1964-07-27

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to table an extract in English and in French from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on Tuesday, June 23, 1964, with reference to members' travelling expenses.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to announce the establishment of an advisory council of consumers which will advise me and my department on all matters of interest to the Canadian consumer. In doing so it will provide valuable assistance to the department in the administration of the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.
The council will consist of 15 members representing outstanding authorities and consultants in the consumer field across the country. The chairman will be Dr. C. A. Morrell, director of the food and drug directorate, and the secretary will be Miss Eleanor M. Ordway, chief of the directorate's consumer division.
The Food and Drugs Act is primarily a protective measure, in that its basic purpose is to protect the consuming public from injury or hazards to health, as well as from fraud in the manufacture, distribution and sale of food, drugs, cosmetics and therapeutic devices. The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act is designed to protect the consumer from injury to health or from fraud with respect to registered proprietary medicines. In the administration of these two acts it has long been the practice, wherever possible, to seek the views of consumers on all matters of direct interest to them. With the development of more effective consumer organizations, 20220-379
whose views are becoming a strong influence as representative of consumer opinion, it was considered desirable to provide a more formal medium through which the department can be advised of consumer interests.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to announce the names of those appointed to the council: Dr. M. Pernarowski, of Vancouver; Mrs. B. P. Marliss, of Edmonton; Dr. Edith Rowles, of Saskatoon; Mrs. W. Gilbert Weir, of Winnipeg; Dr. Barbara A. McLaren, of Toronto; Mrs. A.
F.	W. Plumptre, of Ottawa; Mrs. A. H. Zimmerman, of Ottawa; Madame J. F. Pilon, of Boucherville, Quebec; Mile. Huguette Pla-mondon, of Montreal; Madame Antonio Paradis, of Ancienne Lorette, Quebec; Madame Therese Casgrain, of Montreal; Mrs. H. R. Neilson, of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Mrs. V. W.
G.	Wilson, of Montreal; Miss Theresa McNeil, of Sydney, Nova Scotia; Mrs. John C. Crosbie, of St. John's, Newfoundland.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of this committee I think will commend itself generally; and as this is to be a committee that will look into consumer problems I hope it will be able to give some advice to the government regarding the ever rising costs of living, a matter of deep concern to all consumers across Canada. Any advice that the committee can give to the Minister of Finance and the department will certainly be welcome.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this move to establish a consumers' advisory council is a step, albeit a very small step, in the right direction. The minister must be aware that the consumers association of Canada and the co-operative union of Canada have both asked for a government department to handle the increased activity in this direction. It is interesting to note that we have a government department to look after practically every economic group in the country such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and so on. However consumers, who spend about $25 billion a year on personal goods in this country, do not receive the same sort of attention from the government that the other economic groups do.

Advisory Council of Consumers
I think in time, as a result ol pressure from the consumers' associations, the government will come to the point where a full scale department will be required to assist consumers in assessing the great variety of goods on the market at the present time. This is a step in the right direction, but it is a very faltering one, a very small step.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: We noted the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in announcing the establishment of this advisory council. She pointed out some of the functions of this council, and it seemed to me that most of the preliminary functions were the same as those of the food and drug administration which is now protecting the interests of the consumer. We feel that this council should have a somewhat wider scope, particularly in its set up so there would be representation of broader viewpoints on economic problems.
While we welcome the announcement that has been made concerning the functions that have been outlined by the minister, we do say it is only a very short step in the right direction, and that people who do take a broad interest in consumer problems should have a voice in this council.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there was so much noise close to the minister when she made her statement that we could not hear everything she said. Indeed, we could hear sheets of paper being crumpled and conversations between other ministers far better than the minister's statement.
In any case, I think it is truly a first step in the right direction to want to set up a committee that will take the interest of the consumers seriously, because consumers surely make up one of the most important groups in our economy. There is no doubt that the committee will have a great deal of work to do for those consumers. To begin with, as already explained, definitions or better information will have to be provided concerning the goods purchased.
Then, and this is very important, we must not overlook the fact that most consumers today buy on credit, and I feel the committee will have a tremendous job to do in order to protect them against those who exploit people that buy on the instalment plan or through loans. As a matter of fact, that could be one of the most important means through which the committee could help Canadian consumers.
[Mr. Prittie.l



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make that I am sure will be of interest to all hon. members. During the past week a close watch has been kept on the sour cherry marketing situation, since it has been apparent that the crop will be particularly heavy both in Canada and the United States.
The crop in the United States is harvested somewhat earlier than that in Canada; unfortunately, however, the market in that country has been severely disrupted and late last week it became evident that unless appropriate action were taken much of the Canadian crop, which is grown almost entirely in Ontario, would remain unharvested because of the uncertainty of the future price situation. In this connection, it should be noted that the crop is used almost entirely for processing.
Immediate action has been taken to meet this situation, and I am pleased to be able to announce that governor in council authority is being sought to provide assistance under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to stabilize the price to producers of the 1964 crop of sour cherries delivered to processors at 7.8 cents per pound, which is 81 per cent of the ten year average or base price. Under the program for which authorization is sought, price stabilization will be accomplished by the agricultural stabilization board being authorized to make a direct payment to producers of 1.3 cents per pound of cherries.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear the announcement by the minister that price support will be provided for this particular commodity under the agricultural prices stabilization board, although we will have to assess, upon closer study, the value of the particular price that has been established. We are also pleased to see that members of the government, in spite of their opposition to this legislation and in spite of the comments they made during the election campaign, are now following the program we set out while we were in office. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Oni.):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture which arises out of the announcement he made to the house today. Can the minister state whether his department gave

any consideration to the establishment of a fair market value for duty on United States sour cherries imported into Canada as a move to protect the Canadian growers?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Paul Tardif (for Mr. Baldwin) moved: that the third report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Friday, July 24, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Howard: For each of the fiscal years of 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64, what amount of money was spent by the Indian affairs branch, in each of the Indian communities in B.C. of Atlin, Lower Post, Telegraph Creek and Iskut?


Mr. Badanai:: 1961-62	1962-63
Atlin	$	1,700 $	7,400Lower Post	191,625	213,510Telegraph Creek	35,000	26,000Iskut	Nil	14,740
1963-64 $ 1,485 190,985 19,289 15,595


MOVEMENT OF INDIANS FROM TELEGRAPH CREEK, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Has any group of Indians, within the past four years, moved from Telegraph Creek, B.C., to Kiniskon lake or any other location in that area and, if so (a) when did such a move take place (b) how many Indians moved, and (c) did they belong to a particular tribe, nation, band or group of Indians and, if so, what is their name?
2.	How many of the said Indians are still living at that location?
3.	How many are of school age?
4.	Was a school established for them at the new location and, if so, by whom, and has it remained open at all times since then and, if not, what are the reasons for each closure?
5.	In the process of moving did they miss any schooling and, if so, how much?
6.	Are they associated with any religious order and, if so, which one and is this religious order different than that followed by Indians who remained at Telegraph Creek?
7.	Who was responsible for initiating or proposing the move and were the Indian people consulted and. if so, by whom, when and by what method or process?
20220-379J
Questions
8.	How much money has the Indian affairs branch expended with respect to this group since the move was made to the new location and what, in detail, was the expenditure for?
9.	Did any of the said Indians object, at any time, about the move or the proposal therefore and, if so, how many and what action has been taken with respect to the said objections?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. (a>
in the fall of 1962; (b) 125; (c) yes, the Bear lake group of the Tahltan band.
2.	125.
3.	45.
4.	A school was operated during 1962-63 by Father Doetzel, the missionary, who moved with the band. Owing to the lack of facilities and the inability to recruit teaching staff, it was not possible to operate a school during 1963-64. However, a two classroom log school-house has now been constructed with two adjoining log cabin residences. It is expected that this school will operate on a regular basis in September, 1964.
5.	Yes, one year.
6.	The group which moved to the Kiniskon lake area are of the Roman Catholic faith. Of the Tahltan Indian people remaining at Telegraph Creek, the majority are of the Anglican faith.
7.	The move was proposed and initiated by the Indians themselves.
8.	Welfare assistance, $25,000; schoolhouse construction, $18,000.
9.	No.


PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS TO OTHER THAN LOW BIDDER
Mr. Grafftey: How many contracts In Canada, in excess of $5,000, have been awarded by the Department of Public Works to other than the low bidder since April 8, 1963?


Mr. Deschatelets:: Twenty one contracts.


TERMS FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM &quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST
Mr. Orlikow: Have any members of the S.I.U. who were put on the "do not ship list" and who have applied for readmission to the union been told by officers of the S.I.U. or the trustees or agents of the trustees, or by the maritime appeals board that they will be reinstated on condition that they agree (a) not to engage in activities against the leaders of the union or the union (b) to be shipped by means other than the normal means required Tiy the constitution which is via the union hall shipping board (c) to refrain from internal union political activities previously engaged in?


Mr. MacEachen:: Not so far as is known to the board of trustees.

Questions


UNION ASSISTANCE IN WRITING OF THESIS
Mr. Bell: 1.	Did the chairman of the board of trustees advise the C.B.R.T. in Vancouver to assist a young man writing a thesis on the subject of the sociological aspects of the seamen's psyche?
2.	Were the union members advised that they must co-operate and furnish information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No. The board of trustees has a program conducted in co-operation with the religion labour council aimed at obtaining statistical information on a broad basis for use in drafting policies. The industry is affected by a substantial turnover in personnel and the trustees are interested inter alia in determining the factors leading to this type of instability.
2. Not by the trustees.


S.I.U. MEMBERS RECEIVING &quot;TRAINING IN TACTICS&quot;
Mr. Bell: Has the board of trustees any information that
5.1.	U. members from Montreal have been sent to New York at the expense of the international
5.1.	U. to take "training in tactics" and, if so, how many members are receiving such training?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a matter in respect of which the board of trustees could only obtain information by reason of their position as trustees of the union concerned and relates to the internal workings of the union. The views of the trustees are that this information belongs to the union rather than to themselves and they feel it would be a breach of their duty to release it. Their view is that it was not the intention of the legislation to destroy, in the case of the unions placed under trusteeship, the privacy as to internal workings so long and so jealously guarded by the trade union movement and accorded to all unions not under trusteeship.


DEFENCE PROGRAMS CANCELLED
Mr. Coates: 1.	What programs authorized at the time the present government assumed office, have since been cancelled in the (a) Canadian Army (b) Hoyal Canadian Navy (c) Royal Canadian Air Force, with particular reference to procurement of equipment in each case?
2.	What is the amount in each case?
Answer: 1 and 2. (a) Bobcat armoured personnel carrier development program, $4,335,690.39; (b) general purpose frigate program estimated value $454,000,000; (c) CF101 interceptor improvement program, estimated value $12,000,000 and the Argus operational flight trainer, estimated value, $3,200,000.


EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IN CANCELLED DEFENCE CONTRACTS
Mr. Coaies: 1.	What has been the number and kind of (a) ships involved in cancellation of naval programs (b) aircraft involved in cancellation of air force programs (c) vehicles and weapons involved in cancellation of army programs?
2.	What is the cost in each case?
Answer: 1 and 2. (a) Eight general purpose frigates, $239,894.91; (b) nil; (c) 20 Bobcat armoured personnel carrier development models, $4,335,690.39.


LAND EXPROPRIATION, ACRES ROAD, OTTAWA
Mr. Thompson: What did the national capital commission pay
for the expropriated 12 acres of land on Acres road, which had been intended as the site for the Ottawa Jewish home for the aged?
Answer: $37,500 plus 5 per cent interest from date of expropriation, June 13, 1961, to date of payment of compensation, December 11, 1962. '


RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE USES FOR COAL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What research Is taking place in Canada with respect to alternative uses for coal?
2.	Has any research been done on the possible derivation of jet fuel from coal?
3.	Has Canada established liaison with similar research projects in other countries and, if so, which projects and in which countries?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. The research council of Alberta is engaged in research on coal chemicals to produce sustained nitrogen release fertilizers and soil conditioners from humic acids derived from coal. Also, studies are in progress on the incorporation of chlorine into humic acids for the purpose of making fire retardant chemicals.
Research into low temperature controlled oxidation of coal is also being conducted by the research council of Alberta. Specialists are studying the oxidation of low rank coals for the production of humic acids by the aqueous oxidation of coal.
The Nova Scotia research foundation is studying carbon and nickel electrodes with a view to developing high temperature fuel cells that may be used with coal.
The mines branch in Ottawa is actively engaged in research on the production of coke for the metallurgical industry in a wide variety of forms, extending from high temperature metallurgical coke to "form coke" and chars. Petrographic research is in progress to follow the development of carbonization and to point the way to superior products.

2.	No. A continuous review is made of such processes and the results to date indicate that jet fuels can be more cheaply made from low grade petroleum and residual oils.
3.	No formal liaison with similar projects in other countries has been established to our knowledge.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION PARKWAY
Mr. Thompson: 1. What length of Ottawa riverside parkway within the national capital area (a) has been built (b) is projected, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What are the corresponding figures in Ontario?
3.	How many properties, and at what total cost, has the national capital commission acquired by
(a)	expropriation within the province of Quebec
(b)	negotiated purchase within the province of Quebec?
4.	What are the corresponding figures in Ontario?
5.	In view of the fact that the national capital plan envisaged a green belt surrounding the entire area of the national capital region, in both Ontario and Quebec, why does the national capital commission's 1964 map of Ottawa envisage a green belt area only in Ontario?
Answer: 1. (a) Nil, (b) 1.75 miles.
2.	(a) 3.75 miles, (b) 9 miles.
3.	(a) 84 properties at a total cost of $2,261,651, (b) 100 properties at a total cost of $1,934,473.
4.	(a) 1,092 properties at a total cost of $32,663,423, (b) 591 properties at a total cost of $17,181,615.
5.	A green belt similar to that in Ontario has not been approved in Quebec by the government.


* GRANT TO VANIER INSTITUTE OF THE FAMILY
Mrs. Jones: Will the government give consideration to making an early and substantial grant to the Vanier institute of the family, whose desirous objectives are deserving of support?


Mr. Pearson:: The government will give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion when the Vanier institute of the family has been established.


LOAN APPLICATIONS TO MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many applications have been received by the municipal development and loan board from various municipalities, within each province?
2.	How many loans were approved and for what total amount, within each province?
3.	How many applications were refused and upon what grounds were they refused?
4.	What is the balance available in the fund as of June 30, 1964?
5.	Is consideration being given to increasing the funds available to the municipal development and loan board?
Questions


Mr. Pennell:: 1 and 2. Loan applications received and loans approved by the board to June 30, 1964 by province.
	No. of		Total
appli-	No. of	amountcations	loans	of loansProvince	received approved approved	Newfoundland	27	26	$ 3,537,293Nova Scotia	2	2	715,735Prince Edward Island 2	2	55,856New Brunswick	14	14	3,992,641Quebec	49	41	7,130,900Ontario	42	42	33,991,366Manitoba	22	20	5,223,953Saskatchewan	224	217	11,566,742Alberta	19	19	4,714,382British Columbia	54	54	16,490,4253.	None.4.	$312,580,707.5.	No.


N.C.C. PROPERTIES ACQUIRED, OTTAWA-HULL
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What was the number of houses, business premises and units of land and the value of each, purchased by the N.C.C. for demolition and other purposes within the boundaries of the cities of Ottawa and Hull respectively during the past year?
2.	What was the total value of all such properties purchased (a) in Ottawa (b) in Hull, during the past year?
Answer: 1. Eleven and five respectively.
2. (a) $1,180,950; (b) $37,800.


MICHAEL SHEEHAN, FORMER S.I.U. PATROLMAN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is Michael J. Sheehan, former patrolman of the S.I.U. of Canada, on the do not ship list?
2.	Is Mr. Sheehan permitted the use of the S.I.U. halls and the right to ship on S.I.U.-contracted vessels and, if not, for what reasons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. His name does not appear on the only portion of the D.N.S. list that the board of trustees has ever seen, i.e. schedule 44 of the report of the industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping.
2. Not to the knowledge of the board of trustees. Mr. Sheehan is not a member of the S.I.U. and is, in fact, a member of the Canadian maritime union.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-592
Mr. Priiiie: 1.	How many applications were received in response to the civil service commission competition number 64-592 (archivist 1)?

Questions
2.	How many persons were employed as a result of this competition?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: I am informed by the civil service commission as follows:
1.	Ninety two applications were received in civil service competition 64-592, archivist 1.
2.	As a result of this competition, 11 persons were offered employment. Three persons have reported for duty, seven have accepted but have not yet reported for duty and one person has not replied to date.


ADDITIONAL FERRY, NEW ENGLAND-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving consideration to the construction of an additional ferry for use between New England and Nova Scotia in view of the increase in passengers and vehicles carried by the M.V. Bluenose during June, 1964 in comparison with the figures for June, 1963?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The Department of Transport is studying the question of ferry services between Nova Scotia and New England, and one factor it is reviewing is the volume of traffic carried on the M. V. Bluenose. Early this year the ferry's rate schedule was revised in order to help contain the increasing operating deficit on the service, and it is still too early to assess subsequent traffic patterns.
In view of the heavy cost that would be involved in providing a new ferry and the comparatively short period each year during which there would be traffic sufficient to justify two ferries, an expansion of the service would naturally have to promise considerable benefits before it would be regarded as feasible.


UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION, OWEN SOUND, ONT.
Mr. Noble: 1.	What was the total number of unemployed persons in the city of Owen Sound at (a) June 30, 1963, and (b) June 30, 1964?
2.	Has the government any information concerning the number of empty factory buildings in the city of Owen Sound?
3.	Is there any way in which the federal government can assist in the stimulation of employment in the city of Owen Sound and, if so, in what way?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The only official unemployment figures that are produced are the total for Canada and for the five major regions. Regisrations on file at the local offices of the national employment service provide a rough indication of employment conditions in local areas. In the Owen Sound national employment service local area, some 968 persons were registered on the live files at

June 30, 1963. On June 30, 1964, the total was 1,037.
2.	No. The government does not have the facilities to survey the number of empty factory buildings in communities across Canada.
3.	The federal government has introduced a number of measures of a general nature which are aimed at providing indirect assistance in stimulating employment in areas such as Owen Sound. Measures concerned with encouraging reseach in industry, and the establishment of the municipal loan fund are intended to stimulate employment expansion. In a more direct way, the municipal winter works incentive program and the winter house building incentive program have encouraged employment expansion in Owen Sound and other parts of the country. The federal government, in co-operation with the province of Ontario, has provided extensive vocational training facilities in the city of Owen Sound. Two schools were constructed, with the federal government paying 75 per cent of shareable costs. The Owen Sound collegiate institute which was constructed at a total cost of $632,000 provides for 130 new student places. The Westhill secondary school which was constructed at a total cost of $958,000 provides for 480 new student places.


SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF SEAMEN'S PSYCHE
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Have the maritime trustees appointed a graduate student to do a study on the sociological aspects of the seamen's psyche and, if so, who was appointed and when?
2.	What is the purpose of the study?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 and 2. A graduate student was asked in June to supplement information being compiled in a program being conducted in co-operation with the religion labour council.


SALE OF BARRACKS PROPERTY, LONGUEUIL, QUE.
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Since the 1st day of January, 1964,, has the Department of Public Works sold or agreed to sell land in Longueuil, Quebec, known as the Barracks property and, if so, at what price per square foot, and to whom?
2.	Were tenders asked for and, if so, who tendered and at what price?
3.	If tenders were not called, why was that procedure not followed?
4.	Was a valuation made of the property prior to sale and, if so, what was the valuation per square foot?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. The property known as the Barracks property at Longueuil, Quebec, is under the administration and control

of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.


REPAIRS TO BREASTWORK, GULL ROCK LIGHT, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to repair or rebuild the breastwork at the Gull rock light, Caribou island, N.S. during the current fiscal year and, if so, by whom and when will the work commence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, by contract this fall. Tenders have not yet been called.


CAUSEWAY BETWEEN MONCTON AND ALBERT COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Bell: Have any approaches been made by the province of New Brunswick concerning a proposed causeway between the city of Moncton and Albert county as to surveying and/or financing and, if so, with what result?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.


PURCHASE OP FERRY &quot;NEW GRAND HAVEN&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who were the owners of the ferry New Grand Haven recently purchased by the government?
2.	What was the name of the United States company that formerly owned this ferry?
3.	What individual or company acted as an agent for the U.S. company?
4.	If the agent in question was a company, what are the names and addresses of the board of directors?
5.	What was the name of the firm who appraised the value of the New Grand Haven and what was their estimation of its value?
6.	On what date were negotiations started between the agent in question and the government for the sale of the New Grand Haven't
7.	What individual or individuals acted on behalf of the government during the negotiations which resulted in the acquisition of the New Grand Haven?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q.
2.	West India Fruit and Steamship Co. Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida.
3.	None.
4.	See 3 above.
5.	Marine Industries Ltd., $1,200,000 U.S.
6.	Negotiations between Marine Industries Ltd., and the government started May 13, 1964.
7.	G. A. Scott, assistant deputy minister and J. R. Strang, director, shipbuilding branch, Department of Transport.
Questions


TAX ON PRODUCTION MACHINERY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Stenson: Does the government have any information with respect of a tax on production of machinery in the United States, England, Germany, France, Japan, and other countries in competition with Canadian industry?


Mr. Sharp:: The United States, Britain and Japan do not have a sales or excise tax applicable to industrial production machinery. In France and Germany there is a turnover tax, which is the equivalent of a sales tax, levied on domestic and imported machinery. This tax amounts to 25 per cent in France and ranges from 4 per cent to 8 per cent in Germany. Other major industrialized countries whose manufactures compete with Canada's in world markets and who have taxes on industrial production machinery are Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. In Italy there is a turnover tax ranging from 4 per cent to 6J per cent. Sweden and Switzerland have general turnover taxes of 6.42 and 5.42 per cent respectively.


PAYMENT FOR WHEAT SOLD TO RUSSIA AND CHINA
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Has any of the wheat which has been sold to Russia or to China been paid for in gold and, if so, was the gold paid directly to Canada?
2.	If not, in what form did Canada receive payment?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The government of Canada has no information as to the disposition of gold by either Russia or China to obtain the currency with which payment is made for wheat purchases.
2. Payment was received by the Canadian wheat board from its export agents in Canadian dollars for shipments to the U.S.S.R. and in convertible sterling for shipments to mainland China.


* NAVIGATIONAL RADIO BEACON, CAPE RACE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Does the Department of Transport operate a navigational radio beacon from Cape Race and, if so, how far out can the signal from this beacon be picked up?
2.	Have representations been received requesting that the signal from this beacon be strengthened so that it can be picked up 200 miles out?
3.	Whether or not such representations have been received, is consideration being given to strengthening this signal?


Mr. Canlin:: 1. Yes, 100 nautical miles.
2.	No.
3.	No.

Questions


TENDERS FOR AIRPORT PARKING METERS, VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Was an order placed for 30 parking meters for the Victoria international airport and, if so, when was the order placed?
2.	Were tenders asked for, or was it an informal request for prices?
3.	To what company was the order given and what type of meter did they supply?
4.	What was the price paid?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes, on June 9, 1964.
2.	Informal requests for prices were invited from the following three companies supplying manually operated parking meters:
Mi-Co Meter Sales and Service Limited, E. A. Horton Sales Limited, Duncan Parking Meters of Canada Limited.
3.	The order was placed with Mi-Co Meter Sales and Service Limited for their parking meter "1000". Theirs was the only bid received.
4.	The price paid for the supply and installation of the parking meters was as follows:
Model "1000" per car space	$	57.50
Special sealed coin box, per
car space	5.00
Price per car space	$	62.50
Installation cost per post	6.00
Total cost	$2,055.00


T.N.T. EXPLOSION, STJF FIELD, ALTA.
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What was the size and the cost of the recent t.n.t. explosion at Suffield?
2.	What was the purpose of the explosion?
3.	Did the U.S.A. share In the cost?
Answer: 1. 500 tons, $825,975.
2.	To study the shock wave from a chemical explosion of a size comparable to a small nuclear explosion to determine whether the same laws govern both as well as to study the effect of blast on certain structures and materials for the improvement of blast resistant design.
3.	Yes, as well as Britain.


AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, WEST COAST INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What at the present time, are the authorized staff positions for the west coast (Alberni) agency of the Indian affairs branch?
2.	What, briefly, are the duties of each authorized position?
3.	Is each authorized position filled at the present time and, if not, for what reason?


Hubert Badanai: 1. The authorized staff positions for the west coast agency of the Indian affairs branch are:	superintendent 3, Indian agency; assistant 3, Indian agency; clerk 4; clerk I; stenographer 1; caretaker 3; captain engineer.
2.	The duties of each authorized position
are as follows:	superintendent 3, Indian
agency; under the direction of the Indian commissioner for British Columbia to be responsible for the administration of the west coast Indian agency.
Assistant 3, Indian agency, to assist the superintendent in agency administration and under direction, to pay particular attention to the field of welfare administration, housing and community employment programming.
Clerk 4, to be responsible for the more complex clerical work of the office; to maintain bookkeeping system; to look after general inquiries at the counter and interview visitors.
Clerk 1, to perform junior clerical work in the agency office including the checking of invoices and medical accounts, preparing vouchers, receiving and distributing incoming mail, maintaining a register of vital statistics and general filing.
Stenographer 1, to perform stenographic duties at the agency office.
Caretaker 3, to perform general caretaking duties at Ahousaht Indian day school.
Captain engineer, while on trips to be responsible for the navigation of the vessel and operation of the main engine and all other systems including radar equipment; to ensure that all necessary hatches, ports, etc. are closed and that movable gear, etc. is properly stowed; to cook for authorized ships complement unless otherwise engaged in navigation of vessel or essential running maintenance to main engine or other equipment; to ensure safe and adequate moorage of vessel during stopovers. In port to be responsible for care and maintenance of all ships equipment and gear; to ensure neatness and cleanliness of interior and exterior of vessel; to paint interior surfaces as required and do touch-up painting of exterior; to prepare reports and maintain log as required; to ensure proper fuelling and provisioning of vessel; to supervise all ship yard work required.
3.	All authorized positions are filled at the present time with the exception of the clerk 1 position. The civil service commission has been asked to fill the vacancy by open competition.

Note: This does not include teaching staff in various Indian schools in the agency and the office at Nanaimo, B.C.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Of the 116 projects approved under ARDA, which projects have been approved for the province of Quebec, where are they to be carried out, and what amount has been set aside for each?
2.	Of the 14 projects presently under study, which projects are scheduled for the province of Quebec, where are they to be carried out, and what amount will be allotted for each?
3.	For the 29 other projects for which no answer is given, which of these are slated for the province of Quebec, where are they to be carried out, and what is the estimated cost of each?
4.	How many projects under ARDA have been approved for each province?
5.	What projects are presently being studied for each province, and what is the estimated cost of each?
Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour calls orders of the day I rise for the purpose of pointing out that starred question No. 1,447 has been on the order paper since July 8. The purpose of having starred questions is to have them answered at an early date. The questions asked are very simple, the first being:
How many companies or individuals have Canadian copyrights on the design of the three maple leaves joined on one stem?
I feel there has been unnecessary delay in furnishing the answer. It is a very simple question, and the department could give the answer immediately. Why there should be delay of almost three weeks in giving an answer to a simple question such as that leaves one wondering and in surmise as to the cause of the delay. I hope an answer will be given at the very next sitting.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: undertake to make the necessary inquiries immediately and to have the answer filed without further delay.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the visit of Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia and the outstanding contribution his country makes as a rampart against communism, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government is giving consideration to providing military training in Canada for Malaysian personnel similar to that furnished in a number of cases for personnel of NATO countries. I should like to ask him, further, whether consideration is being given to granting credit sales of appropriate military equipment required by that country for its defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We shall be meeting the prime minister of Malaysia this afternoon and tomorrow. We have received no formal request from his government recently for any particular type of assistance, but we shall be glad to give sympathetic consideration to such requests, if and when made, including the two mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received and acknowledged a telegram dated July 22 which was forwarded to him from the Oshawa-Port Hope-Cobourg and district building and construction trades council requesting a meeting to discuss wage rates established by the industrial relations branch of his department. Has the minister acknowledged this telegram, and has a date been set for such a meeting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to take this question as notice.



VANCOUVER, B.C.  CONTRACT FOR PAINTING VETERANS HOUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, in that sense; but when I said no United Nations funds were involved I meant that there is no money in the treasury of the United Nations for this peace keeping purpose. I have expressed the view that it is a regrettable thing that the nations who are member states of the United Nations do not pay their deficits to enable the United Nations to carry on this vital work.']
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a letter from the business agent of the painters' union, local 138, alleging that Arli

Inquiries of the Ministry Contracting Ltd. of Vancouver, which has just been awarded a contract to paint 450 veterans houses in the Fraserview project, has a reputation for violating fair wage clauses in federal contracts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had correspondence with the union in question, and I am now trying to ascertain the situation with respect to the most recent contract. I will advise my hon. friend when I get that information.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister said last Thursday, in answer to a question by myself regarding the possible conciliatory role which Canada might play between the organization of American states and Cuba, that he would take the matter under consideration. I wonder whether in view of the development over the week end he is able to make a further statement at this time.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: With regard to that specific question I have nothing further to say at the moment.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In view of the fact that the American republics have signed a declaration condemning communist Cuba for aggression and approving the implementation of economic and diplomatic sanctions against her, has the Canadian government not received any direct word from the O.A.S. in relation to Canada's stand as it concerns this situation?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There has been no formal communication between the organization, or the meeting in Washington, and the government of Canada. I have an advance text of the principal resolution adopted yesterday at the ninth meeting of the consultative council of the foreign ministers of the O.A.S. countries. It was adopted by a vote of 15 to 4. In substance the resolution provides for the following measures against Cuba: that the governments of the American states shall not maintain diplomatic or consular relations with the government of Cuba; that they shall suspend all trade with Cuba except in foodstuffs, medicines and medical equipment; and that they

shall suspend all sea transportation with Cuba. There is a paragraph urging states not members of the O.A.S. that are animated by the same ideals of the inter-American system, to examine the possibility of effectively demonstrating their solidarity in achieving the purposes of the resolution.
Successive Canadian governments, in common with most other western governments, including virtually all members of NATO and the O.E.C.D., have consistently taken the position that diplomatic and trade relations do not signify approval of a particular regime. That continues to be the view of the government at the present time.
As we were not a participant in the discussions and decisions that have taken place in Washington we are not fully aware, of course, of all the considerations which may have been taken into account. We shall give careful study to the conclusions reached on the basis of such information as may be available to us. The house is aware that it has been the policy of this government, as it was of the previous government, to continue diplomatic and commercial relations with Cuba.
As far as trade is concerned, the export of arms and strategic materials to Cuba has been forbidden for several years; indeed, well before the decisions of this effect were reached by the O.A.S. itself in Washington on Saturday.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the policy of this government, and in view of the concern of many Canadians and many Canadian editors with this latest development, does not the minister think it is about time Canada began to indicate its opposition to this latest expression of United States economic imperialism?


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious divergence of opinion between the countries represented in the O.A.S. and Canada's view, which was stated by the minister, does not this very circumstance indicate that care must be taken on the part of Canada in joining the organization of American states?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think, Mr. Speaker, care must be taken in any matter having to do with the foreign policy of a country.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one of my hon. friend's jocund reactions, Mr. Speaker. I ask him the question seriously. Was he taking care when during two election campaigns he

said, "One of the first things we are going to do is join the organization of American states"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my right hon. friend would want to be precise in this matter. I do not think I said that at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: What I did say was that I thought the time had come when we should review sympathetically-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -Canadian participation in the organization of American states; and I have personally always indicated the view that Canada should be a member of that organization. That has always been my view.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you carry it
out?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I am a member of a government now, and that is an experience my hon. friend may not have in his lifetime. I say to my right hon. friend that in these matters one should take great care. That the government is doing. There are many considerations involved in this matter, as my right hon. friend knows. There is the fact of possible Caribbean-common-wealth membership in the O.A.S., and there are a number of other considerations. These are being borne in mind in connection with this matter.	'


John George Diefenbaker: Sympathetically?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sympathetically.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the extremely grave situation which continues to develop in Cyprus. In view of the fact that another arms convoy moved inland last night; that yesterday the president of Cyprus stated that Cyprus has become an impregnable fortress, and that he also said yesterday he will never agree to any compromise settlement of this issue, does the minister have any statement for the house with regard to the situation which continues to become graver and graver?
20220-380J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, a matter of great importance, but beyond that I have nothing to say except to recall to the hon. gentleman's attention the fact that important meetings are under way in Geneva, and have been for the last eight days.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Cyprus. Is the cost of Canada's military contribution in that area being met entirely by Canada, or is part of the financial obligation being met by the United Nations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, it is being met by Canada. If it were not for this fact there would not have been a force, with the consequences that might otherwise have arisen on the 13th of March.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the military contributions being made by other nations, except Great Britain, involved in the United Nations force in Cyprus being paid for entirely by those countries or are they being assisted by United Nations funds?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There are no United Nations funds for this purpose. Ireland and Canada are bearing their own costs.
ILater:]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked me if any United Nations funds were involved and I said there were no United Nations funds in the sense that there are no moneys within the treasury of the United Nations available for this particular purpose. When this United Nations operation developed Canada was the first country to agree to join the force, and in view of the financial situation, we indicated that we would bear our share, as indeed did the government of Ireland. The governments of Finland, Sweden and Denmark are replenished from certain funds that have been volunteered by the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries.


John George Diefenbaker: From United Nations funds.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the funds which were volunteered,

Inquiries of the Ministry as he put it, were paid to the United Nations, or are the two countries which are providing the funds making payments directly to the participants in the United Nations force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are paid to the secretary general for this specific purpose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Therefore they constitute part of the United Nations funds.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, in that sense; but when I said no United Nations funds were involved I meant that there is no money in the treasury of the United Nations for this peace keeping purpose. I have expressed the view that it is a regrettable thing that the nations who are member states of the United Nations do not pay their deficits to enable the United Nations to carry on this vital work.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell the house how soon we might expect the tabling of the Pope report, and if we may anticipate any changes in the P.F.A.A. regulations as a result of Judge Pope's recommendations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into this matter and answer the hon. member shortly, Mr. Speaker.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received representations from turkey growers across Canada directing his attention to the inordinate number of turkeys that are being imported into Canada from the United States in violation of normal trading practices?


Harry William Hays: Yes, I have received several inquiries from those interested in the production of turkeys. The situation is that we have imported something like 8 million pounds of turkey into Canada. There is protection to the extent of about 8 cents a pound on the basis of a 5 cent tariff, 1 cent on the discounted dollar, 1 cent shrinkage and the balance is made up of freight. The turkeys

that have arrived in Canada have been all of the heavy variety, over 22 pounds.
We used to have a quota of something like 4 million pounds on turkeys, but this was removed as it was not government policy to have these quotas. Nevertheless we have this protection and we are watching this situation very closely. Canada is still consuming more turkey than any other country in the world. Up to the end of June we had consumed about 30 million pounds of turkey, which is about 2 million pounds less than a year ago. We expect that by the end of the year we will be up by about 7 pounds per person.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Has the minister had his attention drawn to the fact that some of the turkeys coming in at the present time are in violation of the agreement, while the turkey producers in this country are under some disadvantage as a result of the health of animals regulations as applied to these imports?


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us when the quota on turkeys was removed?


Harry William Hays: The quota on imported turkeys was removed last year. This is in line with trade policies. I do not agree with the hon. member that turkeys are coming in in violation of the health of animals regulations. I think what the hon. member is getting at is that they are coming into this country in Canadian wrappers. The turkeys are marked "Product of the U.S.A.". All the eviscerated birds coming into Canada are marked as United States products, but some are coming in in the cellophane wrappers of the Canadian processors. There is nothing illegal about this, and it has been going on for years.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he ascertain whether his parliamentary secretary is still of the opinion, as reported recently in he Devoir, that loans to students are "terribly provoking" in so far as provincial rights are concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: 
John George Diefenbaker: How about answering it in the house?



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister purely on the basis of seeking information. In view of the fact that there has been considerable caustic comment, possibly uninformed comment, with respect to the fact that several of his cabinet colleagues from Quebec failed to vote on the student loans bill, could the Prime Minister give an explanation to the house so the Canadian public may understand the situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has been in the house long enough to know that is quite an improper question.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice last Friday whether he would bring to the notice of the minister the question I posed to him twice previously in past weeks concerning the trial, conviction and sentencing of two officers of the mounted police in Quebec. Can the minister answer the question now?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did read in Hansard the exchange of questions and answers on this subject, but I must tell the house that this particular disciplinary matter is not yet disposed of. It is presently undergoing a second stage in the procedure provided for under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, so I must maintain my stand for the moment that I do not think it would be appropriate for me to disclose any details. I have made it a point, besides this, not to interfere or intervene in the process which has taken its course up to now, and I think this is a proper stand to take until such time as the matter may reach my own personal jurisdiction. I hope the house will
Inquiries of the Ministry take my word when I say that once the matter has been disposed of in its final stage I shall be in a position to report to the house.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This, of course, is the first time the minister has explained the matter to the house. In view of the fact that the two officers concerned, according to press and radio reports, were convicted and sentenced, and in view of the fact that the only further proceedings which are being taken are the review of the matter through the appeal processes under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, could the minister not inform the house what was the sentence of the R.C.M.P. court in respect to this matter and what were the charges brought?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have to maintain my stand on this matter. When I stated that the matter had entered a further stage I deemed that my hon. friend had understood, as he had very well because he just said so, that I was referring to the question of an appeal by way of review, and I think it would be much more appropriate if the proper course of events, as in the case of a court, were allowed to proceed.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Further to the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), does the government intend to establish a Washington-style independent federal district for the national capital?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Before doing so may I welcome him back from the province of Alberta. In view of the statement made by

Inquiries of the Ministry his parliamentary secretary during his ab-sense, has his department or the government given any orders to the R.C.M.P. or to other paid federal agents to search for and find out the whereabouts of Banks?


Guy Favreau: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Bow River for having reminded me of a very pleasant trip to his very pleasant province, and also for having explained the reason for my absence from the house, particularly on Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was a vote on Friday.


Guy Favreau: I must say that I will be in a position to answer the hon. member's question tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put this supplementary question. I have been advised by the same radio station in Montreal that Canadian agents working with United States authorities are at Higgins Beach, Maine, at the present time looking for Banks; and in view of the fact that the parliamentary secretary stated that this matter was not under the administration of justice I am wondering why these men are there.


Guy Favreau: There were, of course, two different questions asked. The first one related, if I understand Hansard correctly, to the matter of the bond and the proceedings under the code of civil procedure for contempt of court, with regard to which an appeal has finally been denied by the Supreme Court of Canada. The other question was directed more specifically to the question of looking into certain facts in which the Department of Justice as such may have had some interest.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister let the house know whether the bond which was taken when Banks was granted his freedom pending his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, a bond in the amount of $25,000, contained the usual provision that the appellant should not depart the jurisdiction of the court without leave? Did it not have that normal term in it, or was that removed from the recognizance?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that no conditions were removed from the recognizance which Mr. Banks was asked to enter into with his bondsman. The only condition as far as the court of appeal in the province of Quebec is concerned was that Mr. Banks has, subject to his bond for $25,000 being forfeited, undertaken to report

on or about September 14, I think it is, to the Quebec court.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister state there was no provision in that recognizance bond that the appellant should not depart the jurisdiction of the court without leave? Was that not in the recognizance?


Guy Favreau: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that it was not in the recognizance bond, and I find nothing surprising in that. The precise reason for the high amount of the bond is to make sure that for the purposes of further proceedings Mr. Banks will make himself available and submit to the jurisdiction of the court.


John George Diefenbaker: Then it was removed from the ordinary bond form.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Look at page 1289 of the
code.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the fact that the abandoned mid-Canada radar site at Bird, Manitoba, is to be auctioned publicly in the very near future, will the minister consider delaying such action until a study can be conducted into the possibility of transferring this multi-million dollar property to some other government authority, such as for example the Indian affairs branch, in order to allow some worthy project to be carried out in the ideal facilities which are located or are available at this site?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper; it requires quite a detailed answer.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, reports indicate that this public auction may take place by the end of July. This is a multi-million dollar property, and there are many projects which could be conducted in this area by various government branches. We have the development of the Nelson river power sites coming up in the very near future, and either the province or the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that perhaps the hon. member might like to put this question down for debate at 10.30.


Robert Simpson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On June 26 I submitted question No. 1,380, which reads as follows:
Have any members of the S.I.U. who were put on the "do not ship" list and who have applied for readmission to the union been told by officers of the S.I.U. or the trustees or agents of the trustees, or by the maritime appeals board that they will be reinstated on condition that they agree (a) not to engage in activities against the leaders of the union; (b) to be shipped by means other than the normal means required by the constitution which is via the union hall shipping board; (c) to refrain from internal union political activities previously engaged in?
Today the answer came down and it reads as follows:
Not so far as is known to the board of trustees.
Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I sent a copy of a letter signed by the chairman pro tern of the S.I.U. addressed to Mr. John Wood in which all of these statements were made to Mr. Wood. I sent copies of the letter which I received to Mr. Justice Dryer, chairman of the board of trustees, and to the Minister of Labour. When we get this kind of answer, Mr. Speaker, which is untrue and which I would call a lie if it were parliamentary to use such language, I suggest to the Minister of Labour that the faster we get the trustees before the industrial relations committee the better it will be.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Inasmuch as she has had the week end to organize the white paper on health services, I wonder whether she can inform the house more specifically when we may expect to receive it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker. Since the conclusion of the meeting last Thursday and Friday I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my advisers.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. Is it correct, as asserted by Douglas Fisher in a week-end column, that on resumption of the flag debate the Liberal party will only put up one speaker a day? If so, is this another example of Liberal members being muzzled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Northwest Territories.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
CEREMONY MARKING EXTENSION OF RAILROAD ACROSS 60th PARALLEL
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that construction of the Great Slave lake railroad has progressed to the point that steel is about to cross the 60th parallel into the Northwest Territories in a matter of days; and since this is a project that has always been close to his heart, would he consider being present at whatever ceremonies are held on this very important occasion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government will be suitably represented on this important occasion involving a project which has always been supported by members on this side.


John George Diefenbaker: The record does not show it.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. In view of the action of the C.N.R. management in imposing disciplinary measures on employees of Canadian National Railways in Oshawa for exercising their good judgment in not crossing a legal picket line, could the minister find out from the management of the railway why there has been this drastic change in policy with respect to legal picket lines, in that formerly there was a mutual understanding, both written and verbal, in respect of such matters?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice, because I think it is a question that should be left to the minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any report to give the house regarding the present position of the Northland Transportation strike. He was going to look into this matter and give the house a report. As I recall, he was also going to give the house his idea of alternative methods of shipping that would be available to these areas which are seriously affected at the present time by this strike.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the chief conciliation officer in Vancouver brought the parties together to consider the proposals originally made by local 400 and added to by the company for the provision of certain continuing shipping services. At the meeting there were fundamental differences between the company and the union as to the purposes and procedures to be followed in providing any such service, with the result that no agreement was forthcoming at that meeting. The position of the parties with respect to the dispute itself has not altered, and the chief conciliation officer is ready to convene a further meeting at a later unspecified date.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Labour personally been in touch with the parties to the dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I asked the Secretary of State a question last Friday relating to the C.B.C., and he undertook to report to the house upon it. I wonder if he is prepared to do that this afternoon.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised that there were no resignations in connection with the film entitled "Mr. Pearson";


Erik Nielsen: There was one additional question. Did the producer of the film resign or was he fired?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised that Mr. Benson has not resigned and has not been fired.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked a question relating to Neptune maritime aircraft which I took as notice.
In reply may I say that the review of defence establishments carried out last year led to the reorganization of operations of the Neptune maritime squadron on the west coast, resulting in a reduction of four aircraft on strength at that unit. It was these four aircraft which were referred to in the written answer tabled in the house last Wednesday.
There has been no change in the operational training unit at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. The question asked of the Minister of Defence Production related to reports of the phasing out of the Neptune aircraft program, and his answer to that question was in the negative, which is in accordance with the facts.



REQUEST FOR AIRCRAFT REPAIR CONTRACTS FOR CHARLOTTETOWN PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. May I ask the minister whether, following his meeting with the members of the Prince Edward Island government, he is now in a position to give assurance of further aircraft repair and refit work for the Enamel and Heating plant in Charlottetown ?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I had a long discussion with the representatives of the government of Prince Edward Island, and I think during the course of it I persuaded them that the suggestion just made by the hon. member was quite impractical.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State

and ask him if he has received replies from all the provinces at this time, and if he has now received Premier Thatcher's representations regarding the centennial memorial building project?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not received replies from all the provinces yet.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Has the minister received permission from Premier Thatcher to table his letter?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, and it will be done today.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works for the protection of the rights of members and of the gentlemen and others who are members of the fourth estate.
Would the minister investigate a complaint that last Friday morning No. 60 area parking sign outside the Senate was surreptitiously moved two spaces to the north by members of his staff, and that subsequently two members of the parliamentary press gallery were ordered by the R.C.M.P. to remove their cars because they were illegally parked in area No. 59 and could have been subject to fines? Would the minister take steps to make certain there is no possibility of law abiding citizens being charged with an illegal act for which his department was responsible?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Any matter dealing with the comport of the members of the press gallery is an important matter indeed. I am told that at the request of the Speaker of the Senate new places were located at the east of the centre block, and as a result members of the press gallery now have the same number of spaces as before, but at a different location.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Mcllraiih moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,781.01, being the aggregate of-
Interim Supply
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport items 15 and 25, (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $7,044,425;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 60, fisheries item 20, justice item 1, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 15, northern affairs and national resources items 15 and 35, privy council item 25, transport item 1, loans, investments and advances item L10, (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $9,525,758.34;
(d)	two twelfths of all the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, loans, investments and advances items L17a and L37a, for which no proportion will be granted, $20,840,372.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of justice item 12a (schedule C) of the said supplementary estimates (A), $1,806.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the proportions requested in this resolution are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to September 30. In no instance is the total amount of any item in the estimates released by the bill. I might add that the resolution and the bill are in the usual form, and I am prepared to give the usual undertaking that the passage of the resolution and the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize or discuss any item in the estimates when it comes up for discussion in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and not restricted or curtailed in any way as a result of the passage of this measure.
I would point out that the resolution provides for two months' interim supply covering all items in the main and supplementary estimates, except three items in the supplementary estimates. The reason those three items are excluded is that two of them in the supplementary estimates were passed and dealt with in a special appropriation bill some weeks ago, and the third item is one for which eleven twelfths had previously been granted by interim supply.
As to those items which have been set out in the resolution for which additional amounts over two twelfths are requested, on examination it will be seen that in general they are items where more work is being done in the summer as, for example, the east coast ferries,

Interim Supply
where the greater part of the expenditure is incurred in the summer season or, for example, in the case of a centennial project where the building is to be finished by September of this year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister one question at this stage. In the interim supply vote being asked for now is there an item reflecting the cost of Canada's military contribution to Cyprus?


George James McIlraith: I believe there is no such direct item. I would like to check that more fully, but I believe there is no direct item.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will that come forward subsequently as a further supplementary item, if it is not in this list?


George James McIlraith: I will check my answer more fully.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the government is asking for interim supply for a period of two months, and I cannot remember when a government has gone for so long without passing its main estimates while continually having to ask for supply in order to carry on the business of the country.


Mitchell William Sharp: You have a short memory.


Michael Starr: Very few of the main estimates have been brought before this committee for consideration of the expenditures of the various departments. However, when interim supply is before the committee it gives members of parliament an opportunity to discuss many varied subjects.
One subject which has been neglected in discussion in this chamber is the problem of unemployment. We have waited patiently to see what the government intends to do about unemployment. Some 15 months have gone by since the government took office, and when we look at what it promised the Canadian people we find it has done literally nothing regarding unemployment. The government has bragged and proclaimed from time to time that unemployment has been dropping since it took office, but I would like to point out that unemployment has gradually decreased month by month since early 1961, when we were still in office. This is borne out by this year's budget white paper and by the Bank of Canada report, both of which showed that unemployment has decreased month by month since early 1961, and this is directly as a result of the policies of the former government. This government has ridden on that wave of improvement and has endeavoured to take the credit, but it has done nothing to try to improve the position substantially.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
During the last election members of the government said unemployment was one of the most urgent economic problems facing the country and promised they would do something about it. When we were in office the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the statesman for Essex East, continually berated us for not dealing, in his words, substantially with the problem. There were others who took up those cudgels day after day, and I remember on one occasion they spent as long as eight days on one item to provide finances for the municipal winter works program, which at that time they despised and criticized so much. Now they have adopted that program and feel it is going to cure unemployment. In this connection I would point out that the municipal winter works program has increased in scope annually since its inception in the winter of 1958-59.
If we look at the latest unemployment figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics we find that in June 1962 there were
308,000	Canadians unemployed; in June 1963 there were 304,000, and in June this year, despite the fact that the government claims unemployment is not any longer a national problem, there were 282,000 Canadian unemployed.
In the opinion of this government unemployment has been cured in this country simply because there are 22,000 Canadians fewer unemployed today than there were last year, and 26,000 fewer than in 1962. What does it mean in terms of percentages? This year unemployment is .4 per cent less than last year, and less than one half of 1 per cent lower than in 1962; it is .5 or one half of 1 per cent lower than in 1963. This, the present government says, amounts to a cure of unemployment. Unemployment, they claim, has been licked; it is only a regional problem.
Well, if you want to look at it in that way and not from a national viewpoint, this has been the case for many years past. But when members opposite say this is a regional problem and that they have cured unemployment in this country, I invite them to look at the situation in the province of Quebec. According to figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics for the month of June, unemployment in the province of Quebec in 1963 resulted in 113,000 people being out of work. This year the figure is 105,000, or 8,000 less than a year ago. This, members opposite claim, amounts to the cure of unemployment. Unemployment, as far as they are concerned, has been licked. As a

matter of fact they have dropped the problem of unemployment in the same way they would drop a hot potato.
Let us take a closer look in the way in which they have dealt with the unemployment situation. Let us examine the figures issued by the d.b.s. for June, 1964 as they concern young people under 19 years of age. First of all, in June, 1963, there were 94,000 unemployed in that category. In June of this year the figure was 103,000. In other words there were 9,000 more young people of this country unemployed than there were a year ago.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, has this government cured unemployment? We do not know what is in the offing in the days to come. Certainly the 22,000 difference in total on the Canadian scene as between this year and last year is nothing to brag about. I must say that on the face of these figures the present government has failed miserably to deal with the unemployment problem in this country, and has not put forward any program for doing so. In fact members opposite have no policy of any kind for dealing with unemployment, and I have yet to hear their spokesmen come forward with a long range plan to deal with it.
They did, of course, establish the depressed areas. They themselves singled out these depressed areas, and in order to create new employment there they set up a Department of Industry. We quizzed the Minister of Industry about the results. We asked him how many new industries had been established in these designated depressed areas, but the hon. gentleman was very evasive. He talked about industries which contemplated settling in those areas, but said nothing definite. When pressed, he had nothing to say.
Mr. Chairman, we can only come to one conclusion, and it is this. The biggest industry which has been created in Canada under this proposal has been the Department of Industry itself, because we learn from the figures available to us that more than 500 people are employed in that department. This is the extent of the government's achievement in setting up industry in Canada. Instead of setting up industry in depressed areas where there is need for employment of Canadians, they have set it up in Ottawa. Consequently I have come to the conclusion, and I think there are many who agree with me, that the depressed area must be Ottawa because of this government which is in office.
Hon. members opposite tried to camouflage the issue back in June, 1963, when the Min-
Interim Supply
ister of Labour outlined what he termed nine definite plans to combat unemployment. When we look closer at all these plans which were announced by him at that time we find they were all, in the main, proposals which had been initiated by the former government. In order to train the unemployed we established the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act under which we helped to build up the necessary facilities. What was done during the period of time we were in office? In 1962-63 there was a total expenditure of $179,626,976 on these projects. In the fiscal year 1963-64 there was an expenditure of $102,037,672. The total expenditure since the inception of this program in December, 1962 amounted to $352,533,151.
Then this government came to office and amended the act in November, 1963. This was supposed to give the program a new impetus. What has been the result? From November 30 of that year to June 30, 1964, the total expenditure incurred by the federal government amounted to $14,869,410. That is all that has been done by this government in connection with this program. I think this government should look carefully at the possibilities of this program. I think it is about time they launched upon the building of technical schools for the purpose of training adults, particularly those who find themselves out of employment because of automation and technological change.
The second scheme was one for the training of unemployed workers. This was a program started from scratch when we took office, and in 1962 a new impetus was given to it; a new opportunity was afforded to Canadians to train themselves and acquire new skills. What has been done by the present government since it took office? In answer to a question I put on the order paper some interesting figures were supplied. I asked how many people had completed their training during 1963 under the plan for the training of unemployed workers. In reply we were told that 32,825 people were enrolled under this program during 1963, that 17,627 completed their training during that year and 9,928 were still in training at the end of that year. My second question asked how many had completed their training under this plan during the year 1962, and the answer was that 27,895 were enrolled under the program in the year 1962; 13,753 had completed their training during that year, and 7,778 persons were still in training at the end of the year.
What is the total advance made in connection with this program? What has justified

Interim Supply
the boasts of hon. members opposite that they would give it new life? A total of some 5,000 persons were enrolled in all of Canada beyond the number enrolled in 1962, and some 4,000 more completed their training in that year. This is all they were able to accomplish during that period of time after inheriting a program which we had initiated and established.
The third point the minister mentioned concerned the re-employment of older workers. We know how that program fared. The response was negligible. About 1,000 people got jobs under this program in all Canada. I am sure the minister should look very closely at this particular program with a view to lifting many of the restrictions which are now in force so as to give an opportunity for more of these older workers to find employment. I think a program designed to educate employers would probably be far more effective than any bonuses which might be offered to encourage employers to hire older workers.
Then there was the program of capital assistance to provide technical training facilities. This is a program which has not gone anywhere yet; there has been no impetus to it. I remember that at the time the act was amended this measure was supposed to give an opportunity to the province of Quebec to catch up to Ontario in its building program, but such has not been the case since November 30 of last year.
Then there is the item with regard to technological change and manpower development. We have not heard anything in regard to this program. There has been no conference called of industry and labour to see whether this type of program could get moving. All the government is doing is working from the old provincial agreements and the clauses contained therein. This program needs an impetus, a push in order to help people who are affected by automation and technological change. This government has not lifted a finger to do anything about it. All they did was make an announcement and let it go at that.
That is the way this government have been operating since they took office. We have only had legislation put through in a hurry in order to show the Canadian people they are doing something, and in those instances they have had to withdraw, completely cancel or modify the legislation to the extent that you could not even recognize it as the legislation that was originally introduced.
Then there is the promotion of winter house building, the $500 building bonus for winter

built houses. This, I must acknowledge, has had some effect, because if I remember correctly 28,000 homes were built under this program. But it has now had a detrimental effect on the house building industry, because many of those people who were engaged in the building of homes during the winter months have been laid off; and in view of the fact that the announcement has already been made that this program will be continued in the ensuing winter months, many people are hesitant about building their homes in the summer as they normally would. Consequently we now have a sag in the house construction industry of this country.
We do not hear any more about the $7 million that the federal government announced as item No. 7 in their program to create employment opportunities. Nothing further has been heard of that program. How many of these projects have been undertaken to help the unemployed of this country? Then there is the extension of the municipal winter works program. I mentioned this earlier. This was item No. 8. This program has been gradually increasing in impetus and more municipalities have been participating in the program year after year, winter after winter. It is a good program and will continue to expand as the years go by; therefore it should be kept on the books.
No. 9 was the strengthening of personnel resources as this affects the placement officers in the national employment service. We do not know how many of these new personnel have been recruited and are now actively engaged in placing people in employment. Not too long ago the Minister of Labour announced that the national employment service was going to come under the wing of the Department of Labour, but that is all that has happened and we have heard nothing since. There has been no word, no report as to what has happened, and as far as I know the national employment service is still under the unemployment insurance commission. I think the minister should tell us what is happening in this field and what has been done to carry out the recommendations contained in the Gill commission report.
And what about the Gill commission report? Why has nothing been done about that? Why have not amendments been brought forward to implement the Gill commission report? What is going to happen this coming winter? How is the fund going to stand up? Is it going to go broke again? Will they keep on hiding the fact that it is going to go broke,

as they did this past winter; or will they come back to parliament and ask for more money? Why the hesitation? Why have they not taken action to strengthen the Unemployment Insurance Act on the basis of the recommendations made by the Gill commission, so this fund could go back to the basis upon which it operated originally?
Then at the end of last year we had the report of the Norris commission. On the basis of that report the government set up trustees over shipping operations on the great lakes. But since the trustees were appointed, Mr. Chairman, the Norris commission report has been completely ignored and thrown out the window. Nothing further has been done with regard to the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Norris. We in the House of Commons begin to wonder about the position in this regard. We are told that parliament set up the trustees and they are responsible to parliament and parliament only. The minister abdicates every responsibility in respect of this matter. When you ask him questions as to the activities of the trustees and what has been done in this regard, he completely evades his responsibility. He suggests it is none of his responsibility and says he will convey our views to the trustees. In what capacity is he acting in this regard?


An hon. Member:: A good messenger boy.


Michael Starr: What is the Minister of Labour doing? Is he acting as a minister of the crown responsible for this piece of legislation that he piloted through the House of Commons, or is he acting only as a messenger boy and abdicating all his responsibility? That is the only conclusion we can come to after listening to the answers the minister has given.
We want to know what deal was made with Paul Hall, the president of the seafarers' international union in the United States; because some sort of satisfaction was given to him in view of the fact that he has not uttered a sound of late, after previously making all the threats possible. It is fine to have peace on the great lakes, but at what price, Mr. Chairman? This is what we want to find out when we ask the minister to bring the trustees before the standing committee on industrial relations.
In this respect, Mr. Chairman, why does not the minister add his own request to that of the members of parliament; or is he going to allow the trustees, by refusing to appear before this committee, by refusing to appear before the members of this parliament to
Interim Supply
answer some of the questions that are in the minds of members of this house, to defy the parliament that appointed them and set up this system? Even though the minister wants to have only the role of a messenger boy in this respect, I think he has an obligation as a member of the government, as the Minister of Labour, to bring to the attention of the trustees the fact that this matter is vitally important; that members should have the opportunity of questioning the trustees on their activities in respect of this very important and vital matter.
We read a great deal about what is happening, and we have to get information second hand. There is no reason at all why members of parliament should not have the trustees appear before them in the industrial relations committee. If the trustees feel that any information they wish to give to members of that committee would be detrimental to the work they are undertaking at the moment, and would be detrimental to peace on the great lakes, I am sure the members would agree that this meeting should be held in camera. After all, the members of this house have a responsibility in this regard. They were concerned with the setting up of the trusteeship and should now have the opportunity, because of their responsibility in this matter, of questioning these people to see what kind of a job they have done for us. I think the less delay there is in this connection, the better it will be.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Port Arthur speaks, I wonder whether I might have a moment to correct what may have been a wrong impression I gave the committee a few moments ago.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had asked me whether there was any item in these estimates which dealt with the Cyprus operation. I want to correct any impression I may have left in my earlier answer by saying that items 15a, 20a and 25a of the national defence estimates, relate to the costs of the Cyprus expedition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that in the main estimates or the supplementaries?


George James McIlraith: That is the supplementaries.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, this bill gives us what may be the last reasonable opportunity to raise grievances, and I would assume that some of my colleagues will raise grievances although we also hope that it will be possible to get this measure through in a couple of days so we can get on with

Interim Supply
what promises to be the high point of the session, the flag debate.
Anyone watching the political scene must be having a bit of a wry chuckle over the flag. Our economy has not been in such a good position for quite a number of years. It seems to me that you would have to go back to 1955 to find an economic situation as good and equable as at the present time. It is usually considered unfair or almost indecent for a member of the opposition to make such a comment, but this summer my mail of discontent which most often reflects our economic imbalance is very small. This and other contacts I have had with my riding have led me to believe that our economy at the present time, whatever the minor difficulties-and I think there are some in some areas-is in rather good shape compared with what it has been in over the last few years.
It seems to me that the wryness and irony come from the fact that despite this situation I cannot find any tremendous satisfaction with the present government. This seems to me to indicate something which I think was also noted in 1956 and 1957 as the Liberal government of that day moved toward its downfall; that it is not the economic factors which finally lead to the determination of how people will vote or will shift their vote; it is other things. In that case it was the whole issue of the rights of parliament and a developing arrogance within the administration. This summer it seems to me that the discontent focusses on the performance of this parliament and on some of the questions which have been left unanswered by the government and which have very little to do with economics or with the topic of which the hon. member who preceded me spoke.
I am referring to the situation which the government seems to have reached whereby it has given the impression that it is giving away its powers and initiative; whereby this place, the commons and parliament, the real centrepiece of the country, is being replaced by the federal-provincial conference. It seems to me this is one of the reasons for the discouragement and the malaise which exist at the present time; the feeling that there is not a strong hand at the centre, that there is not a willingness to give the kind of strong national leadership which the country wants. There seems instead to be a predisposition to dispose of power through all kinds of negotiation.
What better reflection can you get of this than the display last week in the debate on

student loans. That was a measure which in the main was quite unsatisfactory in its limitations to those of us who supported it; it was also opposed by another group in the house who, perfectly within their rights, took a completely different interpretation of it because of the particular views which reigned in one province. So we are left with each side dissatisfied on this issue. Those of us who wanted a better bill with lower interest rates, with scholarships and bursaries of a genuine kind, had to settle for something quite inadequate, and our friends from Quebec had to settle for a formula which still leaves them in doubt about this so-called cooperative federalism.
It is that kind of division which indicates the inability of this government to come up with strong leadership. I noticed one of our commentators thought it was a reflection on the performance of this house that during the debate on student loans none of the English speaking members made any kind of suggestion as to how in this particular bill we could better satisfy our French Canadian friends. I think one of the reasons all of us hesitate to enter that field is because it is so controversial.
I might point out that in this particular field our government has not given us leadership. I cannot think of any better example of the gap there is in federal leadership than the fact that the majority of the English speaking people in this country want stronger leaders and leadership in the field of education, particularly higher education and education to meet the advance in technological change and automation. The people are not getting this leadership. Instead, on almost every front, but particularly the education front, we seem to have to settle for the kind of displacement of these issues and problems from parliament out into the federal-provincial conference. This is so not only in the educational field but in other fields as well.
Therefore if effective negotiations in this country are going to take place in federal-provincial conferences, and if effective studies and investigations and reports in this country are going to be made by royal commissions or specially selected academicians, this means that we are nothing more than a buzz chamber to make annoying noises, or noises of annoyance, the majority of the time. Many of us feel that this government is distributing or negotiating away the leadership and power which many of us thought were centred here.

I cannot give a better illustration of the inadequacy of the government in the leadership field than the matter of redistribution, which many people think is a minor thing or, if not a minor thing, a matter of such partisan character that it is just as well to leave it alone and not get too excited about it. Yet the fact remains that we have every chance of another election on the unfair basis of the 1951 census. It seems to me that the point of democracy is to give simple justice to the simple voter. You start with the principle of one man and one vote and some kind of balance between the value of votes cast anywhere in the country. This is of paramount importance. Yet we have had nothing from the government but lip service to this idea. We have had no real action or persistence.


David Orlikow: No guts.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As my hon. friend says, no guts on something which really gets to the roots of where one stands as an individual in a democracy. We have all kinds of guts on the flag issue but no guts on redistribution. It seems to me that while the one may be of symbolic importance, the other is a continuing thing inherent in the rights of each of us as a citizen of this country. Yet redistribution goes by the way.
One of the arguments put forward by my friend from Ontario who spoke before me related to the S.I.U. I cannot think of any better illustration than the S.I.U. situation of the way we have been bamboozled over the rights which we have as members of parliament. All of us got worked up into almost a paroxysm of righteousness last summer about straightening out Hal Banks and the S.I.U. By jove, we were going to bring good old Canadian decency into labour relations on the great lakes. I think all of us got worked up in a sort of phony exultation that we would put this kind of United States racketeer in his place. We had many deliberations about the kind of trustees we would have, and so on. I feel a little stupid about this, but I actually recommended privately to the Minister of Labour that he choose Charles Millard as one of the trustees. I have been feeling very badly about how wrong I was in that recommendation. Aside from this, we created the trustees but we were not vigilant enough to realize that we had no means of seeing, of following and watching, the kind of job they were going to do.
Obviously we now have a situation where one of the trustees is really in effect in charge,
Interim Supply
where the head of the board of trustees really would like to give up the job and get back to beautiful, bounteous British Columbia-* his health is not too good-and where one of the other trustees has a number of other jobs in labour relations and really has been giving very little time to these duties. We have a situation where almost every member of the house has had some case brought to his attention in connection with the S.I.U. indicating that the reforms we expected and wanted just have not come about. Instead we have the statement by one trustee that Leonard McLaughlin has been morally regenerated, and all the minister seems to be able to do in this whole situation is indicate that there is the act, the trustees report to parliament, they do not have to come before parliament, and really he would not want to press them too hard.
I do not think anything the hon. member for Ontario has said in this regard is too strong. In effect, perhaps through our own stupidity we have been bilked on this whole S.I.U. situation. I believe firmly that some kind of deal has been made informally by the minister or his representatives with Paul Hall and the United States union. The price has been what all of us want, peace on the great lakes for this summer; but from the evidence that is coming in it would appear that individuals who have been persecuted in the past are now trapped in the middle of the S.I.U. web, and I am afraid that basically the plan has not changed. As the price for peace what we are getting is a continuation of the kind of attitude that Hal Banks represented, even though Hal Banks has been shifted off to one side.
I suggest this is another example of why so many of us do not see the kind of strong, vigorous leadership with which everyone was crediting the government when they brought in the legislation last summer. I think we have to accept some of the responsibility in this regard because we were certainly remiss in letting this trusteeship be established without the kind of review that it is now apparent is necessary. When the government selects trustees and places them on a board and they do not measure up and are not good enough, it is obvious that this assembly through one of its committees needs some kind of investigating or review power to see if we cannot get some changes.
Of all the leadership aspects so far as the present government is concerned the most disappointing really has to do with what the Prime Minister had to say, I suppose facetiously, about the new politics. We were going

Interim Supply
to have the new politics in this chamber. The whole thing was prefaced by the wonderful new arrangement that was going to bring democracy into the Liberal party caucus through the striking of advisory committees to the various ministers. We had a picture of the Secretary of State for External Affairs always operating with a guard of alert backbenchers there to advise him, direct him and give cohesion to his policies.


John George Diefenbaker: Advise him?


Douglas Mason Fisher: And advise him. I cannot say this has broken down, but I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars it has broken down and disappeared and is not in effect.


David Orlikow: Did it ever start?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think it really ever started. But this was part of the new politics. We were going to get this new politics and part of it was to be a falling away of partisanship. We were going to get a new spirit within the House of Commons and in the whole party picture, led, one supposed, by a noble, high minded and idealistic Prime Minister. We have got the new politics all right, and it seems to be pretty well the same old game.
The whole question of leadership in parliamentary reform seems to have gone by the board. On the one hand we have the Prime Minister insisting that if there is anything wrong with the operation of the House of Commons it is not because of a lack of good intentions on his part or on the part of his followers. It is the wicked opposition, particularly that wicked fellow, that dreadful character who leads the official opposition. The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot bring about any reform or radical changes in this place unless the Prime Minister is willing to put his reputation and that of his party and the government on the line to get these reforms. So we have had nothing but sweet talk at the start of the session about the new politics, and no substantial leadership in this connection.
The whole question of parliamentary reform splits people in this chamber within the various parties, and most often on the basis of how long they have been here. It seems that the longer a member has been here the more he is opposed to any drastic parliamentary reform. I notice that the newer members are very much in favour of reform. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs shaking his head. I should like to tell him that one gets reports-you know

the kind of reports that filter around this place-about the real stumbling blocks to any parliamentary reform. Do you know persons on the government side who we hear are the real stumbling blocks? The Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I just thought I would mention that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I assure my hon. friend, who on occasion is right, that in this instance he is very wrong because, as is obvious, there are not two more liberal-minded members of the government than those two.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know you are Liberal minded, with a capital "L". The "L" is so big that you cannot climb over it and down the other side.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I hope the hon. member's reports are more authentic than the minister's.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think they are. A great many of the newer and younger members feel very strongly that there should be some changes in the procedures of the house and in its whole make-up. I want to offer a suggestion. We are going to have to think about more than just minor procedural changes. It seems to me that if we are ever going to get the reforms that so many members appear to be seeking, reforms which will give members the opportunity to do a bigger job than they have done up to the present, we are going to have to consider such things as moving toward a separation of the executive from the legislative assembly. We are going to have to consider giving our parliamentary committees the kind of power we have never considered before.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman clear that up? How under our parliamentary system are you going to separate the executive and the legislative? I am interested in that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Very easily; by changing the system and separating them. That is what I am suggesting. I remember that in 1958 when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister he announced that he was going to bring about some reforms in the committees. He was frank enough to acknowledge that he had never been an enthusiast for committees, but he said he intended to see if something could not be done with them.
I suggest that the experience of that parliament and the subsequent ones in really turning house committees into active forums with real influence on policy and with real investigatory powers has not been successful. I am not blaming him; I am blaming the

system. I do not see how you can give parliamentary committees greater powers than they have at the present time without upsetting the balance and the control of the party by the leadership of the cabinet within the house. But I should like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that during the years he has sat in this place he has seen parliament become much less the circumference of government and much more just a little piece of the pie, a slice of a big pie which is big government, a government in which the Prime Minister and the cabinet tend to be the dominating factors on the political level and the administrators on what I consider to be perhaps the most important level, the work of carrying out decisions.
It seems to me that the British parliamentary system has a very grave and basic weakness as our government tends to more and more complexity.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask this question? I am very interested in following what the hon. gentleman has said. Certainly in the United Kingdom and elsewhere where the parliamentary system is in effect the trend has been toward a stronger and stronger executive dominating parliament. A few moments ago the hon. member was asking for strong government, but I come back to his very interesting suggestion that we should adopt a system whereby the executive would be freed from the legislative and administrative responsibility that now rests with it.
I should like to know what he has in mind. I am not asking for the purpose of embarrassing the hon. member. I know he has given very careful study to this subject, and I would be interested in what he has in mind as to how to remove the executive from the legislative responsibility of parliament.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The right hon. gentleman raised first a minor point that is quite important-


John George Diefenbaker: This is an extraordinary suggestion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It may be an extraordinary suggestion. However, early in his remarks the right hon. gentleman raised one point that I should clear up. He said I was complaining about the lack of strong leadership from this government. I want to make the point that this government has not, in my mind, given strong leadership but it has all the facilities for giving strong leadership. It is so buttressed and protected by the inherent power it has through cabinet powers that we really cannot get working at it critically.
Interim Supply
I suggest to the right hon. gentleman we are faced with this situation. If we cannot get committees of this house with the power and with the assiduity to really be able to investigate the administration, and if we cannot really do something about the legislation that is brought before us in terms of getting changes and amendments, then I suggest we really haven't got much to do in committees. If we do give committees the power and do not change our system to a point where they are separate from the executive, then we destroy the whole principle of ministerial responsibility and party responsibility as it is known within the British system.
I am not suggesting that we should immediately consider the United States congressional system, but I suggest that is probably the only way out if we want to give to members of parliament a bigger role. Perhaps we should not have a bigger role. Perhaps we should continue to be sort of swallowed up by trivia and then, like an appendix, eventually somebody will take us out and throw us away. I think in many ways that is tending to be the choice that faces us.
I suggest, for example, that the public accounts committee as it is now constituted is doing the best job of any of our committees. If we gave that committee real power in terms of recommendations, and real power in being able to direct government policy in these particular areas, we would immediately have to amend the whole cabinet system. Where would a minister stand; where would a senior official stand if a parliamentary committee had that power? One of the things that has bothered me about recommendations for reform is that they generally come down to two things; let us limit debate, and let us give the committees more to do.
Well, let us start with the second point. If you give the committees more to do, it seems to me you can only do so at the peril of the cabinet system of ministerial responsibility, unless you turn out a new type of platonic politician who will not take party advantage within a parliamentary committee. I do not suggest this is possible.
Let us consider the other part, the relationship of the executive toward parliament, to see if it may not be possible to separate them or at least to see where we are going. I do feel that there is a more efficient quality in the United States congressional system than a lot of the snobs amongst our political scientists would credit. I think their system works in a democratic way much better than many of us think. I believe some of the

Interim Supply
limitations of the United States system are not as real as some of us have felt, particularly during the McCarthy crisis when the senator was running wild with a senate committee.
I wanted to touch again on this question of limitation of debate. The last time I mentioned the question in the house, because I suggested the government had a responsibility in connection with the possibility of resorting to closure, the members of the official opposition were delighted and some of my friends were irritated and distraught, to put it mildly. I want to return to this particular point, not to make it again but I hope to make it more clearly. In essence, the way our system is set up the government has the initiative in determining the parliamentary business. I think the opposition is quite limited here. The right hon. gentleman who led the previous government made no changes in the system when he met the whole problem of the introduction of closure. Now, I am suggesting that if this is a possible remedy and the government is complaining or has a grievance about the length of debate, then it is the government's responsibility to consider that, not the responsibility of the opposition.
I for one think there should be a better way of arriving at some limitation of debate than closure. I suggest that this is another field where negotiations have really not been entered into with any great fairness.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask him what he considers would be the gain for parliament if any kind of limitation of debate were adopted. What is the objective?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I suppose the simplest objective would be to ease some of the criticism that exists about the length of time we spend talking. However, I do not think that is the kernel of the problem. It seems to me we have a situation where an immense amount of legislative work has to be put through. The sheer quantity of the pile-up lengthens the session so that some kind of prearrangement is needed. We get bogged down because each one of us, in our party terms, is trying to take the most advantage of a loose and fluid situation. This is one of the reasons, it seems to me, why the prearrangement for limitation of debate on legislative items would be worth while.
The other area in which we can lengthen debate interminably is an area such as this

or on the supplementary estimates, which is comparable; in other words when we are looking at the spending program of the government. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knows that when we are contemplating estimates most of us do not spend our time telling the government how to cut down its expenditures. We spend our time telling them how they can spend more money.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a socialist.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know a fellow from Bow River who gets very socialistic when it comes to spending in his riding. I recall that there was a penitentiary to be built somewhere out there, and I recall the member for Bow River insisting that the penitentiary should not be built anywhere else. He was not insisting, for instance, that the penitentiary should be built in the maritimes, where they need it more.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have not been out to Drumheller; you do not know anything about it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It all depends on where you stand on these things. Let me get back to this question of the estimates. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and other veterans in the house have suggested at times that this kind of work should go to the estimates committees. The trouble with committees is that they do not develop in this way. I was on an estimates committee a few years ago which was very ably chaired by the hon. member for Calgary North. The disturbing thing was that we would spend 20 days on a department, but after reporting back in the house it did not seem to make any difference at all to the length of the debate. At that time hon. members on that side were sitting on this side, and the fact that the department had been considered by the estimates committee did not seem to make any difference.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think you would agree that you fellows took up a great deal of time in debate.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. gentleman has said that my friends took up a lot of time. Yes, we took up a lot of time. Everybody takes up a lot of time, it seems to me. This is the subject to which I am referring. How can you shift some of this speaking time out of here? I suggest again that if you are going to have the estimates reviewed by a committee, the committee has to be supported

by some kind of power so it is really not necessary to come back here and review the estimates again.
Here again I do not see how you can give a committee this kind of power without putting in jeopardy our cabinet system and whole tradition of party responsibility. It is for that reason I think it is time the Prime Minister, who has been willing to talk about the new politics and pinpoint the Leader of the Opposition as being so destructive to this place and its practices, came forward with something more than the phrases "new politics" and "co-operative federalism" and told us what he would do to change and improve this place.


Erik Nielsen: Nothing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone interjects "nothing", and I am afraid that is what we are going to get. That is the substance of my remarks, that this is likely what we will get from the government. As I pointed out early in my remarks, the government seems to have lost its purpose at the very time the economy seems to be doing most well.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak at length, but I heard, during the discussion of interim supplies, some talk of unemployment in Canada and that there had been no substantial improvement in this field.
I do not want to speak of unemployment in a critical way, but I want to make some suggestions to the government which, I think, might improve the situation in fields where perhaps no suggestion was ever made. They are based on the fact that Canadian workers are leaving the factories in ever greater numbers to be replaced by machines. They must find work somewhere.
I have established a rather limited list-to which, of course, additions might be made- of those fields where more Canadian citizens might gradually find employment.
I shall, for instance, start with the Department of Public Works. There is a new development in this field, and it is with new ideas that we shall find a solution to our problem. Lately, I received a report on the trans-Canada highway, which extends over
4,000	miles and is partly finished. In this respect, I shall make a suggestion which will give employment to a great number of Canadian citizens, because, there again, the government is in charge of that highway. Why should we not enact legislation to landscape this highway, for instance by planting trees
Interim Supply
and flowers and establishing camping grounds along the road?
This is something which does not yet exist but which could be tried in order to create new jobs for the Canadian citizens who are today unemployed.
This is but one example, but precisely because I have several examples of this kind of offer, I am requesting the government to try to develop those fields that are not developed today.
Let us take another example; this one concerns the Secretary of State and is about the national film board. In this connection, the Secretary of State could see to it that we have Canadian full-length or feature films, which are practically non-existent today. Next week we shall have the national film festival, and most of the films shown will come from foreign countries. We, Canadians, shall not even have a full-length film to show during this national film festival.
How does it happen that Canada, which has embarked on modern developments, will show, in this film festival, only Italian, American, German, Japanese, English and Russian films, but no Canadian film? Why? Because Canada has no full-length film industry. We have the national film board, which has certainly progressed considerably but, unfortunately, is far from being up to date in this field.
In the framework of the national film board, or of another similar agency, we should have a much more intense and rational development of the film industry, and this to achieve a full-length film industry. That would offer several advantages and contribute to the development of our technicians, of whom we do not have enough yet. That would promote the training of artists, tragedians, actors, directors, cameramen, etc. and lead to opportunities for a great number of Canadian citizens.
Another field which is perhaps better developed today than it used to be, but to which great improvements could be made, and which would create many jobs, would be, and this concerns the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), that of medical research. Of course, there is medical research in Canada today, but compared to the research carried on in other countries such as France, England, Germany, Italy, we are lagging.
We do not have enough doctors, scientists, chemists, physicists working in laboratories, specially in medical research. That is an-

Interim Supply
other field which the Minister of National Health and Welfare could develop.
The Secretary of State, for its part, is responsible for the Canada Council. The Canada Council has surely done a lot but it must be recognized that it had the advantage of a budget, seven or eight years ago, but since then, there has not been much change. Nothing was done to allow the Canada Council to help more. There again, the Canada Council does not develop in proportion with the development of the country. Yet, many jobs could be developed there which would serve Canadian citizens, in the field of symphonic orchestras and opera for instance. We do not have yet in Canada a single professional opera company which would play all year round, when other countries have theirs. We do not have one yet which gives performances of a professional quality, on a permanent basis. We have only opera companies which play now and then when it is admitted that opera must be part of a developed civilization and culture, and we really deplore this situation. Canada has not even made a start-let us say it has barely started-in that field.
I admit that the Canada Council is of some assistance there, but I feel that the government should give much larger subsidies to the Canada Council, so that it may help the development of theatre groups, symphony orchestras, etc. Many developments might be achieved in the field of arts at a time when we find that our professional artists need help. Canada might be a nursery of artists if more subsidies were granted in that field.
Another field-and I think it is under the responsibility of the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson)-concerns the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which grants subsidies and helps the construction of homes.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should also play a role, in addition to that one, and attempt to develop architecture more completely. To build houses is not everything. Indeed, similar houses, one after the other, can become monotonous in our communities.
Why does not the corporation have available town planners and specialized architects who, besides looking after the building of houses, would be interested in housing developments where life would be pleasant, and where some green and trees would be planned? Why not see about developing a Canadian architecture, and not an architecture like the one we see nowadays financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, where all houses are alike?

Why not start new developments where architects and town planners could go to it merrily and try out new models of houses, and carry out a complete redevelopment? Those are improvements and innovations to which the federal government could also contribute.
Mr. Chairman, I know that in all the fields I mentioned since I started my remarks, not one concerns directly and immediately the necessities of life, or even the useful things of life, but in a parliament such as ours, unfortunately, we do not think enough about the things that could make life more agreeable, such as town planning and architecture.
For instance, in the field of health, the former government had created a special fund for amateur sport. It was a small beginning. The door was half-opened but unfortunately, that does not go far enough. Naturally, the committee looking after amateur sport, which in English is called the Canada physical fitness council, does not have the funds required to do an important job. Indeed, the development in this field of endeavour, in this country, is only starting and there is a shortage of qualified instructors in practically every municipality. Only a few localities and institutions managed to get some, but the amount of money made available to the physical fitness council to subsidize interprovincial and international games, as well as the building of playgrounds, gymnasiums and swimming pools, is too limited to allow for the hiring of qualified supervisors and instructors.
At the present time, the Canada physical fitness council is getting very little money. Why? Because budgets are too limited in that field.
The same situation applies as far as the Canada Council is concerned, because subsidies in the field of art are too limited. There should be a lot more grants so that not only the useful side, the strict necessities of life could be considered, but also the things which make life more pleasant for people in general.
Mr. Chairman, there is also the development of national parks. Our national parks are developing slowly, but we just have to go to other countries to see how parks and camping grounds are being created at a much quicker pace than in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, if the required improvements were made in every field I just mentioned, we would not only create many jobs, but also open the people's eyes on a new culture, a more developed civilization, in

brief, a fuller and more satisfactory humanism. Indeed, what is lacking, in Canada, as well as in other industrialized countries, is the interest for true human values, as a means to develop an intelligent and moral culture.
I mentioned, among other things, the national film board and the Canada Council, which look after a number of artistic fields, and which do not receive large enough grants from the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I think that, in addition to town planning, we should have road planning.
Moreover, there are the fields of medical research and amateur sport, the development of international and interprovincial games, physical culture and national parks, which the Canadian government should look after to its heart's content, if it wants to make a real contribution to the welfare of our Canadian citizens. As long as nothing is done to develop the fields I mentioned a while ago, including national parks, arts and sports, Canadians will remain incomplete, they will be men who live at the rhythm of the 20th century, at the speed of machines, men who leave industry in increasing number because they are displaced by automation.
The services of Canadians are less and less required in the field of sales. Let us find a place for them. Let us train them to find an interest in those things which can make life more agreeable; let us develop those fields I mentioned a while ago.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the ideas I have just put forward concerning such development at a greater speed may seem out of order at this time and place. However, I feel that, quite to the contrary, such development is necessary and that such ideas must be advocated if we truly wish Canada to develop in all fields of endeavour.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think this opportunity should be allowed to pass without a word or two being said about the so-called program of the Liberal government in respect to employment, and programs which would provide jobs for the Canadian people, as promised at the time of the last election campaign. The government has failed to implement this promise. It has implemented no program of its own; it has duplicated the programs of the previous government and, where there has not been duplication progress has been made only in those areas where progress was already well under way under the previous administration.
Interim Supply
In a pamphlet which I hold in my hand entitled "The Policies of the Liberal Government" issued at the time of the 1963 general election we find on page 10 of this informative little document a heading: "Full Employment and Finances". The first thing the Liberal party was going to do was to set up a national economic council. Then we find the following promise made to the people of Canada-a promise which the government has failed to fulfil and one which I doubt very much they can fulfil. I quote:
Liberal action for new industry for community and area development will be planned together to create the 250,000 new jobs we need every year in order to achieve full employment and job security for a growing population.
I want to say a word about that promise which was so rampantly made across this country during the last election campaign. The Liberal party pledged itself to provide a quarter of a million new jobs each year. This was an extremely deceitful promise-deceitful because the party which made it knew at the time that the annual growth of new employment opportunities in this country amounts to roughly 250,000 per year; if this were not the case, the unemployment figures today would be astronomical rather than being so close to the figures of last year and the year before. The Liberal party went across this country promising that this gross unemployment which afflicted the Canadian people would be solved by 60 days of forceful action-60 days in which a new economic foundation was to be laid in this country so as to provide the new jobs which would make the Canadian people fat and happy. A turkey in every fridge and a Cadillac in every garage- that was the gist of the promises made by the Liberal party.
I ask the government this: When does it intend to take action on this plan to reestablish the national economy? Are we to expect the kind of action we got from the Minister of Finance when he presented his first budget? This expert, the Minister of Finance, has published two books in which he has described the problems of the Canadian economy and assessed the economic prospects before us, yet he has not put forward any new economic policies. He has contented himself by extending the policies of the previous government which were already in existence. Anything new which he has proposed has been withdrawn as unacceptable to industry, business, or international neighbourliness.
Page 10 of the pamphlet goes on to promise:

Interim Supply
A national economic council will be set up to assess the needs and potentialities of the economy, to analyse what is going on an what is planned, and to recommend measures to bring the activity of our economy up to its full potential. The council's members will have a wide variety of experience in business, in labour matters, in farming and in government, and they will be assisted by an expert staff.
When? The government has been in power now for almost a year and a half. When is this blazing action going to be taken and this new economic foundation going to be laid? Under a subheading on page 11 we find "Monetary policy", under which it says this:
A new Liberal government will take clear responsibility for ensuring that the money supply is adequate and business is not held back by tight money, but without risking the disasters of inflation.
Yet we find the cost of living index, since the Liberals have been in office, rising some 5J points in the short period of one year and four months. What action is going to be taken in this regard? There is another subheading on page 11, "Bring order into the nation's finances"-that is the promise:
A new Liberal government will restore confidence in Canada's growth and in the ability of the federal government to handle its responsibilities soundly. Necessary investments in economic progress will be made. A Liberal government will take the steps necessary to produce a balanced budget.
When? When is this promised utopia going to come about? Where is the balanced budget that the Canadian people were promised? Where is it going to be, in the face of the abdications which are being made daily to provincial demands in regard to programs which allow opting out of joint cost sharing, and the like? What did the Minister of Finance say during the last election campaign concerning employment? He said this, as quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of April 15, 1961-and this is a paper that is certainly not altogether friendly as far as this party is concerned. The Minister of Finance is quoted as saying:
Full employment will be the major goal of a new Liberal government.
When is this goal going to be realized? When is the minister going to embark upon a program which will even start us along the road to full employment, the full employment that they said was the answer to the ills of the workingman in this country when they were in opposition? He said, again, as quoted in the Toronto Daily Star of November 29, 1961:

Is there a cure for unemployment? Yes.
Well, if the Minister of Finance knows there is a cure for unemployment, when is he going to take the house and the Canadian people into his confidence? When is he going to unwrap these great programs which will create the one million new jobs which were promised to the Canadian people, if indeed it was a promise for the provision of jobs over and above the normal rate of growth of employment in the country? What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce say? As reported in the Ottawa Citizen of February 27, 1963, he said:
With our severe winters, and our general economic set-up, we'll always have a considerable body of jobless.
As is usual, here we have cabinet ministers at odds with each other. The Minister of Trade and Commerce further said, as reported in the Vancouver Province of February 26, 1963:
People who say we are going to eliminate unemployment simply don't know the country.
Yet remember when those opposite were on this side of the house, in opposition, how they decried the rate of unemployment in this country? Now, apparently, it is all right; now apparently, the fact that we have only-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is respectable.


Erik Nielsen: It is respectable, now they are on the government benches; all of a sudden it has become respectable. The Minister of Finance said, too, concerning unemployment, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of January 24, 1962:
This does not need to happen. In fact, it is inexcusable.
I will go along with the Minister of Finance on that. When is he going to do something about it? When is the government going to do something about those myriads of dazzling promises that were made to the Canadian people in order deceitfully to obtain their votes during the last campaign? I have in my hand a pamphlet-as a matter of fact I have a whole file full of pamphlets-published by the Liberal party during the last election campaign. This particular one is entitled, "Pay and conditions on the job. The answer". The Liberals had all the answers during the last election campaign; there was no problem they could not solve, none whatsoever. Here is what they said in this pamphlet with regard to unemployment insurance. You remember sir, how the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the then member for Laurier, when they were on this side of the house

drove this question of unemployment insurance into the ground; they milked it for all it was worth. They said in the last campaign, "As soon as we form the government, we will fix everything up".


Mr. Choquette:: We never said that.


Erik Nielsen: I heard a member say, "We never said that." The hon. member should come into the chamber, if he wants to make an interjection, and identify himself. I think it was the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, that is not his constituency; it is Windsor Castle.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Lotbiniere says they never made that promise. He does not seem to be familiar with his own propaganda. Let me read this to him:
The main Liberal policy for unemployment is to cure it.
When? When are they going to cure unemployment, the unemployment they said was so rife and which is not much better today? The pamphlet goes on to say:
In the Liberal view, the opportunity to work is a right of every Canadian.
What a magnificent statement that is; and yet what a deceitful statement to make when the imputation is that every Canadian has a right to work. They said, "We are the only people, if you elect us, who can bring it about." What deceit. The pamphlet goes on:
The heavy chronic unemployment of the past few years has made the unemployment insurance fund unsound.
I ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to listen very carefully here:
A new Liberal government, with policies of economic growth, will restore the fund and enable it to function again for its proper purpose, which is to provide protection against short term and occasional unemployment.
That was the promise, and yet the fund is in the same shape today as it was when we were in office. When are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour going to do something about this? What has happened to the recommendations of the Gill commission? When is something going to be done about implementing those recommendations? When are the criticisms of the now Secretary of State for External Affairs and the then member for Laurier going to receive the attention of the government? If it was such a dreadful thing in the days when those who now occupy the treasury benches were sitting on this side of the house, why is it not just as dreadful today? This pamphlet goes on, sir, to say:
Interim, Supply
The benefits of genuine unemployment insurance will be extended to the widest possible coverage.
Here is another promise, for the benefit of the member for Lotbiniere, whose constituents I am sure cast a great many of their votes on the basis of these promises which have not been fulfilled.


Eric Alfred Winkler: False promises.


Erik Nielsen: False promises; deceitful promises-because the Canadian people were misled. As the Prime Minister, the leader of the party to which he belongs, said in a speech during the election campaign, "Gross deceit of the Canadian electorate". That is what these promises are, these unfulfilled promises.


An hon. Member:: This was part of our four year program.


Erik Nielsen: A four year program, indeed. We were promised in Canada 60 days of blazing action. This government has been in office almost a year and a half and we have not even had an intimation that any program is going to be advanced, beyond the short term remedies announced by the Minister of Labour from time to time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: All we got was a loused up budget.


Erik Nielsen: Not only did we get a loused up budget, but we got a loused up good many other things during the last year and four months during which the present government has been in office. The pamphlet goes on to say:
Unemployment benefits will be paid to people who are out of work because of illness.
That was the promise. When is it going to be implemented?
In fairness to all workers-

-a new Liberal government will be firm in preventing abuses of the insurance fund by people who are not genuinely without jobs.
When is this program going to commence? The Minister of Labour has been asked questions on this matter time and time again, on.ee has he taken either the house or the Canadian people into his confidence. PerrioS,vthe Liberal Party has no intention of fulfilling these empty promises to the Canadian people.
I think an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province for September 3, 1963 has some bearing on the subject matter of the debate which has been opened by the hon. member for Ontario. This editorial says:

Interim Supply
When the Liberals were in opposition in Ottawa they overlooked no opportunity to exaggerate the problem, even when it hurt Canada internally and externally.
That is so. You remember, sir, how they went across the country decrying the devaluation of the dollar. The Liberal party said that Canada was going to rack and ruin because the dollar had been devalued. That is to say, most of the Liberals said this. The Minister of Finance said it was a good thing that the dollar had been devalued; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is able to report to the house that there has been an increase in our economy as a result of increased exports and the like. The reason for this is because the dollar was devalued; government members realize that now. As one hon. member suggested a moment ago, it is not that all of a sudden they have become respectable.
The editorial goes on:
It was an issue which might help to elect them.
I can remember what was the view on the devaluation of the dollar in one particular community in my constituency. The Liberal propaganda of that day to the Indian people in this community was this. They asked: What does the devaluation of the dollar mean? The Liberal machine went around to the Indian people and answered that question in this way: It means that when you take $1 into the beer parlour you will get one bottle of beer and 40 cents change. In other words, you do not get two bottles of beer. That is what they said, all the time knowing that devaluation was a good thing for the Canadian economy. As a result of devaluation the balance of tourist dollars in this country is on the credit side for the first time in Canada's history.
This editorial goes on to say:
In this narrow view victory, not principle or national welfare, seemed to be the guiding star.
And so it was.
It is probably safe to say that at no time, not even when unemployment was reported to be at its worst, was it ever as bad as the gloomsters made out. What is more, the depression talk never created a single job. In fact it probably did the opposite by creating doubt about Canada's present and future.
Investors were discouraged. Manufacturers changed their minds about establishing plants, and good immigrants were frightened and went elsewhere.
That was the sum product of the policy of campaigning which was evolved by the Liberal party during their last election campaign. They did not care about the harm

which was being done to the Canadian image abroad and at home. All they cared about was being elected. I think, sir, that they are going to have to chew over these promises which were made throughout the last election campaign. They are going to have them brought home to them with some force, and are going to have to admit that they were false promises, made merely for the purpose of riding into office on a horse of deceit, if I may put it in that way.
Another pamphlet says:
The government's job is to provide coherent policies based on long views of our national needs and welfare, not on temporary expedients.
Where has this program for jobs for the 45 year olds and over gone? How many houses have been built? How many people have been helped under the $500 winter building bonus? How many people have been helped by the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and construction machinery? Is this the program of the Liberal party for encouraging the growth of industry in this country? The Liberals went up and down the length and breadth of the country saying that they were going to reduce taxes. They were going to cut taxes and balance the budget. The first thing they did when they came into office was to increase taxes. If that is not deceit, then I do not know what is. The Canadian people were misled.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And now they are disillusioned.


Erik Nielsen: Disillusioned and fed up.
Here is another promise which appeared in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph for July 25, 1963.


Auguste Choquette: Nobody reads that paper in Quebec.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then they should.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the hon. member for Lotbiniere will take the substance of these debates in the House of Commons back to his constituents, if that is the case, and tell them the truth. It is time they had the truth. It is time the people of Canada had the truth.


Auguste Choquette: It is a Conservative paper which belongs to Gerald Martineau.


Erik Nielsen: The Chronicle-Telegraph says:
The proposal by labour minister Allan Mac-Eachen to encourage the employment of over-45s by offering some financial encouragement to their prospective employers received a warm welcome when it was first announced.
Since then, however, very little has been heard about it, either from the government or from

those interested in a problem which will soon begin to assume grave proportions in this country.
What about the young people of Canada? When the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister and the hon. member for Ontario was minister of labour, $350 million was spent on the construction of vocational training schools and the implementation of vocational training to provide skilled workers to fill the labour market's needs for skilled labour. That sum was spent in two and a half years. I would ask the Minister of Labour, how much has been spent by his administration in the last fiscal year? I do not think I would be far wrong if I suggested something like $14 million. Has that program also received the benevolent chop of the Minister of Finance?
Here is what happened to another Liberal election promise as set forth by the Toronto Telegram for July 17, 1963:
The Liberal election campaign pledge to get the economy rolling at a fast enough clip to reduce unemployment and create one million new jobs by 1967 is foundering.
You bet your life, sir, it is foundering. They were going to cut taxes, set up all sorts of foundations for a new economy, balance the budget; all empty promises. What did the Prime Minister say during the campaign?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Many things.


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm points out, he said many things.
I have yet to see some of these things come into being, and the people of Canada are still waiting, though no longer with bated breath. I did not hear the intervention by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Auguste Choquette: I say you are too brilliant to quote the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: His main speech, Mr. Chairman.


Erik Nielsen: Here is what the Prime Minister said in Hamilton, Ontario during the campaign, as reported in a press release of March 25, 1963. He said that a new Liberal government will see that all federal civil servants get collective bargaining rights. This is a matter in which the President of the Privy Council is very interested, I am sure. When are they going to get bargaining rights?


George James McIlraith: Do you want the answer?


Erik Nielsen: Let us have the answer. We are all waiting.
Interim Supply


George James McIlraith: I will give the answer right now. The matter is going ahead very rapidly and there is complete satisfaction on the part of the associations with the rapidity of the process and the method of advancing the matter. It is expected that the legislation will be ready at the same time as the associations will be in a position to bargain collectively.


Erik Nielsen: I am always very wary of answers by the President of the Privy Council because he has been associated for quite a long time with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I listen to the Secretary of State for External Affairs riding his galloping semicolons and commas throughout his utterances in the house, and I am sure the President of the Privy Council will forgive me if I am wary of his statements too. Will there be full bargaining rights with the power to strike as was promised? I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council can say whether these union rights will be given to federal civil servants. That was the promise.
The Prime Minister went on to say in Hamilton, Ontario, on March 25, 1963 with regard to collective bargaining rights for civil servants that they would see that there was provision for binding arbitration to settle disputes.


Mr. Munro:: Where is the right to strike in that statement?


Erik Nielsen: He added that a new Liberal government would improve conciliation procedures without lessening freedom of negotiation.
As to the economy of the country, which has a direct bearing on the number of jobs available to Canadians, what did the Prime Minister say? Here is what he said at the 93rd annual convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association held at the Queen Elizabeth hotel, Montreal, on Tuesday, May 26 of this year:
Furthermore, during the past three years-
I draw attention to that, sir.
-increases in the output of the durable goods industries and textiles, for example, have exceeded the 28 per cent increase recorded in industrial production as a whole... The recent quickening in the tempo of business activity, following on more than two years of expansion has, I believe, been stimulated by certain government measures initiated last year.
There is a tacit admission by the Prime Minister. He recognized that in the closing two years of the previous administration,

Interim Supply
under the leadership of the then prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition, there was an economic upswing and expansion. Yet what did they say to the Canadian people during the election campaign? Here is another pamphlet. There are dozens of them. They called them the wasted years. They said there was an economic loss of $14 billion and that
300,000	jobs a year were lost to Canadians because of the terrible economic policies of the government then in power. That is what they said when they were in the opposition. Yet we find the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and others on that side now making statements in public in which they admit that the economic upswing in this country started two years before they took office. If they can say that today, why did they not tell the truth to the Canadian people during the campaign?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Pretty horrible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old gang.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister said in Vancouver on April 2, 1963, as reported in the Vancouver Sun that they would take action to provide for investment expenditures and set up new machinery of government to bring an end to the present unemployment situation. He added that it could be done and they would use the financial power of the state to make sure it was done.
When? On April 3,	1963, he said in
Winnipeg that the budget would include a long term program for economic expansion and the elimination of unemployment.
What budget? We have had two. That was the promise and it was not contained in either. When is it going to be fulfilled? There are so many of these unfulfilled promises, sir, that if I were to read them all it would take many months.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Red Skelton.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -I hear my friend from Windsor calling me Red Skelton. As I told him before, I always appreciate these compliments. This afternoon I should like to say a few words with particular reference to labour relations. I just wish the Minister of Justice were here to hear them because they are in reference to our Liberal friend, Mr. Banks. If I may be personal for a few
[Mr. Nielsen. 1
moments, in 1938 I worked on a construction gang in the building of an airport. I was working my way through college at the time and I got 30 cents an hour on that job. At that time there were 300 to 400 men for each job and I learned to respect and have always respected since the right of men to organize into unions, to be paid fair wages, to work fair hours, to have a fair share of the national income and to be able to bargain with their entrepreneurs. If that association is to continue I believe it must continue under democracy as we know it within the rule of law.
My charge this afternoon, and it is a serious one, is that the government is making a mockery out of administration of justice as far as Hal Banks is concerned. I am sure that the people in the S.I.U., except the friends of Banks, and in other unions feel that a man like Banks has contributed nothing to the labour movement and nothing to the ability of labour to be able to negotiate with their entrepreneurs and obtain fair wages and fair working hours. In fact, he has done more to destroy their image across this country than any other individual.
On June 29 last the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal by Banks, which they dismissed, with the result that he had to serve a 30 day jail sentence for contempt of court. Today, more than three weeks later, Mr. Banks is at large. Why? I will try to answer that question in a few moments. Efforts this week to serve a writ of arrest on the deposed head of the S.I.U. ended in failure because Mr. Banks was nowhere to be found. The Minister of Justice does not know where he is and the Minister of Labour does not seem to know where he is. At least, they claim they do not know. The Prime Minister does not know where he is. Yet a radio station in Montreal knew his whereabouts. They say he is sunning himself at his cabin at Higgins beach. Yet the government does not know where he is.
Then, they say they will look into the matter. The Prime Minister says this is serious, and that he will give an answer tomorrow. It is like Alice in Wonderland with this government. There is never jam today, but always jam tomorrow.
Then, when tomorrow comes we have the parliamentary secretary answering because the Minister of Justice is in Edmonton. He says, well, really this is a provincial matter. I am going to suggest to the government that the radio station was called again, and what did they say? We have asked the govern-

ment questions on this but we cannot get any answers. We cannot find out whether it is the Department of Labour or the Department of Justice, but we are told now there are two federal agents-whether it is the R.C.M.P. or not, we do not know-working in conjunction with the United States authorities trying to ascertain whether Banks is at the beach and intends to stay there and flaunt the law of Canada. I know that under the British North America Act the administration of justice is under the attorney general of the province. However, the Minister of Justice in this country is the attorney general for Canada. If the attorney general of any one of the provinces is not fulfilling his duties and responsibilities, then it is up to the Minister of Justice or the attorney general to take up that responsibility that the other party may be shirking.
If the federal government says they have no responsibility, let me ask these questions. Why did they hire two crown counsel? Why did they have crown counsel recommend that charges should not only be laid against Banks but be laid against McLaughlin? We got this admission from the present government finally after asking question after question in reference to this matter. Then we were able to get action. Banks was tried, convicted and given five years. Why wasn't McLaughlin charged? What was the recommendation of the two counsel who were paid by the Department of Justice, not by the attorney general's branch of Quebec or Ontario, but by the Department of Justice? What was their recommendation with regard to this matter? Why was it not carried out? Why is Banks still flaunting the law?
One difference between Canada and the United States is that Canada has developed and continued the Anglo-Saxon system of law and, let us be frank about it, has adopted the laws of Great Britain. If Britain has exported anything or created anything in the commonwealth, she has created the rule of law and the attempt to bring decency to our kind of civilization. I say seriously to the minister that when the government makes a mockery out of justice, then they are blocking the rule of law and the whole democratic process breaks down. I ask you this: If we were dealing with a little coal miner from East Coulee, Alberta or Canmore, Alberta who had been charged and given five years, would he be running around this country? Would he be crossing the border into the United States?
What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say in this regard? When I asked
20220-381i
Interim Supply
him questions, he said, first, that he was not domiciled. Then in reply to a question by a member of the New Democratic party he said yes, Banks was domiciled in Canada. I say the government knew when he crossed the border. Why is the government playing tricks with this sort of thing? What is the answer? I will just give the answer. In my opening remarks, I said that this man was a friend of certain Liberal cabinet ministers in the past and of some them today. I should like to know and I wish I had the information on my desk this afternoon, as to how much money he poured into the Liberal coffers to help them win the election. This is what I do not know.
The newspapers across this country, including the Calgary Herald, are asking why. This is what the Calgary Herald said:
Why was this man not arrested immediately following the supreme court ruling?
I will tell the Calgary Herald why, and I will tell the Ottawa Journal as well as the other newspapers who are asking these questions. The serious editors across the country are asking these questions. This procedure is making a mockery of justice.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If he can buy it, they all can buy it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is probably true. However, I come back to the point I made. What would have happened to the average citizen if he had been convicted? The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice says that he was found guilty of contempt, but that it was a civil matter. The lawyers on the other side know that the moment you get an order for contempt of court it at least becomes a quasi criminal matter. Banks is in contempt of one of the supreme courts of this country, and also the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely when a man is in contempt of one of the supreme courts of this country and also the Supreme Court of Canada, this is something which should be checked into.
When a man is out on $25,000 bail while he is supposed to be serving a five year term -as a Canadian he has every right to be on bail while waiting for his appeal-once he breaks his recognizance then he is supposed to be taken into custody. You will find plenty of cases outlining this situation and there are some good lawyers on the other side who realize this is the case. There are numerous cases to this effect, but I do not want to take the time to quote them this afternoon. There are numerous authorities

Interim Supply
in Crankshaw's Criminal Code to the effect that where a man is out on bail and commits another criminal offence, he is immediately arrested. This is what should be happening to Mr. Banks today. The reason I say it is not happening is that basically he is a friend of this government.
Why do I say that? I think it was last fall or some time earlier when the Leader of the Opposition was talking about this particular matter. He pointed out Banks' record, a list as long as your arm. He pointed out that Banks was brought over and given a special landing permit. This was done with the consent of the present Minister of Justice, a former minister of citizenship and immigration, and he was brought over because he was a friend of this government. This is the reason we are not getting the administration of justice in this country.
The newspaper asks, "Why has his apprehension been subjected to such an unwarranted delay?" Then, this newspaper article continues:
If an ordinary citizen found himself in similar circumstances, would he not be thrown into jail forthwith?
I will answer, yes.
In the period which has elapsed since the publication of the Norris commission report on great lakes violence, a report in which Mr. Banks was condemned as a vicious labour hoodlum, officialdom has displayed a curiously pussy-footed attitude In dealing with this matter.
You are pussy-footing because he is a friend of your government. Let us get him in jail where he belongs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They laugh over on that side. I do not believe the citizens of this country are laughing. Even the important newspapers in this country are not laughing, because the minister is making a mockery of the administration of justice in relation to this matter. I continue to quote from the article:
There was a delay in implementing Mr. Justice T. G. Norris' recommendations that Mr. Banks be removed from his post as head of the S.I.U.
Perhaps Mr. Banks is still running the trustees. Perhaps Mr. Banks is still really the head of the S.I.U. However, he would not be if the government would accept its responsibility for administering justice.
Last autumn, the federal government stalled for 13 days before ordering execution of a warrant sworn out for Mr. Banks' arrest.
Let us deal with that for a moment. Hon. Mr. Chevrier, for whom I have a great

deal of respect, was then minister of justice. I asked him why he failed to execute the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Banks. He was ready to pick him up when he came down here with the S.I.U. They carried banners displaying the names of various constituencies, but they did not even know that some of the constituencies were west of the great lakes. On that occasion Mr. Banks drove a great big white Cadillac. This was the friend of this government. This man is out, flaunting the law and making a mockery out of the administration of justice. You delayed for 13 days.
If there were a warrant out for the arrest of any of you people, do you think you would be given 13 days standing around on parliament hill? Would any other citizen be given 13 days? Of course not. Well, if I were a Liberal friend I might.
It should be noted also that Mr. Banks was sentenced on May 1 to five years in penitentiary for conspiring to injure a rival union leader. He was granted bail, pending appeal on this conviction. In view of the gravity of this offence and in view of the fact that Mr. Banks is currently awaiting another trial on a similar charge, it was surely incumbent on the police to keep close tabs on his whereabouts....
Mr. Banks' current game of hide and seek with the law is acquiring the dubious characteristics of a Keystone Cop comedy.
That is what the Calgary Herald said, and I agree with it even though it is pretty proLiberal these days. It also said:
It is also making a mockery of Canadian justice.
Let us think about this for a few moments. We had the Norris report. We had to interrogate and press the government to get this man charged. Then we had to press the government to get him arrested. Finally he was tried and found guilty but the government can take no comfort in that. Unless the voices of the opposition had not spoken up day after day he would not have been charged.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The facts on which Banks was found guilty occurred in 1957. Why for five years did the hon. member not press to have a charge laid on the basis of those facts?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the second time you have asked that question and I will give you the same answer I gave before. We set up the Norris commission. Mr. Justice Norris found the facts. You don't try a man until you get the facts. When the facts were found a recommendation was made to the Depart-

ment of Justice, but by that time we were defeated and you people were the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege; the facts, as I say, arose in 1957. They were known to the former government. The Norris commission was not established until
1961.	Why did the former government stall?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well I say the facts and the commission's recommendation were not brought before the house until a Liberal government was in office. I think the parliamentary secretary will go along with that, but assuming for a few moments that the parliamentary secretary is correct and that the Conservative government was dilatory, is that any excuse for the conduct going on now? You are the men of decision; you are the people of the new era.
I say to the parliamentary secretary that I question whether he believes that what he said the other day in the house is correct according to the law. I question whether today, upon reflection, he agrees that the matter is a civil one and the government and the Minister of Justice can do nothing about it. I say to him there is a responsibility on the government. He knows there is a responsibility; everyone knows there is a responsibility, but the government is shelving that responsibility.
Again I ask the simple question, would this occur if it had been another citizen. I say it would not. There is the history of it. This man was charged and found guilty and afterwards he flaunted the order with respect to contempt of court. I say there is a duty and a responsibility on the government to arrest this man and see that justice is done.
Let us look for a few moments at the law so far as bail is concerned. There has been a lot said about it, and I refer the parliamentary secretary to Canadian Criminal Cases volume 47, 1926-27. Except for a few changes in the interim the law of bail has not been altered. I wish to read from page 6 of this volume, from an article written by Eric Armour, K.C., at that time crown attorney in Toronto, and I am sure this will impress the parliamentary secretary because that is where he practised law before he became a distinguished parliamentary secretary.
Cash Bail: A justice of the peace as a substitute for bail may take a sum of money as a deposit.. .and this is so in respect of bearer bonds or other negotiable securities. But it is a matter entirely in his discretion and he may accept or refuse cash bail as he deems best. A deposit of a sum of money can be required
Interim Supply
when a witness without means is bound over to give evidence...
There are, however, practical objections to cash bail.
What are they? I want to pause there for a few moments. Counsel hired by the government were competent counsel and I am sure they would have recommended that this man should have been placed on a proper recognizance, so that he could not move across a border to go sunning himself when he had been found guilty of the charge, and was in contempt of the court.
To accept from the prisoner himself, cash or securities for bail is often, in effect, to permit him to purchase his freedom-
That is the charge I make. This man has purchased his freedom and has done so at the hands of the Liberal government. You have made a mockery of justice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, I point out that the issuing or granting of bail is entirely within the discretion of the chief justice of the province of Quebec and it is a patent falsehood to say the bail is purchased from the Liberal government. Bail in this case is cash bail as set in proper exercise of judicial discretion by the chief justice of the province, and if the terms of the bail are not suitable to the hon. member he may very well criticize the judge's discretion; but it is quite improper to criticize the government in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see you give the parliamentary secretary a good hand. He deserves a good hand for that remark, but he has missed my point. Judges make this decision and I am not criticizing the court for granting bail, but the parliamentary secretary knows as well as I do-he is not that naive-that crown counsel is the man who suggests the terms and conditions of the bail and the justice, the trial judge or the magistrate, goes along with that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and sometimes the defence counsel. It is a matter of open discussion. I notice hon. members opposite are trying to say there is something wrong with that, but they know as well as I do that crown counsel's suggestion is listened to very carefully because he has the man's record at hand and knows the character of the man. It is one of those considerations which judges take into consideration in exercising discretion as to whether they are going to

Interim Supply
grant bail or not, and I say to the government in that regard you did not perform your proper function. Did your crown counsel recommend cash bail, and if so, why?
When there are no sureties financially interested in seeing that the prisoner will answer the charge, and who, if they have doubts about it, can render him into custody, the chances of the accused appearing to stand trial are very greatly lessened.
We know what kind of man this is. He was a gangster when he was permitted to come here. He was a gangster after he came here, and he is still at large. That is the charge I make.
Let us take a look at what should have been in the recognizance bond. Whether it happened in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan or B.C., the criminal law is in the Criminal Code. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is rather unusual that when this man made out his application for immigration purposes that line, "Have you been found guilty of a crime" was left out and forgotten. I wonder, was it the same reason that led to this recognizance stipulation being forgotten. I invite the parliamentary secretary to give some serious thought to that.
I quote now from Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada, seventh edition, 1959, at page 1289.


Auguste Choquette: 1959?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1959, yes, that is the date. I always like to be interrupted by the hon. member for Windsor Castle. This is the recognizance form:
Now, therefore, the condition of the above written recognizance is that (if the accused appears at that court, or if, having re-elected under Part XVI, he appears before the presiding judge at the time and place fixed for his trial) and takes his trial on the indictment that is found against him and does not depart the said court without leave-
What does that mean? I know the parliamentary secretary is well aware what it means. "The said court" is the court which has jurisdiction. I say Banks should not be leaving the province of Quebec. That should have been part of his bond. If not, it was the duty of those responsible for the administration of justice to ascertain why, particularly after he had been condemned not only by the trial court in that province but by the supreme court. Surely, that makes sense.
Let us look at what some of the authorities say, as far as bail is concerned. As reported at page 1128 of the same volume, a man is charged with trafficking in narcotic drugs and bail is set at $20,000. When the case comes up, the accused fails to appear. Either on
(Mr. Woolliams.]
this charge, or on a charge precisely similar, the bail was cancelled. I say this is what should happen in this particular case. I say, too, that this matter should be discussed with the United States authorities and Banks should be brought back. I am certain they do not want to harbour Mr. Banks and that they would be glad to get rid of him. They do not want him down there, because when he was down there he had a criminal record "that long" anyway. Why was he brought to this country and why did this government allow this man to be free for 13 days when there was a warrant out for his arrest? Why did they not pick him up? These are questions which should be answered, but the government cannot answer them.
This affair has made a mockery out of the administration of justice. Not only is it bad in reference to Banks but it is bad in reference to the administration of the law generally. In this country we have respect for the law and this is one of the things which makes Canada respected all over the world. If we allow these things to go on we shall not only bring into disrepute the rule of law but we shall undermine the appreciation of the people for democracy and lessen the image of Canada abroad. All the newspapers are asking why these things have happened. I ask these questions, too. Did this man contribute to the Liberal party during the elections? Was he a friend of Mr. Harris, the former minister of finance? Was he a friend of the Minister of Transport? You know what the Minister of Transport said when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking? He said: "I don't turn my back on friends". I say: Turn your back on this friend; bring him to Canada and let him face the law in the same way as others. Put this hoodlum behind bars; protect labour and its organizations and maintain respect for the rule of law in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: There are a number of questions which naturally arise. I do not intend to follow my hon. friend from Bow River in going into particulars regarding Mr. Banks. I have dealt with that subject on previous occasions. I have indicated he was a coddled pet of the Liberal party throughout the years. However, the hon. member for Rosedale was in disagreement with some statements made by the hon. member for Bow River so I think I should like to quote a newspaper which he holds in great respect and which has an equal regard for him. I refer to the Toronto Daily Star. An editorial

in that paper, referring to the Liberal party and its position on this matter, states:
Admittedly his government-
-that is, the government of the present Prime Minister-
-has been patient with S.I.TJ. president Hal Banks, a sort of Liberal protege, ever since he arrived in Canada, criminal record and all, in 1949.
Then it goes on to say, among other things:
What was happened so far is not a pay-off; it looks more like a sell-out-a new "sweetheart deal" between Banks and the government.
I think that is pretty potent and cogent and I will say no more in that regard, except-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the right hon. gentleman state the date of that editorial?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. October 26, 1963. And the title, so that the hon. gentleman may be fully informed, is "Pay Off or Sell Out, Mr. Pearson?". I waited for that question. It is always the last question that gets a lawyer into difficulty, as the young and hon. gentleman will learn when his practice has been extended by the experience of years.
Indeed, when I think of the complete farce in connection with Banks leaving Canada, going about his happy way after his arrest on a charge of contempt of court, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, and blithely going abroad to breathe the salubrious atmosphere of freedom which comes to those who can break the law with impunity, as he has done throughout the years, it is difficult to know precisely what ought to be said. The hon. member for Rosedale asked why the government did not do something about it during the period between 1957 and 1962. It was simply because we were unable to deport this man, the government of my predecessor in office having confirmed him as a Canadian resident, approved of his illegal entry, as it was, and given him a status which prevented his being put out of Canada as he should have been. As they go to search for him, it is strange, but a limerick comes to my mind which, no doubt, is known to many hon. members:
As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today;
I wish that man would stay away!
And it applies completely to what has happened in connection with Banks.
However, it is not of that I intend to speak today. I intend to speak of the degree to which this man still dominates the S.I.U. Despite his conviction-now before the courts
Interim Supply
by way of appeal, and I make no observation on it for that reason-this man is still dominating the affairs of the S.I.U. today. In his place is Leonard McLaughlin. Read what Mr. Justice Norris had to say about McLaughlin-* the tool, the operative, for Banks. But now, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said this afternoon, we find that this individual whose record was one which desecrated the decencies, found by Mr. Justice Norris to have been disreputable in his conduct, discharges in the S.I.U. today the responsibilities of president of that union and does so with the approval of the maritime trustees; otherwise he could not hold the position he does. Banks, no longer the titular head, is the effective head, if this means anything Mr. McLaughlin intends to appoint, or has already appointed, to the union's executive six men who had previously held key positions in the Banks regime.
The Globe and Mail dealt with this in an editorial and, again, if the hon. gentleman wants to read it and bring himself up to date, it is dated May 4, 1964. It seems strange that we could have acted as a parliament-and, we believed, effectively-in fulfilling a request of the government to approve of a maritime trusteeship board. In the intervening months, we have had reports, and I intend to refer to those reports.
Parliament day by day has been denied information, the minister occupying a position of simply being, as it were, an in-between and failing to have a direct and solid opinion on this question. I listened to him the other day. I thought he had agreed that he would recommend to the trustees that they should report to parliament, that they should come before a parliamentary committee. This afternoon there were revelations made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. He recommended Mr. Millard, and that hon. member said today he had reason to be disappointed with that recommendation. He indicated that in so far as the chairman is concerned and the other members of the board, they did little, the responsibility apparently falling on Mr. Millard. The Minister of Labour will be able to reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur in that connection.
But parliament has the right to know what is going on. We cannot get it from the minister. We ask him for information, and his answer is that the matter will be brought to the attention of the trustees. Naturally they do not want to appear before a committee of parliament. Somebody today said that if they appeared before a committee, it might weaken

Interim Supply
their position in their work. That is not what they fear. That is not what I fear. I believe that parliament has a right to know what is going on. How are we going to weaken the administration of a board by bringing them before parliament and asking certain questions? I thought the Minister of Labour agreed with hon. members-I think generally, in all parts of the house-that this board should appear before a committee of parliament. I thought he agreed last week, but on Friday he gave this answer, as reported at page 5926 of Hansard, to a question by me. I asked:
May I ask a supplementary question. I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour, in his communication with the trustees did he add his personal request that they should now be willing to appear before the committee? What did he mean when he said "We will meet at an early date"? Does that mean he is going to meet with them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped it might be possible to have a discussion on this point with the chairman of the board of trustees either on Monday or later next week.
Why wait until Monday; why wait until later this week? Are there no telephones; is there no other communication than meeting together? This is a matter that has been before parliament on a number of occasions and members have asked for, have demanded, their right and parliament's right to know what is going on here-because certainly there are things that require explanation, with regard to which parliament has the right to information. But said the Minister of Labour:
However, the chairman had made arrangements to be on the west coast. Just as soon as he comes back we will have a meeting to discuss the particular point raised by my hon. friend. At that time I hope I will be in a position to indicate my views as to the desirability or otherwise of an appearance before the committee.
Up until Friday I believed the minister was himself convinced that this board of trustees should appear before a committee of parliament. That was the indication he gave to the house on more than one occasion; and yet on Friday he added these significant words, "my views as to the desirability or otherwise". In other words, he retraced his steps. The undertaking of a day or so before, which was clear and apparent to anyone who listened to his words, was dissipated and removed by those additional words. Why should they not come before a committee of parliament? What is the reason? There are a great many questions that have to be answered.
There will be the question of Mr. McLaughlin. Just imagine him, sitting in as the grand mogul of the S.I.U. This is the man who was the pawn of Banks, the man who carried out Banks' brutalities or, rather, his tyrannical

directions. That was his position; he was Banks' trusted operator. He is now the head of the S.I.U.; if not in law then certainly in fact. Would the minister say whether this person has suddenly become the epitome of all goodness? Has the record of several years as the factotum of Mr. Banks all been erased? Has purity taken the place of the wrongdoing of those years? The minister laughs. That is his attitude, laughing at this; laughing at a situation in having a man as the head of the
S.I.U., who still operates-whether they can find it or not-the "do not ship" list. The hon. member from the N.D.P. referred to this matter again today. He still operates this list. Men get in touch with me and say, "We cannot get positions; we are on the 'do not ship' list". We asked for the "do not ship" list and the minister said there is not any such list.
Judge Wagner of Montreal, a man who has earned a national reputation for justice and its administration, made unflattering references to Leonard McLaughlin. Why should this man, who favoured Banks-that was the word used in his evidence, apparently-be elevated to the top position? The minister will say, "Oh, we let the unions operate as they will and choose whom they will, and in the ordinary role of progression upwards, being the vice president he would naturally fill the position vacated by Banks". That is not what the Canadian people want. They want free labour removed from any suggestion of domination by the Banks gang. I thought the minister would have impressed upon the trustees the fact that members in all parts of this house-if I know anything about it-contend that McLaughlin is unacceptable. But he is going to serve. What about the C.L.C.? The leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress warned, as far back as April 20, that "democracy cannot be achieved in the seafarers' international union of Canada until the present officers of the S.I.U. are ousted".
Three months ago Mr. Jodoin said in an interview that that statement stands as congress policy, although it was written before the government's marine union trustees deposed S.I.U. president Hal Banks. I should like the minister to tell the committee when McLaughlin changed his spots; it would be very interesting to know. He was a leopard in labour relations in the S.I.U. Has he now changed? If he has it speaks volumes for the beneficient influence of the Minister of Labour. What questions could be asked. What would we like to know.

Let us look back to the Norris commission report. The Norris commission spent a year hearing hundreds of witnesses and taking thousands of pages of evidence. They dealt with the S.I.U. and its ramifications. They dealt with Hal Banks' ruthless rise to power. They dealt with the means whereby he maintained absolute power and exercised his chilling authority over democratic and labour processes. The evidence indicated the brutal authoritarianism of and the part played by Leonard McLaughlin. Does the minister say that I am overstating the record as far as McLaughlin is concerned? Justice Norris said, as reported at page 169 of his report:
His subservience to and support of Banks under all circumstances was demonstrated at an early stage.
Mr. Justice Norris suggests that McLaughlin's activities should be investigated along with Banks' with a view to laying conspiracy charges. Now the man against whom the recommendation was made that a conspiracy charge should be considered is in the driver's seat. What manner of contempt for parliament is this? What was the reason for setting up the commission? The recommendation by Mr. Justice Norris was to bring about the assurance of democracy in the union. What has been done in that connection? I want the minister to tell the committee what has been done. Certainly Banks' flunkey, McLaughlin, has been given the position which Banks occupied. Judge Wagner remarked how McLaughlin leaned to Banks. Cannot you see him sitting there in that position while Banks travels abroad and enjoys the vacation of which some of us dream, not abroad but in our own country? How these men must laugh. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that the man who for 13 years had no other function which is apparent on the record than to carry out the orders of Hal Banks has suddenly become the reverse of what he was under the tutelage of Banks over a period of time? He is the man who owed his position and his salary to Banks; the man who never scrupled to do Banks' bidding.
The Norris report, as all of us agreed, unfolded a record page by page of violence and brutality. Where was McLaughlin when the beatings were going on? Judge Norris said of him that McLaughlin's greatest asset was his adeptness-and I quote-"at setting up the farce of democracy in the union". The man who was adept at setting up the farce of democracy in the union is the chosen instrument for bringing about an assurance of democracy which is one of the major tasks 20220-382
Interim Supply
suggested by Justice Norris. I say that in the interests of the freedom of labour in this land, in the interests of equality under the law and in the interests of parliamentary supremacy these trustees must be summoned before parliament to give their evidence and be cross-examined.
What about Paul Hall? We have not yet been told about the arrangement made by Paul Hall. The maritime trades department of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. was operated by Banks and Paul Hall, who is the president of the
5.1.	U. in the United States. Then there was the L.I.A. which was formerly run by Tony Anastasia, but which is now operated by Mr. Gleason who paid a visit to Montreal last year. Then there is also the teamsters union, and only a couple of days ago Mr. Hoffa added to the sum total of his convictions.
They are racketeers. We are not going to have this sort of thing in Canada. Can we be assured that we will not have it by having the McLaughlins head the S.I.U.? After the minister has spoken I hope I will be able to have a later opportunity to deal with any matters he might raise and any answers he gives. Because the record is in the Norris report.
Among the questions which might be asked are: What is McLaughlin's position? Is he still running the union? Whose orders is he carrying out? Are they the orders of the trustees, or Hal Banks, or Paul Hall? How much control has Paul Hall, president of the
5.1.	U. in the United States, over the S.I.U. in Canada? What financial contributions are being made now by the S.I.U. to the S.I.U. in the United States? We should like to find out whether an agreement was reached with Paul Hall on that question. We should like to find out whether Canadian sailors are still being forced to pay contributions which come into Paul Hall's hands in order to hold down jobs. Surely we have the right to this information.
We should like to have the opportunity to examine these trustees regarding the "do not ship" lists. We should like to find out how many new contracts have been negotiated by the seamen of the S.I.U. We should like know whether these contracts provide for a portable pension plan with a 20 per cent wage increase. We should like to hear from Mr. Millard, a man who has had a great record in Canadian public life and in union activities. What conversations and discussions have taken place between him and Leonard McLaughlin?

Interim Supply
There is something else we would like to find out. On March 10 the board of trustees made a report in which they said:
The trustees have felt that.. .the removal and replacement of any officer of any union-
That included Banks.
-should be effected, whenever this is necessary, by persons and processes in the trade union movement itself.
When that report was made on March 10 Banks was still in office. What happened between March 10 and March 18 when the board of trustees decided to remove Banks? These are just some of the questions that naturally arise. Let us consider the trustees' report further. Here are some questions. They say in their report:
They also decided to interfere as little as possible with the affairs of the unions consistent with carrying out the duties of the trustees under the act.
I doubt whether or not that was in the contemplation of parliament. They were given great power in order to preserve free unionism in Canada. They went on to say in their report:
Should anything be found in the course of this investigation-
-of the financial and other aspects of the unions under trusteeship-
-that showed the conduct of a union officer or officers to be inconsistent with his or their remaining in office, it was agreed appropriate steps, as provided in the legislation, would be taken.
We would like to know what was found as a result of this investigation because they went on to say:
In the meantime, it was agreed that the officers would continue to administer the unions subject to the control of the trustees as provided by he act.
We would like to hear about the discussions between Mr. Hall and the trustees. We would like to be able to look into the question of whether or not there was in fact any arrangement made between them. In the report of last March this item appears:
An insurance company has been asked to review the seafarers' international union welfare plan.
What has happened? What was found as a result of that review? The report goes on to state:
Preliminary discussions indicate that more data will be needed than are at present available before clear answers can be obtained as to the relative merits of the present plan and alternatives to it. A decision has not yet been made as to whether or not the expense of collecting these data should be incurred.

Was there an investigation? We would like to know. We would like to know what was found as a result of the examination made by a firm of chartered accountants retained in October, 1963 to advise the trustees as to control and investigation of the financial affairs of the unions. We would also like to find out what explanation was given for the shortage of $4,965.01 in the total funds available compared with the total liabilities as set out on page 5. We were told that all of these things were being considered and we would like to know what has been done, with these recommendations extant and such important matters to be looked into as Hal Banks' travels. The accountants were instructed to find and train someone to carry out the program so devised. I quote the words of the report:
They were Instructed to do so, and were also asked to prepare a set of rules to cover expense account entitlement.
What was done in that regard? After all, the record was that whatever Banks wanted, Banks got. However large the expenditure it was approved by him and on more than one occasion exorbitant, inexcusable and unjustifiable amounts were paid. What about these investigations as to the books of the union regarding the use of the building corporation's property? The report stated:
No separate books of account are kept by the corporation. The bookkeeper will be instructed to keep records that will permit a more detailed accounting for future periods.
We want to know what was done. Parliament has no information. All we know is that some ephemeral plan was evolved, some potential operation was determined on. What has been done? While all these plans are made Banks travels, and McLaughlin sits in a position of responsibility.
What about the list of addresses of the seamen? It was found that was out of date and for other reasons inaccurate and would have to be corrected. What has been done in that connection? There are so many questions here involving financial matters, adjustment of disputes and prevention of possible work stoppages. These have required the issuance of special instructions. We would like to know what has happened. The board went on to say:
In the hope of finding a permanent solution to the problems which gave rise to the trusteeship, the trustees have endeavoured to ascertain the basic causes of, and to devise remedies for, the conditions which the statute calls upon them to correct.
What has been done? Somebody said something today about parliament being in disre-

pute. I do not belong to that school. If you will read Hansard you will find that all through the years members have said how different parliament was in the grand old days of the past. That does not mean that changes do not have to take place; but parliament cannot act without information and parliament has a right to know what is taking place here.
The trustees were to consider such matters as hiring halls, collection of union dues and assessments, the appointment of officials to review discharges of seamen, the training and certification of personnel. What has been done? The trustees also stated:
In the course of their inquiries the trustees have been examining the hiring methods used in other countries in the hope that their solution to somewhat similar problems might be helpful in Canada.
We want to know what has happened. Certainly none of these things is secret. How can information of this kind not be beneficial? I have never yet known a parliament to operate effectively blindfolded. Let us shine the searchlight into the recesses of the S.I.U. The only way we can do so is by having the trustees come before us.
With regard to McLaughlin and other responsible officers the report contains the following:
The trustees have felt that, if at all possible, the removal and replacement of any officer of any union should be effected, whenever this is necessary, by persons and processes in the trade union movement itself. Consequently, they have concluded that every effort should be made to induce responsible officers of the trade union movement to make changes where they are required.
Will anybody tell me that McLaughlin is responsible? He is powerful. What changes have taken place in the S.I.U. since the month of March? Then the trustees go on to say:
Should such efforts fail, or not be employed or if...it appears to the trustees that the past or present conduct of a union officer makes it advisable in the interests of the future conduct of union affairs to remove him, or that the removal of an officer is in the interests of the welfare of Canada, he will, of course, be removed.
Do you notice the word "past", the past conduct of a union officer? I ask the minister this question: What about the past conduct of the man who today parades as the chief of the S.I.U.?
Mr. Justice Norris can be consulted if anybody wants an answer to that.
Now, sir, these are the questions that we want to have answered. It may be inconvenient for the trustees, for after all none of us 20220-3821
Interim. Supply
particularly relishes being subjected to examination. However, the appointment, either actually, legally or inferentially of McLaughlin and the acceptance of it raises doubts as to whether all is well in the S.I.U.
Then, this article deals with the question of collective bargaining agreements, and I am not going into that. On April 4 the press reported that a deal had been made between the trustees and Paul Hall, president of the
5.1.	U. of North America, which called for
5.1.	U. executive vice president Leonard McLaughlin to step up to the presidency. Was such a deal made? If there was a deal, what kind of a transaction would place a racketeer at the head of the union? If a deal was not made, as appears in a press article by a Globe and Mail reporter, the result was just as successful for Banks as if there had been. We would like to know.
Then, we would like to know something about the question of wire tapping which linked Mr. Banks to the trustees' office in Montreal. What was found out? Wire tapping is an offence. What evidence was there of this, Mr. Chairman? There is no more contemptible action than wire tapping; and imagine Banks being able to get his wires in to the trustees' meetings. This, of course, is all based on whether or not the report is true. We want to find out about it because it has not been denied, except in a sort of general way.
After all, I have to depend on the press. This is our only source of information. We cannot get any information by asking questions. We get the brush-off, and that is not unusual in the last few weeks. We have had the brush-off several times by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot get any information. Then, according to a report Mr. Justice Dryer, head of the government's trusteeship over the waterfront unions, said that trouble might erupt on the great lakes if certain things are not done. This report is dated March 24, 1964. What were those things? Surely no board set up by parliament should operate in that way, which denies parliament information. We were told, at the time the bill was before the house that there would be a formal report once a year, and we accepted that. The minister said he was sure interim reports would be made available under all reasonable circumstances.
Now then, I could go on and ask various other questions. I mentioned a moment ago the question of pensions and new contract demands. This is on April 13, and I quote from the article:

Interim Supply
New contract demands for Canadian seamen under the maritime union trustees board will provide for a portable pension plan and a possible 20 per cent wage increase, it was learned here on the week end. ...
Notification has also gone out to 42 shipping companies that the S.I.U. intends to open contract negotiations some time in May.
What has been done? These, and many other questions, should be answered. This parliament cannot, must not and dare not allow itself to be flouted. The former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, today expressed his view, as has the hon. member for Bow River. I have restricted myself almost to one question, the right of parliament, on behalf of the Canadian people, to know the answers to these questions. The answer the minister has generally given has been that he will refer the matter to the board, get their views and report back.
If I may summarize, sir, what I have said: Parliament has a right to information. It cannot be obtained through the minister. There is no way of following up. He simply reports that the trustees think this or that, and that is the end. We want to get this information, and the sooner the better. I had hoped that the other day the minister was in agreement when he expressed himself on this question of the trustees appearing before a committee of the house. However, he made it very clear that parliament would not know what his personal views were in this regard. No doubt when he speaks he will be able to clarify these things. However there is one thing upon which clarification is necessary, and that is the right of parliament to this information, because Banks' visit abroad and McLaughlin's appointment reveal the kind of hanky-panky that is being played with responsible unionism.
I will go no farther than that now. The failure to recognize that parliament has rights, that the rights of the people have been interfered with and trampled on as they were by Banks and McLaughlin, is an important matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform hon. members that the questions to be raised at ten thirty o'clock this evening are as follows: First, the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Francis), public service inquiry as to cyclical salary revision; second, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), crown assets, Manitoba, disposition of former radar station site.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.

Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I wish to use this occasion when we are assaulting the Minister of Labour to make a few comments, some of them on matters which were brought up this afternoon, but many of them on matters which are new. All of them relate to fields which come under the minister's jurisdiction.
I wish to point out that for backbenchers like myself this is the first opportunity we have had in the second session of the twenty sixth parliament to discuss anything relating to the Department of Labour apart from occasional opportunities through questions on the orders of the day. The reason for this situation is that the Minister of Labour has either chosen not to introduce his estimates or else he cannot convince his colleagues that they should take any kind of priority. Perhaps it is because the hon. gentleman is afraid to account for what has been going on, particularly in relation to the maritime trusteeship. At any rate, it becomes important for someone like myself to put on record at this particular juncture a few remarks with regard to the Department of Labour.
I want to begin by making a public confession. I, like many other members, feel I was "conned" into voting for a trusteeship last fall. I did so then, but I am not so sure I would now. In fact, I am practically certain I would not vote to impose a trusteeship on unions in Canada if the same issues were to come before this house again. It runs against my grain, anyway; but we in this house were impressed at the time by the heinous offences which had been committed by Mr. Banks and Mr. McLaughlin. The minister, and the ministry generally, said the imposition of a trusteeship was the only thing which could be done to clean up the union, though the measure left a bad taste in the mouth of any person who saw himself as a friend of organized labour. I was reluctant to vote for it at the time, and I was sorry I had done so. I would not vote that way again. What has happened in the interim is that the government, having introduced this legislation and appointed the trustees, has failed to carry out the spirit of the legislation and see to it

that these violent and gangsterish people were removed from the seafarers international union.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice can give all kinds of excuses, and so can the Minister of Labour. The fact of the matter is that Banks is sitting sunning himself at a sea resort in Maine while his minion, McLaughlin, is running the S.I.U. The charge has been made in this house that Mr. Banks was allowed to get across the border after arranging for this mere $25,000 bail. I say "mere" in the sense that, to hoodlums like Banks, $25,000 is not very much money. The charge was made in the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Bow River that the only reason Banks is free and at large is because the Liberal government chose to wink at his activities and that, in fact, the price of peace on the great lakes was that Banks be allowed, with tacit approval from the Liberal government, to cross the border into the United States to holiday in Maine, knowing that his front men were still running the S.I.U. If this is not true I do not know why the Minister of Labour does not get up and say it is not true. That is all he needs to do. If these charges are false then, surely, the minister should give the house a categorical denial. Otherwise, how can one explain what has been going on? I would be perfectly happy to resume my seat right now if the minister would get up and categorically deny that a deal was made between Paul Hall and the trustees appointed by parliament whereby Mr. McLaughlin would acquire the presidency of the
S.I.U. as the price of peace on the great lakes. If the minister is prepared to deny it, the issue would be ended as far as I am concerned. But how else can anyone in this house understand the events of the past few months in relation to this gangster Banks and the fact that as great a gangster though possibly a less accomplished one, is now in command of the union? I am sure many members on all sides of the house are sincerely sorry they voted in favour of a maritime trusteeship as they did last fall.
After these opening remarks I wish to refer briefly to a situation of which I am sure the minister is aware. It is one which, I believe, is a matter for deep concern. At the present time there is only one area in Canada where the working man has absolutely no labour legislation to protect him. That area, as hon. gentlemen may guess, is the Northwest Territories. At the present time there is no minimum wage law, no legislation guaranteeing annual vacations, no legislation with regard
Interim Supply
to hours of work, overtime, and so on. I think that it is properly the responsibility of the minister to take a hard look at this situation and give some leadership. I am asking him on behalf of the working men of the Northwest Territories to provide such leadership. I feel there must be labour legislation introduced quickly, and for two reasons. First, we have to protect the men who are already there, even though they may number only some 2,000 employees. In the second place, if we are ever to develop this part of the country it is essential that employers who come into the area and the employees who work for them should know what their rights and responsibilities are, and that these rights should be shored up by legislation.
Before anyone interrupts me, let me say I know perfectly well that labour legislation is a matter which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the territories council. But I know, also, that the council of the Northwest Territories is completely dominated by the federal government-that it is a nine man council to which the minister of northern affairs appoints five persons, and that nothing can go on in the council without his approval. So I do know that if, in the case, the minister of northern affairs wishes to do so, he can see to it that labour legislation is introduced at the next session of the territories council.
So far there has been one group and one group only pressing for even rudimentary labour legislation in Canada's north, and that is the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers who are very active in the north and in the Yukon. For the last three years in particular they have consistently approached the government, pointing out these areas of inadequacy and asking for action. Tonight I am asking the Minister of Labour if, through the excellent staff officers he has, he will take this whole matter under study.
I want to read from the final statement that was issued after a conference of the mine, mill and smelter workers at Whitehorse in August of 1962. They had men representing the various unions from all over, both in Yellowknife just prior to the 1962 election campaign and subsequently in the Yukon in August of the same year, and they Issued a statement of what they wanted. I just want to read this statement to the minister because in any other part of Canada this sort of thing was happening years ago. There is only this one remaining area with regard to which we have no legislation in this con-

Interim Supply
nection. Here is the statement they issued after this conference:
As stated in the preamble, the inadequacy of the labour legislation in the Yukon, and the complete non-existence of labour legislation in the Northwest Territories make it imperative that a labour code be devised to meet the needs of workmen in the rapidly expanding economy of our northland.
Therefore, the union urges that an ordinance or labour code be enacted that will give workers in the north rights equal to those enjoyed by workmen in the other areas of our nation.
The union submits the following as minimum requirements for the formulation of such a labour code.
It will come as a shock to some people that this is all these men are asking for and that these things are not there:
(a)	Minimum wage.
(b)	Hours of work.
(c)	Overtime rates.
(d)	Minimum paid vacations.
<e) Paid statutory holidays.
(f) Guarantee of wages.
It surely must come as a shock to Canadians that the men who work in these areas do not have any of these guarantees; that it is only on the basis of whim or benevolence that a workman there gets these things. I suggest to the minister that it is up to him to give the leadership in this regard. He should call his officials in and tell them he is not satisfied that there should be a developing part of Canada-indeed, any part of Canada, no matter how small it is-where a workman does not even have a guaranteed holiday per year, does not have guaranteed hours of work, and has no minimum wage at all. In this regard these people are extremely unfortunate, particularly when this is an area that has in it so many Eskimo and Indian people and where it is up to the employer to decide whether or not he shall exploit the people who are working for him. I could read from other publications of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers. As I said before, this is the only agency that has consistently pressed for the protection of the rights of the workman in the north. Now I am lending my voice, on the first occasion I have had, really, to do this and am asking the minister if he will consider taking action in this regard.
I want to refer the minister very briefly to another little squabble that is going on in the north. It is little in one sense, and it is an important one in another. The minister is well aware of it because already he has intervened. I am referring to the difficulties we have encountered on the distant early warning line. I am not alone in speaking in

this connection in the house; the member of the New Democratic party for Winnipeg North Centre has also raised this question with the minister. The history of the problem I can state very quickly. As a result of the diminishing threat of manned bomber attack from Russia, the D.E.W. line, the distant early warning line, is being phased out. As a result of this, the employees who have served on the line are placed in an unfortunate position. This is not a pleasant kind of service for most of these men, to be thousands of miles away from their families, in complete isolation, not allowed to have their families on site with them; it is an artificial and unfortunate kind of living. None the less the pay is good and over the years the men have built up a tradition of service on the line.
As jobs became scarce, the Federal Electric Corporation, which operates the D.E.W. line for the United States air force, decided that this would be a good time to cut wages and increase the workload of the men; that because they had more applicants with D.E.W. line experience than they had positions, they could force men who had served for five, six, seven or eight years to take a 25 per cent cut in pay. What happened was that the international brotherhood of electrical workers went in and organized the men on the line, and in May of 1963 certification of local 2085 of the international brotherhood was granted by the Canadian government, this after many years of difficulty. Believe you me, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Electric Corporation did not make it easy for the international brotherhood to go in there and organize these men; they put every possible stumbling block in their way.
At any rate, in May of 1963 they were finally certified as the bargaining agent. The Federal Electric Corporation immediately appealed this decision and it took some months before a decision was finally handed down. The minister will recall answering a question on this matter in the house in March of this year. His answer can be found on page 1404 of Hansard. He there gives the facts of the case and says that the way is now clear for the men to bargain effectively for their rights. This question involves some 500 or 600 employees. I posed a question to him on that same day and asked whether he would look into a problem that had been suggested to me, namely that Canadians working on the distant early warning line were being paid substantially less than United States citizens, for doing identical jobs, being employed in the same category.

I asked the minister to look into this matter, and he promised he would do so.
I am hoping that maybe he will be able to give me an answer now; because what is happening is that this United States corporation is paying those persons who are American citizens substantially higher wages than they are paying Canadians in the same location, doing the same work, and at the same employment level. This is a situation that has gone on for some time. But the recent difficulties, the recent retrenchments in positions have exacerbated this problem; they have brought it to the fore now, and the men are completely unhappy. I am sure the minister can understand why Canadians and why the member of parliament who represents these men on the line should be pretty upset. Right now there are conciliation board hearings going on in Winnipeg to review some of these problems of the men on the distant early warning line. What has happened is that as a result of earlier intervention from the minister's office the Federal Electric Corporation were told they could not get away with reducing these wages; that they must hold the line until the matter could be studied; that they were not to just chop the pay of the men whom they did not want to hire. Therefore the Federal Electric Corporation right now is employing a bunch of manoeuvres to, in effect, accomplish the same thing. I want to tell the minister about that because it is something I feel his departmental officials should look into. For example, when they are told they must pay the same rate, let us say for a radar technician, or a rad-ician, as they are called on the line, what the company has been doing has been to set up a new grade of radician at a much lower rate, and to hire men at the lower category for the same job. Or they are doing things like removing all cooks from the site, and the chef, who of course is one step up from a cook and receives more pay, is now having to do all the cooking, baking, and so on, as well as clean up. That is another way of cutting their pay or making the senior officers do more menial tasks.
Another thing they are doing, which I should like the minister or his officials to note, is that they are bringing in a lot of temporary employees for terms of less than four months. If the minister is familiar with the distant early warning line he will realize that under Federal Electric regulations an employee who is in the employ of the company for less than four months is not eligible to join the union. Therefore they are able
Interim Supply
to force that particular person to work at a much lower wage than he otherwise would, and leave him without the protection of the international brotherhood of electrical workers to stand up and speak for him. I hope the minister will bring this matter to the attention of his officials in his department because it is not a good situation.
The future of the distant early warning line, which employs many hundreds of Canadians, is a tenuous one, and there will be further retrenchments until finally the line will be of no more use at all. Indeed there are those who argue that it is already obsolete. The problem will be a recurring one, so perhaps the officials can do something now.
I hope the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make it clear in no uncertain terms to the government of the United States, which after all is the contractor in this matter-it is the D.E.W. line of the United States air force-that we are not prepared to accept the proposition that United States citizens should get substantially higher wages than Canadians for identical positions. If these two ministers would do this, that in itself might effect a change.
In the few minutes left to me there are a couple of other brief matters I want to mention to the minister. At one stage in the game I asked the minister whether his department would consider establishing a national employment service office in the Northwest Territories. All we want is one office in the whole of the territories. People looking for work anywhere in the far north must at the present time register with the Edmonton office, if they are in the west, or with the Montreal office if they come from the eastern part of the territories. Similarly I hope the national unemployment insurance commission will establish an office. The answer I got from the minister, as reported at page 1450 of Hansard, is that his officials have the matter under constant survey. This is surely civil service jargon for saying: We don't intend to do anything; in fact, we are not even sure where Yellowknife is. That might have been written in between the lines of the minister's answer.
I would suggest to the minister that we had an excellent example of this shortly after that. As a result of a fire in a mine at Yellowknife, at the Consolidated mine, or the "Con" mine, some 150 men had to be laid off while extensive repairs were made. Not only did these men have to apply to Edmonton,

Interim Supply
some 600 miles further south, to register for work or for unemployment insurance benefits, but when they made application they found there were no forms available. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labour, in the words of the minister's answer, having this matter under constant review and assessment and they did not even have the forms available for men to apply for these benefits? Therefore I hope the Minister of Labour will review the matter again. The number of people unemployed or who require the services of his officials is reasonably small, but I think it is important that we re-establish and reopen a national employment service office in the area. I do not think that we in Canada should be asking people to travel 600 miles to their nearest national employment service office or to go to an office in another province.
I should also like to make a comment on the winter home construction bonus of $500. The minister gave me an answer the other day which is revealing because it showed that there was only one community in the whole of the north which even applied for the bonus, and that was the community of Hay River. Twenty two people built homes under the scheme and only five qualified for the bonus. I suggest to the minister that this program has no real merit anywhere in the Northwest Territories, and I think this might also be true of the northern parts of the provinces. The cost of transportation in the winter, or the sheer impossibility of transportation in the winter, is such that the scheme will not work. I do not know when winter comes and goes in Inverness-Richmond, but I do know that we in the Northwest Territories have been wintering for months by the time his official winter arrives.
I would suggest to him that the program would have real merit if he were to offer the bonus for summer home construction. I am not asking this on behalf of my buddies in southern Canada but just for those in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I think the program might have the benefit that he claims for it in southern Canada if he carried the scheme on in the north in the summer. Because quite frankly, after the Minister of Finance has slapped on the 8 per cent tax, and with the additional $1,000 cost in building a home in the north in the winter, his particular program has no real merit for us.
I would also suggest to him that while he is doing these things and his officials are looking into the need for labour legislation and how they can give leadership to the territorial

council, and while they are studying ways in which Federal Electric Corporation is discriminating against Canadian employees on the line, he also ask for a special study by his department as to what they might do to make the municipal winter works program and the house construction program more effective in the Canadian north. Because right now it really is not giving us the same benefits as are received elsewhere.
I would conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, with the repetition of a statement I made to the minister of northern affairs on Friday, when I asked him to do something else. He is the Minister of Labour. He can give a certain amount of leadership. Do not let 1964 go by the board with the Northwest Territories still the only place in Canada where a working man does not have these basic legislative guarantees. The territorial councils are meeting in November both in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. With the influence which he and his colleague, the minister of northern affairs, can bring to bear on these councils-indeed, the direct control of the council of the Northwest Territories is in his hands-this can be done. This alone would give him some place in the history of labour relations in Canada and certainly a very particular place in the hearts of the working men in the Canadian north. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house would like to know what steps the government and the Minister of Labour intend to take to solve unemployment now prevailing in Canada. During the last election campaign the candidates of the Liberal party stated that they had found solutions to settle the unemployment problem once and for all.
I see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I remember that when we were on the government side, he delivered long speeches pointing out that he had the readymade solution to settle the unemployment problem. We would be very pleased on this side of the house if the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs gave some advice to the hon. Minister of Labour or still told us what steps this government has taken to settle the unemployment problem once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, the unemployment situation is all the more alarming as, at this time, the province of Quebec has 39 per cent of the total number of unemployed in Canada. And those who have used up their unemployment benefits or who are on unemployment as-

sistance or social welfare are not included in those statistics. According to the d.b.s., Quebec had 105,000 unemployed last June, that is the same number as in June 1962. I should like the Minister of Labour to tell us what plans the government has in mind to settle that situation.
Mr. Chairman, I do not like to mention the promises made by the Liberal candidates during the election campaigns, but their promises were quite definite in that matter and the unemployment situation gives rise to such concern that it is proper to recall them to the house. And on that matter, let me quote a letter to the editor published in Le Devoir of April 29, 1963 and entitled:
Comments by the hon. member for Montreal-St. James on the April 8 votation.
That mark of confidence will also be for me an encouragement to multiply my efforts to provide employment for the many unemployed and to alleviate the distress of certain families and certain individuals in co-operation with the civic and religious authorities.
And the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) whom I see at his desk now, continued:
Such a mark of confidence can only fire with enthusiasm a public man steeped in patriotism, concerned with economic prosperity and social security, so that all Canadians, whatever their ethnic origin, their language or their level of education, can realize that in this nation, they can, without any discrimination and as full partners, make a bright future for themselves and for those who will follow them.
And in brackets, there is:
(L. B. Pearson, House of Commons, December 17, 1962).
Mr. Chairman, while thanking his constituents for the confidence they had shown him, the hon. member for St. James quoted the words spoken in this house by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he was leader of the opposition. But what about the 105,000 unemployed of the province of Quebec who are waiting for the government's reply, who are anxious to work, who are fed up with being unemployed, and want to earn their living like other Canadians? I ask the hon. member for St. James, and other Liberal members from the province of Quebec, in particular the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), to tell us what the Liberal government intends to do with regard to unemployment.
We remember the type of speeches made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, when he was in the opposition. However, it is strange to notice how quiet he has kept since he sits on the cabinet benches. He dares not get up to make sug-
Interim Supply
gestions to his own government, in the public interest, in the interest of the Canadian people, so that they may work and get their fair share of the national income. We should like to see the Minister without Portfolio take up a position and tell us whether he is pleased with the fact that we still have, in the province of Quebec, 105,000 family heads looking for a job when the Liberal party stated in no uncertain terms that the unemployment problem would be solved.
Mr. Chairman, our Canadian economy is going bankrupt, not only in Quebec but in the other provinces.
I see that the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) looks surprised and is smiling. But did you know, Mr. Chairman, that business failures in Canada reached a record high under the present government? I have here figures from the dominion bureau of statistics. Does not the Minister of Industry and Defence Production agree with me? Will he contradict the figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics? They indicate that a record number of business failures has been registered under the present government, that is to say in the field of private enterprise a greater number of people in business went bankrupt.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That is the result of six years of Conservative government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, there would be numerous means by which we could solve our economic problems. Hon. members on the government side have their friends in the Quebec provincial government. When will those two governments join hands to help-solve the problem of unemployment? You know that we face a crucial problem at this time.
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets). I remember that he made very good suggestions when he was sitting on this side of the house-


Robert William Prittie: Will the hon. member permit a question? Last week the hon. member spent a good deal of time defending provincial autonomy. This week he wants the federal government to come into the picture and solve unemployment. Does he not think this is a job for the provincial government?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it would be very easy to solve the unemployment problem, without intruding into a field of provincial jurisdiction and while respecting

Interim Supply
provincial autonomy. For instance, if this government were to enforce the measure we passed when we were in office, for the building of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula, that would greatly help to improve the economy of that area. In addition to the development of industry, it would also help to attract industries in the Gaspe peninsula, and I feel that such a measure would not be against the autonomy of the province of Quebec.
And what is being done in order to start as soon as possible the deepening of the Richelieu river? Why this long delay on the part of the boundary waters commission, when we know that this project, if carried out soon, would result in a saving of $100 million in shipping costs for the Canadian government while avoiding a detour of 1500 miles?


Mr. Dupuis:: Why did you not do it during the six years you were in power?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that the Minister without Portfolio remains seated to make his remarks; he does not have enough courage to stand up. He should have the courage to rise and ask his question.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member tell the house why the Conservative government, which he supported, did not think that the deepening of the Richelieu river was an excellent thing and did not undertake to carry it out during the six years they were in office? Why six years of inaction? Why six years of doing nothing? Why six years of negligence?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say to the Minister without Portfolio that when we were in power, we ordered the boundary waters commission to undertake a study as soon as possible.


Yvon Dupuis: In 1962.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But I am surprised to see that the study has been going on for four years and that no concrete report has been submitted on that matter. What is the reason for the delay? Why does the boundary waters commission delay making its report public so that the government may proceed as early as possible with the deepening of the Richelieu river, a project which would surely contribute to economic expansion not only in Quebec but throughout Canada?
Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to hear the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard)-


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it might be desirable for the Minister without Portfolio to make his own speech. Indeed, it would be his first speech since he has become a minister; I shall supply him with the opportunity to do so a little later.


Yvon Dupuis: Just a brief question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has the floor and he apparently does not wish to answer questions at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, apart from the hon. members for Levis and Bonaventure, I also see my good friend the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) and the hon. hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). I shall ask them to tell us why the government decided to cancel the railway construction project in the Gaspe peninsula, which would have contributed to the economic advancement and development of that district? Why?
I do not see any logical answer to this question. Moreover, the chamber of commerce of North Gaspe in a unanimous resolution, blamed the government for cancelling the railway building project in Gaspe; this resolution, which was rather hard for this government, was moved, among others, by Mr. Jourdain, former Liberal member for that district in the Quebec legislature.
This government cancelled the project, which would have largely contributed to the economic revival of Canada, but, on the other hand, it let a contract for building three submarines to the United Kingdom, at a cost of $30 million. Why deprive that part of the province of Quebec-Gaspe-of the money required for its economic development?
We would be very pleased if the Minister of Industry and Defence Production would tell us whether he proposes to grant to the French companies Peugeot and Renault, car manufacturers, the same tariff concessions he has granted the Swedish company Volvo, so that those two companies may open up plants in the province of Quebec?
I am in favour of selling wheat to foreign countries, but I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) not to make such sales at the expense of the textile industries in eastern Ontario, the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces.
We are in favour of wheat exports to foreign countries; they help to counteract our unfa-

vourable trade balance. On the other hand, I would not want such exports to be made at the expense of the textile industries in eastern Canada.
One could read this in he Devoir:
Canada will import from China products amounting to $7 million.
As the Canadian government has imposed "voluntary" quotas to Japan, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is true that in order to circumvent this agreement, Japan exports its textile products to Communist China, that the latter exports these to Hong Kong which then exports them to Canada?
I would ask the minister to kindly follow closely this situation, that was outlined to me by experts in the textile industry.
Mr. Chairman, these are the few remarks I had to make.
If the government wants us to co-operate, we would like the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who had solutions for any problem, to tell us what the government intends to do, and what action it will take to definitely settle this unemployment problem.


Mr. Stenson:: In rising to take part in this debate, I want to criticize the government, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Labour and those who share responsibility for selecting the designated areas on a six months basis, using the summer months instead of the whole year. I noticed that in the announcement it was claimed the criteria for the selection of the areas had been based on the employment and unemployment figures for the summer months, rather than an average. This avoided undue emphasis on winter unemployment in areas where the problem is definitely seasonal in character.
I should like to point out that by selecting some of the areas that were chosen, the government has definitely selected areas where unemployment is seasonal in character. In this regard, I refer to the selection of Windsor and Brantford which were very poor choices. The unemployment in these areas is seasonal in nature because during the summer months, for example, the auto industry is retooling, as is the farm machinery industry. These two areas enjoy steady employment during the winter months. I feel that this type of legislation is detrimental to our way of life. So far as I know, there was no consultation with the municipalities that were designated, and
Interim Supply
some of these areas were designated against their wishes.
The government has now promised a reappraisal of these areas within a month. If this plan is to continue, I would ask the Minister of Labour to make sure there is careful consultation between the three levels of government to insure that a genuine need does exist before assistance is given, and that the areas having chronic unemployment get the assistance. I can think of several areas, and I could refer to Bancroft, for example, which has lost its uranium contract.
When the Minister of Industry was in Peterborough, he assured us that his department would give their full assistance to the problem of new industries as well as the expansion of old industries, and the sale of their products in Canada and abroad. However he and his government have seen fit to retain the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery, even when they see it is harming our industries and raising costs so high the companies find it extremely difficult to compete with foreign manufacturers in the Canadian market.
The imbalance of trade between tb j United States and Canada is increasing, tc Canada's disadvantage. This government is wiping out the advantages a Conservative government gave this country when they were in power. Here is something that is very interesting. It should be noted that a capital expenditure of $13,490 is now required to create one new job in Canada. This is an average figure, and in some lines that figure is trebled. Now, with the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery, this government is taxing manufacturers between $1,300 and $1,500 to create work for a man.
I warned this house previously that if this tax were retained, Peterborough would lose an industry, and that is exactly what has happened. This particular company in Peterborough has a sister plant across the border. Canada and Peterborough should have retained the industry. This is just an example of what will happen when United States plants with Canadian subsidiaries find it cheaper to manufacture their products in their own country and ship them to Canada or other parts of the world. I should like to warn the government that the trade balance between Canada and the United States is not healthy today.
The Department of Industry budgeted for millions of dollars, and I imagine the people of Canada are wondering today what value this department is to Canada. I feel it is a


Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say tonight will not be of a particularly critical nature. In fact I hope it will be considered as a constructive contribution. First I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for the occasions that he has been receptive to me in his office, and to give him credit for the manner in which I am sure he is trying to conduct his duties. I would be remiss if I did not also pay tribute to the former minister of labour as I am sure almost every

member of the committee without exception would say he did an outstanding job during his term of office.
I should like to deal with the employer incentive that was offered last winter to encourage the employment of people over 45 years of age. I do not know what has been the end result of it and I would be interested in finding out exactly how many people took advantage of it and were put to work. I did put a question on the order paper in this respect but the answer I received was not exactly what I thought to be right.
I wish to say a few words about the $500 bonus offered to people who built houses during the winter. I think this did something to spur a certain amount of building, but when you talk to the people who did build homes during the winter you find that they tell you they paid possibly $1,500 to $2,000 for the privilege of receiving that bonus. They paid that amount in these ways. First they paid it out in extra interest on the mortgages they contracted for their building projects. Second, they paid it out on the increased costs of building during wintertime, and third in the extra sales tax imposed upon building materials. These are things which we should consider seriously, and as a result of that program since wintertime the number of building starts has gone down. We should consider whether this plan should be pursued again next winter and I personally doubt very much that the end result of it shows very much in favour of the present administration.
We must remember that the present administration came into office on a rising economy, at a time when things were particularly good. In fact this afternoon one hon. member pointed out that the Prime Minister himself, in the course of an address in May last, admitted there had been two years of upswing in business prior to his administration taking office. On the basis of that I think we should give credit to the Minister of Labour for his decision to go along with the plans, policies and routines laid out by the former minister. That was a very wise decision on his part.
I should now like to comment on the widespread abuses of the unemployment insurance fund and to make one or two suggestions. It is my contention that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be rewritten. The act has so many loopholes which so many people take advantage of that nothing less than a rewriting of it is needed. For instance let us consider the case where both husband and wife are working. Perhaps the wife does not
Interim Supply
need the job but she is supplementing the income of the breadwinner of the family. In many instances she may only work long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance credits. I do not say this is the case with the majority of people, but many are taking advantage of this loophole in the act.
I believe the family should be considered as a unit and the credits or benefits accumulated by both the husband and wife should be accumulated in the name of the head of the family. Then too there is the case of a married woman working, and by reason of pregnancy she has to quit her work. Under such circumstances I do not believe she should receive unemployment insurance. If the family needs assistance there are other social agencies to provide it, and if the need is apparent they should get that assistance.
Another matter has to do with the classification of people who list themselves for employment. For example, a man who may be an architect may not be able to get a job in his own field, and if he accepts a job as a draftsman he drops in his classification. But if he does not accept employment as a draftsman he can still get his unemployment insurance. I contend such a man should be permitted to drop down in his classification and then when a job turns up in his own field he should be allowed to return to his former classification.
The same holds true for a bricklayer who cannot get a job. If he can secure employment as a hodcarrier and later transfer back to his own type of work he should be permitted to return to his former classification. Further, I suggest that we should give brooms to many people who receive unemployment insurance and send them out to sweep the sidewalks. The busy mind is a contented mind; I can myself recall taking a job in a blacksmith shop in 1929 at a time when employment was hard to find. I recall working six days of the week, 10 hours a day for 30 cents an hour, and I was glad to get the job. We did not have the type of social system then that we have today. I do not say this is to be deplored. On the contrary, such things are wonderful; but they should not be abused. Back in those days when things were tough, we did not miss any meals: However, Mr. Chairman we postponed them sometimes for an indefinite period.
I think the majority of our people really and truly want to work, but there are a few people who are leeches and who are taking advantage of the loopholes which exist in this act. Last year, a firm of which I happen

Interim Supply
to be a director asked me if I could make a contact at the local unemployment office and try to obtain ten labourers. There were none available. However, there was a group of people hanging around and I went to see some of them. I asked them if they were interested in going to work, and the first question they asked me was: What do you pay? I told them we paid $1.75 an hour for a 40 hour week, which would give them a gross return of $70. I recall a couple of them saying to me: "Why should we work for that? We would be working for only $34, because we are getting $36 now in unemployment insurance. All you are giving us is a little better than 75 cents an hour." The result was they just did not agree to take the work which was offered them and eventually we had to hire other men and get along in the meantime as best we could.
I think it is time we showed a little more objectivity with regard to these things. It is time we got down to bringing legislation before this house to protect ourselves against some of these evils and to protect the unemployment insurance fund as well. In fact I believe we should revamp this entire act. I am of the opinion that we should pay a man a decent day's wages for an honest day's work. In this way I am sure we will make better citizens.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the estimates of the Department of Labour in order to bring to the attention of the minister a few of the problems with which we are confronted on the east coast and, in particular, on Cape Breton island.
I know the minister is getting back home every once in a while now, and I trust as a result he will be better informed about just what the situation is there in regard to unemployment. Hon. members have mentioned today and on other occasions the fine job the minister is doing. I will say this: The minister is always a gentleman. He is always prepared to give proper answers in the house. And how could he be anything else but a gentleman, seeing he comes from Cape Breton?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that logic?


Robert Muir: Frankly, I think the minister may be too much of a gentleman in certain places-and here I refer to the treasury board and the cabinet room. I would think that, being such a nice fellow, the bookkeeper from Toronto is encouraged at times to get out his knife and

cut and slash government expenditures on the east coast. I do wish that at times the minister would forget he is such a gentleman, and get a little rough once in a while, in treasury board and in cabinet meetings. He should start banging a few tables and letting them know that he is from Cape Breton, and that the people in that area would like some attention. We need to have a strong minister from Nova Scotia to look after our interests both in treasury board and in cabinet as well. One is confronted there by men like the Minister of Industry who, I presume, would not consider 100 jobs very much since he comes from a large metropolitan area where enterprises of this size are common. But on Cape Breton island, in Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic provinces generally, this represents a lot of employment and it means a lot to those who get it.
I should like to use as a text this evening several extracts from a speech prepared for delivery by the Minister of Labour to the trade union summer school at St. Francis Xavier University at Antigonish, Nova Scotia on June 24, 1964. He said:
I am very glad to be back again at St. Francis Xavier to catch at least a fleeting glimpse of your trade union summer school in action and to say a few words to you. I had the great honour of coming back here just over a month ago to accept an honorary degree and address the graduating class.
A little belatedly I should like to extend to my good friend-I think, and hope he is-and colleague from Cape Breton, whose riding adjoins my own, hearty congratulations on receiving this honorary degree from his old university.
The minister went on to say:
One of my staff has suggested that if I'm going to keep coming back like this, giving lectures as I used to do for a living, I'm in danger of being accused of moonlighting.
I do not know if he would be accused of moonlighting too much, but certainly he can be accused of giving lectures, because almost daily the minister gives lectures in different parts of the country. He says a lot of nice things, and when he goes east he has a lot of nice things to say; but we want some action from the minister in regard to his policies or plans for those who are unemployed in Canada, including the Atlantic coast, of course. He went on to say:
I can assure you that for a long time to come my cabinet colleagues and I won't have any time for moonlighting unless your panel on "organizing the unorganized" have already laid plans for organizing cabinet ministers and are prepared to go for a 70 hour week for us.

I know the minister is quite modest, and I wonder if he is suggesting that he is working 70 hours. Maybe so. However, I would hope that in this long stint he is putting in he has given some time and concentration to the question of what is going to be done for those who are continually being laid off from work, fired, released, or whatever you want to call it, at the Point Edward naval base as a result of his colleague's action and announcement-here I refer to the Minister of National Defence-of December 5 last, when he decided he would close the Point Edward naval base. 1 wonder whether in that hard work he is doing he is thinking very actively of raising strong objections now to the cabinet and his colleagues, as the minister from Nova Scotia, against these lay-offs and is pointing out the hardship involved, fighting within the cabinet for these people, in order to find them alternative employment.
I have here a newspaper item which appeared in the Cape Breton Post of February 5, 1964. It is headed, "350 involved". I have reason to believe this figure will be slightly over 400 before the government is through retiring these workers who have been employed at the base. The article says:
Relocation is promised.
Commander E. B. Morris, superintendent of the Point Edward naval base, said Tuesday that plans are being completed for the relocation of approximately 350 civilian personnel at the ship repair facility for alternative employment.
The closure of the ship repair facility was first announced by defence minister Hellyer on December 5 as part of the department's cut-back in defence expenditures.
"The Department of National Defence, in conjunction with the Department of Labour, has been investigating alternative job opportunities for civilian personnel affected by the closing of the ship repair facility", he said in a statement.
That was back in early February of this year. I am wondering how many of the employees who were laid off at the naval base have been re-employed or relocated through the offices of the Minister of Labour. It has been my duty and privilege to write to the minister on quite a number of occasions with regard to constituents who have been thrown out of employment by this government. The minister very courteously replies to me and tells me he is going to get the national employment service to do whatever they can to assist these people. Unfortunately, on many occasions I have further and repetitive letters from these same people as time goes by, saying they have not received the employment that was promised.
Interim Supply
I would like to ask the minister what is going to be done for these people who have been laid off, and are being laid off, at the naval base. Did the minister protest very vehemently in cabinet against the closure of this base? I think in an area such as we have on the east coast the base should have been kept open, because despite all the slashing the Minister of National Defence has done, surely there must still be the odd schooner or something to be repaired in the navy. I do not know just what he has left. It is not too much; but whatever is left to be repaired for the navy could easily be carried out at the Point Edward naval base. The work was performed there, and it was excellent. I do not ask the minister to accept that statement just because I say it, but naval authorities have advised me that the work performed at the base was as good as that performed anywhere in Canada. So surely that is not the reason for the closure of this base.
For some time now we have had discussions in Cape Breton in regard to the opening of a new coal mine. I am sure the minister is very familiar with the discussions that have been going on at these meetings of civic authorities, union authorities and others concerned. I would hope he would use his position as Minister of Labour to encourage these discussions to continue, with the object of the Dominion Coal Company starting a new opening in Cape Breton. I would also hope that no restrictions have been placed on the Dominion Coal Company by the government in regard to the amount of money they would receive in the way of subventions in relation to shipments of coal, we will say to Ontario hydro. I would hope the minister would have an opportunity to reply to this question and state very definitely that no limitations have been put on this coal company in the event that they do produce more coal than is being produced at the present time. I also hope he will encourage the opening of this mine. Mr. J. E. Clubb, president of Dominion Coal Company, said recently in an interview, when discussing the possibility of opening a new coal mine, that because of the federal government's subventions-treasury assistance to get coal to market-the government would have to concur before money could be spent to open the Lingan seam in Cape Breton. So Mr. Clubb is saying in so many words that if the government will give him authorization in this regard and say, "Look, fellows; you go ahead and start your coal mine, and if you can find markets in Ontario we will provide the subventions necessary to ship

Interim Supply
that coal to market", his company can go ahead. At the present time it is my understanding that 15 per cent of the coal that is consumed by Ontario hydro is Canadian and 85 per cent is American. I would hope the minister would be able to point out to his colleagues in the cabinet that this 15 per cent consumed by Ontario hydro should be increased to at least 25 per cent and that the necessary subventions should be forthcoming from the dominion treasury.
Some hon. members opposite from Ontario may perhaps be saying to themselves: We have to send these poormouth people in the Atlantic provinces some more money. Certainly industries in central Canada are protected. I am thinking of the automobile industry, the manufacturers of refrigerators and washing machines, or "white goods" as they are known in the trade, also television sets and that sort of thing which are protected by tariffs. Would it not be better to provide subventions to transport coal and keep people working in Cape Breton rather than have them on unemployment insurance? I think it would be a much better suggestion, and I plead with the minister to forget that he is such a nice fellow and to get before treasury board on the matter, because I am sure he could really stir his colleagues up if he put his heart into it.
As a result of the closing of the naval base and the cutting off of minesweepers on the east coast by the Minister of National Defence

I am sure many people in Cape Breton just love him because of his action in this regard-we find that the private yards in Cape Breton island are not receiving any work. They handled a lot of the minesweepers and other smaller craft. Most of the work was done at the naval base but part of it was done at private yards. Last week when the minister went home he met a union representative there with regard to the North Sydney Marine Railway Company, Limited. They used to be quite busy. In fact, when we were in government they received more allocations of naval ships at that yard than in any other comparable period. Now, strangely enough, since this government has come into power they find they are not receiving refits, and as a result their employees have no work to do.
In the July 25 issue of the Cape Breton Post there is a report which says that the Minister of Labour stated he would do everything possible to keep Sydney Engineering and Drydock operating at capacity. This

is another private yard in Cape Breton. The report goes on:
Dry dock employees, members of the industrial union of marine workers and shipbuilders of Canada, said Thursday the staff of Sydney Engineering and Drydock has been reduced by 50 per cent because of the loss of contracts from the Point Edward naval base.
Mr. MaeEachen, who arrived in Sydney yesterday on a brief visit to his home constituency of Inverness-Richmond, said government officials are aware of the problem at the drydock here.
"We have discussed this problem with company officials and the government is doing everything possible to remedy the situation," Mr. MaeEachen said.
They are very nice words, but that statement does not put people to work. If no naval refits are allocated to this yard surely this government of so-called action-I do not say "action" because it is really so-called; the government have not shown very much action except retreating from budgets, and that sort of thing-can find alternative employment for these people who are being laid off at the private yards.
A few months ago the Minister of Transport addressed a board of trade meeting in North Sydney, and the March 16 issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald carries the heading "Poor-house attitude must go, Pickersgill". The report continues:
The Atlantic region had to rid itself of the "poorhouse" attitude, transport minister J. W. Pickersgill said here Saturday.
It was not enough for the Atlantic provinces to export its products and brains. "We should get people here to see what they can attain and what they are missing."
Then the July 25 issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald carries the heading "Pickersgill Optimistic of Cape Breton Outlook". Then there is the following heading in today's newspaper, "Future Bright, MaeEachen Agrees with Pickersgill". The report goes on:
He said: "I agree with my colleague Mr. Pickersgill, who said Friday in Sydney that the outlook for the island is very promising."
In tomorrow's paper we will probably see another heading:	"Everything Wonderful,
Pickersgill Agrees with MaeEachen". And so we can go on scratching backs, back and forth between the two ministers, but this does not put people to work. I hope their efforts will be a little more evident than this.
I have been trying for quite a long time to find out from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour-and I see the President of the Privy Council the former minister of transport looking at me and I think he knows what I am about to say- what is going to happen to the employees

at the C.N.R. docks in North Sydney, when and if this proposed new ferry is constructed. According to the Minister of Transport this ferry is going to carry loaded railway freight cars from the port of North Sydney to Port aux Basques. There will be no handling at the port of North Sydney. Both ministers have continually in their replies and letters to the stevedores union at North Sydney, local 1259 I.L.A., said that freight will increase every year; that it always increases every year. It is true, it does increase on average about 4 or 5 per cent per year. That is good; we like it and hope it continues. But if the government are going to put in service a ship which will take loaded railway cars aboard, there will not be any handling at all at North Sydney. As a result I suggest that employment will be curtailed at least 75 per cent.
This belief is supported by the secretary of the union and the others concerned. I beg and plead with the minister, please, to answer whether or not a railway freight car ferry is going to be put into operation. Again I ask him to forget that he is such a nice chap and to go to cabinet and get before treasury board and change this, because it will drastically injure the economy of the town of North Sydney, Sydney Mines and the surrounding areas. Would he also clarify the situation for the benefit of the port commission in North Sydney, the mayor of North Sydney, the mayor of Sydney Mines who is a very dear friend of the Minister of Labour, and particularly and most importantly the men who are presently employed at these places who are looking forward to continuing employment. However, if this sort of thing goes into effect we will again see the lay-offs which are occurring at the Point Edward naval base.
I do not know how else to put my case. I have tried to ask the minister in as plain language as possible. Unfortunately I am not bilingual or I would put it to him in French. I know only a few words of Gaelic, and I am sure that he knows more than I, so I cannot go far there. However, I ask him in plain, simple, everyday language to rise to his feet and to tell us that the government is not going to put this type of ferry into operation, but that the status quo will remain and we will have the normal type of vessel which is now operating. If so, I am sure that not only will I be very happy but all of those concerned will be more than happy to know that they need have no fear of the future. I shall not delay the committee any longer, other than to say that I have read the speech
Interim Supply
that was delivered for the minister, I understand, because he could not be there, and I found it quite interesting. I hope he will now try to bring about some of the things he suggested in his speech. At one point he said:
Some radio programs are criticized because the audience is told what it is going to hear.. .and then it is told what it has heard. Tonight I'm going to change that a bit by first telling you what you are not going to hear.
He goes on to tell them what they are not going to hear and then says:
Finally, you are not going to hear a catalogue in detail of those things the government and my department in particular are doing in the pursuit of an active manpower policy for Canada and the realization of full employment.
As a result of some of the things that have happened in Cape Breton in the last year we will never reach what he terms full employment. He goes on to say:
I may touch on some of these things from time to time as necessary but I shall not go into detail about subjects on which I am sure you are already informed. Instead I am going to talk about poverty.
Goodness knows, if he and the government continue in the manner in which they have we are going to have a lot of poverty, and no one knows better than the minister the serious situation in eastern Canada, Cape Breton island and particularly his own riding of Inverness-Richmond.
The time has come, Mr. Chairman, not for a nice, gentlemanly cabinet minister from Nova Scotia, although that is a good asset, but one who will be active and who will tell his colleagues sitting beside him, the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Defence, about the seriousness of things on the east coast. He might also look to his left and suggest to the Solicitor General that he too might do something about some of the serious problems in Prince Edward Island. I am sure the Solicitor General knows of the seriousness of the situation there. I can see his alertness now.
The time has come for a man who will stand up to treasury board and in cabinet and tell treasury board, the members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister of the country, who wandered up and down throughout the country making all kinds of extravagant promises about the government he was going to create, that prompt action is needed. Actually people on the east coast are getting sick and tired and fed up with the pious platitudes that have been thrown at them by the Minister of Transport, and now the Minister of Labour is guilty of the same thing. This

Interim Supply
shocks me because I would expect it from the Minister of Transport but not from the Minister of Labour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not?


Robert Muir: Probably he has the same speech writer or the same person issuing news releases. In any event, what is the minister going to do to provide alternative employment for those who have been thrown on the street by the government at Point Edward naval base? What is the Minister of Labour going to do for those who have been thrown out of employment at private yards which are not receiving any naval refits? As the representative in the cabinet from Nova Scotia, what is the minister going to do in regard to getting a new coal mine started in Cape Breton? Is he going to get the assurance that whatever subventions are necessary will be forthcoming from the government to enable coal to be shipped to Ontario? What is the minister going to do with regard to the proposed ferry for North Sydney, having regard to the way the Minister of Transport has dealt with this matter? The Minister of Transport made a wonderful announcement about a new ferry at a board of trade meeting in North Sydney but he did not tell the 200 people assembled there what type of ferry it would be. We all stood up and applauded him. This was a terrific thing because it would provide employment. Then he went over in the corner with the representatives of the Cape Breton Post and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and whispered in their ears that it would be a railway freight car ferry. The board of trade meeting was on Saturday night and the Minister of Transport was safe and sound in Newfoundland when the newspapers came out on Monday. I cannot understand why he did not say this to all those assembled at the board of trade meeting. I sat right next to the minister and we had a lovely meal, but his speech was not very good. It was all right as far as he went but why did he not tell the whole story? Then we could have approached him right there. Now we are trying daily and weekly in this house to find out something about it.
I trust that my very good friend and colleague, the Minister of Labour, has listened rather attentively to the three or four points I have made. I am sure I can look forward to his rising in his place and allaying all fears in regard to the ferry, telling us that there is going to be employment for the men who have been laid off at Point Edward and at the

private yards, and putting our minds at rest with regard to the other things I have mentioned, particularly the new coal mine.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I know there is some sort of agreement to keep silent on the part of the splinter parties, which apparently are no longer part of the opposition. They are going to remain silent. I do not know what has prompted this but I throw out a challenge to them. They are the planners. They are even greater planners than the Liberal party. They claim to be. But when there is a need for planning what do they do? They remain silent. They appear to me to be a group of overpaid and overrated gossips. Hon. members know whom I mean. I think $18,000 a year is a lot of money to pay people to come down here to gossip over the back fence, and spend a great deal more of their time criticizing their colleagues than they do in giving leadership to the government.
I do not think our party fits into this group. We are in a constructive mood. Ever since this session began we have, without change of plan or tactics, continually offered to the government constructive criticism on every piece of poor legislation they have brought in, which just about covers the waterfront. Since we came here for this session we have not had one piece of legislation that was fit to be O.K'd by us. We are being paid enough now to use what brains we have, even if they are limited, so let us use them and stop the bickering and the gossiping and get on with the job.
For fear of being accused of being one of this group myself, may I say that since I first came to the house I have never risen to my feet without offering as much constructive advice as I have been able to muster, and some kind of solution. Whether I am right or wrong I think that is the proper attitude and I have had enough gossip for tonight.
Today we are dealing with labour matters, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think you will have to remind me to stay on labour matters because what I wish to say now is strictly within the ambit of the Department of Labour. We have got into a lot of trouble because there has not been planning. I will not blame the Mackenzie King government, the Bennett government, the St. Laurent government or the Diefenbaker government. I will not say they have been guilty of not planning, but to a certain extent the planning has not been done. Our excuse has often been that we do not believe in regimentation. No,

we do not; but you can have planning without regimentation. You can also have useless planning, which is away off the mark and wastes itself like a stream in the desert. But we can have constructive planning, and if we had had constructive planning over a period of years in the Department of Labour I would venture to say we would not be in the jam we are today with the labour people. I take Mr. Banks as a glowing example of what happens when the labour department of Canada abdicates its responsibility.
We need a labour code for Canada. The lawyers in the house will get up and say this is unconstitutional; you are interfering with provincial rights. I do not know of anything upon which we can legislate which does not affect the provinces. We can legislate on labour in the dominion. Now we are going to have labouring people who want to grasp the bull by the horns, so we are going to have labour unions in the civil service. Who is going to be helped if we do have the kind of unions we have in the service. You will have a labour union for the mounted police, a labour union for your nurses, and yet labour won't have the right to run its own affairs.
You will never have the right to work if labour unions are run by gangsters. You will never keep the gangsters out so long as they have their machine guns in the back rooms, or the economic machine guns. Which is worse, to point a machine gun loaded with bullets at me or to face me with unemployment and starvation for my family? I am not afraid of bullets in machine guns, but there have been times when I have been afraid of unemployment. You are not going to get rid of the labour bosses or find a solution for the problem talking in parliament. What is the solution? Just give the little people of Canada the right to choose their own leaders the same as we have the right to choose our leaders in parliament. We do not always choose well, but nevertheless the right is there. I claim that if you give the working man of Canada the right to choose his own leaders he would not choose men like Banks and those other fellows. In the United States if the working men had that right they would not have men like Hoffa running their affairs. Give the union members a secret ballot, the same kind of ballot you have yourself for election to the House of Commons. Give this to the labouring man of Canada. If you do not do that, all the rest of the talk we have about labour here is quite useless. If a man cannot
Interim Supply
go behind the curtain and say he does not like Mr. Banks, then you will have Mr. Banks, Mr. McLaughlin or some other goon brought in here. If you cannot raise that type of gangster here in Canada, then he will be imported from the United States, with the so-called help of the departments of government that do not do their job for the little people of Canada.
I do not believe we need labour unions at all, if we do our job in this House of Commons. We need to establish minimum wages. This is a hundred years overdue. There should not be anybody working in Canada who does not take home enough money to buy socks and shoes and so on for the children. Perhaps if we did that, we would not need this social legislation they rant about down in the corner. But I notice they want their $18,000 a year. Oh, I know the old gossip gets out, and apparently in his column he says we are obstructing. He is obstructing nothing. We are only doing the things which these planners should be doing themselves. If there is any virtue in socialism, it is in planning. What are their plans? Here is one; but would they vote for a labour code to give the right to the labouring people to run their own affairs? They would not.
If you give the secret ballot to the people in the labour movement, they would clean up their own unions. We would not need any maritime board of trustees or anything else. These people could run their own affairs. The people of Canada have lots of guts and they would clean up their own affairs. However, this cannot be done if they have economic machine guns behind the curtain; you know what I mean. You do what you are told or you will starve to death. You need the secret ballot. Why do we need it? We need it because we are not all Christian gentlemen, you know. This is still a jungle and the labour bosses are the biggest apes in the jungle. The only way we can control these apes in parliament is by the secret ballot. If you do not do your work, the people have the right to kick you out every five years.
I have five points in my labour code. The first, and most important one, is a secret ballot. If you put in the right officers, they will put in the right bylaws. If you do not have the secret ballot, you will not have the right officers and you will not have a properly conducted labour union. I am not in favour of the control of labour unions. If you have the secret ballot, who is going to elect a United States goon to run a labour union in

Interim Supply
Canada? The United States goons are in competition with us. Why, when John L. Lewis, calls out his miners in Alberta, that benefits the miners in Pennsylvania? There are ten miners in Pennslyvania in the union to every one in Alberta, so how are you going to get a square deal in Canada? There is no point in running to the government and asking the government to kick them out. We cannot kick them out. Only one man can kick them out and that is the working man who goes behind the curtain to mark his X, in secret.
If you do not have United States bosses, you will not have to pay dues to the United States. You will not have to pay John L. Lewis to run our unions. He would not do anything for you if he could not come in here and collect his dues. Where are these fellows in the splinter parties? Do they stand up for a code like this? They are afraid, and I will tell you why. They hurl insults across the floor at the Liberals and Conservatives because they say we take dirty money from management. Where do they get their money? They get it from the controlled unions. They get it from the big bosses of labour who bring in the apes who do the physical violence such as no manufacturer ever thought of doing.


Mr. Peters:: No wonder the R.C.M.P. are in bad shape.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are lucky you have the R.C.M.P. to protect you because if you said the things you do in some countries you would be where you belong. We should control the criminal elements in a union. How do we do it, then? I think it is quite simple-1 and do not throw this provincial jurisdiction question at me. We can do this. The dominion government just arranges that it will not sign a collective bargaining agreement with any official who has had a criminal record during the last five years. I believe in rehabilitation. I believe you can live down your crimes if you live long enough. We should put these labour bosses with criminal records out of business for five years at least. Do not sign or let labour officials sign a document with a man who has been convicted of certain crimes within the last five years. Well, I will start with sedition, violence upon the person, organized murder, conspiracy to maim; these are just a few that come to my mind.
Perhaps it is my suspicious police training. I think some of it was not suspicious.
I can tell you, however, that I know what happens when they call in the R.C.M.P. to put down a strike caused by the sloppiness

of a government or the inadequacy of our own labour laws. The mounted police were never designed for this job. They were designed to keep law and order amongst people who had reasonable ethics, a reasonable chance of earning their own living. We were never intended to be strike breakers; we were never recruited as troops. I am sorry I have never said these things before. I saw the R.C.M.P. used as strike breakers in Newfoundland while the government decided to wait. The R.C.M.P. are not strike breakers, and they should not be used for that purpose. Had I been a labour man I would have wanted to be a union man because it is the only way to protect your rights, when we do not do our job in parliament.
The next point in my labour code is the right to work. It is perhaps even more important than many of the other rights which we see piously put up and written into codes. You should have the right to earn a living for your family. You cannot do this if the labour bosses call strikes, legal strikes so-called or otherwise. The working man is then forced to go out on strike and the pay cheque is taken away. We should let him have another secret ballot to decide whether or not he should continue on the job. I venture to say that we should give him a chance to go home and talk the matter over with his wife, because she wants the bread and butter for her children even if he does not care.
Give this man the secret ballot before you can have what you call a legal strike, if there is such a thing. Now, I will change the tune a little bit and go to something a little bit nicer. We will talk about our children. We get sentimental when we talk about our children. We give them the opportunity to borrow up to $5,000 at 6 per cent. We make loans to farmers at 5 per cent. I do not know whether it is more important to educate children by loans at this rate of interest, especially when they have no means of income, or to lend $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 to farmers at 5 per cent. I am not at all against lending money to farmers because this is one thing upon which I agree with the Social Crediters, that the wealth of the country should underwrite its mortgage, if that can be done.
Lending students money at 6 per cent through chartered banks is no gift. If they graduate perhaps they might be in a position to pay it back, but if they do not graduate, and are trained in a semi-academic field, it may be impossible for them to pay it back. I promised to give the answer to this situation and I shall. It is very simple, namely to

create job opportunities for young people the same as we had in good times when I was a boy. We were able to go out and work and save enough money to put ourselves through college or take a course in a technical school. We should find work for them and let them pay their own way.
I believe in a boy doing it on his own, and that is why I am a Conservative. I am not waiting for anybody to regiment me, to push me on to a campus. Give me an opportunity for a job, guarantee me a man's wages, let me work under bosses of my choice and I will save my own money to put myself through college. There were Liberals in this country who believed in that too. At one time there were only two branches of government, the ins and the outs. When the Grits came in they acted like men, and when the Conservatives came in they too expected a man to stand on his own feet; but what we have now is everybody whining for some sort of socialism. They have it in Sweden; but have they "got it made" in Sweden? Go and see the effect of it. There is no more marriage in Sweden. If you like it that way, all right. If you want it that way in Canada,
0.	K. Bring in your socialism; pull down the barriers.
This is something which has shown up in our art. Go and look in the national gallery. Nobody has the guts to stand up and say, "It's a mess,"-except for a nine year old school boy who did just that the other day. He is a quiz kid, and in my opinion he does not need any more education because he has common sense. He is a boy who has an
1.	Q. of 160, and when he was in the gallery they asked him, "What do you think of that painting over there?" He said "Where". They said "That thing over there." He said, "Oh that. You want my honest opinion or a diplomatic corps answer"? They said, "We want your honest opinion." He said, "It's a mess."
I do not know how many thousands of dollars we have paid for such things. That building over there is half full of them. We have paid out thousands of dollars for such things; as a matter of fact I think it has run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, because apparently there is nobody in this chamber with the guts to stand up like that small boy and say, "That, sir, is a mess."
We are talking about education. Where is our education going if you cannot train 265 out of 18 million people so that they will be able to walk around the national gallery and say, "Those are messes and we will not buy any more of them?" If we send kids to the
Interim Supply
Banff school of art we want them to come up with something that is recognizable by somebody. How many millions of dollars have we given to the Canada Council, and how many millions of dollars have been channelled into these programs?
I am not putting on an act. I am telling you something each one of you in your heart and guts knows is true. The people of Canada are fed up with this. They are fed up paying us $18,000 a year for sitting around here just gossiping with one another instead of getting on with the business of the country. I am not at all sure I want the election you are always throwing at us, as I may walk out of this anyway. I was earning an honest living when I came down here, but I look around and sometimes wonder how many of us can stand and say that is what we are doing now.
If you want to clean up the labour situation, give them a labour code and stand behind it. If you want Hal Banks, give me leave of absence and I will bring him in here by the ears. He may be as big as the hon. member for Port Arthur-I don't know-but if so I will get some of my pals and I will skate him in. But if you are not going to prosecute him when you bring him back, let him stay in Maine, because we have still some vestige of Canadian justice. I still believe in British justice and I am not ashamed to say that. It has given every citizen in this country a square deal, a place in the sun. Don't get rid of it, boys, any of you, because I do not know what would rush in to fill the vacuum.
Look at Africa. They got rid of the old British rule there, but would any of you move to Africa? If you would, how many of you would take your families there? How many of you want to live there? There are many places in Africa and throughout the world which would be glad to have British rule back.
What are we going to do for our children? Well, I told you-give them an opportunity to earn their own living. Stop babying them around. When 1 was 18 years of age my father said to me, "You're getting too big for your boots." "No," I said, "I am not getting too big for my boots. I bought them and I fill them." I have tried to fill them ever since. If you think you can take an 18-year-old boy and put him back with his mother, you are wrong. You might keep him alive for a few years, but you would never make a man out of him. Put him to work. Give him a chance, and my guess is he will make out. We are still Canadians.

Interim Supply
I say this to those who are sitting on the treasury benches over there: I challenge you: You lead. You said we were no good; you got us out. The Prime Minister made it. Now is the time to make it good. Do not look for help from members in that corner to my far left. They are only there because they are afraid to face the electorate. Do not have a Mussolini in your belly. You know what happened to Hitler-and I am not comparing you with Hitler. He had a weak partner. Go it alone, if you want to lead this country. If you have confidence in your ability, try to lead. Never mind this threat about an election. Never mind what happened about the Easter recess. I didn't get an Easter recess, and it was your fault. If we do not get a summer recess it won't bother me too much. We have a bigger job to do than row a boat somewhere. Let us earn our $18,000 a year. I am just getting mad enough, now, that I am going to start doing it.


Robert Carman Coates: My hon. friend who has just spoken has asked this government for action. Certainly, all members of this committee are hopeful that the government will produce the type of action which will be of benefit to the nation as a whole.
Mr. Lloyd George has been given credit for a statement which I recommend to the government as having some merit. He once said of a French premier that he was a man who mistook movement for action. As far as I can see, especially as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, this has been the case. We have seen a great deal of movement, and a great many moving speeches have been made, but little that is constructive or helpful has been accomplished to date. Indeed, I find that today, 15 months after this government assumed office, the maritime provinces are in the position of not knowing what their future is likely to be. They do not know where they are, under this government, and they do not know what they can look forward to.
I am sure we are entitled to know what our future prospects are and what role our people are to play. Only recently we read in the Halifax newspaper that the Minister of Agriculture had agreed with a report which stated that we should take half the people in Nova Scotia off their farms and put them to work in a more constructive way. This appears to me to be the type of philosophy expounded by the present Minister of Finance when he was an oracle preaching the gospel for the Liberal party. This might be quite true. If it is, then I ask: What is this

government doing about it? What does it intend to do about it? My reference has been to agriculture, but it is certainly related to employment.
Let us consider the position of the Minister of Industry, bearing in mind that he is also Minister of Defence Production, and ask him the same question from the point of view of the Atlantic provinces. The problem which arises each day the present government remains in office is that one minister says one thing and another minister says another. There is no co-ordination within the cabinet, no clear voice which indicates to us what our future is likely to be and what role this government intends to play to help make the days ahead better for our people than they are at the present time.
We have a minister from Nova Scotia at the head of the Department of Labour. It is true there is no better portfolio for a minister from the maritime provinces to hold, for there is one area in Canada where chronic unemployment remains the order of the day, and it is the maritime provinces. However we have heard nothing from the hon. gentleman to date about any over-all comprehensive type of program which would help us know what our future is likely to be, and what this government intends to do to make it better. In particular, we have not been told what measures are to be taken, if any, to rid us of the growing unemployment problem which remains with us year after year.
Let us compare what has been promised by the present administration with what was achieved under the former Conservative government. Under the former administration, the people of the Atlantic provinces definitely knew where they were going. They saw our government producing basic philosophies and enacting legislation which was of real benefit to them. They knew that any action taken on their part would be followed by action of merit on the part of the administration here in Ottawa. This has not been the case since the present government took office, despite the fact that no party ever offered more pie in the sky than did the present administration. We must be given an over-all picture of the policy of this government as it relates to the Atlantic area, if we are to be able to appreciate-what our future needs are likely to be and what the priorities of the provincial governments should be as far as their spending programs are concerned. They should mesh together. There should be no fear that provincial and federal governments are going in different directions. We should be certain.

that our people are utilizing the assets they have in the best possible manner.
In confirmation of what I am saying, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 10 of this year relating to a statement made by Dr. Harry Johnson, a professor who formerly taught the present Minister of Labour. Among other things, Dr. Johnson had this to say; he said unemployment in Canada had been relieved not by good policies but by good luck. Well, we have not been as fortunate in the maritime provinces as have some other areas of Canada and we have not had the same degree of good luck as has been experienced by some areas in this country. Oh, it is always good to look at statistics in July and August and say: "Things are not so bad in the Atlantic provinces because the figure for unemployment there is only 4 per cent or 5 per cent." There is always plenty of employment in the Atlantic provinces in the summertime. But every winter, without fail, the unemployment figures run two to three times as great there as in other parts of Canada. This is not a situation which can be altered by prayers. You do it by action, and you do not accomplish it by movement alone; there has to be action associated with that movement before there can be any assurance that the future will be better than the past. And no decisions of this kind have been forthcoming from the present government since it took office.
As some further evidence of the point of view of the people of the Atlantic provinces and particularly of Nova Scotia on this subject, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Tuesday, July 21. The editor was discussing the situation which confronts the Minister of Industry in his capacity as such and also in his capacity as Minister of Defence Production. He says:
One should expect, on the other hand, that Mr. Drury would review his defence production decisions in the light of his responsibilities as the minister in charge of area development. Thus if it is possible to let contracts of this kind in provinces or areas with lagging economies, and if, in so doing, the government involves itself in an extra expense, it should be possible to charge this differential not to defence productions, but to the accounts of the area development agency.
If this were done, Mr. Drury and his successors in the industry portfolio could discharge their responsibilities to the taxpayer on the one hand and give effect to the principle, on the other, that Ottawa has a burden to carry in the general effort to equalize, as much as is possible, economic opportunity across the country.
Interim Supply
Certainly, if some such rationalization is not worked out within the industry department soon, it is clear that the Fairey Canada episode will repeat itself many times, and that defence production-as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned-will be a constant bone of contention.
Worse, whatever good the area development people in the department of industry may accomplish will be washed out in the public mind by a defence procurement policy which seems to negate it at every turn.
The editor of the Springfield Record writing along similar lines, had this to say:
Those who get a bit tired of Quebeckers complaining that they are being discriminated against in Canada must have been a bit shocked when they read an article by Eric Dennis in Monday's Chronicle-Herald pointing out that Quebec in recent years has been receiving one half of all government major defence contracts awarded in Canada. Of the $277,000,000 spent in Canada in the top four defence-buying-fields-ships, aircraft and parts, electronics and instruments-$144,000,000 went to Montreal firms and some $6,000,000 to other Quebec firms. Toronto and Ontario received $101,000,000 and the rest of Canada $26,000,000. In 1962-63 expenditures in Quebec amounted to $130,000,000; Ontario $93,000,000, an the rest of Canada $36,000,000.
It begins to look as though Canadians outside of Quebec should be demanding equal opportunities with Quebec. Certainly, there seems little justification in their snatching the little bit of defence business that comes to Nova Scotia.
Those are the points of view of Nova Scotians. I hope that in the not too distant future the Minister of Labour will see to it that the Atlantic provinces, and the mari-times in particular, are provided with a statement of where we can expect to go if this government remains in office; what we can expect to look forward to from the Department of Industry, from the Department of Defence Production and from the Department of Agriculture-from every department that touches on the vitality of our economy. Then we may better know whether there is any value in paying attention to the words that pour forth from those that come into our area, words which are never followed by the deeds we have been led to believe would follow.
I ask the minister to consider my constituency and to look at the situation of the town of Springhill. I ask him where that town is going; where it has gone since this government took office. What has this government done? What incidental thing has the government done to assist the unemployed in that area to any degree at all? They have done nothing whatsoever. Indeed, they have done their best to set back the economy of that hard-luck town by playing politics and by using patronage to delay the construction of an

Interim Supply
institution which will become the backbone of the town's economy if it is ever constructed. Each time I put a question on the order paper asking the government to indicate to me what action is forthcoming, I am told one thing. Then the month arrives when this action is supposed to take place; I then look for positive indications of the action that has been promised, and there are no indications whatsoever.
Here is an opportunity for a government to assist materially an area that has been bearing more than its fair share of the burdens related to unemployment. Contrary to this government doing anything to assist, and contrary to the Minister of Labour, Nova Scotia's representative in the cabinet, taking concrete steps to see that these people are assisted, we are faced with delays, either deliberate or otherwise, that only help to bring a further degree of difficulty to the people in that community-and these people do not deserve to face any further difficulty. Our minister should feel ashamed of the actions of this government in relation to that town. He should feel ashamed of his own actions in this regard and the fact he has not seen that something is done for the people there.
I hope the minister will rise before 10.30 and indicate to the committee that something will be done for the Atlantic provinces, something that is co-ordinative, constructive and geared to helping us try to equalize the opportunities in our area of Canada as compared with the rest of Canada; and to let the people of Springhill know that in the not too distant future they will have opportunities to go to work-because this is all they are asking.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to pass up this opportunity to debate matters pertaining to the Department of Agriculture, and I am sure the Minister of Labour will not be surprised when I rise in my seat and speak on this matter. In particular I would like to deal with the Gill report. That report was presented to the government of the day in November, 1962, and it is 20 months, or almost two years, since it was presented to the House of Commons and the Minister of Labour. But the minister and the government have failed to present the report to the house so that we may debate the matters contained therein, in particular those matters pertaining to agricultural labour.
I still cannot understand why the agricultural labourer is the only working man not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
IMr. Coates.]
It has been said on more than one occasion that it is because agricultural labourers are seasonal workers; but what about the fishing industry? They are also seasonal workers. What about the lumber industry, whose workers are also seasonal? What about the construction industry? All these industries employ seasonal workers. But when this question is raised in regard to the seasonal farm labourer, it is said that similar provisions cannot be implemented in regard to them. We read this in the Gill report:
We recommend that the general principle be followed of extending coverage as broadly as possible so long as the necessary administrative procedures may be carried out to see to it that the rules of the plan are adhered to in a satisfactory fashion.
That is referring to unemployment insurance coverage for seasonal workers in agriculture. If the seasonal fishermen, the seasonal lumber workers and all the other employees can be covered by unemployment insurance, certainly the farm labourer should be covered also. Farmers are losing money by not having the opportunity to obtain farm labour, particularly at this time of year when harvesting or seeding is taking place. The farmer actually loses money in other ways, too, because he has to over-mechanize his farming and buy bigger machines, bigger combines, bigger tractors so that he may finish his work with this bigger equipment, instead of employing farm labourers and using smaller equipment. If he were able to operate with smaller equipment, with the help of the farm labourer, he would save money.
I ask the minister to give serious consideration not only to bringing farm labourers under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act but to bringing the Gill report before this house for debate, so that representations can be made by members of parliament to the minister, and the government can live up to the recommendations contained in that report. Farmers are deprived of the opportunity to get men who are skilled in operating these machines, for the simple reason these men are not covered by unemployment insurance. I understand there is now a conference being held to see how we can train industrial workers so they may continue to be employed, in the face of automation. Why cannot farm labour be trained in the same way as industrial workers? Farming today is not what it used to be 25 years ago. Today it is mechanized and skilled labourers are required. Consequently seasonal labour is difficult to get.

I have referred the minister to this matter before and he is familiar with the subject. In 1956 some coverage was given to farm labour. For instance, it was extended to those concerned with the raising of poultry, egg grading, and the raising of racehorses, saddle horses and light harness horses. Then in 1957 the previous government included the self-employed fishermen. I do not say that the self-employed fishermen should not be covered because they do need assistance, but there were other methods to apply to the fishermen. This is why the farmers in the west, and I am sure also in the east, are so concerned that the self-employed fishermen are covered but farm labour is not covered. Not very long ago the national employment service held a number of meetings out of which recommendations were brought forward to train farm labour to operate some of the machines used today.
I would also direct the attention of the minister to the fact that on more than one occasion he has said that the Gill report will be brought in, but to date it has not been presented. If it is not presented during the remainder of this session-and I am sure we all agree it is too late now-then the minister should seriously consider bringing it down during the next session. The Gill report deserves more attention than it has received in the past.
Another matter with which I should like to deal is this. During the session many labour matters have been brought up, and I suggest that the training of industrial workers and farm labourers should also be considered. I am sure that as time goes on more and more skilled labour will be required on the farms. I have referred to this matter before and whenever I have the chance to go home this is one of the matters my constituents bring to my attention. They want an answer as to why farm labour is the only group which is being discriminated against. Whether or not the minister will deal with this matter when he answers some of the questions which have been put forward I do not know, but I am very serious about it. I should like the minister to explain, so that the farmers can understand why it is not possible for him to bring in the Gill report, and why it is not possible for him also to bring farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. It has been suggested that contributions could be made on a voluntary basis, but the experts have explained that this would not work because the only ones who would pay into such a voluntary fund would be those who require permanent labour on farms, not seasonal.
Business of the House
Most labour on the farm is seasonal, particularly now that most of the farms are mechanized.
May I call it ten thirty?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister not going to say anything on this important subject matter?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Inasmuch as the minister does not see fit to answer the questions which have been put to him in the course of this debate, I should like to refer to a few matters regarding employment and industry which should be considered.
May I call it ten thirty?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader whether we will continue tomorrow with our discussion of the spending program of the government amounting almost to $700 million in this interim supply resolution?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat his question; I did not gather the import of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was simply asking whether we continue tomorrow with this subject, which deals with the proposed expenditure of almost $700 million, or do we change to some other subject matter, such as the flag?


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow we will go on with the discussion of interim supply. When that is concluded we will take up the bill relating to fiscal relations between the provinces, and at the conclusion of that we will go on with the flag debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the question which I directed to the Minister of Defence Production earlier today related to the apparent plans of the government to conduct a public auction as a method of disposing of the buildings and facilities, and I suppose a certain amount of equipment,

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion at the former mid-Canada radar site at Bird, Manitoba, which has recently been phased out.
Since introducing this question earlier today the minister has informed me that a considerable amount of study has been given to the possibility of an alternate use for these facilities and that no satisfactory solution has been found. He has informed me that several government departments and agencies have been contacted as to any possible interest they might have in these facilities, but to date these inquiries have met with no success.
I realize that if this is the complete picture it is exceedingly difficult for a government to provide a satisfactory solution. However, it is my belief that this is what governments are for. This is one of their obligations, one of the responsibilities of their mandate.
It has always been my hope that possibly the Indian affairs branch would show a keen desire to take over these extremely modern facilities, move a number of Indian people of the north into these quarters under proper supervision and undertake any one of a number of possible industrial projects which would be of tremendous benefit to these unemployed people, who in many cases are living on welfare at the present time. They are also sorely in need of adequate housing, which is available at the present time at this site.
Many proposals have been presented to the government with regard to alternate uses for these facilities at this former mid-Canada site, including an elderly persons' hostel, particularly for elderly Indian people of northern Manitoba. This would make an ideal location for a project of that nature. It has also been suggested that the facilities could be used for a tuberculosis hospital for short term patients, or as a technical school for young people of Indian ancestry. This also could be carried out in conjunction with the Indian affairs branch. Time does not permit me to go over all the suggestions which have been advanced.
However, today I asked the minister to consider delaying the public auction until every possible alternate use by a government agency has been explored, and I hope the minister will see fit to do this. But if it is decided this cannot be done I would respectfully ask the minister to give the house every assurance that these facilities will not be disposed of to anyone who cannot assure the government or Crown Assets Disposal Corporation that their purpose in purchasing them will eventually provide employment for

a certain number of people, particularly the Indian people of northern Manitoba. I think every precaution should be taken to assure that the facilities are not disposed of to a private individual for a nominal sum for his own use.
I should also like to know how much advertising has been conducted in relation to the proposed auction, and how many people, and who, have been notified personally that such an auction is to take place.
Finally, I should like to run over briefly a few of the facilities which are at the site at Bird. The site is located on the Hudson Bay railway line at mile 347. There are good transportation facilities including a railway spur line into the site. There is a 2,400 foot gravel landing strip and a steel and concrete reinforced helicopter landing strip. Town streets and sidewalks are completed. The site is located on the banks of the Limestone river which flows into the Nelson river. It is in a well treed area and has a sandy and gravel soil with no permafrost.
The communications consist of a government licensed radio station, C.N.R. telegraph and a direct telephone connection with the Manitoba telephone system at The Pas.
There are two central steam heating plants to service all buildings with central heating, a fully modern sewage disposal plant capable of handling sewage disposal for a population of 5,000 people, storm sewers to handle excess surface water adequately at any time, a modern water treatment plant which services all buildings and is capable of handling a population of up to 5,000, a fully automatic dial telephone system connecting all buildings in the townsite and also connected to the Manitoba telephone system. In addition to this, there is power supplied by three Lister Blackstone generating units, supplying 250 kilowatts each and generating
4.000	volts. All buildings are equipped with a modern sprinkler system and fire alarm connected to a central fire hall. There is a tank farm located on the spur line offering six 5,000 gallon tanks and there are two
25.000	gallon tanks along with the No. 1 boiler house, and there are two 5,000 gallon tanks in the No. 1 boiler house-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the government is fully conscious of the desirability of making the best possible use of these facilities at Bird, Manitoba for which the Department of National

Defence have no further immediate requirement. Since last April and for a period now of some four or four and a half months, there have been discussions conducted with all officials of the area and with development agencies, the ministers and heads of departments of the government of Manitoba and the government of Canada. I cite particularly certain ministers in the Manitoba government such as education, health, interior affairs, provincial secretary, as well as the senior officials in their departments and the senior officials of the department of development and industry. This was done in order to ascertain whether the government of the province in which this complex finds itself could, in their development plans, have some possible use for this complex. So far, I regret to say that the government of Manitoba as a whole, and in its parts, has been unable to suggest a useful development scheme in connection with the facilities at Bird.
27, 1964	6053
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Indian affairs branch in Ottawa also has looked carefully and intensely at the facilities there. Part of their problem undoubtedly is that taking this over would involve quite a substantial expenditure in maintenance cost, and that any prospect of useful employment for the Indian population brought there to live is not good. The Indians, I am told, in this area now are living under conditions more associated with their traditional or daily occupations than they would be if they were located at Bird.
The hon. member has suggested that the government should deny the possibility of any sale of these assets to private interests. The federal government and the Department of Industry-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.43 p.m.
20220-383i

Tuesday, July 28, 1964