1964-04-13

[Stage Direction]
MEMBER FOR JOLIETTE-l/ASSOMPTION-MONTCALM
Mr. Speaker:: On Friday morning the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) rose on a question of privilege respecting certain statements made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) the previous day. His declaration was to the effect that the hon. member had said about him things that were untrue or false. The words used in French were "des choses fausses". After quite a debate had taken place I said that I would examine the matter over the week end and give a decision on Monday; that is today.
There are evidently two questions which arise. The first and most important one is the question of privilege, and the second one is whether an expression used by the hon. member was unparliamentary. I will deal first with the latter, as it will soon be disposed of. The hon. member, speaking in French, stated;

The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) said some false things about me. He took advantage of my absence to do so.

It was then I stated that the use of the term "false" is not parliamentary. I had not realized at that moment that the word "false" was applied to things said and not to the hon. member for Carleton. If one hon. member should say of another hon. member that he was a liar, or that he had affirmed something knowing that such a thing was untrue, this of course would be unparliamentary. However, this is not the same as saying that what a member says of another member is not true.
Having disposed of one part of the incident, I should perhaps take advantage of this occasion to deal with the question of privilege per se and I will try to do it in very general terms, in terms that will render my remarks applicable to this and to all other questions of privilege raised in this house.
There are still areas of the work of the Commons which are causing some difficulties
in reference to procedure. This may be the understatement of the year. One of these areas relates to questions of privilege. More and more often members are rising to invoke so-called questions of privilege which could more properly be classified as mere interruptions, ordinary points of order, untimely grievances, disguised charges, contempts, or even simple disagreements with what is being said from the floor of the house.
Hon. members rose on questions of privilege over a hundred times during the previous session of parliament. As there were 117 sitting days from May 16 when the house met to December 21 when the house prorogued, this means that invoking privilege practically became, and has continued to be, a daily occurrence. I dare say that not 10 per cent, nay 5 per cent, were proper questions of privilege. Moreover, only three or four of these were followed by a motion which would have been the proper procedure to adopt in the circumstances.
As a sample of what I have stated, early Friday morning the hon. member rose twice on a question of privilege, the first time to the effect that it was his "duty to direct questions to the Prime Minister and to any member of the cabinet"; and he added "If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, it is your responsibility to deal with the matter and I shall abide by your ruling, provided it is fair and reasonable". This last comment was perhaps unnecessary, and it was not a question of privilege in any event.
As may be seen if one takes the trouble to read citations 108 to 112 of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, privilege is a very serious matter and therefore should not be abused. I might perhaps terminate the present statement by directing the attention of the house to one particular quotation from Beauchesne which is to be found at page 102, a quotation which should be read carefully by all members as it summarizes the situation clearly and without equivocation. This is the quotation:
113. Members often 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. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. There are privileges of the house as well as of members individually. Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions; insults and obstructions during debate are breaches of the

Question of Privilege
privileges of the house. Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members. But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. An attack in a newspaper article is not a breach of privilege, unless it comes within the definition of privileges above given, and then a member is bound to lay on the table the newspaper in which the article complained of appears-



MR. NIELSEN  REMARKS IN DEBATE BY MINISTER OP JUSTICE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I feel I must do so because I did give the house notice last Friday that I intended to raise this question.
The question 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. Most of the time these translators do an excellent service to the house, but in this particular debate last Thursday they did break down for a moment. I have not, of course, access to the blues in the Hansard office, but on page 1964 of Hansard for Thursday last, about half way down the right hand column, the Minister of Justice is reported as using these words:
I say that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who is perhaps the one who most bitterly criticized the attitude of the government in the house, has always intimated something which is false both in fact and in law.
Then a little further on in the same column he said:
I say that such statements are a hateful betrayal of the truth, of the facts and of the law.
I have checked with several of my colleagues on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, and all confirm me in my recollection that the translation which came over the earphones in English was as follows:
I say that an hon. member of this house who has most bitterly attacked the government-
-and then followed the remainder of the text. So the English translation did not specifically name me at the time. Had that occurred, Mr. Speaker, I would have risen, probably at the stage where the minister used the words:
I say that such statements are a hateful betrayal of the truth-
-and so on. So the first point involved in this question of privilege is one of an English translation coming over the system possibly quite different from the words the minister actually used, or any other hon. member actually used. The other factor involved in the

privilege is the words used themselves. Without having had the opportunity to study in detail the statement Your Honour made today, I have not come to a conclusion as to whether or not these words, in the context of your ruling, are parliamentary.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: On a point of order, so long as the hon. member was referring to the fact that the translation of my words may not have been accurate, I was not personally concerned and I allowed the hon. member for Yukon to deal with his question of privilege. But I contend now that so long as he intends to raise a question of privilege, in my respect, of course that is ruled out by Your Honour's previous ruling. But even if it were not, so long as the hon. member purports to raise a question of privilege based on the utterances of any hon. member of the house, and in the present instance utterances by me, I say that Your Honour may not entertain any discussion except on the basis of the original text for which I must take responsibility, that is the text in which I made my remarks, the French text.
This is the only text that can be opposed to me. If the hon. member is ready to discuss the question on the basis of the French text itself and to say I may have used words which are not parliamentary, then I might be in a better position to answer him, but I say that on the basis of the translation he cannot confront me with the words in the translation.


Erik Nielsen: I can clear up that question at the outset, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I have examined both texts and have consulted with some of my French speaking colleagues, and both texts in Hansard show that the minister did use words identifying me in his remarks. I do not question at all that any alterations have been made in Hansard. That was my original suspicion, but since both texts coincide I simply have to conclude that the mistake itself was made in the translation from the French to the English.
Now, to proceed with this second factor in the point of privilege I raised, as my authority for perhaps questioning the words used by the Minister of Justice I merely cite the Minister of Transport who, as recorded at page 1197 of Friday's Hansard, said:
-that when one hon. member undertakes to suggest that another hon. member has said something that is false, it is up to him to prove it was a false statement by real evidence, and not simply to use an unparliamentary word as a form of innuendo.
And I believe Your Honour, as recorded at the same page of Hansard, said that the term "false" was not parliamentary. This may have been changed in view of Your Honour's

ruling today, but without having studied it carefully I would not be in a position to venture an opinion. I merely draw to Your Honour's attention these words which the minister used as recorded at page 1964 of Hansard for Thursday last, April 9:
I say that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)... has always intimated something which is false both in fact and in law-
I say that such statements are a hateful betrayal of the truth-


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, I ask for a ruling on this point because surely no hon. member may be accused on the basis of a statement which he did not make. The only statement I made was a statement in French, and it is recorded at page 2065 of the French version of Hansard for April 9, 1964. I cannot be responsible for a translation which may or may not accurately reflect my thoughts.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that this presentation of his point of privilege is becoming almost an argument. I suggest to him that he state his point of privilege and then I will have a chance to examine the actual words, outside the house, and perhaps present a ruling tomorrow, thus saving the time of the house.


Erik Nielsen: I thought I had already stated my question of privilege, namely the question I drew to Your Honour's attention concerning the translation itself and, second, the words used by the minister as they appear in the English translation of Hansard which I have read into the record. If, as the minister seems to be intimating, those words are not a correct translation or do not coincide with the French issue of Hansard-I think they do; I think they are the same in the French and English editions-then I think I am entitled to have the English edition changed so as to comply accurately with the French version if the minister did not use the words that appear in the English translation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the matter into consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document dealing with certain functions of the troops serving under the United Nations command in Cyprus.
Introduction oj Bills NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


AMENDMENTS RESPECTING REPLACEMENT OF CHIEFS OF STAFF COMMITTEE
Hon. Lucien Cardin (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the National Defence Act in order to be able to implement the provisions in the white paper that have to do with the integration of the forces. The amendment provides for the replacement of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, the chief of the naval staff, the chief of the air staff and the chief of general staff, with an authority that would be charged with the functions, the duties and the powers of the people who are being replaced. This new authority would be the chief of the defence staff who would head a body to be known as the defence staff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AERONAUTICS ACT
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the gov-vemor in council to make regulations prescribing charges for the use of any facility or service provided by or on behalf of the Minister of Transport for or in respect of aircraft or at an airport and to make such regulations as he deems necessary to impose upon the owners or operators wherever resident, of any aircraft, charges for the availability during any flights of such aircraft within or outside Canada of any facility or service provided by or on behalf of the minister; to provide also for the payment of certain expenses of witnesses attending before boards of inquiry established by the minister to investigate aircraft accidents; and to make certain other amendments for the better administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:

Questions
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act to extend by one year the authority to carry on business for the banks to which these acts apply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are not really adopting these motions, are we? Are they not automatically transferred to the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have to be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: I would refer the hon. member to standing order 21, subsection 1.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did F.B.I. officers act as police officers In Canada in the Wasylenchuk case?
2.	Did prison officials turn Wasylenchuk over to the F.B.I officers?
3.	Was Wasylenchuk transferred from the prison to the U.S.A. by Canadian officers or by the F.B.I.?
4.	Did prison officials refuse Wasylenchuk permission to call his lawyers after he was incarcerated and, if so, how long did this refusal continue, and how long was it before Wasylenchuk was permitted to contact his lawyers?


Guy Favreau: 1. The extradition warrant, which was in the form prescribed by the Extradition Act, directed the keeper of Oakalla prison farm to deliver John Wasylenchuk into the custody of Dean G. Rolston and Alfred G. Gunn and commanded the said Dean G. Bolston and Alfred G. Gunn to convey John Wasylenchuk to the United States. In accordance with the practice Dean G. Rolston and Alfred G. Gunn were designated for this purpose by the United States authorities. They are agents of the federal bureau of investigation.
2.	Yes.
3.	Wasylenchuk was transferred from the prison to the United States by the F.B.I. agents abovementioned who were accompanied by members of the R.C.M. Police.
4.	Prison officials at Oakalla prison farm, which is a provincial institution, have informed the R.C.M. Police that John Wasylenchuk was held at the Oakalla prison farm from October 18 to December 18, 1963, awaiting his extradition, upon which latter date he was delivered to the F.B.I. agents, as above described, and that during this time he received approximately 20 visits from relatives, friends, parole officers, members of the John Howard society and a priest.


CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	When will construction commence on the young offenders, medium security penal institution to be located at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the estimated date for completion of this project?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer for high temperature water generators and auxiliary equipment associated with this project, what was the amount of the contract, who were the unsuccessful bidders and what prices did they submit?
4.	What is the estimated number of man-hours involved in the construction of the institution?
5.	What is the estimated number of employees who will staff the institution on its completion and what is the estimated annual payroll?


Mr. Lamontagne:: 1. It is expected that tenders can be called and a contract award will be made to allow construction to start in the summer of 1964.
2.	The contemplated date for completion is the fall of 1965.
3.	The successful tenderer for the high temperature water generators and auxiliary equipment was Dominion Bridge of Montreal at $221,930. Other bidders were Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, Quebec, $228,310; Foster Wheeler Ltd., St. Catharines, Ontario, $229,519.
4.	It is estimated that 500,000 man hours will be expended in construction of the institution.
5.	One hundred and seventy employees. Annual payroll of $800,000.


PARKING ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Bell: 1.	How many spaces are allocated for parking of motor vehicles on parliament hill?
2.	Of these, how many are allocated to (a) members of parliament (b) senators (c) the press gallery (d) the diplomatic corps (e) officials and/or employees of the parliament of Canada (f) officials and/or employees of the government of Canada or agency thereof except the parliament of Canada (g) tourists (h) others (defining specifically who such others may be)?
3.	Of those allocated to officials and/or employees of the government of Canada, how many are allocated to each department of government or agency?
4.	Of the officials and/or employees entitled to parking space as indicated in the answer to question 3, how many from each department or agency are (a) occupied or employed in a building located on parliament hill (b) occupied or employed in a building not located on parliament hill?
5.	Upon what basis or principle are parking spaces on parliament hill allocated (a) to those occupied or employed in a building located on parliament hill (b) occupied or employed in a building not located on parliament hill?
6.	Since April 22, 1963, have any meetings or conferences been held to consider the problem of parking of motor vehicles in such positions on parliament hill as detract from the beauty and dignity of the parliament buildings and, if so, who called such meetings or conferences, who attended them and with what result?


Mr. Deschaleleis:: 1. As of March 5, 1964, 672.
2.	(a) As advised by the Sergeant-at-Arms, 100; (b) as advised by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, 18; (c) 41; (d) 10; (e) as advised by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, 228; (f) 240; (g) visitors' parking (tourist) during the summer tourist parking is increased to 110 spaces; (e) and (f) being reduced accordingly 35; (h) nil.
3.	The Prime Minister's office and the privy council, 35; the Department of Public Works, 6; the Department of Secretary of State, 29; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 6; the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, 34; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 16; the Department of External Affairs, 54; the Department of Transport, 12; the Canada council, 3; national harbours board, 6; external aid office, 2; the Department of Finance (treasury), 4; Canadian maritime commission, 5; the Department of Forestry, 4; deputy ministers, senior officials, crown owned vehicles, tradesmen, etc., who must visit parliament hill from time to time on official business, 24.
4.	(a) The Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council, 109; the Department of Public Works, 13; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 10; the Department of External Affairs, 70; the Department of Finance (treasury) 6.
(b)	The Department of Secretary of State, 40; the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, 73; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 52; the Department of Transport, 44; the Canada council, 5; national harbours board, 29; external aid office, 3; the Canadian maritime commission, 9; the Department of Forestry, 16.
Note: The Department of Public Works has issued 365 permits, against the 24 spaces mentioned in 3 above, to those who visit parliament hill from time to time on official business.
5.	(a) Parking is allocated in the following
sequence:	(i) crown owned vehicles; (ii)
senior officials and disabled persons; (iii) privately owned vehicles used on government business; (iv) persons residing beyond a circle ascribed from the place of employment and having a two mile radius; (v) all others, if space is still available.
(b) Same as above with the exception that this basis is not applicable to visitors, tourists, or others on business.
6.	Since April 22, 1963, planning conferences of a technical nature have taken place at departmental level as a result of which plans and specifications are being prepared for a parking garage which will allow removal of vehicles from parliament hill.
Questions


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT HELICOPTER, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Questions
Name	Location	DistancePointer Island	52-03-41 127-56-47	160Dryad Point	52-11-08 128-06-36	150Ivory Island	52-16-11 128-24-18	141Mclnnes Island	52-15-42 128-43-13	137Boat Bluff	52-38-36 128-31-21	121Lawyer Islands	54-06-47 130-20-32	13Barret Rock	54-14-35 130-20-33	6Lucy Island	54-17-46 130-36-25	10Green Island	54-34-06 130-42-24	20Bonilla Island	53-29-34 130-38-08	50Triple Island	54-17-36 130-52-40	20Cape St. James	51-56-10 131-00-52	145Langara Point	54-15-20 133-03-27	998.	Each of the lighthouses listed in part 7 were visited on the dates listed below, except Barret Rock which being 6 miles from Prince Rupert was not visited by helicopter: Pointer Island: 20-6-62, 25-7-62, 10-8-62, 14-8-62,	14-8-62,	20-9-62,	28-9-62,	21-10-62,25-	10-62, 16-11-62, 16-11-62, 6-12-62, 17-12-62,
21-3-63, 3-4-63, 6-6-63, 24-7-63, 26-7-63, 26-763, 23-8-63, 23-8-63, 26-8-63, 17-9-63, 23-9-63,
2-10-63,	7-10-63,	9-10-63,	3-12-63,	4-12-63,
9-12-63, 19-12-63, 20-12-63, 4-3-64, 5-3-64.
Dryad	Point:	31-5-62,	31-5-62,	20-6-62,20-	6-62,	25-6-62,	28-6-62,	28-6-62,	29-6-62,
4-7-62, 4-7-62, 16-7-62, 25-7-62, 27-7-62, 27-762, 10-8-62, 10-8-62, 14-8-62, 14-8-62, 20-9-62,
26-	9-62,	27-9-62,	28-9-62,	28-9-62,	18-10-62,
21-	10-62, 22-10-62, 22-10-62, 7-11-62, 16-11-62,
16-	11-62, 14-12-62, 17-12-62, 17-12-62, 31-1262, 31-12-62, 17-1-63, 17-1-63, 23-1-63, 14-3-63, 21-3-63, 3-4-63, 10-4-63, 11-4-63, 11-4-63, 174-63, 6-6-63, 6-6-63, 20-6-63, 20-6-63, 24-7-63, 26-7-63, 26-7-63, 23-8-63, 23-8-63, 23-8-63, 26-
8-63, 26-8-63, 4-9-63, 4-9-63, 17-9-63, 23-9-63, 2-10-63, 2-10-63, 7-10-63, 9-10-63, 19-11-63,
19-11-63, 20-11-63, 3-12-63, 4-12-63, 9-12-63,
19-	12-63, 19-12-63, 20-12-63, 27-12-63, 27-1263, 25-2-64, 4-3-64, 5-3-64.
Ivory Island: 20-6-62, 25-6-62, 10-8-62,
20-	9-62, 32-10-62, 25-10-62, 14-12-62, 14-12-62,
17-	12-62, 3-4-63, 4-4-63, 11-4-63, 17-4-63, 6-663, 24-7-3, 24-7-3, 26-7-63, 14-8-63, 23-8-63, 23-8-63, 23-8-63, 26-8-63, 29-8-63, 2-9-63, 4-963, 4-9-63, 2-10-63, 7-10-63, 9-10-63, 19-11-63, 4-12-63, 19-12-63, 27-12-63, 5-3-64.

Mclnnes Island; 31-5-62, 20-6-62, 20-6-62, 25-6-62, 25-6-62, 28-6-62, 29-6-62, 29-6-62, 4-762, 4-7-62, 16-7-62, 16-7-62, 16-7-62, 17-7-62, 10-8-62, 10-8-62, 10-8-62, 19-10-62, 8-11-62,
3-12-62, 17-12-62, 17-1-63, 3-4-63, 11-4-63, 6-663, 6-6-63, 11-6-63, 21-6-63, 26-7-63, 12-8-63, 148-63, 23-8-63, 2-9-63, 4-9-63, 16-9-63, 17-9-63,
20-	9-63, 7-10-63, 19-11-63, 20-11-63, 19-12-63, 25-2-64, 4-3-64, 5-3-64.
Boat Bluff; 27-7-62, 27-7-62, 28-9-62, 7-1162, 17-12-62, 4-4-63, 11-4-63, 17-4-63, 5-6-63,
6-6-63, 23-7-63, 24-7-63, 23-8-63, 26-8-63, 298-63, 2-9-63, 4-9-63, 17-9-63, 23-9-63, 7-10-63,
9-10-63, 3-12-63, 9-12-63, 19-12-63, 20-12-63.
Lawyer Island; 5-6-62, 15-11-62, 7-12-62, 14-12-62, 8-4-63, 8-4-63, 11-4-63, 26-6-63, 266-63, 8-8-63, 8-8-63, 19-8-63, 19-8-63, 21-8-63,
21-	8-63, 21-8-63, 30-8-63, 23-12-63.
Barret Rock; none.
Lucy Island: 5-6-62, 4-7-62, 4-7-62, 2-8-62, 2-8-62, 2-8-62, 3-8-62, 15-11-62, 13-12-62, 1312-62, 15-1-63, 15-1-63, 27-3-63, 8-4-63, 8-4-63, 23-4-63, 7-5-63, 7-5-63, 30-5-63, 23-6-63, 26-663, 16-7-63, 8-8-63, 8-8-63, 8-8-63, 12-8-63, 20-8-63, 22-8-63, 28-8-63, 16-9-63, 18-9-63, 219-63, 8-11-63, 12-11-63, 6-12-63, 7-12-63, 2812-63, 24-2-64.
Green Island: 5-6-62, 3-8-62, 16-8-62, 26-962, 28-9-62, 15-11-62, 5-12-62, 12-12-62, 27-1262, 28-3-63, 8-4-63, 8-4-63, 3-6-63, 3-6-63, 4-663, 5-6-63, 20-6-63, 23-6-63, 25-6-63, 26-6-63, 17-7-63, 25-7-63, 8-8-63, 20-8-63, 21-8-63, 22-863, 6-12-63, 10-12-63, 23-12-63, 31-12-63, 24-264, 6-3-64.
Bonilla Island: 23-5-62, 17-7-62, 25-7-62,
27-7-62, 15-10-62, 16-3-63, 1-4-63, 4-4-63, 11-
4-63, 25-5-63, 29-5-63, 30-5-63, 31-5-63, 11-663, 11-6-63, 19-6-63, 19-6-63, 23-6-63, 16-7-63,
17-	7-63, 22-7-63, 23-7-63, 26-7-63, 27-7-63, 30-
7-63, 9-8-63, 9-8-63, 19-8-63, 23-8-63, 26-8-63, 16-9-63, 20-9-63, 27-9-63, 3-10-63, 20-12-63,
25-	2-64, 1-3-64, 1-3-64, 3-3-64, 6-3-64.
Triple Island: 5-6-62, 28-9-62, 15-10-62, 18-
10-62, 5-11-62, 5-12-62, 11-12-62, 5-1-63, 2-463, 8-4-63, 8-4-63, 4-5-63, 7-5-63, 5-6-63, 10-663, 17-6-63, 23-6-63, 2-7-63, 18-7-63, 25-7-63,
8-8-63, 13-8-63, 19-8-63, 21-863, 21-8-63, 22-863, 30-8-63, 30-8-63, 21-9-63, 30-9-63, 9-12-63, 23-12-63, 6-3-64, 6-3-64.
Cape St. James: 26-6-62, 26-6-62, 26-10-62,
26-	10-62, 15-1-63, 16-1-63, 22-4-63, 9-6-63, 246-63, 27-6-63, 9-8-63, 15-8-63, 13-11-63, 12-1263, 26-2-64, 1-3-64.
Langara Point: 22-5-62, 1-6-62, 3-7-62, 26-762, 13-11-62, 14-11-62, 6-12-62, 12-12-62, 16-363, 29-3-63, 16-4-63, 23-5-63, 23-5-63, 24-5-63,
18-	6-63, 29-6-63, 2-7-63, 18-7-63, 10-8-63, 15-863, 9-9-63, 18-9-63, 7-11-63, 11-11-63, 14-11-63, 29-11-63, 17-12-63, 27-3-64.

9.	The Department of Transport continually studies all phases of its helicopter operation, with emphasis on new equipment, in order to ensure that current responsibilities and commitments are completed in a safe and efficient manner, as economically as possible.


HOLDERS OF GOVERNMENT BONDS
Mr. Caoueile: What is the amount of Canadian government bonds at present in the hands of (a) chartered banks (b) insurance companies (c) trust companies (d) industrial and commercial concerns (e) individuals (f) foreign companies or foreigners (g) others?


Mr. Benson:: The following are the amounts, at the most recent date for which the data are available, of government of Canada bonds held by:
(a)	$2,690 million at Jan. 29, 1964.
(b)	$1,166 million at Dec. 31, 1963.
(c)	$290 million at Sept. 30, 1963.
(d)	Not available.
(e)	Not available.
(f)	$941 million (including treasury bills) at Dec. 31, 1962.
(g)	Not available.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	How much money was spent by the Department of Public Works on the following works in Charlevoix county, during the fiscal years of 1961 62. 1962-63, and 1963-64 on the construction of, and repairs to, post offices?
2.	Where were these works carried out?
3.	How much money did the Department of Public Works spend on wharf construction, repairs and improvements?
4.	Where were these works carried out?
Answer:	1.	1961-62,	$15,360;	1962-63,
$10,949; 1963-64, $8,533 (at January 31, 1964).
2.	1961-62, Baie-Saint-Paul; Beaupre; Clermont; La Malbaie; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre.
1962-	63, Baie-Saint-Paul; Clermont; La Malbaie; Les Eboulements; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre.
1963-	64, (at January 31, 1964)-Baie-Saint-Paul; Clermont; La Malbaie; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre.
3.	1961-62, $145,056.93; 1962-63, $597,856.78; 1963-64, $467,215.90.
4.	1961-62, Baie-Sainte-Catherine (Anse-au-Portage); Ile-aux-Coudres; Les Eboulements; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre; Saint-Irenee; Saint-Simeon.
1962-63, Baie-Sainte-Catherine (Anse-au-Portage); Chateau-Richer; Ile-aux-Coudres; La Petite-Riviere-Saint-Francois; Les Ebou-
Questions
lements; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre; Saint-Simeon.
1963-64, Baie Sainte-Catherine; Baie-Sainte-Catherine (Anse-au-Portage); Cap-a-1'Aigle; Ile-aux-Coudres; Les Eboulements; La Petite-Riviere-Saint-Francois; Pointe-au-Pic; Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre; Saint-Irenee; Saint-Simeon.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
Mr. Howard: Does the government have any plans to issue gold coinage during 1967 to commemorate Canada's centenary?


Edgar John Benson: While suggestions for the issue of gold coinage during 1967 to commemorate Canada's centenary are under study, no plans have been made for such an issue.


STATION CJBC, TORONTO    NUMBER OF LISTENERS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	What is the percentage of householders listening to station CJBC Toronto in metro Kitchener -area No. 989, Waterloo county-area No. 990, Oxford county-area No. 1000, Perth county- area No. 1080, Wellington county-area No. 1110, Bruce county-area No. 1120 and Grey county- area No. 1130?
2.	What is the French speaking population in these same areas?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Percentage of households tuned to CJBC once or more times
Area	County during survey week	
989	Metro Kitchener	16990	Waterloo	251000	Oxford	111080	Perth	101110	Wellington	321120	Bruce	111130	Grey	24June 1, 1961Population Able to	Area	Area Speak the French	No.	Description	Language*989	Metro Kitchener	4,227990	Waterloo county	(bal.) 2161000	Oxford county	1,1841080	Perth county	6191110	Wellington county (bal.) 628	1120	Bruce county	2781130	Grey county	475Total	7,627
*Based on official language-French only plus bilingual.

Questions


*QUEBEC PROJECTS TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ricard: What new projects does the government intend to carry out in order to eliminate unemployment in the province of Quebec particularly?


Mr. Byrne:: The government has developed and introduced a number of programs designed to strengthen the economy generally and to bring about an adequate growth in employment. The effectiveness of these programs can be seen from the fact that employment in the past five months has averaged some 270,000 higher than in the corresponding period of the year before and is over 90,000 higher in Quebec. Unemployment has averaged about 60,000 lower for Canada and about 20,000 lower in Quebec. The government has strengthened employment in the winter months which has resulted in seasonal unemployment being significantly lower this winter than in previous winters through the winter house building program and an expanded municipal winter works incentive program. New programs, as they are developed for dealing with unemployment, will be announced to parliament in the usual way.


* INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS
Mr. Slogan: 1.	Are professional or technical graduates who attend refresher or postgraduate courses now entitled to income tax deductions for their tuition fees?
2.	Is this exemption restricted to tuition fees or are all costs, such as the cost of books, instruments, travelling and living expenses included?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Tuition fees paid for refresher or postgraduate courses are not deductible under existing law unless they qualify under section 11(1) (qb) of the Income Tax Act which requires that the student be a full-time student and that the fees be paid in respect of a course of at least 13 consecutive weeks duration.
Paragraph 1 of the income tax resolution tabled following the budget speech proposes that the right to deduct tuition fees be extended to include fees paid by part-time students to educational institutions described in the resolution.
2.	The deduction now granted by section 11(1) (qb) of the Income Tax Act applies only to tuition fees. The proposal to extend this deduction also applies only to tuition fees.


DISPOSITION OF RADAR STATION EQUIPMENT, ST. SYLVESTRE, QUE.
Mr. Caoueite: As a result of the decision to close the radar station at St. Sylvestre in Lotbiniere county, what does the government intend to do with the buildings, equipment, and other material on the site?

Answer: As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, most of the R.C.A.F. station at St. Sylvestre will be declared surplus at the end of 1964 or the beginning of 1965 and only the part directly affected by maintenance of the telecommunication system will be kept.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	How many applications were received under the municipal winter works incentive program 1963-64 from the county of Bruce?
2.	How many of the applications were approved?
3.	What are the names of the municipalities where applications were approved?
4.	In each case, what was the winter works program undertaken?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Ten applications were received under the municipal winter works incentive program 1963-64 from municipalities in the county of Bruce.
2.	The ten applications received were approved.
3 and 4.
Municipality
Project No.
Description of Work
Chippawa	Ont.	798Kincardine	Ont.	277Port Elgin	Ont.	1264Port Elgin	Ont.	1265Ripley	Ont.	901Teeswater	Ont.	954Teeswater	Ont.	955Whitchurch	Ont.	1037Wiarton	Ont.	928Wiarton	Ont.	1134
Installation of storm drainage system Installation of sanitary sewers Installation of water mains Installation of water mains Improvements to community arena Construction of senior citizens unit Construction of arena floor Installation of water supply system Installation of sanitary sewers Construction of fire hall
[Mr. Lamontagne.l

^SOCIAL INSURANCE APPLICATION CARDS


Mr. Hales: 1.	How many application cards for social insurance numbers were ordered and what was the total cost?
2.	Were tenders called for these and, if so, (a) how many tenders were received (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Does the company which received the order have an agreement with its employees through a recognized Canadian union?
4.	What is the approximate cost of distribution to working Canadians including express, postage, envelopes, etc ?


Mr. Stewart:: 1. Ten million application cards were ordered at a cost of $7,437 for printing and $37,266.77 for paper.
2.	For printing: Yes (a) 11 (b) yes.
For paper: Tenders were not called. The specifications for the paper required could be met by only one mill. The first of many requisites was the necessity for rag content and the company awarded the contract was the only manufacturer of rag bristol. Experiments by this mill have also produced a chemical additive which provides the extended life expectancy required for the stock.
The cost of the paper compares favourably with existing prices for other similar goods.
3.	Yes.
4.	The cost of the distribution of the application cards is not known at this time since the distribution has not yet been completed. For budget purposes an allowance of $200,000 was made for the total distribution costs to the unemployment insurance commission for all supplies associated with the registration, exclusive of costs for staff time. This included not only the cost of distribution of application cards, but also letters to employers, social insurance number cards and unemployment insurance books. It is not possible to estimate at this time the part of the total distribution cost that application card distribution represents.


* SALARY PAID MINISTER OF FORESTRY
Mr. Pigeon: What amount has the present Minister of Forestry received in salary from public funds since he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet?


Edgar John Benson: The Minister of Forestry has received the statutory salary of a minister of the crown since February 3, 1964.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR VOLUNTEER FIREMEN
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is consideration being given to allowing all volunteer firemen to claim an exemption of $300 for income tax purposes in place of the present exemption based only on the actual cash received by way of honorarium by such volunteer firemen?


Edgar John Benson: No.
Questions


INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHED IN DESIGNATED AREAS, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Up to the present date, how many industries have been established as a result of the incentives provided by the government, in the designated areas of the province of Nova Scotia, and what are the names of the companies concerned, type of industry, and where have they been established?


Mr. Drury:: To date three new businesses are in the process of being established in Nova Scotia with the declared intention of benefiting from the designated area tax incentives program. Any announcement of a firm's intentions regarding location, type of business and planned employment is made by the firm itself. Premature disclosure by the government could affect adversely the establishment of a new business.


MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND APPLICATIONS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
How many applications have been received and approved under the municipal loan fund up to the present time in the provinces of (a) New Brunswick (b) Prince Edward Island, and (c) Newfoundland?


Edgar John Benson: The number of applications
received and approved to March 24 from these provinces is as follows:
Number Number of	of
Applications Loans
Province	Received Approved
(a)	New Brunswick	13	11(b)	Prince Edward Island	2	2(c)	Newfoundland	13	3


C.N.R. AUTOMOBILE LOADING COMPOUND, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has a decision been reached by the Canadian National Railways in the matter of setting up a compound in the Sydney-North Sydney area for the handling of automobiles arriving on railway tri-level equipment for Cape Breton and Newfoundland and, if so, what is the nature of this decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advises that it is not the intention to establish a compound at this time.


POST OFFICE, REDNERSVILLE, ONT.
Mr. Alkenbrack: Did the Postmaster General, during November last, agree to open a post office in the village of Rednersville, Ontario, and, if so, when will such a post office be opened?


Mr. Nicholson:: Yes. It was decided at that time that a post office closed in 1961 should be reopened at Rednersville, Ontario, in accordance with what the Postmaster General understood to be the wishes of the great

Questions
majority of patrons residing within a half a mile radius of the proposed site. At that time the Postmaster General had been given to understand that the patrons concerned generally were agreeable to giving up service through rural mail boxes and receiving their mail through the proposed post office.
However, a conflicting petition was received on the 31st day of January 1964, and it was deemed advisable to resurvey the area. A further canvass has now been completed and as a result 33 of the patrons have expressed a preference for service through the proposed office, and 32 are against such a move.
This canvass revealed that generally those persons residing within a quarter of a mile of the proposed site for the post office are in favour and those who reside further than a quarter of a mile are against the establishment of such a post office, if such action involves termination of the rural mail delivery service now being provided.
When a situation such as this occurs, it is the normal policy of the Post Office Department not to make any change in the existing arrangements because of the resulting adverse effect on the community as a whole. In the circumstances, and since the patrons of the area are being adequately provided with rural mail delivery service, it has been decided not to proceed with the establishment of an office at Rednersville.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS, BEAUCE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Perron: 1.	How many loans were made by the industrial development bank in the county of Beauce during 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What was the amount of each of these loans?
3.	To whom were these loans made?
4.	Were any requests for loans refused and, if so, to whom were the refusals made, and what amounts were involved?

Answer: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The information requested is not available. Loan approvals are classified by provinces on pages 14 and 15 of the last annual report of the industrial development bank and by types of businesses on pages 16 and 17 of that report.


ADVERTISING REVENUE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Cowan: What was the division of the advertising revenue of radio station CJBC, Toronto, in the month of February, 1964, between advertising in the French language and advertising in the English language?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that all advertising revenue of station CJBC for the month of February, 1964 was from advertising in the English language.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS, BEAUCE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Perron: 1.	How many loans were made by the small businesses loan fund in the county of Beauce during 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What was the amount of each of these loans?
3.	To whom were these loans made?
4.	Were any requests for loans refused and, if so, to whom were the refusals made, and what amounts were involved?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Statistics on regional distribution of loans made by the chartered banks under the Small Businesses Loans Act are available by provinces but not by counties.
3.	The identity of individuals to whom loans are made by the chartered banks is confidential.
4.	The banks do not provide information concerning loan applications which have been refused.


HONOURS TO COMMANDER OF R.C.M.P. VESSEL &quot;ST. ROCH&quot;
Mr. Basford: 1.	What honours, medals, or titles have been conferred by the government of Canada on Captain Henry Larsen, who commanded the R.C.M. Police vessel, St. Roch on its historic voyages of circumnavigation of the North American continent in both directions?
2.	In the arrangements now being completed by the city of Vancouver and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the proper housing and restoration of the R.C.M. Police vessel St. Roch, are any funds made available so that Captain Henry Larsen can be invited to and honoured at the opening ceremonies of the restored St. Roch?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Polar medal, 1943; bar to Polar medal, 1946.
2.	No, since under the contemplated arrangement any such ceremony would presumably be organized by the civic authorities who would undoubtedly recognize Captain Henry Larsen's famous association with this vessel.


M.M.R.A. VEHICLES, CUMBERLAND, N.S.    TENDER FOR SALES AND SERVICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What firms in Cumberland are invited to tender for the sale of motor vehicles to the M.M.R.A. and what dealerships do they represent?
2.	What firms in Cumberland are invited to tender on the overhaul and repair of motor vehicles owned by the M.M.R.A.?
3.	From what firms in Cumberland does the M.M.R.A. purchase oil and gasoline?
4.	Are any firms in Cumberland excluded from the opportunity to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles, repair and overhaul of motor vehicles, and on the sales of oil and gasoline for the M.M.R.A. and, if so, what firms?
Answer: 1. Those firms which sell motor vehicles having the specifications required. The last tender call for vehicles was in November 1963 and the following firms were invited to tender:

Cameron and Wilson, Amherst, N.S., Chrysler products. Cumberland Equipment Ltd. Amherst, N.S., Pontiac and G.M.C. trucks. Tantramar Motors Ltd. Amherst N.S., Chevrolet and G.M.C. trucks. Rivers and Dickinson Ltd., Amherst, N.S., International. D. A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, N.S., Ford and Ford trucks. Claude W. Carter, Springhill, N.S., Mercury, Meteor and Mercury trucks.
2.	For overhaul and costly repairs, the firm which supplied the vehicle, and other garages including the above, known to be competent.
3.	Bulk gasoline purchases made principally from the Irving Oil Company Ltd. Bulk oil purchases from British American, Imperial and Texaco Oil Companies. All drivers are provided with credit cards honoured by dealers for all major oil companies, and they use their discretion in making purchases. A conscious effort is made to divide the business.
4.	No.


INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHED IN DESIGNATED AREAS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5 84-Mr. Howe (Wellington-
Huron):
1.	How many new industries, by provinces, and areas have been established in Canada under the designated area program since this legislation was enacted?
2.	How many new jobs have been created by these new industries?
3.	What is the estimated cost to the treasury through loss in revenue by special concessions given to these new industries?
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Thirty four new businesses are being established in Canada with the declared intention of benefiting from the designated area tax incentives program since the enactment of the legislation on December 5,
1963.	A provincial breakdown is as follows: Alberta, B.C., 1; New Brunswick, 2; Nova Scotia, 3; Ontario, 17; Quebec, 11; total, 34.
No further breakdown by designated area is shown at this date because of the need to prevent premature disclosure of company plans which could adversely affect the establishment of a new business.
2.	A total of 4,251 new jobs is reported by the companies. This figure does not include indirect increases in employment by suppliers, service and construction industries.
3.	No estimate of the value of tax exemptions is available.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From May 1, 1963 to March 1, 1964 how many motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture (a) manufactured or assembled in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?
Questions


Mr. Hays:: (a) Nil; (b) 185; (c) nil; (d) 1; total, 186.


ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, GREAT LAKES DRAINAGE AREA
Mr. Smith: What was the annual precipitation (snow and rain) in the area draining into lake Superior, lake Michigan and lake Huron for each of the years 1953 to 1963 inclusive?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The average annual precipitation (snow and rain) given in inches of liquid, in the areas draining into lake Superior, lake Michigan and lake Huron during the years 1953 to 1963 inclusive is as follows:
Lake
Lake Superior Michigan
	drainge	lake Huron
	basin	drainage basin
1953	33.76	30.201954	31.07	36.251955	34.19	28.361956	27.01	29.801957	28.97	34.001958	29,67	26.011959	32.66	37.471960	31.26	33.731961	28.58	30.981962	27.19	27.801963	25.30	26.12


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Is it the intention of the government to place the school teachers in Canada under the Unemployment Insurance Act as recommended by the Gill committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Gill committee report is under review. The government's intention on the recommendations contained in this report will be announced in due course.


P.E.I. CAR FERRY EXPENDITURES
Mr. MacLean (Queens): With reference to vote 65 of the Department of Transport estimates passed by parliament for the fiscal year 1963-64, of the $100,000 voted for auto-ferry vessel for the Prince Edward Island car ferry service (a) how much was spent on this project (b) how much, if any, of this amount lapsed (c) how much, if any, of this amount was used for other projects in this vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: (a) Expenditure to March 31 1964, was $109,169.85; (b) and (c) not applicable.


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Was a contract awarded recently in connection with the South Saskatchewan river development project to McNamara Construction Limited in Edmonton and, if so (a) what was the amount thereof (b) when were tenders first called (c) when were they opened (d) on what date was the contract awarded?

Questions
2.	What are the names and addresses of the contractors and/or companies who tendered on this contract and what was the amount of each tender?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes. (a) $15,598,860; (b) February 5 and 6, 1964; (c) March 4, 1964 (d) March 19, 1964.
2. McNamara Construction Western Limited, Edmonton, Alta., $15,598,860.
Western Contracting Corporation (Sask.) Limited, Regina, and W. D. Wells Construction Company Ltd., Saskatoon, Sask., $18,898,695.
Paul Hardeman Constructors Limited, Vancouver, B.C., $19,947,800.
Mannix Company Limited and Standard-General Construction (International) Ltd., and Tallman Construction Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta. $21,428,962.
Piggott Construction Limited, Saskatoon, Sask., $21,472,242.80.


* SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS AND COST
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is the rate of progress in the construction of the South Saskatchewan river development project on schedule as forecast in the engineering plans made in 1959? If not, in what phases or aspects is the project?
2.	What is the total expenditure for said project made to date by the federal government?
3.	To whom and in what amounts have contracts in connection with said project been let since the first day of January, 1964?


Mr. Beer:: 1. The rate ot progress in the construction of the South Saskatchewan river development project has been such that the work is approximately six months behind the schedule forecast in 1959. Construction of the river diversion tunnels was completed behind this schedule and delayed the diversion of the river from August 1963 to February 1964. Progress on most other components of the project was contingent on the diversion of the river and has been delayed a corresponding period of time.
2.	The total expenditure for said project made to February 25, 1964 by the federal government is $72,852,241.47. Of this amount $11,673,663.90 has been recovered from the provincial government.
3.	Construction contracts awarded since January 1, 1964 have been with: Falcon Engineering Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, $65,906.18; McNamara Construction Western Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, $15,598,860.


INDUSTRIES IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	How many industries have settled in the designated areas since these areas were set up?
2.	What are the names of these industries?
3.	How many people will each industry employ in the next three years?

4.	What will their advantage be economically and financially?
5.	Is the Department of Industry changing the rules of selecting the designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Thirty four new businesses are being established in Canada with the declared intention of benefiting from the designated area tax incentive program since this legislation was enacted on December 5, 1963.
2.	Any announcement of a firm's intentions regarding location, type of business, and planned employment is made by the firm itself. Premature disclosure by the government could affect adversely the establishment of a new business.
3.	A total of 4,251 new jobs are reported by the companies. This does not include indirect increases in employment by suppliers, service and construction industries. No breakdown of the figure by business is given because this is a subject for disclosure by individual firms.
4.	Eligible business receive a three year exemption from federal income tax and special capital cost allowances on machinery, equipment and buildings. No forecast of the value of advantages to the new businesses is available.
5.	The area development agency of the Department of Industry has under active consideration the method of selecting designated areas.


VISUAL REQUIREMENTS, CIVIL PILOT'S LICENCE
Mr. Loney: With regard to the medical requirements for a civil pilot licence are there any pilots licensed by the civil aviation branch who have not met the visual requirements of the regulations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Pilots licensed by the civil aviation branch must qualify in accordance with the physical standards prescribed. The inclusion of an internationally recognized flexibility clause, however, permits some allowance with respect to detailed requirements in the case of an experience pilot. Where visual acuity is concerned, allowance is confined to the uncorrected acuity, full correction must be achieved by wearing glasses.


INQUIRY INTO AIR LINE SAFETY MEASURES
Mr. Langlois: Is any examination being made of the possibilities of establishing a commission to enquire into safety measures applied by various commercial air lines operating in Canada and. if so. (a) will such commission be authorized to enquire into the safety measures applied to private planes operating from commercial airports (b) how soon would it be possible to establish such a commission?

Answer: The establishment of a special commission for the purposes stated is not under consideration. The matter of aviation

safety standards is under constant and continuing review at all times by both government and industry.


EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, TIMMINS, ONT.
Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1. Are any plans contemplated to split the employment office In Timmins, Ontario into one office to handle employment and the other to handle unemployment insurance claims?
2. Are any plans contemplated to move the employment claims office out of the area and, If so, how is this reconciled with the Department of Labour's action in classifying Timmins as a depressed area in need of special consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Consequent to the decision to transfer the national employment service to the Department of Labour some consideration is being given to local office organization but no decision has yet been reached.
2. No.


BRUCELLOSIS TESTS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many tests for brucellosis were made on herds in Chapleau county in 1963?
2.	How many herds were affected by the disease?
3.	How many animals were killed in each herd?
4.	Who were the owners of the various herds, and how much did the government pay in compensation to each owner?


Harry William Hays: 1. Brucellosis testing in Chapleau county was conducted under the areas formerly designated at Abitibi East and Abitibi West.
Thirty four thousand, four hundred and eighty one tests for brucellosis were made on herds in Chapleau county in 1963.
2. Animals in 52 herds were affected by the disease.
3 and 4. It has been the practice that amounts paid to owners in the form of compensation for animals slaughtered under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act are not disclosed publicly. It is considered undesirable to divulge the names of the people who have been ordered to have animals slaughtered under various disease programs since it could be considered by some as a reflection on the health status of their herds because of circumstances over which they have no control. The following does provide the information in the question without revealing the names of those people involved:
Owner	Animals	Compensation1	2	$1252	1	653	12	7554	1	625	6	3996	1	627	1	628	4	2589	3	20010	1	6511	1	6112	1	6013	11	73114	10	65715	2	12516	3	18217	6	39618	1	6019	1	14520	1	6821	1	6322	1	6223	1	6524	1	6625	1	6026	1	6827	1	12828	2	12929	4 (1 died)	19730	8	52631	1	6032	6	39533	1	6234	9	57935	1	6036	1	6037	5	30738	2	13539	2	13040	3	18441	2 (1 died)	5542	7	42543	1	6044	1	6545	1	6046	1	6247	2	13048	1	6249	1	6750	2	12651	1	6052	7	432


FRENCH SPEAKING RESIDENTS, CJBC BROADCAST AREA
Mr. Loney: 1.	What is the approximate number of French speaking Canadians residing in the broadcast area of CJBC?
2.	What is the percentage of French speaking Canadians in comparison to English speaking Canadians in this area?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. On the basis of d.b.s. official languages tabulations, there are approximately 163,000 French speaking Canadians within the total coverage area of CJBC. Of this total, 67,000 list their mother tongue as French.

Questions
2. The total approximate population of the CJBC coverage area is 4,175,000. Thus, French speaking Canadians are approximately 0.40 per cent by official language, and 0.16 per cent by mother tongue.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 648
Mr. Coates:: 
Harry William Hays: One J-ton pick-up truck was purchased by Nappan experimental farm in Cumberland from April 1, 1963, to March 31,
1964.	(a) Cumberland Equipment Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia; (b) $1,975 (including trade-in); (c) yes; (d) Tantramar Motors Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia; D. A. Casey Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia; Rivers and Dickinson Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia; George M. Harrison, Amherst, Nova Scotia; MacCann Garage, MacCann, Nova Scotia.


NATIONALIZATION OF CANADIAN BANKS IN CUBA
Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): 1.	After the Canadian banks or branches of Canadian banks were nationalized in Cuba, did the Cuban government compensate Canadian owners or shareholders?
2.	What was the currency given in compensation and in what amount?
3.	Did the Bank of Canada intervene In this matter, and in what way was it able to protect Canadian interests?
4.	Has the Bank of Canada accepted Cuban currency on behalf of Canadian interests?

Answer: 1. After the branches of the two Canadian banks operating in Cuba were nationalized, the Banco Nacionale de Cuba paid to each of the banks an amount equivalent to its total invested capital and unremitted profits on the books of its branches in Cuba.
2.	The compensation was paid in United States dollars. The total amount so paid is not a matter of public record.
3.	All transactions involved were arranged entirely between Banco Nacionale de Cuba and the two Canadian banks.
4.	Answered by 3.

[DOT]new INDUSTRIES, PORT ALFRED, QUE.

Question No. 652-Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):
How many new industries have taken advantage of the facilities granted for the industrial development of the designated area of Port Alfred since the order in council was passed?

f Translation]


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No new industry has informed the area development agency of the Department of Industry of its intention to take advantage of the fiscal incentives program in the designated area of Port Alfred.


BREAKWATER IMPROVEMENTS, CAPE JOHN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Are improvements to be carried out during the year 1964-65 to the breakwater at Cape John, Pictou county, Nova Scotia and, if so, what do these improvements include?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No new improvements are planned. However, breakwater repairs not quite completed last year will be finished during 1964-65.


POST OFFICE SITE, ST. JEAN PORT JOLI, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: What method was used by the Department of Public Works to purchase a lot for the construction of a post office at St. Jean Port Joli, and from whom was this lot purchased?

Answer: The Department of Public Works has purchased no lot for construction of a post office at St. Jean Port Joli, Que.


CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING TARIFFS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Industry been drawn to the Canadian General Electric's announcement last Thursday that tariff philosophies are not conducive to making needed investments in export facilities in Canada, and that they are setting up plants in Europe and Latin America rather than investing in export plants in this country?
2.	If so, what steps have been or will be taken in this regard by the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes, I have seen the comments made by the president of Canadian General Electric Company Limited respecting the forthcoming round of tariff negotiations.
2. The government has announced the basic principles which will be followed in the negotiations. These are set out on pages 972 and 973 of Hansard.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many grants of all kinds has the government given to or provided for provincial or municipal governments, organizations, groups or individuals in connection with centennial projects?
2.	To whom were these grants given, what were the amounts involved and what was the project planned?
3.	What are the names of the organizations which to date have informed the government of their intent to undertake a special project for the centenary?

4.	Who, on behalf of the responsible federal minister, is in charge of the administration and co-ordination of all centenary projects?
5.	Are there any statistical data on the amounts that have been invested to date in various projects and, if so, what are they, by project?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Onl.):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. In his absence I could perhaps direct it to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister. The question arises out of the disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by viewers of sports broadcasts put out by the C.B.C. last week in southwestern Ontario, especially in the Windsor area. Is it a fact that our C.B.C. is under United States control to the degree that the manager of the Olympia arena in Detroit directs which broadcasts of hockey games may be televised in the area even to the extent, as alleged, that all televised games from Toronto come into Windsor only by courtesy of United States permission?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Perhaps I can deal with this matter which is of such great importance to so many people and tell the hon. member that his anxiety about this inadequacy is shared by many, including my hon. friend from Essex East and others from that part of the world who have already brought this to my attention in very strong terms.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement recently made by the commander of the Royal 22nd regiment that the honeymoon was now over for Canadians in Cyprus and that a blood bath was imminent on the island, can the minister give the house an up to date report on this operation with a particular assurance that all measures have been taken to avoid possible loss of life?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member directs my attention. I may say, however, that the most recent communication from Canada's high commissioner in Cyprus suggests that the
Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations peace keeping body in which Canada is participating is proving a very useful factor in the stabilization of that troubled island.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the minister's answer perhaps I had better send him over today's newspaper.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a final decision now been made by the government to send a brigade headquarters staff to Cyprus and, if so, how many Canadian personnel are involved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question on Friday I said we were considering a request from the United Nations secretary general to provide a brigade headquarters staff for the United Nations peace keeping force, and a few staff officers for General Gyani's headquarters. The government has now decided to meet these requests and my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, has the details.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I can say that the Department of National Defence has received two formal requests from United Nations headquarters, through the Department of External Affairs. The first is for the provision of five Canadian staff officers for General Gyani's United Nations force headquarters. The second had to do with the provision of a brigade headquarters, a signal squadron and a headquarters company, the latter for local domestic support of the brigade headquarters and the United Nations headquarters.
It is clear that some of the appointments in the brigade headquarters will be filled by personnel from the other participating nations. The role of the brigade headquarters will be to take over command of the Nicosia zone which is at present commanded by the British 16th parabrigade group headquarters. The headquarters will be responsible for the domestic support of the United Nations force headquarters and may be responsible for the administration of part of the Swedish contingent in the northwest portion of Cyprus. It will have under command the Canadian contingent, two British units of battalion size and the Finnish contingent, as well as a number of logistic units.
2082	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am sure hon. members can appreciate how difficult it is to establish exactly how many personnel are required, and in order to be able to determine this Brigadier Tedlie will depart from Trenton on Thursday, April 16, with an advance party of approximately 20 people. The Thursday flight is the normal weekly maintenance flight to Cyprus. On arrival Brigadier Tedlie will confirm the establishment required and call forward the balance of his headquarters, the signal unit and the headquarters company of domestic and administrative personnel.
Although it has been difficult to come to an exact figure as to the number of additional personnel required, it is estimated that the additional number of personnel to be sent to Cyprus, including the five officers in General Gyani's headquarters and the brigade headquarters, will total approximately 156. This would make the total number of Canadian forces in Cyprus 1,088. Hon. members will notice that this is well under the ceiling established in the order in council, which provided for 1,200 Canadian personnel in Cyprus.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieffe-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
It is based on the C.B.C. news bulletin at one o'clock. May I ask the minister if it is true that the United Nations asked Canada to send 40 R.C.M.P. officers to Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held between the secretary general and representatives of various countries, and Canada is of the opinion that the proposal should be considered by all nations, especially since Canada and other countries are now participating in the United Nations force.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As far as the R.C.M.P. is concerned-

Mr. Speaker, I should like to get more accurate information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the question I asked him a while ago. Could he tell the house whether it is true that the United Nations has officially asked Canada to consider the possibility of sending an R.C.M.P. contingent to Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct an important question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the pressures being brought to bear on the United States government by certain elements within the United States to settle the unfortunate Viet Nam situation by an attack on North Viet Nam, has the Canadian government indicated its fears as to what this might mean with respect to world peace if such action is taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been very full discussions between Mr. Rusk and myself and between other representatives of the two governments with respect to this matter.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the desirability of having at hand all possible information before we reach the debate on the second reading of the Canada pension plan, can the Prime Minister find out whether there is an updated actuarial report on the plan similar to the one we had last year and, if so, can such an updated report be made available to members of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into that question at once as a matter of urgency.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him if he has received a telegram from the secretary of the Nova Scotia teachers union complaining of the fact that boards of education in the province have been advised that all employees must register for a special insurance number and that if they do not they are subject to prosecution for failing to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not received a telegram to that effect but I think a similar telegram was sent to my

hon. friend from Halifax, who drew it to my attention just as I came into this house.
The fact is, of course, as I tried to indicate on Friday, that the printing used in one section of the sheet of instructions is set out in such a way that it might be interpreted to include the whole set of instructions, when in fact it applies only to the insurance book renewal, namely, to those persons in the insured population who have an obligation to register.
I will be glad to get in touch with Mr. Parker and explain the circumstances to him.


George Clyde Nowlan: A supplementary question. Under the law as it exists at the moment, registration is voluntary for certain teachers, at any rate; yet they have received notice from the unemployment insurance commission that they are now subject to prosecution if they do not comply. Is this an extension of an act of parliament of which the House of Commons has not been advised, or is it an intrusion on the part of the federal government into the field of education which comes strictly under the control of the provincial governments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is neither. The teachers are free to register if they wish. It is my hope they will register. This is really a misunderstanding based on the size of the print at the bottom of the sheet of instructions.


George Clyde Nowlan: My final supplementary question on this matter. I take it from the minister's answer that it is up to the teachers whether they register or not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker. I apologize again for returning to registration for unemployment insurance, but I am wondering why it is departments of the government are still sending out notices that in no way bear a relationship to what the minister has said is the rule. I have before me a circular letter to all employees having to do with the department of printing and stationery. I quote the pertinent part:
The new system includes issuance of a social insurance number to all employed persons whether covered by unemployment insurance or not.
This notice is dated April 7. It goes on:
The unemployment insurance commission therefore has undertaken the registration of all employees whether insured or not under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of allocating a new number. Before a new social insurance number can be allocated all employees residing in the Ottawa-Hull area must complete an application for a social insurance number.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is it not possible that this series of disorderly announcements which bear no rela-tionhip to what the minister has said could be obviated by one general order, instead of some people being placed in the position where they are threatened unless they register while others are free not to register?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the reading of the statement by my right hon. friend as I listened to him. I did not get the impression that the statement indicated that all employees were obliged to register. It is our desire-


John George Diefenbaker: So that the minister has the words I will read them again:
Before a new social Insurance number can be allocated all employees residing In the Ottawa-Hull area must complete an application-
Then over the page it says:
A final return date has been established for April 13, 1964.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, before a number can be issued the form must be filled out. That is how I interpret the statement, but I want to make it clear again, as I have done for several weeks now in the house, that the mandatory aspect is with respect to the insured population, which aspect derives from the authority of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Notwithstanding the apprehension which may have been expressed by particular groups of the population, I think it is still a good idea for all Canadians to come forward and register voluntarily.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question whether it is a good idea or not; these people are being led to believe that the government has a power it has not got. I want to ask the minister whether he will also give consideration to this. As suggested by the Saskatchewan teachers federation, some teachers have been threatened that they will be prosecuted unless they comply with this registration, as a result of which threat they did comply. They now ask that their registrations be returned, they have been made under a misapprehension and through a misdirection.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be very surprised if any teacher has been threatened. Certainly it is not the desire of the commission or the government to have any person threatened when there is no legal obligation upon him to come forward. I have attempted to make the situation clear from the very first time the matter has been raised in the house, and I have explained it again today.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour which is based on his statement of a moment ago that applying for a social insurance number is voluntary for non-insured persons but a good idea. Since that is the case, and since the minister himself is presently in noninsured employment, has he voluntarily come forward and applied for one of these social insurance numbers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will soon be unemployed yourself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not come forward, but I will be delighted to do so today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. When the minister has found out how he can apply for a social insurance number, will he let the rest of us know too in case we should like to apply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour relative to the completion of the unemployment insurance cards. A moment ago the minister stated that the teachers were not compelled to complete these cards and that there was no compulsion involved. I have a copy of the telegram which was forwarded to him by Mr. Tom Parker, the executive secretary of the Nova Scotia teachers union, which states in part:
Strongly protest recent letter to school boards from national employment office U.I.C. requiring boards ensure that all employees register for a special insurance number and declaring it an offence not to comply.
Will the minister make it very clear that it is not an offence for the teachers not to complete these cards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear, and I shall be glad to make it clear again. I think one ought to understand the background with respect to the apprehension of the teaching profession with respect to this card. The Gill committee, in its examination of the Unemployment Insurance Act, has recommended that additional groups including teachers be brought within the coverage of that act. Teachers' groups are opposed to this, and I believe they feel that if they fill out this form they give some indirect support to that recommendation of the Gill committee, which of course is quite incorrect.
Whatever coverage is undertaken for additional classes of people will be up to the parliament of Canada, and is an entirely

separate decision. The filling out of these social insurance forms would not, in my judgment, affect the decision in any way.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interject to say that we seem to have had an extended discussion on this quite important matter and questions have come from all across Canada, all directed to this one subject. I think the minister has stated his position reasonably clearly, and I think hon. members have made their points very clear. May I suggest that we get on to something else.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. It is related to the previous question and I think it is of very great importance. During the reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the Prime Minister made an interjection and said, "You had better because you may soon be unemployed". I want to ask the Prime Minister, is he contemplating calling an early election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me an opportunity to deal with this important, unrelated question; because I know there has been much talk lately of a quick election, and I would like to say on this subject the government has no intention, nor has it had any intention, of assisting and co-operating in any way with those who want to force on the Canadian people a third election in two years. We propose to carry on with our parliamentary program and get the items of that program planned for this session before parliament, and we propose to do that as quickly as we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I note there is general agreement with that, and suggest to the Prime Minister it would have been well had he told his colleagues this and they would not have had the meeting they had the other night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Although, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has made a suggestion and not asked a question, and therefore is out of order, I would like to set his mind at rest. There was no such meeting the other night.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address one more question to the Minister of Labour because my telegram from Saskatchewan states categorically that some teachers have been threatened with prosecution unless they register.

I should like to ask him to inquire into the source of these threats and see that they are withdrawn, and that no more are made by any agency under his jurisdiction.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be very surprised if any threats have been made. Possibly this interpretation has been regarded as a threat, but we will take steps to make sure no teacher feels there is a threat involved.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In order to overcome this great confusion which exists across the country in connection with this matter, will the minister consider using some of the $200,000 that has been set aside for advertising this program to notify people that only those who come under unemployment insurance must fill out these cards?



REGISTRATION OF EMPLOYEES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. 1 may say I have received from the teachers federation of the province of Saskatchewan a complaint similar to the one which my hon. friend has just brought up, to the effect that teachers have been threatened with prosecution if they did not register.
However, it is not of that I wish to speak. My question has to do with the employees of crown corporations and, in particular, of the Canadian National Railways. Have the crown corporations been advised that their employees do not need to register unless it is in connection with unemployment insurance? I am informed that Canadian National Railways and other crown corporations are proceeding as if registration were compulsory. Will the minister make this situation clear, since apparently there is a duality of interpretation still taking place? This should be cleared up at once.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situation, Mr. Speaker, is that only employees within the insured population are obliged to register under the authority of the act. I shall be glad to investigate this particular matter and clear it up.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. gentleman tell us 20220-132i
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the officers of his department are now working on a plan to prolong the winter works program in the designated areas after April 30 of this year?
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour) r
I have assured the hon. gentleman that this-suggestion will be considered. However, that consideration has not yet been completed.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received telegrams from the municipalities of such designated areas to the effect that the winter works program for this year should be prolonged?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to check into that particular aspect of the matter and identify the telegrams, as to whether they have come from designated areas.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosfhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Would he consider this not only for the designated areas but for all areas of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already stated that it is not the intention of the government to apply an extension generally to the municipal winter works program. That decision has already been made. What is still under consideration is the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman, fTranslation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether the Quebec government has made representations to his department, in order that the works period be extended to May? [Text]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, subject to checking; and if I prove to be wrong I will advise my hon. friend.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Onlario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Labour received any representations from the association of Canadian mayors and municipalitiies for a further extension?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will also check into that, Mr. Speaker. I do not recall having received any representations recently.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resour-

Inquiries of the Ministry ces. Is the minister ready to make the statement on the water levels of the great lakes and Georgian bay which he promised last week?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this report was prepared; I read it, but I was not too happy with it. There are further discussions-


George Clyde Nowlan: You were not too happy with what, the water levels or the report?


Arthur Laing: I thought there was not enough water in it. I expect to make the report tomorrow.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I assume that the minister is asking for an objective report on whether some action can be taken to remedy the situation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, it would still appear that the best thing we could do is pray for rain.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Hamilton East in his capacity as parliamentary secretary. My question is based upon a letter of which I gave him a copy just a few moments ago. I should like to pose the question. Is the department aware that recently two members of the Kitimat Indian band suffered acute gastroenteritis and the diagnosis of the doctor was that the cause of this ailment was the eating of contaminated fish from the Kitimat river occasioned by the pollution of that river by raw sewage? I ask the parliamentary secretary whether this matter will be looked into, to ensure the protection of the native people there.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the parliamentary secretary if he would care to reply to a question I posed the other day regarding the hospital at Miller bay.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first matter, on behalf of the minister I thank the hon. member and I will bring the letter to her attention. The minister will no doubt reply to it in the house.
As far as the second matter, concerning the Miller bay Indian hospital, is concerned,

I would reply as follows. The Miller bay Indian hospital is not and never was intended to be an acute general hospital. It has been operated for the past 18 years as a 147 bed hospital for tuberculous Indians. Acute general care for British Columbia Indians has been provided in community general hospitals, through British Columbia hospital insurance services, on the same terms and conditions a their non-Indian neighbours.
Because of the progressive reduction in the Indian tuberculosis case load, the department hopes to be able to phase out the hospital's tuberculosis function over the next two or three years. Planning has been complicated by an acute bed shortage in Prince Rupert general hospital. Because general care beds are not always available for them in Prince Rupert, Miller bay has, for the past several years, been admitting local Indians urgently requiring general hospital care. When and if extra beds are available in Prince Rupert, these emergency beds in Miller bay will no longer be required and the department can proceed with the planned phase out of the tuberculosis institution.
Miller bay Indian hospital has played an important role in the department's antituberculosis program for British Columbia Indians. It is, however, a former R.C.A.F. hospital of temporary wartime construction, and the buildings are rapidly nearing the end of their useful life. Inasmuch as the remaining Indian hospitals at Nanaimo and Sardis can now carry the full Indian tuberculosis case load, there will be no justification for the continuance of this substandard treatment facility.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask that the department approach the province of British Columbia to offer some financial assistance to the Prince Rupert general hospital, inasmuch as with the closing of the Miller bay hospital it is the only hospital in that area which will be able to accommodate native Indian people. Is the department prepared to assist financially in the additions to that hospital, in order to ensure that there will be adequate treatment facilities there?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring the hon. member's submission to the attention of the minister.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Labour.

Inquiries oj the Ministry
One arises out of the question that I asked earlier as to whether the "do not ship" list is still in effect on the great lakes. Is it a fact that some 4,000 Canadian seamen are still on that list? In addition, does the
5.1.	U. continue to charge an initiation fee of $240 for every person who wants a job on a Canadian ship? Is that system going to be continued in effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the board of trustees advised me last week that when they took over there was no "do not ship" list in existence, and that they had placed a person in each of the hiring halls to see that this practice is not revived. In connection with the second part of the question, may I just say that I will check into the matter of initiation fees. However, I would remind the hon. gentleman that if the constitution of the S.I.U. provided for a special initiation fee the trustees, under the legislation, are not permitted to alter the constitution except with the consent of the membership. I do not know whether initiation fees are part of the S.I.U. constitution, and I will check that matter.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister says the trustees have advised him that there is no "do not ship" list, I wonder whether the minister could inquire from the trustees how the thousands of men who were put on the "do not ship" list can get back to work. They do not have the membership card which permits them to go into the hiring hall, so in fact they cannot go back to work and are, in effect, barred from working.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the trustees have assured me that they are ready to right any injustice that has affected any
5.1.	U. member. They have suggested, and I have suggested in the house, that any particular member of the S.I.U. having a grievance in this connection ought to get in touch with the board of trustees about the matter. That is the procedure that ought to be followed.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inquire from the trustees, if this is true, why people who came to the trustees are being referred to Commander Robertson for adjudication of their grievances?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first step, in so far as the trustees are concerned, is to have the matter drawn to their attention. What procedures they follow after that is a matter for them, but I will be glad to inquire and report to my hon. friend.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I refer to a statement I made earlier with respect to the S.I.U. constitution. As I recollect the provisions of the trusteeship act, the trustees can recommend changes to the constitution to the membership, and that rule generally prevails except in certain instances where extraconstitutional powers are granted to the trustees. I did not want to mislead the Leader of the Opposition in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I was misled and I am surprised at the answer. I would now come back and ask the minister whether he was not misled when he said that the "do not ship" list is no longer in effect. I am informed that various seamen have been denied employment because they are on that list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that I have raised this question several times with Mr. Justice Dryer and as recently as Saturday, he being in Ottawa. He told me that the list was not in existence, and that if there is any way in which persons can inform them that this discriminatory practice is still being engaged in, the trustees would be glad to take whatever action they can.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on
Thursday and Friday last the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made inquiries concerning the number of orders for returns still outstanding from the first session of the present parliament. I now want to report that 10 orders for returns are still outstanding out of the 229 which were passed during that first session. On February 18, 1964, at the beginning of the present session, there were 49 returns outstanding and since that date 39 have been deposited, leaving a balance of 10. The departments concerned have been notified, and just as soon as the information is received from those departments it will be deposited in the house.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the last two or three weeks the finance department or the income tax department have been putting on a drive to get people to file their returns by April

Inquiries of the Ministry 15, and a lot oi people have the idea that that is the date by which they should be filed. Would the Minister of Finance clear that matter up for the public, please?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the returns are due on April 30. I am sure if there is any further information on this particular point which my hon. friend would like to have, the Acting Minister of National Revenue will be glad to supply it.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think a mistake has been made as far as the public are concerned. These statements which have been made on the radio and television seem to indicate that the 15 th is the deadline instead of the 30th.



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 Public Works and arises out of the answer he gave to a question of mine on Friday last, when he informed me that the government was now looking into the question of an application from the government of British Columbia for a licence under the Navigable Waters Protection Act with regard to the Peace river-
-because at this time we have not received any application from the province.
In view of the fact that six months ago the former minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, informed the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that it has been determined that the Peace river, at the point at which this construction work is going on, does come under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I would like to ask the minister how much longer the government is going to look into this; and is there any connection whatever between the extraordinary delay in dealing with a flagrant and obvious defiance of the law on the part of the government of British Columbia and the improvident arrangements that the government has made in the past with British Columbia for the development of the Columbia river?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the last time this matter was brought up I told the hon. member that we were looking into it.


Colin Cameron: Six months ago.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not for six months. I told the hon. member the other day that the


first problem was to determine whether at the dam site the Peace river was navigable.


Colin Cameron: That was done six months ago.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I told the hon. member that an opinion was secured from the Department of Justice, which was in the affirmative. I repeat to the hon. member that we are looking into this matter. Communications were had with the government of British Columbia, and as soon as this matter reaches a conclusion I will be very glad indeed, as usual, to report to the house.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): As a supplementary question, can the minister tell us of any other solution than calling on the premier of British Columbia to abide by the law? Further, why has the government waited six months after it had that determination as to the applicability of the act?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready today to give the house the decision which will be taken, but I still insist on saying that in the very near future a decision will be adopted and the house will be told accordingly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently the Quebec concentrated milk manufacturers' association, of which Mr. Georges-Henri Vermette, prefet de Lotbiniere, is president, made recommendations to the agricultural stabilization board. I would like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of his department to implement those recommendations.


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



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on March 20 the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, in reply to questions by myself and the hon. member for Digby-An-napolis-Kings, that he would consider taking part in the budget debate to make a definitive statement on the Canadian stand at the United Nations conference on trade and development and the relationship of that conference to the

forthcoming GATT conference. I am wondering whether the minister is still prepared to do that.


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if there is an opportunity I certainly intend to take part in the debate, and I shall try to cover these among other points.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TRIP OF WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction the Canadian wheat board comes. Since the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, Mr. McNamara, has returned from a two month trade mission in Russia and eastern Europe, can the minister report to the house, if he has received a report from Mr. McNamara, whether the mission was successful and will be beneficial to our country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a most successful trip by Mr. McNamara to the Soviet union and other countries, not because he was engaged in trade negotiations but because after the strenuous efforts he has made on behalf of Canadian farmers I think he deserved a holiday. He had an excellent holiday. I saw him in Winnipeg on Friday and he is in very good health. He did have some useful conversations with Soviet representatives and with other governments. Some of these were very successful indeed notwithstanding the fact that that was not the primary purpose of his trip. Therefore I think I can say to my hon. friend that from the point of view of Canadian farmers the trip was a great success.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport if he can yet answer the question I asked him on April 7, of which he took notice at that time. It relates to the over-all government policy concerning the use of crash position indicators in chartered aircraft.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration, but it is not customary to answer questions about policy in response to urgent questions on orders of the day. When a decision is made an announcement will be made at an appropriate time according to the rules.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that this is an urgent matter, since hundreds of charter companies are desirous of ascertaining the policy of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



LABRADOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house if the whole of Labrador now comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec, as indicated by the advertisement for Quebec savings bonds which appeared in the April 13 issue of the Financial Times of Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the part of the hon. member's question that I could hear did not appear to me to be concerned with my functions as Minister of Transport.


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



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Public Works?
Could the minister point out to the authorities of the national capital commission that the office of commissioner for the Hull area has been vacant since February 6?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for having raised the question, but I must advise him that we were aware of the fact and that an appointment to fill that office will be made in the near future.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRICE FLUCTUATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Having in mind reported new fluctuations in the price of sugar, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to ask the department to look into the matter and report to the house on the situation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that at their peak prices of sugar



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of information I am receiving that there is a complete drying up of N.H.A. loans from approved lenders, can the minister advise the house whether any steps have been taken to rectify the situation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The matter is under immediate and urgent consideration at the present time, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Can the minister tell us whether in his meeting tomorrow with U.S. attorney general Robert Kennedy they will be discussing the infiltration of organized crime into Canada and any plan that the government may have in mind to deal with American syndicates alleged to be beginning to move into Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is not a proper question for this time of the day, but I will take note of it as an indication from the hon. member of what he thinks is a proper suggestion for discussion.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 24, 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.
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the magnetic attraction of extreme positions has been well illustrated by the debate on the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on March 16, and now before us again today. Some speakers who have taken part in the debate have denounced the Minister of Finance, who reduced the forecast deficit by one third from that of the last two years, for not having done more to achieve a balanced budget. Others who have spoken regard the minister as strangely unenlightened because he has refused to budget for a massive deficit which could be achieved by greater expenditures or by a cut in taxes.
Now, what both groups are ignoring is that neither a balanced budget nor a massive deficit is desirable as an end of economic policy, per se. Deficit spending or tax cutting are useful ways of stimulating a stagnating economy, but they are useful only up to a certain point. Beyond that point they only inflate the supply of money or credit in circulation. Balancing the budget has a deflationary effect in an expanding economy, for it means that the quantity of money or credit in circulation is being held constant while the economy as a whole expands.
A balanced budget brought about by the simple expedient of slashing expenditures will have a depressing effect on an economy. This does not mean, of course, that balanced budgets are to be anxiously avoided. A balanced budget is desirable if it should come about as the result of an economy so prosperous that with the rates of neither altered, government revenues overtake government expenditures.
The demand for a balanced budget and the demand for a massive deficit, both of which we have heard in this debate, are red herrings. They tend to obscure the important consideration in the formation of national economic policy, namely the possibilities given to our people to earn a living. The general availability of jobs in a productive economy is what is supremely important. Balanced budgets or massive deficits are important chiefly as they influence this fundamental consideration.
The scarcity of jobs, that is unemployment, is now a regional problem, concentrated mainly in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, as the Minister of Finance told us on both March 16 and March 24. The deluge of unemployment has receded so that most of the nation is now free, but unemployment persists, albeit at reduced levels, in certain areas, and most especially in

Atlantic Canada. Consequently the approach of the government to the problem of unemployment must now be regional, and not general as a few months ago.
Those of us who come from Atlantic Canada are anxious to have our lower economic status corrected in so far as that lower economic status is the result not of nature but of laws and policies. It must be understood that we are not asking that natural resources be created by statute of this parliament, but we are asking that we be helped to overcome the special difficulties that our participation in Canada entails. These difficulties, which are basically three in number, spring from the fact that we are at the remote end of a narrow transcontinental economy rather than at the centre of a north Atlantic economic community. We are confined by tariff walls that do not help us much directly. In an age of improving transportation we are becoming relatively more and more isolated. Because of the centralized nature of Canada's savings and investment institutions, our savings have been drained away to produce prosperity elsewhere.
We would like to see freer international trade. We hope that the Kennedy round of negotiations under GATT will be highly successful. We want to see more and more economic and political co-operation among the nations of the world, and we should like to see the nations around the north Atlantic showing the way to co-operation.
But frankly, sir, we do not expect such moves to be so rapid as to free us soon from the disadvantages that pertain to our position at the extremity of Canada's national economic system. Consequently we were happy to see parliament recognize Canada's interest in the prosperity of the provinces by setting up the Atlantic development board and later by assigning funds to that board for its purposes. We are now elated that the board has set to work and is co-operating with the provinces in an exemplary way. It is co-operating with the municipalities, with the provinces and the federal government, and already it is producing results.


Robert Carman Coates: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John B. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Carman Coates: Does the hon. member not have some concern about the state of the fund the Atlantic development board has available to it at the moment, and the fact that large sums are being paid out of what appears to be a small amount of money when you consider the over-all impact this board is supposed to have on the economy? And does he not think we should have increased
The Budget-Mr. Stewart the size of the fund to indicate to the people of the area that they have no need to worry about future development?


John B. Stewart: In my view there is no question whatever but that the board should spend the money it was given, and spend it as rapidly and as efficiently as it can. I am quite sure that if the board comes back to this government and to this parliament, after having continued the record it so far has established, it will have no difficulty in acquiring more money to spend for useful purposes.
What I want to do now is simply to illustrate for the benefit of some of those members who do not come from the Atlantic area, the way in which the board has so far been useful. In December, 1962, speaking in this house, I mentioned a small town in my constituency, the town of Canso. This is a fine place, sir, with fine people. It is splendidly situated at the apex of a peninsula at the eastern end of the mainland of Nova Scotia. This peninsula protrudes out into the north Atlantic fishing grounds. When last I mentioned this town of Canso, the people were deeply discouraged. A great deal of money had been made there over the years in the fishery, but that money had been moved away to produce development elsewhere, and there had been little recapitalization locally. In fact the population had dropped by almost two thirds in the last 50 years.
However, during the last 16 months the picture has changed in Canso. An energetic company of competent fish processors has moved in; the provincial government of Nova Scotia has shown its willingness to cooperate; and the town of Canso has been willing to co-operate with the federal government. Consequently there is now planned there, the construction of what will be the most modern fish processing plant on the north American continent. In the meantime, the old plant is providing employment for the skilled workers of the community. Frankly, it is difficult to see how this would have been possible without the work of this board established by parliament, and without funds provided to that board by parliament. The future of this community has been assured. This shows what a board such as this, willing to co-operate with municipal, provincial and federal agencies, can accomplish when its members are determined to produce results. Now that a beginning has been made in Nova Scotia I confess we are anxious to see what will be done elsewhere.
In addition to the improvements in the fisheries which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) is now planning in co-operation with the provincial fishery authorities,

The Budget-Mr. Stewart our region needs the modernization of its agriculture and of its forestry. We also need the introduction of more secondary industries. In many parts of eastern Canada, forestry and agriculture go together; they are connected as the foundation of the local economy, and the appointment of a minister whose duties embrace both these fields was, I think, a progressive move, especially when that minister is also charged with responsibility for carrying out the ARDA program. Our own attitude toward the ARDA program is one of cautious hope. Our caution springs from fear that the program will be approached with a reluctance borne of indolence and timidity. Our hope rises from an idea of what could be accomplished by way of the rehabilitation and development of large areas of our countryside if plans were formed imaginatively and carried out with zeal and energy. We wish that this parliament would hasten to confirm the minister in his new duties, for strong leadership in this field is needed immediately. We also need his leadership in the establishment of an eastern feed grain board or agency.
Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), recognizing the need for secondary industries in provinces such as Nova Scotia, announced that tax incentives would be provided for new industry locating in designated areas. On March 16, 1964, he announced that the date by which an industry had to be in production in order to qualify for the incentives was to be changed from December 5, 1965, to April 1, 1967. That is a good step, but tax incentives only help to create a temporarily attractive economic climate; they are seldom enough to overcome the various inertial forces, some economic and some non-economic, which are drawing secondary industries toward the central part of Canada. British and European experience, as I mentioned in this house on December 10, 1962, has shown that specific assistance in various forms-the preparation of sites and facilities, capital grants to assist construction, and financial assistance during the settling-in period, can be most effective. I realize that many of these devices are not available to a federal minister of finance. Such measures can be initiated and are most likely to succeed in co-operation with provincial governments after a thorough but not too prolonged study of the resources available to maintain development. I should like to see the Atlantic development board encouraging secondary industry in Nova Scotia in these direct ways, in the closest co-operation with the provincial government of that province.
I suppose there will be squabbles occasionally about to whom the political credit for these activities should be given. However,
[Mr. Stewart.)
I do not think the possibility of such squabbles, repulsive though they are, should deter us from taking this step if on other grounds it is desirable. We simply cannot afford to allow political pettiness to frustrate a program which is vital to the people of our region and, indirectly, to the entire nation to which the Atlantic area presents a special problem, as a result of its lack of economic development. I should hope that if this were acceptable to the province of Nova Scotia the board would seek authorization from this government to establish procedures allowing for direct co-operation with agencies of the province of Nova Scotia.
But even if our primary industries were flourishing and even if a score of new secondary industries were added, neither the prosperity nor the employment to which we aspire would result. A high division of labour in the provision of services as well as of goods is needed in Nova Scotia. Major population centres are needed, for it is only in such centres that a high proliferation of the service industries is possible. This means that new industrial developments should be planned and encouraged, not sporadically, but around natural or established centres, such as Hali-fax-Dartmouth, Mulgrave-Port Hawkesbury, and New Glasgow. Consequently, it would seem desirable to have Halifax-Dartmouth included just as soon as possible among the areas eligible for the various development incentives introduced by this government.
The necessary agencies for co-operation between the board and the various departments of the federal government are in existence. What is needed now is a vigorous and imaginative pooling of ideas and efforts between the Atlantic development board, the provincial government of Nova Scotia, the various municipalities and the various departments of this government.
So far, I have been inviting your attention, Mr. Speaker, to certain internal aspects of regional development in Atlantic Canada. I now wish to turn to the question of transportation, chiefly transportation between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the continent. It would be the height of folly to spend scores of millions of dollars encouraging secondary industry; it would be the height of folly to allow special tax incentives to new industries in this area, if those industries are to be choked off by transportation practices based on false notions masquerading as sound policy. We may assume that in the absence of some compelling reason, such as the location of natural resources, business in Canada will be drawn by savings in transportation and communication costs to the area roughly between Montreal and Windsor. This

does not mean we should forget our efforts to build up and maintain a transcontinental Canada any more than the difficulties imposed by the law of gravity mean we should not build and maintain houses. We must face this question of transportation and communication costs. If we are prepared to insist upon the result we must be prepared to pay the price. If we propose, as I assume we all do, to maintain a prosperous ocean-to-ocean economy, it is necessary for us to have something which we have not had recently or, perhaps, ever, namely a new and clearly enunciated transportation policy.
The "value of service" system of fixing freight rates, under which the value of the commodity to be carried is highly influential in determining the amount to be charged by the transportation company, permitted interregional subsidization in favour of the mari-times; but at the same time it encouraged maritime industry to concentrate on the supplying of raw materials rather than on the supplying of manufactured or processed goods. For this reason, among others, our small manufacturing industries, unable to compete on the larger Canadian market by reason of higher transportation costs, closed down; and here we are, three or four generations later, striving to repair that damage.
Moreover, between 1947 and the present we have ignored the unpleasant fact that we must pay the transportation costs of national existence. We have allowed the laws of transportation economics to hold greater and greater sway. As trucking competition grew in the central region of the country the railways were obliged to hold down freight rate increases there and to seek compensating revenues at the extremities of the country. Each permission to increase rates had a compounding effect at the extremities-what I like to call the "saucer" effect. The present situation is aptly described in the report of the MacPherson royal commission on transportation. At page 27 of the first volume the commissioners state:
These inequities-
They are referring to the inequities in the railway freight structure:
-are principally a result of the fact that the railways' competitive position relative to other carriers has declined and, as a consequence, they have been forced to obtain a greater relative share of the revenues they require from the traffic which is least affected by competition. And, since the position of the railways vis-a-vis their competitors seems to continue to decline with each passing year, the degree of inequity experienced by the traffic still tied to the rails continues to grow with each general increase in freight rates which the railways are permitted to apply. If such a process is allowed to continue the end results are dismal to contemplate: either railway rates will become so high that "captive" traffic cannot move
The Budget-Mr. Stewart at all or else competitors will inevitably arrive on the scene to relieve the "captives" from their bondage-in either case, a source of revenue upon
which the railways are increasingly dependant will have disappeared and the railway financial position will have become completely untenable.
In this situation you will understand readily why moves to keep the St. Lawrence river open longer and longer each year, and thus to bypass the Atlantic ports, seem calculated to heap insuit upon injury.
Hon. members must realize that transportation policies are as vitally important to the future of the Atlantic provinces now as they have ever been in the years of our confederation. In 1867 the prospect of plunging Nova Scotia into the bedevilled cauldron of Upper and Lower Canadian politics was far from enticing. We were able to accept the invitation because it was clearly understood that national policy, especially national policy on transportation, would make confederation economically viable for us. We have no desire to become an 18th century-style mercantile colony, a colony preserved as a market for Ontario and Quebec while at the same time developments in transportation promote, first, the shipment out of the province of raw materials rather than finished goods and, second, the bypassing of our ports.
We still have no desire to become an 18th century-style mercantile colony.
We applaud the decision of this government to look into the ways in which the ports of Saint John and Halifax can be modernized. We regard that as a good harbinger of the future.
We know that efforts are being made to bring tourists into the Atlantic provinces by developing attractions there, such as the great fortress at Louisburg and the establishment of a new national park in the western part of Nova Scotia. Efforts are being made in various ways to encourage manufacturing there. Obviously additional provision is now needed for rapid and ample transportation facilities for both tourists and trucks between western Nova Scotia and new England. This is one specific thing that should be done immediately. But, sir, we are hoping for more from this government.
Since 1927 the government of Canada has been paying the railways millions of dollars each year in an effort to discharge the obligations to the maritime provinces recognized by the Duncan royal commission and by the preamble to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Surely, now that the railways have lost the monopolistic position they formerly enjoyed in many parts of the country, things are ripe for us to ascertain if these annual payments to the railways offer the way most beneficial to the maritime provinces for the discharge

The Budget-Mr. Stewart ot these obligations. These payments have been established in a statutory way and their validity is beyond doubt. What is not certain is that these payments should be paid directly to the railways, thus running the risk that they become a subsidy to the railways, rather than assistance to the shippers in the Atlantic provinces.
The present government already has begun to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway. I urge the government to remember its commitment, and here I quote directly from the pamphlet entitled, "A better break for the Atlantic provinces", to make available "financial assistance for building trunk highways in all four provinces to promote the tourist industry and provide better access to resources and markets". I think this is a commitment the discharge of which this government should undertake very soon; in fact, a beginning should be made this year. It would perhaps be a small beginning, but at least it would be a beginning.
In addition, I should like to see the government examine most seriously the possibility of obtaining permission from the appropriate United States authorities for the construction of an all-weather highway across the state of Maine to connect the Atlantic provinces with the eastern townships of Quebec, Montreal, and Ontario. The distance from Montreal to Moncton is, after all, only 400 miles; and the benefits from such a highway would be obvious. But there is a benefit which is not immediately obvious, and it is that it would introduce into the transportation situation in the Atlantic provinces a degree of competition such as is highly recommended by the MacPherson royal commission on transportation. I am not saying that this is something which inevitably should be done; I am saying that in this situation, where we need to review our transportation policy, it is something which should be considered and examined rapidly and thoroughly.
If unemployment is the major economic problem of the country, and if this has become a regional problem, then sir, the matters I have been putting before the house are of great concern. In 1867 Canada was joined by Nova Scotia very reluctantly, but we have overcome our reluctance and are now determined to do all we can to make Canada succeed economically, culturally and politically for the people of all its provinces. Our own economy is developing quite well. We are anxious to have it develop even better so that as the years go on we can make a greater and greater contribution to what we hope over the years will be a more and more perfect union.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) and followed some of his remarks very carefully. In particular he referred to criticisms which had been made of the Liberal program, I imagine referring to members of the opposition, and described them as a red herring. Let me say at once that there were none who paraded before the country in the last campaign more consistently than the Liberal party, criticizing the previous government's financial administration. At this stage of the game, viewed in retrospect, and in view of what has transpired, this is regrettable, because now we find greater areas of spending. Although the deficit appears to have reduced, we find in actual fact it would not have been, if the payment of corporation tax had not been moved forward. But for that I venture to say the deficit would have been equally as great in the coming year as it ever was in the past, perhaps even greater.
However, the point I wish to make initially is not that, but rather to indicate the confusion which exists as a result of government policy since the Liberal party took office a year ago this month. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) put his finger on the point this afternoon when, in answer to a question regarding the filing of applications for social security, he said there had been some confusion. He may not have actually used that word; he may have said "misunderstanding"; but this confusion has spread into three or four fields, such as into the teaching profession, into crown corporations, and so on. The present government are currently known more for this than or anything else. Let me say that the program of confusion which has existed since the government took office in April of last year is one which needs a little further investigation at this time, and I am glad to have this opportunity to bring these matters to the attention of the government, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
I should like to begin by giving the house a list of those areas in which I believe the government has mismanaged the affairs of the country, where they have caused confusion. In actual fact, in an age when we should be considering where the country as a whole is going it seems to me the government is unable to lift us, to give us leadership, or to give us direction in any of these fields.
First of all may I point to the present commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism. With that I would couple the attitude
(Mr. Stewart.]

currently taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Next is the situation which is being created in this country by this government owing to their proposed Canada pension plan. The third area, Mr. Speaker, concerns the redistribution of electoral boundaries. Another is government policy regarding veterans hospitals. Another is the situation regarding the flag we presently have for Canada. A further one concerns agricultural policy and the problems which exist within the country. Then there is the situation in the Department of Labour itself, which the government has brought about through its handling of the current dispute with the S.I.U. Another one concerns defence policy. For a government which has acted in the way it has and has spoken in the past in the way it has, the present policy of the government, although it may be desirable from the public's point of view, in restropect is a peculiar attitude for the government to take. Another area concerns unemployment insurance, and what has happened in this house during the past two weeks, to which I will be making further reference. Then recently there was the federal-provincial conference, and I draw attention to the relations which have existed since that time.
No doubt many hon. members in the house, even on the government side, could give me a longer list than the one I have just spelled out, Mr. Speaker, but I think that is enough for one contributor to this debate. To begin with-and again I refer to the transportation policies which were discussed by the previous speaker-I should like to make reference to something which was not in my mind previous to hearing the hon. member. I refer to the discussions which have taken place between the government and the industry which is most common in my constituency, the furniture industry. For the benefit of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) we would probably be referred to as a rural constituency by most hon. members in this house. However, in the constituency of Grey-Bruce we have the largest centre for the manufacture of hard furniture in the Dominion of Canada. I know the government is thinking in terms of a reduction in tariffs in this field. This is an industry which is indigenous to the area in which it is currently located, and it would mean an end to that industry in Canada if this reduction took place. As a result of the situation which existed prior to the present government taking over the treasury benches, the people employed in that industry know only too well where their prosperity came from.
Before I proceed may I make a brief reference to some of the words used by the
The Budget-Mr. Winkler Minister of Finance at the time of the introduction of his budget. He said, as reported at page 969 of Hansard:
All hon. members can take satisfaction from the improvement that has been occurring in economic conditions in Canada and from the optimism with which we can view the immediate future.
Those words would be true, Mr. Speaker, had he told us from whence and from what policies this outlook had emanated. It certainly did not result from anything which he presented to this house.
When I look back, Mr. Speaker, at his first budget and compare it with the one he has just brought down, it would seem that in 1963 he was trying to play the bad boy in the ball park and was saying: "If you won't let me bat I won't play". Then after he saw what could be done by his playmates in the field he threw his bat away and went home anyway. He has thrown out every policy he intended to bring into the house, except for one or two, such as the imposition of sales tax on building materials; and it would have been a lot better for him had he thrown that one out as well. Then this year, 1964, the Minister of Finance came in looking as though he had the world in his hands and made a very lengthy budget speech with what seemed a full bag that evening; but when the evening was over there was nothing there. It was full of hot air, and I think the country received it in exactly the same fashion. We are now in the second year of Liberal administration and all we find is the addition of confusion, to which I made initial reference in opening my remarks.
I also think of the introduction of his budget this year, which leads me to believe from my knowledge of the circumstances that this is the complete and total cause for the situation which has existed in this house over the last two weeks. As I said before, I shall be making further reference to this matter in due course.
If I may quote again from the remarks of the Minister of Finance in introducing his budget this year, he continued with these words:
The deficit in our current account balance of payments with other countries is still too large but it is smaller than it has been since 1954. The prospects for the current year are good;
Then later he said this:
Employment, production and incomes should all be substantially higher than last year for the country as a whole.
Then further:
It was necessary to move quickly on a number of fronts, and understandably some of the proposals that were put forward were questioned at the time.

The Budget

Mr. Winkler
I would say that almost every proposal that was put forward was questioned at that time. Then he went on:
It is now clear, however, that the main policy changes proposed last spring and summer have paid off well and will continue to pay off in the months and years ahead.
I do not know that the Minister of Finance at any time ever gave credit to the previous administration. He may have, but certainly in the tenor of his address to the house that evening he indicated to the country that any progress made was due to the policies which he and his government brought forward. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All that the Liberal representatives, who were sent to my constituency prior to the last election campaign, complained about was the financial problems we had in the country. In contrast, I wonder what the Minister of Finance and his colleagues would say this year. We have been assured that there is not going to be an election this year, and that is news after the interesting things which have transpired during the last few days. In fact I noticed a very large number of prominent persons of the Liberal party in town today, and they did not know themselves why they were here. That in itself may not mean anything, but it indicates what was suggested as having transpired last week may have been true.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the minister's party came into my constituency during the 1963 campaign, and prior to it, criticizing me and the administration I represented for its financial and agricultural policies. I doubt if they would go back to my constituency today and say the same things because the results of their policies are too well known.
Some hon. members opposite speak of "this government" and "that government". I still say this is our government, and nothing has been done by our government in 1964 for the agricultural industry in central Canada. Nothing has been done for the province of Ontario.
What happened to commodity prices after the 1963 April election? Ask the farmers. They know what transpired. With regard to deficit financing, it is well known that the previous administration would not have had budget deficit in some periods had it not given increased grants to the provinces. But that is not the way the Liberals painted the picture for the people. Their deportment was one of conceit, which is a regrettable thing when they propose a program to the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Political fraud.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, political fraud. Dealing with what transpired in the house during the last two weeks it is certainly peculiar that the government, and in certain instances much of the press, were very critical of the way we acted. I have here two motions which I might quote, but for the sake of brevity I will not. They deal with the same question of unemployment insurance and show that the former administration acted reasonably in looking after the situation. Nothing like what happened last week would or did occur at the time the Conservative party, under its present leader, formed the government.
The people are well aware of this. They are well aware where the blame lies for what happened in the last few weeks, and there is one very interesting observation that I would like to quote:
I suppose this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the reasons for what I might call the mess in which the whole of parliament is at the present time. Whether it is due to the intellectual or political amateurism of one. or the stupid obstinacy of the other, or the blatant opportunism of any other party.
Maybe the rules of debate do not permit us to read speeches made in the other place, but that statement was made in the other place by a supporter of the party that forms the government. What happened in the last two weeks was a shame, and a mark on the parliament of Canada. It showed the inability of the present government to manage its own affairs.
One can quote all sorts of editorials to support the view that I am taking, but in fact I place the blame on the Minister of Finance. I believe he wanted his budget hurriedly dealt with, before he went to the conference in Quebec city, so that there he could say there was nothing more to be discussed in that regard. All that remained then would have been the Canada pension plan. He could have told the provinces the federal government could not make a greater contribution to their needs, and that would have been the end of that.
But realizing at the end of the fourth day of the budget debate that there was no time to finish it and get the other business through before Easter, the Minister of Finance acceded to the wishes of others in his party and we went on to deal with interim supply and the supplementary estimates. At this stage I do not think it is necessary for me to quote the Prime Minister, but we took him at his word when he outlined the business that had to be done before the Easter recess.
On April 1 I put a question to the Minister of Labour, which he finally answered, saying that he was aware of the crisis in the unemployment insurance fund prior to the Easter

week end. I am not making any of these comments just to say I wanted to have Easter week off, because I was one of those who were here during the course of that week. On April 3 I asked the Minister of Finance if he was aware of the crisis in the fund, and after some lecturing he said he was also.
Since that time the Minister of Labour has seen fit to lecture us on what should and should not be our duties. He took a very arrogant Liberal party view of our duties and said it was our duty to look for this information, suggesting we were delinquent in our homework by not getting the information which we sought from him. The attitude of the Minister of Finance was exactly the same. Obviously, therefore, the whole crisis that existed was due to the introduction of the budget and the failure of the government to realize the seriousness of the situation. The government could have borrowed the money for the fund up until midnight of the Tuesday of the following week, but it did not see fit to do so after it felt it had the opposition in a position of prejudice and that it could arrogantly force its views on them.
We would have failed in our basic duty to the people of Canada if we had acquiesced in the desire of the treasury benches at that time. We did not then, and we never will, particularly if they try to crowd us into accepting these things. How else could we have found out the seriousness of the situation with regard to the unemployment insurance fund? Any blame for that situation must be placed on the shoulders of those occupying the treasury benches.
I have one editorial here from the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper that is not always, if ever, too friendly to the party on this side of the house, and the editorial is in support of the statement made by the hon. gentleman in the other place. Whether it was right or wrong let us not try to pull any nonsense in this house by saying it was the responsibility of the opposition. It is a very sorry thing when supporters of the Liberal party go around, trying to create the impression among the people of Canada that we have spent a long time on the supplementary estimates when they, while in opposition, spent a total of 26J days on supplementary estimates, eight of them devoted to the Department of Labour.
With regard to the budget, the point that is most often brought to my attention when I visit my constituency is the adamant view of the Minister of Finance in continuing and increasing the sales tax on building materials. Because of this tax the farmer is caught in a squeeze from which he cannot escape. Even in the case of minor repairs he has to pay this
The Budget-Mr. Winkler tax, and this despite the fact that his monetary return from the commodities he produces is so low.
Again I return to one of the points I mentioned, namely defence policy. I cannot deny that there is a measure of agreement throughout the country in regard to some of the ideas being proposed. We must not always look back, Mr. Speaker; there is no question but that we have to look forward. However, in retrospect I find it a most peculiar thing that the Liberal party should use the tactics it did with the armed services during the last election campaign and then turn around and introduce the policy it has now introduced.
The Prime Minister has said that the Liberals are not interested in going to the country. He knows full well that the reason lies in the results of the policies they have introduced. As I go down the list of items it is a list of total confusion and badly prepared legislation so far as Canada is concerned.
I should like to deal with a point with regard to which I believe the government can take immediate action, to repair some of the damage that has been done. I refer to their so-called efforts in the field of bicul-turalism, and I make these remarks without any reference whatsoever to our friends and fellow citizens in the province of Quebec. I have in my hand an article from the Winnipeg Tribune of Saturday, April 4, 1964, dealing with a speech made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) to his constituents, I imagine. He had this to say in western Canada:
If Quebec leaves confederation western Canada will be forced to its knees, begging for help and aid from Washington.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what degree of unity is there in words like those uttered by a minister of the government on the treasury benches? What can they expect? They say to us that we have to make greater efforts. Who is causing the dissension? Who is causing the situation that exists? It is my humble opinion that if the commission at present touring the country had never been formed the confusion that exists today would not have occurred.
I believe too that when the government thinks over things that have happened in the past they must have some soul searching moments when they wonder what on earth they have created in this parliament. I am referring now, Mr. Speaker, to the present situation in regard to the Canada pension plan and what has transpired. I believe that the pressure that has been exerted by the government on the province of Ontario is

The Budget-Mr. Winkler most unfair. It seems to me that the premier of Ontario has now made a study of the entire situation. He has voiced his opinions on several occasions and he now seems to favour the plan that has been outlined in the province of Quebec, an outline that I have here. But first, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to some words taken from the report of the 1950 joint committee on old age security. I find the following on page 107 of that report:
The committee further believes that such a program-
A social security program.
-can be financed and administered satisfactorily only by the federal government. Only the federal authority can establish a sufficiently broad base of contributions to make such a program possible, and only the federal authorities can ensure that an individual will receive the benefit to which he has contributed, regardless of whether he moves from one province to another.
It is a peculiar situation, Mr. Speaker, when we examine what has taken place up to the present time. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette which quotes the premier of the province of Quebec as saying that there is "no possibility" of Quebec entering the national plan. The articles goes on to say that Mr. Lesage was adamant in his position with regard to the federal project.
If that is the case today, what has caused the change of heart? The reason must be nothing more than sheer politics. The government likes to accuse us of introducing politics into the house from time to time, but you can see that they are at it almost all the time. Even back as far as 1950 they started to play politics with this matter and if I had been able to do more research and examine the records further I am sure I would have found other instances.
That being the case, I find the situation most peculiar when I look back to 1957 when the change of government took place, and when I refer to the attacks that were made on the leadership of the party that formed the government then. It is a peculiar thing how all this has taken place. There were names then that were important in this particular field such as Laporte, Levesque and Laurendeau. Those names were known then, as well as the attitudes they adopted and the positions they took. But now that they are in hallowed places we must not say anything. We cannot say anything about this matter. But I say to hon. members that if the Quebec Liberals want to adopt a certain attitude in the province of Quebec and to segregate themselves from the Liberal party nationally I do not blame them. It is a strange thing that the Prime Minister cannot maintain any degree of cohesion or unity within his own party at the


federal level; and if he cannot do that, how does he think he can maintain cohesion and unity throughout the nation? I do not know how it can be done. It is a very peculiar situation.
This is not the only incident. From 1957 on there were all sorts of other incidents in which the party across the floor was most efficient in attacking people's characters.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member not agree that, no matter what happens, so far as the pension plan is concerned it was this government's initiative that forced Premier Robarts into a public plan?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of statement we can expect from one who cannot cash a government cheque in his own constituency. That is all I have to say. As a matter of fact, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is spending money as though it was going out of style I would be ashamed to stand up in the House of Commons and say I cannot cash a cheque in my own constituency. Certainly the Minister of Finance has got more than he needs and I believe he might have ripped up the cheque and given the hon. member the money anyway. However, that is behind us.
The suggestion I wish to make at this point is simply this. I do not believe for one minute what was said by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), because in the discussion on redistribution I think he showed he did not have a clear understanding of what the situation is in Canada. He talked about rural tyranny. Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker. If the government places the tolerance figure at less than 33J per cent it will add to the confusion with regard to the things I have mentioned this afternoon and cause more confusion in the country and, no matter when the Prime Minister calls the election, they will not be in office after it is over. Of that I am very sure.
Because the hon. member has referred to the premier of Ontario I am going to say this in concluding my remarks. It seems to me that a more thorough study has been made in other quarters than has been made by the federal government with regard to pensions for Canadians. What about the farmers? The farmers are concerned; they are turning against the government because not only do they not understand the situation but they are coming to believe it is going to cost them more for less. There are so many people who will not be covered by the federal plan that many people who have plans of their own

in industrial plants want no part of the federal plan. This is the truth, Mr. Speaker. I am not deceiving anyone.
Our position is clear. The former minister of national health and welfare has made it clear. We want a plan and are going to support a plan but we do not think this plan is good enough. Mr. Lesage has brought forth a plan that is clear. I have it right here. There are survivor benefits, disability benefits and many other benefits plus a higher cash return, although the premium may be a little larger.
It has been proven actuarially that the premium will be higher also for the federal plan. I believe that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government want to do one thing, and do it immediately and quickly, to cause some degree of unity in Canada, they should consider reconvening the provincial premiers conference, study Mr. Lesage's plan and adopt it. Then they could invite these provinces to join us in a plan that will be at least national in scope.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to take advantage of the latitude afforded in this debate to raise briefly two subjects which are not directly related to the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). My first observation, Mr. Speaker, is that I dissent vigorously from the remarks made in this chamber last Friday by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I am sorry he is not here. I have told him that I propose to discuss his remarks, but apparently he cannot be here at the moment. He said, during the debate on Friday, that the remainder of Canada should give up trying to meet what he described as the insatiable demands of Quebec and should proceed on the assumption that Canada will consist of nine provinces. The hon. member in these remarks spoke for himself. I have no doubt he will find some people who will agree with him but I, for one, wish to repudiate such a defeatist view.
I believe, and I think there are many others who are not French Canadians who will continue to believe that we should give serious and sympathetic consideration to the genuine grievances of French Canada within confederation. I believe also, and I think there are many French Canadians who will agree with me on this, that concessions to provincial demands, from whatever source they come, should not go so far as to destroy the power of the federal government to give effective leadership in matters affecting Canada as a whole. I cite for example such things as full employment, opportunity for economic growth across Canada, and so on.
The Budget-Mr. Brewin We know that reconciliation of these two conflicting aims may not be easy, but it must be achieved.
I do not believe that with the present difficulties of confederation, observations such as those made by the hon. member for Skeena are helpful, however sincere they may be, or however much they may reflect some existing attitudes throughout Canada. In my view the members of all parties, from wherever they come in Canada, have a duty to interpret to the people of our country the spirit of compromise and conciliation upon which Canada was built. This spirit is still necessary today if Canada is going forward as a genuine partnership between the two founding nations. I believe we have a duty of interpretation to those Canadians who are neither French speaking nor English speaking, and who sometimes find it difficult to understand the historic realities upon which Canada was built.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would underscore these few words by repeating them in French. But my knowledge of French is limited. I know that my French colleagues understand me very well when I speak English, so I will refrain. However, I would like to reassure them, and those whom they represent of the sincerity and the good faith, of the majority of the Canadian people, and of their determination to do everything in their power to understand and satisfy their grievances.

My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), asks what contribution my French is to the unity of Canada. All I can say is, at least it is an effort.
I should like now to say something about this parliament. I believe there is a general impression that parliament is floundering, and such an impression does harm to every party represented here and to parliamentary-democracy itself. I believe the situation is urgent. Some of the difficulties are those of procedure and I hope that the special committee, under your chairmanship, sir, will be able soon to recommend some radical and effective changes. In the meantime I suggest that the Prime Minister and leaders of the other parties should get together and evolve a plan for the early and effective dispatch of the business of this house before the summer recess.
This suggestion is by no means original. I noticed it, for example, in the columns of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). If some temporary alteration of the rules is necessary, and could
2100	HOUSE OF
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast be made, as I believe it could, without interfering with the basic rights of members, then I think the house would be willing to give favourable consideration to it.
It looks to me, Mr. Speaker, as though it is getting close to five o'clock.


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



SUGGESTED BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS

Francis Andrew Brewin: That a special committee of the house be appointed to consider and make recommendations on a system of televising and radio broadcasting of the proceedings or part of the proceedings of this house.
He said: It was by chance, Mr. Speaker, and not by design that I find myself addressing the house, as it were, in sections or in instalments and on different subjects. The motion before the house, which I am bringing forward, provides for the appointment of a special committee to make recommendations on a system for televising and radio broadcasting of the proceedings or part of the proceedings of this house. The purpose of this suggestion is to improve the procedure of the house and also to use the best means of bringing to the public the proceedings in the house.
Parliament has been described as the paramount forum of the nation. I suggest that all interested citizens should have an opportunity to see and to hear what is done in their name by their representatives. I further suggest that television and radio are the best means of carrying out this objective. This house is not a private club or debating society. This is the forum in which the great issues affecting the country are discussed, or at least should be discussed by the men and women elected to do so. The original meaning of the word "forum" was "marketplace". Who would suggest that a marketplace should not be as open to the public as possible?
There has been a tendency, Mr. Speaker, in recent days to deride parliament. Just about a year ago Mr. Charles Pannell, member for Leeds West in the British House of Commons, pointed out: "It is not a new fashion to deride parliament. It has all been done before, and done better". During one of his speeches, Mr. Pannell gave some illustrations of his point. On August 4, 1661, Mr. Pepys, in his diary, recorded how an acquaintance said to him:


How basely things have been carried on in parliament by the young men that did labour to oppose all things that were moved by serious men -that they are the most profane, swearing fellows that ever he heard in his life, which makes him think they will spoil all and bring things into a war again if they can.
Charles Dickens, the well known writer and observer in the press gallery-I probably do not need to explain who he is-decried parliament in these words:
The great dust heap of Westminster.. .laughing, coughing, oh-ing, groaning, a conglomeration of noise and confusion to be met with in no other place in existence, not excepting Smithfield on a market day or a cockpit in all its glory.
In 1830, the essayist Hazlitt wrote this:
Talk of mobs. See how few who have distinguished themselves in the House of Commons have ever done anything else.
Robert Louis Stevenson said: "We all know what parliament is and we are ashamed of it." And Carlyle asked:
How is it possible to believe, much less to think, that in the Commons is rooted the strength of England, and not its weakness?
At the present time in Britain a group of Conservatives are circulating a paper under the ominous title, "Change or Decay". As Mr. Pannell said, it is a sort of legend that parliament has been a noble institution which has fallen into decay. Nevertheless, in his view, parliament today is more sober than ever it was. Generally, he says, we are not lesser men than our grandfathers were.
I do not know whether these encouraging words, which are applied to the United Kingdom House of Commons, the mother of parliaments, are equally applicable to the Canadian parliament, but I do suggest that much of the deploring being done about the Canadian parliament today is vastly exaggerated. However, this is not a ground for complacency and whatever can be done to improve parliament and bring it closer to the people, should be done. I expressed earlier, in another context, the hope that the special committee will report at an early date, and that its report will be vigorous and radical with regard to what needs to be done to improve parliament.
The suggestion I make in this resolution is one of a number of reforms which could be achieved. I do not suggest for a moment that it is the most urgent, but I think it should be considered by the special committee. I suggest that the televising and radio broadcasting of the sessions of this house would have beneficial effects both on the conduct of debate and, if I may use an over-worked expression, upon the image of parliament. Nor should hon. members be frightened by the novelty of my suggestion. There are always "stick-in-the-muds" who object to

anything new, and quite a few of them seem to find their way into various parliaments. Proposals similar to mine are being discussed at the present time in the British House of Commons. I should like to refer to the views on this matter of three of its members, one from each of the three historic parties in Britain. First, I should like to quote Mr. Iain Macleod, speaking in a debate on parliamentary reform on March 15, 1963. Mr. Macleod was at that time leader of the house, although I think he has since fallen into some disgrace with the Conservative party after having objected to the mysterious processes by which the present prime minister was chosen. Mr. Macleod, speaking of the proposal to televise sessions of the house, said:
I do not think we should be too afraid of this. I remember very well two instances, one of enormous importance and one of much less importance. where I believe that before the event people were afraid of the impact of television. The one of the greatest importance of all was the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen. Many people were deeply worried and desperately anxious about it and thought that it was wrong that television cameras should go into Westminster abbey. In fact it was one of the finest programs that has ever been put on and one of the greatest services that could possibly have been given to the royal family. The other incident I have in mind was a question about which very many people were worried-the televising of party conferences. Many people thought that we should all end up speaking exclusively to the television cameras. As we know, this does not happen.
When a Mr. Curran intervened to suggest there would be certain mechanical difficulties, Mr. Macleod replied:
I am certain that these arguments are formidable, but they are also not insuperable.
The next objection, raised by a Mrs. Judith Hart, was that the selectivity which would result from an edited version of proceedings in the house would do damage to the quality of speeches. Mr. Macleod replied:
It is possible, but one has exactly this difficulty with the sort of programs that exist already and which inevitably compress the events, as in the newspapers and on sound radio.
Perhaps I may turn now to the observations of Mr. Grimmond, the leader of the Liberal party in Great Britain-I hope that by referring to him I will secure some support from hon. members opposite. In the same debate, he said this:
The press, the B.B.C. and television keep democracy ticking over and once the press ceases to report the House of Commons, democracy will suffer. Every day the main headlines in the press are about things raised in the House of Commons and, much as we complain about the press, and I do, do not let us delude ourselves, the press is a vital part of democracy and this is one reason why I have changed my views on television. I used to be against the idea of televising the House
13, 1364	2101
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast of Commons, but it is an essential function of the house to raise issues and get them across to the public.
That is the real point of what I am saying. But perhaps the most vigorous exponent of television in the British House of Commons is Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn of the Labour party. Mr. Benn, as most of the members of this house know, was a distinguished commoner who inherited a title and was subsequently the subject matter, one might say, of legislation which enabled him to step down from the House of Peers and revert to the rank of commoner. In this he blazed a path for the present Prime Minister, Sir Alec Home-is it pronounced "Hume"? I am not sure.
As reported in the Manchester Guardian of March 21, 1963, Mr. Benn has this to say:
The time has now come to launch a campaign to televise the House of Commons. For how much longer are we going to have to put up with getting our parliamentary reporting by courtesy of the popular press and the self appointed television commentators? Why can't the cameras come to Westminster and show us as we are?
The House of Commons is the grand forum of the nation or nothing at all. Here, government policies must be deployed and criticised; here, the opposition must reveal and defend its alternative in broad outline; here, those who exercise power must be held accountable for the use they make of it to backbenchers of all parties; here the quality of men and women is continuously assessed by colleagues who know them intimately and who see how they react to stress and defeat as well as how they take their moments of glory.
The M.P.s who carry weight and are respected for their knowledge and integrity are not by any means always the same ones as those who shine in the contrived four-minute knockabout beloved by the television producers.
If the House of Commons let in the cameras, people would see us, warts and all. They might not like us all the time, but parliamentary debate is a substitute for civil war and they would more likely share our moments of passion than mock us for showing them. At any rate, they would be judging us by what we are and not what others, for their own purposes want to make us out to be.
Why, then, is the Commons not televised? Because many members-and this is more a matter of age than political affiliation-fear some loss of dignity and intimacy, and visualize nightmarish arc lights and even make-up and the heady atmosphere of party conferences. In truth the cameras would soon be forgotten once they were installed. Few younger M.P.s on all sides are impressed by these objections and for them the television lens holds out no more horror-or promise-than the sight of a journalist, pencil in hand, at a political meeting.
Televising parliament will, of course, come in time. The question really is, why not now, when it could do some real good? If there is to be a break-through it has got to be made an issue and not discussed interminably.
I heartily endorse the words of Mr. Benn and commend them to the members of this house. Of course there are objections. Some of them have already been mentioned and disposed of in the quotation from what Mr. 2102	HOUSE OF
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast Iain Macleod said. I had occasion to discuss this matter of television with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who raised, amongst other objections, the fact that members would, as he put it, "posture" when they were on television in the house. I cannot see the force of this objection. Is it not the essence of being part of a public forum that we are required to posture to some extent? Surely we cannot expect in this public forum to have the pleasantness of privacy as in a club, where we can snooze comfortably or chat intimately with our friends. It may be objected that some of our member are more photogenic than others. This is, of course, inevitable, but I cannot think that most of the members of this house need have any misgivings on this score. Each of us no doubt has his own individual type of charm which at least some of our friends and constituents will appreciate if they see us on television. I do not forget, and I remind the house, that the downfall of Senator Joe McCarthy was credited to television, as was the election of the late President Kennedy. I hope I will not be thought to be interfering in any way with or making improper remarks about the politics of another country, but I think those events can be credited to television, and I think they were all to the good.
All in all, it is my guess that if we were televised we would tend to behave a little better, rather than a little worse, if we knew that we might find ourselves revealed, warts and all, to the candid camera, reproducing our contributions to parliament in the private homes of people across Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the televising of parliament would be a contribution to Canadian unity. Instead of centring their attention upon local heroes, the people of Canada would have the opportunity to get to know the great men of other provinces and regions; we would perhaps be able to develop a sense that parliament spoke for all the people of Canada, instead of being merely the exponent of local and regional problems. I admit that there are technical problems and that the experiment would certainly not be successful if undue selectivity meant that a special show was put on by a few chosen individuals at the time selected for television. But surely, if the opportunity is provided, these objections can be dealt with. Nothing would ever be done and no change ever made if we were to concentrate our minds on the objections alone. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking the house to take this motion seriously. I think by adopting it- it cannot come about right away-it would contribute to that much needed development, 

the interest of the people of Canada in parliament, and the renewal of the basic function of parliament as the grand forum of the nation.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up the explanations the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has just given about his motion and to which I listened very attentively not to say religiously, I must tell you very sincerely that, since I read that motion, I have been both amused and interested by that suggestion, and you can no doubt guess why.
I had already noticed-with all the sense of humour I can muster and the few notions I have in this field-that, curiously enough, whereas I personally put an end to almost 16 years of work in radio, television and journalism to devote myself actively to politics, a few hon. members in this house, on the contrary, took advantage of their entrance into active politics to become on a regular basis, journalists, radio commentators and television moderators.
I have no wish to discuss here their personal merit, their success or lack of success, far from it, because I know from experience that they have assumed a very hard job, a very heavy task, considering all the work required of a responsible member of this house who must above all have that important qualification of attendance with regard to the sittings of the house, and the committees, not to mention his own personal work, in order to give his constituents a good and fair representation.
Now the hon. member for Greenwood- no doubt, in order to facilitate and reconcile those twofold responsibilities-seems to suggest an agreeable and practical way of discharging those responsibilities, by enabling hon. members to do all that without leaving the house. It is a gallant gesture with regard to all of us, I admit, but I seriously wonder whether introducing such a system of radio or T.V. broadcasting of part of our proceedings would really help "equally" all hon. members and bring about anything really desirable for the Canadian people.
When I refer to some of our sittings, you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the true and earnest spirit of hard work which should prevail in our proceedings would be seriously questioned, and rightly so, by the listeners or viewers. Of course, this might be a good thing, if we were sure it would bring a marked improvement in our proceedings and the quality of our discussions, but it must be admitted that it would take a bold man to say so.

Several factors play a part in radio programs, and still more in television programs. For instance, the tone of voice, the delivery of the speech, the quality and correctness of the language, the right clothes, the posture or the poise of the participant, his better profile and also, Mr. Speaker, and not the the least, the "gesture" which is most important on television.
You may be sure, Mr. Speaker, that we would certainly get our money's worth just watching the gestures which the hon. members of this house would be making on television. There we would have bellicose gestures which might serve the cause of separatism, or gestures worthy of the top-ranking heroes in westerns, when they start pitching lead all over the place, or the eloquent, grandiose gestures of the great Shakespearian or Racinian actors of yore, not to mention in some cases the frantic arm-waving, Allegro con vivace, remindful of that grand maestro, Leopold Stokowski, leading his musicians in Richard Wagner's Die Walkure.
See where that might lead us. Considering those remarks, Mr. Speaker, you can anticipate all the sittings and rehearsals we would be compelled to make in order to give Canadian views a dignified and commendable show.
Then there would be all the people looking after management, lighting, props, make-up, and all those technicians in charge of sound or picture, to name but a few. However, there is in all that a practical aspect which I ought to mention: it would be a great step forward in fighting unemployment, by doubling the staff of the companies which would be in charge of these gigantic productions. Unfortunately our Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who is not here, but who has so much to do, would certainly not be pleased with this new financial charge added to his budget already so heavily burdened.
In my opinion, however, there are more serious reasons not to pass such a measure, at least for the time being.
Many people, including myself, are of the opinion that our Canadian television is sick at the present time. The diagnoses of experts in this field are coming to us from all over Canada, so much so that several fact-finding committees are now being set up.
There are newspaper reports to that effect, as shown by these excerpts from Le Droit of Ottawa, for April 7:
A special committee on broadcasting is to be set up soon in Ottawa.
Indeed the Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) stated:
-that the federal government proposes to appoint a special committee on broadcasting in order to put an end to uncertainties in this field in Canada.
13. 1964	2103
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast
At the meeting of the Canadian association of broadcasters, the minister indicated that federal authorities will soon reveal some details with regard to the future committee.
As the minister responsible to parliament for broadcasting, Mr. Lamontagne remarked that the major problem for broadcasters probably was the lack of clearness and the weak points of the Broadcasting Act which was enacted in 1958.
There is some confusion with regard to the objectives of private and public radio broadcasting in Canada, with regard to relations between the C.B.C., and private stations, with regard to the powers of the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. and also with regard to television.
And he added:
It is necessary to find some solution to those problems, and it obviously depends on the kind of broadcasting desired in Canada.
And the article in Le Droit further says in respect of the statements of the Secretary of State:
He indicated, moreover, that according to the federal government the financial administration of the C.B.C. should be carefully examined. It would also be useful to scrutinize the conclusions of an internal committee of the C.B.C., which, at this time, is studying the recommendations of the Glassco commission with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Before broadcasting the proceedings of the house, we should deal with the deficiencies of our television and radio broadcasting system. Besides, it is not only a Canadian problem, because in the same newspaper, I saw on the same problem, another article entitled:
"Pontifical commission on modern communication media."
In that article, we read this:
The Pope announced today the setting up of a pontifical commission which will have the responsibility of developing a code of relations between the Catholic church and modern communication media: press, radio, television, movies.
The commission, staffed by experts on communication media, will draft "pastoral instructions"-
Of course, because this concerns the Pope.
-which will have to be submitted to the Pope's approval. Those instructions are designed to embody the recommendations adopted last year on that matter by the Ecumenical Council.
And now, the interesting point:
In announcing the setting up of that commission, the Holy Father pointed out that communication media "bring forth, at this time, problems so important that they affect not only culture, civilization and public morals, but also religion.
That is why I feel that we must watch very carefully what we are able to offer our audience.
Consequently, for the abovementioned reasons, especially to be short but also for other reasons which I do not have time to state now, I sincerely think that this notice of motion is premature. This is why I believe
2104	HOUSE OF
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast that we should defer such a study to a later date or if it is preferred, until such a committee is set up. We have, I believe, more work than we can cope with at the present time, and at the snail's pace we are proceeding, which is the usual speed of our debates, not to say that it is characteristic, I unfortunately feel that the motion of the hon. member for Greenwood, no matter how commendable and well-meaning it may be in several aspects, unfortunately runs the risk of being indefinitely put off, and I am sorry about it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for having introduced this motion.
I believe it would be worthwhile to form a committee of the house to see if it would be possible to try an experiment, first with radio, and then, later on, with television.
I believe there is no point in concealing things; we are elected by the people and we should not be ashamed to broadcast the proceedings of the house on radio or television.
I think it would be in the public interest, Mr. Speaker, since the public could see the behaviour of the members in the house and hear the answers given by the government when members of the opposition, or even government members, ask questions, and it could also find out about the attendance of the members, especially when a vote is taken.
It seems to me it would be important that the Canadian people learn, through radio and television, which members are present in the house or absent from it, which are those who take part in the debates and those who do not.
In my opinion, it would be in the public interest that all this be made known.
I appreciated the statements from the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger). By the way, I may say his constituents would have liked to see him on television, had this sitting been televised, because he had the proper gesture, the proper voice, everything. Finally, it could be seen he has great experience in that field, since he worked for a long time on radio or television.
If only for the sole purpose of compelling members of the House of Commons who are paid $18,000 per year to attend the sittings of the house, I believe that the motion of the hon. member would be most useful not only to the Canadian people but also to the members themselves. Thanks to these media of direct communication, radio and television, the people would then be in a position to decide at election time, whether or not the absentee member should be returned to the house. Or this would prompt


members to resign automatically and to abstain from running for office in the next election, to be replaced by some active member who would always be present in the House of Commons to look after the interest of the Canadian people.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward today by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is an interesting one in many respects. I should like to congratulate him for raising nearly every one of the objections which I had to televising part of the proceedings of this house and for giving his opinion as to how to deal with these objections.
X agree that there is a great need for a better appreciation of the activities of parliament by the general public of Canada. I say that because we have seen consistently reports in the press, which have to do their job in the best way they see fit, dealing for example, with want of confidence motions, in which reports certain members are accused of voting against the terms of the motion, whether it concerns sales tax, family allowances, medicare, or what-have-you, when the members concerned and even the mover of the want of confidence motion know very well that the only result which would eventuate from support of the motion would be to dissolve parliament.
That is just one example, but there are other matters which go on on parliament hill involving the activities of members of which the general public understand very little. For example, a lot has been said about attendance of members in this house. I think it is incorrect to presume that the members who spend the greatest number of hours sitting in their seats in this house are in fact doing the best jobs for their constituencies and for Canada.
I say that because, for example, all hon. members of the house specialize in one field or another. They may specialize in more than one department, but they certainly do not try to become experts in the whole spectrum of federal government administration. If my speciality happened to be agriculture, fisheries or forestry, and if I spent my whole time sitting in the house and did not prepare myself for the debates on these subjects, I could not really make a very valuable contribution to them.
As I said, there is a great need for the people to be better informed. But I am not sure whether this can be done by televising some of the proceedings of the house-although I have no objection to the setting up of a committee to look into the matter, and to see if it would be possible to do it on a trial basis. However, we will immediately

run into the problem of how much of the proceedings should be televised. In this connection, if it reaches that stage, I suggest the question period so that there would be a larger number of performers at any given time.


Mr. Woolliams:: Do you think it is a good idea to have performers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is exactly what it is going to turn out to be. People will give a great deal of consideration to the deportment they will project when the television cameras are running. Perhaps that may be overcome in time, but I believe it will deteriorate into performances.
Then there is the other side of the coin. Our government and our parliament are something like our stomachs. Between elections they probably function best when you are least aware of their being there. Certainly between elections you do have to make some decisions that may not be popular. This applies to functions of government, of business, and even in one's own private affairs. One has to conduct himself in a way that it is not a continual case of doing everything he likes to do or everything that is popular.
Furthermore, I do not believe parliament functions best when there is a series of spectacular performances. Even this year there was a great deal of criticism of the budget simply because there was nothing spectacular in it. That in itself is not sufficient reason to criticize it.
If the government takes the position-and I do not say I do-that during the fiscal year 1963 the proposals it brought in did in fact set Canada on a new course, and that course was producing results, then there would be no need to have any spectacular changes.
I am waiting for the day when the impact of television performances begins to wane because I do not believe there is much relationship between your television image and your actual administrative ability. The one is not related to the other, although this matter of how you appear on television, and the number of times you appear on it, has a great deal to do with whether you get elected or not.
That is all I have to say so far as we are concerned. We are willing to support the setting up of a committee to give the matter some consideration, and perhaps even to go as far as having it on a trial basis, but I personally am also of the opinion that parliament is a little over-publicized even now.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for introducing what I consider to be a very interesting proposal. As a matter of fact, this is
13, 1964	2105
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast one of those forward looking proposals we could expect from a member for one of the Toronto and district ridings.
In principle I am sure most members of the house would agree we should and must avail ourselves of every means to inform the electorate about our national government. I say, in a non-partisan sense, that parliament and politics suffer a great deal from the lack of understanding and want of information which exists in a usually apathetic electorate. For this reason I would like to support the motion before the house, realizing at the same time there are a great number of problems inherent in it. However, I think it would be the job of the committee to look into them, and we could expect recommendations from the committee as to how and in what way we could achieve our aim.
Some hon. members have indicated that we could be faced with a deteriorating situation so far as the conduct of the business of the nation is concerned, and I am sure hon. members would agree a good number of speeches made in the house are made either for political purposes or for distribution in the ridings of hon. members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you say that is why you are making your speech now?


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to see the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) back with us because he has been absent for some time. We know that reporting in the press gallery sometimes does not reflect too accurately what we consider is important in parliament. We also know some of the press gallery reporting coverage appears to encourage the antics of some members; but to be quite fair we can also agree that reporting by members of the press is effective in cutting down members who somewhat abuse their privileges in the house.
I do not know whether we could devise an equitable way in which the proceedings of the house could be televised. Many problems immediately arise, such as the time to be apportioned between the government and the various opposition groups; but in general I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood deserves to be entertained seriously.
We have also to remember that we are dealing with a controlled media where, at best, we have probably only two competing stations in any particular area. The danger of increasing the role of such a controlled media is somewhat frightening, taking into account the influences of advertisers and, if we are to believe the suggestions of some hon. members, the influence of politics and perhaps of future governments.
2106	HOUSE OF
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast
In raising this point I want to make it clear there is no other news media that is so closely regulated and controlled by so few. In my opinion the advantage which newspapers and periodicals hold over television lies in their ability to cover the news and the political scene in a way television never can, and we have to appreciate the fact that continually several points of view are being projected by these other media. This unique role that the periodicals and newspapers maintain, and which they have as an advantage over television and radio, has enabled them to maintain their competitive position in covering the news. I just wonder what extending television coverage into the House of Commons would do with respect to their position, although I realize they cover the news in a somewhat different way.
Having raised this point, I should like to say that I strongly support the legislation now on the order paper to regelate advertising in foreign magazines. At the same time I wish to express my equally strong disappointment at the provision excluding Time and Reader's Digest. I urge the government to reconsider its decision and I hope it will delete the clause excluding these two publications before the legislation is proceeded with. I do not think any member of the house could seriously quarrel with the fact that these publications are engaged in a dumping procedure as far as Canada is concerned, and I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that they reflect a truly Canadian viewpoint. Finally, may I say that in my opinion this motion has a great deal of merit and should be referred to the appropriate committee for study. I should like again to commend the hon. member for introducing it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this resolution may I say I am very much against it on two counts. First of all, I think that people generally have some misapprehension today as to the functions of parliament. I think it would be well to examine the British system because under that system there are no desks in the chamber. There are places to which you go but no desks are assigned, and they have made their House of Commons a chamber of debate.
There is a feeling across the country, which I think might grow if our proceedings were televised, that units; members are warming the green leather seats in the Ho se of Commons they are not performing their functions as members of parliament. I do not agree that this is the sole function of a member. Basically the function of parliament is to be a chamber for debating our principles, our policies and also legislation.


The functions of a member of parliament are many in number. One of his functions is to be present during debates when he finds it necessary, I suppose. We are all guilty of some parochialism in regard to the areas from which we come. Those from the prairies may not be too interested in some of the industries of other parts of the country, so they may be discharging other duties. They may be attending committees or in their offices. In fact, we may even be outside of Ottawa altogether. It seems to me that our function is not to present our personal opinions here and I do not know how we can express the opinions of our constituents, whether we represent 260,000 or 60,000, unless we keep in contact with them.
I believe that at one time the province of Saskatchewan broadcast the proceedings of its legislature over the radio, but I do not think it is done today. I understand it was not very satisfactory and if our proceedings were televised I do not believe it would be very satisfactory. I ask this question: What network would want to carry the proceedings of the House of Commons day after day and, if it did so, would it be very profitable to it? How many viewers would there be? There are many times when we are in committee of the whole or engaged in other debates when the people of Canada, I believe, would not want to view the proceedings.
Then there is the human nature aspect. There is talk about delays in parliament. I have only been here since 1958 but whether the Liberals, the New Democratic party or the Social Credit party are the main opposition, I do not think there is going to be much change in the proceedings of the House of Commons from year to year unless we get down to amending the rules that govern debate in parliament.
I think we are all guilty of one thing. When the Liberals sat over here and we were over there, the situation was reversed. I am certain that the splinter parties are no more holy or moral politically, and if one of them happened to form the government the situation would be no different. I am sure that many members agree we have to get down to amending the rules of the House of Commons. If the rules were amended there might then be something to view, but there is no question that at the present time there are serious procedural delays. Sometimes these delays are misunderstood. I think it would be a sad and sorry day for democracy if the people of Canada, unless they had had the opportunity to become familiar with the situation through election to parliament, could walk into a room and view a debate on television, and be expected from viewing it to understand what parliament is about.

I repeat that parliament is a place where we debate principles and policies. If we had a camera here today it would not matter which side of the house was shown, although one corner may be a little better populated this afternoon than the others. However, I do not think that group can make any particular claim, because as far as absenteeism is concerned for the purpose of being in one's office or performing other duties I think the record of one party is just about the same as that of any other party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You make up for all your absent colleagues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend has said that I was absent from the House of Commons. I did not intend to say this but somebody else has also referred to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that you and your appearance make up for all your absent colleagues. You are here; we are glad to see you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is fine. I am not going to go into any details except to say that I had a reason for being absent in the last few weeks, and I think it is known in the city of Calgary. I do not believe one should go into anything personal in a debate and I am not going to do so. Seriously, as far as I am concerned I cannot believe that the people of Canada want to view exactly what is on that side of the house at the present time, empty seats, and what is on this side, also some empty seats. They probably would not appreciate that, after all, we are merely debating a private member's notice of motion. For example, when I was absent from the House of Commons-


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not realize that if we had television of these proceedings the spotlight would be on him at this moment and not upon the empty seats around him?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That might be the greatest mistake television ever made, Mr. Speaker. This is what I am afraid of. These prima donnas to my left would always be talking because they would want to have their "physogs" before the camera to show what hardworking members of parliament they are and what great reformers they have been since the time of confederation.
I just want to complete one point before the question is put. The proceedings of the house have to be thoroughly understood and I think they can only be understood if one spends some time in the House of Commons or in the press gallery or in the public galleries. Things are misunderstood. For example, a week ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brought in a private bill which 20220-133
13, 1964	2107
Suggested House Proceedings Broadcast got headlines across the country. Many people I talked to really believed there was a bill before the House of Commons to abolish the Senate, which might be passed. Very few people appreciated that there is only one hour each day for private bills. They thought it was government bill or a bill that would really be debated for weeks with the result that the Senate would either be abolished or not abolished.
I think there would be greater misunderstanding if people just viewed certain proceedings of the House of Commons because they would get the wrong idea. That is my feeling about the matter and it is supported by the experience in Saskatchewan where the C.C.F. government of that day instituted broadcasting of the proceedings of the legislature by radio. They gave it up because they found it was not very satisfactory. After the novelty wore off people were not too interested. I suppose that televising the proceedings might possibly clear up some misunderstandings. However, last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) made a speech in Lethbridge. He said there had been some delay in the proceedings of the house, with the result that the government had not been able to proceed with its farm legislation, which was on the order paper, and get it passed. I have looked at the order paper and I cannot find any farm legislation. I suppose what he was doing was more or less bluffing about the proceedings on the basis of the debate on the supplementary estimates. I do not believe the putting of the proceedings of this House of Commons on television is going to clear up that misunderstanding. In fact, I would say it would only add to the confusion.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I should like to finish what I have to say. You have had time to make your speech, so I would like to complete my remarks. If the house would like to adopt this motion, 1 should like to see it given an opportunity to go on record in that regard.
Basically, I believe the adoption of this scheme would only add to the confusion. Surely, there is enough confusion now. This is illustrated by the things we read in newspapers about what really goes on in parliament. There is no doubt about it, so far as a member of the house is concerned and the members of the various political parties, the political image is still important. As hon. members know, there was a book written about one prime minister, and I would invite hon. members to read about the myth built up about the late President Kennedy. It is rather interesting to read the history of that

Royal Assent
situation. I suppose the book was withheld from publication because of the tragedy that took place last year. There is no doubt about it, a myth was built up. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that television would help in creating a false image of parliament in the minds of the Canadian people. So far as I am concerned, I oppose this motion on that basis and I oppose any legislation arising out of it.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: 
[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.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, as I survey the house this evening I think it would be appropriate to call a snap vote.


An hon. Member:: On what?


Francis Andrew Brewin: On almost anything. It may be a bit of a shock to the members of the house to hear that at this stage of my speech I propose to discuss the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: This is a subject which, after a few weeks of supplementary estimates, seems to be lost in some sort of a haze and be somewhat remote at this time. I recall that when the debate proceeded before, certain adjectives were used about the budget. I think it was described as a "stand pat" budget, a "do nothing" budget, and I propose to add a few phrases of description of my own. The budget seems to me to be a budget of creeping complacency; it is conservative to the core. I use that word not in the political sense but in the proper meaning of the word conservative. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) blanch as I use these words.


An hon. Member:: "Squirm".


Francis Andrew Brewin: "Squirm" is the word that my colleague suggests. At any rate, it is appropriate to the occasion. This budget is a declaration of neutrality in the war against poverty. It accepts the sterile orthodoxies of the 1930's. It fails altogether to employ the fiscal remedies available to deal with the present day problems-problems of growth and of unemployment. At a time when we urgently need federal leadership we get this uninspiring, negative and deadening budget. At a time when we need to move firmly forward, we are invited to stand still. Those are a few of the adjectives that I think can properly be added to describe this budget.
One could almost hear the sigh of relief with which the government accepted as an excuse for inaction the stimulus to the economy of the purely fortuitous sales of wheat to countries behind the iron curtain. It is our belief that the budget could be, and should be, an important instrument to be used aggressively to promote expansion, to cure unemployment and to remove unnecessary poverty. It is our conviction that it will be found impossible to change over the Canadian economy to rapid and steady growth and full employment without taking vigorous measures to induce greater equality of opportunity and standards of living for Canadians. To put it in other words, if we moved vigorously to meet the most urgent unfilled needs of fellow Canadians, we would at the same time be giving an impetus to our whole

economy. The pursuit of social justice will lead to economic progress. There may be some who question whether or not we have in Canada serious destitution, poverty or deprivation. In our affluent North American society much poverty is hidden. There can, however, be no doubt that it is real.
A well known Swedish economist, Mr. Gunnar Myrdal, in his recent book "Challenge to Affluence" has outlined the situation in the United States. He documented the continuing pockets of poverty in that most prosperous and affluent society. He points out that the bureau of census, several of the departments in Washington and of the state administrations, university institutions and other research outfits have in recent years done a commendable job of laying bare the facts of American poverty and of the causal relations behind this poverty. I commend to hon. members opposite the most fascinating statistical review I have ever read-perhaps the only fascinating statistical review I have ever read-called "Rich Man, Poor Man" by Herman P. Miller, special assistant to the United States bureau of statistics. I would suggest to some aspiring Canadian statistician that he should write such a book and do the same thing for Canada as Mr. Miller did for the United States. We do not appear to have up to date information available in Canada, although some significant facts can be obtained from income tax statistics. Some of these were presented to the house in this debate by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow); others, to which I will refer later, are to be found in a report of the research projects section of the dominion bureau of statistics for the year 1957.
It is highly probable that the conclusions arrived at by Professor Myrdal and Mr. Miller about the United States are roughly comparable to the conditions which exist in Canada. Professor Myrdal based his conclusions on a condensation of various studies derived from "Poverty and deprivation in the United States", published by the conference on economic progress. He defined "poverty" for multiple-persons families as having to live on a family income of under $4,000 a year; and for unattached individuals, under $2,000 a year. On this definition 38 million Americans-or more than one fifth of the nation-were poor in 1960. Similar figures in Canada would mean that between three million and four million Canadians fall below the poverty line. In the United States another 39 million were below what Professor Myrdal calls the "deprivation line", that is to say had incomes, for families, between $4,000 and $6,000, and for individuals between $2,000 20220-133J
The Budget-Mr. Brewin and $3,000. He uses another term, "destitution"; that is to say, the situation of people with less than half of the income representing the poverty line. This destitution was the destiny of more than 12J million Americans, or nearly 7 per cent of the population of the United States.
A similar figure for Canada would be over 1J million. The groups which in the United States of America are afflicted by poverty are the minorities, such as the non-whites, small farmers and farm workers, the people from 65 years of age upward, the less well educated and the unemployed, and 40 per cent of the families whose heads were unemployed were living in poverty. Poverty hits the family whose head is a female, the family which has lost a husband and father, or never had one. Long term unemployment is creating a class of unemployables. Even the figures of unemployment do not present a full picture, as many are under-employed, that is employed part-time, and many who could, in a full employment economy, be employed do not enter the labour market.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian poverty can be found in similar groups. I am particularly concerned about destitution among older people. The survey conducted by the research projects section of the dominion bureau of statistics which I have already referred to indicates that approximately one quarter of the heads of families and unattached individuals over 65 throughout Canada, other than farmers, had cash incomes of less than $1,000 a year in 1957 and that this figure reached in the prairie provinces nearly one half of the families and individuals.
I do not have available the figures to fit into Professor Myrdal's analysis of destitution, but it is clear that destitution is the common fate of most Canadians over 65. Indeed, the average income of families-this is of whole families-with heads aged 65 or over was $2,535 for Canada, and as low as $1,830 for the prairie provinces.
It may be asked; What can the budget do about this? The first thing to be recognized is that redistributional reform is necessary from the point of view of social justice. Redistributional reform involves a reduction in the tax burden on persons in the lower income brackets, as well as the imposition of the capital gains tax as suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron).
I know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a royal commission on taxation which has not yet reported, but I venture to say that no royal commission on taxation is needed to demonstrate the injustice of maintaining income tax on persons with an income which is in

The Budget-Mr. Brewin fact so low as to put them below a reasonable definition of poverty. In 1961, the last year for which figures are available to me, there were 2,495,168 taxpayers with incomes of less than $4,000, who paid a total tax of $387.4 million. To remove the tax burden from the backs of those already suffering from poverty in an affluent society would be an act of social justice which it would be well within the capacity of the government to undertake immediately. But the argument for such a reduction in taxation at the lower levels is not merely to benefit the poor. This tax reduction would be equally as important as a basis for the achievement of expansion of the economy. It would be of general economic interest and not only benefit the poor themselves. Unemployment and the lower productivity of the lower income brackets is one of our major unutilized and under-utilized resources.
Is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to have the good sense to see that a real effort to relieve those in need is, according to the best economic advice we can get, also part of economic wisdom? In the United States of America the government has accepted the notion of an unremitting war on poverty. Our government should at least be as equally committed to such a war. It could perhaps take a look at the American example of tax cutting. A substantial tax cut suggested by the President of the United States was accepted by congress as a necessary means of stimulating a relatively stagnant economy. A proportionate tax cut in Canada would amount to roughly $500 million. Our economy has at least been equally as stagnant as the United States economy. Why has the government rejected a similar stimulus to the Canadian economy? The tax cut approved by congress in the United States was, in accordance with the American pattern, not applied at the lower levels only. It is my contention that if a tax cut of half a billion dollars were applied by the Canadian government and applied at the lower levels of income, the increased demand would give a tremendous and urgently needed stimulus to the Canadian economy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two other matters I would like to mention. I was very greatly disappointed at the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on Friday that the federal government was not going to increase its contribution to hospital construction. I found one of the reasons he gave particularly disturbing. He said that one or more provinces had objected. If, Mr. Speaker, there is a grave crisis affecting the lives and health of a very large section of Canada-there is no doubt that there is and
CMr. Brewin.]

I could spend much time documenting the case-is the veto of some province or provinces to prevent federal action? The Prime Minister, in my judgment, has shown weakness in sheltering behind the objection of one or two provinces.
The statement that hospitals are a provincial responsibility is indeed true; but the existence of the present federal hospital grants is a recognition that a federal contribution is in order. If it is to be made at all, why should it not be increased to keep up with increasing costs and to aid in relieving a very real and grave crisis? Because the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) and myself have been consistently pressing for federal relief in this field, an impression has developed that this is a local Toronto matter. It is nothing of the sort. It is a matter seriously affecting every urban and metropolitan centre.
We are glad to hear in this house about the special needs of other areas-Quebec, the maritimes, the prairies, the Yukon, and so on. I hope the government does not think that it should ignore the needs and requests of major metropolitan areas, which in numbers alone exceed most of the provinces. It will be making a great mistake if it does.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one more subject I should like to mention if I have time. I should like to say a few words about another notable document which was brought before the house since the budget was introduced, and I refer to the white paper on defence. It is very obviously related to the budget as it contemplates continuing defence expenditures of more than $1.5 billion a year. Obviously I have not time to discuss the white paper in detail. It has received a very good press, and the impression has been created, not I must say from any careful reading of the white paper itself, that the machinery of integration which it proposes and which has been highlighted represents a substantial saving, and that the proposals of the white paper taken together would, if carried into effect, bring about a substantial lightening of the burden of defence expenditure. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the gains on the swings are more than made up on the roundabouts. At page 24 of the white paper-I will not have time to read it

are serious proposals for additional major expenditures.
The fact is that the white paper is a very serious disappointment. It puts some new and welcome emphasis on Canada's peace keeping role and the mobile forces required to fulfil it. It talks of the obsolescence of strategic concepts and then provides for Canada to continue its part in the obsolete

and indeed dangerous concept of tactical nuclear weapons to be used in response to any aggression in Europe. The search for the new and more realistic and effective role that the Prime Minister in his famous Scarborough speech of January 1963, saw as the result of promise of re-examination, turns out to be a mirage. The truth is that the white paper tries to do the impossible. It clings to the old love and seeks to embrace the new at the same time. It cannot do both. It cannot sustain an effective mobile intervention role in NATO and for the United Nations, and at the same time maintain our share of the forward forces by supplying a brigade group and air force squadrons for the front line in Europe.
The white paper falls between two stools. The bold, new look that was promised has been compromised by the conservatism which has prevented a break with the past. The real dilemma has not been solved. We are going to proceed with the continuing futility of doing a little of everything that is involved. The white paper poses the question of whether our role should be a nuclear or a non-nuclear one, and then evades it.
The white paper talks of flexibility. I hope this means that the minister and his advisers will move forward from the very small advance they have made, as represented in the white paper. I can assure the Minister of Finance, if he needs assurance, that until they do, until they move forward from trying to do a little bit of everything, as the white paper suggests, his problems of rising defence expenditures will grow, and not diminish, as the years go by.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Si. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in this debate and perhaps, like the hon. member who preceded me, I too may stray a little from the subject of the budget.
At the outset may I say I was pleased with the reference made by the Minister of Finance to the extension of family allowances to the 16 and 17 year old students still in school. I was also encouraged by his reference to a student loan plan because this represents a great improvement. I do not think I would go far as to say it is an unprecedented step, but certainly it shows a welcome attention being paid by the federal government to the problems of the youth of the country.
Certainly in the whole field of social security this government is to be congratulated for at least showing its willingness to bring in some new legislation. Indeed, the Canada pension plan represents the first new, major piece of social security legislation in all too long a period. Because of this I am hopeful that the present administration will
The Budget-Mr. Cashin come to grips with all, or most, of the present inequities that exist at the present time within the framework of our social security laws.
Our social security laws were bred in the desperate thirties. Since then we have increased them and one might even say, begrudgingly at times extended them. Unfortunately, however, there has evolved a non-planned, often unrelated patchwork system. The time has come for all of us, at this level of government and at other levels of government, to ascertain just what we are doing in this field because, as was pointed out in the debate earlier this afternoon, for all of our brave talk and for all of our eloquent speeches there is still a great deal to be accomplished. Relatively, I say relatively, Mr. Speaker, do we know how much better off are those in the lower income group today than they were 30 years ago.
I am alarmed, Mr. Speaker, because there are many Canadians who, consciously or subconsciously, feel that we have done enough in this field of social security. They feel this, I am convinced, without ever having studied the inequities that exist within the framework of our present approach.


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives did.


Richard Joseph Cashin: No party is without blame in this field-none of us.
We have just increased the old age pension and I submit that the figure of $75 per month is at best only supplementary to the income of our retired citizens, and because of that we are attempting to introduce the Canada pension plan. However, the pension is a considerable amount compared to the miserly allowances paid to the widows in our country. I suggest that we examine what the ten provinces of Canada are paying to widows. They are and form a whole class of people who have to apply for this allowance, but there is not one province that proportionately comes close in equalling the allowance to widows to that given to old age pensioners.
I would suggest that at the forthcoming conference of welfare ministers, in the spirit of co-operative federalism, all levels of government try to determine what we can accomplish as a nation, not just as ten provinces, to remove the awful inequities that exist in our haphazard approach to social security.
One great obstacle to a fundamental understanding of social security must be removed. Social security is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it is not a form of charity. It is, more often than not, a transfer of income from individual to individual within the same group. For example, the worker with no children helps to pay for the

The Budget-Mr. Cashin worker in the same group who has eight or nine children, and the worker who is healthy helps to pay for the benefits that the sick receive.
We must recognize that in our advanced technological society there are many things which we consume collectively, and which we can only consume if we consume them collectively. It is folly to suggest that we live in an era of private consumption and private earning, or that we should return to such an age. To do this, or to say this, is to ignore the scientific revolution that has come about in the last several decades. It is amazing that with each suggestion of a further improvement in our social security laws the same old arguments are raised against them. There is probably not one reasonable person in Canada who would suggest that we remove the social security legislation now on the statute books, but when additional legislation is advocated, and quite often the additional legislation represents only a compromise, the laissez-faire arguments that were applicable to the 19th century situation are applied to the 20th century situation. This shows a desire on the part of some to protect a narrow, vested interested. It also shows a failure to recognize the great changes wrought in the last several decades.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada pension plan was opposed last year. I have very good reason to question not only the motives but many of the arguments advanced against it. But if we think the opposition to the Canada pension plan is anything, what is going to happen when the government eventually gets around to giving us that much needed piece of legislation, a comprehensive medical program? The government will then find itself in a tough position, with one group saying it does not go far enough, and another group not knowing what to say but nevertheless criticizing us, while at the same time we have 19 million Canadians not greatly interested in those viewpoints because all they want is to see such a plan in operation. Yet we, who sometimes seem to think the whole world is watching us from the gallery, interested in every word we say, will probably delay the implementation of such a program for several years.
I have referred to the 19th century attitude that resurrects itself whenever we talk about social security. I expect it is a distorted notion of freedom. We in the 1960's can be truly more free than man ever dreamed of 100, or even 30 years ago. Because of our scientific advancements and our great breakthroughs in medicine, we now have in the sum total of human knowledge the ways and means to live better, to live longer, and to

live in better health. But to apply 19th century thinking to this type of society means that all free men will not be free to enjoy the benefits of mankind's achievements. Many of these achievements, Mr. Speaker, can only be available to you and to me if they are available to all men.
Let us understand the meaning of social security and the function of social security in the 1960's. It is not to be confused with creeping socialism, and we must not allow ourselves to be retarded in our progress because of a misunderstanding of what social security laws are all about. It is not to be confused with the government's control of the economy through control of the means of production, though it does represent certain government intervention in the economy, but since the days of Keynes this has become fashionable, if not always understood. It follows that the state is merely an instrument or agency through which these things can be accomplished. Theoretically, at least, the state is not the only available agency, but practically I suggest it is.
I have already made reference to the inequities in our present social security system, and have given as a specific example the widows' allowances. There are a great many others. If we are to talk about social security we must talk in terms of defining our philosophy of social security, and if we look at it in the light of the functions of society I think we will remove the argument that this is a continuing handout program. This concept of a handout program has arisen because successive governments have not had the courage to understand it themselves, and in that sense the politicians of the past 30 years are somewhat to blame.
With regard to social security I am interested, of course, in seeing that we have national standards, and this presumes a strong central government. I believe we can only have equalization of opportunity for all Canadians if in fact we have a strong federal system. While I am on the subject I may say I realize that in the province of Quebec our brother Canadians of the French tongue are concerned at the present moment about equalization of opportunity. It seems to me that all Canadians are in sympathy with their aspirations and are sincerely interested. But, Mr. Speaker, some views-I hope they represent nothing like a majority-held by responsible men in the province of Quebec would suggest that we have a dilemma to be resolved because these people feel that the only way the province of Quebec can fulfil its aspirations is through a weakening of the fiscal authority of the federal government. On the other side of the coin there are areas, not as well to do at all as the province of Quebec, that are

quite convinced that the only way we can achieve equalization of opportunity is through a strong federal system.
For a moment I should like to present a hypothetical situation of a Canada exactly the same as it is today except in one respect, that one respect being that all of the 10 provinces have the same mother tongue. What would the differences be between that Canada and the real Canada? The Atlantic provinces situated as they are on the extremity of Canada would be in the same economic position as they are today. That being the case, the federal government and the well to do areas of Canada would have the challenge to help create an atmosphere in which the Atlantic provinces could develop. The same quid pro quo would exist between the extremities and the centre of this country as now exists. In the centre the great industries, being protected, would find outlets for their industries in the extremities.
We might ask ourselves what the position of the province of Quebec would be in this hypothetical Canada where we were all of one language. Would the education system be the same? If not, what effect would that have? In this example, of course the means of production, industry and commerce in that hypothetical Quebec would be owned by people of the same mother tongue and the same culture as the working people. We might ask ourselves whether in that imaginary Canada I have conceived Quebec would still be second only to the Atlantic provinces in unemployment.
I have used this example, perhaps a very crude one, to come to the point about which I am wondering. Who are the people who can say best at this time what is the answer to the dilemma I posed a few minutes ago with regard to those who see the federal system a little differently than I do? I might suggest with a great deal of support, I am sure, that perhaps if the federal government had even stronger powers than those that some would now take away, what is now happening in the province of Quebec would have happened 40 years ago or perhaps would not have happened at all, because of the existence of a truly strong federal government.
I have been talking about the federal government theme, and I do so because if we are to have national standards and a sound approach to social security I believe we must have a strong federal government. But I am concerned that when we talk about national unity and the powers of the federal government we may find ourselves in 15 or 20 years, having spent a great deal of time talking about these matters, actually confronted more forcibly than we are now with
The Budget-Mr. Cashin what may be the real underlying problem, the United States of America, and whether or not we will remain economically and politically independent of that country to the south. If the Atlantic provinces or any one of the areas on the extremities need a strong central government to help to bring about equalization of opportunities, I suggest the argument is just as strong that so do the 10 provinces of Canada under that government unless, of course, we are to accept what some suggest is the real question, that economically and politically we might be better off if we did not exist in this form at all.
So far as higher standards of social security are concerned I have noted, as some other hon. members may also have noted, a book by Michael Harrington, "The Other America" in which he suggests that in the United States of America there are 40 million to 50 million Americans living at a bare subsistence level. If we compare Canada with the United States we find that our standard of living is 25 per cent to 30 per cent behind that country. If in the United States they have 40 million to 50 million Americans living at a subsistence level, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the comparable figure is higher in Canada although, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) pointed out in his remarks, the proper kind of study of this problem that we would like to have has not been made in our country.
In the United States recently there has been much discussion about the war on poverty. Senator Fulbright, who is one of the more enlightened of contemporary American political figures, said recently in a speech at the University of North Carolina that the war on poverty is only beginning. In fact he criticized his countrymen in a sense for their preoccupation with the cold war, induced by an hysteria that has lingered as a hangover from the McCarthy era. He suggested that more attention needs to be paid to the problems of social security.
Perhaps the analogy has some value in regard to what I was talking about a moment ago. While we may be pursuing a very vital and necessary course in indulging in introspection about our national identity and culture, it may be that this is being done at the expense of our resources and creativeness just as in the United States the cold war, as Senator Fulbright has suggested, has affected that country.
In talking about equalization of opportunity, and social security would be a part of that grandiose phrase, the traditional outlook has been, of course, that, rural areas are continually attempting to bring themselves up to urban standards. But I am quite convinced, as I feel most of us are, that perhaps some of

The Budget-Mr. honey the greatest human misery that exists in this country exists within the very heartland of our cities. The problems of urban growth and urban renewal are just as important because poverty is just as harsh and in some cases perhaps harsher in our cities than in rural areas.
The problem of urban renewal is one that again necessitates, I suggest, national policies and national standards. Many hon. members on both sides of the house have enumerated programs which would have national implications to raise our economic standards, and standards of living. As has been mentioned earlier in the debate, the government has made a start on some of these things. It has made a start unprecedented for Canada in bringing forth legislation relative to planning, and the creation of the Department of Industry is something that represents a significant step forward. I hope that an enlightened federal approach to the problem of urban renewal will be another that will be forthcoming.
This afternoon we listened to a speech by the distinguished member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart). It is obvious that the way the name of that constituency is bandied about by some of the less informed members of the house, they do not know how to pronounce it correctly as we do. We know that this afternoon this very distinguished member enumerated some of the programs and policies which this government has started, and some of the things which they have not yet started but which we hope they will start. These programs will affect the equalization of opportunities for those of us from the Atlantic provinces.
Now, I have talked about social security and about a strong federal government with national standing. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that having been here for some time, perhaps not as long as most hon. members in this house, I have come to the conclusion that the greatest challenge that faces Canada today is not biculturalism. The greatest challenge that faces us is the eradication of poverty and the equalization of opportunity for all Canadians in all provinces. We should make sure that Canada and Canadians keep abreast of changing conditions in our increasingly scientific and technological world. We will find then that biculturalism and bilingualism will become only part of this greater problem.


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: In participating in this budget debate, I wish to say at the outset that it is my intention to confine my remarks to matters of immediate concern within the riding of Bruce. In dealing with these matters, I shall address my remarks to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets). While
my remarks, in essence, might appear to the minister to be criticism, I would remind him that as the elected representative of the riding of Bruce I speak for and on behalf of the constituents of that riding and the matters of concern that affect the people of the riding, and the welfare of the people.
One matter of immediate concern which I would present to the minister for reconsideration is the dredging of the harbour at Kincardine. I refer now to a letter written to the minister on October 16, 1963, in which I ask, with reference to a dredging program, "when will a dredging program be undertaken to improve the harbour facilities at Kincardine." I quote from the minister's reply of October 23, 1963:
It is considered that existing depths in the harbour are adequate for the normal traffic. Therefore, it is not planned to undertake any dredging program at this place.
I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the words "are adequate for the normal traffic". I have here a letter from fishermen operating out of the harbour at Kincardine, dated March 3, 1964. I quote:
We the undersigned fishermen, holding valid commercial fishing licences out of the harbour situated at Kincardine, Ontario and district, respectfully petition to have the harbour at Kincardine dredged.
We believe that it should be deepened to a depth navigable by fishing craft, and also yachts and smaller craft which are very numerous during the summer season. At the present time the harbour is not navigable by any craft with a draft greater than four feet. We respectfully submit that it should be deepened to a depth not less than nine or ten feet.
The present condition of this harbour, prevents it being used by any craft caught on the lake by a storm, the majority of fishing craft in this area have a draft of seven feet.
This letter is signed by D. A. MacLeod; Charles L. Pilon; Roy F. Jackson; William R. Jackson and F. B. Rayner. These men are all licensed commercial fishermen operating out of the harbour at Kincardine.
The immediate need for dredging is caused by the current low water level of the great lakes. The drop is now close to three feet. In addition, there is the natural silting from the Penetangore river which flows into the harbour basin. The town of Kincardine is very much aware of the resultant silting action and has endeavoured to convince the Department of Public Works of the benefits of a control dam. These efforts were unsuccessful, and I should like to quote from a reply the town received from the Department of Public Works. It is addressed to Mr. C. Roy Whiting, chairman, town planning board, corporation of the town of Kincardine. I quote from the text:
Of the three purposes or benefits mentioned in your letter that would result from the construc-
[Mr. Cashin.j

tion of the dam, only the prevention of the harbour silting up would be of interest to this department. In this regard, our annual cost to maintain the harbour for its present use amounts to less than $3,000. Furthermore, the percentage of this average cost, due to settlement of river materials as distinct from materials entering from the lake, are not known. Also the ability of the proposed dam to retain the river silt would depend largely on the design and can only be determined by a detailed study to establish the amount of silt being carried down and the amount that would still pass through the dam during periods of heavy flow.
Although the capital cost of the dam, including expropriation, etc., and its operating costs, have not been calculated, it would appear that any savings, if any, in our maintenance dredging as a result of the dam would be extremely small and, therefore, any participation in this project by this department could not be justified.
Mr. Speaker, this reply sets out in detail the small annual cost of the maintenance of the harbour which is essential to the fishing craft, a shelter during storms, a tourist attraction, and the mainstay in the economy of a resort town. I have here a resolution passed by the Kincardine town council, indicating they are aware of the existing situation. This resolution is dated March 10, 1964, and reads as follows:
That the council request the clerk to write a letter to the Department of Public Works requesting that the Kincardine harbour be dredged and some form of renovating program be carried out in 1964.
This resolution is signed by R. Lauten-slager, clerk-treasurer. The Kincardine harbour is a natural stopover for yachtsmen, since it is approximately halfway between Sarnia and Tobermory. The business community has worked hard for many years to attract this trade and it is of the utmost importance that harbour facilities be available. I should like to put on the record two letters from businessmen who service pleasure craft with fuel and supplies. This letter is dated March 10 and is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. I quote:
May we take the liberty to petition you and your department to give serious consideration of dredging the harbour at Kincardine this spring?
I have gasoline pumps at the government dock and last year we had between 450 and 500 yachts; most of these yachts were from the U.S.A. and they leave large sums of American currency each year in Canada. Mr. Cottrill, who is my competitor, also had a number of yachts at his marina.
As you likely know, we are situated just about half-way between Sarnia and Tobermory. This makes a nice run from Sarnia to Kincardine in a day and then from Kincardine to Tobermory the next day. For the last number of years the boating has been on the increase and it will continue to do so, however, we must help the cause along by giving the boating people good harbours. I understand that the states are fixing their harbours so as to keep the boaters on the American side of the great lakes.
Goderich has a good harbour, but it is a commercial port and some of the boaters do not like the noise, etc.
The Budget-Mr. Loney
From a safety point of view there is a stretch of about 60 to 70 miles between Goderich and Port Elgin where, if a sudden storm came up, there would be no haven for a boat to seek shelter except Kincardine, and with the shallow water at Kincardine it would be difficult for a fair sized boat to get into our harbour. Some of the fishermen tell me that they will have trouble getting their fishing tugs into Kincardine this year.
Therefore, sir, we here in Kincardine would appreciate very much if you would consider our request and have the harbour dredged to a depth of about 10 to 12 feet and have the pilings around the harbour checked.
Yours sincerely, Clarence H. Walpole.
I wish, now, to quote a second letter which is also addressed to the Minister of Public Works. This letter is dated March 14, 1964. It says:
We are writing in support of a plea that some dredging be done at our harbour in Kincardine, Ontario.
We realize that our harbour is used for small pleasure craft and that we have upwards of 600 yachts each summer. These yachts are over 90 per cent from the American side and constitute a large part of our tourist trade. The tourist trade has always been one of our main industries and we are naturally interested in seeing that we have proper facilities to look after it. Unless we have 10 to 12 feet of water in our harbour there are many yachts and fishing tugs which will have difficulty. Many yachts are sailing craft and these, by their type of construction, draw considerable water, even small ones. We should also like to point out that as a harbour for storm shelter we do not have enough water to admit fair sized craft.
We do hope you will give consideration to dredging at this time.
Sincerely yours,
James C. D. Cottrill.
The low water level is of serious consequence to the lakeshore tourist areas of western Ontario. Recently, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble) brought this to the attention of the house. I have here a picture published in the Wiarton Echo on March 26 showing a dock at Wiarton which is completely above the waterline. There is a late model car parked on the dry ground beside the dock. As further evidence of the seriousness of the low water situation I have the April 8 issue of the Port Elgin Times. On the front page is a picture of the dock at Port Elgin. Underneath, it says:
The receding waters of the great lakes and especially the Georgian bay and lake Huron area are causing considerable concern among the lake-shore communities. The lowest ever, might mean fewer yachts stay-over in Port Elgin this year. This photo, taken from the lakeshore road area towards the small craft catwalk and the Bluewater tearoom, shows how far down the water has gone this past year.
From the same issue of the Port Elgin Times I should like to quote the caption
2116	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Loney beneath another photograph of government property at Port Elgin. The picture shows a breakwa'll which is high and dry above the waterline. There is no water in sight at all. The caption reads:
The south breakwall Is presently high and dry at the local beach as the water level dropped another two feet this year.
This is further evidence of the seriousness of the situation. Also from Port Elgin comes a picture beneath which appears the following caption:
Here are three craft attempting to turn around to come back into the local harbor. The boats were out some distance past the breakwalls, but low water levels allowed spectators to walk out right up to the stuck craft most of them making their way along the stoney bar shown above.
This is further indication of the gravity of the situation in the lakeshore area. I have another picture showing the Southampton harbour with an article stating the intention of the local residents. This is from the Southampton Beacon.
The Georgian Bay development association has begun a serious survey of the water levels of the Georgian bay and lake Huron.
Because of the serious eifects of the present record low levels of these waters, commercial trade is suffering in several ports and hundreds of cottagers as well as commercial enterprises are finding their docks even higher out of water.
Numerous examples of this devastating effect can be noted at establishments along the shore lines and to stay in business this year thousands of dollars will have to be spent by the owners.
Neville Keefe, general manager of the association, told this paper that the association's first move would be general discussion with government officials and other agencies as to the causes of the recession of the waters, and a survey of the effects of this on the economy of the areas affected.
The low water level presented problems last year as well. I refer now to the launching ramp at the government dock at Dyer's Bay. Last year the local residents found it necessary to extend at their own expense-I repeat: at their own expense-the small craft landing ramp leading to the receding waterline. I was informed by the secretary of the Dyer's Bay resort association that the extension they built last year is now six feet from the waterline. I intend to speak on this matter on another occasion. The problems resulting from the current low water level are evident at all government docks on the shoreline of Bruce. Immediate attention should be given to the harbour facilities at Port Elgin and Southampton.
It was with dismay that we learned in Bruce of the decision of the present administration to cancel the proposed dredging project at the Sauble river. This program involved some $60,000 and was absolutely 

necessary to the maintenance of the tourist industry in this resort area.
To return to the situation at Kincardine harbour, I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the numerous requests for a dredging program. In addition, the department should investigate the damage being done to pleasure craft by the pilings which are now above the waterline. We would also ask the minister to consider the petitions of the community for the construction of a small craft launching ramp. The minister stated in his reply of November 19, 1963 that he would have engineers examine a site if there were reasons to warrant an expenditure, and I now present for his consideration petitions of the chamber of commerce of Kincardine. These petitions are addressed to myself, and the first is dated March 28, 1964.
The Kincardine and district chamber of commerce urgently request that you plead with your government on our behalf, for the erection of a boat ramp in the vicinity of the harbour.
Your government wishes us to improve our tourist facilities in order to encourage more tourist dollars spent in Canada. We feel sure they will want to do their part to carry out this important program.
As lake Huron is the only geographical asset we have, it behooves us to make the most of it.
If we are assured work will be started on the ramp in the immediate future, we can advertise it to our prospective summer visitors.
May we have a definite answer immediately,
Very truly yours,
Mrs. J. Henderson Secretary-treasurer.
The second petition is dated April 2, 1964 and reads as follows:
I'm writing on behalf of the chamber of commerce with regard to the Department of Public Works building a boat launching ramp in Kincardine.
Situated as we are on lake Huron it is unthinkable that we should go through another summer without proper launching facilities. We have done a road check and we find that every fifth car has a boat and trailer. This check was done for us by our chief of police last July. Those who operate tourist accommodation tell me that there are many requests for a boat launching ramp. We in Kincardine are going all-out this summer to promote our tourist industry. This is more important to the life of our town because of the loss of two important industries. There are also many more boats in Kincardine and surrounding area than there has ever been.
To date we have been able to get a suitable site on the north side of the north pier, directly in front of the house occupied by Gordon Lafrance. There is much more ground work to be done in this regard. However, for now I think those of us from the chamber and the town council who have viewed the site agree that this is the most logical place. Also we have enlisted the help necessary to get the roadway built. This will be done by the town council. The chamber, although lacking in funds will do everything possible with regard to smooth operation of the ramp and with the normal upkeep of the site once it has been built.

Mr. Scroggie, the district engineer, from London had his Mr. George Metrink call on us and we have obtained some valuable information from him. They have been most co-operative and we appreciate the efforts they have made thus far.
That is signed "Jim Cottrill" on behalf of the tourist committee. Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I ask the minister to reconsider his reply of October 23, 1963 with regard to a dredging program at the Kincardine harbour. I reiterate that reply:
It is considered that existing depths in the harbour are adequate for the normal traffic. Therefore it is not planned to undertake a dredging program at this place.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those concerned, I ask that we be given the opportunity to substantiate our requests.


Mr. Gerard Ouellel (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) on his recent appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for Canada. I will not wait any longer to wish him a fruitful career within the federal cabinet and in the administration of his department in particular.
The beautiful riding of Matapedia-Matane runs along the eastern side of the riding of Rimouski which I have the honour and the privilege to represent in the House of Commons of Canada.
If Rimouski is represented in the house by a member of the opposition, it has the enviable privilege of seeing two of its distinguished sons in the federal cabinet.
That is why, at this time, I must offer my thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) for the great honour done to so many families connected with the hon. members for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) and for Matapedia-Matane.
In fact, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean comes from Mont Joli, Rimouski county, and he too was appointed recently Secretary of State for Canada. As far as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is concerned, he comes from Luceville, near the town of Rimouski.
The two cabinet ministers, who come from the Rimouski county, maintain probably a particular affection for the region of their respective origin. To every valiant heart, the nativeland is always dear, is it not?
With regard to the riding of Rimouski, it would be most ungrateful on my part to rise here and charge the federal government with discriminating against Rimouski voters and its representative. Facts are facts, and a careful study of the measures passed by Ottawa in favour of the riding of Rimouski bear witness to the solicitude of the federal 20220-1344
The Budget-Mr. Ouellet government in providing Rimouski with its full share of subsidies, grants, etc. Public works, harbour installations, subsidies to the ferry Pere Nouvel in service between Rimouski and the north shore, are amongst the main contributions of the federal government to my riding. Such a kind of cooperation is to the credit of the government. Speaking of co-operation, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) for helping as concerns the proposals made with a view to solving the problem of the ferry between Rimouski and Baie Comeau.
I believe repairs and wharf installations at Pointe au Pere and Trois Pistoles will again be subsidized this year by the federal government. When the facilities become available the ferry Le Razade, which operates between Trois Pistoles and Les Escoumins, will give the required service which is necessary for the development of our region. Incidentally, when will a deep water wharf be built in Trois Pistoles? The existing wharf is situated on a ridge and requires the dredging operations which are bothersome for all parties concerned. It is said that a deep water wharf could be built at little expense about two miles east of the existing structure.
Trois Pistoles is a growing maritime centre and consideration should be given to the establishment of a shipyard in that community. That is the unavoidable conclusion to which we have come after a thorough examination of the problem.
The constituency I represent in this dignified chamber is, as everybody knows, one of those regions affected by economic stagnation. I will admit that commendable efforts have been made in the past, particularly during the last season, by means of large winter works grants.
Thus, the city of Trois Pistoles ranked first in Quebec for its winter works program, thanks to indispensable co-operation by its civic representatives. As a matter of fact, all the mayors of the municipalities in the county I represent surely deserve to be commended for their initiative at the opportune time.
Hon. members of the house, first let us all admit that we meet here with the responsibility of giving the Canadian people the best possible government, that is the part we have to play, and also our responsibility. Indeed, did we not promise it to our voters, to all those men and women in our respective ridings, even before undertaking this task with a solemn oath to Her Majesty, our gracious and glorious Queen, Elizabeth II.
I am very far from agreeing with those who want another election to settle our

The Budget-Mr. Ouellet political problems in Canada. The attitude of those who try to abuse the masses by their sustained effort to rouse one family against the other in a fight based on linguistic, racial and religious prejudices and even go as far as to hold the public or political authority entirely-not to say solely-responsible for troubles which are inherent to our earthly life, such attitude cannot be accepted.
As I said a moment ago, such attitude tortures people and distorts active democratic principles because another federal election, in Quebec at this time, would I am sorry to say, just delight all those who could not care less about the present needs and responsibilities.
We have a tremendous task to carry out here for four years, or longer if needed. At the end of that period, this parliament will have, I hope, the satisfaction of handing over to those who will form the twenty seventh parliament better conditions than the ones it inherited.
Furthermore, from the Macdonald-Cartier administration in 1867 down to the present time, Canada has profited by its politicians' solicitude. In every period, our Canadian people have freely recorded their epic events as well as their tragedies.
As I am now more fully aware of your kindness, hon. gentlemen, here is another remark which I would like to submit to your serious consideration.
The constituency which I represent is bounded on the north by the St. Lawrence and on the south by New Brunswick. This constituency is part of the senatorial division called Gulf, which is represented since July 1955 by a Canadian of Irish extraction. This hon. senator was a member of this house for 30 years and he is a valuable man in his political party because he is quite devoted to each and everyone. We must say that about him.
I shall therefore raise the following matter, which is of great concern to me, and I should like if possible to call the attention of government members, of Liberal members, to it, because it is serious and urgent.
Since the beginning of this century, the party in office at present has ruled over, or rather has controlled the appointments to the Senate for 43 out of the last 64 years.
As far as Acadians are concerned, I wonder why the Liberals have not treated fairly those fine Canadians who, moreover, support the Liberal party both at the federal and at the provincial levels? Shall we have to wait for another administration in Canada to get an answer, a solution? No, it would be really sad, even tragic. I do believe that we deserve another Sir Charles Tupper in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if I talk like that, it is to claim fair representation for the Acadians in the Senate and also to solemnly state that I am not a separatist; I do not want to forsake, spurn or reject my compatriots in the other provinces of Canada. I feel that the confederation sanctioned by the Macdonald-Cartier ministry has until now justified the hopes of men who know the value of peace, peace within ourselves and with others.
Some might consider this statement rather daring, but it is a matter of deep faith and hope. Yes, we have our political independence in Canada. What we must still get is our economic independence, because we are under the domination of foreign, especially American, capital.
As I say, if there is a minority that we of Quebec must hold dear-in fact, our past attitude is not too glorious in that respect- it is certainly the Acadians. Have the most ardent nationalists of our province held a dialogue with French Canadians outside Quebec? Do they realize now that those who hurt them the most are the selfish Canadians who commit the sin known to anyone who has read Genesis, that of Cain, the hateful man who refused to show brotherly love to Abel.
In New Brunswick, where 40 per cent of the people are of Acadian origin, the premier who is an an Acadian himself has a hard time giving his people satisfactory economic conditions. We Quebeckers must throw in our lot with these admirable fellow citizens.
I am most pleased to tell you that I have had many opportunities to meet the people of northern New Brunswick where I have many relatives and friends. As I came to know them and their area, I rapidly formed a lasting friendship with those noble people, the most loyal subjects of Canada. These people constitute, in my opinion, one of the greatest treasures of our national inheritance.
I believe that everyone here no matter what part of this vast country he comes from, can acknowledge that I speak the truth. They settled here over 360 years ago and their unrivalled history is that of a people which would not disappear. Acadians, my cousins, my brothers, the Canadian confederation must be for you the subject of your most noble hopes.
Incidentally, I long for the day when we have a road, a highway connecting my county, from the St. Lawrence river to Moncton, the metropolis of the Acadians; a road which would go, for instance, from Bic, the centre of farm unionism, mutualism, co-operatism, in the lower St. Lawrence region, the Switzerland of lower Quebec, adorned by the Ile-au-Massacre, a memento of our civilization, would be an ideal starting point

towards the land of Evangeline. Such a motor trip would be for me, I dare say, a heavenly ride.
Mr. Speaker, may I exhort, even beg the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught); the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) to get together in order to promote the official recognition of the French language in New Brunswick before July 1, 1967.
In fact, recently we learned that the hon. member for lies de la Madeleine, stronghold of the Acadians, was appointed minister in the federal cabinet to administer the Department of Forestry. So it is in order to congratulate the holder of this office, without forgetting to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). No doubt, it was a nice surprise for the population of that constituency established in 1947.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a final appeal in favour of the rights of democracy in Canada.
Canadian democracy should not be used exclusively for political purposes where strength, trickery and profit too supersede the love of peace, justice and liberty. Let us face it, the power of Canada resides primarily in the soundness of its domestic markets. What are we doing for the economic and financial independence of the Canadian family? Have we, here in Canada, a policy concerning the Canadian family? We are unfortunately going ahead very tremulously in that regard.
In 1950, the federal government was more than making ends meet; it showed a surplus, with less than $2J billion for the year. This year it is asking for more than $7 billion. Therefore, the budget has nearly tripled in 15 years.
I am a member from Quebec province. What is happening there? Well, if we go back a few years, we find that at that time, the provincial government could get along on less than $500 million a year-more than that, it succeeded in reducing its public debt; today the provincial government expenditures reach a billion and a half.
The government's share has tripled, that is, it has tripled in Ottawa, and tripled in Quebec; the municipalities and the school boards, in the last 15 years, have had a similar experience. However, the income of the Quebec family, the rural family specially, has not tripled, no, never. Yet, we, the federal members, have seen our salary tripled, while that of the Quebec members has quadrupled since the war.
I realize that these facts are not very interesting. Nevertheless, I think that we must
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey straighten out things if we are to discharge our duty honourably here.
It seems to me, for instance, that any family concern, whatever it may be, should be protected and should also get some assistance. The family is the main cell or the basic cell of society.
Do not our family allowances, as they are nowadays in 1964, condemn our political system? We claim that we are always supporting the values of Christian civilization. Does not capitalism, through its abuses, expose us at present to the disorders and ruin which are brought about by bolshevism?
Let us be practical. A new alignment is required at this time because we are choking in a materialistic atmosphere. Canada with its human resources of all races, with the superabundance of its natural resources, our national natural resources, has been endowed by Providence for our welfare, that is the welfare of all Canadians over and above everything. Yes, Canada must provide for each family everything that a national birthright can guarantee. Therefore, let us fully dedicate ourselves right now to the imperatives of our time.
The one you have just heard is trying to speak on behalf of the man in the fields. I do not wish to hold any party or any member in check by the stand I am taking here.
I do not claim to be here for ever either; besides there is nothing permanent in this world. I come from the hinterland to make a heartfelt appeal to this dignified and majestic chamber and in so doing, I think I am the faithful voice, at least I earnestly hope so, of dozens of generations which have lived peacefully on the banks of the majestic St. Lawrence river.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, having listened in relative quietness for the last two weeks to the debate on the supplementary estimates I welcome this opportunity to take a more vocal part in the deliberations of the house. Indeed, remembering the rather strange atmosphere that prevailed in the house during the last few weeks, I hope there is nothing in my speech that may do anything to reintroduce that type of ill will which we can do very well without in the house.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, when I voice the opinion that possibly the economy of Canada is on the march once again, I am sure I have the full support of all hon. members of the house. The fact is that unemployment is practically non-existent in some parts of the country, and in others it is at its lowest point in many, many years.
Almost daily, presidents of our large corporations are tabling their financial reports

The Budget-Mr. Mackasey showing record profits, and our experts are predicting not only a greater share of the export market but that the present boom might very well continue into 1965.
I have not been long in the house, but long enough to witness the presentation of two budgets, and I may say that possibly this latter budget is but a continuation or an appendix of the first one presented by the Minister of Finance. I remember taking part in the budget debate last year when I predicted that some of the less noticeable parts in the budget would help the Canadian economy long after some of its more controversial aspects passed into oblivion. I can give one prime example of such a hidden factor in the minister's first budget. I refer, for instance, to the obvious and perhaps unexpected success of our auto parts industry as a result, not only of the first budget, but of enlightened legislation introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to support that budget.
The Financial Post of April 4 had an article headed "Car parts spreading prosperity all over". The article lists possibly a dozen or more small, independent, Canadian auto parts manufacturing firms which will have to expand because they are in the happy predicament of having more orders than they can fill with their present facilities.
Appearing elsewhere in the same issue of that newspaper is a table showing that last year we exported almost four times as many auto parts as in any year previously. Another article in that newspaper, in the same issue, written by Knowlton Nash in Washington, has a headline which reads, "U.S. twitches over our auto exports ... Ottawa plan seems to be working". This article outlines some of the things that are well known to most of us, for instance, that General Motors will be spending $120 million to build auto and truck assembly plants, and parts plants in Canada, and that Chrysler Corporation predicts that within 20 years their facilities and factories all over the world would be getting most of their more important parts from Canada.
American Motors Corporation is increasing its purchases of auto parts from Canada, especially bumpers, headlights, transmission parts and wheel covers, and the article further points out that the McCord Corporation of Detroit has placed orders for 100,000 radiators in Canada for the U.S. market in 1965.
There are many other examples in this article, which I do not intend to read into the record at this time, but one thing which did catch my fancy was the tribute paid to this legislation, to this boom in the auto parts industry, by a representative of the ;Ford Motor Company, who voiced cautiously
IMr. Mackasey.]
his approval of the plan and who indicated that the Ford Motor Company would soon be part and parcel of it. I think that tickled my fancy, and what I am sure will appeal to all non-partisan members of the house, is the fact he referred to the plan as the Drury plan. This puts a stamp of approval on it by the automobile parts manufacturers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would be false to myself and the party I represent if I were to say or to intimate that all was well with the Canadian economy. As a matter of fact, many pockets of chronic unemployment that exist across the country are a source of concern to all of us, and perhaps even more so to me because I come from la belle province du Quebec. I feel very strongly about this problem because I think it is one of the contributing factors to the strength of the separatist movement in Quebec.
As a resident for 42 years of that province, as one who has had the privilege of breaking bread with French Canadians, as one who respects their traditions, language and culture, I feel strongly that the separatist movement could not stand alone on its emotional appeal to the French Canadians. Coupled with the tendency towards separatism was the despair and resentment that is a byproduct, and a bad by-product, of chronic unemployment. Picture, if you will, Mr. Speaker, the undue publicity this movement gets outside the province of Quebec. I usually go home at the week end. Later I pick up the papers in the parliamentary reading room on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and on reading them I do not recognize the province of Quebec where I have just spent two days. But I do feel that many irresponsible leaders in French Canada, leaders in politics, leaders in the newspaper world, leaders in our different organizations, are harnessing and using this movement for their own selfish short term gains. So, like everybody else in this chamber, I would welcome the disappearance of chronic unemployment in Canada.
I was not in the house earlier today when the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) spoke very eloquently, I understand, but I appreciate the sentiments he expressed toward the province of Quebec and as to the necessity for tolerance and understanding in this country. In my view, Mr. Speaker, we were all elected to this house because we were supposed to be 265 people with intelligence, tolerance and the ability to see the other man's point of view.
There is one last article in the Financial Post to which I should like to refer, and it touches on a different subject. It is written by a lawyer, John McDonald, Q.C., a very prominent person in the economic field. I am

interested in the article not because I want to refer to its contents, although I think some of the economists in this house and would-be economists would do well to look at it. I am interested basically in the headline which is in these words: "How to Buy Back Canada". It is particularly significant to me because I think it represents to us a fact about which many deep thinking Canadians are perturbed and worried. I refer to the fact that daily more of our heritage and our children's birthright disappears into the hands of friendly but foreign interests.
I pay tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) this evening for having at least paid some attention to this problem. Whether or not we agree with the method he employed is another matter. Certainly economists, like lawyers, are a breed that tend to disagree. But the important thing is that the Minister of Finance is aware of the problem and is searching desperately for some solution, in the same way that many other Canadians are, as Mr. McDonald indicated. Before I go on record in the mind of any member of the house as being against foreign capital, may I say I think it is our duty to encourage foreign capital to come into Canada, but I think that the type of foreign capital we need is that which comes into our country in the form of loans or debentures, the type of capital which comes into this country under a contract specifically stating when we can pay the money back and at what interest. This country can ill afford any further domination of its economic future.
If, as some cynics seem to feel, the time is perhaps even too late to win back any part of our economic control, there is one field where I believe we can do something. I refer to the gradual domination of our field of communications by outside interests. I feel very strongly on this point because in my view communications and culture are synonomous in the world of today, and what would Canada be without its Canadian indentity and Canadian culture? I think history will at some time in the future pay tribute to the part that French Canada has played in retaining the French culture and therefore a Canadian culture.
The fields of communication which I believe should be kept purely and simply allCanadian are radio, television, our daily newspapers and our periodicals. Living as we do next door to a nation which for the most part shares our language, our common heritage and our democratic principles we are faced with the danger of losing control of our culture and communications in the same way we have lost control over so many of our industries. That is why I am a strong advocate of the C.B.C. While I do not believe
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey that the C.B.C. is above criticism, that it does not need reform periodically or a new financial administration, I shudder when I see well meaning members stand up in the house and, by their questions, their suggestions and their pleas try to reduce the C.B.C. to a pale carbon copy of our private radio and television interests. In my view the C.B.C. was one of the greatest single forces and factors in the emergence of Canada as a nation, and when and if the C.B.C. is watered down to that carbon copy to which I have referred I believe we will have witnessed-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: It should be worth watching then.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Our expert in lariats is back again. Happy birthday.
I feel that when that day comes we will have begun the acceleration of the end of Canada as a country. I feel just as strongly about our daily newspapers. It is an open secret that at the present moment strong forces are uniting in the United Kingdom to enter the Canadian market by buying some of our daily newspapers. I wonder what would happen if the molding of our editorial comment, the shaping of public opinion, were to pass out of Canadian control into foreign domination. Who would be left to help us fight against the constant encroachment into Canadian industry?


An hon. Member:: The Conservative party.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We are not the only country which has had this problem. France recognized it in 1944. Many members of the house know that France lost a very important segment of its daily newspapers before the last war. In 1944 France introduced legislation and I should like to read into the record one clause:
All owners, partners, shareholders, silent partners, financial backers or other persons financially interested in a publication must be of French nationality.
This is the type of positive clearcut action that we need to protect our communications in Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give us your opinion of Time and Reader's Digest while you are at it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Our great friend is back again. One rather looks for hon. members on that side to have enough courtesy to keep quiet while a member is speaking. I may get to Time and Reader's Digest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were reading your speech so well that I thought you needed a few interruptions.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated its intention to introduce

The Budget-Mr. Mackasey legislation at this session of parliament to help Canadian periodicals. It is designed to make advertising in Canadian periodicals more attractive than advertising in American periodicals. It is a well known fact that most of our periodicals are doomed to extinction unless some financial assistance comes their way. That is why I believe that Reader's Digest and Time must not be exempt from the proposed legislation. I feel very strongly that Reader's Digest and Time magazine are American publications, have always been American publications and fully intend to remain American publications. It is my strong view that so far as the editorial content of a magazine is concerned the nationality of the people who write the editorials should be the criterion, whether or not a magazine is Canadian or American. The fact that it is printed in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is incidental, and it is the source from which the dictation of its editorial policy comes that is a deciding factor. I cannot, for the life of me, see how two United States magazines, owned by United States capital, can consider themselves to be Canadian publications merely because they contain four pages of Canadian material.
I often wonder what the policy of these particular magazines would be, if they were forced at some date in the future when our two countries may not see eye to eye on a common problem, to take a stand. Would they take a stand for the Canadian point of view or the United States point of view? May I just allay the fears of the many readers of Time and Reader's Digest in this country? I fully believe that if the legislation is extended to include Reader's Digest and Time, these two excellent magazines will continue on the newstands because they are basically excellent magazines. We have other excellent magazines that are out and out United States publications and make no pretence about being Canadian. I could cite as examples, Saturday Evening Post, Fortune and many other magazines. I feel that I must, here and now, reserve my right to speak again when this legislation is brought before the house.
I feel, in view of the situation in relation to the province of Quebec, the time has come when our newspapers, periodicals and opinion formers, our professors, teachers, indeed all Canadians must take a good look at the problem of being Canadian today. We must now put political expediency aside; we must put regionalism aside, indeed even politics aside, if this country is to meet the challenge that lies before it. It is time for the members of this house to show some of the qualities which it was presumed they possessed when they came into this house. It is time that

English speaking members showed some responsibility outside the house when they are discussing Quebec, and it is also time some of our French Canadian members used a little discretion, a little more restraint when speaking inside the house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it was suggested to me a few hours ago that, when I suggested the possible inclusion of Time and Reader's Digest in this proposed legislation, I did so because I represented hidden interests. I can assure you, sir, and the house that nothing is further from the truth. Like so many other members here I came to this house with no special talents;
I represent no wealth, no pressure groups, but I do represent 90,000 Canadians and I have the courage of my convictions and a willingness to express them in this house.
I am one Canadian who is prepared to stand up and be counted when Canada is at stake.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: We
have heard, Mr. Speaker, during the resumption of this budget debate a complete review of all sorts of adjectives applied to this budget. In fact, I sympathized with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) when he was attempting to find some new ones. I must say that I thought his efforts sounded a little laboured.
In so far as this budget is concerned, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) must feel fairly secure, at least secure in the knowledge he is not going to win any Oscar. After all, we understand that there is a performance in some other place tonight in which Oscars are being awarded. I do not believe last year's performance or this year's will give the minister any nomination for that award. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister last year reminded me a little of the hot-shot rookie coming up to the national hockey league. He goes out for the first game and, with a great burst of speed cuts around the goal but, somehow or other, he steps on a piece of tape and you know where he lands. This year, he has come out a second time, but much more cautiously, and may suffer from that a bit.
In any event, let us look at this budget. Without anticipating the debate that may follow on some of the resolutions, there is one item I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I refer to paragraph 7 of the income tax resolution under which a taxpayer, in computing his income, may have amounts expended by him in relation to the objection to his assessment, or an appeal from an assessment, and shall include in computing income any costs recovered in respect thereof. I hope the minister has some detailed explanation of the limitations that

will be imposed on this provision. I hope my fellow lawyers are not going to take me to task, or even the accountants, but if severe limitations are not imposed on this provision I can foresee one big field day.
Who is going to say what are the costs of filing an objection to an assessment, or of prosecuting an appeal? I must say, therefore, we will undoubtedly get a clarification of this point. When we merely say that the taxpayers are going to be allowed the amount expended by them in this fashion, I think we are glossing it over. I feel we are going to get a lot of restrictions indicated by the minister when we come to a discussion of this resolution. Let us not look at this as a whole bag of goodies, because they just are not going to be there.
I should like to refer now to the other matter I had in mind. If we look at the estimates we know that the Minister of Finance indicated that in 1964-65 he expected a budgetary deficit of $402 million. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Now-lan) has indicated quite clearly, as have a number of other hon. members, that in order to get down to this figure of $402 million the minister is going to have a windfall this year of some $170 million as a result of an acceleration in the payment of corporate income tax. This, of course, is something that has to be examined in proper perspective, and the indications are that, if it were not for this sum the deficit would be back to $585 million. I am not suggesting that we should be shouting for higher and higher deficits. As a matter of fact, when I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) I thought that apparently that wing of the party says: We could not care less about the size of the deficit; spend and spend.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) expressed his regret this evening that the minister had not imposed a tax cut. I do not know how these hon. members intend to get the best of both worlds.


An hon. Member:: That would be a good way to get a deficit, though.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) was not talking about tax cuts. His idea was just that we should spend the money. The hon. member for Greenwood did not have much to say about spending programs. He wanted the minister to cut taxes.
In any event, there is an item of $14,250,000 which I think the minister has tucked away neatly. I do not think this item appears where it should appear and where it will, ultimately appear. I refer to loans. He has made a loan
The Budget-Mr. Lambert to the C.B.C. of $14,250,000 for capital projects. But how does he anticipate that this will be repaid? This corporation, unlike Atomic Energy of Canada, for example, is not a profit-making crown corporation. The C.B.C. takes anywhere from $75 million to $95 million from the treasury each year to meet the obligations imposed on it by the Broadcasting Act. Yet the minister lends the corporation more than $14 million. We would certainly like to know how the corporation intends to repay it. I am sure it is not the president of the corporation, or the vice president, or any of the board of directors who are going to repay the loan. Somewhere along the line, two or three years hence, the minister will have to write off this loan and the amount will then have to go on the expenditure side.
I think, therefore, we should raise the amount of estimated expenditure by this $14,250,000.
There is not much time left before ten o'clock and I had intended to speak about two points relating to sales tax. However, I think I will leave them until we are discussing the resolutions on excise tax.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: You will have a hard time doing that. There are none.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, the application of sales tax to production machinery came into effect last year. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will grant me a little indulgence; I do not intend to discourse on matters which have been covered before. I think the minister is aware of this problem. It was raised last year and I indicated it would arise, particularly in respect of goods acquired prior to June 13 but delivered subsequently. We face a real problem in the city of Edmonton. As a result of a tender, the city entered into an agreement for the purchase of a steam turbine generator at a cost of some $2,200,000. The minister indicates, in the correspondence which I have read, that unfortunately the city will have to pay the sales tax because they did not buy this machinery for re-sale to someone else-in other words, they were not committed to pass it on to someone else at a firm price. But this turbine will not be delivered and installed before 1965. Because the city bought it for its own use for the production of electricity within the community, it now has to pay the sales tax. Strangely enough, if the city had bought this turbine through an intermediary who was importing it into the country from Britain, there would have been no sales tax.
I confess I find some difficulty in understanding the logic of the position. If this turbine had been bought by an intermediary for the city of Edmonton for delivery there would have been no liability for sales tax. Yet because the city buys it, and because part

The Budget-Mr. Lambert of it is made in Canada, sales tax is to be charged. I submit that the explanations given by the minister last year, the nature of the hon. gentleman's speech, indicated that this steam turbine would not be subject to sales tax. Nevertheless, in the cold light of administration, we now find that the tax has been imposed.
With respect to loans to university students, I would draw the minister's attention to the proposal put to him and to members of this house by the Canadian union of students who prefer some sort of scholarship bursary grant based on scholastic attainment and on need. As to this whole matter of interest free loans, it will be most instructive to see how the banks will, in fact, administer them.
I was gratified to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) with regard to Time and Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest is, I think, harmless with respect to the pressure it could bring to bear, but I can assure the hon. member that if there ever was a difference of opinion on policy between Canada and the United States all he needs to read is the editorializing which is done in the other publication and he will see just where the pressure is applied. I believe the proposal which the government is now making is just one which will lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. What is being done is to enshrine in legislation the precise anomalies which existed previously, shutting out competition
from Time and Reader's Digest and building a beautiful protective fence around them so that the other publications are in a worse position. The advantage about which we have complained is now to be protected by legislation. For this reason I think the government should take another look at this proposal. I do not approve this principle of exempting particular publications. It is like picking out one taxpayer and saying to him: We intend to let you get by; you do not need to pay this particular type of income tax. Or: We intend to give you a particular exemption, or an accelerated rate of depreciation. To my mind this is a bad tax principle and the sooner the government can get rid of it the better off we shall be.
May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the leader of the house what business we shall have before us on Wednesday and the rest of the week, if he is able to tell us.


Guy Favreau: We shall, of course, be completing the budget debate tomorrow. As to Wednesday and the rest of the week, and maybe the beginning of next week, I hope to be in a position to make a full announcement some time tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 14, 1984