the minister? Officially, will other members of the defence council have to speak to the minister through him?"
This was the minister's answer:
The answer to the first part of the question is that the chief of the defence staff will be the senior military adviser to the minister. To the

second part, other members of the defence council will speak in the defence council directly to the minister, if required, and...both the deputy minister and the chairman of the defence research board will have direct access to the minister at all times.
Another question asked by Brigadier Malone was:
"Will the actual authority for carrying out the government's policies as directed by the minister be vested in the council or in the chief of the defence staff?
This is the crux of the matter. The minister replied:
The answer to that is that the policies of the government will be carried out by several members of defence council in accordance with their responsibilities.
That is not very clear. I think what the minister is aiming at is having a supreme chief of the defence staff to whom he will give his orders, and that chief will give his orders down the line. The council that the minister talks about will just be an advisory council, free to express their opinions on any subject under the sun but having no authority to give instructions. In my opinion this is the point at which the mistake is being made.
According to the experience we had in this country many years ago and the experience in Great Britain, and both countries have had experience of war, there is an advantage in having a council which takes the responsibility and transmits its orders to the chief of staff rather than having him as a supreme commander. It is not only a question of limited aspects of the service. The council, if it had full authority, in addition to surveying all the aspects of military service would be able to give instructions so that there would be a proper balance in our services. The function of our armed services is to be ready for war in case of emergency and the council should be prepared to give the necessary instructions, with the minister being answerable to parliament for the activities of that council of which he would be a member. But if the bill of the minister is accepted we will have the minister still responsible to parliament for activities within defence, but there will be one man and one man only who will carry the responsibilities one step further. If there is a conflict of interest somebody will have to go, either the minister or the chief of the defence staff.
This is the danger inherent in the bill before us and it should be guarded against. Some may say: The man we have in mind for the chief of the defence staff right now

is a very able man, and I express no doubt on that score whatsoever. Perhaps his successor will be too, and maybe his successor; but a bill of this nature is long term, long range planning. Ministers come and go and sometimes there will be an experienced minister and sometimes an inexperienced minister. If there is an inexperienced minister or a minister who during the course of his functions in that job is detracted by other pressing problems, or suffers temporary illness or something of that nature, the supreme commander gains even more power.
Therefore when we make such long range plans we should be extraordinarily careful about what we are doing. The minister has not yet pointed out to the house in what way his plan is superior to the one put before the house by some of us on this side, when we spoke earlier in the debate, and put before the committee on defence by Brigadier Malone. Let the minister tell us the weaknesses, if there are any, of Brigadier Malone's submission and the corresponding strength, if there is any, of his proposal because, as I say, this is a very serious matter indeed and it will have its effect in the future.
We have no idea, and in my lifetime we never have had in this country, when war will break out, or where, or the contribution that Canada will be called upon to make. We have fooled ourselves all through the 20th century. We are very peaceful people, we are not going to participate in war, and all of a sudden we do. Then we find ourselves unprepared for it. Let us profit from the mistakes of the past and make sure that in the proposed reform that is before us now we are doing the right thing. If this is the right thing to do, why was it discontinued in 1904 in Canada and in Great Britain? Why has it not been reverted to in Great Britain? These are the questions I should like the minister to answer.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, we have before us Bill No. C-90, an act to amend the National Defence Act. I have read the debates of May 8, 11 and 12 and I was in the house at the time. I have had an opportunity to examine the proceedings of the defence committee, and I feel that as a committee of the whole house we have a very definite duty to go into the bill most thoroughly and also into defence policy generally. There has been enough material brought before the house to show that there is a very strong difference of opinion. Many points were raised by the last two speakers and all of them were good. I
National Defence Act
would only add to them the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North during the debate early in May.
A lot of questions were asked of the minister, I don't know, but he seems to see all and hear all, and he speaks damn all when he gets on his feet. I think this is something that he should take to heart. These questions are not put to him to put him on the spot. We are all interested in the defence of this country. We are interested in the defence policy of the present government. We are interested in expenditures. We are interested in how far we are going and not in an airy-fairy ten year plan without a fuller explanation.
The minister referred to his white paper and said that sometimes-I have not got his exact words here-there has been too much criticism; it is too detailed. I put it to him now that there is a happy medium. In other words, he can say something after hearing all and seeing all. I have no doubt the minister, in his capacity as minister and a member of the cabinet, has many things put to him. There are considerations and great ponderings going on, but some of these things must seep down. We are not getting it in this house. Naturally, this bill does not cover all these things, but I do think we are entitled to get at these things.
If I understood the associate minister today when he was asked if he had heard any complaints about the cutting down of the armed forces, he said, "Not to my knowledge." Perhaps the minister heard that statement. I ask the minister now, has he heard any complaints, general or specific, from specific people? Has he had any complaints from those who are under him in the armed services in the highest capacity, people upon whom he must rely? What have they told him? We heard the hon. member for Edmonton West ask about the reductions in the armed services. The questions he asked were good ones because I have heard them myself from members of the armed services. He mentioned air crew and members of the air force. I have heard this complaint myself. I should like the minister to tell us how he went about these reductions. The member for Edmonton West made a very excellent speech about these people.
We undertook a very heavy recruiting campaign on which we spent a lot of money to obtain these people. They received their university education along general lines, and then we find there is a terrific cutting off of these men who have come into Canada's

National Defence Act
armed forces with the intention of making it a career. Were these men cut off simply- I see the minister shaking his head, so I imagine now we are going to get the policy in connection with these cut-backs.


An hon. Member:: He has no policy.


David Vaughan Pugh: I think he may have. We are entitled to know whether that is a good policy, and where he got it from. Was it a slide rule deal? Was it an ivory tower deal? How was it arrived at? Some of these young men are married and they have devoted their lives to the particular branch of the armed services to which they belong.
I was speaking about the air force. The training of air crew members, apart from their academic training, is fantastically detailed and very expensive to this country. The member for Edmonton West asked about these desk-bound boys. What was the proportion of these men amongst those who were discharged, or whose discharges are pending? Are we clipping off too many of these air force people who have that detailed knowledge? Are we retaining a great many ivory tower people who probably have greater seniority? I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He said we had trained these men and they will be needed in our armed forces.
I have gone into this matter in considerable detail. Unless we do get answers from the minister, I think we are entitled to come back and back and back until we do get answers commensurate with reason. The minister gave a slight dissertation on May 12 which is reported in Hansard. I have read that speech several times and I ask myself, what did he say other than the broadest generalities? We have in this bill the big chief concept which has been gone into so thoroughly by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He is quite right. You put everything in one basket and things can happen. I think the remarks he made deserve a thorough answer from the minister. I should like to have an answer myself because I had notes on this subject. I wanted to know why we were going to this one chief idea, when so much criticism has been levelled against it down through the history of armed forces, not only here but elsewhere in the world.
There is no doubt that the Minister of National Defence has made a thorough study of this subject, but we do not have the benefit of his study. I think we are entitled to it. I like that point; who takes orders from whom? I can see the minister, if something did occur

which would require his sterling advice on military matters, based on his long background as a military man, arguing with his one chief. Perhaps there would not be an argument because I know the minister fairly well. I can see him pointing his finger at that chief and saying, "You do this". He might be wrong. As one hon. member remarked in referring to the C.B.C., heads will roll. When you get into trouble, heads cannot roll. We have had troubles before. We had a build-up in the armed services on the basis of seniority, and in the last war we had tremendous trouble from policy to actuality. The minister knows that because I am sure, in his capacity as Minister of National Defence, he has studied that situation and studied it carefully.
Then, I am wondering about the Glassco commission and how far it has gone. If we take the minister's word, then I suppose it is part of the ten year plan. The hon. member for Calgary North referred to this and asked what the recommendations of the Glassco commission were. The minister said that, apart from the integration of the forces and increased responsibility to the deputy minister, as outlined in the white paper, many of these recommendations were, in fact, now being implemented. I believe this committee is entitled to know how far you are going to go. What is the policy? What is the objective? What are the total military objectives? How are you going to accomplish them, bearing in mind the questions of equipment, material, manpower and the amount of money we can spend on these things We have not had that. It is sort of like this flexible deal. You go back to it many times and you say, "keep her flexible". How flexible have you got to be?
I go back again to that one instance, the chopping of men and personnel in the armed forces, and the breakdown of morale. I cannot use any other word because that is exactly what has happened. We should know what is going on; we should know how far we are going.
The minister smiles, because I think he has thought of the answer. He is going to say, "Well, you know there are a lot of things I would love to tell you boys about, but I am sorry they are locked away in the secret files and they must remain there." But I do not think he has given us enough. In common sense, I don't think he has given us enough.
We read too much in the newspapers; too many little kites are being flown. We should

have these things put before us in an orderly fashion, so that if there are any areas which the minister cannot delineate he should tell us about them and perhaps, within reason, we would say, "Well, all right."
I go back to the minister's reaction when he was in opposition, when he was a hard working, intermediate backbencher, though possibly on the front bench of the opposition. Now that we are in opposition we want to know more, and if there is an explanation which falls short of what is expected, then we should keep the ball rolling and say, "I don't understand that answer. We should know more." I know the minister knows exactly what I am referring to because these were supplementary estimates which galloped on for the longest time in history and a good deal of the verbiage in Hansard was produced by the clack of the present minister, who was the great defence man for the opposition at that time.
He was a critical critic. I think I have put my point across and I would repeat what I said at the outset, that this a committee of the whole house. The minister had his say in the defence committee. He may or may not have answered the questions to our satisfaction, but the hon. member for Edmonton West said there were reservations, and if that hon. member has reservations I am sure they are just. I think we should hear further. I do not think he is the type of man who wants to prod and pry and unleash vital information, like a regular Mata Hari deal. We are making a common sense demand and we are entitled to have the answers because this committee, in the final analysis, is going to pass not only Bill C-90, but also the minister's estimates and the various other productions which he is going to present from now until such time as he is elevated, removed or moved out. But so long as he is sitting there we are going to have these things put before us, and in a great deal more detail.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I do not intend to say very much on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am glad to see I have support from the other side because it helps the morale to find such enlightened people among others, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quandra, a distinguished member of the committee, approving in advance what I may say on this measure.
So far as integration is concerned, I think we on this side have amply manifested that
National Defence Act
we are in accord with the principle of integration of the forces, and that is the natural outcome of the vast changes which have taken place in military technology in the post-war years. The roles of the traditional services can no longer be clearly defined and they overlap one another. In view of that development it is only natural that we should use ways to bring the organization of the forces in line with it.
But I think this bill has been greatly overrated and promoted out of all proportion by the minister, his worthy associate and everyone else connected with it. I remember the minister telling the committee that Bill C-90 would make our armed forces the most modern anywhere in the world, but if you ask him how he substantiates such a sweeping statement all he says is, "We are bringing forth an act to amend national defence administration."
If you closely analyse this bill you find there is only one substantive disposition in all of it, clause No. 1, which relates to section 19 of the act, and which refers to the appointment of a chief of the defence staff who will be replacing the present three chiefs of service. There is nothing very revolutionary in such a proposal, and by integrating the chiefs of staff this does not mean we are creating, to use his own words, the most modern force in the world. I notice the minister laughing, and also his associate minister. They think this matter is very funny-and it may be; but in any event this measure in itself does not improve the effectiveness of the forces, nor does it effect any real economy in military spending.
I ask the minister if he can prove that this is not so?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister made an observation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I just said it is not so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister says it is not so, but he did say in the committee that the purpose of the bill was twofold-one, to make the forces more effective and, second, to realize economies in military spending. With regard to making the forces more effective and modern, all we have here is a proposal to appoint this chief of the defence staff who will be reporting direct to the minister, and in the eyes of the minister this is performing a great revolutionary modification to our armed forces. He thinks our forces will be

National Defence Act
a lot more modern because they will be under one chief of general staff, instead of under three persons.
You might well have some kind of an armed force belonging to a very backward country east or west or south of Timbuktu, a newly emerging nation, but all it has are a couple of soldiers with bow and arrows, and these are all placed under one man. But from the fact that these people have been placed under one commander, instead of three, I ask: Does that make them any more modern? The minister may think this comparison has no application to the present case; but it has a direct application. All we are doing here is integration by the top instead of by the bottom, down below. Integration in such a way is simply integration on paper; that is all the minister has so far performed.
I know the minister has a good publicity staff. His public relations are excellent. No doubt they are warranted. He is an amiable man. He knows how to make friends and influence people. He has probably read all the right books on the subject and I think perhaps in this respect the minister is the most successful the country has ever had. In this respect, that is so, but in this respect only-on paper, and as far as spreading the aura of renovation across the country. I myself had the privilege of travelling with the minister a few weeks ago and I had an enjoyable trip. To give an example-I do not think he will hold it against me if I bring this up-to show how well he likes to have his colleagues and other people know in what high regard he is held-and I think he is held in high regard-he distributed in the plane some copies of the Armed Forces Management Review, a United States publication which is supposed to be directed to executives in military affairs, and on the front cover of that magazine was a splendid picture, not flattering at all-the minister is an impressive looking gentleman-and I went on to read the review because, naturally, I was attracted by the presentation. The minister was described as "the boy wonder of Canadian politics". I think that is really treating public relations in the proper fashion. I think some of us could learn a few things about the way these things are carried on.
But the crux of the matter is that the only reason for the minister being described as the boy wonder of Canadian politics, and doing things which have never been done

before in western military history, is that he has introduced this bill to amend the National Defence Act. That is all very well, and I wish the minister a lot of success with this venture; but I think that we on this side of the house are genuinely concerned about the effectiveness of these changes. If integration is a good principle-and we agree it is a good principle-it should be carried on right down the line, and so far we have not had very much proof that what the minister is proposing is either going to increase effectiveness or realize economies.
For instance, this replacement of the chiefs of the services by one chief of a defence staff may appear to represent a reduction from three to one, but this is not necessarily so because the new chief will have a number of assistants. He will have an assistant from each of the services and there will be, of course, if this tendency toward empire building takes its usual course, a desire on the part of each of those senior staff, the top brass of the Canadian forces, to be surrounded by aides-de-camp and all the staff which surrounds senior brass in any armed service in any country in the world-a tendency from which Canada has shown no marked willingness to escape.
So it would seem that the second object will not be realized; and if, as I fear, the human tendency to empire building as exemplified in Parkinson's law applies, we will see just as much brass as we ever had in the armed forces of Canada. The minister may think that because only one person will be reporting to him it will be a significant change for the better, but I am not so sure. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), the hon. member for Winnipeg South and a number of others mentioned that it is better to get information from a variety of sources, as the minister knows very well, so as to possess a broader picture of the real needs of Canadian defence.
Someone else has pointed out that this great project of the minister has stirred up a lot of talk among the people of this country and especially among service people. Members of the armed forces are entitled to get from the minister a clearcut picture of what is actually to happen to them. These men are fine, trained men and they have devoted their best years to the service of Canada. They have not yet received a clear picture of what the minister has in mind. They could not have received one because we in this committee have not yet received from the minister any clear picture apart from this one enactment.

So before this bill goes further I think the minister should answer a number of questions pertaining to the changes he may have in mind. How is this integration to be followed up by integration among the lower ranks of the armed services? I know the department intended to release at one stage some 50,000 men from the armed services. The next day it was 10,000. Then in committee several members questioned the minister and the associate minister very closely about the number of men who were to be released. The numbers seemed to get smaller and smaller until, in the end, I was not sure whether instead of decreasing the armed forces we were not planning to increase them. It was clear that only a puny operation was contemplated under the smokescreen of this vast renovation which was to produce for Canada a great force of armed might whose efficiency no other nation could approach. That is certainly a worthy objective to be pursued, but so far we have not seen the beginning of it, despite this barrage of publicity which accompanies the merest gesture the minister makes. I do not know what his secret is, but he is certainly in the foreground of public speculation and, perhaps, even of adulation; I do not know. But I think the armed services are a bit worried. They want to know what is likely to happen to them, and those who are to be released wish to be treated on a fair and equitable basis.
It is all right to provide for colonels or major generals up to $15,000 in cash benefits. That is fine. The associate minister said in the committee that the purpose of these benefits was simply to help in the rehabilitation of those who were released. Yet those who are in the greatest need of help for rehabilitation, that is to say the lower ranks, the private soldiers without any great influence or special skills, get very much less. This is a line of policy from which neither the minister nor the associate minister wanted to depart one iota.
I mentioned this in the committee, and afterwards I received a lot of letters from people in the armed services. They feel it is unfair-and I do, too, in a way. If the purpose is really to provide rehabilitation, I do not think the private should get five, six or ten times less than the major general. I just cannot accept the particular explanation given by the minister in this regard, and I do not think this practice is fair.
These are matters that are directly concerned with this bill, Mr. Chairman, and with regard to which we have not received the
National Defence Act
answers that we should receive from the minister. We asked in the committee what would be the role of this new, integrated force Canada will have, and the minister said, "Well, read the white paper". That is all he could tell us. I have read the white paper- and I have here a very good summary of the principal points contained in the white paper-but it only deals in generalities. These generalities, in order to be meaningful, must be accompanied by positive actions and statements by the minister. I would like the minister to tell the committee now what the next step in this integration will be; and let him tell us what the new role of the armed forces will be once this integration has been completed. If he can do that, I think the minister will finally deserve all the advance publicity, all the advance favourable notice he has received about the things he intends to do but has not yet done. I think it is about time this government found out there is a vast distinction between saying they are going to do something, and doing it.
The press have treated the minister and his work most favourably. I do not think there is a single minister of the present government, with the possible exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has been so well treated by the press. If this is so, it is because they expect many things from the minister-and so far he has not delivered. If his delivery is nothing but the very insignificant changes that are being wrought by this bill, I think it is about time he changed his tune and admitted that what he proposed to do is just a little bit too much for him, and that he will call upon other advisers if necessary to carry out this job. This is very important. The minister has started on a course, and for my part I am glad to see him start on that course and I want to congratulate him; but I want him to continue and I want him to be frank, and perfectly frank, with all the members of this committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I take the opportunity afforded me by the study of Bill No. C-90 to say a few words about the changes that the Department of National Defence intends to make within its personnel.
I obtained today from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) a reply to the following question I had asked him a few days ago:
What are the names of the people who, in the three armed services, have the rank of general, major general or brigadier, or an equivalent rank in the navy or air force, and what are their salaries?

National Defence Act
Mr. Chairman, I was very surprised to learn that out of the 135 senior officers in the three armed services who get $20,000 and $25,000 a year, only nine French speaking Canadians. I wonder what the government intends to do in order to correct this abnormal situation, since the proportion of French Canadians and of bilingual Canadians holding higher positions in the three armed services is definitely inadequate. The height of ridicule is that no French speaking officer holds a high position in the air force and only one French speaking Canadian holds a high office in the navy.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house, have asked the government on several occasions to extend to four years the course given at the St. John Royal Military College, so as to give French speaking Canadians the required training and enable them to hold higher positions in the three armed services.
It is with regret that we heard about the resignation of Major General Paul Emile Bernatchez-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member with attention and interest for a few moments while studying the explanatory notes in Bill C-90, and I must say that it is not easy to relate the hon. member's remarks to the bill under consideration.
It may be that his remarks are related to it in fact, but I ask him to tell me in what way.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I thought that my remarks were in order since Bill C-90 deals with the appointment of the chief of the defence staff and that they are connected with a question I asked on orders of the day, as well as the reply I was given about senior officers in the three services.
That is the reason why I wanted to point this out to the house and mention that French Canadians will fill the higher ranks in the three armed forces only when-


Lucien Lamoureux: Unless the hon. member is going to conclude his remarks, I feel that they would be more appropriate when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are under consideration.
I cannot say that his remarks are really related to the bill now under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you on what grounds you can say that my remarks are out of order, since I am discussing the appointment of a chief of staff and the number of highly paid positions-


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. member wishes to know which standing order I am referring to, I would suggest that he read standing order 59 (2). I would also point out that his remarks are not strictly related to the bill under consideration which is to replace the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and chiefs of naval staff, general staff and air staff by an authority who will be known as the chief of defence staff. That is what we are discussing at present and I do not think that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm can discuss the number of French Canadians in the armed forces at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for allowing me to point out that weakness in the Canadian armed forces.
But, since we now have a Minister of National Defence and an Associate Minister of National Defence, I think it would be proper for the government to follow the same policy as far as the Canadian forces are concerned, that is if an English speaking chief of staff for defence is appointed, well, a French speaking deputy chief of staff for defence should be appointed.
Those are the few remarks I intended to make and I hope the Minister of National Defence will be able to answer that question along those lines, since there is at present a serious gap to be filled within the Canadian forces as very few bilingual or French Canadians hold senior positions.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, with pleasure, Mr. Chairman.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm said earlier that the Canadian forces lacked French Canadian personnel. Could he tell us whether the number of French Canadians has gone down or up since the Liberal government took office? Does this mean that the number of French Canadians has decreased in our forces and that at the time of the Conservative government, it was higher?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I shall answer this question. When the Conservative government-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The fact that the hon. member for Dorchester asked a question does not make relevant the subject discussed by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I refer again to the provisions of

section 59 (2) of standing orders, under which the hon. member's observations must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration, and I suggest that he should limit his observations in that direction.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you authorized a question by the hon. member for Dorchester and I should simply like to tell him this, because I think I abide by your ruling-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and other members of the committee. Even if the hon. member for Dorchester asked a question, that does not mean the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is justified to answer. I had to hear the question before making a ruling as to whether or not it was in order. The matter raised by the hon. member for Dorchester cannot be discussed under section 1 of Bill C-90 now before the house.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Chairman, as my question was out of order, I shall ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm not to answer it and to abide by standing orders, as you suggested.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my question to the Minister of National Defence, if he wants us, on this side of the house, to pass this bill as soon as possible. I shall therefore ask him whether the government intends to appoint a French speaking Canadian as chief of staff for national defence? If he wants us to support the bill, he should give me an answer.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member allow a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we have already designated the proposed chief of defence staff and the vice chief of defence staff, but I can assure my hon. friend that there will be a very good proportion of French speaking gentlemen of both English and French origin in the defence staff. I am sure the hon. member will be very pleased with the group that are appointed.
I should like to answer immediately all the very interesting questions raised tonight, but I understand we have a little agreement. Consequently I should like to move that we rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask the direct question of the minister: Is it the intention to appoint a bilingual officer as assistant to the chief?
Export Credits Insurance Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There is a motion before the committee on which there is no debate.
Progress reported.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-101, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour I wish to try and summarize my remarks on this bill. As hon. members know, the Export Credits Insurance Act was originally approved in 1944. It has been amended from time to time over the years to enable the Export Credits Insurance Corporation to provide facilities in line with current demands. This bill marks another stage in the development of the corporation's activities.
One purpose of the present bill is to exempt the corporation from the obligation of paying income tax. No similar export credits insurer doing business in other countries along the same lines as the Export Credits Insurance Corporation pays income tax. In addition, there are no commercial enterprises in Canada providing services comparable to the facilities provided by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. If this amendment is approved by parliament it is proposed that under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act the corporation will pay to the Receiver General the sum of $10 million in cash. This sum corresponds to the aggregate of the paid-up capital and the capital surplus of the corporation and will be credited to a special non-interest bearing account in the consolidated revenue fund in the name of the corporation.
Another main purpose of the bill relates to the corporation's authority to insure Canadian engineering and construction firms for services rendered overseas. In this field of export operation, particularly with respect to construction, certain equipment must be taken to the site and would normally be brought back to Canada on completion of the job. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit the corporation to insure the Canadian firm against the risk of losing the ownership or control of the equipment being employed by him in rendering technical services outside Canada. Such insurance is not at present available from commercial sources.

Export Credits Insurance Act
The bill would also give the corporation authority to reinsure risks with export credits insurers operating in other countries and to accept reinsurance from them, thus providing the corporation with the authority to take on additional insurable business of Canadian exporters. The corporation can now enter into a contract of insurance with a Canadian exporter to protect him against non-payment by a foreign buyer for goods or services exported from Canada pursuant to a contract of sale entered into between the Canadian exporter and the foreign buyer. With the proposed amendment it will be possible for the corporation to enter into a contract of insurance with an export credits insurance organization in another country.
The bill proposes to increase the amount of the liability of the corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act from $400 million to $600 million. Under this section, the total current liability of the corporation as at April 30 this year under all policies issued and outstanding amounts to $235 million. Additional commitments have been made under the authority of orders in council totalling $236 million. So it will be quite clear to the house that we need this authority if we are going to continue doing business.
Section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act allows the corporation, when authorized by the governor in council by order in council, to provide financing to Canadian exporters for heavy capital equipment requiring terms of payment extending beyond five years, which is the normal cut-off term for insurance transactions. This bill proposes to increase the amount of this long term financing from the present limitation of $300 million to $400 million. As at April 30 of this year the corporation had entered into financial agreements under long term export financing contracts totalling $184 million. Additional financing and guarantees have been authorized by orders in council totalling $33 million. The corporation has applications from exporters for long term financing, the bulk of which has been approved in principle, totalling another $80 million. Accordingly, financial agreements already signed, guarantees currently outstanding, and additional financial agreements not yet signed total $297 million. It is therefore obvious that in order to continue this very important facility it is necessary to increase the present ceiling.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred


to the various technical amendments which are included in this bill, all of which I am sure are important. I think the crux of the bill is contained in the last paragraphs of his statement with reference to sections 20, 21, and 21 A, under which obviously unless this bill is passed, and passed in the immediate future, there would be a severe curtailment of the financing of exports which are necessary to maintain the development of this country.
I have always been interested in this matter first, as minister of national revenue and afterwards as minister of finance, and I felt sometimes that our act was not as generous as those of other countries. I am thinking of the excellent arrangements made in the United States. I am thinking of the way export credit insurance matters are dealt with in other nations. I realize the difficulties of the signatories to the Berne convention. I was reminded of that from time to time by the chairman of the corporation. I was trying to persuade him to accept some long term arrangements and he said: "We are a signatory to the Berne convention and we can do nothing about it".
I am glad to see that these amendments are being suggested and I am particularly happy to see the increase in the capital and the increase in the authorization under section 21 A. This has been one of the keystones of our economic development. The government of which I was a member amended the act on two or three occasions, increasing the moneys which were available, and it is an indication of the development of the export trade of Canada that it is now necessary and advisable for the minister to come before us to ask for a further extension. As far as we in the official opposition are concerned, we are very glad to give our full support to the proposed amendments, and I hope they commend themselves to the favourable attention of the house because I am quite certain they are necessary now and in the immediate future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to expedite the passage of this bill because we recognize the need for extending the capital and also the authorization which is made possible under sections 21 and 21A. We are in favour of the principle of the legislation. We would like some more information from the minister which he might be able to give us when he is closing the debate, or in committee of the whole.

I should like to know particularly to what extent this legislation has been used to facilitate wheat exports and long term sales of wheat to other countries, and what part of the total amount that has been guaranteed is attributable to wheat sales. I recognize that the minister cannot give us the names of firms or countries involved, but if he can give us a breakdown as to categories or classes of goods for which these guarantees have been given I think it would give the house some idea of the value of this legislation and what particular types of exports have benefited from it. We can probably secure this information from the minister later. In the meantime we are anxious that this legislation be passed quickly and therefore we will not take the time of the house to enter into any further discussion of it now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I should like to say that there is not time this evening even to comment, let alone either to agree or disagree, on the proposed amendments involving the technical points that the minister has raised. Very generally I should like to say that we agree with many of the changes that will allow a greater latitude to the corporation, so that it can in fact underwrite some of the construction firms that are doing business in many parts of the world. We both recognize and appreciate the fact that the expansion into this field is a noncompetitive area.
However, as has been pointed out, the main feature of the amendments before us tonight is to increase the capital of the corporation from $400 million to $600 million. We also recognize that almost every area of the economy of Canada has benefited from the provisions of this act and so we give our support to passing these amendments as expeditiously as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Exemption from income tax. [Translation]
Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question, precisely because I have not had time to study the measure and I do not want to delay the passing thereof.
I only want to know if the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is the one that was
Export Credits Insurance Act taken over by the Chartered Banks Association a few years ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is entirely a government institution. It does two kinds of business. It insures exporters against loss and it also provides direct financing of certain types of transactions. Where the corporation acts as insurer the financing is done by commercial institutions such as banks, but the corporation itself is entirely a government-owned corporation and is a direct government operation.


Guy Marcoux: In that case, will the income tax exemption which this corporation will enjoy be granted to chartered banks or to the government agency?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I explained when I made my statement on second reading, institutions like this which are operating throughout the world are not subject to income tax and it is proposed to bring the practice in Canada into line with the practice in other countries. I should perhaps tell the committee that recently when the corporation met it approved a reduction in rates because it did not wish to make any profits that would be subject to tax.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask the minister a couple of questions? Will the premiums on reinsurance approximate the exact premium that the exporter pays? Has the minister any knowledge in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret that I am not very expert in this field. I should think, however, that where reinsurance is made with other foreign corporations doing business in the same field the exporter would just pay the cost. The corporation would not take any additional commission for handling the business in that way.


David Vaughan Pugh: Perhaps I could have a definite answer on that point later. Has the minister any idea of the ratio between exports of grain and manufactured and raw materials? In other words, are sales of grain the biggest draw on the Export Credits Insurance Corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam also asked me a question in detail about this matter. I regret I do not have the information now but I will be very happy to obtain it. Perhaps I ought

Business of the House to say that all the transactions in grain are done under section 21 of the act, with the approval of the governor in council. They are not done by the corporation in its own right risking its own capital. The proportion of business in grain done under section 21 is a large proportion of that kind of business, but in relation to all the business done by the corporation it does not predominate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On that point I take it that the financing of the exports of grain has been done under section 21 and they represent a very large part of the total, which I think the minister said was something over $230 million, if I remember correctly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. Actually the total amount of business done since the corporation was formed is very much larger than that. I was speaking about the total amounts outstanding at the present time. Under section 21, which relates to risks assumed by the government itself, grain forms a very large proportion, but of the total business done by the corporation grain does not predominate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But it represents a fairly large part of the business done under section 21. Would the minister have any idea of the relative amounts?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, I shall have to get those figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will not press the point. Would the minister agree to give us this information on his estimates? If that would be suitable we could let the matter drop.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be quite happy to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader what non-controversial business he has for us tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: One thing which I hope will be non-controversial is that I may be allowed

to thank the leaders of the various parties for their co-operation in disposing of this urgent legislation tonight. The business of the house tomorrow will be the debate on the amendment to the flag resolution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: And the union jack will be next?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the minister upon his elevation to the cabinet. I think all of us will agree, although on occasion we do not agree with his philosophy on the principles of taxation, he has already demonstrated his ability to deal with exactitude with figures when he has been answering questions by the opposition about legislation or estimates. It is in that co-operative spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I provide this opportunity for the minister to get his initiation into the details of the administration of the Income Tax Act.
I should like to quote the question I asked him on orders of the day today. Would the minister inform the house why the income tax branch forwards refunds due residents of Quebec to the provincial ministry of revenue direct, and of the legal basis for such unusual procedure? My reason for asking that question follows a conversation I had yesterday with some Quebec residents. In one instance in particular-and the person had the document with him to prove it-the refund of something like $60 which this person fully expected to receive was sent to the provincial department of revenue. The taxpayer in question received a notice from the income tax branch that the refund payable to the taxpayer was being paid to the provincial department of revenue.
This procedure caused the taxpayer in question, and some others who had a similar experience, to consider it a very high-handed procedure, almost an invasion of the privacy of the individual. They were quite indignant. I should like, therefore, to fulfil my function as a member of parliament by raising this

question at the first opportunity. I brought it up during the question period and was disappointed when the Speaker said I was not in order. I thought this was a question of fiscal policy that concerned the whole house and would concern the country.
I would like the minister to explain to the house the arrangements that have been made in this connection, and the procedure and legal basis for this type of action on the part of the income tax branch. Also, would he mind informing the house when this procedure was first adopted. Is it part of a recent fiscal arrangement with the province of Quebec, or has it lasted for some time?
We are all interested in not only, shall I say, the immediate question of what appears to be a very high-handed procedure in sending money coming to someone to another government, but also in the sort of behind-the-scenes events that may have transpired to produce this, what appears at the moment, somewhat unusual regulation and procedure.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), I thought today during question period I could be an ideal Minister of National Revenue in that I was simply able to answer "no" to the two questions raised in the house, and I am sure over the period in which I
29, 1964	4887
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion occupy this portfolio I will have to answer "no" a good many more times.
However, to deal specifically with this question, under the reciprocal arrangements between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, a person who has been employed in Ontario during a year and was resident in Quebec on the last day of that year does not receive a refund from the federal government for the tax deductions made in Ontario, but he does receive credit for the amount of such deductions on his Quebec income tax return.
As everyone will recall, the province of Quebec collects its own provincial income tax. Similar arrangements apply where a person was employed in Quebec during the year and was resident in Ontario on the last day of the year. The authority for this procedure is found in the Ontario income tax act and the Quebec income tax act. The Department of National Revenue, taxation division, is acting in these cases as the agent of the province of Ontario to carry out these arrangements under the general authority of the tax collection agreement.
The hon. member asked me the exact date of the passing of the approval of this tax collection agreement. I do not happen to have this available at the moment, but I shall be pleased to tell him within the next day or so.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
4869

Tuesday, June 30, 1964