1964-04-14

Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house, and perhaps by way of a happy coincidence with the subsequent visit, I hope, of a distinguished guest, may I lay on the table in English and in French the report of the seventh meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. A report in identical terms is being tabled in the other place by its Speaker, who had the honour of sharing with me the chair at these meetings. The meeting was conducted in two committees, one which considered economic matters and the other defence and foreign policy. The appendices to this report include reports of the discussion in each of these committees, which have been agreed upon with our United States colleagues, and they are being reported to the two houses of congress.
Is it the wish of the house, in keeping with past practice, that this report and its appendices be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that this report and its appendices be printed as an appendix to Hansard.
[Editor's note: For report referred to above see Appendix "A".]



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: While I am on my feet I may deal with the so-called question of privilege which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon.
Yesterday the hon. member for Yukon rose on a question of privilege respecting certain statements made by the Minister of Justice on Thursday, April 9. The question, he said, "is one which involves two separate factors, one concerning the translation from English to French, and second the translation from French to English as relayed by the translators in the translation booths". Following in the footsteps of the hon. member I will deal with this question first of all.
It is certainly inaccurate to use the words "translation" and "translators" in the present case. What we have in the house is rather "simultaneous interpretation" by "interpreters". The hon. member for Yukon adds that in this particular debate the translators did break down for a moment. One who understands the difficulties and niceties of both the English and French languages would surely realize that it is impossible to make a satisfactory simultaneous translation. The interpretation comes first; the translation follows, and is something else. Therefore only the text itself or the translation which appears the next day can be used exceptionally as a basis for a question of privilege, if such a question of privilege is at all admissible.
The hon. member, who is a student of parliamentary procedure, when he rose to speak yesterday had just heard a statement from the Chair to the effect that members should not raise so-called questions of privilege on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house, and that questions of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. When the hon. member objected to the use of the words "something that is false both in fact and in law" he must have known that the opinion I had just given was just as applicable to the use of those words by the Minister of Justice as it had been to the use of the same words by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. What I said then, which I can only repeat now, is that if the word "false" was applied to things said and not to an hon. member, the term ceases to be unparliamentary. Surely the hon. member does not expect me to revise my decision at this time.
I can only conclude that the allegations of the hon. member, in the circumstances in which they were made, that is after I had just ruled on the matter, do not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege but constitute an abuse of the rules of the house.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wonder if I might ask whether Your Honour would deal with the other two points I raised yesterday in making my question of privilege, namely the further use of words by the minister-

Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe I have covered the subject sufficiently, and this is not the time for debate.


Erik Nielsen: Then I must rise again on a further question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: The question of privilege I raised yesterday dealt, in addition, with the words used by the minister which are to be found on page 1964 of the official records of the debates of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a new question of privilege? If he is discussing the opinion I have given he is very much out of order.


Erik Nielsen: I do not for a moment intend to question the decision which Your Honour has already given. I simply say that as part of the question of privilege I raised I referred to the words used by the minister-"such statements are a hateful betrayal of the truth, of the facts and of the law"-and suggested they should be dealt with by Your Honour and that you might decide whether the use of such words by the minister was parliamentary.
The other point I raised was this. The minister intimated that the translation into the English text of Hansard of the French words he used did not give the same meaning. I suggested yesterday that I should be entitled to have the English text altered so that it might agree with the French text. I feel these points should be dealt with. Perhaps Your Honour might take them under consideration and let me know tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances I do not think it is necessary to give further time and attention to the subject.



SHIPPING


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to lay on the table a report dealing with the matter raised by a number of members in the house namely the water level of the great lakes. Since the statement I have prepared is of considerable length, and since I believe it would be valueless unless read, I ask permission to have it printed in Hansard.
I should like at the same time to table two copies of the 1961 report of the international joint commission entitled "Water Levels of Lake Ontario" which deals with the water levels of the great lakes system.
A number of hon. members have asked what plans are being made for the relief of this problem. I must tell them we are aware 
of the plan in respect to the so-called Grand canal in connection with which it is proposed to generate power from three rivers in northern Quebec and to use as a storage basin Abitibi lake, thence to have the water flow south to the great lakes system. It is the opinion of the appropriate branch of my department that any cost efficiency study of this plan should be preceded by a conference between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, who are the owners of the resources.
May I have permission to table these documents?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As to the request that this statement be included in Hansard without being read, I should like to suggest it be included as an appendix. It seems to me that putting into the pages of Hansard statements which are not read is a questionable practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to this statement being printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


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

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Heber E. Smiih (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, flowing from the statement of the minister of northern affairs-or perhaps, more accurately, not flowing from his statement- I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the exceedingly low water levels in the great lakes, are any plans being made for emergency dredging in those harbours where shipping is being seriously affected?


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


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware that private sources are prepared to make a survey of the Grand canal project and, if so, is his department ready to give all necessary assistance to this survey?


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



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: We have been led to believe

in the house that the Canada pension bill would come up for consideration at the conclusion of the debate on the budget. Now I understand there is to be a postponement in that connection. Does this postponement mean that the present pension bill is to be altered or changed in any way? Will there be a revision of the revision in order to meet the position of one or other of the provinces?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at the recent conference in Quebec the government of Quebec made available the main details of the pension plan which it was proposing to introduce as a provincial plan, and many of the provincial governments indicated at that time their interest in it. We in the government have been examining this plan, which is the only other pension plan that has been proposed by any Canadian government. If by making alterations to the federal plan, without changing the principles on which it must be based, we can ensure that a plan, when adopted, will be uniform across Canada with the same terms applicable to all the people of Canada, we feel that we would consider making these necessary changes, though not departing from the principles of our bill. That, I think, would be an important step toward national unity, and we are examining the other plan in that context.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Another withdrawal.


John George Diefenbaker: Does this somersault mean that negotiations are going on between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec whereby Quebec will agree to enter this plan provided its scheme is accepted by this parliament? With regard to the amount, is it intended to raise the amount from $75 to $125 in order to bring the two systems into agreement? Is it intended to provide survivor benefits, and is there to be an endeavour to include those other classes-


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


John George Diefenbaker: Again to the rescue.


Mr. Bell:: Bail them out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I can put my point of order in the form of a question. May I too participate in this debate on the Canada pension plan?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I
answer the point of order. It seems to be the invariable custom of the hon. gentleman that whenever a matter arises that does not please him particularly and the government needs co-operation, he steps into the breach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order, and I do so because of the concern that five or six of us are feeling as a result of the fact that as members of a special committee we are grappling with the rules of the house. One of the rules with which we are grappling is that regarding questions. We understand that in questions on orders of the day it is appropriate to ask for information. It is not appropriate to give information or to enter into a debate. It is the belief of some of us that this rule applies to all members of the house, including the Leader of the Opposition, but day after day we have to listen to speeches by the Leader of the Opposition in this house at question time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You are making a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a point of order. If the rules of the house are going to be observed and if we are going to be asked to improve the rules of the house, I submit that obedience to them is obligatory on all of us, including the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The wonderful reception that the hon. gentleman's remarks have received from the other side indicates that they appreciate his intervention. I was asking whether or not certain terms would be included. If that was not a question I do not know what it was. I asked whether certain terms would be included in the arrangements being made. We are naturally anxious to know why the government that has pressed, and properly so, a pension bill, adjourns it for some purpose or other every time it comes up. I ask that question, and I should like an answer to it.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I would like to point out that we, in this corner of the house, would also like to see the rules respected by all. Moreover, we point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) takes the liberty of making speeches during the question period whereas we, in this corner of the house, do not even have the right to do so.
Under the circumstances, I submit that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken and that, consequently, the Leader of the Opposition should, in his turn, be called to order so that he will put his questions the way we are supposed to.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether you wish to make a ruling at this time, Mr. Speaker, upon the violations of procedure indulged in by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. If you do, I will be glad to answer his question after you have dealt with the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I object to that word "violations". I keep within the rules-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -at all times that it is
within my power.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that soothing words should be applied at this moment. I should like to make the position of the Chair clear. There are officials in the house. It is understood that all members have the same rank and the same privileges. On the other hand, there is an officer called the Prime Minister of Canada, and there is another officer of the house called the Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the Opposition is a former prime minister of this country it seems to me that with that experience and the responsibility he has shouldered in the past, the Chair is entitled to rely on his judgment to a certain degree.
Furthermore, it seems to me that in the presentation of this question, which is an important one, the right hon. gentleman may have taken a bit too long in outlining the question, but his remarks were germane to the question which was put. He was not, therefore, interrupted by the Chair. I have to rely on the experience and good will of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to obey the rules, the same as everyone else, and I feel quite sure he will.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish that when I was occupying the position of leader of the opposition the same charitable interpretation had been granted to me.


Mr. Monteiih:: Don't be a child.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, I shall deal with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to procedures in the house last evening by the chief whip of the party as a somersault. This is a description of a procedure about which the right hon. gentleman does not know anything.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman wishes to describe as a somersault a desire on the part of the government to examine the Quebec provincial pension plan, not with a view to the adoption of that plan, but to ascertain whether through an examination of it and a further examination by the provincial government of Quebec of

the national pension plan we could bring about a situation where the same pension provisions will cover all the people of Canada, then that is not the term we use in describing an attempt to bring about national unity in this important field.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister why he did not think of consultations in this regard before he brought in the original plan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, for the right
hon. gentleman's information there has been more consultation over the months in regard to this matter than occurred previously in regard to pension plans, but the particular detailed plan of the province of Quebec was made known to the Quebec conference only a few days ago.


Mr. Starr:: Now that the pension plan has been settled, I should like to address a question-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Ontario if he is raising a supplementary question?


Michael Starr: No, I am raising an entirely new question.


Mr. Speaker:: Then we will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it still the government's intention to proceed in this session with a bill to establish a Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is; and it is our hope that that bill will include provisions which will be applicable to all the people of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there have been any consultations with the provincial government of Quebec since the federal-provincial conference, in view of bringing about a participation from that province to the national pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that consultations have taken place with a view to bringing about, if it can be brought about, a situation where the same pension provisions will cover all the people of Canada, and that will require consultation not only with the government of Quebec but further consultation with the other provincial governments as well.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the answer given by the Prime Minister, who categorized the plan as an all-Canada pension plan. Does he consider it would be an all-Canada pension plan if one or more than one province does not join the plan in question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to make clear to my hon. friend what I have just said. I said that we hope there will be similar pension provisions covering all the people of Canada so there will be no discrepancy between a plan in one province and a plan in another province, and no discrepancy between a provincial plan and a federal one.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on whether he would be prepared to submit the present bill, No. C-75, to a committee so there would not be any further delay, and so the house could accept recommendations made by the committee? This would give an opportunity to hon. members in all parties to study all these rather new developments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will not be any great delay in referring a bill to the house, getting second reading of that bill and having it go to a committee. However, I feel certain all hon. members would be glad to accept a few days' delay if by that delay we can bring about a pensions system better in its coverage of all Canadians than we might have if we had a federal scheme which differed greatly in many respects from a provincial pension scheme.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating directly to the answer the Prime Minister has just given. In reference to the parliamentary committee to be established to consider this bill, has the Prime Minister given assurance, by letter or otherwise, that the committee will be able to recommend fundamental revisions of the plan, if required?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the committee will have all the powers of a parliamentary committee, and will be able to make any recommendations to parliament, within its terms of reference, that it desires to make.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My question is whether, after second reading and the bill having been adopted in principle, the committee will then have power to deal with any revisions, except minor ones.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is more skilled in the rules than I am and he will know, of course, that the rules governing the actions of a committee of
Inquiries of the Ministry the house will give the committee power to make recommendations back to both houses.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would give me a yes or no answer. Was he in fact guided by the views that I placed before the government in regard to the pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I am being asked to give a yes or no answer I wish my hon. friend would repeat the question, because I did not quite get it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I regret that, Mr. Speaker. I am merely asking the Prime Minister whether he was in fact guided by the advice that I presented to the government in regard to the pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to deal with that question, although it cannot be answered yes or no because the consultations in question began before my hon. friend's very interesting speech last night, from which I was delighted to ascertain that he was entirely in favour of this procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask when he expects to bring before this house amendments to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the Canada Shipping Act, in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at the rate of progress this house has been making so far in this session-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that question would
appear to me to be largely hypothetical.


Michael Starr: I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the minister place these amendments on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments to the Canada Shipping Act before the other place, which is making a lot more progress in legislation than we are.

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is, as usual, strictly according to the rules. This question is related to the principles of the bill of rights. My question is based on the great concern of veterans resident along the Arrow lakes and the Columbia river as far north as Revelstoke with respect to the possibility of their being submerged in the early future, and the request of the veterans organizations that the Department of Veterans Affairs appoint legal counsel to assist them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is, in view of the fact that the minister of lands and forests of British Columbia has agreed to this suggestion, would the Minister of Veterans Affairs give consideration to appointing legal counsel from his department, to make certain these veterans rights are protected, these men who fought for the very land they live on?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful to my hon. friend if he would direct that suggestion to me in writing so I could give it an adequate reply. I do not think I can answer it now.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is made urgent due to the resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance yesterday. When can we expect the report to be brought down from the royal commission on banking and finance?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minisier of Finance):: I hope before the end of this month, Mr. Speaker.



LABRADOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coales (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government been contacted by either the government of Quebec or the government of Newfoundland with regard to the suggested bartering of land in Labrador between those two governments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question deals with boundary matters concerning Newfoundland and Quebec. If I am right in that, the answer is no.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received any report from the arbitrator who was named to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between the fishermens union on the west coast and the fisheries association on the price of salmon this year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Order paper.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received the report in question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister is prepared to answer immediately, that surely is a question that would be better placed on the order paper.


Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I understand that the Department of Fisheries has received the eagerly awaited report on the fishing dispute in British Columbia. My question is, if so, would the minister be agreeable to tabling that report?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I received yesterday the decision of Mr. Justice Nemetz in the arbitration between the united fishermen and allied workers union and the fisheries association of British Columbia. With the unanimous consent of the house I am prepared to table this report.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the tabling of this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GREAT LAKES-OPERATION OF S.I.U. HIRING HALLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour. It arises out of the information I sought last week about the method employed in the hiring halls operated by the S.I.U., and I ask whether an employee must be hired by an employer when that employee is referred from the hiring hall


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had the answer to my hon. friend's question on several occasions and did not have a chance to give it to him. I will give it to him tomorrow.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it true, as stated on the front page of today's La Presse, that the Liberal caucus has unanimously selected the Canadian flag and the national anthem and that this report results from an indiscretion committed in Montreal by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger)?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ros-thern-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister was all set to rise and answer my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was ready to answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not the hon. member is in order, he is entitled to be heard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule whether it is in order to ask a question asking for comment on a press report of something that is supposed to have gone on in a caucus. I would like to have your ruling on whether a question of that kind is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The ruling is very simple and, I hope, direct. The question is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Prime Minister. Was the Minister without Portfolio announcing government policy in a recent speech, when he is reported to have stated that legislation to provide for a distinctive national flag and national anthem would be brought before parliament within two months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked me a question based on a
Inquiries of the Ministry report of a speech which I have not seen. I will inquire of the minister whether or not the report is accurate.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware of recent press reports concerning Premier Stanfield's support for a distinctive national flag in Montreal recently?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I saw the report of that very interesting and, I thought, forward-looking speech.


Robert Carman Coates: A sup-lementary question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister not agree that the Canadian red ensign is a distinctive national flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The form of the question is wrong.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that the price for eggs in Saskatchewan dropped to an unprecedented low last week?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Edward Nasserden: My question is, will the minister consider amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to protect producers against losses under the present regulations?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, eggs are supported under the stabilization board in Saskatchewan, and this suggestion is news to me. Generally speaking the prices of agricultural products are up from a year ago.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the price of cattle?


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


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the pension bill is not going to come before parliament immediately, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture could inform the house and the country whether he is now prepared to bring in the legislation that will revolutionize farming generally in Canada?


Mr. Roberi Beaule (Quebec East):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker-
2132	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard you recognize the hon. member tor Dorchester.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a misunderstanding at the far end of the chamber. The hon. member was rising on a supplementary question. It will then be the hon. member for Dorchester. The hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture is this. Now that the pension legislation is not going to come before parliament, can we expect to see soon on the order paper the three legislative measures the minister spoke of in western Canada, so that the house and the country will be informed of his ideas of how he is going to revolutionize agriculture in Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, from the bottom of my heart I hope we can bring forward this legislation as soon as possible, because the farmers want it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he tell the house whether during the last months there has been some decided progress in the negotiations between the Canadian government and the state of Maine to arrive at an agreement concerning the unemployment insurance benefits of Canadian lumbermen working in that state?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS RESPECTING FUND On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister intend to bring in legislation that would adopt proper and adequate insurance principles in relation to the unemployment insurance fund, and also measures to eliminate exploitation of its benefits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this question several times, as did the Prime Minister in his speech to the House of Commons on this subject.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell the house what was the nature of the discussions he had with the Quebec premier during his trip to Quebec last week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as Minister of Transport I discussed several important questions of transport with the premier.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. It arises out of two answers which were given to questions in this house and an answer which was given this morning in the external affairs committee. The two answers given in this house were those given by Hon. Lionel Chevrier on October 14 last, in which he stated that it had been determined by the Department of Justice that the Peace river is a navigable stream under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act at the point at which British Columbia is now constructing works.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Colin Cameron: Just be patient. On Friday last I received a similar answer from the Minister of Public Works. This morning I received an answer from Hon. Ray Williston, minister of lands and forests in British Columbia, who told me that the federal government has not yet informed the government of British Columbia of this decision of the Department of Justice.
My question is this. How much longer is the government going to delay giving this information to the affected province?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker,
I will bring this speech to the minister's attention when he returns to the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning registration for social security purposes.
Could he tell the house whether he will issue new directives to U.I.C. officials to point out that registration is compulsory only for those who hold jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was thoroughly discussed and aired yesterday.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell the house whether he has received a telegram from the Quebec Catholic teachers corporation strongly protesting against compulsory registration for social security purposes? If so, could he inform us of the steps he intends to take in that connection?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to point out to the hon. member that the same series and types of questions were asked extensively yesterday, and if we were to take notice of every telegram that every hon. member receives in this House we would never finish our business.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is true that the same questions were put yesterday, but the Minister of Labour said then that he would look into the matter and inquire whether such a request had been received. Since he has not yet provided an answer and was supposed to do so today, that is why this question is being asked again.
In addition, I wish to point out that those telegrams have been sent by the provincial corporation of Catholic teachers of Quebec, most members of which are concerned over such registration for social security purposes. That is why we should like to obtain today the answer the minister was unable to give us yesterday because the required information was not available to him then.
Moreover, this matter is most urgent, since school boards are asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This ground was thoroughly covered yesterday.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the new plan which is being adopted for the setting up of a social insurance numbering system. In view of the fact that it has been stated that this numbering system will also apply to a Canada pension plan, can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to request any province which may be setting up its own pension plan to use this same social insurance numbering system?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister yet applied, and been able to obtain, his own social insurance number? If so, can he tell the rest of us how we can apply for ours if we wish to do so on a voluntary basis?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Order. If there was ever a question which was out of order, surely that one is.


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to suggest to the hon. gentleman that this is a question for the order paper.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PAYMENT FOR

[Stage Direction]
1962-63 CROP
On the orders of the day:
['This is surely a question for the order paper.']
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him if, during his recent conversations with the Canadian wheat board, he was able to ascertain that an announcement is now ready respecting the prices to be paid on the recently closed oats pool.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian wheat board announced in Winnipeg today the final payment on oats delivered to the board during the 1962-63 crop year. The total amount of the final payment is $10,671,000. The rates of final payment are as follows: No. 2 Canada western, 11.724 cents per bushel; No. 3 Canada western, 11.60 cents per bushel; extra No. 1 feed, 11.6 cents
2134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry per bushel; No. 1 feed, 12.838 cents per bushel; and No. 2 feed, 14.818 cents per bushel.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government is giving consideration to the sending of a contingent of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Cyprus, what unique or special duties would be contemplated for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in what way would these duties differ from the duties being presently carried out by the United Nations peace keeping force?


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell the house whether the C.B.C. television station in Quebec will be put in operation this year?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REVIEW OF PROGRAMS BY CENSORSHIP BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State, the responsible minister for the C.B.C., and I hope to get a direct answer.
In view of the many complaints directed to the C.B.C. by parents and educators in regard to certain films shown over the network, does the government propose to assign such a task to existing provincial censorship boards?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house what he thinks of the C.B.C. when it does not want to take any action to correct-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question; this is an argument.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how the hon.
member proposes to raise a point of order when his original question is out of order. I fail to see how a point of order could arise.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I will state my point of order and I will gladly abide by your ruling.
We, on this side of the house, are directing many questions to the Secretary of State who is always replying evasively. I think it our duty to insist on definite answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: My question is directed to the Postmaster General, and it arises from the answer to question No. 557 placed on the order paper by me on March 24 regarding the opening of a post office at Rednersville. The first decision, Mr. Speaker, was to open the post office. According to the answer I received it has been decided not to proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have an urgent question he wishes to ask? If so, would he ask it?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question, arising out of two conflicting decisions made by the Post Office Department, is as follows. Will the Post Office Department, in all honesty and fairness-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -to the prospective postmistress, Mrs. Donald Dillon of Rednersville, reimburse her for all expenses authorized by the inspectors, amounting to about $600 for renovations to the premises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No doubt the question is important, but I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.



BRITT, ONT.-PURCHASE OF SITE FOR BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: I should like to answer the question put to me a few days ago by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. In February, 1962 the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka suggested that the Department of Public Works look at four properties, including two owned by Mr. Roy and Mr. Follick, at Britt, Ontario, as a possible site for a new post office.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am answering a question asked by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
The asking price for the Roy and Follick properties was reported at $5,000. In addition there were costs of $3,000 to make this site suitable. In view of the high total cost of the site in relation to the value of the building, the project was delayed.
In August, 1963 the department was advised by Mr. G. M. Taylor that he had acquired options on these two properties and would be willing to sell them to the department at $3,200. Mr. Taylor then acquired the two properties at $3,200 and sold them to the department at that price without any profit whatever to himself. A road allowance was also bought from the province of Ontario at $50.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any real urgency about this question? It seems to me we have spent a great deal of time over something which should have been on the order paper.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The facts submitted by the minister are not complete, and I wanted to ask a further question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for argument. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the minister, as a supplementary question, if it is not a fact that the offering prices of those two properties were reduced to an amount equal to or smaller than that for which they have now been procured, before the government changed? I know this to be a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order because of the way in which it is framed.
The Budget-Mr. Belanger TRADE



INCREASE IN FLOUR CONTENT OF FUTURE WHEAT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement yesterday and on other occasions reflecting optimism about future wheat sales to Russia and other eastern European countries. I should like to ask him whether there is any extension or expansion of the flour content envisaged in these future orders.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not certain that I understood the purport of the question. I have never made optimistic or pessimistic statements about the situation. I have made factual statements. As far as I know there are no changes contemplated in any of the contracts entered into. If there are new contracts, the terms of those contracts will prevail.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question.
Would the minister care to comment on the recent change in United States policy with respect to the subsidy on the export of flour, and how this will affect our dealings in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would take me half an hour to comment adequately; and some other occasion, when there could be more extended comment, would appear to be more suitable.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. L. P. Anfoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and bring my modest contribution to this debate in order to show that our country-and I sincerely believe this-is heading toward anarchy, because the present government, just like the previous one, does not seem to know where it is going exactly in matters of finance and economy.
Once again this year we have heard the Conservatives take the government severely to task for its deficits, and rightly so because, when they were sitting on this side, the Liberals did the same and what is more, during the last election campaign, they

The Budget-Mr. Belanger promised to balance the budget. They certainly pulled in a lot of votes that way, since many people believe we should live according to our means.
During the election campaign the Liberals also made much of the fact that they could solve that economic problem because they had within their ranks some very capable economists who would be able to find within the present financial system the necessary money to increase expenditures, to abolish the annual deficit, to pay the debt, all that without increasing taxes.
And the Conservatives, just like the Liberals when they were in the opposition, now blame the government for not increasing its expenditures for social welfare, for example, or for other purposes. In short, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) so rightly said not long ago in a candid statement on T.V.: "There is no difference between Conservatives and Liberals."
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to find out the reason why people whom I believe to be intelligent, who certainly must have something remarkable, as they have been chosen by their fellow citizens to represent them in the national parliament, should act in the inconsistent way I mentioned a while ago, and change their minds, simply because they change sides in the house.
Why should those same people feel so capable of settling every problem when they are sitting in the opposition, but suddenly become paralysed when they come into power, and do exactly the opposite of what they promised the people during election time? To illustrate my point, I shall mention the budgetary deficit, the 11 per cent tax on building materials, the 1 per cent income tax increase, and the so-called disappearance of unemployment which became stagnant unemployment; we were promised a minister of agriculture for the east; but this too vanished from the program. We were also promised an increase of family allowances for every child, but this has been changed to school allowances for children between 16 and 18 years only; and I could mention many other promises.
The worst in this matter is that those mighty brains with such poor achievements, deride and brand as inefficient anybody who suggests new and bold solutions, without ever stopping to listen, consider and discuss their suggestions, or summing up the courage to refute them logically.
I have now come to the point where I believe that because they are led by their pride and arrogance, they become deaf and blind.

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I am conscious of the fact that it is illogical, under our present monetary system, to advocate an increase of expenditures without at the same time boosting taxes or adding to the national debt that before the government considers making heavier expenditures, I suggest once more that it carry out a monetary reform along the lines that we Social Crediters have been suggesting for several years.
To enable hon. members to better understand what I mean, I feel it is necessary to explain somewhat the present monetary system, not the one we advocate but the one Canada adheres to right now. Consequently, allow me to quote from a brochure which was published under the direction of the Conseil Economique Inc., whose president is none other than Mr. Eugene Therrien, Q.C., barrister, and of which Hon. Senator Vaillan-court is a director. Those two gentlemen can hardly be called Social Crediters.
The persons I have just mentioned allowed the publication of this pamphlet to induce French Canadians to favour the only two French Canadian banks in the country with their deposits and savings.
To obtain such results, they had to show what benefits they could offer in return, and you will be able to see for yourselves, in the light of some quotations from this booklet, that these persons confirm exactly what the Social Crediters have been saying for a long time, that is banks control money and credit in the country by the privilege they have to create credit and to destroy it.
Here is this small pamphlet entitled "Chartered banks and us". The pamphlet proceeds by questions and answers. The first question is as follows:
What is money?
If the Minister without Portfolio were here, I would ask him to give special attention to this question, because I remember that, during the last election on television, thousand dollar bills rained on his head so as to frighten people by the threat of inflation. The minister certainly did not understand the definition of the word money.
Here is the definition given in this pamphlet:
The public often imagines that money is essentially a bank-bill, but according to present habits of Canadians, the majority of monetary operations are done through cheques, or internal accounting operations in the banks (transfers from one client's account to another client's account). Currency, as a means of payment or exchange, may assume various forms:	metal currency, paper
currency, cheques etc as on the other hand, it
is called upon to play widely different roles in our national economy.

Further on, we find question number 4:
What is the banking system?
In paragraph 2, we read this:
But the Bank of Canada alone does not make up the banking system. Its role is only justified to the extent that the banks properly act as intermediaries between the Bank of Canada and the general public-
And here we find the names of the Banque Canadienne Nationale and the Banque Provinciate du Canada as illustrations.
The Canadian banking system, more particularly, provides for so-called "chartered" banks which we shall especially examine. Indeed, those banks play the most significant part in the monetary field, considering the place given in Canada to "scrip" money, that is money created by the chartered banks in their books.
Those banks, Mr. Speaker, are not afraid to frighten us by saying that chartered banks create money.
Under question 5:
Can it be said, then, that banks create money?
-we find the following answer:
Yes, indeed, the chartered banks do create money, but only so far as they have liquid assets available at the start.
And we are given a more concrete explanation by means of a diagram composed of five small squares connected to each other by arrows, with the explanation that $1,000 of savings in a chartered bank become $11,500, which means that they are multiplied by 11J, the amount then being made available to trade and industry.
That pamphlet was published to stimulate saving deposits by French Canadians in French Canadian banks to enable the latter also to multiply them by 11J in order to help our French Canadian business and industries.
Question no. 10 is as follows:
In what way does the bank give assistance?
Here is the answer:
The banker makes an "advance" (he opens a credit) to his customer. The operation, as far as bookkeeping is concerned, is very simple. Let us assume that bank's assets increase, for instance, by $10,000 and, the bank's liabilities, by $10,000. On the assets' side, next to this "extra amount", of $10,000 the following reference now appears: "advance made to Mr. X". On the liabilities' side, an account of $10,000 is open to Mr. X; from now on, he will be able to draw cheques to pay his suppliers, to settle his accounts with his workers, etc. His bank account has "been provided with funds".
Mr. X has no money, but he has a bank account.
Did the bank create money in that way?
Of course, this is a manner of speech. By opening a credit, the banker made $10,000 of new money available to his customer (in the books: bank money).
The Budget-Mr. Belanger
That is exactly what the banks are doing when they create money.
But if the bank may thus create money, why should it be interested in receiving our savings?
The answer is this:
Banks need only have a certain quantity of notes, only a certain amount of liquidity. Therefore, they may use the rest, if they observe the "legal reserves"-
-which is a compulsory 8 per cent reserve for chartered banks. The banks also decided themselves to provide another 7 per cent reserve, which means that on every deposit, the banks must set aside 15 per cent.
Now, if I apply the system explained in this pamphlet to an amount of $1,000 here is what will happen. If I deposit $1,000, 15 per cent of that amount, that is $150, will be set aside as a reserve. If you deduct that amount from the $1,000 the balance is $850, which, multiplied by 11J, as the banks are entitled to do, adds up to $9,775.
Now, that amount of $9,775 lent at 6 per cent yields $586.50. An average interest of 3 per cent is paid on savings, which represents $30. That leaves $536.50 and I shall be generous in taking off another 10 per cent for administration expenses, although that 10 per cent is usually charged to the borrower; however, 10 per cent of $9,775 gives $97.75. Therefore, for the $1,000 deposit, the banker will get $459 per year in interest.
It is precisely that privilege that Social Crediters would like to put an end, and they would like the government to take it over and keep it for the benefit of the Canadian nation.
It is because of that privilege that chartered banks control credit, and indirectly the governments and the economic life of all Canadian citizens. That is why we are asking the government to recover that power. Without such a reform, without taking back from the banks a privilege as dangerous and vexatious for the people as that one, the same unemployment crisis which is threatening the United States will also be at our door and it will be impossible for the government to guard against it.
That crisis I made reference to was the subject of an article published in Le Droit on March 24, 1964. Let me quote:
A report on the dangers of automation (Reuter agency, Washington).
A group of American professors, trade unionists and economists submitted to President Johnson a report where they point out the dangers of automation.
There is a danger that automation might give rise to "unprecendented economic and social disorders" in the United States, according to the 32 signatories of the report, among whom one notes Gunnar Yrdal, the economist of Swedish origin, and Nobel prize-winner Dr. Linus Pauling.

The Budget-Mr. Belanger The report states that the United States-and, some day, the rest of the world-will soon be at grips with a "revolution" which will see "an unlimited production by machinery with no need for the co-operation of human beings."
"Steps must therefore be taken to provide and income for everyone", added the authors of the report.
Mr. Speaker, one does not have to be an economist or even hold a university degree to understand that the monetary system of a country is the very basis of its economic and social life and that it is most difficult, if not impossible, to build something sound, good and lasting upon a faulty basis. We cannot, for instance, build a house on wobbly foundations. Well, that is exactly what we are trying to do, and we know the results, which can be summarized as follows: huge debts, a federal government in debt, shying away from provincial governments which also are in debt and which try to get the most out of the federal government, thus giving rise to frictions that are getting increasingly serious between the federal and provincial governments.
On the other hand, municipal governments also are in debt, the same as school boards, wherever they exist, and they in turn are looking more and more to the provincial governments for the financial assistance they need for their normal development, which again results in rather serious frictions. Then we come to the smallest but most important cell of society, the family. There again, we see that debts are causing rather serious frictions which sometimes result in broken homes.
And yet this country offers us the horrifying spectacle of stores and warehouses overflowing with goods of all kinds, while a whole army of unemployed are waiting in poverty for the opportunity to increase production even more. I think that situation, in our country, is very aptly described by this increasingly popular expression: the people of Canada are living in poverty in a land of plenty.
And at the rate things are going, in view of the observations I made a while ago in regard to automation, this is but a beginning.
I could go on for some time in the same vein describing the present economic position in this country as well as in many other countries where the same monetary system is in use.
The solution to the present problems-I will not venture to say the perfect solution as such a thing does not exist-rests in a monetary reform which would hand over to the government money and credit control.
I think it was a great prime minister of Great Britain, Disraeli, who once said:
Give me control over money and credit in any country and X do not care a rap about those who will be making legislation there.

Hon. Mackenzie King said, in one of his books:
It is useless for a government to speak of sovereignty if it has no control over its own money and credit.
Mr. Speaker, this proves, indeed, the importance of control over money and credit.
May I also quote some extracts of the encyclical Quadragesima Anno. Under the subtitle: "Domination has followed from free competition", we read:
In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life blood of the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.
And as for the consequences of such a system, this is what our Holy Father the Pope has to say:
Disastrous consequences-The whole economic life has become hard, cruel and relentless in a ghastly measure. Furthermore, the intermingling and scandalous confusion of the duties and offices of civil authority and of economics has produced crying evils and have gone so far as to degrade the majesty of the state. The state which should be the supreme arbiter, ruling in kingly fashion far above all party contention, intent only upon justice and the common good, has become instead a slave, bound over to the service of human passion and greed.
All this shows that we Social Crediters are not the only ones to deplore this serious deficiency in our country due to lack of control by the government over the most essential factor in our economy.
I think I have said enough to prove that the government, as well as the Canadian people, are the slaves of this system. Far from controlling it, they are controlled by it instead. That is why individuals, intelligent though they may be, are compelled to act in such a stupid way.
If the government would solve the financial problem along the lines I have just suggested, it could raise family allowances according to the present cost of living, improve the Old Age Assistance Act, the Old Age Security Act, as well as the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act, so that when the husband falls under one or the other of those classifications and becomes eligible, to the assistance provided, the wife should also become eligible automatically. In addition, these pensions should be paid at 65, because I fail to see the purpose of keeping at work people over 60, 65 and 70 years of age while young people of 20, 30 or even 40 cannot

find work and might even go hungry. I am in favour of keeping at home the older people, but let us pay them a pension which will enable them to live decently, according to the standard of living which is possible in this country.
By agreeing to that monetary reform, the government would not have to constantly violate the constitution, to sacrifice the welfare of the people to the golden calf on the altar of finance, in short, to sacrifice confederation itself. In fact, we must not forget that this has been said and even proved following the last federal-provincial conference, for it is indeed financial matters which divide the provinces, Quebec especially, and the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the problem of bilingualism, biculturalism, nationalism and racism is very important, but it behooves us also to settle financial problems which create so many difficulties.
I may seem to pay too much attention to social measures, but when you represent as I do a constituency where in wintertime, I would say at least half the families depend on social assistance, unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefits, you cannot help but find those social measures very important.
Along the same lines, I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to try and improve the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is very hard to understand and many zealous employees try by all possible means, by using the provisions of the act which they actually know much better than the recipients, to find a loop-hole that will prevent the unemployed from receiving his or her allowances. In brief, an act, or rather acts, were passed to help the unemployed and the underprivileged but, on the other hand, everything is done to prevent them from getting such help.
I would also like to remind the Minister of Labour that his intention, which he has just revealed, to place all school teachers in this country under the Unemployment Insurance Act is an unwholesome plan which will be met with much resistance. As far as I am concerned, I think it is an indirect, hypocritical and iniquitous way to tax people for something they will never take advantage of, for everyone knows that in the teaching profession, there is no unemployment and it will be a long time before there is.
I should also like to mention to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that in my riding and in the neighbouring one there is a serious obstacle to trade and industrial development. It is the Saguenay river, which makes it necessary for all through traffic to use a ferry on which rates are very high, 20220-135
The Budget-Mr. Belanger almost prohibitive. In view of the alarming economic situation in that area, would it not be possible for the government to take the situation in hand and pay all ferry costs, which would be profitable for users and the whole population?
I will deal once more with highway No. 15, between Quebec city and Seven Islands, and suggest again that this government should come to an understanding with the provincial government, in order to make it a northern section of the trans-Canada highway. That would be one of the most urgent and most essential improvements if that region of Charlevoix and Saguenay is to develop at least as much as the other regions of Canada.
I also ask the government, as an emergency measure to fight acute unemployment in my riding, to build post offices which are so obviously needed, and to continue its policy of restoring and repairing the great number of wharves which need looking after.
I would like again this year to ask the government to make the necessary studies to find out definitely if the construction of a deep water wharf at Baie St. Paul is needed for and essential to the industrial and economic development of that region.
We are told that trade and industry in that region are not important enough to warrant the expense of building such a wharf. I feel that if the government were to make such an expenditure, its decision would be justified by the industrial and commercial development that would follow.
With the hon. member for St. John's West, I say that the primary objective of the government should be to fight poverty, want and hunger especially in Canada but also throughout the world. That would be possible through a monetary reform since all the means are at our disposal: the required production facilities, an abundance of products which more than satisfies Canada's needs and the necessary natural resources. That would be a much more efficient way of waging a cold war against communism than the sending of troops to the four corners of the globe.
I could not conclude without saying once more that it is imperative for the government to regain control of the money supply and credit and to take that privilege away from the banks.
It is to keep this privilege in favour of a small group of men that we are directed to have some works performed during the winter when it would be more appropriate and less costly to have them done in summer. It is on account of this privilege that the high cost of

The Budget-Mr. Rapp living is maintained, by forcing the public into paying twice or many times over for any single thing.
As an example, let us take the last world war, when the people provided the work, the materials and the soldiers; when it was all over, we owed $15 billion to those who had only written down the necessary figures to represent these expenditures. To keep this privilege, nobody even thought of stopping the war for lack of money, but today, families by the thousands are left in utter poverty because money is lacking. All this and many other things are stupid and would be ridiculous were they not criminal.
As long as the first and the most important concern of a nation consists in finding money, it will remain a slave, a materialist, and its morals will sink lower and lower.
Those are some of the reasons why I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the government to implement as soon as possible the financial reforms which we have recommended. Unless he finds a better solution, a sad future lies ahead for his party and particularly for the Canadian people, and he will bear forever that heavy responsibility. You cannot keep the majority of the Canadian people in poverty for long without provoking violence when a high standard of living is physically possible.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good deal of pleasure to take part in the budget debate. It is a generally accepted rule that when a member takes part in this debate he should deal with matters pertaining to the budget, but I do not think it is an actual infringement of the rules if a member deals with other matters relating to the general business of the house, which it is my intention to do today.
The matters I would like to bring to the attention of the house include, among others, the proceedings of the house, in particular those connected with private members' bills and motions. I am not revealing any secret when I say I am not too pleased with some of the rules and regulations we have in the house governing private members' motions, bills, and requests for the production of papers. The house is not allowed to debate these matters on second reading because they are quite often ruled out of order. I think it is unfair that hon. members should be deprived of the opportunity to present their case or their grievance to the house before second reading is given. This is something that should be changed in our rules and procedures.
I should like to comment on some of my motions and bills which were introduced in

the house, particularly the bill which had to do with the building of a terminal in the town of Tisdale in the province of Saskatchewan. The intention behind the legislation that I proposed was to bring to the attention of the harbours board the need for such a terminal. I understand that the harbours board is authorized to spend this money without approval being given first by the house; they have this right by statute. What I had in mind in introducing this bill was to bring to their attention the necessity for building such a terminal. The port of Churchill on Hudson bay has a terminal with a capacity of 5 million bushels. The shipping season is very short there, only two months a year, August and September, and during the shipping season approximately 23 million bushels are exported through the port of Churchill. It has been the contention of the farmers in the west that much more grain could be shipped through this port. Some are of the opinion that as much as 40 million bushels could be shipped if we had overseas customers for such a large amount. The Hudson bay route association, and other organizations in the west, have continually asked the government to increase the terminal facilities from 5 million to 10 million bushels, but the argument against building another terminal in Churchill is that the capital expenditure of another $10 million is not justifiable or desirable because this terminal elevator would be used for only two months in the year and the present capacity of 5 million bushels is sufficient.
My argument for building another terminal in Tisdale is this. It is only about 600 miles away from Churchill, but it would be located in the centre of a farming area with an excellent wheat growing capacity and during the navigation season, namely August and September, clean grain could be shipped to Churchill, thus eliminating the loading and unloading in Churchill. In this way time would be saved. I have talked to one of the grain commissioners and he informed me that one reason not enough grain was shipped from Vancouver last year was that the grain from the prairies reached Vancouver in an unclean condition, and it takes a terrific amount of time to have this grain loaded and unloaded and cleaned. If this is the case in Vancouver, I am sure this argument could be applied in favour of the new terminal which I think should be built in Tisdale. Last year when we had this particular trouble in Vancouver, this issue was very much debated and discussed on the prairies.
As I said before, a terminal in Tisdale could provide storage facilities for 5 million bushels and it could be used 12 months in

the year, instead of having another terminal at Churchill used for only two months of the year. The argument in favour of building such a terminal is very strong. It is that if the government has to spend money on building a terminal, it might as well spend it on one that could be used 12 months in the year. The argument against building a terminal in Tisdale is that we have on the prairies three government terminals and these have never been used to full capacity. There are two terminals in Saskatchewan and one in Edmonton. The argument is that the receipt for the Saskatoon terminal for the past ten years was only an average of 2,700,000 bushels, while the capacity of the elevator is 5,500,000 bushels. The same can be said for the Edmonton elevator, as it also has only been used to half its capacity.
One reason for these elevators being used to only half their capacity over a period of ten years is that the private grain companies during the surplus years were very anxious to have their storing facilities filled to capacity, so they could collect storage charges from the government. I know from personal experience that in the northerly areas of Saskatchewan during the surplus years we were on a two bushel quota for many months -as a matter of fact, sometimes up to May- before quotas were opened, while at the same time these government terminals were standing half empty. It was a hardship to the farmers because in other areas of Saskatchewan covered by main line railway facilities they had seven and eight bushel quotas, while the people in the north were on a two bushel quota. This was of course a hardship, before we were able to bring in the consequential legislation which alleviated this situation to a certain extent, namely the interest free cash advance on farm stored grain.
My bill to build a terminal at Tisdale was ruled out of order. I wanted, first of all, to have the grain terminal built for this reason. Over the years my bill had read this way:
An act to provide for the restitution and distribution of the proceeds of grade excess and overage unlawfully confiscated and converted in 1955 and continuously thereafter under an act intituled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act to the use and purposes of the governor in council.
This meant that over the years our grain companies had always had overages which amounted to quite a large figure. I have before me statements which I should like to read into the record. In the years 1955 to 1962 overages amounted to approximately 9,975,381 bushels. Under this act these overages were supposed to belong to the governor in council. The interesting thing about the ruling which was based on the memorandum submitted by 20220-1351
The Budget-Mr. Rapp the parliamentary counsel to Mr. Speaker was that the explanatory notes were too long and that Bill No. C-245 passed on March 11, 1955 was a proper bill and that the overages shall be the property of Her Majesty. I should like to direct the attention of the house to the fact that in 1955 a similar bill was introduced and ruled out of order because the resolution preceding it had dealt with more matters than one. May I read into the record this particular quotation. Mr. Donald Fleming rose on a point of order concerning a bill No. 161 on March 5, 1957. As reported at page 1893 of Hansard the hon. member said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This bill, No. 161, is introduced following a resolution which was passed on February 22 and because the bill goes farther than the resolution I am taking exception to it on this point of order.
Then further on Mr. Lesage, as reported at page 1903, said that this bill was a mistake and would be withdrawn.
This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly my contention about the other bill, Bill No. 245, which was preceded by a resolution and covered more than one item, as a result of which the bill was ruled out of order. Parliamentary counsel had recommended that this bill be ruled out of order, and of course I accept the ruling. With regard to this bill introduced by Mr. Lesage which was ruled out of order, Dr. Maurice Ollivier and Mr. Batt, the assistant law clerk, gave their opinion in this way:
In our opinion, a money bill not supported by a proper resolution could be questioned in the Senate, adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction, and have moneys withheld by the proper officers under the Financial Administration Act.
The puzzling thing to me is that at the time that Dr. Ollivier ruled on this bill and Mr. Batt ruled on my bill, their opinions differed, while on a previous occasion their opinions were the same.
I am not going to argue this matter because it is now so much water under the bridge, but it is my contention that hon. members should have an opportunity to be heard when bringing these resolutions before the house so that the house knows what they are about, instead of hon. members introducing them and getting first reading, and then having them ruled out of order. I think we members of parliament are thereby deprived of an opportunity to present our case, and I urge that when the committee on procedure is convened this matter be taken up and given serious consideration. My bills were ruled out of order and they dealt with matters of great importance. At the present time western Canada is faced with a problem of great magnitude because railroads are going to

The Budget-Mr. Pearson be abandoned, some towns will almost disappear, and grain elevators will be taken away. The government should act before the farmers concerned are placed in an impossible position. It should build terminals now. We will certainly require them as our exports are increasing. These terminals should be built at once, but terminals on the west coast or at the lakehead will not serve the purpose. Inland terminals built on the prairies, however, will serve a double purpose. First of all they will give the people on the prairies an opportunity to store their grain. Second, they will give the farmers an opportunity to have their grain cleaned and shipped out and thus expedite shipment through the seaports. Although my bills have been ruled out of order I am encouraged to bring in new legislation, and I hope the government will have enough interest to pay more attention to the problems of the three western provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this budget debate as it draws to a close. I make no apology for not dealing on this occasion with the financial and economic aspects of the budget; there will be ample opportunity to do that when we discuss the budget resolutions. Perhaps I might say that I feel the budget is appropriate for the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves in Canada today-circumstances which may give us some real ground for encouragement, but which nevertheless warrant caution as we approach the future. It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a time to bring in far reaching economic and financial changes in these circumstances, especially as we are about to receive a report from some of the most important royal commissions, in their terms of reference, which have been set up by any Canadian government for many years.
What I wish to discuss with you for a moment is a subject which has already been discussed, and rightly so, in this debate and on other occasions during this session of parliament. I refer to a problem which is very much in our minds and indeed in our hearts: the problem of Canadian unity; the problem of unity in a federation; the problem of federalism, which is basic to our growth, basic to our strength, basic to our very survival.
Politically that problem, as in every federal state, is the necessity for having a central government strong enough in jurisdiction, in resources and in resolve to discharge its responsibilities to all the people, but a central government which will not encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces or which acts so as to prejudice their ability to do their job within their jurisdiction. The reconciliation of these two things is not easy. It

never has been, in this country or in any confederation-and I suspect it is as difficult now in Canada as it has ever been in our history.
To do its duty a central government must be strong enough to carry out the tasks imposed on it by the constitution, to provide the services for which it is responsible, especially social services, and to ensure a fair and equitable measure of comparability in respect to those services throughout the country. This country cannot survive, let alone grow, if it becomes a country of developed and underdeveloped areas-Cadillac regions and cart regions. If we allow this to happen-and I believe we will not allow it to happen-the strain on national unity, which is now great and which we all recognize, would indeed become intolerable. The federal government must also have the fiscal and financial power necessary to influence and direct national economic activities through national policies operating throughout the country in the interests of all the people. No province, no group of provinces, can do this. The federal government must be able to take new social and economic initiatives within its jurisdiction when these are necessary for the health, stability and progress of the nation as a whole. And it must be able to approach the provinces with a view to sharing with them the responsibility and the resources necessary for joint schemes of that kind.
This latter requirement brings up the whole question of shared programs about which there has been a great deal of talk, though perhaps not as much thought.
Joint federal-provincial programs, of which there are now more than 60, have been in existence in this country for many years and have proven to be a most important and useful method of bringing about balanced economic and social programs. Of course conditions are changing, not only in Canada but throughout the world and especially, perhaps, in federal states. In our own country, provinces, or some of them, are more concerned now than they used to be with the consequences of what might seem to them to be too much federal control over these programs when, as they do, they deal with matters within provincial jurisdiction. Provinces can even take this position while recognizing the value to their people of these programs. The federal government need not, of course, renew a shared program when an existing agreement comes to an end. Indeed, it can abandon, by agreement with the provinces, a shared program before an agreement is due to end under the existing arrangements.

The right of the provinces to do this, in a matter within provincial jurisdiction, we refer to as "contracting out". This is a phrase which, I confess, worries me somewhat because it gives the impression of not only contracting out of a program, but of contracting out of something which a province does not wish to see going on as an activity across Canada. Perhaps we should talk less about contracting out and more about the right of a province to take on its own responsibilities, in co-operation, if you like, with other provinces, in respect of matters which are within provincial jurisdiction. But a provincial government does have the right to opt out of programs of this kind. I believe it is proper that it should have this right, and it can do so, in our view, under certain conditions, with compensation, and convert its part of a shared program into a provincial part. For the federal government to oppose the right of a province to exercise its option of withdrawal from any joint program which covers matters under provincial jurisdiction either shared or exclusively, would not strengthen confederation; it could destroy confederation.
This does not mean, as it has been interpreted in some quarters to mean, that the federal government will encourage this course of option. But it should, I think, admit the right. Furthermore, when a province exercises its right to carry on its share of the program as a provincial program, to refuse that province financial compensation is to insist that in that province the provincial taxpayer should pay not only the full cost of the provincial program but also share the cost in the other provinces as well. Surely, no one thinks the application of this principle would strengthen confederation. When provinces, and above all the province of Quebec, question the desirability of continuing in certain joint programs they are influenced by considerations both of constitutional anxiety and by more practical matters. It is true-and so that this may be a completely non-partisan observation, let me say that the truth goes back many years-that some programs had been decided on by the federal government without adequate consultation with provincial governments. And, later, when a program begins to bear on a provincial treasury, or when provinces feel they would prefer to spend the money in question on something else, they begin to take the view-and there is ample evidence to support this-that the shared program was imposed on them rather than agreed with them. Indeed, they may also feel that the joint program has prejudiced the position of the province in question and led to the centralization of policy making and
The Budget-Mr. Pearson policy decisions in Ottawa, even in fields which are a direct responsibility of the province.
It is felt by certain provinces, and it has been felt over the years, that joint programs often do not take sufficiently into account provincial priorities. We heard a good deal about this at the most recent federal-provincial conference-that they did not take sufficiently into account provincial needs and characteristics; that there are often too many rigid federal conditions and at times irksome federal procedures.
It is certainly true, Mr. Speaker, that some joint programs have imposed increasing strains on provincial budgets and on federal budgets, but these strains have been felt most by the poorer provinces, the ones less able to bear their share of the cost. In these programs the proportion of the cost borne by a province is the same in the case of every province, unless there is a special arrangement to the contrary, and I do not know of any such arrangement.
On the other hand, it is equally true that shared cost programs, as I have already said, constitute a recognized and valuable method for making a federal system work. They have made an important contribution to the economic and social progress of our country. They have fostered national uniform standards for many important social services. For these reasons many provinces desire and advocate their continuance even though often with some changes.
Many of the disadvantages I have mentioned could be removed or reduced by the federal government working more closely with the provinces in the initiation and administration of programs. Perhaps the federal share of the cost could vary according to the fiscal capacity of the provinces participating. When a province opts out, and this is generally understood now, the conditions should not only be agreed to with that province but should not prejudice in any way the position of the provinces that remain in. With changes of this kind and the careful observance of the principles of consultation there is no reason, as I see it, why shared programs should not continue to play a useful part in our federal national development.
But I think I am safe in saying that recent experience-by "recent" I mean experience over the last year-will undoubtedly result in the federal government hesitating to embark on new shared programs without the assurance of the full and unqualified support of all the provinces. The right to opt out must be admitted, but it is much better to have a plan from which no one wants to opt out. Having said that, I do not believe that

The Budget-Mr. Pearson exercising the right of option need be disastrous or a threat to national unity. I think that is exaggerating the importance of opting out. I do admit, however, that certain disadvantages follow. When opting out takes place there always is a kind of patchwork result in the country as a whole in respect of the application of a program. This need not be disastrous but it is disadvantageous at times, and opting out does emphasize the sense of separation in our country in dealing with certain matters, especially when jurisdiction in those matters is shared. Opting out means very often that there is increased scope for federal-provincial difference over the relative advantages of staying in or opting out.
Shared programs then are one illustration, and one very much in our minds these days, of the difficulties as well as the opportunities of co-operation in the relations between the central and provincial governments in our country. These relations are in their turn a major, although not the only problem of our confederation. That problem expresses itself in political, fiscal, economic and resource development fields. It has been with us, and we should not forget this, since confederation first came into being nearly 100 years ago. Certainly in the federal government we have never in the history of our country been far away from provincial problems. These problems will remain with us as long as we are a federation, and we cannot exist as a Canadian nation except as a federation.
But while the basic problem of federalism in our country is old it has taken on new, complex and difficult forms as government at all levels has taken on more and more duties and responsibilities, especially in the field of social services. This problem has also become a part of, and indeed it is often confused with, the relations between the two foundling elements of our nation, the English speaking majority and the French speaking minority. The two problems tend to overlap and are interrelated.
The French speaking minority, as we know of course, has certain rights and privileges which are guaranteed in our constitution. It is a minority by no means confined to the province of Quebec, but that province is in a very real sense the guardian of its cultural and religious and linguistic rights. Therefore, while federal-provincial relations are an equal concern to all the provinces, and they must all be treated alike within the constitution, Quebec in a very real sense is not a province like the others. Therefore its position is bound to introduce special features into federal-provincial relationships.

For the central government to recognize the special problems arising out of the relationship with Quebec and to seek and find, whenever possible, solutions for them, without prejudicing the position of other provinces, is not capitulation or betrayal. Those who carelessly call it such are themselves, I suggest, betraying the spirit of confederation and weakening the only foundation on which confederation can stand firm and endure. A prejudiced and obstinate refusal to recognize that there are special complexities in relations with Quebec, or a failure to appreciate the special sensitiveness of that province as the guardian of the rights of a minority would soon and finally destroy confederation and make impossible the growth, in strength and unity, of a Canadian nation.
If, however, to refuse, to recognize the special position of Quebec in this way is to weaken and destroy confederation, and it could have that results, then for a province to exploit this position at the expense of Canada as a whole could have the same tragic result.
We can have no real future as a Canadian nation if we so act in our relationships provincially and federally that the result is the loosest possible kind of federation, with power and control in the hands of the provinces who would develop in their own way as best they could. I can see no salvation, I can see no survival along that course.
Of course, as we know, there are tendencies in that direction. They could destroy Canada by leading to separatism. I do not believe that these forces will prevail. We must make sure in this parliament that they do not, and in that connection the government of the day, whatever government it may be, has a very special responsibility. To this end, Mr. Speaker, this government intends to avoid either of the extreme courses I have mentioned. We propose to recognize the increasing importance of the responsibilities of the provinces in our federation, as indeed the previous government did in its financial contributions to provincial assistance.
We propose to recognize the increasing importance and responsabilities of the provinces in our federation and to help make it possible for those provinces to meet their needs by a reallocation of financial resources and a revision of our tax structure for this purpose, even if this would require a change in certain sections of our constitution, which was passed nearly 100 years ago when conditions were very different from what they are now. This is the purpose of the proposal to set up this basic tax structure committee on which I hope every province and the federal government will be represented.

In taking that attitude, surely the federal government's policy is the very oposite of centralism. We are sure, and I am sure all members of the house will share our confidence in this regard, that the provinces will use the increased authority and increased resources which they need, not to destroy but to buttress confederation. We fully appreciate, as all members of the house do, the position of the provinces. While fully appreciating that I, for one and I am sure others also, refuse to admit that the recognition of provincial rights and new provincial responsibilities requires in any way the weakening of the federal government to do its job.
This is the ultimate reconciliation we have to make in our federal system and it is one of the most difficult reconciliations that has ever been faced by any government or parliament in this country. The federal government, in these days of new responsibilities and new requirements, must also be strong in the resources it needs to deal with these increasing responsibilities, which are responsibilities of all the people of the Canadian nation from coast to coast. These facts are evident, and they must be accepted. Every province has its rights, its rights that do not change and its responsibilities that do. Every province must be in a position to exercise its rights and discharge its responsibilities, and Quebec in these matters has a special position. But equally it must be accepted and established that Canada is above all the provinces, embracing all the provinces, respecting provincial division and provincial responsibility, but that Canada, as a nation, is greater than its parts or the sum of its parts. French speaking Canada must play a proud and equal part in that nation, must feel that it belongs to Canada and that Canada from sea to sea belongs to it.
Canada is a very proud name in the world today and has been over the years. Our country need not and must not become balkanized or even, if you will pardon the expression, Aus-tro-Hungarianized. This will require understanding and, when necessary, great concessions and compromises on the part of provincial governments as well as the government in Ottawa. In other words, there must be co-operation for progress in order to avoid a conflict that would destroy us. Recent conferences with the provinces have pointed up the urgent need for such co-operation and understanding. They have also shown that without this co-operation and understanding, in the face of new pressures, tensions and problems arising out of growth and change and the quiet revolutions, the nation that our forefathers founded and built, might disintegrate and disappear. We must do
The Budget-Mr. Pearson nothing, either by provocation or by weakness or by stubborn unawareness of the basic nature of our federalism or by words or actions based on prejudice or fear, to bring about that weakening or disappearance.
We must reject the defeatism and despair which cries out that if Quebec or any other province works out an equitable arrangement by which it can take over its own share of shared programs, this means we are heading straight for separatism. This gloomy exaggeration of our difficulties may bring about the very result that those who exaggerate profess to fear. However, there can be extreme talk and extreme proposals on the other side which it would be folly and dangerous to ignore, that we can go on fragmenting ourselves, with each province ignoring the position of the other and the federal government, and the federal government ignoring the position of the provinces, and with the provinces making claims and carrying suspicions to the extreme so that they weaken the voice of Canada itself and destroy all feeling of national unity. This too, Mr. Speaker, can bring about a break-up that is not intended by those who follow such a course, except by an avowed but very small separatist minority.
Surely, it is obvious that the remedy is to avoid the paths of extremism wherever they may come from and wherever they may lead to. Mr. Mackenzie King, if I may be pardoned for quoting him, once wrote these words in a letter to a friend:
The extreme man is always more or less dangerous but nowhere more so than in politics. In a country like ours it is particularly true that the art of government is largely one of seeking to reconcile rather than to exaggerate differences.
It is the task of parliament, without regard to party; it is the challenge of statesmanship rising above faction, to find the solutions to our problems which are now more serious and more difficult than any we have faced in peacetime since 1867. We must find these solutions by agreement, not force them by compulsion. We cannot hope to find such agreement in our country if we cannot find a basis for it in our parliament.
Oh, I know, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps no one knows it much better than I, that this parliament of minorities is not an easy one for any of us, wherever we may sit. How could it be? It is idle to wrangle over blame or responsibility if parliament has, in fact, declined in repute over the last ten years and particularly, if you like, over the last two.
I am quite willing to accept, for my party and for myself, our share of any blame and responsibility; to acknowledge both political the parliamentary sins of commission and

The Budget-Mr. Pearson omission, in opposition and in government. Every party, every leader and every parliament in our history has had much to its or his credit, and things also to its or his discredit. But it is well to keep a sense of perspective when we try to analyse our own faults and achievements. It is well also, for those of us who analyse them, to keep a sense of perspective, and a knowledge of history, which I should not talk about, helps to maintain a sense of perspective.
For one thing, we should realize that circumstances and conditions governing the functioning of parliament today, especially in the realm of communication, have changed radically in the last 30, 40 and 50 years. The media of communication and commentary can now bring our weaknesses and misdeeds, and occasionally even our achievements, into every home, immediately and with a dramatic effect not possible many years ago.
But while perspective can give us some comfort because it helps us to emphasize and maintain a sense of proportion, perspective can be damaging and, indeed, can be dangerous if it is allowed to obscure the fact that, while we may not be any worse, or even as bad as our forefathers in politics and in parliament, today we must be better because the problems we now face are far greater in degree and in complexity than theirs, and the penalty for failure to deal with them is correspondingly greater.
That is why we are all anxious, in all parties in the house, to take steps-and I hope we can agree on them-whereby parliament can operate more effectively in the interests, not of parliamentarians but of the people of the country, and that is why all of us attach very great importance to the committee on procedure which we have set up, and which I venture to hope will be submitting to us, before many days, an interim report which, if it can be agreed upon by all of us-and I hope it can-would do something to improve our procedure and make it more effective, pending the final report of that committee.
We must then, Mr. Speaker, do everything we can by our conduct in parliament to justify parliament as an institution and to bring it into better repute than it seems to have attained recently.
Our major problem today, and these are my closing words, Mr. Speaker, is not one of nation building. Although we still have that, and although Canadians have achieved great success in the field of nation building ever since 1867 right down to 1964, our problem today is not one of nation building; it is a problem of nation saving. It is not less


than that-saving this nation from forces that weaken and could ultimately destroy it, forces all the more dangerous because they are used often by those who do not desire that result.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament can strengthen Canada and, by strengthening it, we can certainly save it. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is above all partisan, selfish, regional and provincial considerations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Canada is a good country, and we can make it a great country if we rise above the squabbles of its lesser citizens who would reduce it to a collection of competing regions and provinces. Parliament in this regard must give the lead and show the way. I hope we will measure up to the responsibility before us.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, could I call it five o'clock? There is only a minute to go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house wish that I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to enable civil servants to engage in political activity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in introducing this bill this afternoon is that by so doing I hope we can initiate a discussion in the house about a very grave and serious problem. By that, I am referring to the political and civic rights of the civil servants of Canada.
There are approximately 200,000 people in this category, and at the present time they are in a state of virtual suspended animation with regard to political activity. This situation arises as a result of the Civil Service Act which was passed in 1960-61, and more particularly as a result of section 61 of the act, which provides as follows:
(1) No deputy head or employee shall
(a)	engage in partisan work in connection with any election for the election of a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories; or
(b)	contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for the funds of any political party.

Subsection 2 of this section provides that anyone who violates this is liable to be dismissed, and the act properly goes on to provide that persons so charged cannot be dismissed unless they have an opportunity to be heard, themselves, and through representatives.
The net effect of this provision is to deprive our civil servants in toto of the right to engage in any form of political activity. The section of course is somewhat vague. It would appear that a civil servant could engage in political activity so long as it was not at election time, and provided he did not contribute any money to a political party. It would also appear that a civil servant could engage in partisan work for any sort of party he wished, no matter how extreme its views, provided it did not run candidates. However, as I have said, the net effect is to place a blanket denial on the rights of our civil servants to engage in political activity. The section does not define "partisan work" very clearly, but I feel from reviewing the events that over the years a very narrow definition has grown up as to what constitutes partisan work. Many civil servants are very doubtful if they even have the right to be seen at a political meeting. Readings of Hansard indicate that even a civil servant having his picture taken might constitute grounds for dismissal. It is interesting to note that as late as 1957 civil servants could be dismissed on the charge by a member of parliament that they had engaged in partisan activity, and indeed this could be done without any investigation at all.
I am merely saying that by our legislative act we have to all intents and purposes isolated the civil servant from political activity. This is to me a very serious limitation that we have placed upon their rights as citizens in a democracy, and it can only be justified if some more overriding reasons can be advanced. I would like to see us discuss whether these overriding reasons still exist, because certainly this is not the kind of restriction which any of us would tolerate were it imposed by private industry, trade unions or farm organizations which employ people. It is my contention that the time has come for the relaxation of this very rigid rule even though there are still some areas where it may have to be applied. Thus clause 2 of the bill provides:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other act of parliament, every employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada, shall have the right to engage in any form of political activity-
Then I have set out some of the categories:
(a)	the right freely to associate with others in political parties and organizations;
(b)	the right to speak, to write, and to publish on behalf of candidates for public office;
Civil Servants in Politics
(c)	the right to be a candidate for public office; and
(d)	the right to make contributions to and expenditures on behalf of political parties and candidates for public office-
It is also provided in the bill that of course no such employee shall use his hours of employment or any of the tools of his office for these purposes, and clause 4 provides:
The provisions of this act shall not apply to:
(a)	a deputy head as defined in paragraph (h) of subsection 1 of section 2 of the Civil Service Act, or an employee of equivalent rank; or
(b)	an employee employed in a confidential capacity.
It seems to me this is the only limitation which we can now justify with respect to political activity by civil servants. The policy of political neutrality has had a long tradition not only in our parliament here in Canada but of course in the United Kingdom as well. But in the United Kingdom they have questioned the advisability of perpetuating the blanket nature of the prohibition. The matter was discussed in a very interesting book by the late Harold J. Laski called "Reflections on the constitution". In that book Mr. Laski re-examines the political and civil rights of civil servants and makes some conclusions. He says:
I think It is absurd to insist that, once a civil servant, not in the industrial grades, becomes a candidate for parliament he shall resign his post. I think it is even more absurd to lay it down that civil servants shall not play a part, in their leisure time, in the political organization in which they believe.
He deals with the French system where a great many civil servants have played an important part in the politics of their nation. He mentions in particular Mr. Leon Blum. These civil servants have played their part in the politics of their nation and it has not interfered with their impartiality nor with their ability to discharge their role as civil servants. He felt that below the capacities that I have mentioned it is enough if an official of the particular class gives an undertaking, whether he becomes a parliamentary candidate or takes an active interest in his party, not to discuss in public the affairs of the department to which he belongs, nor to reveal information which he obtains by virtue of his position in the service. He felt it would be sufficient to give this undertaking, and any violation of it might constitute grounds for dismissal.
Indeed, the British have progressed ever further in this field. The Whitley council examined this whole problem of the political rights of civil servants and they advised a horizontal division where some are completely free to engage in political activity, some are more restricted and some are barred. They ended up with a division that 62 per cent


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the mover of this bill, in particular his reference to the function of private members' hour and what its potentiality could be in this house. Many of us will agree with what he has said. The only observation I should like to make is that I think my record of attendance in this house certainly compares with that of other hon. members, and I believe a fair number of these bills have this time been referred to a committee. Certainly more than one has; I know at least three have, and although I do not know what the actual score is, I am sure this fact should be put on record.
The hon. member who introduced this bill agreed that he was introducing something very different in principle and approach from other bills, where the background preparation of public opinion must be gone into thoroughly and consistently before this house could take action. One of the things I expected to hear something about from the hon. member was citations from staff associations, organized groups of civil servants and other people in the community who feel that the measure which the hon. member is promoting is one which they themselves would desire and which they feel is in their own best interests.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question on that point?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Certainly.


Reid Scott: Would he not agree that such activity would be classified as partisan activity?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I disagree thoroughly with that contention. The wording of section 61,
20220-136i
Civil Servants in Politics as the hon. member pointed out, is specifically related to elections, and the general question of the rights of civil servants is perfectly within the scope of activity of the sort which would be invited. I am certainly sure that no hon. member would discourage an association from trying to express its opinion on the principle whether or not the legislation as presently constituted is adequate to protect the rights of civil servants.
This question may be looked at from several different points of view. The hon. member who has spoken referred to the point of view of an individual civil servant and a citizen in the community. That is of course a valid point of view, but we must also look at the point of view and rights of a government. We must look too at the point of view of political parties and at the needs and rights of political parties. And not the least, I think we must look at the public interest which dictated this particular section in the first instance.
If the hon. member was calling attention to a matter which had not been reviewed by this house during a period of time within the living memory of members of this house and had been long standing on the statute books, I think there would be even more justification for raising the subject. But as recently as 1960, when a comprehensive review of the Civil Service Act was enacted by this house, the clause to which the hon. member referred was reviewed and modified, as he acknowledged, to give a much greater degree of democratic control. For example, a man or woman may not be dismissed except after formal inquiry. No longer do the rather discriminatory provisions concerning complaints by members of parliament apply. If he had cited any injustices under the application of the rule I would have been more moved by his arguments.
As the situation stands today there is no question that the government faces something of a dilemma. Political activity in our society relies on the spontaneous and voluntary action of citizens who put themselves in the position of assuming a greater degree of responsibility for the kind of government and society in which they live. That is basic to any democratic society. We must have a maximum voluntary involvement of citizens in those activities. We want to encourage the government. At the same time the government as an employer must set the example of a good employer. As the hon. member pointed out, we want employers to encourage their employees to take part in politics. Politics in a democratic society would be meaningless without this participation.
That is one side of the question. The other side concerns the history of activity which

Civil Servants in Politics brought such a regulation on to the books in the first instance. The Canadian civil service has since 1920 built a reputation which is second to that of no other country in the world in terms of competence, respect for the merit principle, in terms of the encouragement of men and women of profound ability to seek a career in the public service of Canada and to develop a career in a way which makes us as Canadians proud of their talents. If this rule had had the effect of substantially discouraging numbers of men and women of prominence from seeking a public career because they would feel they were in a sense second class citizens and would forfeit their full rights, then I think the hon. member would have made something of a case. But the opposite is the fact. The profound respect for the merit principle and the degree to which it was applied and respected, in Canada even more so than in many contemporary democracies in the western world, has had the effect of encouraging large numbers of competent people to seek a career in the public service.
There are, of course, evils when political activity takes place within the public service. History prior to 1920 discloses examples. Evils manifest themselves as abuses of individuals by unscrupulous members of political parties, and there are persons who participate in public life who are not of the sort of standing which we should like to see. There is the opportunity for a more or less compulsory political contribution; there is the opportunity of calling for a return for services rendered. This is the situation when men and women, who show up at election time and make their careers in the public service, then go to their members of parliament and say: I worked for you; now you work for me. If anyone wants to read the reports which formed part of the background of the first civil service act in 1920 and the disrepute into which it brought the civil service as it existed prior to that date, he will find ample confirmation of these points.
The other side of the coin is the abuse of civil servants in circumstances in which financial contributions could or might be invited. I note that the hon. member has not spoken of the role of the civil servants staff associations, where they are free to take an active part on behalf of, or against, any particular political party. It seems to me this whole field would bear careful examination.
We must bear in mind the tradition of neutrality which exists in the civil service- the tradition of loyalty to the government of the day whatever its political complexion; the tradition of the protection of the rights of

individual civil servants against unscrupulous holders of public office. These are the reasons for the rule. These are the reasons why parliament in the sixties did review sections of the act and introduced some changes, though not the changes suggested by the hon. member.
A great deal more could be said about political activity which is not of a political partisan nature. I refer to political activity among civil servants, especially at municipal level. I think the tradition of non-participation in the Canadian civil service is so strong that it leads to inhibition in areas where there is no need for it. This is not a matter of law. I think it is a matter of the development of practice and, in particular, of administrative practice. In a city such as the national capital, where a municipal form of government is maintained, this practice has had the effect of discouraging men and women, among them some of the most vigorous and most able people in Canada, from offering themselves for office. It is not the law that is responsible for this. It is a tradition which has grown up within a general interpretation of the law. During the 1962 federal election, in the course of the campaign, a member of the civil service commission made a public statement to the effect that wives of civil servants should have nothing to do with politics. And the inference was left that close relatives of civil servants should also think twice about doing so. There is nothing in the law or in the regulations that says this. But this type of administrative interpretation by a responsible head of the public service, in this case a member of the civil service commission, is to be roundly condemned as leading to a situation which is creating an evil. The law which is presently on the books has not, in my experience, been the object of a great deal of criticism. I am not aware that any gross inequities have arisen. There is an excessive timidity about offering oneself as a candidate, for example, for the office of alderman on a local council, or for office as reeve or urban councillor in smaller municipalities.
Here the important question is a question of possible conflict of duties and, in addition, the level of responsibility that is assumed. It is reasonable to expect that when a man or woman is hired by the public service for full time work his employer has a right to full time service. Frequently, service on a council creates obligations in terms of conflicts of time, or even conflicts of energy. This imposes a problem, and administrative discretion has to be exercised. It is perfectly lawful and, I believe, it is to be encouraged that civil servants who do not experience

a conflict with their jobs should offer themselves for municipal office on a non-partisan basis. If they like that kind of life they can quit their jobs and take up politics as a full time occupation. Later, if they find they do not like it as well as they had imagined they would, they can go back, qualify themselves by passing open competitions and re-enter the public service, if that is what they wish to do. There is nothing wrong in that, nor should it be discouraged.
As a matter of administrative practice, treasury board has set a limit of earnings above which it has not been the practice to grant leave of absence so that a man or woman might offer himself as a candidate. That level is revised from time to time. It currently reflects the average earnings of an alderman in one of the larger cities of Ontario or Quebec. The level is drawn so as to discourage those who might wish to serve on the board of control in, for example, Toronto, Ottawa, Sudbury or Hamilton, because the board of control, as the cabinet of the city, is very much a full-time responsibility though its members are seldom paid on a full-time basis. It is therefore necessary for men and women wishing to carry out duties at this level to avail themselves of leave of absence. I think it should be the policy of the government to grant such leave of absence in the overwhelming majority of the cases in which application is made.
What is wrong with these rules? I know that the government, as an employer, in terms of being a custodian of the civil rights of its employees, seeks to give the maximum encouragement to those wishing to take part in political activities. But the public has a right, too. The public has a right to expect that its employees will show equal loyalty to whatever government is in power. The Civil Service Act permits civil servants to contest elected offices at the municipal level. Indeed, it encourages them to do so. This type of activity provides a way by which participants can be initiated, if they seek this kind of life. As for the stage at which a man or woman takes on a political label and offers himself or herself as a candidate for a particular political party, I think that is the stage at which our legislation draws the line. I do not see anything terribly wrong with this. It is perfectly all right for a man who wants to run in the name of a party to quit his job-after all, he is a free agent-and then, if he decides he does not like political life, he can enter another competition held on the merit principle, and rest assured that he will not be the object of discrimination because of the fact that he participated in political activity.


Mr. Lamb:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that a civil servant should be able
Civil Servants in Politics to obtain leave of absence, run for parliament and then, if defeated, get his job back as a civil servant?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is not what I said.


Charles Wesley Lamb: I just wanted to clear that up because I do not think that would be altogether right. I understood that was what the hon. member said.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I thank the hon. member for raising the point. That was certainly not my intention. I was saying that in municipal office it is possible to take leave of absence without pay, but when you carry a political label I think you should resign. After you have resigned and have spent some years out of the service there is no stigma if you want to change your occupation again. You are perfectly free to enter a competition and win or lose on your merits as a man or woman, with no stigma as a result of what you have done at some previous time. But when you enter the public service these are the rules. As long as you are a civil servant they are the rules, and if you do not like them it is your privilege to resign from the service. In a democratic society I think this is not an unhealthy tradition.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not know earlier that this bill would be coming up today because I should have liked to examine more closely the problems it would create. However, from what he has said, it would seem that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) wishes to give greater importance to members of parliament than to civil servants.
Now, it is well known that at the federal level, civil servants play an exceedingly important role as compared with members of parliament. In fact, they have a role to play and they can remove themselves from the influence not of politics, I would say, but of parliament itself. Thus, very often when we ask for the reasons behind a certain decision, we are told that the letter was based on confidential documents containing information which cannot be revealed to private members of parliament. However, civil servants for their part may not only have information but may also create situations about which we should require explanations.
As far as the civil service is concerned, I believe its powers are exceedingly important and something might indeed be done about it. I make this statement, knowing quite well it is not very wise, politically speaking, but I wonder whether an inquiry into the administration of the civil service would not be justified to find out whether

Civil Servants in Politics there are not some nooks and corners where some dust may have collected and where a little dusting would be useful.
The civil service is protected by the civil service commission, on which no political pressure is being exerted. This, I admit. However, the complaints received from civil servants holding subordinate positions are so frequent-I would even say they are almost incessant

that, in my opinion, it would be wise to study the suggestion I made a moment ago, that is to conduct an inquiry into the administration of the civil service.
The hon. member stated a few moments ago that if civil servants were not allowed to enter politics, they would be deprived of their rights. I do not know any civil servant who was ever compelled to enter the civil service. When entering the civil service, he knew what to expect. He knew he was to work for his country or his province, as the case may be. He knew also that his position involved some duties which were constantly to be respected and that some rights which he considered legitimate were to be denied him, in many circumstances, and this, for reasons of security or confidentiality. This means the applicant for a civil service job knew what to expect.
On the other hand, if he wanted to engage in political activities, if he wished to express his views to the people as a whole, all he had to do was to go into politics and run as a member of such and such a party. If he had no desire to belong to any party, he could have run as an independent.
I do not feel those are sufficient reasons to require that an act of parliament allow public servants to engage in political activity. But, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) said a while ago, I think there is a distinction to be made between municipal politics, school politics and even, in some respects, provincial politics, because the ties between federal and provincial parties are so close that I would be afraid to allow a public servant to engage in political activity in one of those two fields.
As far as municipal and school board politics are concerned, I do not feel we can prevent a civil servant who undoubtedly has the necessary qualifications from taking an active part in such activities. In fact, if a civil servant wishes to hold public office, I do not see why we should refuse him permission to do so.
However, when it is said that civil servants are deprived of any chance to be helpful to the government and parliament, I feel, as I said a moment ago, that that is granting little importance to members of parliament, considering especially the fact that those people can be of use to the government.


In fact, if a committee of the house needs information, it is easy to call in competent officials and ask them to explain matters for the benefit of the members of the committee who will later on make recommendations to parliament and to the government.
The government and parliament can make full use of those people if they have qualifications. I fail to see why they would be better qualified simply because they would work actively for a political party. For a long time, when law clerks or certain judges were to be appointed, for instance, they were required to belong to a political party and, very often, it was the only qualification required. This gave rise to more and more complaints. Yet, some people would like to require from civil servants, on top of necessary qualifications, membership in a political party.
Mr. Speaker, I think that such an argument is illogical and it should at least be criticized before it is accepted.
It must also be recognized that in spite of the sacrosanct independence of the civil service commission, as I was saying, there is surely some way for politics to intervene, because too many civil servants come to see their members to ask them to bring some pressure to bear so that they may be appointed to such and such a position. That means that to get into the civil service, political influence is often used, but once the candidate gets in, if he wants to remain there, he must get completely out of politics.
If he wants to go into active politics, the only way would be to quit the civil service and take a chance, as everybody else does, by running at a general election.
As far as I am concerned, I could not serve two masters.
When I chose to devote myself to politics, I forced myself to give up the practice of medicine, not because I was no longer capable of practising, but because I felt my first duty was to my country and my constituents. That means that the right I actually have to practise medicine is restricted and also minimized by my new duties as a member of this house.
I feel that should apply also to a civil servant who would be allowed to engage in political activity.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to labour the point, for I know other members would like to speak on this matter and, especially, that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) would like to obtain the consent of the house to refer his bill to a special committee.
Still, I should like to say that if, under a socialist or ultra-socialist regime, it is quite normal for civil servants to engage in politics since the latter then become a direct function

of the government, the intrusion of politics in the public service is absolutely unthinkable in a democracy like ours where the individual still has, in his riding or at the polling booth the apparent right to choose the men who will form the government.
Obviously, a civil servant's political affiliations may play against him if he has been or still is engaged in politics. If there is a change of government, he will be the first to suffer.
This new measure might keep the government and the whole parliament from using the services of a very qualified man.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say that I am totally opposed to the fact that civil servants might engage in political activities-as I said earlier, at some levels, it is quite possible-but I object to the general principle and I should like very much to have the opportunity of discussing the matter in committee, if ever this bill should go before one.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out as definitely as I can that we, sitting on this side of the house, take the introduction of this bill by a member of the New Democratic party as a compliment to our cabinet and to the Liberal government which the country is enjoying today. It would appear that with a Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who came directly from the civil service into the arena of federal politics, and a Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who came directly into politics from the civil service, the mover of the bill appreciates the abilities and qualities of such leadership and is endeavouring to increase the number of civil servants who might engage in federal politics for the good of the country.
This principle has been demonstrated by the activities of such former civil servants as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), who is measuring up to the peerless stature of the late C. D. Howe. We have, as Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury), a former civil servant, who is establishing new records in that division. We have a Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) straight out of the civil service, and I understand he has had 14 years of continuous service in either provincial or federal civil service positions. He is a man of experience and ability. It is a very nice tribute to our cabinet and to the Liberal government of the day to have the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) introduce a bill which he hopes will enlarge the number of civil servants coming into the area of federal politics.


An hon. Member:: But not from the Liberal party.
Civil Servants in Politics


Ralph Bronson Cowan: However, I cannot say that all ventures of this nature have been for the good of the country. There are occasions on record-I do not wish to be too specific- where civil servants, as a result of the nature of their occupation as relief administrators or as inspectors for this and that, travelling around at government expense and making contact with thousands of voters, have established in that manner a popularity which has enabled them to run for office. This has been done by passing out government money in one way or another. One might almost say the government has subsidized their campaign throughout the years they were engaged as civil servants.
I do not believe that federal civil servants should be eligible to participate in federal politics. I do believe that a dominion government employee should take part in provincial politics and municipal politics. I do believe that a provincial civil servant should take part in municipal politics and federal politics. I do not believe a civil servant should engage in politics at the level at which the parliament or legislature of which he would be a member would be his employer. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) has pointed out that he believes there are many people who are afraid to engage in political action because they know they are forbidden to take part in some fields of endeavour, and therefore they refuse to take part in the much wider field.
It strikes me that there must be a tremendous number of people in this country who are quite willing to become civil servants. As the last speaker pointed out, despite the restrictions on political activities, people are willing to become civil servants. It is interesting to bear in mind at this time the remarks made by the Minister of Industry only last week when he pointed out that there were 6,500 applications received by the civil service commission for the 87 positions advertised in the Department of Industry. If 6,500 Canadian people are willing to apply for 87 positions that are open, despite the restrictions that now exist on political activities, this would indicate to me, if not to other members of the house, that these people are willing to accept these restrictions which have been imposed for some years. The onus cannot be very serious or we would not have had that number of applications for these few positions.
Indeed, many men and women have not been deprived of taking part in election campaigns because they were civil servants. The late Mr. Raymond, who was Liberal member for the city of Brantford for many years, was the former postmaster of the city of Brantford. Some of you may recall this

Civil Servants in Politics gentleman as the blind member of parliament who, for a number of years, would stand in this house and correct any misquotation by calling the speaker's attention to the fact that the next paragraph read as follows. His memory was phenomenal and his literary knowledge was vast. He was a former civil servant who made his mark in the federal field. It is true he gave up his position to run, but this did not restrict him in running for parliament.
We have in this house many former government employees. I do not like to limit the words "civil servant" to the federal civil servants. We have provincial civil servants; we have municipal civil servants; we have federal civil servants. Now that we have the United Nations, we will be getting international civil servants. Men and women can take part in various levels of political activity. In my own riding of York-Humber I have about one eighth of the area of the township of Etobicoke, which has a population of 173,000 souls. I am sure it will interest members of parliament to know that one local-I will not say problem, I will say question-concerns the fact that the board of education in that township is pretty well dominated by teachers. These teachers are not in the employ of the board of education of Etobicoke. They are men and women, university professors, who are employees of other boards of education or universities elsewhere in metropolitan Toronto. However, since they live in Etobicoke, they are qualified to run for office there.
We have this little question as to whether or not teachers should be allowed to run for boards of education in municipalities where they are not teaching, which pinpoints the problem that is brought to the fore by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) in introducing this bill. The reeve of Scarborough, in metropolitan Toronto, is one of the ablest reeves Scarborough has ever seen or will see, and he is a former high school teacher, Mr. Albert Campbell. He is a credit to the community and is building up Scarborough's reputation as reeve.
The Prime Minister of this country and myself were boys together in the city of Peterborough, and when we were children one of the finest mayors there, and prior to that an alderman, was Mayor Buller, who was collector of customs in Peterborough customs house for many, many years. He was a civil servant but he contributed much to the growth of Peterborough and the country by engaging in political activity.
When I was a child, visiting my grandparents here in Ottawa, I heard great praise heaped on a school teacher in Kent school, who for years was a very useful member


of the city council of Ottawa and, if I am not mistaken, rose to be controller. He was an employee of the public school board who was taking a very active part in municipal politics on the council level.
In our Liberal party on this side of the house I am pleased that we have such members as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), all former school teachers, or school principals, or school inspectors. They have not been held back in the field of federal politics because they were former school teachers.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) also was a former school teacher. I call him a former civil servant. Many people state that an employee of a board of education is not a civil servant, but I point out that he is in receipt of tax moneys. At one time the former hon. member for the city of Peterborough, Mr. Pitman, was a high school teacher and is a high school teacher again. These men had much to contribute to the communities in which they were teaching and they took part in federal politics with credit to themselves.
The former prime minister of this country appointed a C.N.R. employee to the Senate. That is a crown corporation and you can call him a civil servant; but he made his mark. He contributed much to the province of Ontario, to the Dominion of Canada, and now has a seat in the other place. I would remind you of the present minister of education in the province of Ontario, a former crown attorney in the county of Peel. He gave up his position as crown attorney and sought elective public office in the provincial field. He became a member of the legislature and a member of the cabinet, and today is a good servant of the public in the form of minister of education, despite the fact that some years ago he was a civil servant as crown attorney for Peel.
I cannot see that the civil service employees of this country, whether on the municipal, provincial or federal level, are suffering under the laws that now exist. The town of Weston is one of the five communities making up the riding of York-Humber. An alderman there for some time and a reeve for many years was a pilot on T.C.A. It is a crown corporation, but no one held it against that gentleman that he was an employee of a crown corporation. He was elected to public office year after year in Weston, and served with great distinction to the town of Weston and to metropolitan Toronto, of which Weston is a part.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Can-telon) is a former school teacher who is a

credit to Kindersley and is of value to this house. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel) is a former federal civil servant. He has been elected more than once from his riding, which shows the regard in which he is held. It is not any terrible onus that is placed on these civil servants that there are some restrictions on their political activities in the laws of the land. They can engage in political activities with credit to themselves, and if they wish to run for public office I do believe they are willing to offer themselves and suffer the consequences if they are defeated.
It is difficult at this time to recall the names of many defeated candidates for public office, but we know the civil servants who have been elected to this house, because there are only 265 to consider when discussing a bill of this nature. I am certain, however, that there were many former civil servants who offered their services and, because they were not successful at the polls, were able to return to their former positions or to some other positions they had secured.
With regard to civil servants, I have been thinking of what the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Francis) drew to our attention, that people supported him and, after his election, came around and pointed out they worked for him and wanted his help to get them a position in the civil service.
Talking about restrictions on government jobs, how would we like to have men coming off the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Ontario supreme court bench, and offering themselves for public office? We hold all members of the bench up to praise and we point out how fair they are and how impartial they are in all their actions and decisions. I do not think for one moment it would be proper for us to give the right to men to come off the bench and run for public office, men whose reputation the country as a whole builds up since we must hold our judges and justices in the highest respect. It would not be right for such judges and justices whose reputations have been built up for them by the taxpayers, who in their exalted positions have travelled around as trial judges, and in doing so have met thousands of people, to engage in federal or provincial politics, after spending those years of activity on the bench.
I cannot see any reason for making any alterations at this time in the laws as they now exist. With 6,500 applications for 87 positions, and every one of the 6,500 knowing these restrictions exist at the present time, we have our answer definitely there.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
The Budget-Mr. Fisher Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business is expired. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I noted the other day where a British historian had written that British general elections were locks on the canal of British progress. I was going to start tonight by suggesting that our elections were locks, period, and by scorching the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to a lesser extent the Leader of the Opposition on the basis that while the one dallied and the other raised Cain, and both gave us fine words, on our major problem, which is national survival, the situation seemed to be worsening. But the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, which was quite candid, certainly constructive and somewhat conciliatory to some of us who were critical of him in this field, has made me certain that he does know the dangers and does feel they are matters which time and negotiation will solve, and that he and all of us have a concept of Canadianism which enables us to join with him in fighting for it.
I was moved to consider being sharp not least by an article sent to me from Paris- I got it today-which appeared in Le Monde last Sunday, April 12, headed "Les relations entre Quebec et Ottawa ont atteint un inquie-tant degre de tension" and written by the Le Monde correspondent in Quebec, Jean Tainturier. It is a very long article analysing what he calls the disquieting degree of tension between Quebec and Ottawa, and it seemed to me that the last paragraph was the kind of call to arms to which I think the Prime Minister will listen. I hope my fellow members will forgive my pronunciation:

The unrest concerning the constitution which has developed during the last few years has thereby reached a dangerous phase from which the breaking up process of the Canadian confederation could spring unless bold measures are quickly taken by Ottawa.
2156	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fisher

In other words, this gentleman recommends an audacious or bold and rapid seizing of initiative by Ottawa, and I am in hopes that the Prime Minister's remarks this afternoon are an indicator of this. I also endorse the remarks made by my hon. friend for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), who made the point as one of the generation which bled so much in the first war that he and his colleagues of that generation had a bill to present to this country in terms of asking us, those of us who came afterwards, not to deal with this matter in terms of insult.
I was somewhat shocked to discover a few weeks ago when I read an article about myself in a magazine by the name of "Actu-alite", written by Jean Marc Poliquin, that he used the adjective "brutal" a number of times to describe my attitude in so far as French Canada is concerned. I have always tried in this particular matter, as an individual and a party spokesman, to be frank. I certainly hope that tonight and at any other time in the future I will take heed of the words of my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and will not do anything to exacerbate the difficulties or trade in insults.
The Prime Minister's speech today gave us a bit of a framework and an undertaking, but I think he would be the first to concede that he did not do much more than that. He left us with some questions which will puzzle us until he and his colleagues give us more reasons. He gave us a good outline of the difficulties of joint programming. He suggested that "opting out" was a better phrase than "contracting out" of joint programs between the federal government and the government of a province. Then toward the end of his speech he mentioned that what the two governments consider to be the French and English factor in Canada in language terms really was something different that could not be matched up with the joint programs or anything like this. He indicated, just as we believe and it is in our program, that there should be a special status for Quebec because of its language and culture responsibility. But some of the questions that are left unanswered, for example, are: Where does the federal member from Quebec stand? As far as that is concerned, where does the federal member from Ontario stand on something like the pension plan when, without anything we can do or say about it, the initiative in this specific case has been seized by a provincial premier?
I am not going to raise the question; I just want to circle around the fact of where


do we vote if we are going to be representing people who in effect have a premier who leads them in other matters and says that the federal government shall not enter, or may not enter here and become involved in this particular problem. It seems to me that a member from Ontario faces something that is quite difficult with regard to the pension plan. For the French Canadian member from Quebec who represents his people here and who sees the provincial premier claiming that the primary, or the basic, or the fundamental responsibility for speaking for French Canada does not enter into this chamber at Ottawa but rests with the legislative assembly at Quebec, I know there are a great many problems and difficulties.
It seems to me that in working out this special status for Quebec the Prime Minister has to determine who has the delegation of authority both from us and from the other provincial governments to deal with Quebec. If Quebec is given a special status, what devolves upon us-that is, upon the federal parliament and authority-regarding two matters; for example, the minorities in Quebec and the minorities of French Canadians in the rest of the country? I want, and my party wants, to respect the rights of the French under the constitution in the rest of the country, but if they are to receive more privileges than they have now-that is, the French outside of Quebec-for example in the fields of language rights, education or provincial politics, it becomes again a matter for the provinces rather than the federal government. After all, the Prime Minister is not in a position to undertake what may be given in Ontario with regard to educational or language rights for French Canadians. If Quebec's special status is recognized, what do we do to keep Quebec representation in this house with some kind of prestige and authority? Members may not believe it, but I actually feel, not anything so high handed or high headed as pity or something like that, but I do feel grieved and sorry for my colleagues from Quebec when I realize that they are under pressure and, in a way, under attack and I would suggest that they are less representative of their people than are other representatives gathered in this place.
The Prime Minister's approach as he outlined it today was a pragmatic and empirical one with the idea that we negotiate around a table and bargain step by step; that we have to go slowly and there needs to be a great many compromises. This is all very well, and it is certainly in the Canadian tradition. But emotionally it seems to me that our Quebec friends may be too impatient for this. English speaking Canada at the present time, as I tend to feel it, is also working up something

that is emotional and imaginative with regard to this whole matter. One wonders what happens if things do boil more toward fever heat. What more immediate steps can be taken than those the Prime Minister outlined, which really depend upon a long, slow series of negotiations and deals and compromises. It seems to me that we need to be prepared for this. I sometimes get the feeling-I do not know whether other people in the house join me in this-that the politicians in the province of Quebec may be riding a juggernaut for which they had not any reins. I do not say this in order to irritate, but I just raise this as a question that may put more urgency into this whole matter than the approach that was given today by the Prime Minister.
There is one other point that needs to be made in regard to this question. I wish my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) were here because it is the one thing that is always more before him than anything else. The Liberal party has always claimed some kind of prior magic or mesmerism in regard to handling the French Canadian representation. I think there are claims being made at the present time, and if some of us laugh it is rather hollow laughter in view of the fact that the Liberal party is having the same difficulties that other parties are having.
I suggest that at this time when emotions and feelings of nationalism are not confined to Quebec it would be well for the Liberal party, as the federal Liberal administration, no matter what happens in its detachment from the Quebec Liberal party, to take the attitude that it did not have all the answers unto itself in this matter. Otherwise it seems to me that it is fruitless for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to come to the house and appeal for our help and support, if at the same time his hustings speakers are going round and saying things such as that said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) a few weeks ago, that the Liberal party is the only hope to save confederation. I make this point in some earnestness, Mr. Speaker, because one of the most difficult problems ahead with regard to solving the confederation difficulty is this whole question of partisan claims.
One of the last points I wish to make in relation to this matter has come to me in my reading from a book called "Beyond the ruling class" by Suzanne Keller, and it seems to me that this is one point which we should bring to the minds of the provincialists and the premiers of the provinces at this time. This writer makes the point of the experience of Greece in the fifth century B.C. and that of Rome in the fifth century A.D. She says:
The Budget-Mr. Fisher
In each case the failure to control and curb the desires for local autonomy accelerated the decline of these civilizations. The inability to transcend sectional interests has plagued primitive societies as well, many of whom must manage to solve these problems without benefit of inclusive political organization. Various alternative measures-strict village exogamy, or membership in age-sets that override local village loyalties on specific occasions, or membership in far-flung trading associations-might be considered functional equivalents of political organizations such as the state.
Advanced industrial societies, it appears, are currently on the way toward ever larger, functional divisions. This trend was anticipated by Saint-Simon, among others, who envisaged an international order based not on national but occupational co-ordination. Durkheim continued this line of thought. He favoured the displacement of segmental, territorial solidarity by a comprehensive, functional solidarity based on occupational interdependence, residence becoming less and occupation more important. "A day will come," he prophesied, "when our social and political organization will have a base exclusively, or almost exclusively, occupational". Increasingly it does appear as if local trading, academic, artistic, financial, and fashion centres are yielding ground, and territorial solidarities are making way for other kinds.
This is so obvious in North America that it hardly needs telling, and yet at this time we are making what in essence are demands across the board because of our fragmented political society. We are giving rise to a parochial autonomy.
I now want to refer briefly to Ontario's attitude toward the pension plan. I read recently an article by Bruce MacDonald in the Globe and Mail entitled "Robart's pension reversal", and it made me feel that I was completely wrong about Premier Robarts. I had a suspicion that he was interested in taking a stand which would be in line with the private insurance companies of Canada. He was against larger contributions. I thought he wanted smaller benefits. Now it seems he wants larger contributions and greater benefits and more investment moneys. This is an indication that Premier Robarts may be almost a blooming socialist. It almost indicates that he has been under the influence of the Swedes. Because if you stop and figure the line that Mr. Robarts is now taking-and Mr. MacDonald has outlined it very well-almost everything which Mr. Robarts now seems to be saying, although it does not square very well with what he said before, is an indicator that he is taking the long term attitude of the social democrats in Europe whereby investment from pension funds is one of the great big things you go for.
The other surprising thing to me, and very pleasing of course, is that he seems to want greater benefits, earlier benefits, more survivors' benefits, and of course this fits in with larger contributions. This remarkable about-face by Premier Robarts is something that we
2158	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fisher need to know a great deal more about. But at the present time, from looking at what he seems to be intending, we almost have an indicator that all the long propaganda efforts of Donald MacDonald and his fellows in the provincial legislature are bearing fruit and that we now have a conservative who is recognizing the merits of social democratic pension attitudes.
One further point in connection with the pension plan is the attitude of the teachers federation. I think this is a glorious demonstration of inconsistency. In effect I have been a member of the teachers federation. They are a closed shop. You have to belong to them and pay a fee, and they have had a nice arrangement with the provincial government that whenever the school trustees in Ontario wanted provincial-wide bargaining in terms of salaries the great cry has gone up by the school teachers: "Oh no, we must keep it within the municipal boundaries. This is the authority by which education has been set in this province, and therefore we should and must keep it that way".
This is very good, Mr. Speaker, from what you might call the trade union point of view. You keep the bargaining unit small. You have a closed shop and you have the benefit of the whole federation across the provinces behind you. You separate the boards one by one and gradually work up over the years to a better salary standard. The Ontario teachers federation has done a magnificent job in this regard, and as one of the former members I was complementary to them when I belonged and I am complementary to them now.
Now they come out against the Canada pension plan and their argument is that it must be set within the provincial framework. They are provincialists where the pension plan is concerned. They are such provincialists that they go out of their way, on a matter in which they have no confidence and I would think a great deal of ignorance, to slur and slight our unemployment insurance plan in an effort somehow to indicate that the unemployment insurance plan is not working and is a failure. I just wanted to put that inconsistency on the part of the teachers federation on record, because some of the senior trustee associations might be watching and it might do the federation well suddenly to be faced with an irony such as that.
I did want to talk about the Time and Reader's Digest situation but I am not going to have the opportunity because time is pressing in. Time is always pressing in. However, I should like to say that I compliment two of the members on the Liberal side who spoke out against the bill. I know I was puzzled over the fact that this change in the 

budget was not handled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) but was brought in by the present Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister was informed last week that several Canadian magazines have to fold within a few months unless they get some assurance that there will be legislation, and furthermore that the legislation will not give Reader's Digest and Time any special status.
The burden of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, tonight is directed toward the S.I.U. situation on the great lakes. This is a matter which has been very close to all of us. I think it was an emotional event for many of us last year when we voted to set up the trusteeship because it was inimical to the experience and attitudes of many of us. I should like to argue that the trustees adopted the wrong argument right from the start. Instead of taking the Norris commission report as their guide and following its recommendations, they decided to ignore it. They decided to make their own independent assessment of the situation and devise policies which they considered more suitable. The reason why they refused to abide by the advice of Justice Norris is obvious. Because his recommended procedures for creating democratic unionism on the great lakes would have been a long, difficult task, involving the trustees in years of ceaseless effort and toil, they chose the easy way. They looked at the situation and concluded that the cause of all the labour troubles was the existence of competing unions among the seamen. Put them all in one union, they thought, and there would be no longer any reason for that one union to stage boycotts or strikes, or harass shipping in any way.
Looking for the easy way out, they selected the S.I.U. as the best union to be given a monopoly over all sailors. Why? Because the
5.1.	U. already had the great majority of them, and it would be a lot simpler to assist the S.I.U. in gobbling up the rest than to try to get the smaller unions to replace the
5.1.	U. No matter that the S.I.U. was a jobselling racket; no matter that the inquiry of Mr. Justice Norris had exposed it as a hoodlum empire. It existed; it was the biggest organization; so it should be the one to represent all the seamen. Also, it had the big American stick of boycotts in American ports against a Canadian union.
The trustees, and apparently the federal government, were concerned only with restoring peace on the lakes. Peace at any price-peace at the price of surrendering to the very hoodlums that the Norris commission exposed that the trustees, at least according to my impression and that of my colleagues, were assigned to clean out. This is the kind of

peace the trustees have negotiated-a peace based on unconditional surrender to the S.I.U.
I think we know that the trustees have made a token effort to democratize the S.I.U., and I expect that some time next fall they will proclaim that the work of purification is complete; that free elections are being held, and that the S.I.U. is now worthy to be readmitted into the Canadian Labour Congress. But, no free election, no free referendum can be held while the enforcement machine of the S.I.U. remains intact along the waterfront.
The minister seems doubtful, even now, about the real tactics of the S.I.U. He seems to have difficulty in accepting that there is still a "do not ship" list. Well, they call it a registry of charges now. If the minister wants to find it I suggest he go to the fourth floor of the S.I.U. building in Montreal. Let him go to the north side of the room where he will find a robot filing system next to a large grey filing cabinet. That is where he will find the R.O.C. list which is, in effect, a "do not ship" list.
The trustees have apparently accepted Leonard J. "Red" McLaughlin as being a reformed character. As vice president of contract enforcement, McLaughlin was chief "enforcer" of the S.I.U.'s hoodlum empire in Canada. Mr. Justice Norris found that $72,000 out of $80,000 of Banks' "play money" in the brief period examined was not accounted for in any way. The remaining $8,000 was accounted for by meaningless chits- "$500 for information", "$1,000 for public relations", and so on. McLaughlin was in charge of the money. Yet Mr. Charles Millard says Mr. McLaughlin was a reliable servant of the union. Scores of sailors were brutally beaten in "jackal attacks" and many, such as Fred Neubauer, who had both his kneecaps broken by a crowbar, came forward to testify. These beaten sailors had one thing in common: they opposed the S.I.U. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and Mr. Charles Millard who they think paid out the money for these professional beatings? Why, the man who was in charge of the money, of course.
Leonard McLaughlin has been named- not charged, but named-along with Banks and an ex-S.I.U. Vancouver port agent, as co-conspirator in the formal charge against Banks for the beating, maiming and halfkilling of Richard Greaves, national president of the national association of marine engineers. Leonard McLaughlin was both the architect and the safe-keeper of the "do not ship" list, an infamous list now called the report of charges which contains the names of between 5,000 and 10,000 Canadian sailors.
The Budget-Mr. Fisher This vicious "do not ship" list is in effect at this moment in every S.I.U. hiring hall from Halifax to Vancouver, maintained by the maritime trustees in the name of the parliament of Canada. Every sailor who ever showed a spark of resistance to the Paul Hall-Hal Banks-Leonard McLaughlin hoodlum machine has his name on the "do not ship" list.
Mr. Justice Norris found McLaughlin to be a completely untrustworthy witness. He found McLaughlin responsible for the falsification of S.I.U. records. But the trustees now say he is a reformed man. McLaughlin was in charge of S.I.U. elections. The fraudulence of
S.I.U. elections was spelled out in detail before the Norris commission-more votes recorded for Banks, McLaughlin and the rest of the hoodlums than there were ballots cast. In a S.I.U. referendum a busy little group is described sitting around marking ballots by the bushel. But Mr. Charles Millard says McLaughlin is reformed. How naive is he? And how naive does he think we are? I wonder if the trustees have read about the role of Leonard McLaughlin and Paul Hall in the so-called Todd trial, described in great detail in the transcript of the Norris commission, in which Hall, Banks and McLaughlin turned a trial into a farce to destroy the protest movement against Banks' dictatorship. That was in 1952. I wonder if they have read of the role of McLaughlin at so-called conventions of the seafarers international union- conventions attended by only about 50 or 60 delegates-in support of one-man rule for Banks in Canada.
What an incredible defeat for the forces of decency in the Canadian labour movement is now unfolding before us. After a three year battle and a year long inquiry and report, the spoils, in the form of the clean unions, the exonerated unions-the national association of marine engineers, the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers and the Canadian maritime union-are to be cut up and given to the criminals-the union found guilty-the seafarers international union. To this list I might add the Canadian merchant service guild-a clean if numerically weak body which the S.I.U. would have little trouble gobbling up in the future.
Why has this come about? It has come about because the trustees have let Paul Hall use his one club-control over the United States ports-to dictate terms of unconditional surrender. Instead of a spectacle of which we might be proud-Canadians demanding rights for Canadian ships and Canadian unions in American ports and threatening to close our ports if they do not open theirs- we have Paul Hall saying: If you want to sail into Chicago where my goons run the

The Budget-Mr. Fisher waterfront, you must (1) put my man McLaughlin in as president and (2) hand over the Canadian maritime union and the C.B.R.T. to me.
Well, the trustees have capitulated and the Minister of Labour defends them. And it is not just McLaughlin. Banks remains as vice president of the S.I.U. of North America, resident in Montreal-I ask hon. members to note that. The moment the trusteeship ends, McLaughlin again takes orders from Hal Banks. I want to know why the Canadian Labour Congress is silent about this. I want to know why Maurice Wright has not spoken up. He is the man who put together those extracts given to the Norris commission stating the C.L.C. position as to shipping on the great lakes. When one considers all the things the C.L.C. said before the Norris commission, why has it failed to respond at this new and crucial stage of the battle? Why does it appear to be making the very same mistake the Canadian labour movement, the T.L.C., made in 1948-49 when it helped to import the S.I.U. thugs in the first place? The answer to this question, I regret very much to say, is to be found in the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress is not yet fully able to act as a mature national labour centre in Canada, defending Canadian interests and expressing Canadian views. It is moving in the direction but it has not arrived yet at that point of development.
In a crisis between the Canadian and United States labour movements such as is involved here; with Paul Hall, a vice president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.; with Hal Banks stronghly backed by George Meany, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.; with the powerful maritime trades department run by Paul Hall- in such a power struggle it would appear that the Canadian Labour Congress has to back down. I hope I am proven wrong. In the next few days, and especially at the C.L.C. convention which opens on April 20 in Montreal, the rank and file delegates, if not the leaders, can show me I am wrong and I hope they do. I hope we hear from Bill Dodge and Bill Smith about what I think is a sell-out by the national union in connection with a trusteeship such as this. If they fail to do this and the C.L.C. does not go on record in opposition to the continuation of the Paul Hall-Hal Banks-Red McLaughlin hoodlum empire and if they do not speak out for a Canadian resolution of the great lakes problem, rather than a solution dictated by American labour thugs, it will inevitably raise questions of a very fundamental kind about the relationship of any political party to the Canadian labour movement.
But what concerns us here in this house is something much more direct. We passed an act to establish a trusteeship to bring to an end the instruments of violence on the great lakes. The trustees instead have fallen prey to those whom they were commissioned to manage and control. Surely it is not possible for us to have continued confidence, on the basis of the facts as they are known to us, in these three misguided gentlemen, or in the bland assurances of an increasingly implausible Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen).
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in the course of what I think we will all agree was an inspiring contribution to this debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) called upon members of the house and upon Canadians generally to work for the strengthening of our confederation. I intend to begin my remarks this evening by referring to one aspect of this problem, trade and trade policy.
As Minister of Trade and Commerce my duties have taken me into every major area of this country and I have been impressed, as I have never been impressed before, by the diversity of Canada. It has been said by a distinguished historian that "Canada's existence does not and never has depended solely upon national uniformity. The Canadian confederation came into being not to crush but to reconcile regional diversities." I think one might go further and say that these regional diversities can survive and flourish only if they are reconciled in a thriving and united confederation.
These considerations, it seems to me, are just as relevant to the economic life of our country as to questions of language and culture. There must be room in the Canadian system for every region to achieve its true and full economic potential. There are bound to be variations from time to time, of course, in the rate of growth of different areas. However, as part of our nationhood we must see to it that no region is allowed to fall too far behind in economic development and living standards.
This is a responsibility that the federal and the provincial governments share together and must discharge in understanding and co-operation. Economic sectionalism may sometimes produce short term advantages for the sections of the country that indulge in it, but it is surely the road to economic weakness and retardation for the country as a whole and thus for its parts. Sectionalism of this kind is even more ill advised and self-defeating today than when it was rejected a century ago by the founders of this country. If Canada's industries are to compete with

those of the European economic community, the European free trade association and the United States they must be permitted to operate within our much smaller economy on the most rational and efficient basis possible. They must not be forced or induced by sectional economic policies to fragment their operations or produce in areas that are basically unsuitable for the type of industry concerned. Their products must receive fair and reasonable treatment throughout our country regardless of their centre of operations.
In his remarks the other day the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to "steps recently taken by the Quebec government in banning the export of lumber", which he depicted as improper both legally and otherwise. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that his words reflect some misunderstanding which I think should be corrected. As I read it, the announcement made by the minister of mines and forests for the province of Quebec was to the effect that it was intended to enforce more strictly existing legislation concerning logs for lumber and veneering purposes taken from crown owned lands.
Apparently it is the intention of the province of Quebec now to enforce regulations which have been in effect for many years governing the use of logs taken from timber limits under lease from the crown in the right of the province. I see no constitutional question involved here. The lands under these timber leases are the property of the crown. The conditions under which the limits may be enjoyed by the leaseholders are matters of contract between the leaseholders and the crown. I believe it is correct that every province in Canada with major forest resources attaches important responsibilities to the use of logging timber leases whether for manufacture of lumber, plywood, pulp and paper or other forest products.
I might suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that he examine the statutes of his province affecting the conservation and use of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. I see no suggestion that what is intended in Quebec is "banning the export of lumber" as was stated by the hon. member. The government of Quebec is concerned with the supply of logs for manufacturing within the provinces as governed by conditions attached to the leases. As I think I have indicated previously to the house, I have had some informal conversations with members of the Quebec administration about this matter and the minister, Mr. Cliche, has recently made a statement on this point that I hope members of the house will find reassuring.
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
In making these remarks I do not wish to belittle the concern of the hon. member for Peace River. Like him, I am concerned about the question of barriers to trade and about economic sectionalism generally within Canada because I believe that freedom of trade between the provinces is of the utmost importance to the health of the Canadian economy. There is a heavy responsibility upon all of us, whether we are in provincial or federal governments or whether we are in our respective legislatures, to ensure that any intervention we make will strengthen and not weaken Canada. I can say for the federal government that we will discharge that responsibility.
I am hopeful that by building up the habit and practice of co-operation between federal and provincial authorities in the trade field we shall be able increasingly to reconcile divergent regional interests. At the conferences of federal and provincial trade ministers and officials during the past three months, which I and my officials called, we sought to find ways of working together more effectively in promoting Canada's external trade. While the federal government has the responsibility to take the leadership in this field, the provinces, we have recognized, also have a vital role to play.
Matters relating to external trade policy are, of course, the sole responsibility of the federal government. Canada must be able to speak with one voice at international trade conferences and negotiations and must be in a position to enter into international trade agreement commitments and to fulfil them. I should like to say to hon. members that this was acknowledged by all the provincial ministers without exception.
All of this brings me to make a few remarks about the forthcoming round of tariff and trade negotiations, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) invited me to do during this debate. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) referred to the prospect that these negotiations, known colloquially as the Kennedy round, would rank with the important trade negotiations that have taken place under the auspices of GATT since the end of the war. Hon. members may recall that the basis of these forthcoming negotiations was the decision of the GATT trade ministers last May when I attended the conference in Geneva on behalf of Canada. At that time several things were decided which I should perhaps recall: First, that the trade negotiations should begin on May 4, 1964; that the negotiations should be based on the principle of reciprocity; that there should be the widest possible participation in the negotiations; that

The Budget-Mr. Sharp the negotiations should cover all classes of products, whether industrial or agricultural; that the negotiations should deal with both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade; that they should be based on a plan of substantially equal linear tariff cuts for certain of the more highly industrialized countries; that the trade negotiations should provide for acceptable conditions of access to world markets for agricultural products, and that every effort should be made to reduce barriers to exports of the less developed countries. It was on the basis of these principles as agreed to last May in Geneva that a trade negotiating committee was established to work out or negotiate a plan to supervise the conduct of the negotiations. This committee has been at work and it has been trying to work out the negotiating rules relating to the countries participating on a linear basis, and particularly the question of the depth of the tariff cut, and the way of dealing with this problem of tariff disparities.
Now, since these negotiating rules will have an important bearing on the results, one can say that the negotiations which we have been talking about as if they were to begin on May 4, have really already begun. These negotiations have, in fact, now been in progress for some months. Since this matter is of very considerable interest not only to the members of this house but to the community at large, I should like to deal briefly, and I hope clearly, with the problems that are now under discussion.
The essence of the problem of tariff disparities is to develop equitable rules for negotiations of equal linear tariff cuts between countries with differing tariff levels or structures. This problem, as hon. members may well recognize, arises particularly between the European economic community and the United States because the tariffs which now surround the European economic community are the result of an averaging process, a process which was necessary in order to make one community out of the six countries that entered into the European economic community. During this averaging process most of the tariff peaks were removed. The United States, on the other hand, has many low rates, but more particularly high rates in certain sectors, rates that are substantially above the rates of duty for the same items in the common market tariff. The six contend that where their tariff is significantly below the level of the comparable United States tariff an equal linear tariff cut would not yield an equivalence of benefit. Last May it was agreed that the trade negotiations committee should develop a criteria for determining where significant tariff disparities exist-that is disparities which are 
meaningful in trade terms-and to determine what special rules should be applicable for tariff reductions in such cases.
Since the likelihood is that where tariff disparities are found to exist there will be a smaller cut in tariffs, the question of the number of items accepted for special treatment has an important bearing on the total scope of the negotiations and on the question of reciprocity of benefit. It may also have an important bearing on the exceptions which would be made to the general rule, and particularly upon the general position of countries other than the United States and the European economic community, who will be affected by the depth of the tariff cuts made by them. Although progress has been made, the chief countries concerned have not yet resolved these difficult issues. Further meetings are scheduled between now and the opening date of May 4.
The second and perhaps most important point that was referred to the trade negotiating committee was the depth of the tariff cut. The United States trade legislation allows for cuts of up to 50 per cent on an across the board basis and with few exceptions. It also permits the removal of United States tariffs where the rates are 5 per cent or less. The discussions that have been going on in Geneva have been going forward on the working hypothesis of a 50 per cent cut. Whether this will become the actual rule for tariff reduction remains to be agreed. How much of the tariff of the United States, of the European economic community and of other countries will, in fact, be reduced in these negotiations cannot be finally known until the end of the negotiations. It will depend on the extent to which the participating countries are prepared to exchange meaningful concessions. The actual average incidence of the cut will be determined, not only by the general rate, whatever that may be, but also by the number of disparities involved and the number of exceptions made.
We for our part, and I am speaking now on behalf of Canada, are hoping that our trading partners will be prepared to go as far as possible in offering reductions to barriers to our export trade. There is every evidence to suggest that the United States administration is determined to offer maximum concessions to other countries within the scope of the authority received from congress. The United Kingdom and the continental E.F.T.A. countries have indicated that they intend to make substantial and positive response and they are interested, like the United States, in keeping exceptions to the minimum and narrowing the list of disparity items. The European economic community, on the other hand, has reaffirmed its support for a major

round of trade negotiations but attaches great importance to a satisfactory resolution, from its point of view, to the problem of tariff disparities and to other matters bearing on the scope and balance of the negotiations.
I have referred to exceptions. These are items which countries may consider it necessary to withhold from their linear offer. It was agreed by the minister last May that such exceptions should be kept to a bare minimum; that they should be subject in each case to confrontation and justification. The United States, by its own trade legislation, is required to exclude from its tariff offer lead and zinc and petroleum. Other countries do not have such legislative requirements. They may, however, be expected to come forward with certain items on which they do not feel able to offer tariff cuts. Such lists of exceptions and the scope of them might well become a key element in the negotiations themselves.
For example, it would clearly limit the value of the negotiations for Canada if items of particular interest in our trade were included in the exceptions lists of countries where we have important markets.
The working out of negotiating rules with respect to trade in agriculture is also proving to be both delicate and difficult. It is agreed that trade in agriculture should be an integral part of the negotiations and that the negotiations are to deal with the creation of acceptable conditions of access to world markets for agricultural products.
Here, however, special measures of protection as most hon. members know, designed to support farm economies by one means or another make it difficult, indeed well-nigh impossible, to apply the same negotiating rules to basic agricultural products as can be applied to the negotiations in the industrial sector. In many cases, some very important for Canada as an agricultural exporter, the tariff is not the effective barrier to trade. In other cases, the tariff is used in combination with other restrictive devices. None the less, for efficient agriculture producers whose international trade has a substantial agricultural content, meaningful negotiations on agriculture will be a critical element in a successful negotiation. This is so for Canada and for the United States as well as for Australia and New Zealand. The problem of finding a satisfactory negotiating base has had the added complexity that the European economic community is still in the process of formulating its common agricultural policy. It will require a good deal of imagination and good will to work out a solid settlement with the community in an area in which, for most basic agricultural products, the key element affecting production and therefore the scope
The Budget-Mr. Sharp for imports is the level of the support price, the system and the price being protected by a variable levy at the frontier which has the effect of bringing up the price of competitive imports to the level of prices prevailing in the domestic market.
While it is too early to be clear about the prospects in this sector, negotiations have been initiated for world cereals arrangements and there appears to be a readiness to bring agricultural supports and domestic production policies under international negotiation and confrontation. Meat groups and dairy products groups have been established to look into the possibility of special international arrangements for these products. Canada and other traditional exporters are placing the emphasis on access and satisfactory international prices. The Six tend to approach the question from the basis of acceptance of their agricultural system and a form of negotiation which would be related to it but which would emphasize the status quo rather than the expansion of competition between domestically produced and imported products.
I trust that between now and May 4 sufficient progress will have been made to permit us to see our way ahead in the agricultural sector as well as for industrial goods and materials.
I have dealt at some length with these matters because reports about them have, in some cases, tended to create uncertainties and doubts about the Kennedy round of negotiations itself. From what I have said I am sure the house will appreciate that the difficult and complex nature of the issues under discussion make it inevitable that progress will take time. Delays and problems should occasion neither surprise nor discouragement. The negotiations are scheduled to open in Geneva on May 4. A period of initial assessment will no doubt follow. By autumn we can expect the beginning of an extended period of intensive negotiations. It will, I think, be a year or more of negotiation before we reach the end of the road, and the road will not be smooth. Given effort and good will, the final results can, however, be substantial and worth while.
So far as our preparations here in Canada are concerned, hon. members will have seen the Prime Minister's announcement of February 21 appointing Mr. Norman Robertson, under secretary of state for external affairs, as Canada's chief negotiator, with responsibility to the government for Canada's participation in the negotiations. I think we are all grateful also that we have been able to get the services of Mr. Hector McKinnon, who is one of the most experienced negotiators in our service.

The Budget-Mr. Sharp
A tariffs and trade committee has been established, and has invited briefs from all Canadian interests concerned. There has already been a good response from Canadian interests, and briefs are coming in in volume. The Canadian business community is showing greater interest in these negotiations than in any previous negotiations, and I am certainly encouraged by the response we are receiving.
The committee is busy and the government is looking forward to having the benefit of its advice as the process of consultation, analysis and assessment goes forward. Later in the year a group will proceed to Geneva to negotiate in the Canadian interest, and we expect that through the actual negotiating stage necessary liaison with Canadian interests will be maintained through Ottawa.
Sometime during this debate reference was made to commonwealth trade. This was high on the agenda of the meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative committee I attended last May in London, on the eve of the GATT ministerial meeting, and at that time commonwealth ministers agreed on the continuing importance of commonwealth trade. They also agreed on the need for a general expansion of world trade and on the importance of this for all commonwealth countries.
Commonwealth countries generally have been playing an active role in the preparatory stages of the GATT trade negotiations. Whether they be developing countries, or chiefly agricultural exporters like New Zealand and Australia, or countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, each has made clear the important benefits for trade which they see possible through the Kennedy round, and there has been very strong support throughout the commonwealth for the forthcoming round of tariff negotiations.
As in the past, any major world trade negotiations involving substantial reductions in barriers to international trade will inevitably involve adjustments in the commonwealth preferences. To the extent, for example, that the United Kingdom reduces its most favoured nation rates, the margins of preference of commonwealth countries in access to the British market would be reduced. Similarly, a Canadian participation inevitably involves adjustments in preferences that, for example, the British are accorded in this market. While no detailed discussions have been held with the British government on this matter, we have been in touch and the two countries will be consulting closely throughout the negotiations with a view to ensuring that, whatever adjustments in the preferences may be necessary, they are worked out in consultation. Similarly, we

shall be in continuing close touch with the other commonwealth countries.
At the United Nations conference on trade and development, in which my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, participated, the question of extending new preferences and adjusting existing preferences is being actively studied as a possible means for assisting the less developed countries to improve their lot. It is important to understand that so far as our preferential arrangements with the less developed members of the commonwealth are concerned, criteria additional to considerations relating to Canada's trade directly with these countries will be brought to bear and may affect the future of these preferential arrangements.
Both my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I, have indicated to the house the sort of considerations that the government will be bearing in mind on this question of preferences.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the position of state-trading countries in relation to these international negotiations. As hon. members are aware, Canada has found some important and valuable markets within the Sino-Soviet bloc. There is every reason to believe that this area will continue to have substantial food import requirements that we should be in a position to supply. The framework for these commercial exchanges has generally been worked out through bilateral negotiations in which I had some participation, and in which, I understand, one of the ministers of the former government had also. It has so far not been found possible to bring state-trading countries into a multilateral trading framework.
One of the challenges of the future, as market economies seek to develop closer commercial ties with socialist planned economy countries, will be to see whether a broad and more or less continuing framework of multilateral trade can be developed, in which state-trading countries and the needs of market economies can be fitted together on a mutually satisfactory basis.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, from the problems I have discussed how difficult and complex a situation faces both the GATT conference, and the United Nations conference now in progress. The finding of the way through them will require patience as well as diligence. We should expect what appear to be delays and set-backs from time to time. This is in the nature of important world trade negotiations. However, I am encouraged by the progress that is being made, and look forward to the launching of the Kennedy round on May 4 next, and to the serious and worth-while negotiations that lie ahead. In them Canada will seek to play its full part.

In so doing, the government believes that it is acting not only in the interests of the people of Canada but also of the people of the world at large.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the less serious part of my speech I would like to make an announcement. The score, after one period of play at the Maple Leaf Gardens, is Toronto one Detroit one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard a speech from the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in which he dealt in a very eloquent manner devoid of any partisan prejudice, with the problems facing the Canadian confederation.
The Prime Minister expressed some concern about the present situation. He went even so far as stating that the time for building up the Canadian nation was over, and that the challenge facing Canadians in 1964 was to save the Canadian nation, neither more nor less.
As far as I am concerned, I must say that those are feelings which certainly are to the credit of the Prime Minister, but when I heard him say so this afternoon, two things came to my mind which recently impressed me.
First of all, the too obvious inability of the government to turn those fine feelings into action. Second, in spite of the Prime Minister's obvious goodwill federal-provincial relations never were at such a low ebb.
As a member from the province of Quebec, I have-as all the other members in this house, I think-the progressive evolution of our Canadian confederation at heart. However, I cannot but repeat that, for Quebec and the whole of French Canada, confederation has always been considered as a pact between the two great founding races of this country. The document, which was by no means perfect, nevertheless made a splendid contribution to the development of a great country on this American soil.
If we look back at the last century of this country's history, we must admit that it has been a real success so far as human relations are concerned. Those who conceived it deserve all our gratitude. They knew how to reach a compromise when it was needed.
If we consider the situation as described by the Prime Minister this afternoon, we should not hesitate, we Canadians of 1964, to apply to present problems the same spirit of compromise which was so successful in 1867. By compromise, I mean the term defined by the late president John F. Kennedy in his remarkable book entitled "Profiles in
The Budget

Mr. Balcer Courage", that is the compromise to which politicians must resort in dealing with state matters.
Here is how the late President Kennedy defined the word compromise:

We shall need compromises in the days ahead to be sure, but these will be or should be compromises of issues, not of principles. We can compromise our political positions but not ourselves. We can resolve the clash of interest without conceding our ideals. And even the necessity for the right kind of compromise does not eliminate the need for those idealists and reformists who keep our compromises moving ahead. Compromise need not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents.

I think that is a lesson in political history which applies to today's situation. And I do not hesitate for one second to call upon my compatriots and urge them to accept that definition in their relations with Canadian citizens in the rest of the country so that we can go hand in hand and build a great Canada for several more generations.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister specially dealt with the position of Quebec within the Canadian confederation. Since the last world war, great changes have happened in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec. Quebec was swept by the great technological revolution which shook the free world in the fields of economy, social relations, education and national aspirations, because there is in Quebec a new vision.
The new generation has become conscious of the great opportunities which are opened to her in the field of technology and economy. Our youth is attracted by technical education. Our universities, our great schools of engineering, commerce and technology have doubled or tripled their enrolments.
Quebec was recently described by a reporter as a young giant waking up and becoming conscious of his strength; and I am convinced that all sincere Canadians are cheering at that surge of French Canadians. It is unavoidable that such a sudden awakening will create disturbances, but we must not let the initiative fall in the hands of extremists. On the other hand, we must not see separatism in every one of the least claims put forward by Quebec, nor talk about concessions every time Quebec wants her rights to be recognized.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister seemed to be seeking a way to prevent that division which may have occurred between the two major ethnical groups in Canada from getting any wider. He was looking for a means to strengthen national unity, a formula which

The Budget-Mr. Balcer would ensure for our country as brilliant a future as we seemed to have a few years ago.
I should like to suggest to my English speaking friends to imitate the example of Belgium and Switzerland and, in that connection, I call the attention of the house to a book written by a great journalist and a prominent member of the press gallery, Mrs. Ann Francis. That work, which was published by the Canadian institute of international affairs, is entitled: "Language-Bridge or Barrier".
Mrs. Francis wrote that booklet following a trip to Switzerland and Belgium. She described the situation existing in both countries and I believe the government could find there excellent solutions which could be applied to today's problems.
Let us remember that we have the example of Belgium where centralization has caused the dispute between Flemish and Walloon; so much so that today the country is divided and bloody riots break out at regular intervals. On the other hand, we have the example of Switzerland where minorities are treated intelligently and where the majority has established an atmosphere of peace, prosperity and mutual confidence, which has allowed Switzerland to develop and become a country respected everywhere in the world.
Let me quote the words of the minister of external affairs of Switzerland when asked by Mrs. Francis about his secret to remedy the situation and give satisfaction to the minorities, the minister had this answer:
"We have had our troubles. It took us many years to find the answer. Quite simply it is this. We spoil them".
Dr. Hans Zbinden, a leading sociologist at the University of Berne, said to Mrs. Francis:

"We must not only respect minorities. We must make them feel we love them for their diversity".

Mrs. Francis added the following:

These are not merely beautiful theories to impress a stranger. According to Dr. Hermann Weilen-mann, a foremost Swiss historian:
"Although fewer than 30 per cent of the population speak romance languages, they are represented in the federal cabinet by three out of seven councillors. In the same way, there is a tendency to give linguistic, regional and often religious, minorities proportionally more voice on commissions and in the departments of the federal government and the cantons than their numbers would warrant. Likewise minorities are often given more subsidies than the majority to make them take a greater interest in communal affairs".
These might seem to be quite strong arguments in favour of greater advantages for minorities in Canada.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they must be quite serious after all, especially when they face such a situation over there, and that we should find among these various suggestions a formula that could be applied to Canada and which would solve our linguistic problems.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister expressed his deep concern over the situation facing us. His voice was not as depressed as when he made his statement on the results of the last federal-provincial conference, but I think that we understand his concern and we are in sympathy with him.
His government is on the verge of getting blamed, in Quebec, for double taxation which will no doubt result from the way Quebec was treated at that federal-provincial conference. His government is once again forced to withdraw its pension plan because it was obviously ill-prepared and it was too anxious, for some unknown reason, to impose its point of view on the provinces.
As far as the Conservative party is concerned, we are in favour of a national pension fund, but we want a plan which will respect the rights of the provinces in that field and will enable all Canadians to enjoy a well-deserved, comfortable and dignified retirement.
Mr. Speaker, we are at the crossroads in Canada, and I am of the opinion that all hon. members should make every effort to bring about the best understanding possible between all groups in the country. As for us, Conservatives, we have a long tradition of fostering mutual respect between Canadians and we wish to assure the house that we will fully support any measure designed to strengthen the bonds which unite the two great founding races of our country.
I wish to remind you that we must give evidence of tolerance and mutual respect because we are responsible for the future of a great country. I am convinced that we will not elude this challenge and that every one of us will do his duty. On the other hand, I hope the government will pull itself together, be better prepared and introduce a truly serious policy, carefully thought-out pieces of legislation that the house could really support unanimously.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is rather a late hour to be participating in a debate such as this, but nevertheless I appreciate the opportunity of making a few observations with respect to the issues before us. We have dealt down through the course of this debate with a great variety of subjects. There are those



19B4

[Stage Direction]
who have been dealing with problems which face Canada as far as its very survival is concerned. There are those who have been dealing with the forces which would divide and destroy us. Others have talked specifically of issues which have to do with their own respective ridings. Tonight my remarks will be a mixture of several of these topics.
First of all I should like to suggest that we take a look at the budget which was introduced some time ago, and at the budget address delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). It seems to me that the Minister of Finance has been trying to hide behind the royal commissions on banking and finance and taxation which have been set up to study these respective fields. While the minister has been trying to hide behind these commissions the Canadian people have been bowing under an almost unbearable tax burden. We realize that these commissions will be doing a very valuable job of work. We are looking forward with anticipation to the reports which will be brought in. But nevertheless I do not think we should wait until they are brought in before some definite action is taken to alleviate the conditions under which the Canadian people are presently living. A number of the proposals introduced by the budget were very welcome, but it appears that no attempt has been made to deal effectively with the major problems which are facing us. Or having studied them the minister seems to have given up in despair and hopes that the royal commissions will bail him out of a seemingly hopeless and impossible situation.
I hope that we in the Social Credit party have made it abundantly clear that we do not believe in opposition just for opposition's sake.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They have not got any opposition in Alberta at all.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think it is obvious that a lot of people have shown extreme wisdom in their choice of members in the provincial legislature and they have certainly endorsed the Social Credit administration for many years, and will no doubt do so for many years to come. As I was saying, I hope that we in the Social Credit party have made it abundantly clear that we are not interested in opposition just for opposition's sake, but do endeavour to criticize constructively and offer what we believe to be valid alternatives worthy of consideration and study. Therefore, in line with this principle we have consistently advocated the expanded use of the Bank of Canada as an effective means whereby our monetary system can more adequately fulfil its function in the economic life of the nation. More especially so in two
The Budget-Mr. Patterson particular fields; one, the control and liquidation of our national debt, and second, the provision of social capital through a municipal development bank.
I am not going to deal too fully with the first point tonight because my colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), speaking in the debate some time ago, dealt in detail with the question of our national debt. I believe that this is becoming a matter for increasing concern to the Canadian people. It used to appear that the attitude was: "Well, what do we care? As long as we get the services we require what do we care where the government gets the money?" I submit that those days are gone and that the people of Canada are now asking the question: Just how much longer can we continue with deficit financing, adding to our national debt year after year after year, and building up debt charges to the point where they are now well over the $1 billion mark annually?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why do you vote for the Liberals then?


Alexander Bell Patterson: You would not want us to vote for the Conservatives, would you?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I certainly would.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I do not know why. As we think of that particular problem I suggest that the Minister of Finance has not done very much in an endeavour to resolve the matter. I know he has referred to the necessity of bringing the budget more into balance, but we find that the policies which have been advocated are not doing very much to accomplish that laudable objective. I believe the time has come when we must pay attention to this matter of finding some way to finance our national economy without plunging the country deeper and deeper into debt.
My second point concerns the provision of social capital through a municipal development bank. We appreciate the fact that the government has heeded our recommendations to a certain degree. Down through the years we have strenuously and consistently advocated the setting up of a municipal development fund. In response to that the government did provide for the establishment of a municipal development and loan fund. However, even though we acknowledge that this is a step in the right direction, there is a vast difference between the proposals which we made in this connection and the regulations under which that fund is operating.
We believe that the money for this particular bank should be provided through the Bank of Canada, and provided at just the cost of administration. This money should be

The Budget-Mr. Patterson lent to the municipalities lor capital development in the social field, the building of hospitals, schools and all these other things which are not revenue producing but which do provide services to the people. In this way we believe that the municipalities could find a great measure of relief from the present staggering situation in which they find themselves, and will be able to go forward and provide these much needed services to the ever-expanding communities.
Therefore we ask the Minister of Finance tonight just what success has been achieved through the municipal development and loan fund. We have not heard very much about it. There was a great deal of talk when it was set up and there were portrayals of what this would mean to the municipalities in the fields of providing services and easing the burden of the municipalities in providing job opportunities. We had a great deal of discussion relative to these matters, but it seems to me that we have not heard very much in recent days of this particular program and the way in which it has succeeded -or rather not succeeded-in the realization of these particular objectives.
We suggest very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that our proposals are much more realistic and would have had a far greater chance of reaching the objectives that the minister outlined when he announced the setting up of the municipal development and loan fund. Again let me mention them. First of all is the proposal to provide services to the municipalities. The municipalities are finding it almost impossible, in some cases completely impossible, to find capital at reasonable rates of interest in order to keep up with the immediate demands of their expanding communities.
We believe that our proposals would have assisted to a far greater degree in the accomplishment of this particular objective, the easing of the burden of financing upon the municipalities. The point has now been reached where municipalities have overreached themselves in an endeavour to fulfil their responsibilities, but now they are coming to the end of the way and are facing an impossible situation.
As far as job opportunities are concerned, we feel that far more would have been provided if the proposals we made with respect to the municipal development bank had been followed. We have made other suggestions during the course of the years and I should like to deal briefly tonight with the question of taxation because this is something which is vital. Other nations have faced this situation and decided that something must be done. Yet our own national government has


made no progress along this path toward easing the burden of taxation on the Canadian people. Once again, Social Crediters have throughout the years urged a complete revision of the whole tax structure of Canada. We have heard members of other parties rising on occasions to make this same plea. But we have consistently advocated this course-a complete revision of the whole tax structure-and we do this because we believe it is time for us to face the realities of the situation. We know that this is one of the tasks before the commission on taxation as it makes its inquiry. We certainly hope this matter will be dealt with. But somehow or other we lose confidence in many of these commissions that are set up. They carry through their inquiries and then submit some recommendations, possibly, but many times they are simply apologists for the status quo; they do not recommend anything which is fundamentally different. Possibly they recommend a few things that may ease the situation, but unfortunately many of them fail to get to the root of the trouble and fail to make the radical recommendations which would achieve the results desired by the Canadian people.
As far as the easing of the tax burden is concerned, I think the United States has set an example. If I remember correctly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) referred to this matter during his budget speech and indicated that the Canadian government was not willing to follow the same course; they did not believe it was in the best national interests at the present time. Well, I do not know when it is going to be in the best national interest. I do not know how much longer we shall be able to keep going. It seems as though the people are reaching a point where they cannot endure much more. We ask the question: Why can we not have some forward looking change as far as our tax structure is concerned? I know the minister will say that we are just awaiting the recommendations of the commission on taxation. Well, I hope we do not have to wait too long and that when these recommendations do come in the minister will not delay very long before he brings in some fundamental changes and reforms in this field.
We believe these levels of taxation which retard development and economic progress should be eliminated. We could reach a point at which taxes stifle development and stifle progress. Instead of increasing the national revenue they could actually decrease it. We trust the minister will give consideration to these matters in the near future. The present criterion as far as taxation is concerned seems to be how much the traffic will bear.

Is there not some new way in which we can raise a few more million dollars for the treasury? Is there not some way whereby we can impose another tax here and another tax there, because we need the money and are obliged to find additional sources of revenue and additional fields of taxation? How much will the traffic bear? That seems to be the question. But I suggest to the Minister of Finance that it will not bear very much more.
I wish to mention one tax in particular. There was an indication in the budget speech that the minister and the government would not proceed with the additional increase in the sales tax. There were those who sincerely hoped there would be an announcement along those lines. There were some who were optimistic and who really expected it. Perhaps there were others, more like Doubting Thomas, who were content to wait until they had heard such a statement from the minister himself. Unfortunately, we found the hon. gentleman was determined to continue this tax-that he was resolved to allow the increase to take effect. Of course we are still receiving petitions opposing this tax. I know it is of little use to quote from them tonight, because the minister has already made up his mind. If all the briefs and all the speeches and all the pleas and all the requests which have been made to him in the past on this subject have gone unheeded, I am sure one or two more would not make very much difference tonight in the closing minutes of this debate. Nevertheless, I believe the minister would have been wise had he acceded to these requests and taken a position other than the one he did. I wish to refer to a statement made in the publication "British Columbia Forest Industries" volume one, No. 3, of March 1964 under the heading "Taxes Weaken Competitive Position." The writer points out that the effect of taxes such as sales tax on the tools of production make Canadian production less competitive on world markets, where 70 per cent of British Columbia's forest output is sold, and also inhibited the flow of capital needed. That is just one opinion. There are many others which could be quoted.
I should like, also, to mention the question of the redistribution of tax revenue. Of course we know this is a matter which is under active consideration, that it has been discussed at length in the dominion-provincial conference and, no doubt, it will continue to be an important subject at other conferences yet to be held. I am sure everyone at all levels of government recognizes now that there must be a redistribution of tax revenue so that each level of government may be able to take care of its constitutional responsibilities. I should like to make some specific suggestions to the
The Budget-Mr. Patterson minister. In case he has forgotten, there are still some ways in which he can ease the burden of taxation on the people of this great nation of ours. I am not going to speak in generalities. I intend to bring what I have to say down to several brief statements.
I see the time is passing and if I were following the role I followed for quite a few years I would say I was going to give the skeleton of my sermon. But this is not a sermon, tonight, I know. I should like to make some specific suggestions relative to taxation, especially as it affects ordinary people-not the corporations, not those in the high income brackets, necessarily, but those at the lower income levels. Surely, some of these things could be tidied up so as to bring alleviation to various groups of people. We have advocated, and we continue to advocate, that a depreciation allowance on private homes be permitted as a logical income tax deduction. We also believe that home property tax allowances should be deductible for income tax purposes. We have recommended, and still recommend, an increase in basic exemptions.
I think it is highly ridiculous that we still stick to a basic level which was set years ago, when we all know that the cost of living has risen tremendously over the intervening years. I suggest that if $1,000 was necessary to buy the essentials of life years ago it takes much more than $1,000 to buy those same essentials today. It seems to me that was the criterion when the basic exemption was set. So we suggest that this matter be reviewed with the objective of raising the basic exemptions for income tax purposes.
There is one other matter in this field I should like to mention. The minister may say it does not involve very many people but I should like to bring it to his attention once again. I have done so before and I also submitted a letter to him. The matter concerns the inequities in taxation so far as workers are concerned. I sent the minister a copy of a letter I received in which one of these inequities is set out in detail.
The letter is from a logger. He set forth all his expenses for travel, and so on, and then compared his situation with that of a railway worker. He pointed out that the railway worker was allowed to deduct his travelling expenses but one engaged in logging was not given the same consideration. I am not going to take the time to read the letter although I should like to put it on the record. However, I bring it to the minister's attention once again in case the letter was pigeonholed somewhere and he has forgotten about it. I hope he will drag it out and tidy up some of these things that irritate some of our workers. I

The Budget-Mr. Leblanc believe that the concessions granted to workers in certain fields should also be granted to workers in other fields as well.
To sum up my observations with regard to the tax field, I suggest to the minister that Canadians cannot shoulder any additional taxes, and if this trend continues I think the goose that lays the golden egg is going to be a goner.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is dead now.


Alexander Bell Patterson: There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer very briefly, the situation of superannuated civil servants. I know this question has been raised many times. I suppose the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised it more than anybody else and I have also had occasion to raise it. We have asked the minister to review the pension regulations, and so on, but so far there does not seem to have been any positive action in this regard. Whether or not it is right I do not know, but it has been brought to my attention that rather substantial increases in pensions are being contemplated for those who retired after 1947. As I say, I do not know whether this is true but I have been told it is. I think this is right and proper.
But I should like to raise the matter of those who retired prior to 1947. I have correspondence from some of these people who find themselves in almost impossible financial circumstances because the amount of pension they are receiving at the present time is so inadequate that they cannot maintain a decent standard of living. Therefore may I make a plea once again that in reviewing the legislation relative to the pensions of superannuated civil servants consideration be given to those who retired prior to that year in the same way that consideration apparently is being given to those retired since. There are some other matters to which I should like to refer but I believe my time has almost expired.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks, I should like to express my gratitude and my thanks to the people of the fine riding of Laurier who made it possible for me to speak in this house which embodies the best parliamentary traditions in the world.
I consider that as a duty because an opponent of mine, accompanied by his father, insulted my constituents on the night of February 10 last when the Liberal party scored a victory.
I have here a photocopy of a Montreal newspaper, the Gazette, of February 11, 1964, which shows a picture of the hon.

member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) with the caption: "You call it democracy, I call it ignorance."
A little further, the newspaper stated the following:

Sipping a Coke and drawing on a thin cigar, Mr. Caouette declared Montreal voters to be sick, sick, sick.

In the same article, the reporter had this to say:

Someone else said: "The people in Montreal are like sheep. They move only with a mass movement."

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to render a tribute to those gallant, hardworking, honest, reliable and intelligent people who put common sense always ahead of every consideration. Those people tried to render a tribute to hon. members and to the Pearson cabinet for the splendid work they accomplished during the first session. To encourage the representation and the cabinet to pursue their policy of full employment, of economic revival and Canadian unity, those people put their trust in a Liberal.
They remembered, and will long remember, that the course of our party has been indicated since 1877 by the true founder of Liberalism in Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he said:
I am a Liberal. I am one of those who think that everywhere, among the human race, there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to conquer, new forces to develop.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention the untiring devotion, loyalty and sincerity of all those who, near or far, worked together to form that famous Liberal team of the county of Laurier which has always been the envy of our political opponents.
Unfortunately, only 40 per cent of our people exercised their right to vote, whereas, in 1962, 64 per cent of the people and in 1963, 68 per cent went to the polls.
It is generally recognized that a by-election does not cause as much enthusiasm as a general election. As a matter of fact, in 1949, in my riding, at a by-election, only 31 per cent of the electors voted.
That fact is no indication, however, that the Liberal party was losing ground in my riding, since the Liberals received 49 per cent of the ballots in 1962, 44 per cent in 1963 and 51 per cent on February 10 last.
All my opponents lost their deposits, because the people expressed their absolute confidence in me. I can understand the

grudge and the fury of my opponents, but I will never admit that they should depreciate and insult the population of my riding.
I consider that it was a Liberal victory over the Ralliement Creditistes. I consider that the people of Laurier caused, to bite the dust not the son, Gilles Caouette, my opponent, but rather the father, the hon. member for Villeneuve, who, in all probability, wished to have two seats in this house and draw two indemnities. The Montreal newspaper the Gazette-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the hon. member for Laurier has the floor, some Liberal members, all around him and closer to the microphone than he is, are chatting, discussing and talking together, so that we can hear his friends' conversation better than his own speech. Perhaps what he says is not very important, but we would appreciate hearing him just the same. Therefore, I would request that his colleagues, at least, permit the hon. member for Laurier to speak in order that we may hear what he has to say.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier has only a few minutes left to finish his speech.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: To summarize the first part of my speech, I will say that La Presse, in its issue of February 22, 1964, stated this:
If people had really wanted to express feelings that are contrary to the general political opinion prevailing in the rest of the country, they would have voted in far greater number.
To go on to something else, Mr. Speaker, it was with particular interest that I found on page 14 of the March issue of Selection du Reader's Digest, an article entitled "How to create new jobs".
That article not only reflected my own convictions, but also those of the Pearson government, and it gives me pleasure to quote from it the following extract:
We need business contractors, big and small. The role of the state should consist in giving them greater encouragement and not put grit in their bearings.
Our Liberal government has always promoted small free enterprise by giving it technical assistance and lending it money. It was given that encouragement for social, economic and political reasons.
Our Liberal government has always put into practice the principles enunciated by His Holiness Pope John XXIII in the encyclical Mater et Magistra. Here is an extract from it:
At the outset it should be affirmed that in economic affairs first place is to be given to the private initiative of individual men who, either working by themselves, or with others in one fashion or another, pursue their common interests.
Electoral Boundaries Commission
The Liberal government set up a board to assist small private industries. On the other hand, it is against commercial combines, mergers and trusts.
Our Liberal government understands that to govern democratically is not mainly to lead free and intelligent people but rather to give leadership to a nation so that it may reach its goal.
It must take into account the common good rather than the private one. And what is common good? I quote from a definition given in this respect by His Holiness Pope Pius XII:
External conditions as a whole which are necessary to the citizens for the development of their values, their functions their material, intellectual and religious life.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; it being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 6 of standing order 58 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gordon) agreed to on division.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 219a, 326m, 326n, 399a, 410c, 410d, 410e, 683 and 848, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Progress reported.
Mr. MacNaughl:: I think it would be the desire of all hon. members if you would call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Watson MacNaught: Since there is not unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock, we will take the second reading of the electoral boundaries bill.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickers-gill (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation to the provinces in the
2172	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: This is the next item of business to come before us, and it is of considerable importance. We spent two or three days on it earlier in the session, and I presume the house is of a mood to proceed with it fairly rapidly. I believe it will be called as the matter of business for tomorrow, in addition to the time we may spend on it tonight. I am quite prepared to make some contribution to this debate now, and I will complete my remarks when we reach the committee stage.
Twelve years ago the subject of redistribution was in front of this house. I made an intensive study of the problem and prepared a major speech on the subject. However, 1 was seated in the back row against the curtains, and everybody who occupies that position today will understand why I did not get an opportunity of contributing to that debate. I find now that I have a chance to put some thoughts on the record with regard to this very important subject. I am in agreement with the mover of the motion, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and others who have spoken in this debate, that we have now reached a land mark in Canadian history and we are going to deal with the problem of redistribution in perhaps a more sensible manner than has been the case in other years.
What I have to say is in the same mood and temper of the remarks made by others who have spoken in the debate. It is a serious consideration of this problem and I have no intention of referring to incidents in the past illustrating how redistribution was dealt with at that time. We are coming of age in Canada with regard to this problem and are simply attempting to do now what perhaps we should have done many years ago. We are following the example set by other countries.
One thing which concerns me, and I am going to limit my remarks to this subject, is the attitude that will be taken by the commissioners when they approach this problem. I am not going to enter into discussion as to whether there should be one commission or ten, although I prefer only one. But no matter how many commissions there are, when the commissioners finally get down to work I am concerned about how they will approach the problem, because we have had a variety of opinion expressed in the house with regard to the tolerance factor which has been written into the bill.
It may be that the commissioners will have uppermost in their minds-unless they have
,

seriously considered this problem-strict representation by population. It may be that they will have other views with regard to how they conduct their operation, and I do not know how parliament can be assured that they will interpret the will of parliament when they undertake their task. They may lean more to strict representation by population than perhaps would meet with the opinion of those hon. members who have already addressed the house.
Two or three hon. members who have spoken have gone very far towards the strict representation by population idea. Others have expressed the idea that the tolerance should be anywhere from 20 per cent to 33J per cent. We are not setting out in the bill, although this will be discussed when we reach the particular clause, a very strict set of guidance rules for the commissioners, except for the tolerance figure which is to be written into the bill.
Reference has been made to the experience in some countries. New Zealand and Australia have been mentioned, but I think the commissioners' attention should be drawn to the experience in the British Isles where, in 1944, when they started on this problem of taking care of redistribution by a commission, they introduced a tolerance figure of 25 per cent into their act. With their experience based on that, the commissioners then discovered it limited them in making divisions of the constituencies, recognizing the county and borough divisions in the country, and the special features of certain areas in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, in 1947 the British parliament passed an act to modify the 1944 act, and the 1947 act had a very interesting phrase introducing it. It is called an act to relax the rules as they were set out in the third schedule of the 1944 act, and in the 1947 act they rescinded the rule which set the tolerance figure at 25 per cent and left it open, without restricting in any way the activities of the commissioners.
If you read the reports of the commissioners for England proper, for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland-because they have the four commissions-you find reference by the commissioners to the advantage they found in the removal of that restriction. Consequently we should consider very seriously whether or not the experience in England should be given weight. Rather than tie the hands of the commissioners can we not leave them the freedom that perhaps they will require in dealing with certain areas?
The second thing I would like to spend some time on, but I have only three minutes left tonight, is to say that no matter how much we like to talk about representation by

population-it is an attractive subject and many years ago I made a speech on it myself, but I have changed my opinion since then- Canadian experience is not solely that of representation by population because, throughout our history, we have recognized area representation, and we are familiar now with the smaller representation of the Atlantic provinces, particularly Prince Edward Island.
We are also familiar with the small representation figure required for the Yukon and Mackenzie. We know, from our early history, that Manitoba and the Northwest Territories of that particular period had a number of seats in this house when their populations warranted perhaps only one. So, throughout our history we are familiar with representation which is not strictly related to population.
It seems to me that we are set with this pattern for Canada. No one has suggested changing the representation for Prince Edward Island, or wiping out the senatorial floor. No one has suggested changing the representation for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, because we think it is advisable to have people representing the hinterland of our country. I think this aspect of Canadian history on redistribution should be uppermost in the minds of the commissioners when they undertake their work. If they approach this
Business of the House
with the knowledge we in the house have concerning these problems, then when they come to apply their plans for each province they will make allowance for area representation and will not attempt to follow strictly a representation by population rule.
At the same time our hope is that the great disparities will be discontinued, these tremendous disparities in our urban centres.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I thought the house would want me to go on; but it is now ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May we hear from the acting house leader as to the business for tomorrow and the balance of the week?


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this debate, and when it is concluded we will take up the resolution preceding the Post Office Act amendments. Then we will go on the budget resolutions. On Monday there will be a motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2174


[Stage Direction]
The seventh meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group was held at Washington and Cape Kennedy from Tuesday, January 14 to Sunday, January 19, 1964. Twenty four members of the congress of the United States and 24 members of the parliament of Canada participated. In accordance with established practice at previous meetings of this group, discussions were conducted in a frank and informal manner and without regard to political affiliation. It should also be emphasized that the talks were entirely off the record and, in no sense, official discussions between the governments of the two countries. They were simply an unofficial exchange of views by parliamentarians interested in one another's problems.
The agenda for the meeting was worked out by agreement among the four co-chairmen, Senator George Aiken of Vermont, Representative Cornelius Gallagher of New Jersey and the two Canadian Speakers. Once an agenda had been agreed upon and the Canadian delegation selected, a series of four oral briefing sessions were held. These sessions were attended by ministers, deputy ministers and other senior government officials, who addressed the delegates and led question and answer periods. The oral briefings were supplemented by extensive written material provided to each member of the delegation and prepared by the appropriate government departments, notably external affairs, defence production, trade and commerce and labour.
The delegation we had the honour of leading represented Canada with great credit and we wish to express our appreciation to the leaders and whips of all political parties for their co-operation in the selection of delegates who were able to make a significant contribution to the discussions. A glance at the list appearing as Appendix "A" to this report will reveal the unusually high calibre of the delegation. For example, the representatives of the Senate included the only Canadian who has attended all seven meetings of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group (Senator Sydney Smith), a privy councillor (Senator McCutcheon), a senator with long experience in both Canadian houses (Senator William Taylor), a senator who has made valuable contributions to earlier meetings of this group (Senator Inman), and a
senator whose eloquence and Irish wit more than compensate for any lack of seniority (Senator O'Leary).
The delegates from the House of Commons included three privy councillors (Mr. Starr, Mr. Monteith, and Mr. Martineau), a national party leader (Mr. Thompson), a parliamentary secretary (Mr. Byrne) and a former parliamentary secretary (Mr. Nesbitt), a party whip (Mr. Knowles), the chairman of the defence committee (Mr. Sauve), the deputy speaker (Mr. Lamoureux), the deputy chairman of committees (Mr. Batten) and a former provincial attorney general (Mr. Fairweather). Backbench representation was a happy blend of youth and experience and of various political affiliations and included Mr. A. J. P. Cameron, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Brewin, Mr. Latulippe, Miss Jewett and Mr. Chretien.
The Canadian delegates and their wives were welcomed at the opening plenary session on Tuesday, January 14, by the United States co-chairman who emphasized their great satisfaction that the interparliamentary group was renewing its sessions after a lapse of almost two years. Later the same day, Representative Gallagher was host at a luncheon in the new Senate office building for the Canadian delegates, who then visited the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the wives of the Canadian delegates were taken for a tour of the library of congress and the supreme court building, a luncheon in the Capitol with Mrs. Wayne Morse and Mrs. Cornelius Gallagher as co-hostesses, followed by a tour of the Capitol and of Washington. That evening the members of both delegations and their wives were guests at a reception given by the Canadian ambassador and Mrs. C. S. A. Ritchie.
Following the plenary session, the group broke into two committees. Committee I discussed defence and foreign policy matters of joint national interest, such as defence production sharing, hemispheric defence and NATO relations; committee II focused its attention on economic matters such as trade with communist countries, aid to the trade with underdeveloped countries, and labour problems on the great lakes. In each committee, a number of items not included on the agenda came under discussion, such as the recent crisis in Panama, Canada and the

organization of American states, the Passa-maquoddy power project and the Canadian decision to declare a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone. The first committee met under the co-chairmanship of Representative Gallagher and Speaker Macnaughton; the second committee was co-chaired by Senator Aiken and Speaker Bourget. The membership of the committees is shown in Appendix "A" to this report.
At the conclusion of the business sessions which are summarized in the committee reports appearing as Appendix "B" to this report, the Canadian delegates proceeded to the floor of the United States Senate where they were welcomed by Senator Aiken, Senator Mansfield, Senator Holland and Senator Young. An extract from the Congressional Record of January 15, which is printed as Appendix "C" to this report, contains the statements of welcome. Following a luncheon at which the Canadian delegates were guests of Senator Aiken, a press conference was held by the four co-chairmen.
Late in the afternoon of Wednesday, January 15, the members of both delegations and their wives had the great honour of being received personally by the President and Mrs. Johnson at the White House. That evening the Canadian delegates and their wives were the guests at a reception and dinner given by the United States delegation and addressed by Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
On Thursday morning the members of both delegations and their wives paid a solemn visit to Arlington national cemetery where Speaker Bourget laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier. The United States co-chairmen paid a similar tribute at the site of the Canadian Cross. Speaker Macnaughton laid a wreath at the grave of the late President John F. Kennedy as a mark of respect from the people of Canada.
Thursday afternoon the group left Washington by air for historic St. Augustine, the oldest city in the United States. Here the program included a reception and dinner offered by the United States delegation and attended by the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce and ranking city officials.
Friday the party proceeded by bus to Cape Kennedy where the following day, an extensive tour was made of the installations of the national aeronautics and space administration (NASA) and the U.S. air force. This included detailed explanations by the responsible scientists of the various space
programs such as Ranger, Titan, Gemini and Saturn, and on the spot inspections of the several launching sites, affording the Canadian delegation an insight into the complexity and magnitude of the United States space program.
Both delegations returned by air to their respective capitals on Sunday, January 19.
It was the consensus of those members of the United States and Canadian delegations who had attended previous meetings of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group that the seventh meeting was among the most successful to date. From the Canadian standpoint, this was due, in very large measure, to the care that went into the selection of delegates and the preparations for the meeting and to the responsible attitude of all delegates. It was gratifying to us, that, without exception, the Canadian delegates attended all meetings and other functions and participated to the very fullest extent in the discussions.
We would not wish to conclude this report without mentioning the important contribution made to the success of the meeting by the wives who accompanied most delegates. As it was well said on another occasion, their presence more than doubled the effectiveness of the exchange in the promotion of good will and understanding.
We should like to record our appreciation to President and Mrs. Johnson for their graciousness in receiving the delegation. We should also like to express our thanks to the co-chairmen, Senator Aiken and Congressman Gallagher, and to the members of the United States delegation for the warmth of our reception and to congratulate those responsible on the excellence of all arrangements. We should also like to thank the R.C.A.F., the Department of Transport and the United States air force for taking care of all transportation arrangements. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the excellent staff work on the part of officials of various departments of the Canadian government who assisted us so greatly with the organization of the meetings and in our preparations for the discussions.
Dated at Ottawa, March 6, 1964.
Maurice Bourget, Alan A. Macnaughton, Speaker of the Speaker of the House Senate.	of Commons.
Joint Chairmen
[Stage Direction]
Appendix "A"
DELEGATES to the
Seventh Meeting

[Stage Direction]
The delegates, arranged according to the committees on which they served, were the following:

[Stage Direction]
United States Delegation
Representative Cornelius E. Gallagher (CoChairman)
Senator Mike Mansfield Senator Spessard Holland Senator Philip A. Hart Senator Karl E. Mundt Senator Milton Young Representative William T. Murphy Representative John M. Slack, Jr. Representative Harris B. McDowell, Jr. Representative Fernand St. Germain Representative Mark Andrews Representative George M. Wallhauser Representative Robert McClory
Canadian Delegation
Hon. Alan A. Macnaughton, (Co-Chairman)
Hon. William H. Taylor
Hon. F. Elsie Inman
Hon. Paul Martineau
Mr. Herman Batten
Mr. Jack McIntosh
Mr. Maurice Sauve
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron
Mr. Andrew F. Brewin
Mr. R. Gordon Fairweather
COMMITTEE II-ECONOMIC MATTERS United States Delegation
Senator George D. Aiken (Co-Chairman) Senator Wayne Morse Senator E. L. Bartlett Senator John O. Pastore Senator Edmund Muskie Senator Edward Kennedy Senator Len B. Jordon Representative Thaddeus J. Dulski Representative Harold T. Johnson Representative William S. Broomfield Representative Stanley R. Tupper Representative Howard W. Robison Representative James F. Battin
Canadian Delegation Hon. Maurice Bourget (Co-Chairman)
Hon. M. Wallace McCutcheon
Hon. Sydney J. Smith Hon. M. Grattan O'Leary Hon. Michael Starr Hon. J. Waldo Monteith Mr. Wallace B. Nesbitt Mr. Robert Thompson Mr. Lucien Lamoureux Mr. Stanley Knowles Mr. James A. Byrne Mr. Henri Latulippe Dr. Pauline Jewett Mr. Jean Chretien
[Stage Direction]
United States Delegation
Mr. Darrell St. Claire Dr. Albert C. F. Westphal Mr. Seth Tillman Mrs. Louise O'Brien Miss Millrae Jensen
Canadian Delegation
Mr. George Carty Mr. M. L. Card Mr. G. C. Cook Mr. R. W. Nadeau Mr. L. S. Virr
Appendix "B"


[Stage Direction]
The Present Situation in Panama
The present crisis in the relations between the U.S. and Panama was discussed as part of the larger problem of the hemispheric relations of Canada and the U.S. The maintenance of active control by the U.S. over the Panama canal, including the preservation of the security of the canal, was justified by U.S. delegates as vital not only to the defence of this hemisphere but also for the commerce of all maritime countries that have access to its facilities upon the payment of uniform and modest tolls. In this connection, it was pointed out that Latin American countries in particular rely on the canal for their participation in world trade.
Several U.S. delegates explained the genesis of the present crisis. The flag issue was only a symptom of more basic issues. Among the reasons advanced for the crisis were the economic disparity between the loving conditions of U.S. and Panamanians working in the canal zone, a growing nationalist sensitivity in Panama, approaching elections in that country in which candidates use the presence of Americans as a campaign issue, and communist-inspired activities.

In response to a Canadian inquiry comparing the U.S. role in Panama with its role in the Suez situation, it was pointed out that the Suez canal had been privately owned, whereas the U.S. has treaty rights agreed to by two sovereign governments. The Panama canal, unlike the Suez canal, is not a sea level canal and requires the presence of highly skilled and efficient personnel for its successful operation. Moreover, the cost of the canal was borne entirely by the U.S. The gross investment by the U.S. in the canal, exclusive of investment in military facilities is about $1.7 billion. Of this amount, $1.1 billion has been recovered from revenues, leaving an unrecovered net investment of $600 million. For the last fiscal year the net revenue to the U.S. from the canal was only $2.3 million. Ancillary work in connection with the construction of the canal, such as health measures, made the isthmus a habitable piece of territory; economic improvements have accrued to the advantage of the Panamanian citizens. It was noted that Panama itself has not advocated internationalization of the canal.
Canada and the Organization of American States
The discussion of the present troubled situation in Panama led into consideration of the question of Canada's joining the organization of American states (O.A.S.). Several United States delegates expressed the strong belief that it would be very desirable that Canada join without further delay. The statements of Canadian delegates reflected the complexity, from the Canadian viewpoint, of the question of Canadian membership in the O.A.S. On the other hand, it was pointed out that for a relatively small country Canada was already well extended in international affairs, with commitments in many areas of the world. In addition, unlike the United States, Canada has no history and tradition of close association with Latin America but has looked to Europe and the commonwealth connection, and there are some who maintain that joining the O.A.S. would be inconsistent with these historical ties and attitudes. Further, it could be anticipated that difficult problems would confront Canada from time to time as the second North American country in the organization. On the other hand, several Canadian delegates expressed the opinion that too much weight has been given to these negative considerations and that the time has come for Canada to give most serious consideration to joining the O.A.S. It was suggested that there is a need for Canada, with its skills and resources, to contribute more directly to the development of Latin America, bearing in mind the constant danger of social unrest and subversion arising from low living standards.
It was also recognized that Canada could and should take an active interest in the progress and development of the newly emerging countries in the Caribbean. It was noted that the fact that many Canadians are of French origin and tradition is a great asset in relations with Latin America. United States delegates stressed that Canadian membership in the O.A.S. would in itself be a great asset to the organization and would add to it a further measure of dedication to democratic principles. Canada's basic philosophy of government is little different from that of the United States and both, along with all Latin American countries, have in common a spirit of independence and recognize the need for mutual security of the hemisphere.
Sharing of North American Defence and the NATO Alliance
The committee noted the mutual responsibilities of the United States and Canada for North American defence and reviewed their respective commitments to NATO in the light of changing economic, military and political considerations.
The new special committee on defence of the Canadian parliament recently visited NATO Europe and members recalled European concern about future United States and Canadian intentions with regard to maintaining forces in Europe. Such concern is leading France, for example, to develop her own independent nuclear deterrent in the face of continued communist threats to world peace. As European defence resources and power increase, the question arises whether Canada and the United States, being the two nonEuropean countries in NATO, should review their changing role. Is it normal and desirable for North American forces to be stationed indefinitely in Europe? The newly established special committee on defence of the Canadian parliament has in effect endorsed Canada-United States defence arrangements, and the United States delegates welcomed this evidence of continued Canadian interest in cooperation in defence matters.
In the light of the heavy burden of defence costs and such new strategic developments as the ICBM, it was debated whether Canada should continue to contribute some small fraction to the now massive western deterrent forces or should develop a new and different role. One approach might envisage the Canadian contribution as a small but well equipped mobile force available for any appropriate world peace keeping mission.
Much discussion concerned the problem of control of nuclear weapons within the western alliance and the position of some members of NATO with respect to the development and maintenance of independent national
[Stage Direction]
nuclear capabilities. The committee considered some of the possible means of dealing with this situation, such as the proposed seaborne multilateral nuclear force, or MLF, and recognized the difficulties in the way of finding a solution to this problem which would be satisfactory to all members of the alliance. It was suggested that the incentive to develop independent nuclear capabilities might be lessened by finding some way of associating all members of NATO more closely with the decision making process in respect of the possible use of these weapons. United States delegates noted that several United States proposals within NATO with this objective in mind had failed to be accepted. It was agreed that the major endeavour should be in the direction of reducing the danger of nuclear war by determined efforts in the pursuit of peace. It was pointed out that the disarmament talks could be an extremely useful vehicle in this regard. The test ban agreement was the result of a desire of nations in achieving the goal of a lasting peace.
In general the committee concluded that the success of the alliance to date could accommodate some minor adjustments of forces but that both Canada and the U.S. must and would continue to meet their agreed commitments to NATO and North American defence, while looking to other allies to carry out an appropriate portion of the defence burden as their resources increased.
One good working example of defence cooperation among interdependent allies was the Canada-United States defence production sharing program.
The committee recalled that in recognition of their joint responsibilities for North American defence, the program had been initiated to encourage Canadian industrial participation in U.S. defence requirements to balance Canada's continuing procurement from U.S. sources of major weapons following the Canadian decision to abandon her own independent development of certain major defence equipments. The five years experience with the program had demonstrated that it was a practical and sensible approach to co-operation in industrial research, development and production founded on mutual understanding and of practical advantage to both countries. Although, for the first few years of the program, Canadian production sharing procurement from U.S. companies had exceeded U.S. procurement in Canada, more recently United States procurement in Canada has exceeded Canadian procurement in the U.S. However, the current Canadian requirements for U.S. armoured vehicles, and the anticipated completion of
certain U.S. aircraft procurement from Canada indicated that the program in the future would tend to a long term balance.
The U.S. and Canadian members were unanimous in their support of the defence procurement objectives and emphasized the desirability of sharing not only defence production but also the earlier essential phases of research and development where each country has specialized and unique capabilities to support North American defence needs.
In conclusion the committee recognized that there remain several outstanding subjects of contention between the two countries which is an inevitable consequence of two nations sharing a continent and a broad variety of responsibilities. Among these issues are such matters as the Canadian withholding tax on the earnings of foreign investment in Canada, Canadian export incentives in the automobile and automobile parts field, and the proposed United States interest equalization tax. The Canada-United States interparliamentary group provides a most useful forum in alleviating such problems to achieve better understanding and relations.
COMMITTEE II-ECONOMIC MATTERS Free World Trade
The committee discussed current problems and prospects of trade between Canada and the United States and with other free world countries. It was agreed that with respect to world trade in general the two countries have similar interests, such as the maintenance of export markets for agricultural products and problems in common such as continuing balance of payments deficits, although the latter problem results from different causes in each country.
The two delegations exchanged views on the prospects of the forthcoming Kennedy round of tariff negotiations and on the problems posed for both Canada and the United States by current policies of the European economic community. Each delegation requested the other's views as to the prospects for extensive tariff reductions in the Kennedy round. The U.S. delegation expressed cautious optimism for the general lowering of tariffs but expressed misgivings with respect to agricultural products. The Canadian delegation indicated that Canada will join in the effort to attain tariff reductions in many areas but expressed concern as to the high level of certain specific U.S. tariffs. It was pointed out the GATT member countries have agreed that the formula for across the board tariff cuts would not be appropriate for Canada in view of Canada's particular pattern of trade and economic activities, but that Canada would

be prepared to pay in full by tariff concessions for all advantages gained in the negotiations.
The committee discussed in some detail current problems of trade between Canada and the United States. It was pointed out by the Canadian delegation that while Canada's over-all world balance of trade is favourable, its balance of trade and payment with the United States, its principal market, is chronically adverse. Canada, it was emphasized, therefore views with concern any restrictions on the entry of Canadian goods into U.S. markets. Members of the Canadian delegation expressed dissatisfaction, for example, with U.S. quota restrictions on Canadian dairy products, such as cheddar cheese. The Canadian delegation further emphasized the great importance which is attached to the U.S. market for Canadian lumber, among other reasons because of increased competition from the Soviet union and Scandinavian countries for certain European markets.
Trade with Communist countries.
Members of the two delegations expressed general agreement that certain forms of trade in non-strategic goods with communist countries are proper and advantageous. There were, however, differing opinions as to the desirable over-all volume of trade with communist countries and as to the specific communist countries with which trade should be conducted. Specifically, the Canadian delegation did not share the view of the U.S. delegation that a firm embargo should be maintained on trade with Cuba and communist China.
The question of extending credits to communist countries was discussed. Members of the U.S. delegation expressed the view that there should be strict limits on the extension of credits to communist countries, not because these countries are regarded as bad credit risks, but because it is feared that the extension of liberal credits will enable them to divert resources to purposes inimical to western interests. Members of the Canadian delegation expressed the view that, with certain exceptions, communist countries should be granted non-discriminatory terms of trade.
There was frank discussion of the policies of Canada and the United States with respect to trade with Cuba. Members of the U.S. delegation noted with concern that part of the wheat sold by Canada to the Soviet union has been diverted to Cuba. Members of the Canadian delegation expressed the view that there is considerable misunderstanding in the United States as to the scope of Canadian trade with Cuba. Canada's trade with Cuba, 20220-138
it was pointed out, consists only of nonstrategic goods, is on a small scale, and has diminished in recent years. Members of the Canadian delegation pointed to the inconsistency between the sale of wheat to the Soviet union by the United States and its maintenance of a strict embargo on trade with Cuba and communist China. The United States delegation asserted, in response, that Cuba was, for historical reasons, an area of exceptional United States interest and concern. This concern, in the view of the United States delegation, is reasonable and necessary and one which the United States hopes will continue to enlist the sympathetic understanding of its friends.
The deliberations of the committee revealed differing opinions with respect to trade with communist China. Members of the United States delegation expressed the view that communist China should be denied trade as well as diplomatic recognition and admission to the United Nations as long as it refuses to renounce force as an instrument of national policy and refuses to accept the continued existence of the Chinese nationalist government in Taiwan. Members of the Canadian delegation endorsed the need for a continuing embargo on trade in strategic goods with communist China but questioned the view that a policy of rigorous embargo on trade in nonstrategic goods would prove effective as a means of deterring Chinese communist aggression. It was agreed by both delegations that the trade policies of their two countries with respect to the communist bloc should be governed by considerations of their own economic and political needs as well as by their desire to deny significant economic benefits to potential antagonists.
Law of the Sea
By mutual agreement the committee devoted considerable time to a thorough discussion of the situation created by the announcement by the Canadian government of June 4, 1963 that it intends to declare in May 1964 a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone, the 12 miles to be measured by a straight headland to headland base line method. The Canadian delegation explained the particular problems presented for the Canadian fisheries industry by the presence of large numbers of foreign fishing vesels operating close to the Canadian shoreline. The Canadian delegation also emphasized that in the statement of policy of June 4, 1963, the Canadian Prime Minister declared Canada's intention to enter into direct discussions with interested foreign countries, the United States and France in particular, with a view to protecting treaty rights and taking into account claims to historic rights by those countries.
[Stage Direction]
There was general agreement in the committee that in the matter of fisheries rights and the closely related question of territorial waters it would be highly desirable to proceed by way of an international agreement. Some United States members suggested that another effort be made in concert with other interested governments to call together as soon as possible an international conference to discuss fisheries conservation matters and to attempt to arrive at an international convention, quite possibly one based on a 12 mile fisheries limit, which would allow for direct bilateral arrangements concerning any traditional rights. The Canadian delegation drew the committee's attention to the fact that the Canadian government would prefer an international agreement and had so stated but that the failure of the Geneva conference of 1960 and of subsequent consideration of the problem had led to the conclusion that international agreement on the fisheries issue and the related question of territorial waters was not to be expected in the near future. Consequently, the Canadian government considered it imperative that action be taken by Canada to protect its fishing interests.
Some members of the United States delegation emphasized that, apart from the merits of the proposed 12 mile fisheries limit, the long established principles of international law involved in this whole question were of vital importance. In accordance with this view, it was contended by the United States delegation that the resolution of the issue as a matter of international law by means of international negotiation was at least as important as the contents of any agreement that might be reached.
The committee noted that the executive branches of the two governments were continuing their discussion of this question and the hope was expressed that any differences of opinion would be amicably resolved.
Interest Equalization Tax
The committee discussed the proposed United States interest equalization tax bill and also the tax measures invoked by Canada which will affect United States subsidiary companies in that country. The Canadian measures were designed to encourage Canadian ownership of domestic industry while United States measures were designed to help solve the United States balance of payments problem. The Canadian delegation pointed out that Canada was the country most directly affected by the interest equalization tax proposals and was most appreciative of the exemption granted to Canada by the United States on new issues of securities. They expressed the hope that this exemption would be extended to cover existing
securities. While both delegations expressed regrets at these restrictions on the traditional free flow of capital between the two countries, they recognized that these measures were necessary expedients designed to solve critical problems in each of the two countries.
Labour problems on the Great Lakes
The Canadian delegation outlined in some detail the background to the serious problems which have been created on the great lakes by differences which had arisen within the Canadian labour movement as to union representation on great lakes vessels. It was pointed out that following increasing violence and the closing of the St. Lawrence seaway in June of 1962, the Canadian government, at the urging of the Canadian Labour Congress, appointed an industrial inquiry commission. Justice Norris, the industrial inquiry commissioner, recommended in his report that the maritime unions involved be placed under trusteeship. It was emphasized that the Canadian government took the view that developments left no other choice but the appointment of a trusteeship, either government or private.
The United States delegation indicated their understanding that the United States government had attempted to prevent difficulties in United States ports, and that the department of labor was doing everything possible, within United States law, to protect Canadian shipping.
The committee viewed this question with concern because of its continuing adverse effects on Canadian-United States relations and expressed the hope that every effort would be made to reach a satisfactory resolution of the problem.
Passamaquoddy Power Project
The U.S. delegation drew the committee's attention to the recent report of the department of the interior which recommended the construction of a tidal power project in Passamaquoddy bay. This project would be associated with hydroelectric developments on the upper Saint John river. Development of these two projects would require resolution of a number of questions and agreement of both the United States and Canada.
The Secretary of State has been instructed by the President to enter into negotiations with Canada as soon as possible. While there have been technical discussions, formal negotiations have not yet commenced. The U.S. delegation pointed to the benefits of joint development and expressed the hope that it might be possible to begin negotiations at an early date with a view to reaching a constructive agreement.

Roads to Alaska
The committee discussed the economic benefits that could accrue to both countries through improvements in the Alaska highway system. They also explored the specific problems involved in any improvement of the system including paving and relocation.
A member of the Canadian delegation expressed the view that there would have to be some agreement between the two countries on the sharing of the considerable costs involved in these improvements.
Appendix "C"

[Stage Direction]
Extract from the Congressional Record January 15th 1964

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. President today the Senate is signally honored by being visited by 24 members of the parliament of Canada, our closest friend among all the nations and one with which we have more than 3,000 miles of common boundary.
Our friends from the north have been here to discuss matters which pertain to their country and ours-both matters in which we have a co-operative interest and some matters in which we have competitive interests.
At this time I wish the Record to show the presence in the Senate chamber of these distinguished visitors. We appreciate their visit far more than can be expressed by mere words.
I take pleasure in introducing them to the Senate. Following their introduction luncheon will be served in the reception room.
First I am delighted to introduce to the Senate the Speaker of the Canadian Senate, Hon. Maurice Bourget. He and I are really neighbours, for his home is only a short distance across the boundary between the Province of Quebec and Vermont. He is co-chairman of this parliamentary conference. (Applause.)
The other members of the Canadian Senate who are visiting the Senate today are: Hon. M. Wallace McCutcheon a former member of the Canadian cabinet, as are several of the others whom I shall introduce. (Applause.)
Hon. W. H. Taylor. (Applause.)
Next is a lady Senator, Hon. F. Elsie Inman, who, I believe, has attended the delegation meetings for as long as I have. (Applause.)
Then we go to the Pacific coast, where Hon. Sydney J. Smith represents British Columbia. (Applause.) I know that his record is as 20220-1381
good as mine in attendance at the seven parliamentary conferences which have been held during the past few years.
Last, but not least in the Senate. Hon. M. Grattan O'Leary. (Applause.) As his name might indicate, Mr. O'Leary is very plain spoken in discussions. We are very happy that he is with us.
Now I come to members of the House of Commons from Ottawa. I present, first the speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, Hon. Alan A. Macnaughton. (Applause.) He is a neighbor of mine. He lives just across the Vermont border in the province of Quebec. He is also co-chairman of the delegation meetings.
Hon. Michael Starr, another member from New Brunswick, is an ex-Cabinet member of Canada. (Applause.)
Hon. J. Waldo Monteith, who also has been a Cabinet member. (Applause.)
Hon. Paul Martineau, who is also an exCabinet member and who has almost been something else-almost. (Applause.) He has held a prominent position in the Canadian government. When I said "almost" facetiously, we anticipated that he might be Speaker of the House of Commons. He served as Deputy Speaker.
Now we come to Mr. Herman M. Bat-ton. (Applause.)
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt. (Applause.)
Mr. Jack McIntosh. (Applause.) In Vermont we think a great deal of the name "McIntosh." We sell about a million bushels a year of the Macintosh apple, easily the best apple grown. I believe the applause is for you, Jack, and not for the apple. (Laughter.)
Mr. Robert Thompson. (Applause.)
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Applause.)
All the Canadian political parties are represented in this delegation; but as sometimes happens in the United States, it is difficult to tell from the appearance of a member to which party he may belong. So I am not trying to identify any of our guests by party affiliation.
Mr. Stanley Knowles. (Applause.)
Mr. James Byrne. (Applause.)
Mr. Maurice Sauve. (Applause.)
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron. (Applause.)
Mr Andrew Brewin. (Applause.)
Mr. R. G. L. Fairweather. (Applause.)
Mr. Henry Latulippe. (Applause.)
The next member, who received her education in the United States, is Dr. Pauline Jewett, a graduate of Harvard. (Applause.)
Finally, Mr. Jean Chretien. (Applause.)
I know that the conferences have been attended 100 per cent, which should be a good object lesson for some of our own committees. The attendance has been exceptionally good, in spite of the fact that because of

certain emergencies that arose two or three members were unable to attend all the sessions.
There have been fruitful discussions, and we have become well enough acquainted so that when the discussions were over, everyone wished to talk some more. That is a sign of a good meeting.
Once more, I wish to tell our friends how glad we are that they could be with us.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am happy to yield.


Mr.   Mansfield@: I deem it an honor and a privilege to join the senior Republican in this body, the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont (Mr. Aiken), chairman of the subcommittee on Canada of the committee on foreign relations. To the best of my knowledge, under a Democratically controlled congress, he holds the only chairmanship

a well-deserved honor.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A rather well-controlled Dem-cratic congress. (Laughter.)


Mr.   Mansfield@: We are delighted to have our colleagues from Canada in the chamber.
We are especially happy to have Speaker Bourget and Speaker Macnaughton present, because they bring together neighbors who really know enough about each other so that once in a while they can quarrel and get away with it.
The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Aiken) has mentioned the fact that 3,000 miles of border lie between us. It is a border which is indefensible because it needs no defense.
Coming from the State of Montana, I should like to say, as I have done so many times, that my state has the longest border with Canada. We extend 700 miles along the southern part of Canada, bounded by British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. We have close and intimate ties with our neighbors in those three provinces. We celebrate "Canadian days" throughout the year because we like to get Canadian dollars, too, occasionally.
It is good to have you here. You do us honor by visiting us in this Chamber. We are extremely happy that the interparliamentary conferences which began under the chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Vermont (Mr. Aiken) and have continued under his leadership since that time, have been so fruitful in bringing about better understanding and greater tolerance between our two peoples.
I hope that this will not be the last time you will visit this chamber. I only hope
that the next time you visit the Senate, at least some of you will sit on the Democratic side of the aisle, so that we may have a fair representation, too.
Thank you very much.


Mr. Holland:: Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I yield.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: Mr. President, I have enjoyed exceedingly the great pleasure of meeting these fine Canadian visitors.
I cannot claim, as can the distinguished Senator from Vermont (Mr. Aiken), to be a next door neighbor to Mr. McIntosh, whose name has been given to the best Vermont apple; and I cannot claim, as can the majority leader, to have the longest border with Canada. But I can claim that we have our full share of Canadian visitors every year in the State of Florida which in part I represent and that we are proud to have retained many thousands of them as citizens. They are among our finest citizens.
So, from this side of the aisle, I extend the warmest possible welcome. We hope it will be warm when our distinguished friends reach Florida tomorrow afternoon, so that the warmth of our welcome can be more evident than in the present environs of Washington.
I have known of no occasion in which the complete, non-partisan nature of an important operation of the Senate and of the House of Representatives has been so well evidenced. In the Senate the distinguished Senator from Vermont has been chairman of the delegation and chairman of Committee No. 1. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota has been chairman of Committee No. 2. Senators on this side of the aisle, of whom there have been several of us, have been quite content and happy to serve under their leadership.
I hope these distinguished Senators of the minority party have enjoyed their leadership fully, because I do not believe they have had the opportunity to enjoy it, so much as they should, perhaps in other activities of the Senate.
We are delighted to have had these Canadian ladies and gentlemen with us. Speaking only for a part of this great nation, which may be farthest from Canada, may I say that your coming here and our visits with you have been but a symbol-and a significant one-of the warm friendship which prevails between your great country and ours, and which we hope will always prevail, because the might of these two countries together and the friendship of these two countries together have a weight in world affairs which cannot

be measured by any ordinary method. It speaks for itself as being one of the great friendships of our troubled world.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I deeply appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Florida. The Senator has performed yeoman service as a member of the U.S. delegation, as have all the other members, except the two who were interrupted, one by sickness and one by an emergency.
I appreciate the fact that in the presence of our distinguished visitors from Canada, the center aisle of the Senate Chamber is eliminated, just as we always eliminate the international boundary between the United States and Canada when we are thinking of North American welfare and the welfare of our two countries.
When I introduced Mr. Andrew Brewin and Mr. Jean Chretien, they were outside the door and I was a little too fast for them. They are now in the Senate chamber. The Canadian delegation has a 100 per cent attendance. Let that be a lesson to us.
Mr. Young of North Dakota: Mr. President, I wish to join Senator Aiken and say what a pleasant experience it has been to work with so many distinguished members of the Canadian parliament. It has been a wonderful experience. I should like to take the present occasion to say a word about the International Peace Garden, which is located on the border between Canada and the United States. The garden is dedicated to the peace which has existed between our two countries for more than 150 years.
Mr. President, the purpose of the International Peace Garden can be best summed
up by quoting the beautiful words inscribed on the cairn located in the center of the Peace Garden astride the international boundary:
To God in His glory-we two nations dedicate this garden and pledge ourselves that as long as men shall live, we will not take up arms against one another.
The International Peace Garden is one of the most beautiful spots in the world. It is visited each year by thousands of people from the United States and Canada. Construction is continuing through the financial cooperation of the Canadian government, the province of Manitoba, the state of North Dakota, and the government of the United States.
I extend to everyone an invitation to visit this beautiful spot.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as a mark of respect and honor, that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of allowing Senators an opportunity to meet our Canadian visitors.
There being no objection, the Senate (at one o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.) took a recess subject to the call of the Chair.
At one o'clock and 29 minutes p.m., the Senate reassembled on being called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Walters in the chair).


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, is the Senate still in the morning hour?
The Presiding Officer: The Senate is still in the morning hour.



APPENDIX &quot;B&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Several hon. members have recently expressed concern respecting the low water levels currently prevailing throughout the great lakes basin and I can now make a statement concerning this matter. On page 1,647 ol Hansard I provided the hon. member tor Leeds with the water levels at Kingston, Ontario, and Prescott, Ontario, and the outflows of lake Ontario since 1938. I am tabling today two reports of the international joint commission dated December, 1958, and April 5, 1961. The first report summarizes all available information on the comparison of lake Ontario water levels including the effects of precipitation, evaporation, winds and barometric pressure changes, ice retardation and crustal movement, diversions into and out of the great lakes basin and operation of the outlet control of lake Ontario and lake Superior. The second report deals with methods of regulation and includes the text of orders of approval for the construction and operation of the St. Lawrence power project.
As hon. members will realize the principal cause of current low water levels is the abnormal low precipitation which was about
3" below normal during 1962, and 5" below normal in 1963 over the great lakes basin. In addition above normal temperatures have caused higher than usual evaporation. Due to the enormous storage capacity of the great lakes levels change very slowly and while the normal seasonal rise will produce some improvement for the present, below normal levels will obtain generally during the balance of this year. Hon. members will recall that some 12 years ago the situation was quite the opposite with much damage resulting along the shoreline during the high water levels. These cycles have persisted over the period of water level records on the lakes and there is no evidence to show a long term rise or fall in the average water level.
In view of the concern which has been expressed in this house and the complexity of the problem and profusion of available reports and data, I have asked the water resources branch of my department to prepare a report summarizing the studies on the fluctuation of the levels of all the great lakes as well as the effect of regulatory measures both in operation and proposed.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 15, 1964