1964-08-04

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the ordering of our business based on a statement made in the house last evening by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I should like to quote what he said as found on page 6303 of Hansard:
I am suggesting two things: first, that the government be prepared to postpone the flag issue, after the amendment has been voted on, until the fall.
That is the amendment now before the house. He continued:
I am suggesting that when we come to the flag debate we vote on the amendment which was moved by the official opposition, and then adjourn the debate until we meet some time in the fall.
He then continued and said:
-if the government will agree to that, I suggest that the opposition groups agree to an order of the house which would limit the debate on the flag, when it comes up, to a period of one week.
The hon. member then went on to say:
There would be no value at all in postponing the flag debate unless when it does come up the time is limited; for if we are going to spend weeks on the flag debate we would be better to spend that time now, in what would normally be a recess, rather than taking up time this fall which ought to be devoted to some very important legislation,-
The hon. member then said:
1 believe that a compromise could be worked out, if not by the house leaders then by a meeting of the party leaders, in order to get the business of parliament back on the rails, and to see if we cannot dispose quickly of this motion-
That is the motion before the house for interim supply.
-and the legislation dealing with federal-provincial relations, deal with the flag in so far as the amendment is concerned, then adjourn until the fall with an understanding that when we come back we will deal with the flag for only a limited period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestions made by the hon. member-and I appreciate the spirit behind these suggestions-are reasonable and deserve the favourable consideration
of this house. I should be glad to discuss with the leaders of the opposition 'parties details regarding how they can immediately be implemented, and for that purpose I will be glad to arrange a meeting later this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we have before us a motion for interim supply. The Prime Minister did not see fit to deal with this matter in any way. There are 200 questions which have not received any answers from the government, and there has been no endeavour made on the part of the government in any way to meet its constitutional responsibility of giving answers to those questions. We should want to know what the position of the government would be on this matter, which is of prime importance to the proper discharge of the responsibilities of parliament.
As to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I am sure in this case there was no inspiration in advance for the suggestions made, although there have been a number of instances recently where obvious co-operation has been apparent in questions asked.
However, this is a matter that would require the consideration of the caucus. Our caucus will be meeting tomorrow morning, at which time this question will be discussed and a determination made.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Business of the House
concerned about the business of parliament, and we need no suggestions from any other party as to what we think our duty is in trying to make parliament effective.


Mr. H. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we find the words of the Prime Minister of much interest. I think it is time we in this house began to face up to reality, because I do not think the people of Canada are following with any degree of sympathy what has been going on here these past weeks.
X suggest to the leader of the official opposition that it might be good if he would attend the proposed meeting this afternoon, so he would have something in the end to take back to his caucus tomorrow morning. As far as we are concerned, we will be very pleased to take part in such a meeting this afternoon.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we support the proposal made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). In my opinion, it would be a solution to the dilemma now facing parliament.
It is obvious that the Canadian people must be asking themselves what kind of game we are playing and if we could not discuss constructive matters instead of wasting our time as we have been doing for several days.
I feel that if we can find a solution to the problem facing us today, the people and parliament will benefit therefrom.
We are, therefore, willing to attend that meeting, to discuss its outcome in caucus and to take a decision about the proposal which has been made.



On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: I think this would be the appropriate time to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the house the assurance that before the conclusion of the debate on interim supply, and I would hope that would be either today or tomorrow, answers could be given to the many questions that have been asked and have remained unanswered throughout the entire debate, the first time in the history of Canadian parliamentary life that a government has sat silent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the first time in the history of Canadian parliamentary life that such an obvious filibuster has been conducted on interim supply.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he were in better humour he would show a greater desire for the kind of co-operation he requests. I ask him, was it a filibuster in 1962 when for eight days he, as leader of the opposition, led the attack on the government on interim supply for $300 million? Was that a filibuster?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that particular point it should be pointed out, as indeed it has been pointed out, that on the occasion to which my hon. friend refers in 1962 there had been no budget, there had been no departmental estimates introduced, and there was no opportunity to discuss the financial policy of the government. This was the only occasion upon which the opposition could discuss supply. The situations are not the same at all. There have been departmental estimates introduced, some of which have been passed already and about which new questions are being asked. The normal course will be followed in connection with this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister now to definitely give an answer instead of the evasive subtleties in which he has indulged. Does he intend to have the government answer the questions that have been asked? If he says he does not, I am not going to object. It will simply be in keeping with the attitude that has been adopted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer to this question was given by the Conservative house leader when he said if we would only give up our program they would put through interim supply at once.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege. First I will expose the falsehood of the Prime Minister with regard to the estimates in 1962. There were six departments before the house waiting to be dealt with. The estimates of the Department of Agriculture had been debated in the house, and the Prime Minister himself spoke twice on those estimates. This disposes of his falsehood with regard to the estimates in the fall of 1962.
I made no suggestion that we would dispose of interim supply immediately if they would postpone the flag debate. I asked a question as to what the government had in mind with regard to interim supply and the flag debate and received no answer to that question, just as we have received no answers to the other questions that have been put before the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre challenged the statement I made as a falsehood, I would like to quote from page 5985 of Hansard for July 24, where the acting house leader was reported as follows:
-on Monday, we will be asking for two months' interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the government like to consider three months, if we complete the dominion-provincial fiscal measure and pass interim supply in short order, and then adjourn?


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't that what he said? A question was asked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I said I had asked a question of the government and received no answer. The Prime Minister has now disclosed that in fact it was a question. Therefore his earlier statement was false.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the same question, Mr. Speaker, I should read the next two sentences.


Mr. MacNaught:: No. We have to conclude the item of business after fiscal arrangements, which is, of course, the flag resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was just being co-operative and I thought the government side would appreciate a holiday.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is this. Has the government given consideration, with advice from the special committee on procedure, to how changes could be made in the rules of this house, or how they could be considered by this house, as soon as possible so as to limit the possibility of repetitive, unnecessarily prolonged and obstructive debate in this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government is in fact giving consideration to this very important matter, and if a committee of the house is not able to agree on recommendations to the end which my hon. friend has mentioned then we must consider what responsibility the government itself should take in this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be better parliamentary practice for the government to refrain from attempting to impose its will on a committee composed of all members of this house, sitting under Mr. Speaker who is the guardian of the rights and privileges of this house?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, no question of the government imposing its will on a committee, but if the committee is not able to make recommendations then the government will have to consider how it can discharge any responsibility it may have in respect of this very important matter.



AIRPORTS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I promised to table, for the information of hon. members, a copy of the contract with Air Terminal Transport Company Limited of Toronto with respect to the taxi and bus service at the Malton airport. I thought at the same time it might be helpful to hon. members if I tabled another of these arrangements at another airport, and I just picked Winnipeg at random. I have the agreement there too, so that hon. members will have an opportunity to compare them. They were both made at the time the previous administration was in office, but I do not say that in any critical sense at all.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Would he be good enough to table the contract between the Department of Transport and Murray Hill Transport at Dorval airport, which was passed by the St. Laurent administration, since he has tabled the other two?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is reported that the United States government is going to spend some $2 million on a survey of the effects and impact of automation on the economy and on employment I want to ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian government is giving any thought to a similar study because of growing employment problems that are resulting from increased automation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for some time now the Department of Labour has been examining the effects of automation on employment.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour consider calling a conference of labour and management so that something could be arrived at as a means of dealing with the effect of automation and technological changes?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour would be ready to consider such a conference except for the fact that the economic council of Canada has already indicated its intention of holding such a conference this fall, between management and labour.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Minister of Labour who is making this study of the impact of automation, and will the report be made public and available to members of the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour is involved in considering the impact of automation on employment. The immediate result of these continuing studies is the establishment within the department of a new division called the manpower consultative service, which will engage in dealing with the effects of automation at plant level. That division is a small one because it is new and its members are presently being recruited, but four or five of the top personnel are already at work and it is expected that this division will soon be usefully engaged in activities at plant level.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Labour whether any studies are being made of the broad economic impact of automation, not just at the plant level, and whether such studies will result in a report which could be made available to members of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned the conference that is proposed for this fall between management and labour. The economics and research branch naturally is involved in this question, and I shall investigate whether any of their studies are suitable for publication and for the general use of hon. members.


Michael Starr: As a further supplementary question can the minister tell us whether any
[Mr. Douglas.!
meetings have been held with the provinces in order to deal with this automation question, and also whether any agreements have been signed, based on some agreed approach to the problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will recall, we did have a meeting of the federal Minister of Labour and the provincial ministers of labour in March of this year, the first such conference held in Canada for many years. One of the items on the agenda was consideration of how the provinces and the federal government might cooperate in this field of automation, particularly in making use of the services of the manpower consultative service.


Michael Starr: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Was any solution arrived at as to what approach should be made as a result of the conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question is pretty vague and too general to be answered on orders of the day.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that any hope for an amicable and reasonable agreement as far as the business of this house is concerned is rapidly going out the window.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: However, my question concerns the situation in the Congo. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs shares the concern which is felt by many of us with regard to developments there, not only as they affect the affairs of the Congo itself but also the situation in Africa as a whole.
Does the minister have any information concerning the whereabouts of the Canadian medical missionary, his wife, and two children who have been missing in the Congo for a number of days now?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am sure the hon. gentleman did not wish to suggest that there was any comparison between turbulence in this house and the turbulence which exists in parts of the Congo.
The Leader of the Opposition also inquired about this matter this morning. May I say in reply that we have been advised that Dr.

Arnold Jacob Nickel has remained at the mission station in Bolobo in the Congo. His wife and two children arrived in Leopoldville on August 1. Dr. Nickel is in Bolobo at present as a result of his own decision.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether there are any Canadians in Stanleyville in the Congo, and if so what measures are being taken to remove those personnel in view of the state of seige which Stanleyville is presently undergoing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can say something more definite about this tomorrow.


CANADIAN SOLDIERS UNDER FIRE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister prepared to make the statement he promised on the incident in which four Canadian soldiers were fired on in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the present time there are discussions in New York, and I would prefer to await the outcome of that meeting.


NORTH VIET NAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that President Johnson has ordered United States naval forces to destroy any force which attacks them, would the minister inform the house whether he has inquired of the United States authorities if this order to destroy North Vietnamese P.T. boats means that these boats will be pursued to their home ports, thus increasing the possibility of war in this area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman sent me notice of this question only a short time ago, and I wish to give further consideration to it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


PROPOSED DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the answer he gave me yesterday respecting the control commission in Laos. My question is in two parts. Is it the position of the Canadian government that nothing useful can come from trying to arrange for a meeting of the three factions in that country? The other question is was Canada the only member of the control commission which refused to try to arrange a meeting of the three factions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, both questions may be dealt with as one. I think something might flow from an attempt on the part of the three factions to consider the proposal put forward by the foreign minister of the United Kingdom. However Canada, as a member of the control commission, or the commission itself, has, under the Geneva accord, no authority to call a conference. But if the parties themselves are prepared to take action, as I indicated yesterday, we would be only too anxious to give whatever encouragement we could.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. The minister has suggested that if the three factions involved showed some disposition to have a meeting, Canada would encourage this. Surely the minister can indicate whether he believes some useful result could come from having a meeting. In other words, if we cannot get the three factions together in order to have a meeting, how will we know whether there is any point in calling a meeting of the much larger group?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I neglected to deal with one other aspect of this question, that is the action being taken by Poland and India. This has not yet been communicated to the Canadian member of the commission. I can only say to my hon. friend that under the Geneva accords, both of 1954 and 1962, there is no authority on the part of the commission to do what has been asked. Beyond that it is impossible to go.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question to the minister. Since the commission was appointed at the Geneva conference and must report back to the Geneva conference, is there any reason

Inquiries of the Ministry why, if India, Poland and ourselves are agreeable, the commission ought not to report back to the nations that appointed it asking for a further meeting if they find that their task is not being successfully carried out?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there would be no reason why a report could not be made by the international control commission, but the Canadian government is of the view that the way to bring peace to Laos at this particular moment is for the parties concerned to live up to the agreements of 1954 and 1962.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that apparently they are not living up to those agreements, do I take it that Canada is the stumbling block to having the commission ask for a meeting of the Geneva conference?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated on another occasion in this house that if a general conference of the 14 nations were held, Canada would participate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the secretary of state answered part of my question. Have Poland and India indicated that they would agree to sponsor this kind of meeting?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that I am not aware what action has been taken by Poland and India since the invitation was extended by the British foreign secretary.


OFFER OF ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuing depressing news from India in regard to the crop position, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider discussing this matter with the high commissioner for India to see whether Canada can do anything to help in that situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.


DELAY IN ISSUING VISAS TO RUSSIAN CYCLE TEAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was supposed to reply to the question which the hon. member for Lake St. John and I asked him concerning the issuing of visas to the Russian cyclists.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the delay in providing the information requested. The visa application forms reached Ottawa on July 9, and on July 22 our embassy in Moscow was authorized by telegram to issue the visas in question.
I deeply regret any inconvenience or financial loss caused to the organization concerned or to the visitors themselves.


RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the immediate possibility that there will be a mass migration of Canadian scientists to United States research laboratories because of lack of research funds and support in Canada, will the hon. lady be announcing in a short time new government policy relating to federal assistance to basic scientific research in the biological and medical fields?


Mr. Speaker:: This, though a most interesting question, is surely one for the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to propose that the matter be debated at 10.30.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that many months ago the minister said the national labour code legislation would be on the order paper very soon, can he tell us whether we shall see this legislation this week or next?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hesitate to contradict the hon. gentleman, but I think the term I used was "as soon as possible" rather than "very soon". I cannot give the assurance that he will see the labour code this week or next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the difference between "very soon" and "as soon as possible"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege, albeit a very short one. Like the Prime Minister, I should like the record to be kept straight. The Minister of Labour said a moment ago that I misquoted him, and I did in part. I used the words "very soon" when I should have said just "soon". But he also misquoted himself, so perhaps what he actually said should be put on the record. On April 21, 1964, as reported at page 2397 of Hansard for that day, he said with respect to the labour code:
-but we hope to get it on the order paper as quickly as possible.
Then on July 13, as reported at page 5380 of Hansard for that day, he said with respect to the labour code:
-the original statement still stands-
And he then went on to say:
The measure is being drafted, and as soon as that is completed we will get it on the order paper. 1 have not had a chance to check the situation this morning, but I think the measure ought to be on the order paper soon.
May I ask the Minister of Labour whether the measure has been drafted and whether we may now expect it to be on the order paper soon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I guess my original judgment that 1 should not contradict the hon. member was correct. I think my April answer is the better answer rather than the July one. We will get the labour code on the order paper just as soon as possible, and I hope that will be soon.


WORLD FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Is it true that, as a result of the interest created by the 1967 fair, the authorities fear that there will not be enough space on Notre Dame island, so that some areas in-
Inquiries of the Ministry tended for lawns and pools will have to be used for the construction of buildings?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is surely a proper one for the order paper inasmuch as it calls for somewhat detailed and precise answers.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry?
Since the Minister of Revenue for the province of Quebec announced that the Quebec government would soon propose designated areas which would benefit from tax deductions, is it the minister's intention, in agreement with his colleagues, to consider those areas designated by the province of Quebec as part of those designated previously by the federal government or which it will designate in the future?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the designation of areas in the province of Quebec for economic growth purposes is a matter exclusively for the province of Quebec. However, in so far as this can be correlated with the program of the federal government for the relief of chronic unemployment, it will be.


POSSIBLE LOCATION OF NEW
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry relating to the establishment of Peugeot and Renault in Canada. Has the minister received any indication and can he give any further information to the house in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I have
a question for the Minister of National Revenue which I would not say is in the nature

Inquiries of the Ministry of a complaint but is both a question and a representation on behalf of the workers who have been laid off by different mining corporations operating in Thetford Mines. These companies have given a bonus of some $1,400 to the miners so they can relocate themselves, find new jobs and help out their families. Has the minister anything to say with regard to the action taken by the income tax branch, which has been taking some $150, $200 or $250 from these bonuses?


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


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege. Is the minister willing to answer tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: The nature of the question remains unaltered, and I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Then I will discuss it at 10.30.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is a repetition of a question I directed to the Prime Minister, but since the Prime Minister was not in his seat the minister agreed to supply me with some information. The information I requested at that time was whether the government had received any representation from national agricultural organizations in Canada, such as farmers' unions and others, to have the 20 per cent tolerance in the bill changed to 35 per cent so as to give a more equitable representation to voters in the rural areas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of this question yesterday when the Prime Minister was not able to be here.


John George Diefenbaker: He was with the birds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; he was not at a picnic, as you were last week.


Mr. Monteith:: A pow-wow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was looking after the original inhabitants of this country. However, if I can get myself back in order and answer the hon. member for Humboldt-


Melfort-Tisdale. As a result of the question he asked the Prime Minister the other day as to whether representations had been received from any of the farm organizations suggesting that the tolerance in the redistribution bill be changed from 20 per cent to 35 per cent, I asked the Prime Minister's office, after the hon. gentleman had given me notice, to look through the files. I looked through the files in my own department, and I had a request made of the representation commissioner to see whether he had had any representations of this character, but we were not able to find any in any of those places.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. On June 30 I asked the minister when a county court judge would be appointed in and for the county of Yale, B.C., to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Colquhoun. The minister has been given notice of the question today in writing, together with certain background information. Is the minister now in a position to state that an appointment will be made immediately?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has probably read my mind, because I am just about to recommend to cabinet the appointment to which he refers.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Wellington-Huron asked me a question which is reported at page 6295 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the turkey problem. In the negotiations which took place with regard to the removal of import controls on United States turkeys coming into Canada, what concessions were given to Canada in return for the concessions to United States turkey growers?
The answer is as follows. The controls maintained by Canada with regard to the import of turkeys from July, 1957 to Aug-

Inquiries of the Ministry
ust, 1963 were of an emergency and tem- minister assure those men who have been porary nature. Their removal did not employed there that the priority which was constitute a concession but represented a established when this project was initiated return to the normal statutory provisions will be maintained, and that the displaced applicable to the import of turkeys into miners will be the first among those to be Canada.	retained on the job?



U.S. POLICY CHANGE RESPECTING MEAT IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence perhaps the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary might answer it. Has the Department of Agriculture made any representations or objected in any way to the recent change in the meat policy the United States has implemented in respect of the shipment of meat from Canada to the United States?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Minister of Agriculture today, who is out in the country on an agricultural commitment. I am authorized to say that he is taking a hard look at this matter and it is under constant review.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Can the minister explain the reasons behind the layoff of miners at the Louisburg project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the full question but I think it had reference to lay-offs at Louisburg. There is a difficulty there at the present time in that the archaeological work is not up to the work on the ground, and you cannot dig and build at the same time in the same place.


Mr. MacEwan:: They can in Cape Breton.


Arthur Laing: There is a very short diminution in the number of people employed, but when we get the archaeological work done and look at the plans ahead it is expected that we will be back up to the full number of some 260 persons.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the number of displaced miners has been greatly reduced. A large number of the miners have returned to the mines and there is now a very small number of such displaced persons on the job. In respect of any lay-offs that occurred earlier because of such things as winter weather conditions, we have adopted the principle of returning in order those who were previously employed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another supplementary question. Will the minister consider that the original intent of the Louisburg project was to look after the welfare of displaced miners, and will he continue this policy in view of the lay-offs to take place at the New Waterford colliery in the very near future?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would be surprised by the reduction that has taken place in the number of displaced miners. Most of them have returned to the mines and the number of displaced miners now on the job at Louisburg is very small.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am speaking of the very recent lay-offs.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask whether he would advise the house as to the change of the policy of the film board in respect of the production of feature length films in Canada.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has there been any decision made in this regard? I listened to the mellifluous tones of the hon. gentleman from Couchiching when he advised the Canadian people that a new policy had been evolved which would be announced this week in the House of Commons.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I said it was my intention to make a statement tomorrow.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is he thinking about calling a meeting of the committee on privileges and elections, in order to enable the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) to change seats, because he seems quite unhappy between the hon. members for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
In order to help young people anxious to take up a career in one of the three armed services, could the minister tell the house whether, according to the logic he referred to some time ago, he intends to draw up a list of promotions requiring bilingual applicants?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, all young people, whether French or English speaking, are welcome in the armed forces.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he has received any delegations or representations from the taxi drivers of Toronto in respect of the situation at the Toronto international airport. Also, can the minister give the house any information regarding the demonstrations that I am told have taken place there this week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any

delegations up to now, but I believe there is in the gallery the president of one of the taxi companies, who asked whether he could see me. I said of course I would be very willing to see him as soon as I can get a few minutes to do that. I will do so later this afternoon.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 3, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,791.01, being the aggregate of-
(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:: Order. When we adjourned last evening the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had the floor.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, never before in this house have I taken so long on a subject, and I hope I will not have to again but I believe the topic on which I have embarked is of sufficient importance that none will begrudge the time.
To put it very briefly, I started last night to outline how, due to the pressure of events and changing conditions in this country, there had been a change in the policy of the government, perhaps unbeknown to the government itself, away from the first pronouncements as to the purposes of crown corporations as enunciated by C. D. Howe, who was so responsible for starting them and who showed

much energy and dispatch in creating those corporations which were necessary to carry out many of the functions that private enterprise could not cope with, especially during wartime.
I have had the opportunity of reading what I said last night. If the committee will permit, I would like to clarify a couple of points I made which I think were not sufficiently clear last night.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the attention of the members of the committee that it is rather noisy in the chamber and it is difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. member who has the floor.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned this matter only briefly last night. I asked what steps have been taken to implement the report of the special committee on research, made in 1961. Many members in this house sat on that committee. The report is there. I refer specifically to the fourth report of that committee, which reveals that there had been 20 meetings. I may say that all parties were represented on the committee. We looked very closely at the business of Eldorado Mining, Eldorado Aviation, Northern Transportation Company; and in the course of those 20 meetings we heard 11 different witnesses. That committee had full opportunity to study at least some of the workings of these crown corporations. The report was brought in about the end of June, 1961.
In case any of my friends opposite want to say "What did the Conservative government do about it?" I can only say there was no concrete action taken. I do not think there was much time. Also, the Liberal government has not done anything about that report. I do not think either government would have to apologize too much for being a little slow; we all know that government moves a little slowly. But I do feel that now is the time that recommendation should be very closely looked at and I would ask this committee to listen while I read the report that pertains to the subject that I started on last night:
Your committee examined Eldorado Aviation Limited and Northern Transportation Company Limited. In the case of Eldorado Aviation, a further study by the air transport board of an offer by Pacific Western Air Lines to purchase the aviation company resulted in your committee not pursuing a more detailed examination. With regard to Northern Transportation Company Limited, your committee heard representations from officers of Yellowknife Transportation Company and Arctic Shipping Company, and heard undenied allegations that Northern Transportation Limited took advantage of its status to obtain a preferred position in
Interim Supply
transportation in the western Arctic and Mackenzie river basin.
In view of the great importance of maintaining and increasing communication facilities in the north and the need for an orderly development of Canada's northwest, your committee recommends that an impartial and independent study be made of all present transportation facilities and future needs on the Mackenzie river system and related areas.
In concluding, your committee is of the opinion that the operations and policies of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and its wholly owned subsidiaries require a periodic scrutiny.
Mr. Chairman, I think that last sentence would bear repeating, and I hope that what I said last night, with the further information I am going to give the committee today, will remind the government of the report of this committee and of the necessity for this periodic and in fact constant scrutiny of the policies especially of Northern Transportation Company.
I gave last night only one instance. I would remind the committee that I said I thought this was a direct case of government policy, and in fact I want to refer again to the statement of the minister on policy with regard to a crown corporation, bearing in mind that C. D. Howe, when they were set up, denied most emphatically that any crown corporation was set up for any other purpose than to fill the void where private enterprise was unable, unwilling to or could not meet the requirements. Certainly he was able to justify the crown corporations he set up during wartime, but this was in 1946, after the war, when there were suspicions that perhaps it was not necessary to have some of these crown corporations.
What I am asking the committee to consider today is the change in government policy. Here is part of the statement of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has to explain to this house the policy of Northern Transportation Company. He said in part:
In performing this function the company will, as it has done in the past, operate as a normal business corporation.
I think I am being fair when I suggest that this is the hub or the meat or the core of the minister's pronouncement on present government policy with regard to crown corporations. Since we have a crown corporation set up, and since it is performing a useful service, it should be allowed to operate as a normal business corporation.
I ask this committee to consider whether or not this government is moving away beyond the position taken by the government in 1946 as enunciated by Mr. C. D. Howe.

Interim Supply
It is no longer a question of a crown corporation performing a function where private enterprise cannot or will not operate. I hope this fact sinks through to all members of this house who have some regard for private enterprise. The last sentence in the minister's statement reads as follows:
Private enterprise is also providing service and will probably continue to do so.
It seems to me that under the circumstances both Northern Transportation and the private companies operating in the north should operate at a profit, depending on the efficiency of the transportation system. I want to make sure the government acknowledge that they now believe in a policy of a government enterprise being in competition with private enterprise, and that that is fair. I want them to acknowledge also that this is an area into which private enterprise can come. There are lots of buyers ready and willing to take over Northern Transportation Company. They must acknowledge, therefore, that they appreciate having a government owned corporation in competition with a private company in this area, and that this is now the new government policy.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, the facts illustrate that despite the statement of the minister that this company is operating as a normal private corporation, this is far from the truth. There are many built-in advantages that Northern Transportation Company has that no private corporation would have. Last night I outlined one of these in dealing with the D.E.W. line supplies. I illustrated how Northern Transportation Company was expanded to take care of that situation, and how the company ignored other private firms in the north. This company had been placed in a position of trust for the private companies and, when purporting to speak for the private carriers in the north, these civil servants, these empire builders, decided this was a great opportunity to build something of their own while ignoring the private corporations.
I mentioned last night that extra transportation facilities were required by Eldorado Mining. I said it was all right to build up the company for that purpose. In view of the minister's statement that this company operates as a normal private company, I ask what normal private company is owned by its best customer. Eldorado Mining and Refining is the parent company, and Northern Transportation Company does its hauling. What other transportation company is granted a monopoly on the biggest business

in the north? How can the minister justify that statement in this house when the two biggest customers in the north, about whom there is no risk of not being paid, namely Eldorado and the D.E.W. line, are both the exclusive property of Northern Transportation Company? In the face of these facts, how can the minister say the company operates as a normal, private company?
This is not all. Last night I mentioned how Northern Transportation Company had been able, by some means or other that I have not yet been able to fathom, to get its licence to cover both sectors in the Mackenzie and the Athabasca. Here we have a situation under which for years either Northern Transportation Company or Yellowknife had to prove the need for extra service before the board of transport commissioners if they wanted to put extra tugs or barges on the Mackenzie river. There was an incident in which Yellowknife made a mistake and put a barge into service before they secured a licence. The company was fined for this. Northern Transportation Company used a tug and a barge for a year before these facts were brought to the attention of the authorities, but nothing was said. This does not sound like operating as a normal private enterprise company. Does this sound like fair competition? This is only a small incident.
What happened in connection with the equipment on the Mackenzie and the amount of competition that Yellowknife Transportation had to face are things which I am sure must stir the conscience of every member in this house. There was a special need in the Athabasca sector, and Yellowknife Transportation does not operate there. The only customer, really, is Eldorado Mining at Uranium City. Northern Transportation had a monopoly. There was a need for extra equipment because of a sudden increase in the demand for sulphur. I believe Northern Transportation had to build 26 extra barges to take care of that situation.
I have no quarrel with that. However, Mr. Chairman, for years there was a policy on the Mackenzie sector under which private enterprise operates that before an extra tug or barge could be put into service the company had to prove the need for that service. Then a bewildering change took place. In one application the Northern Transportation Company was able to have the entire basis of licensing changed. The licence of this company covers not just the Athabasca sector but the Mackenzie sector as well. Here we have a crown corporation which has expanded

to a tremendous extent, which can prove a special need for a short time in the Athabasca sector, suddenly being allowed to transfer a large fleet to the Mackenzie sector without regard for the needs of the area. I ask the minister now how he can explain government policy on that basis and still say this company is operating as a normal, private business. What is government policy?
Certainly one should look at the impact of 26 barges being made available on the Mackenzie river for competition with the only private enterprise company operating there. As I said last night, Yellowknife Transportation is trying to build itself up, and this must be done out of profits. They have to have a pretty close look at the dollar. You cannot introduce extra barges overnight. Every piece of equipment has to be working to its maximum. Yellowknife could not possibly pretend to give the same service to the public as a company that has 20 or 30 extra tugs and barges on call at any time. Yellowknife Transportation has to plan in the fall, has to work out schedules, has to look at every inch of cargo space, at every barge and what it is doing before investing another dollar. It has to look at each barge to determine how long it is going to be working and how many dollars it will bring in over how many years. Surely the minister is not serious when he attempts to give the impression in his statement that Northern Transportation is operating as a normal private business, when it can have all those barges at its call.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but think of this. It has a monopoly in the Athabasca sector. It sets the rates and its parent company is the only one to which it has to answer. As a matter of fact when the president of Northern Transportation was asked why there was no reduction of rates in the Athabasca sector he said "We don't have any complaints." Of course they do not. They are hauling for Eldorado Mining and Refining. They have a guaranteed rate of business, a guaranteed amount, and everything is all cushy.
Just think of this in the light of the minister's statement. What other private enterprise company in Canada can have the major part of its income guaranteed year in and year out, and then use its surplus equipment to compete with other private enterprise?
The north is opening up very slowly. The major customer for transportation on the Mackenzie is still the federal government. There is a certain amount of private business, but Northern Transportation Company has a guarantee of the business necessary to meet
Interim Supply
its expenses, has a surplus of equipment, has a surplus of money made available by the taxpayers of Canada, and thus can offer better services because it has all these extra facilities. The minister tells us it is operating as an ordinary private concern. Mr. Chairman, if the government is willing to go along with the policy as enunciated by C. D. Howe, that these companies were not set up to compete with private enterprise, then I would think there is a heavy duty on the minister to make sure that private enterprise is given a 50-50 fighting chance.
I said before that I have no argument with the personnel of Northern Transportation.
I will say that the company has a good reputation for service in the north, and I think its personnel are doing a good job. But so is Yellowknife Transportation. What we are concerned with in this chamber is policy. Do we want the taxpayer's dollar spent on this sort of thing? The committee on research dug into this very thoroughly and said we would have to keep an eye on it.
I may say that the previous government never had this pointed out to it. As a matter of fact I think until the committee on research dug into this in 1961 most hon. members were not aware that this change had taken place; and if I may be forgiven for repeating something I said last night, it was not an announced change in government policy. This was not something initiated in this chamber, or even initiated by the government. This change came about gradually. It crept in; it was pushed here and there by the empire builders of Northern Transportation and Eldorado Mining and Refining.
I say again I have no quarrel with public servants or civil servants who are doing their jobs the best they can, but I think they should have some conscience, some sense of fair play and, above all, should have some direction from government on policy as to how far they can go. Many indications have been given to me in the past that the present minister did not comprehend what was going on in the department. I only have to mention one answer which he gave me in this house about this L.S.M. Sally, an answer which is on record in Hansard.
This is the type of ship Yellowknife Transportation tried to put in but could not because it was illegal; it was too old a ship. Northern Transportation bought one, however, and I have not yet had an answer to my later question on the order paper about it. I think, without the actual purchase price, they have spent $70,000 on it since, on a

Interim, Supply
ship that it was illegal to bring in and which had previously been turned down because it was contrary to maritime regulations.
When I asked the minister did Northern Transportation Company intend to bring that ship into service he said the maritime regulations forbade its use and therefore the company had not purchased the equipment. Now, the minister is not really to blame, because he was relying on the word of some of these top public servants that Northern Transportation had not bought that boat. You cannot blame a minister for saying no public servant would have the effrontery to spend thousands and thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money on a boat that, three years before, the maritime commission had ruled Yellowknife Transportation could not buy because it was too old.
We have a law in Canada that a ship more than five years old cannot be brought into the country. It protects the shipbuilding industry and makes sure Canada does not become a dumping ground for old ships; but here was Northern Transportation Company, pretty sharp operators, and they saw, as Yellowknife Transportation did, that if this type of ship could be purchased it could probably perform a very useful function in the Arctic. It could pull into these Arctic islands where there are little or no wharf facilities, let down a ramp and service them.
The reason Yellowknife Transportation Company had been unable to get one but Northern Transportation Company could was that Northern Transportation was a crown corporation, and it had been able to get things done to its advantage that no private corporation could; so it went ahead and bought that boat. That boat is still sitting in Vancouver harbour after a year and a half and, without counting the purchase price, Northern Transportation has spent just about $70,000 on it.
I have a question on the order paper that has not yet been answered, as to the actual purchase price of the boat. What is Northern Transportation going to do now? Despite the extra amount of equipment it already has in the Mackenzie sector; despite the fact that it has so many idle barges, it has now announced that it is building a new ship. As a matter of fact, it did not announce it; we found out. I asked the minister and he gave me an answer to this effect on-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think it is my duty, in view of my responsibilities as Minister of Justice, to take part in this debate in order to offer some comments on words spoken in the house by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) on July 30, 1964, that is last Thursday.
In his observations, he made, against Mr. Justice Pope, who presided at an inquiry on Prairie Farm Assistance Act, some charges which constitute only allegations, as he failed to back them up with facts.
The hon. member spoke in English; therefore, as I wish to criticize quite strongly some of his remarks and as I propose to quote some of them, I shall continue my remarks in the language he used.

What I am concerned with is not so much the contents or the merits of the report as the very serious accusation of political bias levelled against Judge Pope by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek without any foundation. If we read the whole of the hon. member's speech as delivered by him on Thursday, July 30, it is clear that the only reason which could possibly have motivated his accusation is that the report, as far as he is concerned, contains views which he does not share and conclusions or findings which he finds unpleasant.
A member of the judiciary was selected to conduct this inquiry because every reasonable and fair minded member of this house knew that he would apply to that hearing the same principles of equity and justice that he would display in the courtroom. I am sure that on both sides of this house members were shocked and dismayed to hear the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek attribute the commission's findings to political bias. I intend to quote very briefly from that speech of July 30 as it appears on page 6198 of Hansard.
X contend that It was not a judicial report, that it was a political report, and X am surprised that any judge, knowing the political overtones of an inquiry of this sort, would jeopardize the independence of the judiciary by acting as a judge in this connection, if not for some reason as yet unrevealed.
Later on, as reported on the same page, the hon. member continued as follows:
X would say it is a political report for more than one reason. Maybe the members of the committee do not know this, but I am informed that the judge who presided as commissioner, not in the

capacity of judge but as commissioner, was a defeated Liberal candidate in the city of Moose Jaw.
Note the words "I am informed". In the same scandalizing vein the hon. member continued as recorded at page 6201, left hand column, at the bottom of the page:
He finally comes up with a decision in which he says it was necessary and desirable that Mr. Walker be relieved of his duties. I suggest that it w?s necessary and desirable as far as this commissioner was concerned because the commissioner was a supporter of the Liberal party and Mr. Walker was a supporter of the Tory party.
And later:
That was the only reason. There was no other reason why he should have been dismissed.
Finally-this is my final quotation, because they are not too pleasant to read-I refer to page 6202, at the bottom of the page:
One of the reasons why he cannot understand, perhaps, is because he is a defeated candidate and I am a successful one. Maybe he should follow my methods.
May I say right now that this is not a very commendable example, and whoever would follow these methods ought to be condemned for using them.
This type of allegation, made with parliamentary immunity, could only serve to undermine the high and respected place that our judiciary has commanded over the years. This respect, and this integrity of the judiciary, is an essential without which the democratic system cannot operate. It is highly significant that this respect has remained unimpaired notwithstanding the fact that a large number of our judiciary have played a prominent part in the political life of our nation prior to their appointment. In every level of the judiciary, from the magistrate's court to the Supreme Court of Canada, may be found men who have laid aside their political careers to render honourable service in the administration of justice. Not infrequently they have served as commissioners in judicial inquiries under the Inquiries Act. I suggest that any member of this honourable house who impugns the integrity of the bench and attributes political motivation or bias does a great disservice to our whole system of government.
I also leave it with this committee to judge whether there was any significance in the fact that the hon. member skated lightly over the fact that two of the most important witnesses, Mr. Howard Riddell and Mr. W. F. Davis, respectively director and supervisor of the P.F.A.A., Regina office, were both appointed by the previous administration and
Interim Supply
served under the former minister of agriculture, the present member for Qu'Appelle. It should not be overlooked that the commission's findings, of which the hon. member complains, took into consideration the sworn testimony of both Mr. Riddell and Mr. Davis, as well as that of 103 farmers of the province of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, in his statement to the house, termed this investigation a "picayune inquiry", yet similar investigations of alleged irregularities in other areas resulted in a saving of many thousands of dollars. Mr. W. F. Davis, a man of obvious integrity, deemed the matter of the paying of claims without investigation so important, according to his sworn testimony, that he was considering looking for employment elsewhere. Besides, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek approved such an investigation. I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member does great harm to himself and to our system of justice by imputing political bias and prejudice to a member of the judiciary who has fearlessly and impartially administered justice in the province of Saskatchewan since November of 1955.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: It is true that Judge Pope was not, in the course of that inquiry, acting in his capacity as a judge but as a commissioner. However, even at that, any remarks which are slanderous or by way of innuendo or in the nature of personal attack or censure against him are unparliamentary. Citation 152(4) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, applies. It has been quoted before in this debate, and I will read it:
All references to judges, and courts of justice and to personages of high official station of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I call attention to the phrase "personages of high official station". The purpose of appointing judges as commissioners is precisely to ensure that the matters before them will be dealt with by them with objectivity and a sense of justice dictated by their judicial experience. A great number of commissions were established by the government supported by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Some of them were headed by judges who, while they were in practice, were supporters of the previous government. For all I know some may even have been defeated candidates. It would be preposterous of

Interim Supply
anyone, on that basis, to cast the slightest doubt on their integrity as commissioners exercising judicial appraisal of the facts. Whether acting as a commissioner or as a judge, a person in judicial office has the same responsibilities, and all those I have known have discharged them honestly and objectively.
The serious part of this accusation is that although it is true that certain specific accusations may be levelled at judges on the basis of facts relating to specific circumstances which may be proven, I think it is preposterous and unfair, just from reading a report or a judgment and because it does not please the reader or goes against the grain, to conclude that the differences of opinion between the reader and the judge or commissioner have been dictated by political bias on part of the latter. If one were to accept the type of accusations formulated with great lack of responsibility by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, one would of necessity have to lose confidence in a great part of the whole judiciary.
As a lawyer who has practised before all the courts of my province, before the exchequer court and Supreme Court of Canada and before a great number of arbitration and other boards, and as a lawyer always known to have been and to be strongly Liberal, I must give fullest credit to all the judges before whom I have appeared, either when holding court or acting as commissioners, for the fact that never have I been treated less fairly by one who had in the past professed a Conservative allegiance than by others who had, before being elevated to the bench, professed a Liberal allegiance.
One may, of course, differ with the conclusions reached. This happens in all judicial cases, because there is always one party who loses. It also happens in all cases before a board where there are two or more parties in contestation one with another. And, of course, it also happens in other types of inquiries or investigations which give rise to wider sorts of conclusions. But it surely does not mean that because the conclusion is unpleasant the judge has been either biased or unfair in making up his mind and in rendering his decision. I think it is not only improper but unfair and detrimental, both to personal reputation and to the ends of justice, for one to criticize a judge or a commissioner and to impute scandalous motives- because that is what they are-to his findings for the only reason that one's reading of the

evidence leads one to a different conclusion from that reached by the judge.
I thought, Mr. Chairman-these will be my last words-that it was my duty in my present capacity, as one whose function it is in many cases to make recommendations for the appointment of judges, to uphold and fight for the recognition of the integrity of our judiciary and to say that unless clear, positive and very serious facts are proven one must always assume-and fortunately this is the case in our great country-that the conclusions reached by a judge, either sitting on the bench or on a commission, have been dictated by the fairest and most equitable of motives.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the minister's remarks one might almost think this was the first time the judiciary had been questioned. Perhaps before I make any further points I should read into the record some statements which judges themselves have made about members of the judiciary sitting on inquiries like this. One statement made by judges is that there has always been much criticism of the use of judges on royal commissions, one strong reason being the fear that the impartiality of the judiciary may be called into question. Another statement made by judges is that special interest reports can be used as vehicles for carrying to the public the prejudices of special interests, at the public expense, of course.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member disclose the source of these quotations?


John (Jack) McIntosh: You sit down; I have the floor.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is citing broad principles without giving the committee the source. I believe the rules of the house prescribe that if an hon. member is citing authorities he must quote the source of such authorities.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not believe that is the case. These are quotations from judges, so perhaps the hon. member, professing to be such a great lawyer, as he is, should know their source.


John James Greene: Do you?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, I do.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I have raised I would ask the Chair to rule whether-


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have the floor, and that is not a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member again rising on the same point of order?


John James Greene: I would ask the Chair to rule whether the hon. member can cite authorities which he alleges come from judges, I do not know from which jurisdiction, whether they are from Afghanistan, from the Ubangi, or whether they are from Canadian courts. In any event, I submit with respect-


Howard Russell MacEwan: They are from Renfrew county.


John James Greene: -that the rules of the house prescribe that if an hon. member is quoting citations which he asserts are from a judicial source, if for some reason he does not wish to cite the source he is not allowed to quote them.


Lucien Lamoureux: As far as the Chair understands the situation, it is the common practice in the spirit of debate for members who refer to quotations or cite statements made by third parties to give the source of such statements, but as far as I know there is no specific reference to this rule in standing orders. It has just been brought to my attention that there is a citation which is relevant, and which appears at page 461 of May's sixteenth edition. It is as follows:
Members not connected with the government have also cited documents in their possession, both public and private (p), which were not before the house: but though the house is equally unable to form a correct judgment from partial extracts, inconvenient latitude has sometimes been permitted, which it is doubtful whether any rule but that of good taste could have restrained.
In other words there is no specific rule, as far as I know, that would require the hon. member to give the source of the citation to which he has just referred except, as I said, the general spirit and general usage of debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, suffice it to say the judges do criticize members of the judiciary for sitting on inquiries that have political overtones such as this inquiry had.
I should go on to say that the temptation to make political capital out of parliamentary investigation is almost overwhelming, particularly when the press can give so much free publicity to the inquiry. I question the propriety of a judge, counsel or commissioner taking part in a politically charged issue such as this one was. Judges should be kept off inquiries that have political overtones. In this case the commissioner may involve the judi-
Interim Supply
ciary in a flame of partisan politics. An inquiry in my opinion is a fact finding device.
In regard to charges the minister has stated I made, I should like to refer the minister to order in council P.C. 1963-1896, and I presume he had something to do with its composition. There were two things the judge was to inquire into. One was the dismissal of Mr. Walker, which I will forget for the time being. The other, to which I should like to particularly draw the minister's attention, is contained in paragraph (b) and reads as follows:
-irregularities alleged to have occurred in the processing of claims for benefits under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the payment of such claims, relative to the crop grown in the year 1962 in the province of Saskatchewan.
I should like to ask the minister why this commissioner confined his entire investigation to the Swift Current area when he was ordered to investigate the situation in the province of Saskatchewan.
I should also like to refer the minister to the comments of the judge. I do not think that in more than one place in this entire report was the province of Saskatchewan mentioned. The entire report deals with the Swift Current area. I suggest the whole investigation was instigated for one purpose; and the minister, I am sure, knows what that purpose was. I am surprised, and I repeat that I am surprised, alarmed and amazed that a judge representing the judiciary of this country would take part in an investigation of this kind.
I made certain statements a day or two ago in respect of the composition of this inquiry, about the commissioner and the commissioner's counsel. At that time I did not have all the facts. I said I had been informed of the facts I related. Since that time I have been informed that the commissioner's counsel was a past president of the Liberal association in the province of Saskatchewan. Not only that, he was a past president of the local association in Moose Jaw and the official agent for the defeated Liberal candidate in 1956. You tell me this was not a political appointment.


Michael Starr: Certainly it is, particularly if he is a Liberal.
'


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that? That is not Afghanistan.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up much more time of the committee or tell the minister everything I know at the present time, but I hope the judiciary will

Interim Supply
set up a committee composed of its own members and bring this judge before it for any disciplinary action possible. I repeat, I am alarmed that a judge, who may possibly say that I shall be hanged or not, would come out in a political way as he did and submit a report to the parliament of Canada in the manner in which he did.
I should like to read one paragraph of this report. At page 17 the commissioner said:
Mr. Riddell preweeded immediately to carry out the investigation in accordance with the instructions which he had received from his minister. He experienced no difficulty in the other supervisory districts but was met with a great deal of opposition in the Swift Current district.
How does he know that Mr. Riddell did not experience any difficulty in other supervisory districts? The judge had no one else on the stand except witnesses from the constituency or area of Swift Current. I will inform the minister right now in this committee that there is a member here who experienced exactly the same problem with this director, and refused to allow him to come into his area to carry out an investigation. In fact the director accompanied an investigator into this member's district. The member refused to allow him to carry out an investigation and Mr. Riddell took the investigator away from the district. That was all I intended to do, because I did not want my constituents subjected to an investigation such as this type of person intended to carry out.
When the judge states that there was no difficulty with other members he is not stating the truth. He makes that statement without any foundation of fact.
I should like to quote one further statement the judge made as it appears at page 44 of his report. He said:
Mr. Riddell had indeed good grounds for his suspicions.
First of all I would ask whether he had any good grounds for his suspicions and, if so, why he did not submit them to the people to whom he was supposed to submit them? He was asked by the minister, the minister's assistant and by myself whether he had any good grounds for suspicions. I suggest he did not.
To continue with the quotation, he states:
The paper Investigation which he had already made indicated that there were a great many cases in the Swift Current district where explanations were necessary.
I do not deny that explanations were perhaps necessary, but that fact in itself does not constitute grounds for suspicion. Anyone who

knows anything about the operation of P.F.A.A. will realize that explanations are necessary in respect of many applications, and this is the situation in every province.
On another occasion the commissioner, as the minister has suggested, accused the inspectors by innuendo. He states:
It appeared that inspectors were too casual about the manner in which they secured their reports. Many of them did not attempt to obtain accurate information.
I brand that as a deliberate falsehood on the part of the commissioner. Every one of them obtained accurate information to the best of their ability. Not only is that the case; each one was checked several times by Mr. Riddell's staff in respect of accuracy. Not one of which I am aware was sent back at any time. If there were any inaccurate reports, then Mr. Riddell and his staff in Regina were negligent in not catching them. I am not making that suggestion for one moment because he has a good staff, and I would not suggest such a thing about the staff.
I made reference earlier to conclusions, of which there are six, three of which do not even mention Saskatchewan but refer to Swift Current. Why did he confine his investigation to the Swift Current area and not carry out the investigation as he was instructed, in respect of the province of Saskatchewan? I think this was done for one reason and that was a political reason. No one will convince me otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I have taken up enough time of the committee, but before concluding I should like to state that I would be pleased at any time to appear before a commission or committee of the judiciary when and if they desire to have this judge appear before them for disciplinary action.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there have been charges and countercharges, accusations and the like flying across the chamber this afternoon. I think perhaps it would be well to set the record straight on a number of these charges and countercharges that have been made.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has said that this inquiry was instigated by the present government for political purposes. Whether there was any political advantage gained as a result of this inquiry to the benefit of either the Liberal or Conservative parties I am not prepared to say. I should like it to be well understood that this inquiry was instigated by the standing committee on privileges and elections of this house. Of course the action

that preceded the recommendation of that committee was instigated by the member who has just taken his seat, and whether he is happy with the result of this judicial inquiry I do not know. It certainly is not fair to suggest that this inquiry was instigated by the government for whatever purpose it may have had in mind.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to this matter I think the expression "methinks he doth protest too much" would be appropriate to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. He has obviously learned a good lesson, namely that the best form of defence is attack. I think it is unfortunate indeed that some of these charges have been made, especially against members of the judiciary of Canada; because although I have not yet had time to study all the evidence that was submitted and all the report made it is pretty obvious that an inquiry of this nature was warranted, from the evidence that has been given. On page 58 of the report Judge Pope says, in paragraph (a) of the conclusions:
The evidence before me indicated that the director of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was justified in recommending the dismissal of Mr. George M. Walker as supervisor of the Swift Current district.
Mr. Chairman, that was the reason; that was what instigated or initiated the inquiry by the committee on privileges and elections. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek objected to something the Minister of Agriculture said in this house respecting his activities in influencing what Mr. Walker was doing in the discharge of his duties. So let there be absolutely no mistake as to what started this inquiry, and let there also be no mistake that it was justified in view of what the committee heard and the evidence that was presented to the judicial inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Paragraph (b) of the conclusions reads:
The evidence before me indicated that there were in fact irregularities in the Swift Current supervisory district, and that an investigation should have been made at the time it was recommended by the director of the P.F.A.A.
They can flaunt the regulations as to who is entitled to be paid, on what date they are to be paid, etc.; but I contend that no farmer under P.F.A.A. has a right to be paid unless his crop report with regard to his individual farm, and from the township in question, is correct. If there is any question in the mind of the board of review or the superintendent or director, it is their responsibility to ascer-
Interim Supply
tain positively that those men are entitled to those payments before the payments are made. When we had Mr. Riddell before the committee on privileges and elections he stated under oath more than once that he was not satisfied that the returns from the 54 townships in question were accurate to the point where he was under an obligation to pay them. Paragraph (c) of the conclusions reads:
The evidence before me indicated that the present system being employed by the P.F.A.A. does not tend to secure the accurate information necessary to efficiently administer the program outlined in the act.
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that some modifications in the methods and procedure of obtaining the information on the crop reports are necessary, but the fact is that if you look further back in this report at the summary of evidence submitted by the 103 farmers who were called before this judicial inquiry you will find that a great number of them admitted that part of the report they submitted was false. So no matter how good the regulations, the method or procedure may be, if you receive false reports, if you have applicants stating certain things in their crop reports that they know themselves are not true, it is not a case of the regulations altogether being at fault, because these regulations and this procedure are predicated, I think, on the assumption that correct information will be submitted.
There is a whole lot more involved in the conclusions and recommendations made by the commissioner, Judge Pope, that I do not wish to go into at this time; but I think it should be made abundantly clear that an investigation was warranted with respect to these 54 townships; that an investigation was denied, not only by the member who is taking such exception to what is contained in these conclusions, but also by other officials-


John (Jack) McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to retract the statement he has made-and this is only one of many misstatements he made-that I denied any investigation. He was a member of the committee on privileges and elections, and he knows that at no time did I deny any investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no intention of taking back anything I said that was true, and everything I have said up to this point is true.

Interim Supply


An hon. Member:: You are saying he instigated it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said the inquiry that was undertaken by the committee on privileges and elections was instigated by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, and that is true. As a matter of fact his motion, I believe, or his question of privilege, was referred to that committee, and out of the findings of the committee came a recommendation that a judicial inquiry be set up to investigate not only the dismissal of Mr. Walker but the irregularities in the payments that were made in the 54 townships under consideration.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What irregularities? I think the hon. member should either put up or shut up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The irregularities that have been substantiated by the summary of the evidence given by the 103 farmers called before the judicial inquiry.


John (Jack) McIntosh: There were no irregularities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member says there were no irregularities. I hold in my hand a report dated April 13, issued by the Canadian Press, that one farmer said he hid away 40,000 bushels of wheat; in other words he had in fact in storage on his farm 40.000 bushels of wheat more than he declared as carryover from the previous crop year. If it is said there were no irregularities it may be necessary for me to read into the record case after case from the evidence of the 103 farmers summarized in this report.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up the time of the committee by doing that, because I think the report of the prairie farm assistance administration commission of inquiry is available to all members of the house, and in fact most of them have it already and can read it themselves. There is absolutely no question in my mind, there was no question in the minds of those who sat on the committee on privileges and elections, that there were some irregularities to investigate, and there was no question in the mind of the commissioner who in fact presided over this inquiry that there were some irregularities.
I do not know what is going to happen to the recommendations passed down by Commissioner Pope, but there are one or two things he did not mention. If you want to talk about party politics and the impact of

the kind of action that was taken with respect to political, party advantage, I want someone to explain-and the judge does not deal with this-who authorized the payment of $500,000 in cheques just prior to the election in 1963. I do not accept some of the contentions that they can slough this off on someone who is no longer the executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and say that he had full authority; that it was he who authorized the payments and in fact ordered the director to do so. I do not accept that.
I believe that if the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is going to make an issue of this we had better get to the bottom of it and dig out the rest of it because, as is well known director Riddell told the committee on privileges and elections that he could not abide with his conscience if he made these payments before there was a reinvestigation of some of the irregularities that were manifest in the crop reports. We know that he was ordered by someone to do something that was a violation of his concept of good administration. This aspect has not been dealt with completely. Nevertheless it is the crux of the matter. He goes on to say in one of his recommendations that it would be difficult now, after so much time has gone by, to recover some of the money that was paid to these farmers in the area who were not entitled to it. He recommends, therefore, that this reinvestigation be not now made because of the passage of time.
But, Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk politics with respect to the administration of this matter, which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is trying to get into it now as a subterfuge, then I feel we should go all the rest of the way and really investigate the politics that did in fact promote, or whatever you want to call it, the order for this payment to be made ahead of the election, notwithstanding the fact that a reinvestigation had not been made. I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that this matter will be dealt with fairly, taking into consideration all of the various contentions that may have been placed before us. I do feel it is very unfair now to start off in a partisan way to try to paint the commissioner on the judicial inquiry as being nothing more than a political hack, when we have the information that was given to the committee which set up this judicial inquiry indicating there was justification for an investigation, and that was denied.
The evidence given by Mr. Riddell, the director, revealed that there were irregularities, as did the evidence given before this judicial inquiry. I think it is about time

we took some of this evidence on the face of it. I do not believe these farmers who gave evidence had any political party axe to grind, if you want to put it that way. They stated very frankly that they had made some mistakes, and they were sorry they had made them. Following that, Mr. Chairman, 1 believe we should refer some of the methods of obtaining information to the committee on agriculture so that we could amend the regulations and correct some of the weaknesses that have allowed the kind of survey we have seen over the past few months.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just listening to this debate as a member of the committee, but I have to rise in defence of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not need any defence.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know you do not need any defence, but I am going to give it to you just the same. The hon. member for Medicine Hat on two separate occasions during his remarks stated that an investigation had been refused. As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said, Mr. Chairman, at no time was any investigation refused. The position of the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was always clear. He maintained to me, as minister, that the law of parliament was supreme over the bureaucracy that carries out these laws. This was his position. There is a very clear clause in the P.F.A.A. This clause says that after an area has been investigated by an inspector and those figures approved by the officials of the director, and then the recommendation on payments is turned over to the board of review, the director must pay. This is the law as written by the members of the House of Commons, which is supreme. This was the position of the member of parliament for Swift Current-Maple Creek all through this dispute, that the law passed by parliament should be obeyed.
Now where do I come into it? After the director and his staff had checked every one of these reports and recommended to the board of review that they be passed, the board of review passed them and I was informed. I approved that, since all the precautions laid down by parliament had been met; I approved the payment of these moneys to the people. Parliament had laid down the direction that when these conditions to protect the public purse were met, then the director had to pay these sums.
After that decision was made in December, a letter came to me in January from one
Interim Supply
single farmer who, with the best of intentions, wrote me that he thought there was an error in the reports of two of his neighbours. I sent that letter to the director and asked what he wanted to do about it. I ordered the director in that letter to go and see this man and find out what his complaints were, make him produce the evidence. Before you turn back the law of parliament and its directions to the minister, you have to be very certain that there is great injustice occurring. These payments under P.F.A.A. are social justice payments. They are not crop insurance at all. It is based on the premise that people who have no crop need money to buy groceries for the winter. It is for this reason the sum is so small. They need money to pay their taxes and buy groceries. The maximum is $800, if you have a complete crop failure.
Now you have the minister having to make a choice such as every minister must make in carrying out his portfolio, as I understand it and believe it. You must abide by the laws parliament passes. There are cases, however, where you have a right to postpone that decision to make absolutely sure that everything is correct. On the basis of that letter being sent to the director, he informed me that he was suspicious of several areas in the province, not just the area from which the letter came. He made a proposal, after oral discussion with me and confirmed it in a letter, that an investigation should be made in all these areas. If you read the evidence before the commission and look at the evidence given before the privileges and elections committee, you will find that the various members of parliament concerned discussed this matter with me in my office. Not one of them objected to that investigation being held. The only objection came on a question of personnel, and this objection came later.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek objected on only one point. He wanted to know who was going to do the investigating in this area. He did not want one individual about whom there was an unfortunate occurrence on a previous occasion where a great area in the province had been upset on an improper charge, and the charge had to be dropped. When a person goes into a farmer's home and does not give him the benefit of the simple elements of British law, that the individual is innocent until proven guilty, this causes hard feelings in the heart of any person, whether he is on a Saskatchewan farm or in the city of Montreal.

Interim Supply
As I understand the issue, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek did his duty as a member of parliament by objecting to me, to the director and to all those concerned with the administration of P.F.A.A. that we should not delay but that we should carry out the directions of parliament and pay these people who had met all the requirements of law. That was his case to me and he expressed himself to me just as bluntly as he expresses himself to any other person in this chamber.
I saw his point of view but I also felt I had some responsibility, that if there were any doubts left in the mind of the director I should give him time to investigate and find out if there were any truth to these doubts, and the only point at issue between the director and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was on who would do the investigating in that area. I think I have said enough to make it clear that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was fulfilling the duty that any member of parliament would fulfil for his constituents. If any bureaucratic minister, or civil servants under him, was disobeying the laws of parliament, then a member of parliament has a right to object, regardless of what his political stripe may be. A member of parliament should always defend that position against this tremendous rising power of administration in present day government.
I respect the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek for the stand he took, and on the other hand I can see the position of a minister trying to back up his civil servants, and in this case the director, to make sure the act was carried out honestly. If you go back over the record of P.F.A.A. in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba you will find that never in the history of the P.F.A.A. was it administered so honestly and ethically as it was during the period of our regime.
I call to witness the member of parliament for Assiniboia who used to sit in the chamber and who now holds a high position in the Liberal party. His name is Mr. Hazen Argue. All the time he was sitting here as a C.C.F. member he always talked about the political machine of P.F.A.A. It was known in the western provinces as the Jimmy Gardiner machine. We looked into P.F.A.A., and one of the reasons why thousands and thousands of Liberals supported the Conservatives in 1958, 1962, 1963-and will again next year, or whenever we have an election-was that we ran the P.F.A.A. as honestly as any government could do it.

The reason why Mr. Riddell was appointed to that job was because I knew him for many years and knew that his reputation all over the west was one founded on honesty and integrity.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. There is a crossfire of conversation at this end of the chamber which makes it very difficult for the Chair to follow the remarks of the hon. member. I would ask hon. members to cooperate with the Chair.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would like to point out that since the beginning of this debate the hon. member for Longueuil has been interjecting from his seat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this whole matter is not a matter of pride for any person who is an hon. member of the House of Commons. This investigation has taken place, and I want to say I was distressed during the investigation because those reporting it to the press were only concerned with one thing-what sort of scandal could they put on the front page in order to get members of parliament, like the hon. member for Medicine Hat, to stir up this awful mess, to talk in a deep sepulchral tone as if he were in a pulpit, holding himself up as "holier than thou," even though he knows that throughout western Canada today the P.F.A.A. administration has more respect from farmers than at any time in its history.
I want to put this question to my hon. friends across the way. When that investigation, directed by the minister, was called for, it was before an election. Tell me the time that the Liberal government has ever called an investigation just before an election? They would have shied away from that because they would know how many votes could be lost. We agreed, and the evidence before the Pope commission is clear, that the proper way to win the support of the public for our administration was to carry out the laws of the land honestly and efficiently. That is the reason why those six members of parliament agreed to that investigation. I can understand the point of criticizing an hon. member who might have a bad record in investigating, or in bulldozing people around and assuming they are liars before they are proven so. But all the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek argued to me was, "I don't want person X in my seat." He said, "Bring in director Riddell, but don't bring in that so and

so." Those were the words he used, only he spoke them differently. That was the only difference.
If I am guilty of anything I am guilty of leaning over on the side of my administration to make certain P.F.A.A. was carried out honestly. That is why the investigation went forward right before an election. After some delay the question came up of who would be the person who would do the reinspection in this area. I said, and these were my last instructions on it as minister, that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, the director and my executive assistant would meet as a group of three and whatever the three of them agreed to do, that would be my decision. The three of them did agree on a way of handling it.


Mr, Olson:: Just pay it-that was the only agreement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The voice of unctuous righteousness raises itself in the chamber again. Those three men agreed on what their action was going to be. I could go along and say a lot more than I have said, but I simply point out to many of the ministers on the front benches that sometimes you have to choose between carrying out the law of the land and delaying it somewhat. I am guilty of delaying that law by holding up from those farmers in that area the money that was theirs under the rule of parliament. I held it up for a period of three months, and under our custom there is no right to hold up that money except by evidence that there is something wrong.
As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek points out, there was no evidence that there was anything wrong. There was a suspicion in the mind of the director, and I took my fate in my hands, if you like, by backing up the director.
I want to conclude with this one point. Whenever this parliament, judicial inquiries or any other form of educational device takes the side of bureaucracy's right to administer a thing efficiently, as opposed to the right of parliament to be supreme, this country is in a dangerous position; and that is the position that results from the end product of this report. That is the real problem raised by the Pope report. They decided that the officials of the government, including the minister, were more important than the law of parliament, because the law of parliament says that after these precautions have been taken the money must be paid at the end of December. We did not obey that law and I am
Interim Supply
guilty of backing up my civil servants. But that is the real issue. Does parliament want to surrender its power of rule in this country to the fifth estate? That is the issue. This Pope report came down on the side of the fifth estate and not of the third estate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle began his discourse by saying that his hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek did not, in fact, deny an investigation. I should like to quote from page 22 of the evidence where it is stated:
Mr. Hamilton appeared before the commission and corroborated Mr. Riddell's evidence in this regard. He indicated the difficulty that he had experienced with Mr. McIntosh, who insisted that no investigation was necessary and that payments should be made.
Make no mistake about it; the minister at that time, the director and everyone else involved in P.F.A.A. have admitted that they had difficulty with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek in making these reinvestigations early in the season. The reason it went past December, and past January, and up to those days just before the election was because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he appeared before the commission-and I will read these words again-
He indicated the difficulty that he had experienced with Mr. McIntosh, who insisted that no investigation was necssary and that payments should be made.
Then, to deal with some of the other remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who was minister of agriculture at the time, let me turn to page 25. I shall quote a series of questions and answers taken from the evidence. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle is replying to the questions asked:
Q. There has been some evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that this had been turned over, that Mr. Riddell contacted you about-"shall I pay out the cheques or shall I not pay them." Do you have a memory on the subject?
A. Yes. I can't tell you the date. I recall the place. It was in the Drake hotel here in Regina. Mr. Riddell came to me about the problem again and said he was very concerned about these cheques going out and felt quite unhappy about it.
Q. Did you exercise any authority on the subject of-"Go ahead, pay them out" or "Don't pay them out"-or "Whatever Mr. Faibish says, you make your choice."
A. I don't think I put it that way. I think I do recall saying to Mr. Riddell that he shouldn't do anything that would go against his conscience, but I did say to him that I would take this matter up with Mr. Faibish again if it would make him feel any happier. I never did get the time to take it up with Mr. Faibish.

Interim Supply
Q. You never did which?
A. I never did get a chance to take it up with Mr. Faibish.
That is from the transcript of the evidence which was given before this judicial commission, I presume, under oath. It does not square with what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has just told us respecting his activities.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is not a transcript of evidence, as the hon. member well knows. If we had the transcript of evidence here we could clear up these matters.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a question of privilege. We are up against the same sort of thing. The hon. member for Medicine Hat takes a report that he does not understand and uses extracts from it suggesting there was opposition by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to an investigation taking place. I say, here, as will be shown if this evidence is ever printed, and I say it again and again, that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek at no time opposed an investigation. At no time did any member oppose an investigation. When the hon. member for Medicine Hat makes this allegation-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a question of privilege.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Is it my understanding that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is speaking on a question of privilege. If he is, I think he should be allowed to keep the floor. Is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle speaking on a question of privilege?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I began my remarks
by saying I was rising on a question of privilege.
This is the type of attitude shown by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He takes an official report from a very dubious report and brings out a statement by saying that I supported the evidence of Mr. Riddell. However, he does not go back and say what evidence Mr. Riddell had given, the evidence I am supposed to have supported. He picks out a little section out of context-a little something which he hopes will be some advantage to his mind, that lives in a sewer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would simply point out to hon. members on the government side that if they ever try to stir up any thoughts which are not based on the facts, they destroy them-

selves. The evidence given before this hearing has not even been published as yet. It will not be published for several months. I intend, when the evidence has been fully made available, to examine it very carefully, and if there is any form of malfeasance on the part of one of our judiciary I will be right in behind the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, with both feet and both hands. This is too serious a matter to be kicked around like a political football.
Right now, I am only on my feet on a question of privilege to say that at no time did I give evidence that the investigation was refused by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, or, to my knowledge, by anybody else. I say this in spite of the statement which was read just now out of context by the hon. member for Medicine Hat; and I should like to leave the matter there until we have the whole of the written transcript before us because there may be a very serious case before this house before very long and I would advise the Minister of Justice to make no changes in judicial appointments in Saskatchewan until this matter has been thoroughly cleared up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I too rise on a question of privilege. I will be very brief. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said I did not have the evidence, or the transcript of the evidence, before me with respect to the questions and answers I quoted. I refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the top of page 23 of the report of this judicial inquiry where it is stated: "Part of the evidence dealing with this phase of the matter reads as follows:" Let me point out that I then quote directly from what followed after that statement, so what I placed on the record was taken word for word from the transcript of the evidence.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I want to put a few words on record in connection with the question of government policy as it relates to private enterprise versus government activities. On an earlier occasion I was about to read the latest answer I have obtained from the responsible minister on the subject of certain equipment. I asked whether Northern Transportation Company had placed any order, or had an order under consideration, for a ship designed to do the job for which their L.S.M. was purchased. In reply, I was told:
No, hut invitations have gone out for tenders on a vessel designed to operate in Arctic waters commencing during the 1965 navigation season. Propulsion machinery and other equipment from the L.S.M. previously purchased will be incorporated in the new vessel.

I mentioned previously that the minister had given assurances to Arctic Shipping and Yellowknife Transportation that Northern Transportation was not expanding its activities, that it had purchased the Hudson's Bay Company ship Banksland, and was going to do what the Hudson's Bay Company had been doing. I must say there has never been a more blatant case of the department misleading the minister in this regard. In fact it would appear that there could never have been a minister more easy to mislead. Then the company immediately started towing barges behind this ship and went into the business of hauling bulk oil and serving new areas. Now they are building a new vessel to expand further, and this will hit Arctic Shipping in 1965 and will kill off this private enterprise company.
There are a few more instances which show that Northern Transportation Company does not operate as a private enterprise company, that the competition it offers Yellowknife Transportation is very unfair. Let us take Eldorado Aviation, which is a subsidiary of Eldorado Mining and is a very efficient little air line. I have taken the opportunity of flying with them into Eldorado to look at their operations, and I have no quarrel with their efficiency and the management of that air line. If one believes in government enterprise and in a government engaging in private business, then these people know how to do business and are very efficient. But my quarrel is that if Northern Transportation Company, for example, forgets a small item which is part of a shipment and has to pick up personnel and transport them from one place to another in the north, it sends a request to Eldorado Aviation, and they will pick up the parcels, deliver the personnel, and so on. The minister gave an answer to the house some time ago to the effect that the government pays Northern Transportation their cost figure. If Yellowknife Transportation is put in the same situation then it goes to Pacific Western Airlines, which company, either by means of a charter flight or a regular scheduled flight, carries the personnel or the baggage and charges the rates laid down by the air transport board, rates which they must charge. And not only that, the aeroplanes of Eldorado are on call constantly, and I am sure that many of these items are never even mentioned in the account. How can the minister tell us that Northern Transportation Company is operating like an ordinary private concern?
The members of this committee may remember that I asked a question about Es-
Interim Supply
kimo houses and a tender which went out for a total of 104 Eskimo houses, although I think the initial contract was for 50. The tender called for delivery of these houses at Waterways, Alberta. Waterways, Alberta is an intermediate point. These houses will be built in Edmonton and used in the Arctic. It is common sense that the tender should call for delivery at Edmonton or in the Arctic, but it was specifically for delivery at Waterways. That is a simple example of the machinations of Northern Transportation Company. Waterways is the end of the rail line, so these houses would then have to go by barge, and only Northern Transportation operates in the Athabasca sector. If these houses are sent to Waterways, then automatically Northern Transportation will be the carrier. Had they been delivered at Hay River, at which point both companies operate, then the policy of the government would be divided 50-50. But to get around that Northern Transportation puts a plug in the right place through an adviser to the minister, and out go the tenders for delivery at Waterways.
I do not want to bore the committee with more and more examples, but I hope the members here are interested in private enterprise. The previous government only started to become aware of this problem and did not have much time to do anything about it; and for that matter I do not think this government has had much time either. But it has to do something now because this ship is being built in Vancouver. I hope the government will say right now that enough is more than enough. The minister cannot possibly stand on the statement of government policy he has enunciated. He must admit that the government is in competition with private enterprise, can use any means at its disposal and does not even have to be fair. It can take advantage of every stratagem, every benefit of its position and every sneaky way of doing business. I think the minister owes it to this committee to stand up now and enunciate government policy which will encompass the facts I have placed before hon. members, or else he should assure the committee that new directives have gone out or are going out immediately to curb this octopus, Northern Transportation Company, so as to attempt to bring their methods of doing business down to the sort of level which will make it possible for private enterprise to compete-if it is necessary for private enterprise to compete with the government.
Lastly, I would remind the minister that there was a report submitted by a committee

Interim Supply
of this house on this matter after holding 20 meetings, but nothing has been done about the report. So it is not just I who am complaining; a committee of the house has made a strong recommendation in this regard. I hope the minister will bear this in mind in his reply.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate on interim supply I do not apologize for taking the time of the house, in view of the fact that we in the official opposition have not had an opportunity to investigate the expenditures of this government in a discussion of its estimates. May I put on record the situation as it exists so far this session. Some 15 departments have been called and two have been completed, agriculture and post office. The estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been referred to the standing committee on external affairs after one day's debate in the committee of the whole house. Public works has been before the committee for one day; 11 other departments have been available for consideration since the supply motions of April 21, May 5 and May 26, and six more departments will be called after two more supply motions. Departments called and ready are citizenship and immigration, labour, northern affairs and national resources, industry, transport, fisheries, forestry, mines and technical surveys, secretary of state, national health and welfare and national defence. So that in this session only eight days so far have been devoted to main estimates, which is only one third to one half the time normally given to main estimates by the 110th day of the session. We are now confronted with $700 million of expenditure and are being criticized for taking the time of the house.
I should also say that in five previous sessions, going back to 1955, 1956, 1959, 1960 and 1961, this house made great use of the estimates committee. This committee always had referred to it certain departmental expenditures to investigate and examine. But what has this government done? The estimates committee was set up one year ago. Which departments have been referred to it? Has the committee met? Is it organized? The answer to all those questions is no. Why did this government not call the estimates committee together and make use of it? Why did it not put before that committee some of its expenditures? That has not been done. This is therefore the only opportunity, under interim supply, that the members of this

house have had to examine the expenditures of the government.
I should like to read what the present Prime Minister had to say in this regard when he was leader of the opposition. This is what he said in December of 1962 as reported at page 2834 of Hansard of that year:
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward its destruction.
Those are the words of the present Prime Minister, yet during this debate on interim supply 230 questions have been asked by members of the opposition without one of those questions being answered to date. Yet we are being criticized for holding up this session.
The purpose of my remarks at this time is to draw attention to the Department of Industry. I am sorry the minister of that department is not in his seat at the present time.
In opening the discussion in respect of this particular department, which I am sure other hon. members of the opposition will refer to, I should like to refer to three headings. First, the establishment of the Department of Industry; second, what was our position when this department was established and, third, what has this department done since it was established? Under the third category I should like to deal with two subjects, the situation in connection with the importation of auto parts, and the matter of depressed or designated areas.
Let us first consider the new Department of Industry that was set up. This being a new department I wonder why the government did not bring these estimates before the house as the first set of estimates to be considered. The only opportunity we have had to receive any information in respect of the estimates of this department occurred on March 31, when the minister gave a short resume in introducing this department and asked the members of this house to approve the expenditure of $665,000 for the year 1963-64. In looking at the blue book of estimates I find in the year 1963-64 that the department spent not $665,000, but $14,892,000. This is the type of thing we should like to ask questions about and receive answers. I am sure we would like to ask many questions about this new department the minister has launched. That is the purpose of elected members in the opposition, and we have not had an opportunity of doing this in respect of this new department.

What was our position when this department was set up? We as the official opposition took a definite stand during the introduction or establishment of this new department in sympathy with the demand of industry. We took the position stated by the former minister of trade and commerce, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and I will quote his remarks as they appear in Hansard of June 28, 1963 at page 1699:
This is a mistake-
He was referring to the setting up of a separate department:
-in that a very strong department, trade and commerce-which could be called industry and commerce-
This could be done simply by changing the name:
-is being weakened by this proposal.
He went on to state:
The Minister of Finance, when he was unaware Of parliamentary procedure, sold this idea to the Liberal party, used it during the election campaign and encouraged people to think that this motion could be put into operation almost overnight.
He then continued as follows:
I am suggesting that this is hasty, ill conceived legislation proposing a new department to fulfil a function which is already being carried out by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
We said at that time, as the minister has outlined, that this function was being fulfilled. We were in accord with the minister's suggestion. I admit as a member of the party which formed the last government that we set up the new Department of Forestry. What was said when we set up that new department by the then minister of justice-and I refer to Mr. Chevrier? He spoke in this house at that time and stated as reported at page 5490 of Hansard of June 28, 1960:
May I say to the Prime Minister that it appears to me that the number of ministers is already too high. In that connection a redistribution of functions and responsibilities between these departments would be highly desirable-
He said there were too many cabinet ministers. What do we find today when we look at the record of the Liberal government? We find the government has increased the cabinet from 22 ministers to 26, an increase of four. The number of parliamentary secretaries has remained constant at 16. They criticized us for establishing one new department and suggested there were too many cabinet ministers. Immediately they formed the government they increased the cabinet by four ministers.
When this new department was organized we suggested the government was empire
Interim Supply
building and that it would lead to confusion, duplicating and overlapping. This statement has pretty well been proved. I realize the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made representations to the government of the day, and probably before that, asking that some recognition be given to a department of industry, but it did not think while making that request that such a department would cost the taxpayers something in the neighbourhood of $24 million per year to operate.
I should like to quote what the general manager of that organization, Mr. J. C. White-law, Q.C., had to say:
At the same time, the association has made it clear that it does not advocate the creation of yet another ministry and department, believing that the appropriate ends could be accomplished by reorganization and de-emphasis of existing facilities.
The government went ahead and established this great empire, the Department of Industry.
At the time it was being set up what were we told? What did the press report? The Manitoba premier, Duff Roblin stated, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of October 19, 1963:
Manitoba government officials fear confusion and duplication will follow the giant sized federal Department of Industry recently created in Ottawa.
Feasibility studies, industrial surveys, trade missions and personnel were regarded as 'a few' areas in which duplication would exist.
The Star-Phoenix of July 12 said this:
This Department of Industry strikes us as national government paternalism on a grand scale.
In an article in the Winnipeg Tribune headlined "High-priced help" we read the following:
The federal government is beating the bushes for platoons of high priced help to staff its new Department of Industry...
Apparently the misgivings expressed by Premier Roblin and other provincial leaders have not slowed Ottawa officialdom to any perceptible extent. Federal authorities are pushing ahead in their determination to make the new industry department "fully operational" by next April 1.
We are now into August, and I do not think it is fully operational yet. The article continues:
The trouble is that Ottawa's efforts in the field of industrial development will duplicate the work being done by Manitoba and other provinces in this field. Industrial development is one of those areas in which there is divided jurisdiction between federal and provincial authorities. Unless there is co-operation, there can be waste, duplication and even working at cross purposes.
Those were some of the comments made at the time this department was set up. When we are considering the question of duplica-

Interim Supply
that was introduced by the present government. I spoke in this house on its introduction on October 3 last and again on October 16. I tried my best to bring to the attention of the Minister of Industry the folly and impracticability, as well as the unfairness of this legislation as it applies to designated or depressed areas, particularly in concentrated areas of manufacturing. He insisted that this legislation be allowed to continue. I have asked him on numerous occasions if he would change the criteria by which these areas are designated, but up to this moment no change has been made.
In the meantime, the surrounding cities of this great industrial area of Brantford-Galt, Kitchener and Guelph-continue to suffer under this discriminatory type of legislation. This is what happens in practice. An industry is looking for a new site, so it goes to the city of Galt, Guelph or Kitchener-I am confining my remarks to the area in which I live-and tells the industrial commissioner they are interested in a piece of land on which to build a factory. The commissioner takes them around and shows the industrial basin and all the facilities that go with it. He has offered them what they want, but invariably they go on to say, "We like what you have but we won't make up our mind until we go over to Brantford to see what they have because we understand there are worth-while incentives if we locate in that area."
I should like to put on the record a letter written by the mayor of Galt. This letter was sent to my good friend, and I know the friend of all members in this house, the late Gordon Chaplin. I am reading this letter with the consent of the mayor of Galt, having had it sent to me by the late Gordon Chaplin. It concerns a particular electronics control company which is presently situated in the city of Galt. They are contemplating moving a few miles over to Brantford to take advantage of the incentive offered by this designated area plan.
This is what he says:
This company proposes to reincorporate as a new company; to construct a new building on their lands in Brantford; and to purchase new manufacturing equipment. Orders presently held by this company will be turned over to the successor company for completion. In this manner this company or its successor intends to qualify as a new business. I understand that your department is aware of the procedure to be used, and has in fact given tentative approval to such a move. The company awaits only your formal certification to proceed with its plans.
(Mr. Hales.]
This is written to the Minister of Industry.
Inasmuch as the city of Brantford is just 15 miles from the city of Galt, and the designated area boundary but five miles from our boundary, one of the following three results is likely If this certification is forthcoming;
(a)	If after this company relocates, present employees choose to commute between Galt and Brantford, then the move does not alleviate Brantford unemployment, but in fact makes a dormitory of the city of Galt.
(b)	If the present employees choose to move to the new location, then Brantford will have gained an industry, but will not have improved its employment opportunities.
(c)	If the present employees choose not to commute between Brantford and Galt, then 24 persons in Galt will be unemployed.
While it is not my wish to jeopardize any legitimate and deserved benefits accruing to the Company, I must protest most vigorously any action by the Department of Industry which results in the loss of tax revenue to this community and in the loss of employment opportunities to our citizens.
I would like hon. members to take particular notice of the next paragraph:
Mr. Minister, we do not ask that the city of Galt be classified as a designated area; nor do we ask that the city of Brantford be removed from the designated area list; we simply ask that your department stop pursuing policies which make it attractive for existing industry to move from this community to any other. We are particularly resentful that public funds, to which we contribute, are the sole reason for that attraction.
The citizens of Galt and I shall most anxiously await your comments...
You can see, Mr. Chairman, what a situation this creates in an industrial area. With reference to the city of Brantford I would like to quote a few observations from the press. Here is one dated July 27, but I cannot say which paper it was in:
Brantford (CP)-Anchor Coupling Canada Ltd., a subsidiary of Anchor Coupling Co. Inc. of Liberty-ville, 111., announced Friday it will build a $250,000 plant and office here for manufacturing and selling hydraulic hose assemblies and fittings.
Brantford industrial commissioner Gordon Adams said the plant will be the first phase of a major development by the company.
Here is another:
Brantford factory plans $700,000 addition. Does it get the big Ottawa concession too? Not that Guelph and other neighbouring cities should be petty. We should rejoice. Maybe this is one step nearer the time when the "distressed area" will be removed from the backs of we taxpayers.


The Deputy Chairman:: I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


An hon. Member:: Let him continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the hon. member have time to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thank hon. members opposite tor bearing with me. I know it is always hard to listen to those things that hurt, but I wish to say that this is the most unfair and discriminatory piece of legislation I have ever seen. One would think that it would help these particular areas and reduce unemployment in them, but it has been in operation almost a year find there is no great sign of less unemployment. There is more employment, but why should there not be after the great boost which the Conservative government gave to the Canadian economy? I have only to remind the committee of the national productivity council we established immediately after we took office, the money we put into the winter works program, the aid to the maritime provinces of $25 million a year, now increased to $35 million, the provincial grants for the vocational and training school program, the great sales of wheat we instituted, the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, the great crusade of trade and commerce to get out and sell and increase our exports, loans to farmers, hospital grants and all those other things we instituted to get the economy rolling.
Again, dealing with the designated areas, seven of them were provided for in Nova Scotia and in those seven areas there are now 209 more people unemployed than there were before the designated area legislation was put into effect in that province. It is true that there are cities which show increases. Windsor, as I say, showed a great increase due to the Bladen report, and in Ontario the city of Brantford shows 289 fewer people seeking employment as of June 1 this year compared with June 1 last year.
I do not expect the minister will reply on interim supply but when his estimates come up for consideration we will be looking forward to a complete analysis and answers in regard to this department.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will please my supporters on the opposite side of the chamber when I have completed my remarks, and that during the course of them I will not say anything to hurt them too much, although the Minister of Industry may not agree with a few of the things I shall say. However that is politics.
The hon. member for Wellington South gave the proportion of time allotted to interim supply and the estimates which must be carefully scrutinized by the official opposition and the opposition generally, and I believe it
Interim Supply
has been shown that the official opposition is the watchdog of the treasury. Both the hon. member for Wellington South and the hon. member for Perth, who spoke the other day, pointed out that the time which has been spent on estimates to date has been much less than in other sessions.
If he were here perhaps the hon. member for Port Arthur might interpret my remarks as being on a constituency basis, because he thinks a member must not think of his constituency first. I do not agree with him in that, and the remarks I shall make will have an Atlantic flavour. First I would like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on June 22 this year. This was about the time there was quite a furore in the Halifax area, and indeed in Cumberland county, regarding the matter of aircraft repairs, when Fairey Aviation came into the picture.
The editorial welcomed the decision of the Minister of Industry to review the Fairey Aviation case. The editorial goes on to point out that the Minister of Industry is also Minister of Defence Production, which department is responsible for contracts for the repair of aircraft.


Mr. Choquetie:: 


Howard Russell MacEwan: The freshman member will perhaps bear with me for just a moment. Having been here since 1957,1 am quite aware of what these departments contain. It is D.D.P., I think. The editorial goes on to say:
Prime Minister Pearson, in the midst of the campaign, said that his party, if elected, would establish "a federal agency for the development of economically backward areas," which was duly established under industry minister Drury, who was also made responsible for the old department of defence production.
Then it continues:
The prime minister added that there would be "direct government intervention to establish industries in hard-up areas."
As far as that is concerned, there have been no such direct interventions. The question of the new department has been dealt with by my hon. friend from Wellington South. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a report which was brought forward a short time ago for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces economic council. This is a report made by a Scottish economist, Professor Thomas Wilson of Glasgow University. I hope the minister and the government are aware of this report. This economist expressed the view that the federal government should provide grants instead of tax exemptions as

Interim Supply
an incentive to firms expanding or starting industries in the Atlantic provinces. I am reading from the Montreal Gazette of July 29. The article appears in a report headed: "Maritime Economy: Industrial Aid Policy Blasted" and it goes on to say that assistance grants should be given to industries starting up in the maritimes and in the Atlantic area and that provision for three-year tax relief is of no use. This is the view I am putting before the committee and it has been expressed on various occasions, certainly during the last few months. New industries coming to areas such as the Atlantic provinces will not make a profit during the first three years, and this tax holiday incentive is of no use whatsoever. The suggestion of a ten-year tax holiday has been made. Speaking in this chamber in February of this year I referred to this subject-
Mr. Chairman, I notice the monkeys are active over there. I will throw them a few more peanuts in a minute. They are getting as bad as their friends over there in the corner. I wish they would sit in their own seats and keep apart, because they have a bad effect on each other.
I referred at that time to a speech made by Premier Stanfield-
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am not even able to hear myself think, those monkeys over there are making such a noise.


Lucien Lamoureux: Certainly the hon. member for Pictou has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, the hon. member used a very harsh expression. No doubt he did not mean it. But I would point out that we are certainly the only two members who are listening to him and he should be polite enough to recognize that fact.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Then I wish the hon. member would listen, because he seems to be babbling away there, and those peanuts make a crackling sound.
I referred at that time to a statement made by the premier of Nova Scotia, quoting from the Chronicle-Herald of February 11, 1964. The report read as follows:
He said federal tax incentives to industries locating in areas of heavy unemployment are not going to bring industry to Nova Scotia.
"Federal tax availability of such incentives in an area of heavy unemployment in central Canada may attract an industry we could otherwise have brought to some part of Nova Scotia".
These incentives are of no use because, as the premier pointed out, they are available to other parts of Canada, which means that

industries which might otherwise go to the Atlantic provinces could be lost to them. More than these tax incentives are needed.
Much has been said about the area development agency which is part of the new Department of Industry and a number of questions have been asked about it. Since we do not have the estimates before us we are obliged to get the information from the government in some way. Questions were asked as to the officials appointed to this agency.
I grant that the minister did have one meeting downstairs in this building attended by his officials. As I understand it, there are two officials to look after the Atlantic area. Apparently they have been going around the area. We do not know what they have done, and this is a question I should like the minister to answer when his estimates come up for consideration. What have they done, and where have they been? Is it expected that these officials will remain here in Ottawa or will they live in the area they are serving?
Much has been said too about the Atlantic development board. I remember the time when the legislation to set up the board was before this house. I asked the then secretary of state, now Minister of Transport, who was in charge of the measure just what difference there would be between the scope of the area development agency and the Atlantic development board. He said the board would look after such things as transportation and essential services in the maritimes and that the area development agency would be used to attract particular industries to the area. I am still a little perturbed about this arrangement. What is the connection in Nova Scotia, for example, between the Atlantic development board and Industrial Estates, the crown company set up by the Nova Scotia government? Suggestions have been made latterly that the Atlantic development board should allocate certain sums to Industrial Estates to assist in bringing in new industries. How will the area development agency fit in with this arrangement? This is a question which I hope the minister will answer at a later date.
I put questions to the Minister of Finance, and it was suggested that two industries have announced their intention to locate in my own area, which is a designated area. I realize these matters must be kept more or less secret until plans are final, but I do hope something is being done by this new department to ensure that these two industries, or whatever the number may be, will establish themselves there. We have heard nothing

since those questions were asked, and that was several months ago, so I wonder what the situation is today.
There have been suggestions that the new department can do a lot for these designated areas. I repeat that we are entitled to know what is being done. Time is passing and we have been told nothing definite as yet. The Minister of Industry is of course also Minister of Defence Production. If we go back a few years we can think of one instance where industry was encouraged in the Atlantic area. It concerns the perfection of varia-able depth sonar, which is reputed to be one of the best antisubmarine devices in the world today. In that case, the electronic equipment was manufactured by Cossor Limited in Dartmouth and the "fish", the outside part, was made by Trenton Industries in my constituency. This is an example of the cooperation which was stimulated by the former government. The other matter is, of course, the question of shipbuilding which is of such great importance to the Atlantic area. I am not discussing the defence estimates now, because I have an opportunity to speak during that debate. But the minister of defence and the government did, of course, curtail the general purpose frigate program. Nothing has been brought forward in replacement.
I am not going to go into that, but I was interested to find out what was being done as far as aircraft contracts are concerned. I asked two questions of the minister in this regard. First of all I asked the amount of contracts awarded by the aircraft branch of the Department of Defence Production from January 1, 1964 to May 31, 1964. I do not want to impute motives, but I should like an answer to this question. The former minister of industry and defence production left the government service and then returned as deputy minister of industry and defence production, and was deputy minister at the time I asked this question. He has now gone again from the government service and I understand is with the aircraft industry. The answer to this question was $99,233,187. The second question I asked was in connection with the amount of shipbuilding contracts allocated for the same period and the answer to this question was $3,470,982.71. So you see, Mr. Chairman, there is quite a difference between the two figures.
The minister may say that a number of ships have been mothballed, so the number of ships available for refits was smaller. The
Interim Supply
reason I bring this question forward is that shipyards, especially in the Atlantic region in places like Halifax and Saint John, mean much to those areas, and their economies are affected a great deal in this way. I should like an explanation as to the difference between the $99 million and the $3 million.
We have been speaking about our Nova Scotian Minister of Labour and last week the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked whether our minister was holding out well on treasury board, and was able to get matters across to the other ministers. I think the evidence speaks for itself. There are the cut-backs, the Point Edward naval base situation, mothballing of ships, and so on. I am afraid that the minister has not the hold which he should have. I realize that he has to talk to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence, neither of whom is from the Atlantic area, and there is of course the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether the minister is pounding on the desk, as the hon. member for Cape Breton put it, as he should.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) asked a question of the Minister of Defence Production last week, as reported at page 6002 of Hansard. He asked:
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.
The minister replied:
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.
During the period the last government were in power this sub-plant was set up in Prince Edward Island. It has meant much to the economy of that area. Now these cut-backs have taken place and the minister has persuaded the representatives from Prince Edward Island that this suggestion of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) was impracticable. The minister does not come from my province so I will not say too much in this regard, except that it seems to me his approach is one of a businessman, not a politician or a man who realizes that people must work to live. As I say, this has meant a lot to the economy of this area. If I may say so a lot of the minister's Westmountain approach does not go over in the Atlantic area. It may go over in other areas but we in the Atlantic areas do not accept it.

Interim Supply
I should just like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal for July 14 headed: "Half of all contracts: Defence pie cut favours Montreal". Many people in the Atlantic area have seen this article by the Canadian Press and they are looking into it. The eyes of the Atlantic area are on the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Defence. I do not know what the government members from the Atlantic area have done; they have undoubtedly put up some fight but they have not cut through the red tape.
I should like to refer to a speech made in this house by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in connection with the Department of Industry, a speech also referred to shortly by the member for Wellington South. I am quoting the Montreal Gazette for June 11, 1963, which says in part:
Former Conservative cabinet minister George Nowlan said Monday the government's proposed new Department of Industry will be as cumbersome and confusing as an Irishman's clock.
Such a clock, he told the Commons, works this way: when the clock strikes nine o'clock and the hands read 7.30, then the Irishman knows it's 11.30.
I say that the government's clock has struck nine, the hands read 7.30 and the people, especially those in the Atlantic area, know it is 11.30.
In conclusion, and following the remarks I made in February of this year, may I say that the Department of Industry has been set up, the area development agency has been set up, so let's get moving. I said at that time that I hoped the minister would not allow his officials to sit on their fannies, and I again repeat that word. We want some answers, not tomorrow but today, and I hope the minister will provide them and take a common, ordinary, down-to-earth approach to industry as well as to defence production.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in his concluding remarks the hon. member said he hoped I would take a common-sense, down-to-earth approach to these matters. Earlier in his remarks he accused me of being a businessman, taking a practical approach and lacking in the qualities of a politician, qualities which I suppose he attributes to himself but denies to me. I will not dispute this; but I do find it a little hard to reconcile, on the one hand, an appeal for common sense and practicality, and on the other hand an attack on myself for demonstrating such qualities.
The hon. member asked one specific question during the time I was here and that was this. He asked the Minister of Defence Produc-
[Mr. MacEwan.l
tion to explain the disparity between the aircraft contract orders placed during the three month period he mentioned from January to March of this year compared with the very much smaller figure for shipbuilding contracts placed during the same period. The simple answer to this is that the Department of Defence Production is merely the contracting agent on behalf of the Department of National Defence to procure the items of equipment and services which that department requires.
During the period prior to January 1, 1964, the Department of National Defence had in consequence of its plans, formulated the needs and justifications for the amounts of aircraft and aircraft components contracted for during the period under question, whereas during the preceding period there had not been an equivalent quantity of shipbuilding needed.
I might say this has nothing to do with the personality of the individual whom the hon. member incorrectly described as the deputy minister of defence production. The individual to whom reference was made, since his resignation from government service, did not return to it in the capacity of deputy minister of defence production. He was the deputy minister of industry, another government department, indeed. While the hon. member says he does not want to impute motives I can only conclude that his reason for raising the question at all was to do just that, and to cast doubt on the bona fides of a public servant who came back to the public service at a considerable sacrifice to himself to do a job on behalf of the people of Canada which was required to be done. The fact that he was associated with the aircraft industry before he came back into the Department of Industry, and has gone back to it again, has no connection whatsoever with the operations of the Department of Defence Production in respect of placing contracts for aircraft, aircraft components and aircraft repairs required by the Department of Defence Production. I should like to make that fact quite clear.
In respect of the hon. member's specific question about the disparity between aircraft and shipbuilding contracts I should point out that figures of contracts placed during a limited period may be very misleading indeed, and I am sure if the hon. member looks at the record of production of shipyards in Canada during 1963 and 1964, he will find that their level of output in terms of past performance has been relatively higher than has been the total output by the aircraft in-

dustry in relation to its past performance. There has been a decline in the total output of the aircraft industry in Canada greater than the decline, if indeed there is a decline at all, in the output of the shipbuilding industry. Because of the competitive system under which we operate this has fallen in different measure on different aircraft firms and different shipyards, but in fact the shipbuilding industry as a whole during 1963 and 1964 has enjoyed a higher continued level of activity than has the aircraft industry in Canada.


Mr. Danforih:: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate and intend to deal with some particular problems concerning the Department of Industry. As an individual representing a part of southwestern Ontario that is heavily industrialized I can say the entire area was indeed interested in the establishment and actions of this new department. We understand this is a new department and that it will take time to level out and become proficient in the activities it proposes to carry out. However, Mr. Chairman, since we have not had an opportunity by way of discussing the estimates to delve into the actions of this department we must take advantage of means such as this to obtain the information we require. It is true there is an opportunity on orders of the day to ask various questions of ministers, but considering the magnitude of this department, this is a very poor method of obtaining the answers we require.
Mr. Chairman, in my area in the past few months there has been some increase in the activity of industry. As a matter of fact there have been new additions to factories constructed, and a tremendous amount of money has been spent in this regard. Let me assure you that the minister is not able to stand in his place and take the credit for this expansion, because it is due to two or three factors with which he is not connected. One factor had relation to the implementation of the Bladen recommendations, when concessions were made in respect of duty on automobile parts. The other factor related to the 92-cent dollar inaugurated under the former government, which put industry in my particular area in a better competitive position with United States industry, with which it is in direct competition.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to give some credit to the minister in this regard. He did send some officials of his new department to this particular area. These men were very 20220-404
Interim Supply
competent speakers and outlined in some detail the activities of the department and their hopes of accomplishment. They did in fact make reference to the business world and gave some idea of the scope of the department and how it might be used to further their interests. I must compliment the minister in this regard. I think this was a sensible and basic step for this newly organized department to take.
These men did engage in one other activity. They contacted various industrial commissioners in the area and held meetings to ascertain the problems which existed, in an attempt to decide how best they could be solved. These men did in fact entice some new industry to the area and persuaded existing industry to expand, and did so under extreme handicap. Their efforts should be highly commended.
We in southwestern Ontario are still troubled by one of the major problems that is stifling industry, and I should like to bring this situation to the attention of the minister because I am sure he in his capacity has some knowledge of it. This problem is related to the old bugaboo of unequal freight rates in respect of moving freight east and west. Southwestern Ontario is being subjected to two systems in respect of freight rates. Freight moved in an easterly direction is done so on a mile-pound rate method, whereas freight moved in a westerly direction is subject to a block rate. This system works undue hardship on industry in the area, as has been mentioned before in this house. I brought this situation to the attention of the Minister of Transport very early during this session and I am firmly convinced that absolutely nothing has been done to correct it.
This two-method system of freight rates represents one of the prime factors which cause industry to move from this area of Ontario. These industries are not in a position to compete. We can understand why the cost is twice as high to move freight from Chatham to Halifax as it is to move the freight from Montreal to Halifax, a port 600 miles east, but we cannot understand why it costs exactly the same to move freight in a westerly direction from Montreal to Winnipeg as it does to move freight from Chatham to Winnipeg. We suggest this is an inequality which works extreme hardship on industry in this area. This is one of the factors which causes hesitation on the part of industry in deciding to move in an easterly direction.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Kent, (Ont.), for his commendations with regard to the work of representatives of the Department of Industry. With regard to his particular constituency, this is particularly so, because it is in a designated area. The hon. member has himself answered some of the questions he has asked. He is aware of what the Department of Industry is doing and what it is trying to accomplish. I appreciate his offer to provide a platform for myself, as the spokesman for the department, to say in parliament what we intended to do and what is being done. I would say to the hon. member that the estimates of the Department of Industry have been called, and indeed it was my hope that they would be discussed last Friday. I am looking forward to an early opportunity, when these estimates are again before the house, to make the kind of statement the hon. member is seeking.
In so far as the worries of the automobile parts industry are concerned in relation to the threat of the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States, we are fully seized of the perils of this particular course of action and are watching this situation very closely. I think the hon. member would agree with me that it would not help the present situation, when the matter is now under judicial consideration to make ex parte extemporaneous statements on this subject, and that the better part of wisdom in the circumstances is to hold one's counsel.
In so far as the provision of concessions to automobile manufacturers coming from abroad to set up manufacturing in, Canada is concerned, I can reassure the hon. gentleman that no particular concessions would be made, or indeed will be made to any automobile manufacturer seeking to set up business in a particular province. These concessions would be available to any manufacturer desiring to set up business in any province, and the province in which he intends to set up business will not dictate or influence the type or scale of concession which will be made by the federal government. In other words, we will not favour one particular province as against another.
I think the hon. member is in a general way familiar with the kind of arrangements which have been made in respect of the Volvo company. I have said in this house that the kind of concessions which might be made to the 20220-404J
Interim Supply
prospective establishes of industry in the province of Quebec would be equivalent to those, and we would not give a special set of concessions related to one province. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Grey North.


Some hon. members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, as has been stated by previous speakers the estimates of the Department of Industry have not been before the committee as yet, so I propose to make a few general observations on this subject. The Department of Industry was proclaimed on July 24, 1963, and the minister was appointed on the following day. Up to this point, the minister has not seen fit to make any progress report to the house. One can only assume therefore that there is nothing substantial to report. The only information we have been able to secure through questioning in the house has been given in brief and evasive answers.
With all the fanfare with which this new department was brought into being, and the intimation not so many months ago that those who are in government had all the answers to the nation's problems, the citizens of this country were expecting some tangible results. Many Canadians have been disappointed, to say the least, in the meagre reports that have been forthcoming from the department. It has been in operation for about a year now, with a staff of approximately 250 and an estimated annual payroll of $4 million. It seems to me this is just a case of increased bureaucracy and an added expense to the taxpayers of the country with very little to show for it. It appears now that either the Department of Defence Production or the Department of Trade and Commerce would have been well qualified and adequately staffed to take over these responsibilities for which the government has seen fit to set up a completely new department.
Many Canadians are disturbed about this continual build-up of an already topheavy bureaucracy. However, this government has

Interim Supply
no hesitation in tacking on this extra burden. In 1945, when we had a population of 12 million we had 40,000 civil servants. Today, less than 20 years later with a population of about 19 million we are supporting 341,000 civil servants. How can this tremendous increase per capita be justified? Can Canada afford to have this trend continue? How much further can this government go with their careless handling of the country's business and this extravagant spending?
The government, following the example of the Conservative administration, has supported trade missions going abroad in search of new markets for our goods and products in this rugged world of competition. However, this same government continues to contribute to industry's overhead by way of heavy taxes which no doubt will have to be increased. Nothing perceptible has been done to help the spiralling cost of living which will be reflected in the prices of our manufactured goods by way of higher wages necessary to maintain our present standard of living. In fact, some of our industry is being placed in an almost untenable position with respect to foreign competition in our own markets. Something must be done by this government by way of reducing the tax burden if we are to make the progress that is within our capability. Such relief would help not only the designated areas, but industry right across this nation.
The Department of Industry started off with high hopes on what appeared to be a comprehensive program, but it now appears that the great optimism indicated at the beginning has lost its drive. It was said the department's primary responsibility would be to foster the efficient development of the Canadian manufacturing industry. I ask, has any effort been made in this respect? Its objectives were to create new employment opportunities, to promote research and encourage development. The only new employment so far is the staff for the Department of Industry. More specifically, the department would identify potential production opportunities in Canada and work in close co-operation with provincial departments of industry. I wonder if the minister has thought of following the example of the Ontario government by promoting a "buy Canadian" campaign.
The Department of Industry was to assist in the application of new processes and techniques and to promote research into new products. Would the minister have anything to say on these matters? Has any progress

been made in the development of better engineering design, product design and packaging? What assistance has been forthcoming in improving efficiency through work study and plant modernization, work with all agencies at various levels of federal, provincial and municipal government to provide improved industrial opportunities in designated areas?
This program for assistance to industry was made up of high-sounding phrases and, _ of course, if properly and efficiently applied could help many people in many areas. But what do we find? In the instance of benefits to industry moving into a designated area, this is made so very attractive that it creates a difficult situation for neighbouring municipalities to compete for new industry. An industry moving into an area designated by the government is given a three year holiday from income taxes, followed by a 50 per cent depreciation write-off on machinery which can be completed in two years. The third concession is a 20 per cent write-off on other equipment and new buildings to be completed over a five year period.
The Georgian bay area, in which I am particularly interested, has little chance of attracting industry because of these substantial incentives being offered to industry to locate in certain centres which already have an advantage in view of their proximity to the country's best markets. While this government continues to give prominence to matters of less importance, unemployment continues as the foremost domestic problem in our country. This is a serious situation for many Canadians, especially for the people of my area where unemployment for June increased to quite some extent over the figures for June, 1963, with no indication that circumstances will improve. I ask this government, in view of the fact that the Department of Industry has been established to help bring relief to areas with unemployment problems, what do we have to do to get some action?
On July 14 I asked the Minister of Industry this question:
Will the minister look into the possibility of having his department extend some assistance to the city of Owen Sound which now has several empty factory buildings and more unemployment than existed a year ago?
The minister was saved the necessity of answering by the Speaker's request to put the question on the order paper. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the minister could have indicated some interest in the question by stating that he would look into the matter. I have another related incident that I should

mention at this time. On May 19, I received a letter from the Minister of Industry which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Noble:
Interim, Supply
riding, the Owen Sound Sun-Times dated August 1, 1964. It bears the heading "Low Water Level Keeps Grain Ship Outside Harbour" and states:
In acknowledgement of your letter of April 23 concerning dredging of the main channel at Owen Sound, Ontario. I enclose herewith a copy of my letter to the Minister of Public Works.
This is the letter to the Minister of Public Works from the Minister of Industry:
My dear colleague:
I have been advised by Mr. Percy V. Noble, M.P., of a requirement for dredging in the harbour at Owen Sound, Ontario. Apparently this represents dredging from the shipyard operated by Russell Brothers Limited to the main channel, at an estimated cost of approximately $15,000.
It is my understanding that, because of the low level in the great lakes, the work of this shipyard is seriously inhibited. The yard is unable to handle certain ship repairs, and only with difficulty and at much added cost make delivery of new ship construction.
As I am sure you agree, the proper maintenance of our marine facilities is most important. Russell Brothers Limited provides valuable facilities; it is a yard of modest size, but established competence. It occupies a significant marine role and is an important employer in Owen Sound.
It would appear that only Russell Brothers Limited would benefit from such dredging. However, as an important employer in the city of Owen Sound, the community itself is likely to benefit from such action. Ship building and ship repairing are excellent examples of activities whose influence is widely distributed.
I would like to support this requirement on the understanding that the company is prepared to pav half the costs.
Your sympathetic re-examination of the matter would be much appreciated.
Now, as late as July 31-in fact yesterday, I got a letter from Russell Brothers and to this time there has been no action whatever taken on this proposed dredging. To substantiate that statement I am going to read an excerpt from a letter which came to me yesterday from Russell Brothers:
To date we have received no suggestion or offer of assistance from the Department of Public Works with regard to the dredging of a channel from our slipway to the main ship channel in the Owen Sound harbour.
Presently under construction is a drilling barge which is causing us some concern with respect to movement from our yard...We are still, therefore, very interested in working with the Department of Public Works on a co-operative venture to overcome the above problem.
I have another item that would indicate that this government is neglecting industry, even after having been informed of the circumstances, in this case as early as last March 24 when I alerted the government to the urgent need for dredging. I have here a clipping taken from the only daily paper in my
The great lakes bulk carrier Algocen spent Thursday night anchored off Balmy beach because she was unable to enter the Owen Sound harbour.
Officials at the great lakes elevator said Friday morning that a switch in the wind had lowered the already low water level in the inner harbour, and there was not enough depth to permit the loaded vessel to manoeuvre in the inner harbour. The vessel is carrying grain for the elevator from the lakehead...
Elevator officials said Friday morning they didn't know whether the Algocen would continue to wait for the wind to change, or would head elsewhere with her cargo.
Marine charts shows a depth of 34 feet in the harbour. However, when three navy vessels docked at the east side last week they found only 12 feet on the dock side and 18 feet on the outer side
I would remind the minister that his actions are being observed across the country. Here is an excerpt from a lengthy editorial in the Owen Sound Sun-Times:
Percy Noble, M.P. for Grey North, took on a role somewhat akin to a voice in the wilderness m the house the other day when he suggested to the Minister of Industry that he give some consideration to assistance for Owen Sound.
.me same ecu tonal points to the fact that Owen Sound is in the centre of a very important section of Ontario, that it does suffer from its remoteness from the great centralized industrial empire on the west end of lake Ontario, and that despite verbalized government concern expressing the desire to overcome industrial concentrations, our area has received scant attention.
In these tremendous industrial concentrations governments are forced to spend huge sums to assist municipalities to overcome the problems that their overbuilding has created. Huge highways to carry rush hour business and industrial traffic have made multimillion dollar demands on governments. Massive sewage disposal plants have had to be built. The latest development is connected with demands of overcrowded communities for greater water supplies, resulting in long and costly pipe lmes looming as the next type of subsidized works program.
The federal government has a real primary interest in bringing levelled prosperity all across the nation. Communities such as Owen Sound offer a great potential in solving the growing menace of industrial concentration but governments must take action to promote such remedial action.
During the last election campaign many outlying communities were given to understand that the bold, imaginative plans that

Interim Supply
were to be adopted by a Liberal regime would bring new life and vigour to their communities, and that there would be plenty of work for everyone. This was another one of the decisions lost in the 60 day shuffle. The government is showing very little concern with respect to employment in the smaller centres.
On July 27 I received an answer to a question I directed to the Minister of Industry and which I put on the order paper on July 14. The question was:
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?
The reply which I received from the Secretary of State was as follows:
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 research 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 housebuilding 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.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this answer refers only to measures taken by the former Conservative government, with the sole exception of the $500 bonus for winter housebuilding which, in our extreme climate, is of little benefit. I ask the government if this is to be the extent of its actions, knowing that Owen Sound has several idle industrial buildings and a large number of unemployed people registered at the national employment office? Here we have a city of approximately
20,000	people, located on a good harbour, served by two railroads and well linked with the rest of the province by good highways. Where could be found a more ideal challenge where the Department of Industry could demonstrate its usefulness? If the Department of Industry really means business, let us have some attention in our part of the province.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, a week ago today I had intended to speak after orders of the day, to make some comments follow-

ing the day long discussion of the preceding day on the Department of Labour, but the hon. member for Perth rose and drew attention to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Therefore at that time I postponed my comments. However, the remarks of the hon. member for Grey North provide a good introduction to a statement on the employment and unemployment situation, which occupied the attention of members of the committee last week.
I begin my statement with the claim that the manpower and employment policies of the government have met with an increasing measure of success. In support of that claim, may I mention only a few relevant statistics in connection with the employment record of the past year. For example, a comparison of the first quarter of 1963 with the first quarter of 1964 shows a remarkable gain of 4.8 per cent in total employment, which is almost a record. This compares with a rate of gain for the same period in the United States of 2.2 per cent; so we have in the past year made a marked impression on the employment picture in Canada. To compare the situation over a longer period, it is sufficient to indicate that our seasonally adjusted annual rate of unemployment reached a peak of 7.8 per cent in the first quarter of 1961. The comparative statistic in the United States was 6.8 per cent; we were worse off at that time than the United States. Since that peak in 1961, the annual rate of unemployment has dropped by a full 3.1 per cent to 4.7 per cent this April. The United States comparative statistic was 5.5 per cent, so we are better off today than the United States.
Hon. members ought to bear in mind when examining the employment situation that the Canadian economy has experienced a very rapid growth in the labour force in the past few years, an expansion of the order of 300,000 jobs. The economy has shown, I think, a remarkable capacity to absorb the increasing rate of labour force growth, though admittedly it has not been able fully to absorb the backlog. Nevertheless, in the past year it has made appreciable inroads into that inherited backlog of unemployment. It may help hon. members to keep the employment picture in Canada in perspective if they realize that by the last reckoning last month there were 6,760,000 Canadians gainfully employed. It is true there were at the same time 282,000 Canadians unemployed. That will, of course, continue to be the concern of the government

of Canada as it is the concern of members of the House of Commons.
In the past year, as I have stated, the economy absorbed all new entrants into the labour force and did cut into the backlog of unemployment. It is a fact that despite the existence of unemployment at the present time in Canada there are continuing and growing shortages of manpower in certain areas and in certain occupations. We have launched a number of special measures to combat unemployment and I will refer only to those which drew the attention of hon. members opposite last week and about which questions were asked. The hon. member for Yukon asked about the winter housebuilding program and I am glad to assure him that this program last year was a conspicuous success and contributed greatly to the reduction of seasonal unemployment in Canada. We believe we have achieved the two objectives of that program, namely to increase and stimulate the total demand for housing, and consequently, total employment, and also a shift construction activity from the peak summer months to the winter months when employment normally declines. We have estimated that the employment effect of this winter housebuilding program is in the amount of
200,000	jobs on site and off site. It is a matter of record that in the course of this program last year there were shortages of labour in various centres in Canada, shortages of materials and considerable activity in the off site industries. We have in that period built residential construction in the amount of $500 million. Approximately 28,000 units have applied for the special bonus, and if all structures eventually qualify approximately $14 million will be paid out in the form of incentive payments. This ought to be compared with or set off against, the drain on the unemployment insurance fund, for example, which would take place if these men, instead of being constructively employed under this program, were unemployed and in receipt of benefits. This was an experimental program. It was a new program, and we put it forward as such. It has been a success and it encourages those of us who believe that there is an increasing role for the incentive approach with the objective of increasing employment in Canada.
The older worker program was mentioned. Some hon. members, especially the hon. member for Ontario, said the effect of this program was negligible. The hon. member for Yukon asked for details about it, and I am happy to provide this information. This, too, was an
Interim Supply
experimental program and the information gathered from it, together with the results of its operation, are being examined by the Department of Labour with a view to developing a better and more effective older worker program, if possible, in future years. But at the end of April a total of 1,912 workers aged 45 and over had been placed in approved jobs or hired directly by employers. That total of almost 2,000 jobs is an important total if it represents, as I believe it does, a solution to the problems of almost 2,000 older workers who for a long period of time had failed to find effective employment on the labour market.
The municipal winter works incentive program was more effective than ever. The number of man-hours increased. The total number of projects increased. The total of our federal payments increased. This happened because we have made available 60 per cent of payroll costs in designated areas and areas of high unemployment, and because we have reduced the effective period of the program from seven and a half months to six months, thereby concentrating employment activity in the period of peak seasonal unemployment. We are however at the present time searching within the Department of Labour for methods of meeting what has been presented as a problem, namely the seasonal, or temperature, or weather variations between one part of Canada and another which affect adversely the completion of these programs in certain areas.
The hon. member asked about expenditure in the last fiscal year by way of capital assistance for vocational and technical training schools. Last year payments to the provinces under this program amounted to about $102 million. The hon. member for Ontario asked what progress was being made in connection with the separation of the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission. The committee of senior civil servants, including the secretary of the treasury board, the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission and the deputy minister of labour, are currently examining how this separation can be effectively undertaken, and this problem is well in hand.
The problem of automation has not been neglected, and I would reply to questions in that field by telling hon. members that the manpower consultative service is presently in operation, and has been for a period of three months, with a staff consisting of the director, three officers and a small supporting staff. The director and the officers have made field visits to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal,

Interim Supply
Saint John, Moncton, Halifax and St. John's for discussions with provincial authorities and the representatives of both management and labour with regard to the application of the government's program of research incentives and mobility incentives to meet the problem of automation.
Hon. gentlemen have asked about activities in connection with regional development. I will meet directly one or two questions which have been raised by indicating to hon. members that the Atlantic development board has at its disposal a fund of $100 million for projects in the Atlantic provinces, and at the present time more than half of this total has been approved for development projects. So that this ought to have a very distinct effect in accelerating the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.
It may be useful to hon. members if I indicated the improving employment situation in the Atlantic provinces. As of last June the unemployed in the Atlantic provinces amounted to 5 per cent of the population, a relatively high regional rate but lower by 1.4 percentage points than the year preceding and reflecting a decrease in the total unemployed over that year of 7,000 and over the two-year period of 15,000. It is a fact that various parts of Canada still have a relatively high rate of unemployment; but it is also a fact that in the Atlantic provinces, among the highest regional rates there has been an appreciable improvement reflected in the percentage of unemployed, total unemployment and the growth of total employment.
We have under consideration the Gill report. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale has risen again to this subject which interests him so much in light of the possibility in the future of including farm workers under unemployment insurance coverage. All I can say at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that we are eager to press ahead with this particular phase of our legislative program, but as indicated by the Prime Minister this must take its place in light of the program which was announced in the speech from the throne. However it is not something which we are neglecting or of which we are unaware, and I should like to assure my hon. friend that that is the case.
I cannot refer to all the employment matters which were raised in speeches made by my hon. friends from Nova Scotia because they did cover a very wide field indeed, but because of the questions asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria I

should like to indicate to him my conviction that the long term employment outlook for the island of Cape Breton is, in my judgment, a very excellent outlook indeed. It is estimated that the construction phase of the heavy water plant will provide employment for
2,000	workers, and that will indeed be of very great assistance in alleviating the unemployment problem and providing additional employment on the island of Cape Breton. There is in the interim a short term unemployment problem which has been created by the lay-offs at the Point Edward naval base and the single shifting of No. 18 colliery.
We are attempting to meet this short term problem by a decision taken by cabinet some weeks ago to accelerate our spending program on the island of Cape Breton. The area development agency has been authorized to co-ordinate their activity and at present four government departments have under consideration a list of projects which, if it is feasible, we hope will be accelerated on the island of Cape Breton to meet this short term unemployment problem which we think will be considerably eased over the longer period.
The problem of the opening of a new coal mine at the Lingan seam has interested the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, and all I can say to him is that the Atlantic development board has been considering the whole problem of production and employment in the coal industry of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. It is depending for the completion of its studies upon data to be provided by the Dominion Coal Company, and it is expected that that data will be provided in full some time this month. Following that, the Atlantic development board and the government will be able to consider or hope to consider a longer term policy for production and employment in the coal industry in Cape Breton.
Mr. Chairman, I have made some effort to answer some of the questions put by hon. members opposite relating to employment and employment projects, and they can be assured that they will have a full opportunity to ask further questions when the estimates of the Department of Labour are formally put forward. Before I take my seat I should like to refer to a number of questions which were asked by hon. gentlemen opposite in the field of labour relations and to reply to a number of comments which were made particularly with respect to the maritime trusteeship.


Mr. Barneil:: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he moves on to that aspect of his speech. I understood him to say that there would be approximately 2,000 people employed during the construction of the heavy water plant. Could he indicate approximately how many permanent employees there will be, once the construction phase is completed and the plant is in operation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, total employment within the heavy water plant itself, as I recollect it, is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 200 additional employees. There will be additional employment created also in ancillary activities, especially the additional power facilities which will be required in conjunction with the operation of this plant.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the minister answer a question at this time on vocational training. In referring to vocational training the amount spent last year-I think he said last year- was $102 million. How much of that was contracted for in, say, the year 1962 or up to April 1963? Would the minister have any figures with regard to that? I am trying to make a comparison between the amount spent on vocational training or buildings under the former government and this government. Does the minister have that figure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would concede at once that payments made as at the end of the past fiscal year are less than the payments made in the immediately preceding fiscal year. I do not think political capital can be made one way or another about these variations in capital investment, because this really has to do with the kind of development that took place in the vocational training field.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one more question but shall preface it with a short remark. I am not trying to make political hay out of this situation but merely point out to the minister a fact which is probably well known to him. By the end of 1962 the vocational training program in Canada in respect of school buildings and equipment was practically complete. Naturally if a school is contemplated early in 1962 payments may not be made until well into 1963. That is the point I wish to make at the present time. I ask the minister whether he can give me an answer to my question. If he is not able to do so at this time perhaps when his estimates are before us he will be
Interim Supply
able to give me those figures. When did vocational training finally dry up? In other words, from 1963, on, how many new projects were in existence? We all know the growth was phenomenal up to the end of 1962.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to provide
those figures in detail in respect of my estimates. I do expect there will be increased activity and payments because the province of Quebec will take advantage of this program.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments dealing with matters that were raised in connection with the maritime unions trusteeship. Last October the government introduced legislation in this house to provide for a trusteeship over the five maritime unions. I am glad to say that at that time the discussion in respect of that trusteeship was conducted in an almost completely nonpolitical atmosphere, and the proposal received the almost unanimous support of all members of the house. Every amendment that was proposed by any member in any part of the house was accepted by the government, so it is indeed a fact that that act now governing the trusteeship is a product of the House of Commons in a real sense.
Mr. Chairman, there has seemed to be, within recent weeks or months, a sense of frustration on the part of certain members of the house in respect of the operation of the trusteeship. It may be that some of the comments I will make will help to relieve some of the anxiety that has been expressed in respect of the operation of the trustees. You will recall that these men were appointed to their posts on October 23, 1963 and on that occasion members on all sides of the house, including the Leader of the Opposition, testified to the high quality of each of the trustees. There is no doubt that serious effort was made to obtain the best type of person to serve on the board of trustees. The house recognized the quality of these men as evidenced by the remarks recorded in Hansard of October 23, 1963. These men are the same men that received the confidence of the house less than a year ago. I should ask hon. members as they assess the contribution, as they assess how the trusteeship has operated, as they assess how this difficult and delicate task has been discharged by the trustees to bear in mind the number of real achievements that are to be credited to the board of trustees.
When these men were appointed and called to Ottawa all the S.I.U. ships were tied up. All the S.I.U. members were off these ships

Interim Supply
milling around and about the S.I.U. hall in Montreal. The trustees summoned the president of the S.I.U. to Ottawa and subsequently all the seamen returned to work and normal traffic was restored on the great lakes. We are well into the 1964 shipping season and we have witnessed a season of complete peace and harmony on the great lakes. The violence, the dynamiting and harassment to Canadian shipping in United States ports has ended and the rule of law has been observed in respect of all Canadian ships, including the ships of the Upper Lakes Shipping Company. That is something that hon. members should bear in mind in assessing the work of the trusteeship. They have brought real economic benefit to Canada in the past year.
May I just refer to the performance of the shipping industry in the shipment of wheat and flour. At July 22, 1964 we had exported 571 million bushels of wheat and flour from Canada by ship. That is a record performance. The last previous year of high exports from Canada for a shipping year was in the crop year of 1928-29 when we exported 354 million bushels. We must compare 354 million bushels for the last record year of 1928-29 with 571 million bushels as at July 22 this year.
I am sure we exceeded 600 million bushels of wheat exported by the end of July or by the present date, August 4. That is a rather significant performance. In addition we move by water approximately 70 million bushels of feed grain to eastern locations.
I merely point this out, Mr. Chairman, because this achievement would not have been possible without the contribution which the board of trustees has made in the restoration of normal shipping to the great lakes in this country.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: I think this is an opportune moment to ask the minister whether the trustees at this time have expressed a willingness to appear before the standing committee on industrial affairs, and perhaps I should add, in camera if necessary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to deal with this point later on.
The board of trustees has removed Mr. Banks, the former S.I.U. president, from office, and I really do not take very seriously the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Banks is a coddled pet of the Liberal party. A government appointed trusteeship has removed Mr. Banks from

office. Government appointed special counsel have investigated the activities of Mr. Banks. An incident took place in 1957-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We tried to get you to do it then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: An incident took place in 1957 and has resulted in a criminal conviction. Mr. Banks has been sentenced to five years in jail. That conviction is subject to appeal. A government appointed special counsel accomplished that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He sloped off.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In addition government appointed special counsel have laid at least two additional charges against Banks. These charges will ultimately be heard in the Canadian courts. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, with friends like that Mr. Banks hardly needs any enemies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question at this point? Were the charges laid and the special counsel appointed as a result of the initiative of the government, or was it as a result of Judge Norris' recommendation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It resulted from the initiative of the government, because this incident that took place in 1957 could have been the basis for criminal action to be taken by the government of which my hon. friend was a member. These facts were well known. This beating was well known when it occurred in that year. I would like hon. members opposite to explain at some time why all those years were allowed to pass without any investigation or any action by that government, in the face of facts that were publicly known at the time and were known to the government.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister just one more question and I will not interrupt him again. Would the minister not admit that it was the fact finding of Judge Norris that eventually pushed the government that was then in office, of which the hon. minister is a member, and brought about the appointment of special counsel and eventually the conviction of Mr. Banks? Was that not done on the recommendation of Judge Norris?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that Mr. Justice Norris did suggest that special counsel be appointed, and action was taken almost immediately. But that does not in any way alter the fact that it was open

to the government of which my hon. friend was a member to take action on the facts, on the events that took place in 1957 and which were well known to the government. And nothing was done over that long period of time. I would like some day an explanation from the Leader of the Opposition for that long lapse of time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like to finish my remarks, and then I will answer any questions that I can. I think the board of trustees have made another contribution in changing the direction of S.I.U. propaganda. They have done some important things in this field.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. minister and tell him that his time has expired.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I just say that I think we should give the minister an opportunity to answer some of the questions that have been posed during this debate. I think other ministers should follow suit and answer some of the 200 or more questions that have been posed to them. I think it is commendable that the Minister of Labour is one of the first ministers to answer these questions and I believe he should be allowed all the time he needs.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee agree to allow the Minister of Labour additional time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for allowing me to continue. I will not abuse the privilege given to me, but I just wish to refer to one or two other points. I do not regard this as a complete and comprehensive report on this subject at all. The board of trustees have attempted and have succeeded in doing something which was long needed in the maritime shipping industry, and that is to encourage the establishment of joint collective bargaining with employers in that industry. These are some of the positives that ought to be considered as hon. members assess what was bound to be a very frustrating job that we assigned to the board of trustees.
I recall very vividly that debate on second reading when I and other hon. members said this was going to be a tough job. When I brought the bill in first, the period of the trusteeship was five years because I thought it might take that long. Nine months have
Interim Supply
elapsed and there is still a long period of time required before the complete reconstruction along democratic lines, the restoration of democratic habits and the restoration of democratic attitudes can take place in this particular union. Hon. gentlemen have talked about an arrangement or a deal between the board of trustees and Mr. Paul Hall.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We want to hear about that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am always glad to oblige my hon. friend from the Kootenays.


Mr. Byrne:: The Columbia river sailor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whatever you want to call it, Mr. Chairman, you will find it in a joint statement issued in Montreal on April 3, 1964, by Charles Millard, of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions, and Paul Hall, president of the seafarers' international union of North America with an accompanying press release. That was tabled in the house by myself on Thursday, April 9, 1964; so that document is available to hon. members. It covers the arrangement between the board of trustees and the president of the seafarers' international union. That is an arrangement, and the only arrangement, that exists between the board and Mr. Paul Hall. Whatever complaint hon. members may have about this arrangement, at least it cannot be successfully argued that it was a secret arrangement, because it was made public and tabled in this house for the information of hon. members.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the "do not ship" list. Naturally members are concerned about the "do not ship" list and the possibility that human rights affecting sailors are being taken away through, if it were the case, the continued operation of a "do not ship" list. I have two comments to make in this regard. I am assured by the chairman of the board of trustees that there is no "do not ship" list. The only "do not ship" list known to the board is that list that appears in the Norris report as one of the schedules. They do not know of any other list; it is not physically known to them; they cannot find it. I understand they have notified those whose names appear on that list printed in the Norris report to have their appeals heard or any restoration of their rights undertaken by Commander Robertson, under the maritime appeals board. I understand that the trustees have under consideration at the present time a better method of handling this problem because they, too, are deeply concerned that the human rights of seamen which have been

Interim Supply
taken away be restored as quickly as possible. I wanted to assure hon. members-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow me a question on this point. Has he any information from the chairman of the board of trustees as to any action that may be under way to allow seamen who were driven out of the industry in previous years an opportunity of getting back into that industry if they so desire? This is something that in my opinion is rather related to the "do not ship" list which was in existence at the time of the Norris report. I can recall having previously been visited by former seamen who claimed they had been actually driven out of the industry, and presumably they have been long since stricken from any record such as a "do not ship" list. I am wondering whether there have been any such men coming forward, to the minister's knowledge, of whom he has been informed by the board of trustees, and what kind of consideration may be given to allowing those persons an opportunity to be reinstated in their former vocation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can say that there were apparently, as I understand it, two methods that were employed by the S.I.U. One was the expulsion of members from the S.I.U., and that was apparently in the form of a trial by a committee and expulsion followed. Apparently the trustees will attempt to have any such expulsions reexamined by the maritimes appeal board.
The second method was putting a member on the "do not ship" list. This, too, as I understand it, to the best of the ability of the trustees will be examined and action taken if possible. In so far as the more general questions raised by my hon. friend are concerned, I have no further information than what I have given to him. However, I will attempt to make inquiries along these lines.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. I do not believe I can say more than I have said already in reply to the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the board of trustees meeting a parliamentary committee. A week ago today I did have a meeting with the chairman of the board of trustees, Mr. Justice Dryer, and we did discuss this question very fully. I indicated to him the interest that hon. members have in securing additional information on the operations of the board of trustees and how their duties assigned to them by parliament were being carried out. I added to 
that interest my own view that I thought it would be in the best interests of the operations of the trustees if such a meeting were arranged. We had a very full discussion on this point and Mr. Justice Dryer did undertake to consider the matter as quickly as possible with his colleagues Judge Lippe and Mr. Millard. As I stated at the end of last week, I am hopeful that very soon I will hear from the chairman of the board that satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the requests made by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister permit a question now? He made reference to the fact that the former government had knowledge of the Banks incident since 1957, and he implied that it was because of lack of action by the previous government that prosecutions did not take place sooner. Would he care to comment on the fact that the Liberal government since taking office has been well aware of this fact also and that the same Mr. Banks paraded on parliament hill here following a warrant being put out for his arrest? Is the minister not aware also of the fact the Norris report recommended prosecution of Mr. McLaughlin, and although the Conservative government was not able to prosecute Mr. Banks, is he not aware that this Mr. McLaughlin has been appointed to the presidency of the S.I.U.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will refer to only one inaccuracy in several paragraphs filled with inaccuracies. The one I will refer to is the statement that Mr. Red McLaughlin has been promoted to the presidency. He has not been promoted to the presidency of the S.I.U. He holds exactly the same position he held two years ago. An agreement was signed between Mr. Paul Hall and Mr. Millard on April 3. No action has been taken to promote Mr. McLaughlin. He is not president of the S.I.U. He is not running the S.I.U. He is under the close direction of the board of trustees.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the minister inferring the board of trustees are now running the S.I.U.? While he is on his feet answering that question, would he care to comment on the fact that Mr. Justice Dryer wants to be out as soon as possible, and the same remarks apply to the other judge on the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Both judges to whom my hon. friend has referred will remain at their jobs in so far as I am concerned as long as they have the confidence of this house and

the confidence of the government, and they have the confidence of the government.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister give the house an unqualified answer and say that Mr. Justice Dryer does not want out of his present position? If he cannot find the answer in his own knowledge, he will find it within his department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the minister for his very genial explanation of a rather smelly affair. I just want to ask one question. Can he inform the house if the officers and members of the unions that have been brought under trusteeship are satisfied with the actions of the trustees to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, I could not answer that, Mr. Chairman, from my knowledge one way or the other. I have not asked the trustees whether or not they have assessed the sentiment in the five unions about their behaviour. I cannot recollect any representations I have received on the subject, although I may have. I would look into it.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, this is a red letter day in this session as a result of what we have witnessed today and what really began last evening with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We have seen this dictatorial and arrogant government being brought to its knees by the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: -and forced to answer the questions that have been posed for over a week, and which were greeted with arrogant silence by the government of the day. We have witnessed statements by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour after a week during which the government did nothing but sit and sit and sit when almost 250 questions were being put. Nothing was forthcoming but that arrogant silence. At last, we have seen the logjam break, and it is about time.
This government that calls itself a minority has so many Charlie McCarthys sitting at the other end of this house ready to rubberstamp anything that is put before them-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Carman Coates: It is true, and it is shameful also. It is shamefully true. We have finally seen evidence that the taxpayers of this country demand answers before $700 million of their money is voted. The stand, therefore, of the official opposition has been justified when we said that we would ask questions
Interim Supply
which were responsible and reasonable and which should be answered for the benefit of the people so they would know what is going on in this country. This is something that has been most difficult to ascertain since this government took office.
From this point of view, Mr. Chairman, it was good to see the Minister of Labour on his feet this evening. It was unfortunate, however, from the point of view of the province of Nova Scotia, which for the present the minister represents in the cabinet. It was good to hear him say something about Cape Breton, but unfortunate to hear nothing about the rest of Nova Scotia. It was unfortunate so far as I was concerned as the member for Cumberland to hear him say nothing about Springhill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I explain to my hon. friend, I was attempting to answer questions put to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. If my hon. friend from Cumberland, or my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings had asked questions and if I could have answered them I would have done the same thing for them.


Robert Carman Coates: If the minister would just look at Hansard and read the speeches he would realize what has been asked. It might be wise for him to go over Hansard again and find out what questions were posed in relation both to Nova Scotia and Canada, so that he may stand up and provide a little information desired not only by members of the committee but also by the people of the country.
I was saying something about Nova Scotia, and it was good to hear more kind words from the minister about what is going to happen in the future in Nova Scotia. I am sure the people on Cape Breton island will be happy to hear that something might transpire with regard to the opening of a new seam at Lingan, which may provide employment for the people of the island.
I was also pleased to hear the minister say plans are going forward that will provide employment for 2,000 people when the heavy water plant is under construction, but the fact that only 200 will be employed when it is completed, which means some 1,800 employed on its construction will again be without work, is not so good. However employment for 2,000 people is of benefit to Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Before my hon. friends finish applauding may I point out that the applause

Interim Supply
should go to the premier of Nova Scotia and Industrial Estates, who saw to it that the heavy water plant came to Nova Scotia because Nova Scotia, through Industrial Estates, provided the lowest tender. That is the only reason we have the plant in Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: To get you a job.


Robert Carman Coates: My hon. friend, you ought to try and come down and get my job. I would welcome you.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know where Nova Scotia is.


Robert Carman Coates: That is probably true. Most of them over there do not. Not only that, but for a while we began to wonder if the Minister of Labour did not know where Nova Scotia was, and there were reports that he was not going to run in Nova Scotia again.


Auguste Choquette: Not at all.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from one who does not believe in the type of Canada we have today, who wants a republic in this country, who wants to do away with the Queen, and yet if we had no queen we would really be doing him a disfavour because the only job he could fulfil well would be court jester, and without a queen he would be in great difficulty.


Auguste Choquette: Is that supposed to be funny? Let me know and I will laugh.


Robert Carman Coates: If you understood, my friend, you would find it funny, but those with blockheads are most difficult to explain anything to. As the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria told one of your colleagues, sit on whatever little brains you have. Keep that vacant space in your face closed as much as possible and we will see what we can continue to do to contribute something to this debate.
Most members on the other side seem not to care about problems related to Nova Scotia, and the Minister of Labour does not seem to have much control over them in this regard-certainly no more control than he has over his cabinet colleagues in trying to get work down there. As the hon. member for Wellington South pointed out today, on June 1 this year there were 209 fewer people employed in Nova Scotia as compared with June 1 last year. The minister mentioned a great many statistics to show how things were in Canada, but he did not mention that statistic in the long list he gave the committee tonight.

Apparently the minister has now decided he will run again in Inverness-Richmond rather than in some place in Ontario. He has been down there this last three weeks and knows there are still people in his constituency, which is one of the most depressed in all Canada. Now he has grand words for those people, but I wonder what words they will give him at the next election, should they look around and see there are no more jobs available to them than there were before he became minister.


Mr. Regan:: Does the hon. member seriously think he can erase the great achievements of the best Minister of Labour Canada has ever seen, by this type of talk?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I did not realize that the hon. member for Ontario had again taken over the portfolio. Therefore I find it most difficult to understand the hon. member's remarks.
I ask the Minister of Labour if he would be kind enough to the people of mainland Nova Scotia to try and make available to them some of the facts which he made available with regard to Cape Breton island.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Ask some questions; I will answer them.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, my friend, I have already asked questions in this past week. The minister certainly did not say anything about Springhill. Maybe he would disclose the state of the plans to build a medium security institution in the town of Springhill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Larger and better than the former design.


Robert Carman Coates: I am very pleased about that. Could the minister tell me when a plan will be produced for this institution and when will the tenders be called to construct it? Every time I put a question on the order paper I am given a date. The date comes and the date goes-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tenders will be out maybe this week.


Robert Carman Coates: Tenders may be out this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope.


Robert Carman Coates: I am very pleased with this, in view of the fact that it was our government who decided to put the institution there and realized what the town of Springhill needed. I am very happy to see the minister is wise enough to see the government should spend even more money and I am pleased to hear that tenders will be called probably in a week.

I only hope that date has more justification in fact than any of the dates I have been given to date.
I have some questions I would like to ask the Minister of Industry with regard to Amherst and the future of Enamel and Heating. It is two weeks or more since I put a question to him regarding the progress of his negotiations with that company to allow them to honour the commitments they have made with firms in the United States.
At that time he told me he was carrying out negotiations with both Enamel and Heating and Fairey Aviation and that he hoped to have some further information in the not too distant future. However, since that date one of the plants operated by Enamel and Heating at Charlottetown has been closed down as a result of a lack of the type of repair work that is needed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure the hon. member does not really want to persist in error. The plant at Charlottetown has not been closed down, contrary to what he has just said.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister says that the plant has not been closed down. What in fact is the situation at the plant in Charlottetown? There is no work in the plant, is there?


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


Robert Carman Coates: How much work is there in the plant?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: Is it the watchman? Is that what is left? Certainly there is little or nothing left. If the Minister of Industry is being honest in what he says, he knows as well as I do that the plant is finished, and though there may be five, 10 or 15 people there today there are going to be mighty few outside the watchman there in the not too distant future. If the hon. gentleman has anything further to say in that regard I should like to hear from him.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was merely correcting the hon. member when he had mistakenly said that the plant had been closed down. In fact, they are proceeding to overhaul and repair aircraft on the same scale, now, as they have in the past. But I must admit that these aircraft are coming to an end.


Robert Carman Coates: That is right, and when the end comes there will be another problem for the Enamel and Heating plant with regard to fixed interest charges and overheads. Not only does the company have problems in
Interim Supply
relation to its Amherst operation, but these problems are increased because of the intended closure of the plant at Charlottetown in the not too distant future. This means that unless a sufficient workload is provided through the department immediately, the whole operation by Enamel and Heating in relation to aircraft repair and overhaul will be in real jeopardy because the company has been suffering substantial losses for some time.
This matter was first brought up in May. Since that time the company has been continuing its efforts to honour its commitments with its United States contractors on a cost basis geared to a workload which has not been available for some time. I am most anxious to hear what is going to happen to this plant in Amherst, in the light of the statement made earlier by the minister that a sufficient workload would be made available to the plant to allow the company to meet the commitments they had made to United States contractors to fulfil certain contracts on the basis of a cost ratio similar to the one they had when they bid on the contracts. In this regard I do not know what the point of view of the company is, but my view is that they are losing money with each day of delay. How much longer the company can continue is of concern to me and to my constituents. At the same time I should like to point out to the minister that when we are considering the operation in Amherst and comparing it with the operation in Halifax we should keep in mind the fact that one company is a Canadian company, practically wholly owned in Canada, while the other company is a foreign-owned company operating in Canada for the benefit, in the main, of its shareholders in other countries.


Auguste Choquette: What countries?


Robert Carman Coates: I think that perhaps the hon. member who makes a terrific contribution to the speeches of everyone else but very little contribution, at any time, of his own, should sit there quietly before we all reach the conclusion that he is the first bilingual jackass this house ever had. In case anyone does not know whom I am talking about, I refer to the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
This plant located in Amherst, in the main, though it has interests elsewhere, has indicated its intention to secure, if possible, contracts in other parts of the world, not only in the defence production field, and reinvest its earnings in its plants in Canada in the hope that it can provide employment and profits

Interim Supply
which will be shared throughout this nation. As the minister knows, it is setting up at the present time a steel industry in the town of Amherst. This is the type of venture which is deserving of every possible support and I hope the minister will do everything possible to see that this firm is not placed in a position of having to continue without a sufficient workload for a much longer period, and suffer the losses which must be evident as a result. I hope the minister will provide this committee as soon as possible with whatever information he can give on the progress of the negotiations.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, when I came back to the house this afternoon, after being absent for two days, I was deeply touched by the welcome I received, since many hon. members have shown concern over my absence and have pointed out that it was impossible to pursue a debate on a supply motion without the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration being in attendance.
I must say that my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Badanai) replaced me in such an intelligent manner that I may be tempted to stay away from the house somewhat more often than in the past, in order to give him the opportunity of showing his real interest in the problems of immigration and Indian affairs.
Since I was away a few days, I had to devote the day to studying very carefully the many speeches delivered by some hon. members on the problems concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, especially on immigration, Indian affairs and citizenship.
I do not intend to discuss fully every point raised by the hon. members who contributed to this debate, especially the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who was the official spokesman of the opposition on matters concerning citizenship and immigration, as chairman of the committee of the Conservative caucus on citizenship and immigration, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby), the hon. member for Wellington-South (Mr. Hales), the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and again yesterday, I believe, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane).

I wish to thank all those hon. members for their contribution to this debate and for their suggestions which will be fully looked into by my departmental officials and myself. 1 shall have the opportunity, when my estimates are before the house, to deal with the main points raised during this debate.
I should only like to point out tonight a few matters of special interest. First of all, the minister was taken to task for the general policies with regard to immigration, Indian affairs and citizenship.
As far as immigration is concerned, I have already stated in the house that we have now reached a point where a positive and aggressive policy in immigration matters should be established in our country.
However, in order to attain this end, there were three significant stages to observe. The first one was the administrative reform of the immigration service. Hon. members in the official opposition should know the great responsibility which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has to assume after six years of administration by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), having to supply that service with all the necessary tools to apply a positive and aggressive policy in matters of immigration. When we came into power, there were 206 vacancies in the immigration branch.
How do you expect such a service to be efficient, when the higher officials left the service and, for austerity reasons, were never replaced.
The first task was to proceed with this administrative reform within the immigration branch. After the deputy minister, of whom I will be speaking soon, we appointed a new director of immigration, whose first task consisted in redefining the functions of that service, while establishing a new staff and, finally, giving the minister the necessary tools to implement his positive and aggressive policy in immigration matters.
I am happy to say that this whole reform of the immigration branch has been approved by the government and that, in a few weeks or months, we will be able to put it into practice.
After this first stage it will be necessary to go on to the next two stages, that is consideration and amendment of immigration regulations and, finally, amendment of the Immigration Act.
We wanted to proceed rationally and I hope that, within a short time, I shall be able to announce changes in immigration

regulations which are established by the government through orders in council, under the authority provided lor in the Immigration Act.
Later, when the business of the house will permit, I hope to make a revision of the Immigration Act, so that it may be more in keeping with the requirements of the twentieth century and the situation in which modern states find themselves which need more and more to welcome new citizens who are willing to go there.
As regards Indian affairs, I am surprised that there was no reference to the announcement I made in this house concerning a community projects program.
When this government accepts to carry out a community projects policy, this means that it is breaking with a long paternalism tradition with respect to Canadian Indians and is entering into a phase-which we hope shall be of short duration-where Indians will progressively assume full responsibility for the administration of their own affairs and enjoy all the privileges of other Canadian citizens.
Mr. Chairman, as you know the government has already announced that it will soon submit to the house an important amendment to the Citizenship Act which will remove any discrimination toward new Canadians.
You are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, that the act contains many discriminatory clauses between Canadians born here and Canadians who have obtained their citizenship after having immigrated to Canada.
I think it is unfair-and the government as well as the other parties will agree-that one who has waited five years to obtain his right to full citizenship, no matter if he was born here or not, is the object of discrimination.
Henceforth, that is, when the bill has been approved by the house, every Canadian citizen, whether born here or abroad, will have exactly the same rights, and never shall we have any more second class citizens in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, reading the remarks made by the hon. members who took part in the debate, I was extremely concerned at those made by the hon. member for Timiskaming who launched an unfair attack against the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, Mr. Claude Isbister, claiming that this man is not at all interested in immigration, that he shows no devotion to the public
Interim Supply
welfare and that he displays discrimination in the management of the department's business.
After the hon. member for Greenwood, who is a member of the same political party as the hon. member for Timiskaming, after the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and after my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Fort William, I am pleased to tell the house that Mr. Isbister is one of the federal deputy ministers who deserves well of his country, because of his long services in important positions in various departments, especially trade and commerce, finance and, now, citizenship and immigration. Since I became the head of this department, I have always counted on his loyal devotion to the business of the country, of the House of Commons and of the department. I want to say that I have complete confidence in my deputy minister, Mr. Claude Isbister, that I will continue to follow his advice and accept his assistance, and that in spite of the charges made in the house by the hon. member for Timiskaming, Mr. Isbister as well as my other officials and myself will always be pleased to serve as well as we can all hon. members regardless of party affiliation.
The problem concerning the immigration of people from North Africa has been raised. I do not intend to deal with the numerous facets of this problem. My parliamentary secretary did a fine job in that connection while I was away. I should just like to say that before taking such a step in co-operation with the French government, we obtained the necessary guarantees in regard to the value and qualifications of those who will migrate to Canada under that program.
Those immigrants will receive the same treatment as any person who moves to Canada. We will give them the same advantages as all other immigrants but we expect in return that our country will benefit from the new skills we need so badly. In some cases, they will even set an example for some of our farmers who very often follow traditional farming techniques and who need immigrants from the Netherlands, Germany or France living in the same community to teach them new techniques in the field of agriculture. In fact, many experiments were carried out in Canada by new Canadians who came here and who assisted in the development of Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, someone asked whether the government still intended to set up an appeal board for immigration cases. I do not blame the members of the opposition parties for not giving any publicity to that important point

Interim Supply
of the Liberal platform, but let me say that we are very proud of having put that in our platform and I shall be indeed very happy, as minister of immigration, to carry out soon that pledge to set up a court entirely independent from the department, entirely independent from the minister and from hon. members, to which any applicant, personally or through a counsel, could submit all the human and legal points respecting an immigration case.
I hope that pretty soon the government will be in a position to introduce that bill and that the whole house, unanimously, will set up such a court, the establishment of which will be in the interest of the government, of all hon. members, of the immigrants themselves and, I think, of the administration of justice in the country.
Mr. Chairman, concern was expressed, quite properly, about the status of the representatives or officials of the department of immigration in foreign countries. I must say that such a situation is abnormal. I think it was the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who quite properly pointed out that immigration officials abroad do not enjoy the same advantages as the officials of the external affairs or trade and commerce departments.
I do not know when this tradition establishing a different status originated, but I think that if we are to give our immigration services abroad the prestige and efficiency we all want, these officials must be given a status that will enable them to represent our country with dignity and efficiency in the community where they live and discharge successfully a responsibility which is becoming more and more delicate, that is to look for good immigrants and convince them to come and live in our country and benefit from the advantages enjoyed by the people as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, my time is almost exhausted and I wish to say a few words about Indian affairs. I mentioned a while ago that the setting up of community projects in the field of Indian affairs was a new departure in the whole history of this country with respect to Indians. But this new program is merely an addition to the regular and improved services of the Indian affairs branch. There is no question of substituting a new program for the whole administrative structure which already existed, but rather of using those community projects in order to increase the efficiency and especially to diversify the services which were already provided by the Indian affairs branch.

During the debate interest was shown for what is happening to the Indian claims commission. I must say that we received excellent recommendations on the part of Indian groups in this country. We received more than 300 briefs from Indian groups and others, and especially from Indians, concerning the various clauses of Bill No. C-130 which has already received first reading in this house. Moreover, I received from departmental officials the report of a preliminary study on all the recommendations made to the department. At the present time, and in agreement with my senior officers, I am studying all those recommendations to find out to what extent we could change the Indian claims legislation in order to make it more consonant with the recommendations and suggestions made by the Indians themselves who, after all, are the most concerned as regards the setting up of this commission.
In the fall I hope to be able to bring forward the amended bill which, this time, could serve as a basis for the establishment of this commission which has been expected for such a long time by the Indians of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I was very much surprised to see that some members have given credence to the report that this government was in favour of the removal or breaking up of Indian reserves. I wish to reassure the house as to my intention and that of the government in that connection. We do not intend and we have never intended to introduce a measure which would be detrimental to Indian reserves, which are so dear to Indians of this country, no matter what new pieces of legislation we introduce concerning Indian affairs. As long as I remain superintendent of Indian affairs in this country, I will never tolerate that officials under my jurisdiction take the decision of breaking up a reserve or bringing any change whatsoever, before the Indians have had the opportunity to consider the problem and have asked that a change be made in the reserve on which they live.
They are the ones primarily concerned; they are the ones who, in consultation with whoever takes an interest in them, should decide whether it would be advantageous for them to change the location of their reserve.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words concerning citizenship.
A while ago, I referred to the amendments we shall bring to the statute itself. I wish to mention a remark which was made in the house concerning the intricacies of the citi-

zenship act. It was stated that many Canadians have an undefined status, often without knowing anything about it. For instance, some Canadians born in foreign countries and having married foreigners, and so forth, are uncertain with respect to their status and, when they request passports to go overseas, they find out they have not got Canadian citizenship.
The following suggestion was made: the citizenship branch should publish, as soon as possible, for interested Canadian citizens, a booklet containing the main points of the citizenship act, for an insufficient knowledge of this act may have the deplorable consequences I have indicated.
In my opinion, this suggestion is a very happy one, and I hope, when the citizenship act is amended and passed such a step may be taken.
Finally, it was said that the citizenship act is very complicated and that it might be appropriate to publish such a booklet. But I may point out here that it is high time that all Canadians, whether born abroad or in this country, should aspire more and more to obtain the status of Canadian citizen with official recognition by means of registration with the citizenship branch and the issuance of a Canadian citizenship card.
I know that many social clubs throughout the country suggest to their members to register and fill the forms required to get this Canadian citizenship card.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may express a wish in closing those brief remarks, I would say that all members of the house and also the public as a whole should register at the office of the registrar of citizenship and carry very proudly their card, because to be a Canadian, even when it is difficult, when clouds darken the horizon, it is something worth while after all.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to answer a question. I think he said that when he took over the department he found there were 206 less employees in the immigration section. Would the minister not agree that this is as it should be, in view of the fact that last year I think only 90,000 immigrants came to Canada, whereas a few years ago we used to have as many as 400,000 coming to this country? In other words, there is less work to do, so why should there not be less employees?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, this situation existed in the department when we took
Interim Supply
office. It is true that in previous years the number of immigrants who have come to this country has been as high as 400,000; but from 1957 to 1962 there was a reduction each year in the number of immigrants, and the year before last we reached a low of 74,000. Last year the figure was 93,000. We hope this year to have 120,000 immigrants come to Canada. Really this situation existed in the department when we took office, and I am told it was as the result of the policy established by the previous government of not replacing officers who were leaving the service. Now we have to first fill those vacancies and then add new positions so we can handle all the immigrants that we expect to be coming to Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one question. I ask it because of some experience I have had over the years. I think the matter was raised in the other place some time ago by a very well known member of the hon. gentleman's party. Immigrants often go to gentlemen of the legal profession, and I found in a number of cases that they were charged what I thought was an exorbitant fee, because all the persons in question had done was write to their member. Has the department given consideration to the appointment of advocates, similar to those appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, to represent the person who is making application to the department or to the board that the minister said will be established?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: We have not started a special system under which those cases will be presented to this board; but when we establish the board, all the procedure will change and the channels through which the board is reached will be completely different. I hope at that time the hon. member will have less work to do.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not mind the work; I am willing to do it as a member. But it is rather annoying to find this is happening. What I am opposed to is someone reaping an unjustifiable profit.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, in some respects there seems to be a fairly serious clash between the ministers responsible for finance, trade and commerce, industry and labour. One point I want to raise tonight is the 11 per cent tax and how it affects the various efforts of these gentlemen. I said there seemed to be a serious clash. I do not mean that they are not doing a reasonable job, considering

Interim Supply
there is no tax on exports, but there is on the production equipment in all those mills and on the machinery which every man operates in the woods, machinery which was previously exempt from tax.
This tax is wrong. It is a tax on production which may well spoil that slight margin we enjoy, a margin which incidentally has been tremendously helped by the devaluation of the dollar in 1961, the effects of which have been felt in our export markets all across the world. If we take away those advantages we may lose our markets.
When the minister first introduced this tax strong representations were made to him about it. The then minister of forestry, who is now the Postmaster General, went out to B.C. to meet representatives of the forest industry, and on his return he stated he had satisfied them because of the benefits which they were obtaining under the devalued dollar. In other words, their exports were made easier through the devaluation of the dollar by the Conservative government. That cannot always be an answer and I say the 11 per cent tax is hurting Canada from the point of view of employment. If it were done away with we would have more employment in Canada. We would have more building. We would have more people with their own houses and at a less cost. To my mind all these things require an answer from the Minister of Finance. For instance, could he tell us precisely how much the building trades have paid in extra taxation, and how much extra has the consumer paid? How much national revenue is realized through this tax on the building trades, and particularly on the lumber industry?
Now that Canada is gearing herself for world trade her industries should be given every pat on the back that it is possible to give. I know the minister made the excuse that everybody else was paying the 11 per cent sales tax, and therefore the lumber industry should pay it, but I notice he made certain exceptions with regard to schools and churches. I point out that our very lifeblood depends on keeping our home market intact as much as possible against those who would import into Canada, and it also depends on Canada expanding its markets overseas.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce can tell me what this 11 per cent tax has cost the various industries in regard to production equipment and what effect it has had on our exports. I would like to hear the thoughts of the Minister of Labour on this 11 per cent tax, as to whether it should be

withdrawn now in toto, or withdrawn slightly from month to month until it disappears. I would also like to hear from the Minister of Industry what he feels the effect of this tax has been on production equipment.


Mr. Gordon:: I will be glad to answer one or two of those questions. Judging from the financial reports coming out almost daily in the newspapers, the profits of the various companies in this country, particularly the companies engaged in forest products industry, are higher, and I would say that in one way or another they seem to have been able to absorb any tax that may have been imposed on them. As to the effect of this tax on exports, may I remind my hon. friend that up to the end of June exports were 21 per cent higher than they were a year ago, so apparently the tax was not fatal in that direction either.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member wish to ask another question of the minister?


David Vaughan Pugh: Just a question. I am glad the minister has said that these companies through their profits show they have been able to absorb the increased taxation, but the minister does not realize that the man who builds a house-


Gilles Grégoire: That is a speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


David Vaughan Pugh: Does the minister not realize that the Canadian citizen who builds a house is paying for that increased taxation, not the companies? Who actually pays this tax in the end? It is the citizens of Canada, not the building equipment people.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can only suggest that obviously all taxes have to be paid by somebody, and in the last analysis I suppose it is the hon. gentleman, and you, Mr. Chairman, and myself, and most other people who pay taxes. The fact is that we are all better off than we were a few years ago.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I also have a very simple question to ask, but I do not know to which minister it should be directed since it concerns an entirely different matter.
According to the latest reports, there were other attacks on U.S. boats in the gulf of Tonkin and the president of the United States, Mr. Johnson, made quite a serious statement on television tonight, although it was made off-hand.

Therefore, we might say that the situation is deteriorating in that country. It should be pointed out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) were out of the house all evening.
At this time, in view of special circumstances and of the quite impressive speech made by President Johnson, I think that a minister of the crown should inform the house and the people as to what might happen in that part of the world. I should like the Acting Prime Minister or a member of the cabinet to give us some information on that matter and tell us what is happening, whether there is an impending danger of conflict for the United States and whether there is some risk of Canada being involved in that part of the world.
I put that question even if it is late, and I ask whether it would not be possible to inform the Canadian people if something serious is developing in that part of the world and if there is some risk of our country being involved.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sure the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are watching developments very closely and I have no doubt they will be prepared to answer any questions on the orders of the day tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Minister of Finance, who answered on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, aware of developments in that part of the world? Can he tell us where matters stand at the present time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No. I have been in the house since eight o'clock listening to some very interesting speeches far removed from the subject to which the hon. member has been referring.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, on rising once again to take part in this debate on interim supply, I should like to repeat that I make no apology for doing so.
I must say that today, in this house, we have witnessed a change of attitude on the part of the ministers. Questions had been put to them but, until now, they had absolutely refused to answer. As my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Coates) pointed out,
Interim Supply
the arrogant silence of the ministers has now been broken and we, of the official opposition, have the conviction of having done our duty and fulfilled our obligations. It has been demonstrated once again this evening, as it was during the discussion on Bill No. C-110, that there are advantages to be gained when the official opposition performs its duty in the house, since, by our positive stand, we contributed to the improvement of certain measures that were brought forward.
As I said, an amount of $750,000,000 must surely retain the attention of the Canadian public. And I will not at all be impressed by any criticism which my hon. friends opposite may make; indeed if we heed our constituents' representations, I think we should scrutinize government expenditures.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) should have remained longer in the house tonight, for there are a few questions I would have liked to put to him.
Mr. Chairman, you have noticed that in the minister's speech he very skilfully refrained from discussing the labour question, especially as far as the province of Quebec is concerned. It is true that after having promised full employment, it is rather annoying for the Minister of Labour to admit in the house that there are still 105,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec.
I would have also been pleased to see him in the house so that I could have repeated the request I made to him so many times since the beginning of the session, about the plans the government had in mind to provide jobs to the Quebec unemployed who have no other purpose or yearning than to honestly earn their living.
I hope the minister will take a few minutes tomorrow or in the forthcoming days to give us this information.
During his remarks the minister also boasted about the fact that we have attained, in the field of employment, a record that compares favourably with that of the United States. I am proud of the fact that we have attained such a record since that can undoubtedly help us to forget temporarily the sad record that we hold in the province of Quebec, that of having the greatest number of jobless.
However, I wish to tell the minister that our unemployed will derive very little satisfaction from the thought that there are even more jobless people beyond the 45th parallel.
It was also interesting to note that, in the course of his remarks, the minister set a high value upon plans and trial projects

Business of the House
which are only provisional and more or less under consideration by government members.
We had been led to believe that having the monopoly of projects, knowing the answers to every problem, it would have taken only a few weeks for the Liberal team to make up for every deficiency and cure all the ills this country had known and still experienced when they came into power.
But there is one thing we must not forget, Mr. Chairman, and it is the fact that, during the years we were in office, we concentrated all our attention on unemployment and we tackled the problem; but that problem had been left us by the previous administration.
During the year 1956, a report of the government's economists of that time had provided information to the effect that if the government did not take the necessary steps, an unemployment crisis would develop in 1957. It is the lack of plans, the lack of foresight and the lack of planning on the part of the Liberal government that caused us to
inherit, when we came into office, a situation for which we were not responsible.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it 10.30?

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: I would ask the leader of the house whether we will be going on with this interim supply debate tomorrow in order to give the Minister of Finance and other ministers an opportunity to answer the numerous questions which have been asked during the course of this debate.


Guy Favreau: We will, of course, be going on with interim supply, because we hope for and expect the passing of supply, after which we shall resume the debate on the fiscal arrangements bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. August 5, 1964