1964-08-05

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
On March 6, 1964, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) tabled the Canada Year Book for the year 1963-64, in its English edition only, specifying that the French edition would be ready by June 1964, as we may see on page 619 of Hansard.
We are now in August, six months later, and we have not yet received the French edition of the Canada Year Book.
Further, we received the telephone book of the federal government and the House of Commons a month and a half ago in its English edition only. Six weeks later we have not yet received the French edition.
For the past two years we have asked for the French translation of Beauchesne's handbook of parliamentary procedure. On several occasions, we were told that it would soon be ready. But, there again, we have had no further news.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we notice that the French text of the standing and special committee reports are brought forward with still longer delays than it was formerly the case.
We believe that it is the privilege of all hon. members in the house to receive those volumes and material, which are most valuable for their work, in French as well as in English.
We have for some time noticed a certain neglect in this respect, and we are asking the government, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) to see to it that the translation services be improved so that we are treated on the same footing as the English speaking members and that our work is made as easy as theirs.
Mr. Speaker, we deemed it our duty to bring that situation to the attention of the
government because, at the time when we made vigorous representations, some effort was made to remedy the deficiency; but for several months, during which we were asked to give a chance to the one responsible for those productions, there seems to have been a slowing down and some carelessness in this respect.
In our opinion this matter is as important as it ever was before, even if we stopped recriminating the request of those in charge of that department.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Tardif.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Three Rivers, I should like to table a copy of the agreement with the Murray Hill Taxi Company of Montreal, dated September 9, 1954, the supplementary agreement of November 7, 1956, and the licence granted by the hon. gentleman himself in 1962.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Do the chartered banks create new credit and, if so (a) in what way (b) must they furnish sureties (c) what are these sureties (d) In what proportion?
2.	Do institutions other than the chartered banks have the power of creating new credit?
3.	How long have the chartered banks held the power of creating new credit?
4.	Since 1935, has the government, through the Bank of Canada, always held the exclusive right to issue and control legal currency?
5.	What is the volume of legal currency in Canada, by comparison with the total monetary supply, as at March 31, 1964?
6.	Does the government intend to assume the same control over the issue of monetary credit as it presently has over legal currency?

Questions
7.	Does the government intend to make use of the facilities of the Bank of Canada in the financing of federal construction projects!
8.	Does the federal government intend to make use of the facilities of the Bank of Canada in the advancing of credit necessary to provincial, municipal and school financing?
9.	Does the federal government intend to make use of the facilities of the Bank of Canada in putting new credit into circulation in the future?
10.	Does the federal government intend to make use of the facilities of the Bank of Canada in distributing family allowances?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. In common with other individuals, corporations or financial institutions who borrow or lend, a chartered bank participates in the creation of new credit in the sense that its activities give rise to new financial assets and new financial liabilities. Like others who borrow (in the case of a chartered bank by taking deposits) the borrower must be ready to pay off its debts at maturity (which, in the case of the deposit liabilities of a chartered bank, is on demand or short notice); a chartered bank is dependent on public confidence in this respect for its continued existence.
Apart from conditions which must be met by any borrower, a chartered bank is required by the Bank Act to maintain a reserve in the form of "cash" (i.e. Bank of Canada notes and/or deposits with the Bank of Canada) equal on the average during each calendar month to not less than 8 per cent of its Canadian dollar deposits. By agreement with the Bank of Canada each chartered bank also holds a secondary reserve equal to at least 7 per cent of its Canadian dollar deposits, in government of Canada treasury bills and day-to-day loans to money market dealers. In addition to these reserves each chartered bank maintains substantial holdings of other short term government of Canada securities in order to assure its ability to meet any withdrawals by its depositors.
The total amount of "cash" reserves available to the chartered banks as a group is determined by the Bank of Canada in a manner consistent with its general objectives in the field of monetary policy and credit conditions. Given the public confidence referred to at the end of the first paragraph, the chartered banks as a group are able to acquire assets from the public in exchange for increased deposit liabilities in proportion to the volume of the "cash" reserves as made available by the central bank.
2.	See first paragraph of (1) above.

3.	Since they began their operations. See the first paragraph of (1) above.
4.	From the date of commencement of operations of the Bank of Canada on March 11, 1935, each chartered bank was limited in the issue of its own currency to an amount not in excess of the amount of its unimpaired paid-up capital and this maximum was reduced on the first day of January in each year for a period of five years commencing on January 1, 1936 by 5 per cent and on the first day of January in each year for a period of five years commencing on January 1, 1941 by 10 per cent. On January 1, 1950, each chartered bank was required to pay to the Bank of Canada an amount equal to the face value of its notes intended for circulation in Canada outstanding on that date and upon payment by each bank, the Bank of Canada became liable for the redemption of the notes issued by each bank. From that date the Bank of Canada has had the sole right to issue notes payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation in Canada.
5.	Apart from small amounts of subsidiary coins Bank of Canada notes constitute the sole form of legal tender in Canada, and at March 31, 1964 the total amount outstanding was $2,197 million, of which $352 million was held by the chartered banks and $1,845 million by others. At the same date the total of the Canadian dollar deposit liabilities of the chartered banks (after allowance for cheques and other items in the process of being cleared between banks) was $14,894 million.
6.	The amount of legal tender in circulation is determined by the decisions of the public to hold this in preference to bank deposits or other liquid assets. As mentioned in the last paragraph of (1) above, the total amount of "cash" reserves available to the chartered banks as a group is determined by the Bank of Canada and through this power the Bank of Canada is able to control the total of the assets and liabilities of the chartered banking system and influence the state of credit conditions generally.
7.	At the present time the Bank of Canada owns slightly more than $2.9 billion of government of Canada securities and it increases its holdings in accordance with the need to provide for growth in the cash reserves of the chartered banks and in the amount of Bank of Canada notes which the public chooses to hold. It is not possible to trace the net purchases of government securities by the

Bank of Canada to any particular type of expenditures or loans.
8.	No. See answer to (7).
9.	Yes. See answer to (1).
10.	See answer to (7).


CATTLE PURCHASED FOR SLAUGHTER, KINGSTON PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	What will the total cost be to the Department of Justice of live cattle purchased for slaughter to supply the penitentiaries at Joyceville, Kingston and Collins Bay from June 1, 1963, to June 30, 1964?
2.	From whom were these cattle purchased?
3.	Were tenders called for in connection with these purchases?
4.	If tenders were not invited or called for these supplies, then what method of purchase was followed?
5.	What are the names of the various suppliers and the amount of each individual transaction from June 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964?
6.	What is the class of live cattle purchased?
Greenlees Bros. Ltd.
Purchase	order	No.	31K220-5	datedfi	((	it	31K304-1	iitt	it	it	31K350-1	ittt	it	"	31K467-1	itit	tt	a	31K503-3	itit	it	tt	41K162-1	iiMr.	Arnold Mangan Purchase order	No.	31K467-3	datedit a	((	31K503-1	iia tt	ii	41K162-3	ItMr.	Clarence McNeill Purchase order	No.	31K304-3	datedit it	tt	31K350-2	ttMr.	C. L. Russell Purchase order	No.	31K220-3	dateda a	it	31K305-2	ittt tt	it	31K349-1	ttMr. Noble Staley Purchase	order No. 31K467-2	datedit	" " 31K503-2	tttt	" " 41K162-2	tt
Questions
7. What is the grade of the dressed beef obtained from this class of cattle?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. The total cost to the Department of Justice of live cattle purchased for slaughter to supply the Kingston area institutions from June 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964 will be $78,576.28.
2.	These cattle were purchased from: Mr. John Joyce, Glenburnie, Ont,; Mr. Clare L. Russell, Napanee, Ont.; Mr. G. F. Tucker, R.R. No. 6, Napanee, Ont.; Mr. John M. Graham, R.R. No. 6, Kingston, Ont.; Greenlees Bros. Ltd., R.R. No. 1, Joyceville, Ont.; Mr. Clarence McNeill, R.R. No. 4, Napanee, Ont.; Mr. Noble Staley, Wolfe Island, Ont.; Mr. Arnold Mangan, R.R. No. 1, Brewer's Mills, Ont.
3.	Tenders were called in all instances.
4.	Not applicable (see answer No. 3 above).
5.	The names of the various suppliers and the amount of each individual transaction from June 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964 are as
follows:			
July 24/63	17	heads	$3746.70Sept. 30/63	32	ii	6548.83Nov. 27/63	56	ii	7912.06Feb. 11/64	29	tt	6093.60Mar. 11/64	24	it	4935.15June 3/64	20	ii	4284.00Totals:	178	$33520.36Feb. 11/64	12	heads	$2211.85Mar. 11/64	17	tt	3357.75June 3/64	19	tt	3638.25Totals:	48	$9207.85Sept. 30/63	8	heads	$1661.75Nov. 27/63	12	tt	1899.95Totals:	20	$3561.70July 24/63	10 heads	$2214.00Sept. 30/63	10	"	2108.75Nov. 27/63	16	tt	2174.38Totals:	36	$6497.13Feb. 11/64	8 heads	$1396.00Mar. 11/64	7	tt	1506.45June 3/64	10	tt	1914.20Totals:	25	$4816.65
20220-405i


VETERANS HOSPITAL, QUEBEC
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How much does it cost the federal government to operate the veterans hospital at Quebec?
2.	How many doctors work for the Department of Veterans Affairs in that hospital?
3.	Who is in charge of the hospital?
4.	Who is in charge of the doctors employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
5.	What are the names of the doctors employed by the department in the Quebec veterans hospital?
6.	What is the yearly salary of each?
7.	How many doctors are employed (a) fulltime (b) parttime by the department and what is the name of each?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. For the fiscal year 1963-64 the
operating cost of Ste. Foy hospital at Quebec was:
Gross	$2,050,306
Less recoveries	714,757
Net cost	$1,335,549
2.	Forty nine.
3.	Dr. J. T. Turmel.
4.	Dr. J. T. Turmel.
5.	6, 7.
July 24/63 Sept. 30/63 Nov. 27/63	7 heads 21 " 43 "	$1485.23 4274.60 7673.33Totals:	71	$13433.16July 24/63 Sept. 30/63	5 heads 8 "	$ 957.10 1750.00Totals:	13	$2707.10July 24/63 Sept. 30/63	6 heads 15 "	$1418.73 3413.60Totals:	21	$4832.33Nominal roll-doctors and consultants Quebec-Ste. Foy hospital Full time (includes internes and residents) Name	Annual salary(1 July 64)	'Turmel, Dr. J. T.	$ 17,000Radoux, Dr. V. H.	14,100Roy, Dr. J. E.	12,100Pichette, Dr. R.	14,600Boutet, Dr. J. P. E. C.	11,600Marceau, Dr. G.	15,600Gagnon, Dr. P. M.	15,600Dorion, Dr. L. T. (Resident 4th	yr.)	4,500Doyon, Dr. M. (Resident 4th yr.)	4,500Gilbert, Dr. P. (Resident 2nd yr.)	3,300Part time	Auger, Dr. C.	1,296Beaulieu, Dr. M.	2,592Bedard, Dr. A.	4,752Bergeron, Dr. J.	5,184Bouchard, Dr. M.	4,320Boucher, Dr. B.	3,888Boulanger, Dr. J.	3,456Boulay, Dr. J.	3,024Caron, Dr. S.	5,616Caron, Dr. W.	7,344Cote, Dr. P. E.	6,912Coulonval, Dr. L.	3,888Delage, Dr. M.	4,752Desmeules, Dr. R.	2,592Dunne, Dr. R. F.	3,888Fortier, Dr. J.	3,888

Name	Annual salary
(1 July 64)
Jacques, Dr. G.	$ 4,320
Jolicoeur, Dr. A.	6,048
Larochelle, Dr. J. L.	4,320
Lavoie, Dr. R.	4,320
Letarte, Dr. R.	4,320
Martin, Dr. C. A.	5,184
Morin, Dr. E.	8,208
Morin, Dr. Y.	3,456
Page, Dr. R.	5,616
Roger, Dr. J. P.	4,320
Rousseau, Dr. J.	6,480
Simard, Dr. P.	6,912
Therrien, Dr. R.	4,320
Turcotte, Dr. H.	3,024
In addition the following work on	a fee for
service basis-the amount of payment per annum depending upon the extent of service provided.
Duty Doctors: Belleau, Dr. Louis, Cote, Dr. Gilles, Desrosiers, Dr. Roland, Gagnon, Dr. O., Martin, Dr. Pierre, Loisel, Dr. Rejean, Rioux, Dr. Monique.
Anaesthesia: Jobidon, Dr. Alfred, Paradis, Dr. Bernard.



CANADIAN MONEY SUPPLY, OUTSTANDING BONDS, ETC.

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What Is the total amount of outstanding (a) federal government bonds (b) provincial government bonds (c) municipal bonds (d) company bonds?
2.	What was the total market value of company shares in Canada as at June 1, 1964?
3.	Is the total money supply in Canada $17,200,000,000 and does this include $2,200,000,000 in Bank of Canada notes and $200,000,000 in coins?
4.	In terms understandable by a layman, of what does the remaining $15,000,000,000 consist?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. (a) July 1, 1964 $19,987,000,000 (including treasury bills); (b) December 31, 1963 $10,166,000,000 Provincial (Direct and Guaranteed); (c) December 31, 1963 $4,772,000,000 Municipal (Direct and Guaranteed); (d) December 31, 1963 $8,326,000,000 Corporate and Institutional.
2.	June 30, 1964-Quoted market value of stocks listed on: Toronto Stock Exchange, $91,472,696,009; Montreal Stock Exchange, $65,730,330,150.
Some stocks are listed on both exchanges. There are other stocks not listed on either of these exchanges of which the value is not available.
Questions
3 and 4. At June 24, 1964, total currency outside banks and chartered bank deposits amounted to $17,230,000,000. This included Bank of Canada notes amounting to $1,810,000,000 and coin amounting to $206,000,000.
The remaining amount of $15,213,000,000 consists of deposit liablilities of the chartered banks to individuals, corporations, governments and other depositors.



INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY

['1, 2 and 3. The latest records available from the dominion bureau of statistics on imports are for the period January 1 to February 29 and indicate no imports of live turkeys, and 282,300 pounds of eviscerated turkeys valued at $100,985. No information is available indicating the value of eviscerated turkeys in particular size ranges.\nDepartment of Agriculture inspection records for the period January 1 to July 18 indicate the following turkey importations:\nEviscerated\t4,388,000\tpounds\nEstimated eviscerated equivalent of live\nimports\t2,700,000\tpoundsTotal\t7,088,000\tpounds\nDepartment of Agriculture inspection records do not differentiate between sizes.']
Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The increase in the combined total of currency outside banks and chartered bank deposits between January 1, 1964 and July 1, 1964 was $344 million, or 2.0 per cent.
2.	The increase in the privately held total of currency outside banks and chartered bank deposits (i.e. excluding government of Canada deposits) was $463 million, or 2.9 per cent.
3.	The increase arose as follows:
$ million
Bank of Canada notes	+ 28
Coin	+	8
Personal savings deposits	+338
Corporate notice deposits	+176
Other deposits	_ 88
Government of Canada deposits -118
Total	-|-344
4.	Price levels are affected by many influences of external origin and numerous influences of internal origin in addition to domestic monetary policy. Recent changes in Canadian price levels have been small by comparison with changes in most other countries.
5.	Current economic conditions in Canada are affected by many influences of external origin and numerous influences of internal

Questions
origin. Domestic monetary policy is one of these important influences.
6.	The total of government bonds and treasury bills outstanding, and the amount of interest payable thereon, has declined slightly since January 1.
7.	The wording used in the statement referred to was monetary authorities, which is commonly used in many countries to refer to the organizations which have responsibility in the area of monetary policy, that is, the central bank and the government.



Mr. Orlikow: What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1962 and 1963 in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) minimum security institutions (d) farm and work camps?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1962 and 1963 was as follows in:
(a) Federal institutions	1962	1963of all types (b) Maximum security	$2,753.83	$2,743.98institutions (c) Minumun security	2,624.03	2,650.84institutions	2,572.65	2,687.99(d) Work camps	2,261.09	2,408.54
N.B.-The statistics with reference to farm camps are not available since the operation and maintenance costs of these camps are absorbed in the identical cost charged to the parent maximum security institution.
The cost listed in (a) above for federal institutions of all types is higher than for any other type of institution shown because the costs listed in Cb), (c) and d) do not include medium security institutions for which the cost of maintenance of inmates was in 1962, $3,135.12 per inmate and in 1963, $3,054.78 per inmate.


RATE OF MALE RECIDIVISTS
Mr. Orlikow: What was the recidivist rate of males admitted to each Canadian penitentiary in the years 1961, 1962 and 1963?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Questions


BILINGUAL PERSONNEL IN ARMED FORCES
Mr. McCulcheon: 1.	Of the total number of enlisted men In the R.C.A.F., how many are bilingual having regard, only to Canada's two official languages?
2.	Of the total number of enlisted men in the R.C.N., how many are bilingual having regard only to Canada's two official languages?
3.	Of the total number of enlisted men in the Canadian army, how many are bilingual having regard to Canada's two official languages?
4.	What is the total number of enlisted men by province of origin?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1, 2 and 3. On enlistment recruits signify what languages they have knowledge of, but there is nothing to indicate their fluency in such languages. Therefore, without conducting a survey, it is not possible to ascertain the total number of enlisted personnel who are bilingual having regard only to Canada's two official languages.
Province	Total
Newfoundland	2,630
Prince Edward Island	1,320
Nova Scotia	12,555
New Brunswick	6,815
Quebec	14,735
Ontario	31,150
Manitoba	5,361
Saskatchewan	5,488
Alberta	6,865
British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories	10,066
Outside Canada	1,630


GRANT TO CANADIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mrs. Jones: 1.	How much has been contributed to the Canadian Olympic committee by the federal government since April 1963?
2.	Of the said amount, how much was paid by or through the medium of the Canada sports council?
3.	In view of the financial needs of the Canadian Olympic committee, would the government give consideration to making a further grant to assure that Canada will have the best representation possible and that her athletes who participate will not personally be out of pocket?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Canadian
Olympic Association has received $186,000 from the federal government, under the fitness and amateur sport program, as follows:
(a) to assist in sending Canadian teams to the 1964 Olympic winter and summer games: 1962-63, $17,000; 1963-64, $106,000.
[Mr. Macdonald.)
(b) to assist in sending Canadian teams to the 1963 pan-American games:	1962-63,

In addition the national sports governing bodies represented at these games received financial assistance to hold national championships and pre-Olympic trials leading to these international events.
2.	This assistance was given upon the recommendation of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport.
3.	This assistance was given in accordance with the criteria governing grants for assistance to participate in international competitions. The criteria provide that the amount given shall not exceed one half the travel expenses of approved team personnel at economy rates, one half of reasonable living expenses while outside of Canada and the cost of necessary transport for sports equipment.
If the Canadian Olympic Association submits an application for additional assistance under the fitness and amateur sport program, the application will be referred to the national advisory council for consideration and recommendation to the minister.


TENDERS FOR FERRY, NORTH SYDNEY-ARGENTIA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What was the amount of the contract awarded to Marine Industries of Sore], P.Q., for construction of the ferry which is to operate between North Sydney, N.S. and Argentia, Nfld.?
2.	How many other tenders were received?
3.	What were the names and addresses of all those who tendered and what was the amount of each tender?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. $11,779,239.50 (company's tender
price adjusted for machinery cost and maximum Canadian content.)
2.	Five.
3.	Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, P.Q.,
$11,712,200; Port Weller Dry Docks Ltd., Port Weller, Ont., $12,131,705; Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $12,288,548; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, P.Q.,	$12,456,000;
Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Limited, Collingwood, Ont., $12,910,000; Halifax Shipyards, Div. of Dominion Steel Corp., Halifax, N.S., $16,467,961.
(All tenders subject to adjustment for machinery cost and maximum Canadian content.)


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. Thompson: 1.	How much gold, as valued in U.S. dollars, does the United States place in the custody of the international monetary fund?
2.	How much gold has Canada placed in the custody of the I.M.F.?
3.	Does the I.M.F. have the right of conceded authority to demand of its members that they turn over to the I.M.F. any or all gold payments made to such members, by any or all other purchasers of their goods and services?
4.	Can the United States, as the largest contributor to the I.M.F. and as the only country which is officially on the gold standard, demand that the gold received on Canada's account be turned over to the U.S. gold deposit in the fund?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Each member of the I.M.F. is assigned a quota, of which a portion, normally 25 per cent, is paid in gold, and the rest is paid in the country's currency. The gold payment of the United States is $1,031.2 million.
2.	Twenty five per cent of Canada's quota, paid in gold, is valued at U.S. $137.5 million.
3.	No. Canada, by running a favourable balance in goods and services with other countries, would, assuming the capital account was in balance, accumulate reserve currency holding which in turn could be used to purchase gold. This gold would be held in the Minister of Finance's exchange fund account and the I.M.F. would have no authority to demand it.
4.	No. The gold received by the fund from Canada in payment of 25 per cent of our subscription becomes the property of the fund and its use is controlled by the executive board of the fund within the terms of the articles of agreement. Some of the fund's gold has been sold in the past to replenish supplies of scarce currencies in the fund and to purchase revenue earning assets.


BILINGUAL PLAQUES ON CANADIAN EMBASSIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,559
Mr. Pigeon:: 1.	Do all Canadian embassies abroad have bilingual building identity plaques?
2.	If not, in which countries are the plaques in one language only?
3.	Is there any intention of having this situation corrected and, if so, when is such action to be expected?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Identity plaques outside Canadian embassies usually follow local custom. The department has no list indicating which language or languages has or have 20220-406
Questions
been approved for use at the entrance of the various missions after the opening of the latter. However, it is known that plaques are in French and English at our embassies in France and other French speaking countries. In Spanish speaking countries they are in Spanish and either French or English, depending on what is customarily being done by the embassies of other countries. In certain countries, the plaques are in three languages.


SALES OF BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	How many pounds of butter and how many pounds of butter oil were sold since January 1, 1964, (a) for local consumption (b) for export?
2.	To what countries was surplus butter and surplus butter oil, exported and how many pounds of each category were exported to each country?
3.	What was the price per pound of each shipment?
4.	What Canadian firms made these transactions and how many pounds were shipped by each firm?
5.	What commission was received by such firms on each pound of butter and pound of butter oil, or on each box of butter or box of butter oil?
6.	How many French Canadian firms took part in such transactions and what was the amount of each transaction?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) Butter, Jan. 1/64-July 1/64: 38,221,448 lbs.; Butter oil, Jan. 1/64-July 1/64: 911,108 lbs.
(b) Butter, 32,900,000 lbs., of which 3,085,544 lbs. have been shipped as of July 2/64. Butter oil, 52,185,922 lbs., of which 28,012,878 lbs. have been shipped as of July 2/64.
2.	Butter was all shipped to Britain.
Butter oil has been shipped, as of July 2/64 to: Britain, 295,434 lbs.; Netherlands, 16,509,089 lbs.; Belgium, 9,257,767 lbs.; Italy, 828,576 lbs.; Japan, 18,360 lbs.; Greece, 4,374 lbs.; France, 637,632 lbs.; British Guiana, 15,498 lbs.; Cuba, 332,586 lbs.; Lebanon, 110,808 lbs.; Jamaica, 540 lbs.; Singapore, 2,214 lbs.
Butter, 33J cents per lb. Canadian seaboard. Butter oil, 27 cents per lb. Canadian seaboard.
4.	Canadian Domestic Products Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario; R. A. Chisholm Company, Toronto, Ontario; H. Hoogstraten, Toronto, Ontario; Cow & Gate Company, Brockville, Ontario; Ontario cheese producers marketing board, Belleville; Swift Canadian Company, Toronto, Ontario; R. J. Loveless, Toronto, Ontario; Black Diamond Cheese Company, Belleville, Ontario; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Balfour-Guthrie Limited,

Questions
Toronto, Ontario; Mercantile Commodity Company, Toronto, Ontario; Indussa Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Weddel Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Grace-Kennedy Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Geo. Hodge & Sons, Montreal, P.Q.; Olive & Dorion Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Legrade Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Lovell & Christmas Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Griffin & Sons Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Commodity Trading Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Eastern Townships Limited, Sherbrooke, P.Q.; Victoria Products Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Agricultural stabilization board for world food program: Dominion Dry Milk Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Stephen Nagy, Montreal, P.Q.; Birks-Crawford Limited, Vancouver, B.C.
It is not considered to be in the best interests of the business operation of the agricultural stabilization board and the firms concerned to give the amounts shipped by each firm.
5.	The agricultural stabilization board sold basis seaboard, and no commissions were paid by the board.
6.	See No. 4.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION TENDER FORMS IN FRENCH
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the Department of Defence Production issue applications for tender forms in the French language?
2.	Was tender form QUE4-1535A (JES) concerning the construction of the Champlain maritime station at Foulons road, Quebec, printed in French?
3.	Did the department receive complaints on this subject and what was the number of such complaints?
4.	What reply did the department send to the tenderers who asked for forms printed in the French language?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Yes. The Department of Defence Production now has bilingual tender forms.
2.	The Department of Defence Production's tender form QUE4-1535A (JES) has only been printed in English and concerns the supply of asphalt shingles to the Indian reserve of Lake Simon, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, via Louvicourt, Que. The Department of Defence Production cannot find any application for the construction of the Champlain maritime station at Foulons road, Que.
3 and 4. According to our files, no complaints have been received and no questions were asked concerning French forms in the case of tender form QUE4-1535A (JES).


ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 535, 1944
Mr. Nugeni: Was order in council P.C. 535 of January 27, 1944, ever rescinded?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): No, it was never rescinded but it was superseded by order in council P.C. 8265, dated October 27, 1944.


ISSUE OF TRANSPORT LICENCES, NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Nugeni: 1.	When applications for licensing are being considered by the board of transport commissioners (a) what is the test for issuing the licence in the Athabasca sector (b) what is the test for issuing the licence in the Mackenzie sector?
2.	In 1956, when Northern Transportation Company applied to have their licensing apply to both sectors, what was the basis of the application and what was the basis of the ruling granting the application?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	(a) and (b). The test is whether the proposed service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
2.	Public convenience and necessity.


FREIGHT RATES, MACKENZIE RIVER
Mr. Nugeni: 1.	What is the freight rate charged for each of the following by Northern Transportation (a) D.E.W. line freight on the Mackenzie (b) commercial freight on the Mackenzie?
2.	What is the rate charged by Northern Transportation for freight to the following delivery points: Bar 1, Bar B, Bar 2, Bar C, Bar 3, Bar D, and Bar 4?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	(a) General cargo D.E.W.
line, Waterways to Tuktuk, $3 per cwt. D.E.W. line bulk movements are made under agreed charges which are filed with the board of transport commissioners, but it is not the practice for common carriers, whether crown owned or not, to publish such rates.
(b) Commercial rates on Mackenzie: Waterways, Tuktuk, $3 per cwt. (general cargo); Hay River, Tuktuk, $40 ton bulk; Norman Wells, Tuktuk, $25 ton bulk.
2. Bar 1, Tuktuk rates under agreed charges, thence by sealift vessels. Bar 2, $4.10 per cwt. general cargo, bulk movements at 80 cents per cwt. over Tuktuk agreed charges. Bar 3, Tuktuk agreed charges. Bar D, same as Bar 1. Bar B, C, and 4, not operating to these points.


USE OF U.S. VESSELS BY NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.
Mr. Nugent: When Northern Transportation Company uses American vessels, does the agreement for using these vessels prohibit Northern Transportation from making a profit from their use?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.


ELDORADO AVIATION-COMMERCIAL FREIGHT TO JENNY LIND ISLAND, N.W.T.
Mr. Nugent: Has Eldorado Aviation Limited flown any commercial freight to Jenny Lind island, in the N.W.T. and, if so, how much freight and at what rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.  L.S.M. &quot;SALLY&quot;
Mr. Nugent: 1.	What was the total cost price of the L.S.M. Sally?
2.	What has been the total cost of moving the Sally from the time it was purchased to its present location?
3.	Are there now, or have there been at any time in the past, any dockage maintenance, or other charges or costs of any nature whatsoever for keeping the L.S.M. Sally?
4.	Under what arrangements is the L.S.M. Sally now docked or stored, and who are the owners of the dock where it is stored?
5.	Exactly what equipment from the L.S.M. Sally will be removed and incorporated in a new vessel?
6.	What is the value of such equipment?
7.	What will be the value of the L.S.M. Sally when these parts have been removed and what does Northern Transportation intend to do with the hull of the Sally?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. $181,812.66 (Can.)
2.	$1,619.09.
3.	No.
4.	Stored without charge at dock of Allied Shipbuilders Limited.
5.	See following list.
6.	$250,000 (approx.), if purchased new on the open market.
7.	The then prevailing market will determine the value. No definite arrangement has as yet been made for the disposal of the hull.
Appendix "A"
Equipment on board L.S.M. Sally available to contractor for installation in arctic supply vessel.
Main propulsion engines: 2, General Motors V-16, 2 cycle diesel engines, 8i bore x 10J stroke.
20220-406J
Questions
Ship's service generators: 2, General Motors 268A, 3 cylinder, 2 cycle diesel engines- 100 KW, 450 volt 3 phase, Westinghouse alternators.
Starting air compressors: 2, Worthington, capacity 11.4 c.f.m. @ 600 p.s.i.
Fire pumps: 2, Worthington, capacity 200 g.p.m. @ 100 p.s.i.
Ballast pump: 1, Gardner-Denver, capacity 1500 g.p.m. @ 25 p.s.i.
[DOT]' Lube oil stand-by pump: 1, Blackmer, capacity 50 g.p.m. @ 25 p.s.i.
Diesel oil transfer pump: 1, Blackmer, capacity 44 g.p.m. @ 35 p.s.i.
Lube oil purifier: 1, DeLaval.
Diesel oil purifier: 1, DeLaval.
Steering gear: 1, Sperry electric.
Anchor windlass: 1, vertical capstan type.
Bow door machinery: complete.
Ramp hoisting machinery: complete.
Refrigeration: 1, York, complete unit.
Shafting and bearings, complete: 1, spare 100 KW generator; 2, 50 H.P. D.C. cargo winches; 24, 14" portlights; 12, approximately, watertight doors; 1, switchboard, complete.
In addition to the foregoing, any valves, fittings, and other auxiliary equipment at present installed in L.S.M. Sally which is in good condition may be utilized in the construction of the new vessel.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.  COLVILLE RIVER TENDER
Mr. Nugent: 1.	When did Northern Transportation Company first bid a job on the Colville river in Athabasca?
2.	When was Northern Transportation licensed for this area?
3.	Did Northern Transportation Company ever operate in the Arctic before 1963 except for U.S.A.F. and D.E.W. line delivery?
4.	Was the Hudson's Bay Company ever licensed to, or did it ever operate in the Colville area?
5.	Did Hudson's Bay Company ever tow a barge behind any of its ships?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. January 1963.
2.	December 1962.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not to the knowledge of NTCL.
5.	No information on Hudson's Bay Co. operations, but prior to purchase of Hudson's Bay freighting service, Hudson's Bay had made arrangement for lease of barge from Northern Transportation for the 1963 season.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO. FREIGHT RATES
Mr. Nugent: What is the Northern Transportation Company ton mile rate for general freight between the following points (a) Fort McMurray to Tuktuk (b)

Questions
Fort Fitzgerald, Alberta, to Hay River, N.W.T. (c) Hay River to Tuktuk?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) Fort McMurray-Tuktuk 3.55 cents; (b) Fort Fitzgerald to Hay River 8.53 cents; (c) Hay River-Tuktuk 4.01 cents.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.    TRAFFIC TO AND FROM BUSHELL, ALTA.
Mr. Nugent: What is the annual tonnage hauled over the last five years to and from Bushell, Alberta, by Northern Transportation?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce):
Tonnage to Bushell:
From	1959	1960Waterways	54,905.0	38,088.6PR Sawmill	5,570.7	3,288.7Gunnar	55.	22.0Misc.	342.1	2,452.160,823.3	43,851.4Tonnage from	Bushell:	1959	1960Misc.	817.9	6,264.61961	1962	196327,623.0	20,353.9	22,611.12,921.9	529.6	1,570.123.8	631.7	1,125.7510.3	121.2	17.931,079.0	21,636.4	25,324.81961	1962	19631,197.6	980.6	1,163.5


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.  TONNAGE HAULED
Mr. Nugent: For each of the last five years, how many ton miles has the Northern Transportation Company hauled on (a) Mackenzie sector (b) Athabasca sector?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) 1959, 33,217,118; 1960, 33,383,910; 1961, 30,792,453; 1962, 28,390,638; 1963, 34,993,833.
(b) 1959, 33,171,659; 1960, 26,876,230; 1961, 23,437,007; 1962, 19,814,812; 1963, 19,275,899.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.-BACK HAUL FROM GREAT BEAR LAKE
Mr. Nugent: 1.	How much backhaul does Northern Transportation Company have out of the Great Bear lake area?
2.	What is the percentage of this backhaul generally as compared to supply haul?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2:
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
Northbound to
Port Radium 10,917 1,514	-	336 2,006
Southbound from
Port Radium 812 1,504	355	164 591


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.  CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Nugent: With reference to question No. 808 on page 2870 of Hansard for May 4, 1964, on what date did the information requested become classified?


Mitchell William Sharp: In 1958.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.    COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
Mr. Nugent: Has there been any change in government policy as stated to the House of Commons on October 9,
1963,	Hansard, page 3369, and, if so, what change and when did it become effective?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


CAMP IPPERWASH, ONTARIO
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	What is the estimate of the cost involved in the upkeep and much needed rehabilitation of facilities at camp Ipperwash, Ontario?
2.	How many members of the regular army received training at camp Ipperwash in each of the years 1957 to 1963 inclusive?
3.	How many militia men received training at camp Ipperwash in each of the following years, 1957 to 1963 inclusive?
4.	How many cadets received training at camp Ipperwash in each of the years 1957 to 1963 inclusive?
5.	How many members of the regular army are expected to receive training there in the year 1964-65 and (a) how many militia men (b) how many cadets?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. The estimated annual cost of maintenance and rehabilitation of camp Ipperwash is $222,000.
2.	1957, 718; 1958, 890; 1959, 962; 1960, 917; 1961, 992; 1962, 1,152; 1963, 2,310; Jan.-July,
1964,	1,484.

The figures for 1957-1962 are not complete since additional regular units made use of the facilities during that period, but records of these regular and militia force units are no longer available.
3.	Oct.-Dec., 1962, 216; 1963, 1,115; Jan.-July, 1964, 1,840.
4.	1957, 1,978; 1958, 2,153; 1959, 1,702; 1960, 2,023; 1961, 2,042; 1962, 2,046; 1963, 2,165; Jan.-July, 1964, 1,817.
5.	It is estimated that in the training year of Sept. 1964 to August 1965 approximately 1,850 regular force, 3,000 militia and 2,177 cadets will receive training at camp Ipper-wash.


NATIONAL PARK, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources communicate with the premier of the province of Quebec or any other minister of that province in connection with the creation of a national park in that province and, if so, what reply did he receive from the government of Quebec?
2.	What amount of money is the federal government prepared to spend toward the creation of such a park, and what would be its area? [Translation]


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. As I told the House of Commons on July 24, the development of parks in all provinces, including the province of Quebec, was carefully studied. A few months ago I had occasion to write the premier of Quebec a letter informing him that we would be ready to co-operate in all cases where a national park would be part of their studies. I have not yet received a reply to that particular letter.
2. According to a long standing policy, the steps to be taken for the creation of a national park are as follows: (i) The province interested and the federal government agree upon a site which meets the requirements for a national park, (ii) The province gives the site to the federal government for the creation of a national park, (iii) Once the park has been created, the federal government assumes in perpetuity its protection, its maintenance and its operation.
It is not possible to estimate how much the creation of a national park would cost before the proposed site is known and the long term development plans have been completed. [Text]


LICENCES FOR OFF-SHORE DRILLING, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,602
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1. Has a licence or licences been granted to any
Questions
oil companies by the federal government allowing them to do exploratory drilling in the offshore areas around the Atlantic provinces?
2. Does the federal government admit the right of the provinces to grant such licences for offshore exploration and, if so, has any action been taken to delimit the jurisdiction of the various Atlantic provinces in this regard?


Arthur Laing: 1. Oil and
gas exploratory permits have been issued in the areas concerned. Each permit is granted for a specific area which, depending on its location, includes between 40,000 and 80,000 acres. A permittee may undertake exploratory work within his permit and may also obtain oil and gas leases for the area included in the permit. Without further authorization, the permittee may undertake geological and geophysical surveys but if he wishes to drill he must first obtain the permission from the minister in the form known as a drilling authority.
2. This is a question of law.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROJECTS
Mr. Coales: 1.	How much of the $100 million allocated to the Atlantic development board has been expended to date?
2.	What specific projects have received assistance through the Atlantic development board and in what amounts?
3.	How many projects are there before the Atlantic development board at the present time for consideration and possible action?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am advised by the Atlantic development board as follows:
1.	An amount of $51,440,000 has been committed against the Atlantic development fund for approved projects. To date, there has been no actual expenditure in respect of these commitments.
2.	The following projects in the amounts or estimated costs shown below, have been approved for assistance from the Atlantic development fund: (a) Construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways in Nova Scotia, $3 million; (b) Construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways in New Brunswick, $3 million; (c) Construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways in Newfoundland, $3 million;
(d)	Construction or rehabilitation of trunk highways in Prince Edward Island, $1 million;
(e)	Grant toward Mactaquac hydroelectric power development project, New Brunswick, $20 million; (f) Grant toward Baie d'Espoir hydroelectric power development project, Newfoundland, $20 million; (g) Water and sewage system, and power transmission line

Questions
for fish and farm products processing plant, Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, estimated cost $700,000; (h) Water and sewage facilities for fish processing plant, Canso, Nova Scotia, estimated cost $400,000; (i) Water supply system for fish processing plant, Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, estimated cost $140,000; (j) Water supply system for fish processing plant, Grand Etang, Nova Scotia, estimated cost $25,000; (k) Water supply and hard surfacing of road for food processing plant, Montague, Prince Edward Island, estimated cost $75,000; (1) Construction and equipment of Irish moss pilot plant, Prince county, Prince Edward Island, estimated total cost $100,000.
3.	Approximately 30 projects are at various stages of consideration by the board.


REPAIRS TO C.G.S. &quot;CYGNUS&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for the repairs to C.G.S. Cygnus?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.	Price inc.

Lunenburg Foundry & Engineering Co. Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S. $12,502.00 Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, N.S.	12,890.00
Dominion Steel & Coal Co. Ltd.,
Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, N.S. 15,072.52 Sydney Engineering & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Sydney, N.S.	17,874.24
Steel & Engine Products Ltd., Liverpool, N.S.	18,571.00
Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B. 21,450.00
2.	No decision has yet been reached.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING POULTRY EVISCERATING PLANTS
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What are the regulations governing the operation of poultry eviscerating plants in Canada?
2.	Are American regulations, pertaining to eviscerating plants acceptable in Canada?


Harry William Hays: 1. If poultry eviscerating plants in Canada wish to enter into interprovincial or export trade they must operate under the provisions of the Canada Meat Inspection Act and the regulations thereunder.
Eviscerating plants using Canada grade names must comply with the dressed and eviscerated poultry regulations under the Canada Agricultural Products Standard Act. [Mr. Pickersgill.l
2.	United States department of agriculture regulations pertaining to poultry eviscerating plants are acceptable to Canada.
TURKEY IMPORTS FROM: U.S.


Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What was the total volume in pounds of turkeys imported from the United States into Canada from January 1, 1964 to date?
2.	What was the total volume in pounds of live turkeys (a) over 20 pounds (b) under 20 pounds?
3.	What was the total value of eviscerated turkeys imported into Canada during the same period
(a)	over 20 pounds (b) under 20 pounds?


Harry William Hays: 1, 2 and 3. The latest records available from the dominion bureau of statistics on imports are for the period January 1 to February 29 and indicate no imports of live turkeys, and 282,300 pounds of eviscerated turkeys valued at $100,985. No information is available indicating the value of eviscerated turkeys in particular size ranges.
Department of Agriculture inspection records for the period January 1 to July 18 indicate the following turkey importations:
Eviscerated	4,388,000	pounds
Estimated eviscerated equivalent of live
imports	2,700,000	poundsTotal	7,088,000	pounds
Department of Agriculture inspection records do not differentiate between sizes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many applications for assistance did the Canadian government receive from the Canadian Red Cross and from the International Red Cross during 1962-1963 and (a) what was the nature of each request (b) what was the amount granted in each case?
2.	What other benevolent or welfare societies applied for assistance to the government in 19621963 and (a) what was the nature of each request
(b)	what amounts were granted?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,362
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	What is the total amount that has been contributed by the federal government to the building of bridges across navigable waters since January 1, 1960?
2.	Where were these bridges located and what was the amount of the contribution of the federal government in each case?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 151 and 154 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt these motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: I understand that motions 152 and 153 are to be withdrawn. I ask that motions 134 and 155 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to revert to notices of motions for the production of papers in order to elucidate a point. The parliamentary secretary, when dealing with that item of business, mentioned that he understood motions 152 and 153 were to be withdrawn. I am to understand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is withdrawing these notices?


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CONSTRUCTION OF KITSILANO TRESTLE, FALSE CREEK, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. Basford:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all orders in council, minutes, permits, licences, letters and plans issued pursuant to or filed under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act or preceding acts relative to the Canadian Pacific Railway being granted permission to construct the Kitsilano trestle at False creek, Vancouver, B.C.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Churchill:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the present order of precedence, Canadian army, 1964; and a copy of the order of precedence of 1955.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, within the limitations that would necessarily be imposed I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give the house something of the picture of the situation in North Viet Nam. Realizing the awesome responsibility that rests on the United States to
Inquiries of the Ministry preserve the peace, what is the present position of affairs; and can he tell us whether any action has been taken to have this matter brought before the United Nations, it being apparently an unprovoked attack by the communists in an area 65 miles from the shore, which was completely inexcuseable on their part?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the house, of course, is aware of the statement made by the President and secretary of defense of the United States. Last night the Prime Minister of Canada received word from the secretary of state on behalf of the President that there had been another attack on United States ships in the gulf of Tonkin, and that it was his intention to order United States forces to take action to deter further attacks and so restrict the scale of military activity. As I said a moment ago, the President shortly thereafter spoke to the American people. I think I should draw the attention of the house to a very important passage in his statement, which is as follows:
Our response, for the present, will be limited and fitting. We Americans know, although others appear to forget, the risk of spreading conflict-we still seek no wider war.
There are two important ideas in this passage. The first is that the United States reaction is not to be widespread or excessive, but limited to what is considered necessary to deter a continuation of North Vietnamese attacks. The second is the assurance, which I am sure we all welcome, that the United States does not seek wider conflict. Furthermore, I believe we will all welcome the decision of the government of the United States to take this matter to the security council of the United Nations. There will be a meeting of that body this afternoon. It is to be hoped this will prevent the spread of hostilities. It will be understood why it is not possible to go further at this time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, since the secretary of state of the United States has been in touch with the Prime Minister, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the consultation which he has had with the secretary of state of the United States made clear the distinction between action against North Vietnamese gunboats and attacks on naval installations, which would seem to be tantamount to a declaration of war? Has this distinction been made, and has any consultation with the government of Canada taken place on that point?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has not been consultation between the two governments in respect of the incidents of last evening. The secretary of state informed me of what had happened and of the action proposed to be taken by the government of the United States. It was, I think, quite appropriate that this should be done because Canada, after all, is a member of the international commission in Indochina. But I would not call this consultation. Other governments were, I believe, also informed in advance. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the action taken by the United States was a reaction to an attack made on United States ships on the high seas.


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian government is prepared to make it clear that while we will support any action for the preservation of peace through the United Nations, we are not prepared to support military actions or attacks on naval bases which are carried on in support of discredited regimes and in order to buttress sawdust Caesars who are perpetuating dictatorships without the consent of their subjects?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our commitments in this matter are, of course, entirely through the United Nations and through our adherence to that organization.


John George Diefenbaker: So there may be no misunderstanding, and to make it clear that the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam does not represent the viewpoint of the house, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that, in the circumstances, self preservation demanded action on the part of the United States in response to a most unprovoked act by communist forces, and that this action in no way consisted of buttressing or supporting-I forget the expression the hon. member used-regimes which deserve no support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree that the United States forces in the area are entitled to defend themselves against attack, and I am sure there is no disagreement in the house on that matter. I would point out also that it is desirable, as the President of the United States confirmed last night, that any reaction to an action taken against the United States should be limited to the requirements of the situation. We have already pointed out more


than once our views in this connection. I am quite sure that the United States government would limit-as they would desire to limit-their action in this matter to the requirements of the situation and to meeting an attack on their forces, in this case by a communist dictatorship in North Viet Nam.
I would also point out that if the countries in the area concerned lived up to their obligations under the Geneva accord we might not be in this serious situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the Prime Minister has expressed an opinion, may I ask him if he would not agree that while all of us recognize that the United States navy has a responsibility to defend itself, there is a distinction to be made between firing on North Vietnamese gunboats and attacking naval installations. I would ask the Prime Minister if he has any information as to what is meant by the statement by the President of the United States that action was being taken against gunboats "and certain supporting facilities". Does the phrase "certain supporting facilities" mean naval installations in North Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like to interpret what the President of the United States has said or, at this moment, to go beyond what I have said.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In view of the fact that our sister commonwealth nations of New Zealand and Australia are sharing some of the responsibility in the Viet Nam area, may I ask whether the governments of those two countries have communicated in any way with the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are in touch with both these commonwealth governments with regard to this matter.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding Indochinese hostilities.
Does the Prime Minister propose to suggest to the American government to consider General de Gaulle's suggestion concerning neutralizing Indochina so that peace can be maintained in South East Asia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the government of the United States is quite aware of the suggestion made by President de Gaulle, as are members of this house. I only wish it would be possible to neutralize that country.


ASSISTANCE TO REBEL FORCES BY CHINESE COMMUNISTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask him whether he is in a position to advise the house with regard to the rebel operations in the area of Stanleyville in the Congo. Is there any foundation for the report that the rebels are being armed and assisted by Chinese communists; and has any consideration been given or is it being given to a United Nations force again going into the Congo to protect that country against internecine war?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last portion of the question, no consideration is being given at the United Nations or elsewhere, that I am aware of, to the setting up of another peace keeping force in the Congo.
With regard to the earlier part of the question, may I take that as notice.


SAFETY OF CANADIANS FOLLOWING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he could give the house any information as to the number of Canadians in the Stanleyville area and what precautions are being taken to remove them from the fighting in the area. I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he would give a reply today.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did promise to reply today. Our embassy in Leopoldville has reported that there are no Canadians in Stanleyville other than Professor Melvin J. Loewen, dean of the local university, his wife and five children, who elected, however, to stay in Stanleyville rather than accept evacuation by the United Nations on August 3 and 4. Our latest information is that the Loewen family has not been harmed.


CONTROL OF FABRIC EXPORTS TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I would
Inquiries of the Ministry like to direct to the Minister of Finance. Has the government completed negotiations with the government of Japan relating to Japanese control of its exports of woollens and other fabrics to Canada?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of this question. Negotiations on this subject have been virtually concluded and I hope to be able to make an announcement within the next ten days.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the house whether at this stage the Japanese government has agreed to enforce a formal quota system on its exports to Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make my statement in about a week or ten days.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but since he is not here I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if the fact of sending a letter to farmers once in a while is found to be sufficient to settle the eastern Canada farm problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; nor does the Minister of Agriculture.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to make a statement respecting the inquiry of the Christian action movement, as he spoke about that a few days ago?
6420	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I will give him an answer tomorrow. I think I understand the meaning of the question, but I would like to confirm that it concerns a certain incident that took place in Moncton some time ago and which was raised in the house, I believe, by the hon. member for Port Arthur a few weeks ago.
If that is the incident, I may say that the mayor of Moncton was in touch with the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice made inquiries into the matter and found there was no basis for a prosecution on the information that had been given to them.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Since both sides of the house agree unanimously that the government should not adopt two flags, does the Prime Minister intend to reconsider his decision and give up his project respecting two flags in order that the government may adopt only one Canadian distinctive flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government on this matter is well known.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, on the same premise may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is willing to accept as a compromise for a national flag the single maple leaf design instead of the three maple leaves design, and the red ensign instead of the union jack as an emblem for the association with the commonwealth, as was suggested in a Montreal newspaper this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has been reading the Montreal newspaper this morning.


Léon Balcer: You should read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the debate on this issue is resumed, which I hope will be very shortly, all these matters may be considered.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister?
Is it true that government members, including the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), are not in favour of the motion concerning two flags nor of the designated model?

Answer yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the unity of this party in respect of this matter. I wish I was equally aware of the unity of other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have good hearing and eyesight but I cannot hear at the moment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Do the Prime Minister's statements mean that government members are sacrificing their own opinions and are the slaves of a political party?

A bunch of slaves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the translation of Beauchesne will come as quickly as the new Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope they will both come very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some hon. members have been kind enough to send me notice of their intention to ask questions, and with the consent of the house I propose to recognize the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac, the hon. member for Pictou and then the hon. member for Cumberland. [Later:]


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the flag issue. In view of the evidence which is available indicating that a majority of Canadians in nine provinces of Canada favour retention of the

red ensign, as compared with a majority in only one province in favour of his design, does he agree that he is catering to a minority by forcing his design?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion this question might properly be asked at the time the flag debate commences.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I regret I have not had an opportunity to give him notice, but I do not think it is necessary. Has the minister yet received a delegation from the city council of Charlottetown appointed to discuss with the minister possible means of forestalling the impending closure of Enamel and Heating plant No. 3 in Charlottetown for lack of defence orders?


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


John Angus MacLean: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister in a position to give this delegation any encouraging report which would indicate that there might be some means of continuing this employment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I had a long discussion with the delegation from the Charlottetown city council, occupying almost two hours on Monday last. I think I gave them a very full explanation of all the circumstances. However, I was not able to give them an assurance that there would be further work forthcoming at this particular plant in Charlottetown.


SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government intends to introduce a motion to provide that Sir Winston Churchill shall become an honorary citizen of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman who has been mentioned in the question is already a member of the Canadian privy council. I am not quite sure what if any Canadian citizenship status this gives him, but I will be glad to look into the matter.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: God save the Queen.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is very polite to make jokes concerning Her Majesty the Queen.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I hope you will withdraw what you said.


Auguste Choquette: Evidently, when it comes from a scavenger pigeon, it is quite understandable.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and by the way, I wish to congratulate him for the masterly speech he gave yesterday. My question is the following.
Can the minister say what positive action the government intends to take in connection with immigration offices located in Bordeaux and Marseilles, about which projects have previously been announced.


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


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question in addition to those he answered yesterday. In view of the report concerning the difficulty in obtaining skilled workers for Maritime Cans Limited at Dartmouth,

Inquiries of the Ministry Nova Scotia, which is the first Canadian plant producing aluminum beverage containers, I wonder whether the minister can advise what the government has done to date in this regard through the national employment service?


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



SASKATOON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which has been given. Has the minister received a letter from the united packinghouse workers of America district 10, Saskatoon, expressing their vital concern that every effort be made toward negotiating contracts providing that a proportion of the export wheat sold on long term credit be milled flour; and what steps can the minister announce which will help to alleviate the problem facing flour mill employees in Saskatoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be kind enough to put this question on the order paper.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be permitted, in the name of the Secretary of State, who is absent, to answer a question the right hon. gentleman asked yesterday in respect of the feature film industry and the intention of the government.
My colleague this afternoon is attending the twenty fifth anniversary celebration of the film board and will be making a somewhat extended statement. The part of that statement which is of direct concern to parliament-and he will be making this statement in an hour or so-is to the effect that it is the intention of the government later in the session to ask parliament for the necessary authority to establish a loan fund to assist in the production of feature films of high quality in Canada. He asked me particularly to make this statement in reply to the right hon. gentleman's question of yesterday before he made any statement outside the house. If hon. members wish I will table the whole of the statement the Secretary of State pro-

poses to make and if it is convenient to members, it could possibly be appended to Hansard.


Mr. Churchill:: That is not the way to run
a business.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will one project be the Pearson film?
tTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us whether the national film board will be given a budget large enough to produce feature films?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think to answer that question would involve entering into a debate. Perhaps when the minister himself is dealing with his estimates he will be able to discuss all the aspects of this problem.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Defence Production.
Considering that the policy of fiscal abatements has not been too successful in several designated areas, especially in Port Alfred, is the government considering the adoption of more efficient incentives to the establishment of new industries in order to palliate unemployment in that area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree at all with the premise enunciated by the hon. member, namely that this has not been a successful program. It has been a very successful program indeed. As a consequence of these incentives, as I have announced earlier, in excess of 70 industries employing thousands of people have declared their intention to establish in these designated areas. I have, however, indicated that it is a prime operation of the government to review the success of this program and see whether additional measures may be brought forward to improve it further.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Industry tell the house where the Peugeot or Renault companies will be located, in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of questions on the order paper related to this matter which have been answered and I would be prepared to furnish the hon. member with a further, more up to date list.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister co-operated in preparing a survey that would help the Minister of Labour to arrive at a more equitable designation of the areas to be assisted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the present system is a remarkably equitable one. However, the area development agency and officials of the Department of Labour are currently reviewing the program, as I say, with a view to seeing what improvements, if any, might be made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Questions have been asked about negotiations in Cyprus and Indochina. Could the Prime Minister make a statement to the house concerning his negotiations with the other party leaders in relation to the business of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, they are not quite so difficult as the negotiations over Indochina. At least they are friendlier. They are continuing.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, to revert to the question put a while ago to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), could the Prime Minister give us information concerning the talks he had yesterday and this morning with the Leader of the Opposition? Moreover, can he tell us whether he intends to call a meeting of the five party leaders today in order to accelerate the business of the house?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with the Leader of the Opposition, and I am hoping to have a meeting later this afternoon with the leaders of the other parties.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister announced earlier that there would be this afternoon a meeting of the leaders of the various groups represented in the house. Has he the assurance that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) will be in attendance?


Mr. Smallwood:: Whom do you lead? You couldn't lead a horse to water.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which has some relation to the statement made today by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Secretary of State. In view of the resignation of five members of the editorial staff of Maclean's magazine, and in view of the departure of Peter Newman from Maclean's staff, all, I understand, because of a difference-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -between management and the reporters, has any minister of the government held discussions with either the management of Maclean's magazine or with any of the editorial staff vis-a-vis Liberal policy and the editorial policy of Maclean's magazine?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very interesting question, but far too long for an immediate answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, then I would like to direct my question to one of the ministers, if I may. Have I your permission, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: I have suggested to the hon. member that the question be put on the

Inquiries of the Ministry order paper because it requires a very detailed answer.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Perhaps I could suggest a way out by asking the Prime Minister if he would inquire whether any of his ministers have held such conversations.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes or no.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Privy Council, as I understand he is in charge of matters affecting housing in the absence of the Postmaster General. Has the attention of the minister been called to the view expressed to members of the defence committee on the occasion of their recent visit to Halifax as to the effect that the lack of low rental housing in that city is having on the morale of the married personnel of lower ranks in the navy?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understand that a conference with provincial and municipal authorities in Halifax is planned in the near future to discuss recent amendments to the National Housing Act, may I ask the minister whether representatives of the Royal Canadian Navy will be asked to attend such a conference so they can deal with this problem?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has requested central mortgage and housing authorities to review this whole situation in the light of the recent report on housing in Halifax. Whether such a conference is to be held, and whether navy representatives will be invited I cannot answer at the moment, but I will get the information and provide an answer tomorrow.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question of privilege. We want to know when the Minister of Forestry will be in the house to answer our questions. We hear he will be absent for a month.


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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 4, 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 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:: When we adjourned last evening the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot had the floor.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night I was saying that when we assumed office in 1957 we inherited a dwindling economy and we endeavoured, during the years we managed the business of this country, to put that economy back on its feet, in keeping with the commitments we had made during the election campaigns.
We did so well that in 1963, when we were replaced by the present government, we left them an expanding economy. Indeed, we had passed measures which are still bearing fruit even today.
For instance, in the last election campaign we were criticized for having devaluated the Canadian dollar to 92 cents. Well, that is what enabled the Canadian economy to rise again.
I do not intend to speak at any great length this afternoon since the official opposition saw its positive efforts crowned with success these last few days.

We plied the minister with questions asking what were their plans concerning the expenditures they asked the house to vote.
After numerous repetitions and a great deal of pressure, we finally convinced certain ministers to give the required answers. But other answers must still be given. There are still one or two ministers to whom questions were put and who will surely take this opportunity to supply the information which is absolutely necessary to the good administration of public business.
I should not want to deprive my hon. friends of the pleasure and of the opportunity to perform their duty and, in concluding, I shall simply ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to yield to the pressing and repeated requests made to him by the official opposition to cancel the 11 per cent tax which is disastrous for the Canadian people.
I should also like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) to take a look at the problem of eastern agriculture. It is well known that eastern agriculture is in a slump. Since this government took office we have been waiting for legislation designed to assist eastern farmers.
I should also like to urge the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) to take another look at his projects to set up as many jobs as possible. I take this opportunity to remind him that during the election the Liberal party promised the voters to provide 250,000 jobs each year. If we examine this last year's results, we notice that only 1,265 new jobs were created following the government's policy.
I warn the minister that this is not enough and that the Canadian people deserve more than 1,265 new jobs. They want action from the government.
Mr. Chairman, there are many other things I would like to say. I could talk at length about the quality of our industrial workers, particularly in the constituency I have the honour to represent here. But I would not want to deprive the ministers of the opportunity to justify their administration as heads of their respective departments and I stop to ask them, in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), to answer the numerous questions that have been asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on Monday, July 27 in this committee the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm raised a question with respect to the Gaspe railway. I should like to read his words which will be
Interim Supply
found on page 6264 of the French edition of Hansard:

-if this government were to enforce the measure we passed when we were in office, for the building of a railroad in the Gasp6 peninsula that would greatly help to improve the economy of that area.

I wish, sir, to make a somewhat extended reply to the hon. gentleman's observations; and since I imagine the reply will be mainly of interest to those who use the other official language of our country, which is not my mother tongue, I intend to make it in my version of their language.

In 1962, parliament authorized the Canadian government to appropriate approximately $16 million for the building of a railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, in the county of Gaspe.
After an extensive study of the question, the present government came to the conclusion that the construction of this railway line did not constitute at present the best possible use of the amounts ear-marked for transportation facilities so as to promote the economic development of the northern part of the Gaspe peninsula and that instead of building this line, it would be better to spend the amounts appropriated for that purpose on other projects more likely to meet the needs of that district with regard to transportation facilities.
Having consulted the province of Quebec and carried out a more thorough study, the government has come to the conclusion that the best contribution to transportation in the area would be to rebuild as early as possible the stretches of the north Gaspe highway which still do not meet modern standards. Of course, we realize that road building comes under the provinces, but we are told that there is such a backlog in Quebec's road building and rebuilding program that the Gaspe highway will not be completed before several years, unless special financial assistance is provided in that connection.
Since parliament had already recognized in principle the necessity for Ottawa to take steps to improve transport facilities in that area, the government has decided that, subject to parliament's approval, it will make a substantial contribution to the completion of the north Gaspe highway.
During our negotiations with the Quebec authorities we learned that some 87 miles had to be reconstructed in the constituencies of

Interim Supply
Matane and north Gaspe. The government has agreed to pay $125,000 per mile for the construction and profiling as well as $25,000 for the paving of those 87 miles for each mile completed before November 1, 1968 up to a maximum federal contribution of $13 million. The payments applicable to the completed work will be made at the end of each quarter, following an appropriate inspection made by the engineers of the trans-Canada highway division of the Department of Public Works.
The Quebec department of highways has agreed to undertake as soon as possible the work on every section of the road in both countries. The substitution of a road to the planned railroad as item of expenditure does not exclude for ever the possibility of a railroad being built. If the area develops to such an extent as to justify its construction, the project will of course be reconsidered.
There will be an item in the next supplementary estimates authorizing the contemplated expenditures.
It will be noted that the federal government does not intend to allocate the complete sum of $16 million to the road; we feel that part of this money could usefully serve for the development of airports and harbours which come under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government.
A number of plans for the development of harbours have been approved in principle and appropriate items will be entered in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works.
The Department of Transport will also add an item in its supplementary estimates for the improvement of the Gaspe airport. This department has also undertaken a survey of the Gaspe peninsula in order to find an appropriate site for a district airport which would serve the main towns in the county of Gaspe.
The projects already approved will not take up all the moneys provided for the development of transport in the Gaspe peninsula, and other plans will be undertaken as the need arises.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I compliment the minister on the way in which he speaks the French language and assure him that even those who only know English will,
I am sure, understand everything he says when he speaks in French. His pronunciation is of such a nature that even those who are not erudite in the language can certainly understand him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would allow me to say I have been told the Manitoba accent is better than the Saskatchewan accent.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not like to enter into a comparison, because I thought the hon. gentleman had a Newfoundland accent. I am surprised he has suddenly disavowed that province and gone to the province of his origin. The chickens sometimes come home to roost.
This announcement by the minister is one that I find difficulty in understanding. I am not now speaking of the fact that the minister spoke in French, but of the content of his statement. I am surprised that a government which, according to its own protestations, has been so diligent in the preservation of provincial rights has suddenly departed from all those principles.
I point out that there is a statute of parliament making available $16 million for the building of a railroad to meet the needs of the people in the Gaspe peninsula, who for many years have been asking for it. I visited that area at length. I saw something of its needs, and according to the business people with whom I came in contact those needs could not be met in any other way than through a railroad to encourage development and to make transportation available for its mineral and lumber production.
This government come into office and what do they do? They simply state "We are not going to follow a statute of parliament; we are going to take another course. We have consulted with the government of Quebec and we have decided that the greatest contribution which could be made to the transportation facilities would be the reconstruction of those sections of the north Gaspe highway which are not at present built to modern standards.''
We recognized, of course, that the construction of highways was a provincial function, but we were told that the government of Quebec had such a backlog of construction and reconstruction that it would be several years before the Gasp6 highway could be completed-
This shows up the hypocrisy of the policies of this government. It speaks of provincial rights and then proceeds to build highways which come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure-


John George Diefenbaker: I did not interrupt the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the statement. The government has no intention whatever of building this highway. It only intends to make a financial contribution to it, as the right hon. gentleman's government did to many highways when he was in office.


John George Diefenbaker: Quite the reverse; and the loudness of the interruption betrays the depth of the guilt. This is a complete subterfuge. This is something that constitutes an invasion of the very basis of the constitutional rights of the provinces. The minister mentions assisting in the building of highways. We provided highway assistance for roads to resources in the various provinces, under agreement with the various provinces and with the provinces contributing their respective shares. That was quite a different thing from this. The statement says:
After consultation with the government of Quebec... the government decided that the greatest contribution which could be made to the transportation facilities of the region would be the speedy reconstruction of those sections of the north Gaspe highway which are not at present built to modem standards...
From our discussions with the Quebec authorities we learned that there were some 87 miles of highway No. 6 in Matane and north Gaspe counties which require reconstruction. The government has agreed to contribute $125,000 per mile toward the construction and grading and an additional $25,000 toward the paving of these 87 miles of road on every mile that is completed before November 1, 1968, with an upper limit of $13,000,000 on the federal contribution.
This is the complete antithesis of everything which this government has advocated throughout the years, and I ask the question, why? What business have they, as a government, without bringing an existing statute before parliament to be repealed, to say "We are not going to follow the statute. The law means nothing to us. We intend to evade the law by following a different course while expending the same amount of money".
Whatever the benefit may be-and I am not belittling the benefits which will follow from highway construction-this constitutes an affront to parliament. It constitutes on the part of the Liberal government a disregard of constitutional rights and a disregard for and contempt of parliament. I mention this, and I think other hon. members may deal therewith. What was asked for was a railway, and because of the sense of guilt felt by hon. gentlemen opposite, in office for so many years without doing anything for the Gaspe area, and because they did not want to carry out this policy which we had consummated
Interim Supply
through a legislative enactment of parliament, they chose this arrangement to becloud the issue and to evade the direction and orders of parliament and the statute.
I did not rise, however, to deal particularly with that matter. It just so happened that it concerned another of the answers being given by the ministers, and I am glad to see that the ministers have at last agreed to answer questions. Had they done so last week when the questions were asked there would not have been the same length of time spent on interim supply as has been the case. But they sat like dummies; they refused to answer.
There are still many questions to be answered. Last evening the Minister of Labour answered a number of them, but there is one he did not answer, and I go back to that question. Why is it that the board of maritime trustees plays with parliament the way it does? Two weeks ago, I think it was, we asked that these trustees be brought before a committee of the house. We were put off. The chairman of the board was in Vancouver. When I look at the telephone bills of this government I can only conclude that it was not expense they had in mind in not communicating with him in that way. Why are the trustees not brought before a committee of parliament? Why do they not give an answer? What is the minister trying to do? He has not had a decision from them yet. How long does it take this board to decide whether it will accede to a general request on the part of parliament?
I will tell you what they are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, though I know you will have perceived it already. They are trying to put off appearing for so long that an adjournment will have taken place and they will not have to appear. That is not good enough. We want an assurance that they are going to appear before the adjournment. They are not so busy that they cannot appear.
Many of the questions which have been put to the Minister of Labour have not been answered, though a number of them were. I protest with all the power at my command the contemptuous attitude which is shown by not having the members of this board of trustees appear before a committee of this house. Either they have agreed to come and the minister has decided not let parliament know, or-and this is the only alternative- they are playing with parliament and refusing to appear so they cannot be asked questions which they anticipate will prove embarrassing.

Interim Supply
I have already stated that the government has suddenly broken out of its cocoon of silence and is answering questions, and if they would proceed in that laudable way and answer the questions which have been asked we would certainly be in a position very soon to terminate this debate. The minister of health, as was mentioned today, has been asked many questions but no answers have been given, though they were questions which deserved answers. My hon. friend from Perth asked where and how funds would be made available to cover the proposed inclusion of mental and tubercular patients under the hospitalization plan. There was no answer to that question. My hon. friend from the Northwest Territories asked why the government, in the face of a recommendation of the Glassco commission, had spent $8,500,000 to build the new Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton. That question has not been answered. The hon. member for Portage La Prairie dealt with the situation of Indian children and asked a number of questions on that subject. Then there were the questions asked by the hon. member for Yukon. Among other things he asked what action the government had taken to restrain the rising cost of living, which has increased five and a half points in the year and four months since the present government took office. There was not a word in reply from the Minister of Finance.
I do not intend to repeat all the questions which the Minister of Labour failed to answer; they are many. There are one or two, however, which I might mention and it is interesting to note that the minister did not answer these. He was invited to tell the committee, for example, how much control Paul Hall, president of the S.I.U. in the United states, has over the S.I.U. in Canada, and what financial contributions are being made now by the S.I.U. in Canada to the S.I.U. in the United States. We have a right to know the answers to these questions, but no answers were given. Then a further question was asked: was there any arrangement made between Paul Hall and the trustees in the discussions between them? Has there been an investigation of the S.I.U. welfare plan by an insurance company? What was the result of the examination made by the firm of chartered accountants which looked into the financial affairs of the union?
Sir, the fact that these questions were left unanswered by the minister, especially in the absence of a statement that the trustees would be brought before a committee of par-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
liament, indicates that they are of such an embarrassing nature that the government does not wish to answer them or have them answered.
What about the questions asked by other members? The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox dealt with the preservation of the elm tree and with ARDA, a subject which was also dealt with by a number of hon. members. They wished to find out what is being done in this connection, but there was no answer. While we sit and work the Minister of Forestry hibernates, if it is possible to use that expression in the good old summertime. He attended a conference for a couple of days and now he is attending to other things. Why are these questions not answered by the parliamentary secretary, though that is not a good principle in itself?
Then the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm questioned the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is away. He never answered. He was asked when the government intended to provide cheaper feed grain for eastern farmers. My hon. friend also dealt with the subject of ARDA. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked questions concerning a forest museum and a forest research laboratory on Vancouver island. Further questions were asked by other hon. gentlemen with regard to forestry, and went unanswered. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska asked questions regarding the improvement in credit facilities for farmers.
Here is the strange thing, Mr. Chairman. We cannot get the answers in parliament, but the minister made a statement-I think it was around July 20-outside this house that they had a new loan plan so that farmers could join together and obtain credit, I took it for agricultural purposes. He even told the group what the name of this bill would be. Yet when the question is asked in the house, there is no answer. The hon. member for Churchill asked the government to consider the provisions of ARDA in relation to Indian reservations. These questions were ones that deserved to be answered. Some have been answered now, and I thank the government for that; although in saying that I point out that there are still quite a number that have not been dealt with.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot asked about the alarming unemployment situation in Quebec and how the government proposed to deal with that matter. Not a word; not an answer; nothing but silence. Then a series of questions was asked on

Friday. I have already mentioned the number-some 232. There was a question raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley that deserved to be answered. He wanted to know the situation with regard to the absence of members of his party from a conference financed in part by the C.B.C. No answer. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised a matter that is of interest to Indians in all parts of Canada, with respect to the minister's policy statement on the dissolution of certain Indian reserves. He said this matter should be cleared up. Yet there has been no answer to these various questions.
There were further questions asked. I could go on indefinitely. The hon. member for Medicine Hat dealt with the C.B.C. as well and the absence from the Couchiching conference of representatives of his party. If they do not want answers to those questions, I have no objection; but I mention the fact that if the government had followed the course they followed yesterday, namely of answering questions, we would have been through a lot earlier.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I say to the government this: If you will clear up in general the questions that are outstanding, we believe the time has come to end our discussion of and questions on interim supply. We have no apologies to offer for the time taken, because it would not have been as long as it has been had there been a government less governed, less unresilient and less unwilling to carry out its responsibility to answer questions. I say this, furthermore. The last vote on interim supply was for one month. I refer to the previous interim supply vote. This one is for two months. I will give the government a sporting chance on this. If other hon. members in the house will consent, if these outstanding questions that are now before the committee, and have been for a week, are answered, our attitude will be that we will then feel we have done our job in securing the answers to the questions that we deemed of sufficient importance to ask-and they are of importance-and we will be only too pleased, under all the circumstances, if the house is agreeable, when the answers are given to permit an extension of one month, making it three months, because we feel the examination we have made has covered in general the departments that were untouched. Therefore it would facilitate the work of the house if by consent that extension could be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Interim Supply


John George Diefenbaker: So I leave it to the government. Give us answers to the questions that have been placed before you. Get off your pedestal of silence that you sat on all last week and get down in the House of Commons to answering these questions. I called it a pedestal of silence, Mr. Chairman; I do not want anyone to misunderstand and think that the pedestal was meant to be other than of silence. We will then be doing something to make parliament work. I am asking the co-operation of the government in this regard, to the end that we will then be in a position to state that we have tried to discharge our major responsibility, the examination of the expenditure of the people's money.
I repeat what I said earlier, that at no time has this been in the nature of a filibuster. I say that definitely and absolutely. It is all very well to try to explain the difference between the circumstances of today and those of 1962. Let me again point out that at that time the opposition of the day, now the government of today in the main, spent some seven or eight days on $300 million and no one complained about filibuster because they were doing their job. But it is convenient today for the government to conceal its lack of action, its failure to meet economic problems, its denial of parliament to deal with such matters as the pension measure; it is convenient to say, "The reason we have not acted is that the opposition have prevented us from so doing". Nothing of the kind-it has been the failure on the part of the government.
Let me add something more. The pension legislation has been before the house three times; there was the first edition, the withdrawn edition; the revised edition, and then the present edition. I think we would be doing a worth-while job if this edition were brought before the house now, before we adjourned, because this is a matter that deserves the immediate consideration of the house. Let them bring it forward now and we will be able to do our part to expedite it; because, as I have said on more than one occasion, we do not intend to swallow the bait of a promise of a recess for giving up our responsibilities. We do not place recess ahead of responsibility.
Now, sir, I mention one other matter because the Minister of Transport today brought before the house the question of the speech delivered outside the house by the Secretary of State with regard to federal assistance being provided through a loan fund to the movie industry. We knew this in anticipation,

Interim Supply
because the minister when speaking at the Couchiching conference dealt with this matter in general. I am not going into detail at this time, but let me say this: At a time when there are so many problems facing Canada, does it seem that this is a matter of priority? Should the Canadian government assume some of the risks of private film production? I question that seriously. What cultural development, to which lip service is given in the statement of the minister, can be achieved in this way? And what is to be the result? Is parliament to be placed in the position of bonusing a private industry in order that it may increase its profits? These are questions that will be asked. Is the national film board-and it has done a good job in its field-to be the agent of the government in its attempt to compete with Hollywood or with the British movie industry? Canada certainly is not ignored now by the movie industry. Many movies are made in Canadian settings with Canadian actors and Canadian technicians, and I refer to films like "Mr. Pearson".
These are questions that are asked. Is it the government's intention to have movies made for Canadians or to have movies made to show Canada to other people? In either case a question will arise as to whether the cultural growth in Canada will be manifestly increased. And I would not want to inject anything of a partisan nature into this discussion, but would not the C.B.C. with its waste of money on the film "Mr. Pearson" be emulated by the national film board? I ask that question, not expecting an answer to it today.
I hope that the ministers will pursue the laudable course that they have in the last 24 hours and will give an answer to the various questions, so that together in cooperation we will be able to achieve that which we set out to do, namely to carry out an examination in those fields in respect of which parliament has had no information. Our responsibility according to every constitutional work has been carried out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think that I should be allowed to exercise my right under the rules to take exception, and I am going to do so as objectively and as non controversially as possible, to one or two statements made by the right hon. gentleman relating to the announcement I made this afternoon about assistance to the North Gasp6 highway.
I should like first to remind the right hon. gentleman that parliament did not ap-

propriate any money whatsoever for the railway. All it did was permit the government, if it saw fit, to have the C.N.R. spend up to $16 million for the road. When we came into office it was our duty, as it was the duty of the previous government, to decide in each case whether the crown should recommend a particular expenditure to parliament. We gave this very careful consideration, and it is now months since we told the house that we did not think this was the best way to use that money. That seems to dispose of any question of contempt of parliament, because parliament did not order the government to build the road, but merely said that if moneys were appropriated for the railway it could be built. We know that no railway more than three miles long can be built without the consent of parliament. Parliament cannot, through one of these bills, and did not in this case, appropriate the money. I think that deals with the constitutional point.
As for the announcement I made today in respect of assistance in building this highway, I should like to state that this is precisely the same kind of assistance provided under the roads to resources program and the trans-Canada highway program.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An agreement has been made with the government of the province, and the hon. gentleman himself read the word "agreed".


John George Diefenbaker: I was reading from the hon. gentleman's statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You were reading from my statement, but the right hon. gentleman did read the word "agreed".
There has been an exchange of letters between the provincial minister of highways, after consultation with the government of the province, and myself as Minister of Transport, after consultation with our government, and we have agreed that we will contribute a certain amount of money on a per mile basis toward the construction of the road, when the province has built it and it has been properly inspected. This assistance is exactly on all fours with the kind of assistance provided in the past.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no question whatsoever of our building the road or of our doing anything except making a grant to the province, if parliament approves, similar to grants that were made in respect of the roads to

resources program and the trans-Canada highway project.


John George Diefenbaker: This is quite different.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the right hon. gentleman makes assertions, but assertions do not make facts. These are the facts. The facts are within my knowledge. No amount of assertion by the right hon. gentleman will alter the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Apparently this is a joint program. I thought joint programs were completely taboo in the thinking of the present government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Actually, if the right hon. gentleman would listen occasionally and read occasionally, instead of constantly thinking of what he is going to say next and how he can change the sense of what someone else has said, he would keep out of a lot of the difficulty he gets into and end a lot of the confusion for which he must accept responsibility. Of course I could not do this kind of thing because I am a simple straightforward fellow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not say I admire this, because it is not something I particularly admire, but one cannot help admire art even though one does not like it. I do not think there is a man in this country, not even the hon. member for Port Arthur, who can make black look as much like white or white to look as much like black as can the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Still, when he has completed his verbal painting, black is still black and white is still white.
This government has never at any time anywhere said that we were opposed to joint programs. We have said that we were prepared in certain circumstances to have a province contract out of joint programs, and that is the position.
This program in fact is not a joint program but a contribution to a provincial function, just as was the assistance provided to the trans-Canada highway, which was not a joint program. Surely a joint program is something that is undertaken jointly. When one makes a specific and definite contribution surely all one is doing is making an earmarked grant, and that is not a joint program. As I conceive a joint program, it is something that is done in common by two governments. This project is not going to be carried out in common by two governments. The work will be done entirely by the prointerim Supply
vincial department of highways, and when it has been done to certain standards payments will be made, provided parliament sees fit to grant the money for the making of the payments. Mr. Chairman, I felt that I should make this point clear immediately after the right hon. gentleman's statement.
I do not know whether the committee will also permit me to answer the questions asked by the right hon. gentleman in respect of the feature film industry, but I think the best way to answer those questions is to read the statement that my colleague, the Secretary of State, is going to make elsewhere. If that is agreeable I will do so, and I suppose I have the right to speak in this committee in any event.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the hon. gentleman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes. Before the minister proceeds with another subject will he permit me to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If the C.N.R., or the Ontario Northland Railway in northern Ontario wished to build a branch line would the Minister of Transport agree to a joint program or an earmarked grant in respect of that line, just as has been done in respect of the north Gaspe road?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that there is a very salutary rule that all governments ignore at their peril, and all politicians ignore at their peril, and that is the rule which says one should not answer hypothetical questions. I have not the slightest intention of attempting to answer the question. If the Ontario Northland Railway does decide at some time to build a railway I am sure the government will give consideration to any proposal from Ontario. I am sure the government, no matter what government it was, would give careful consideration to any proposal from the government of Ontario and would not say no in advance; but that does not in the least mean they would say yes.


John George Diefenbaker: For 22 years you did nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was there for six years and all he did was get a permissive statute on the books-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Then you wiped it out.

Interim Supply


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and having done that he lost the seat.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question that is not hypothetical? Would he not agree that the formula he has outlined is identical with the formula that was used in connection with the roads to resources program, and that program was regarded as a joint program?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure that it is. As a matter of fact, I did not know it was but I dare say the hon. gentleman is right. I never administered the roads to resources program and the hon. gentleman did. If he says that was a joint program I would assume this is a joint program in the same sense that was. I do not see anything wrong with it at all, or with any other joint program which is properly based and with which both governments agree. But it is another matter to try, within provincial jurisdiction, to impose policies on provincial governments, and we do not believe in that. But there is no imposition here at all. There is complete agreement about the desirability of doing this on the part of both governments.


Mr. Cardiff:: While we are on that subject may I ask a question? If the minister says this is a joint program between the province of Quebec and the federal government, what is the proportion of payment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The province is going to build the road, whatever it costs, and we are going to make a specific contribution of $125,000 a mile when it is graded and another $25,000 a mile when it is paved. What the proportions will be will not be determined until the road is built. It will depend on how much it costs, but since the open-ended part is entirely provincial that is no concern of ours.


John George Diefenbaker: Open at both ends.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is only open at the provincial end. Our end is completely closed and it is closed twice. There is a ceiling of $13 million and there is a payment of $125,000 a mile for grading and $25,000 a mile for paving. All the rest of the cost, whatever it may be, will be borne by the provincial government. Therefore that is not a matter of concern to us as members of the parliament of Canada. It is a matter of concern to the residents, the legislators and the government of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I address a question to the minister? Why did the minister ignore

the petition addressed to him by the chamber of commerce of Gaspe north, including the former Liberal member, requesting federal construction of the road in Gaspe?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Gaspe will give a better reply to that than I will, but I can say that the petition was not ignored. It was very carefully considered.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was ignored.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has finished his act I will now turn to films. The statement I am now going to read is a statement that the Secretary of State is making this afternoon with regard to the film board.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister would leave out the padding and just refer to the material parts. It is all very interesting to say that we have become one of the richest countries of the world and that our standard of living is second only to the United States and Sweden. These things are interesting matters of information but we want to know about the film board itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I always understood that the right hon. gentleman was a great exponent of freedom of speech-


John George Diefenbaker: Go on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I am sure he would not want to censor my speeches in advance of my making them, particularly when they are not mine. I am merely going to give the committee the speech that is being made elsewhere by the Secretary of State. Although I can understand the right hon. gentleman wanting to have it altered a bit, I think it would be better to give it as my colleague proposes to give it.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman has not read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman can talk about that when he is on a level with all the rest of us, after all of us have heard it and not just those who appear to have had a preview.
While not detracting in any way from the important contribution which the film board has made to Canadian life both at home and abroad, we cannot be equally happy about the present state of the Canadian film industry in all its aspects. Unlike most other countries with similar problems and similar professional talents, we seem to have been unable to bring forth a film industry in Canada which could find its inspiration in a Canadian setting and produce and distribute a Canadian made product to place alongside the production of the national film board.

If I may interpose something, the right hon. gentleman will see that it is not proposed to have these feature films made by the film board but by the film industry.
There is nothing new about this problem and clearly it was intended that one of the functions of the board would be to assist through its own activities in the development of a Canadian film industry. This surely the board must continue to do.
In recent months, the government has become particularly interested in this vital Canadian aspect of our national life. We have come to the conclusion that the establishment of a feature film industry in Canada is highly desirable and that technical facilities and talent are available in our country to make such a development practicable. We are also conscious of the fact that some form of public financial assistance is required to foster the Canadian feature film Industry.
Therefore it is the intention of the government to ask parliament for the necessary authority to establish a loan fund for the production of feature films of high quality in Canada. In our view, one of the important limiting factors in our country has been the availability of risk capital to finance such film production.
It will take some months before the authority can be secured from parliament to undertake this program. The government, with the assistance of the national film board and in consultation with the industry, intends to use this period for a further intensive study of the problems faced by the feature film industry, including the distribution problem both at home and abroad. A more detailed announcement of government plans will be made when these studies have been completed.
I believe that the feature length film industry which we hope will see the light of day, and develop, will benefit from the creative impulse the national film board has been giving for the past 25 years. I sincerely hope that, through the joint efforts of both the private producers and the board, Canadians in the near future will appear more and more frequently on screens at home and abroad, either in feature length or short films. This will be a new sign of our growing cultural maturity.
I think that answers most of the questions that were asked by the right hon. gentleman. It makes it quite clear that this loan fund is not designed or intended to be available to the film board but to the private film industry. We have a private film industry in Canada. For example, one might mention Crawley Films located here in Ottawa. That firm has done some very good work in short films. But there has not yet been a successful feature film industry. If one can be developed by way of loans, this will contribute to employment for a number of Canadians who now have to look for employment in some other country. To the extent that it is successful it will tend to help somewhat in our balance of payments problem. It will have a number of advantages of a material and practical nature apart altogether from any cultural advantages it may have. I have a certain responsibility in connection with
Interim Supply
this matter because I was the secretary of state when we first began to study the project. I authorized the study, and it has come to fruition under my colleague, the present Secretary of State. I therefore feel a certain responsibility for joining in this recommendation.
I feel there are enough prospects for success that it is worth while to try and get a Canadian feature film industry, not a government film industry but a film industry by private companies. If a government loan fund will accomplish this, it will be a good thing. I believe it is true that no country in the world, except the United States, has been able to develop a feature film industry without some kind of governmental support. The British film industry has always had it and so, I have been given to understand, have the film industries of every other country except the United States which produces films. Some of them have the natural advantage of linguistic protection which we do not have in Canada, and which the British do not have, against the United States industry.
As to whether or not any of this loan will be used to make a feature film about the Prime Minister or even the right hon. gentleman, I cannot say, although I believe they would both be wonderful subjects for a feature film. All I hope is that if such a film is undertaken, it is undertaken by private industry in an exclusively private way.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise merely for the purpose of clarifying the situation with regard to the Matane and St. Anne des Monts railway. The minister generally has the answers to all questions on matters that come within his department, and he spoke with the authority that he does. When he speaks loudly, he speaks with less authority, and in this case he spoke very loudly. He indicated there had been no fixed amount voted by parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said no money had been appropriated.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to read the statute in order to establish the facts. I am quoting from chapter 13 of the statutes for 1962:
In order to establish railway services between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts, in the province of Quebec, and otherwise to assist in the development of the Gaspe peninsula, the governor in council may provide for the appointment of Canadian National Railway Company. ..as agent of Her Majesty for the construction and completion, prior to the 31st day of December, 1964, or such later

Interim Supply
date as the governor in council may fix, of the line of railway.. .described in the schedule-
I am leaving out the unnecessary words.
Estimates of the mileage of the railway line, the amount to be expended on the construction thereof and the average expenditure per mile are set out in the schedule, and, except with the approval of the governor in council, such estimates shall not be exceeded by more than fifteen per cent.
The governor in council shall pay to the company an amount equal to the cost to the company of constructing the railway line, including the cost of survey of location.. .but not exceeding in any case the sum of sixteen million, one hundred thousand dollars.
That is definite and complete; no appropriation by parliament is required. We passed this act and the minister is thoroughly wrong and completely inconsistent in what he says. He has not read this act, you see. Section 4 of the act reads:
The amount of the payment hereby authorized shall be paid to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund by the payment, from time to time, at the direction of the governor in council upon the report of the Minister of Transport as to the mileage of railway line constructed or to be constructed, of such amounts, in such manner and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient.
In other words, we do appropriate in parliament, from the consolidated revenue fund, an amount not to exceed $16,100,000. The railway was to be completed by December 31, 1964, unless the governor in council for some reason extended the period. This is what parliament said.
Finally the schedule sets out that the mileage shall be approximately 57 miles, the cost of construction $14 million and the average cost per mile, $245,614. I repeat what it said. You just have to read the statute to appreciate fully the fact that this government has treated contemptuously a statute of parliament and refused to carry it out.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of filibustering-


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I saw the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) rise many times to participate in this debate. Of all the members in the house he is the most interested in this grant for building the Gaspe highway. Consequently, I suggest that, under the pertinent standing order, the hon. member for Gaspe be recognized.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, this matter is of interest to all members and not only to the one member going against the wish of the people. It concerns all the members of the house.


Mr. Fisher:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I would have to go along with your recognition of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. I do not believe you can argue that the hon. member for Gaspe is the one most interested in this subject. I was the only member of the previous parliament who argued against the bill and I might claim some special privilege as a result of that. I feel it would be nonsensical therefore to suggest that this be done, and I believe you should allow the hon. member to continue.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I saw the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) motion to me that I could have the floor and I imagine the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes (Mr. Drouin) would not wish to go against the intentions of the hon. member for Gaspe, since he is well aware that the hon. member for Gaspd will speak later.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my motion, if the hon. member for Gaspe so wishes. I must leave it up to him to decide.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, I believe it is the tradition and custom of this house to give each group a chance to be heard. Now, in the last two days, we have only heard Conservative members, plus four or five Liberals yesterday. It seems to me that members in this corner of the house should have their say. Therefore, I suggest the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, whom you recognized, should have the floor.


Mr. Rheaume:: In so far as the point of order is concerned, Mr. Chairman, surely this committee cannot accept the statement just made by the leader of the Creditiste party. If all he heard for seven days were speakers from the official opposition and a few cabinet ministers, then he cannot blame the rest of the members in the house for the fact that he and his colleagues abdicated completely from their responsibility as opposition members.


Mr. Pugh:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I may say that yesterday I was approached by a member of the Creditiste party and asked if he might take my place on the list. He said he was going to speak for only five minutes. I am referring to this complaint. At that time, he said to me, "You have been speaking all day." I was in the chamber all day yesterday, and so far as I am aware no member from his party stood up. They have no just complaint. They can stand up and be recognized at any time. The suggestion that they are being discriminated against is of course utterly ridiculous.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency. If it is the pleasure of the committee to have that decision changed, the necessary procedure is provided under the rules.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the wise ruling you have just made, and I merely wish to point out to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that nobody ever said that we had been deprived of our rights. It was only suggested that Conservative members have spoken for so long and so often that it would be reasonable to give the floor to a member of another party from time to time. It was never suggested that the chairman had shown discrimination against members of other parties. That is not true at all.
We admit that we simply did not rise because we did not want to indulge in filibustering, and if I am taking part in the debate at present, it is because the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to speak at this time, when the leaders of the opposition parties have been called to the Prime Minister's office.
And also because he commented on the statement of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) with regard to the railway project between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.
Mr. Chairman, I am not representing that area, but I know it rather well, because I go there every year. Moreover, I have been interested in the matter for a long time. When the Leader of the Opposition stated that some requests had been made for the construction of that railroad section, I think that he was perhaps expressing ideas which took shape in the mind of various politicians, Liberal as well as Conservative.
Interim Supply
Indeed, the idea of building a railroad between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts was initiated entirely by politicians about 20 years ago, when they wanted to get votes in the county of Gaspe, by promising the people a railway, and more particularly telling them that this project would solve all their economic problems. Now, after having heard such a statement for the last 20 years or so, the people of Gaspe finally believed that this railway would really solve the problems they had to face.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the building of a railway at this time would in no way help the economic development of the Gaspe area, and that is why I am theoretically satisfied with the solution put forward by the government, the more so as there seems to have been some agreement with the government authorities of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I am basically opposed to some agreements and some joint plans. Yet, the government of the province being the representative of that province, I think that we should accept the agreements concluded between the representatives of a province and the federal government.
Moreover, when referring to the statement made by the Minister of Transport on July 18 last in connection with the Atlantic development board and super highways in the maritimes, it is realized that the federal government will pay a grant of $3 million to every Atlantic province to enable them to develop their existing roads or to construct sections which have not been completed. Consequently, since the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) has already asked that the Gaspe peninsula be included in the Atlantic area, I feel that the Gaspe peninsula should take advantage of the grants given by the federal government. In fact, we know that the Gaspe peninsula has been neglected for a long time and that it still is by the provincial as well as the federal governments. But at last, it seems that an attempt is being made to help the people of that area, and I feel that the idea set forth today by the Minister of Transport should be accepted.
Personally, I believe that those $13 million could be more adequately spent, that it could more realistically create full employment, if this government was willing, for example, to contribute to the establishment of five industries worth some $2.5 million each in the Gaspe peninsula. This would definitely help the people of the Gaspe peninsula not only

Interim Supply
to build or improve a road which would only create temporary jobs, but would also contribute to assure more or less permanent employment. I suggest that such a procedure would be more adequate and would more easily solve the problems of the Gaspe district. We have no choice but to accept the suggestion made by the federal government, especially when we realize that the minister left the door open by saying that the question of building the railroad had not been shelved altogether and for ever, because if the railroad should ever become a real necessity, the present government would see to it that the necessary funds would be provided for its construction. I think it thus left the door open for this construction.
Mr. Chairman, as reported in Hansard of March 20, 1964, at pages 1313, 1314 and 1315, I felt then that when the act was passed by the house, the Conservative party had no intention whatsoever of proceeding with the building of that railroad. As a matter of fact, I recall very well having asked the then minister of transport, now the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) what had become of the annual report he was supposed to submit to the house under the act which had been passed.
In fact, I asked him the following question:
What progress has been made in the construction of the railway line between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts, and has section 6 of the enabling act been complied with?
The following answer was given:
(a) The Canadian National Railways are making a detailed survey but the report on that survey has not been received yet.
Imagine, Mr. Chairman, the Conservative party wished to give this railway to the Gaspe peninsula because it had been requested and it was imperative, but a year after the law was passed, they said:
-the report on that survey has not been received yet.
I was told also:
A report for the year 1962 will be submitted to parliament early in the new year.
However, this report was never submitted by the then minister of transport.
Since the Conservative party had decided not to carry out that proposal, another survey became necessary because of many new problems. In fact, it was learned that a section of that railroad did not even belong to the Canadian National Railways but to a private company to which money had to be paid for the renting of tracks, which means that the

sum of $16 million would have been greatly exceeded without any practical result.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Guy Marcoux: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
member has bravely enunciated his opinion concerning the construction of the railway line between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts, could he tell the house if he is still in favour, as a possible substitute, of the deepening of the Matapedia river?


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, if it is only a financial matter which prevents that waterway, I am still for the waterway.


Auguste Choquette: The Bank of Canada will fix that.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, when we talk about the Matane-Ste Anne des Monts area, we know that it really needs to be developed.
As I said earlier, building a road or improving it might be helpful for a while.
Personally, I feel that the road is good enough to allow normal industrial development and a normal tourist industry.
However, since they want to do that, I do not object to it. I simply wonder what the people of the Matapedia valley are going to think when they see the Gaspe area so favoured compared with their own district.
I am not talking about Matane. I know that Matane has been greatly favoured, the same as almost all the areas outside Gasp6 itself.
Personally I do not include Matane in the Gaspe peninsula. It is part of the lower St. Lawrence, but in my opinion and in that of the Gaspe chambers of commerce it is not Gaspe. However, I must admit that Matane has been quite favoured, compared with other parts of the Gaspe peninsula. Although the Matapedia valley is going to suffer somewhat from it, I am very happy to see that the sum of $13 million will be spent in that area.
The minister also announced that the Gaspe airport would be improved a little later on and that a regional airport would eventually be built.
I think that, if an election is forthcoming, the Liberal party should be in a position, within a few weeks, to carry out achievements which will no longer be mere election promises but something of value to the people of Gaspe.


David Réal Caouette: They have a knack for that.


Vincent Drouin: For achievements, yes.


Guy Marcoux: I am glad to see that that region, which suffered so much from the fact that "patronage" was being carried out elsewhere, will benefit at last from some patronage. At least, that should help it to get out of its financial slump.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go any further. As 1 said a while ago, I had no intention whatever of indulging in obstruction. I merely wished to express certain views concerning the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, the statement made to the committee by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) will be welcomed by the people of Gaspe, in particular by the development board of eastern Quebec.
The projects announced for the Gaspe peninsula, particularly the reconstruction of highway No. 6, show in a tangible way that the Ottawa and Quebec governments are interested in the growth of under developed areas.
Tremendous development efforts based on serious studies and effective participation by the people are under way in the Gaspe peninsula. The governments concerned are duty bound to support the efforts of the people to find a solution to their problems.
Those tangible works will help to prove that the governments intend to take seriously the efforts made by the population. Those undertakings must, therefore, be seen in that light.
In a few days the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) will announce officially a project that has been under consideration for many years and which will be of a great assistance in the Gaspe south development. Such a project is not included in the projects an account of which was given today by the Minister of Transport. No doubt that provision will be made for some other works in the coming months, pending the publication of the master plan that is being prepared by the Bureau d'ameagement de l'Est du Quebec (ARDA).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question?


Alexandre Cyr: Later on.


Mr. Chretien:: You refused the other day.


Alexandre Cyr: I must congratulate the Minister of Transport, in Ottawa, and Mr. Bernard Pinard, minister of roads for the province of Quebec, as well as the officers in their respective departments, for their extensive and serious studies, which will permit the 20220-i07i
Interim, Supply
working out of this essential project in this Gaspe area.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what is called good patronage.


Alexandre Cyr: This road will greatly contribute to the development of our natural resources, especially the mining and the tourist industry.
I trust that this federal contribution of $13 million, which will make it possible to carry out a provincial project, will be passed by parliament in the near future. Those who are against it have little or no knowledge of the problems and needs of the North Gaspd district.


Mr. Vincent:: Who is against it?


Alexandre Cyr: I deny to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the right to make believe that they are the only champions of the Gaspe. peninsula and of its people.
The Gasp6 residents have elected a spokesman and yours truly is much better qualified to express the needs of his fellow citizens than some other members.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that he visited the Gaspe area once. I can tell the committee that I have lived there all my life, and that I am familiar with the problems and needs of my constituency.
A few minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition had in his hand an extract of the legislation which received royal assent on March 23, 1962, that is chapter 13, 10-11 Elizabeth II.
I should now like to summarize what happened. The bill which was given royal assent on March 23, 1962, authorized the construction of 57 miles of railroad at an estimated cost of $16,100,000. Order in council 1962-481 dealt in a little more detail with the agreement which was to be signed between the government and the C.N.R. That order in council was approved on April 5, 1962, but the most interesting item in all that is order in council PC-656 of May 1962.
The first paragraph read as follows:

His Excellency the Governor General In council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 4 of chapter 13, Statutes of Canada, 1962, is pleased hereby to direct as follows:-
1.	That an accountable payment, in the amount of $100,000 be made to the Canadian National Railway Company out of the consolidated revenue fund to provide funds to cover the estimated cost of the work of construction of the line of railway between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts in the province of Quebec, during the period April 16 1962 to June 30, 1962.
Interim Supply



Imagine, gentlemen, preparing plans for the railway over a period of two and a half months only. Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the order in council allowed only two and a half months to prepare those plans by the end of June 1962, whereas the federal election was taking place on June 18 of the same year.
Therefore, in May 1962, the treasury sent to the railway authorities the amount of $100,000, as provided in order in council No. 656.
A few weeks later the Canadian National Railways handed back to the crown the amount of $30,000, stating that $70,000 was enough to commit the intended blunder.
A while ago the Leader of the Opposition stated he intended to build the railway and that the amount provided was $16,000,000. Now, here is, as recorded in Hansard of April 6, 1964, the reply given to question No. 524:
On December 27, 1962, the chairman and president ol the Canadian National Railways submitted to the Minister of Transport the report of the C.N.R. on the survey of a railway line from Matane to Ste Anne des Monts, and an estimate of the cost of such a railway line.
The Leader of the Opposition, who was then prime minister, said nothing about that. There were elections on April 8, and we know what change this meant for the whole of Canada.
I shall quote an article published in the newspaper Le Soleil of March 12, 1963, according to which the Leader of the Opposition, then prime minister, said in Matane in the course of an election meeting:
Your railway, you will have it. said the Prime Minister to the people attending the meeting, last nighb-
That crowd must have included a few hundred people; those last words are from me, not from the text I quote-
-the building of that railway will cost $23 million instead of $16 million as estimated. The extra expenditures incurred will be voted at next session, stated the Prime Minister.
This was published in the Quebec Le Soleil on March 12, 1963.
And the Leader of the Opposition comes and tells the house that everything was ready to go ahead with that project.
Mr. Chairman, when statistics show that for the nine counties of lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe as a whole annual production is valued at $85 million and social security payments at $110 million, it is high time that our leaders work together toward the elimination of that gap between production and social security payments of all sorts.
[Mr. Cyr.l
The policy of federal contribution to the provincial road system is being carried out in the maritime provinces, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux), but, in the maritimes, this contribution has to go through the Atlantic development board; however, is it not a fact that the Gaspe peninsula suffers from a similar, if not worse, economic stagnation than some of the Atlantic regions?
Once the Gaspe peninsula is provided with good seaports, good airports and improved highways, it will be possible to develop more rationally its natural resources.


David Réal Caouette: Of course, Mr. Chairman, everyone notices that the session is going on and on and on, and that nothing or almost nothing is being done. At long last the ministers decided to answer questions yesterday. Before that, for a week or almost ten days, questions were not being answered.
Do you know, Mr. Chairman, the impression thus created among the general public, among those people we see here in the galleries this afternoon and especially among those who are not here, but all across Canada? They are under the impression that the House of Commons is a place where members behave like school kids and play a game of asking questions concerning the flag and the estimates, blaming the government for not answering questions, and that the government is in no hurry to assume its responsibilities. So, the present situation is that among the public, we are considered as people who waste public funds and moneys paid by the people in the form of taxes.
A while ago I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that 250 questions had remained without reply and that only since yesterday had the ministers decided to answer in a proper way the questions asked by the opposition during the last week.
Two Conservative hon. members observed a few minutes ago that they did not wish to conduct a filibuster but that we, on this side, perhaps did not want to assume our responsibilities.
That is not the issue at all but I could say to the Conservatives and to those who rose a while ago, that their filibuster has been systematic since last week and that, concerning the questions for which answers are being requested now, when they were in power, a little over a year ago, the same questions remained without reply and that the government, and the then prime minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition, did not even take the trouble to answer the questions we

asked at that time. And now they accuse others of not doing what they themselves neglected to do when they were in office.
We have also read in the newspapers this morning that there was a meeting of the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition yesterday for 25 minutes in order to try and find a compromise. Later this afternoon there will be a meeting of leaders of all parties in the house. But what I do not quite understand and can hardly imagine is that the Leader of the Opposition, alone with the Prime Minister, decides on some sort of a compromise, and it is then that the ministers started answering or appeared willing to answer questions asked by the opposition.
That there are efforts, Mr. Chairman, to leave aside the other members of the house- I intended to say this at noon when the Prime Minister was here-is incomprehensible. We in this corner of the house were elected exactly the same way as the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of the Opposition. As far as I am concerned, I even got a much larger majority than the Prime Minister in his riding and the Leader of the Opposition in his.
We do not like little meetings to which the leaders of the other political groups in the house are not invited. I find this wrong and illogical. The Leader of the Opposition has no rights to talk with the Prime Minister in the name of the opposition, because he is not alone in the opposition; we also are in the opposition and we should be entitled to take part in the discussions, if there are agreements to be reached with respect to the ausiness of the house.
Besides, we shall see later when we get together how far we can co-operate.
We have been offering our co-operation concerning the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag for a long time. Three weeks ago, perhaps a little less, I said that all the Creditistes members were ready to vote in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, no matter which flag it was, whether it has one, three or even 12 maple leaves. You can add as many leaves as you want. But as far as a distinctive Canadian flag is concerned, we are all ready to vote in favour of such a flag.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me a simple question?


David Réal Caouette: By all means.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is the hon. member in favour of two official flags resolutions, including the
Interim Supply
union jack? Does not the hon. member find that ridiculous?


David Réal Caouette: I was under the impression that my hon. friend for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was quicker in the uptake.
We have before us a resolution in two parts: part A which we are now discussing and part B which will be discussed later. On part A, we are unanimous-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: So am I.


David Réal Caouette: I understand that the hon. member also agrees with us.
On part B, we will be unanimous; that is to vote against a second flag for Canada. Is that clear enough?
The other day, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) if, when he was in London where 18 commonwealth prime ministers were gathered, he had heard in that majestic assembly that another country in the commonwealth had two flags, one for Sundays and one for the weekdays, as some are attempting to impose on us in this parliament. I believe the government is unanimous with us to vote against part B and in favour of part A.


Clément Vincent: I rise on a question of privilege.
I would not want the hon. member for Villeneuve, who made a mistake earlier, to carry on with his speech without anyone making a correction. He indicated that his majority in Villeneuve county was higher than that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his. However, according to the official report of the 1963 general election, the Leader of the Opposition had a majority of 14,451 votes and the hon. member for Villeneuve of 10,826 votes.


David Réal Caouette: I would suggest to the hon. member to figure out the percentage of the votes and to give me the answer later.


Clément Vincent: On the same question of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I will allow the hon. member for Villeneuve to proceed with his statement, and rule that this is not a question of privilege. If the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska objects to anything the hon. member for Villeneuve has said he has the right to do so after that hon. member has completed his statement.
Interim Supply


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the flag issue has aroused and is still creating a great deal of interest in this country. It is precisely about this flag question that everybody we come across outside parliament asks us: What are you up to? Be done with it. Go ahead and accept the flag and stop wasting valuable time, when there are so many more urgent and serious problems to settle in this country.
The people, who are inquisitive, are asking us to step on it. They are absolutely right. But the Leader of the Opposition spends his time creating confusion in our country on the flag issue, for instance, by spreading the idea that the distinctive national flag project was brought forward to please the province of Quebec, while an improved red ensign would help and promote national unity. He clearly gives the impression that the establishment of a distinctive national flag is designed to please French speaking Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, at this stage I would say that as far as we from the province of Quebec are concerned, we do not need a distinctive national flag at all, because we have a legal flag that we can hoist on any public or private pole. We have a flag, but we are prepared to support the suggestion of a distinctive national flag, not only for part of the population, but for all Canadians who think as Canadians, rather than in terms of other countries.
Mr. Chairman, this flag issue would have been settled a long time ago, if there had been more understanding and co-operation on the part of the Conservative party, for all other opposition groups were prepared to proceed on the distinctive national flag issue. Now, with regard to the other part of the resolution, we will fight it, of course, as well as, I believe, all Canadians, regardless of origin, be it English, French, Ukrainian, Polish, or whatever it may be-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated a desire to speak on a point of order.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, while all members of the committee are extremely interested in the views which are being enunciated by the hon. member for Villeneuve, it would seem to me under the rules of order that they are more appropriate to a debate which he is now anticipating, and which is the second after this particular item. We are very interested in what he has to say about the provincial flag of Quebec, about his views
[The Deputy Chairman.]
and about the views of those associated with him. However, the matter before the house is the matter of interim supply. In respect of this point of order I suggest to the committee chairman that he should rule that the hon. member is anticipating a debate yet to be called.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: We can wait to hear what you have to say.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the point of order raised by the minister is well taken and that the hon. member for Villeneuve is anticipating an order of the day. While the Chair does not wish to interfere with any brief reference which the hon. member for Villeneuve might make, I think if he makes any extended remarks, as I believe he is now doing, he will be anticipating an order of the day and would be out of order, having regard to the resolution which is now before the committee. I hope the hon. member for Villeneuve in any further remarks he wishes to make will confine himself more directly to the resolution before the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are considering interim supply-

I should perhaps deal with the department of the minister who just asked you to bring me to order, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps a little later I will do so in reference to another item which will be discussed, namely a social health plan for the whole of Canada. I do not wish to anticipate any further in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing interim supply, it seems an opportune time to express our views on various subjects.
In examining such interim supply, amounting to $696 million or, more precisely, to $696,010,781.01-the 1 cent must be the provincial tax-


An hon. Member:: The provincial tax is 6 per cent.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while studying the votes of such or such department, we wonder in what way the amounts are spent. If such amounts are spent as is being done in some departments, and if the answers to the questions we ask on orders of the day or verbally in the house are similar to those we receive from various departments-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In reply to his present remarks, would the hon. member allow me to give him some figures?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Is the hon.
gentleman rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Among the 1,647 questions that were asked since the beginning of this session, 1,530, that is 92.9 per cent were answered, whereas only 118, that is 7.1 per cent, were not.
The questions to which no reply was given before July 15, 1964 number only 35, that is 2.1 per cent.


David Réal Caouette: I am grateful to the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche for the information he has just provided. On the other hand, I wish to draw the attention of the house not to the quantity of replies received, but to their quality.
Those are answers which do not mean anything, which do not enlighten us and, in many cases, are untrue.
For instance, I have here a copy of question No. 1,572 which I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). Here it is:
1.	How many pounds of butter and how many pounds of butter oil were sold since January 1, 1964, (a) for local consumption, (b) for export?
2.	To what countries was surplus butter and surplus butter oil, exported and how many pounds of each category were exported to each country?
3.	What was the price per pound of each shipment?
4.	What Canadian firms made these transactions and how many pounds were shipped by each firm?
5.	What commission was received by such firms on each pound of butter and pound of butter oil, or on each box of butter or box of butter oil?
Mr. Chairman, I ask hon. members to listen carefully to the following answers which were given me:
1. (a) Butter (for local consumption), Jan. 1/64-July 1/64 : 38,221,448 lbs.
Butter oil (local consumption)-Jan. 1/64-July 1/64: 911,108 lbs.
(b) (Exports) Butter-32,900,000 lbs. of which 3,085,544 lbs. have been shipped as of July 2/64.
Butter oil-52,185,922 lbs. of which 28,012,878 lbs. have been shipped as of July 2/64.
Now, the significant point of the question is:
What was the price per pound of each shipment?
And here is the answer:
Butter-33 cents per lb. Canadian seaboard.
Butter oil-27 cents per lb. Canadian seaboard.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is not all. In the fifth part of my question I asked what commission was received by such firms which
Interim Supply
sold butter-I have a whole list of them here, including Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Winnipeg, Ottawa. This was the answer:
The agricultural stabilization board sold at port. No commissions were paid.
Mr. Chairman, am I to believe that the companies sold butter without any commission, that they have become agents? Or did those companies sell the butter at a price higher than 33J cents per pound at Canadian port?
That is the kind of answers we get to our questions. It seems that the officials were given instructions to answer in the most confusing possible way so that nothing would be known of the operations of the various federal departments.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to deal with a question asked by my good friend, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) relating to the banking system. It is question No. 1,302 which was as follows:
1. Do the chartered banks create new credits and, if so (a) in what way (b) must they furnish sureties (c) what are those sureties (d) in what proportion?
Mr. Chairman, listen to this answer. You can realize how clear it is.
1. In common with other individuals, corporations or financial institutions who borrow or lend, a chartered bank participates in the creation of new credit-
That is what the official is stating in his answer.
In common with other individuals, corporations or financial institutions who borrow or lend, a chartered bank participates in the creation of new credit-
And this, although it is formally established that only chartered banks have the right to create new credit, that no one, no financial institution enjoys that privilege, and that the companies that borrow or lend must use new credit created by chartered banks to continue their operations.
But now an official of the Department of Finance in Ottawa, because he does not know, is stating in his answer that the banks are only doing like other lending corporations. In fact, here is what he said:
Like others who borrow-in the case of a chartered bank by taking deposits-the borrower must be ready to pay off its debt at maturity-
Mr. Chairman, there is no need for an official to tell us that. We know it. And I continue:
-the borrower must be ready to pay off his debt at maturity (which, in the case of the deposit liabilities of a chartered bank, is on demand or

Interim Supply
short notice) a chartered bank is dependent on public confidence in this respect for its continued existence.
Mr. Chairman, we agree on that point. And I go on:
Apart from conditions which must be met by any borrower, a chartered bank is required by the Bank Act to maintain a reserve in the form of cash (i.e. Bank of Canada notes and/or deposits with the Bank of Canada) equal on the average during each calendar year to not less than 8 per cent of its Canadian dollar deposits. By agreement with the Bank of Canada, each chartered bank also holds a secondary reserve, equal to at least 7 per cent of its Canadian dollar deposits, in government of Canada treasury bills and day-to-day loans to money market dealers. In addition to these reserves, each chartered bank maintains substantial holdings of other short term government of Canada securities in order to assure its ability to meet any withdrawals by its depositors.
Mr. Chairman, the chartered banks have enjoyed for a long time the federal government guarantee under the Bank Act. In fact, they have the right to multiply by 12 their deposits with the Bank of Canada. It is against this control that we fight and that we fought in the past.
Moreover, we do not like officials to answer with so little clearness the questions we ask, and I feel that lectures in political economy should be given them by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay), who is an economist, by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), who is also an economist, or by people who must have a knowledge of financial and monetary questions. Let those people give lectures to the officials of the Department of Finance so that they will not answer us by nonsense such as we find in the answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take more of the time of the house, because I think that we will discuss tomorrow the meeting which will be held later with leaders of the other political parties. But before I resume my seat, I want to repeat that the leader of the official opposition must not consider himself as the leader of all opposition parties.
The Liberals are accused of arrogance, but the leader of the official opposition acts in an arrogant way with the other members of the opposition. If he leads a more important group or a greater number of members, I feel that I lead more Quebec members than he, and that Raillement Creditiste has the right to be heard as often and as freely as any member of the official opposition.
Mr. Chairman, we shall go and see which understanding it is possible to reach, because we also want the end of the session. As I
[Mr. Caouette.l
said at the beginning of my remarks, it seems that the public are tired of seeing the members of parliament act like school children, and the teachers of these school children seem obviously to be the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. Let us stop acting like children and let us pass legislative measures likely to help the Canadian people, instead of aggravating them as we do now.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks to answer the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette).
For the information of the hon. member, I must say that all members of the official opposition are completely free to express their views, according to their feelings, and the leader of the official opposition has never taken me to task because of a statement I had made in the house, regarding the flag issue or any other matter. I am extremely pleased to be a member of the Conservative party, to be a member of the official opposition, for I have always enjoyed the fullest freedom in expressing my opinions, according to my feelings, without any other members intervening or exerting influence in order to prevent me from expressing my opinions.
Mr. Chairman, we have always been prepared to co-operate with the government to expedite the passing of interim supply bills. We wanted to co-operate. We have asked many questions concerning eastern agriculture which is now in a state of stagnation, since eastern farmers, especially Quebec farmers, are going bankrupt.
According to what I have learned from reliable sources, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) will be absent from this country for a month. He is on holidays and will not be back until the end of August.
Mr. Chairman, even if the Minister of Forestry is gone, even if, although we wished to co-operate with the government, we did get all the answers to the questions we asked-and it is the role of the opposition to put questions to the government when expenditures of $700 million are at stake- even if we did not obtain full co-operation, I can assure the government, on behalf of the official opposition, that we shall vote interim supply before six o'clock this evening. Indeed, I shall be the last speaker on this side of the house.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the statements made following the statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), and with the speech made by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr). The latter stated

that it would be foolish to build the Mata-pedia-Matane railway. In my opinion he is wrong. I know that several hon. members have received a letter from the chamber of commerce of Gaspe north and an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of this chamber of commerce, following its last meeting.
I received this letter, dated June 22, 1964, and I wish to quote the following:
Extract from the minutes of the board of directors meeting at Ste Anne des Monts, on Wednesday, June 17, 1964.
The chamber of commerce of Gaspe North Inc. wishes to get the record straight regarding an article recently published in the newspapers, including he Soleil, in which it was stated that the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North Inc., had definitely given up the project regarding the building of a railway between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.
The board of directors of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North has never taken such a stand and the question of its giving up this project never came up. Quite on the contrary, the chamber continues to support that project and it is convinced of the necessity of building that railway for the development of the area. The house supports road and harbour construction projects without giving up the railway project. Roads and harbours are necessary with or without a railway.
Moreover, it was proposed by Claude Jourdain-
Mr. Chairman, at this stage, may I be permitted to point out that Mr. Claude Jourdain is the former Liberal member for Gaspe in the Quebec legislature. I continue:
-seconded by Maurice Lefrancois and unanimously carried that the chamber of commerce of North Gaspe Inc. ask the federal government to extend by at least a year the date of expiry of the bill, set at present for December 31, 1964.
That a copy of that statement and resolution be addressed to the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Rene Tremblay, Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, Mr. Alexandre Cyr, member for Gaspe, the newspaper he Soleil, the newspaper he Voyageur and the regional chamber of commerce of Gaspe.
Mr. Chairman, I have read with interest the statement made by the Minister of Transport in which he says among other things the following:
The government has agreed to contribute $125,000 per mile towards the construction and grading and an additional $25,000 towards the paving of these 87 miles of road on every mile that is completed before November 1, 1968, with an upper limit of $13,000,000 on the federal contribution.
The amounts relating to the finished work will be paid at the end of each quarter, following an appropriate inspection by the engineers of the Trans-Canada Highway of the Department of Public Works.
When will the federal government stop intruding in fields coming under provincial jurisdiction?
Interim Supply
The federal government is voting a sum to enable the province of Quebec to continue road construction in the Gaspe peninsula. As a result the inspectors of the federal government will check how the money will be used by the Quebec provincial government.
I would be pleased to know what the Quebec government thinks about that, since several provincial ministers object to joint plans.
But the federal government persists in increasing its intrusion as far as highways are concerned, a field coming under provincial jurisdiction.
I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a betrayal, on the part of the federal government, to try to invade a provincial jurisdictional field, namely that of the roads department.
Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec wants a railway. The chamber of commerce of north Gaspe wishes to have this railway. The people in north Gaspe want this railway. Why does the federal government refuse to carry out the bill that was passed at the time we were in office? Why does the federal government refuse to comply with the request made by the chamber of commerce of north Gaspe, which really expresses the wish of the people of the Matapedia-Matane and north Gaspe areas?
At the present time, Mr. Chairman, we have only 11 per cent of all railway lines in Canada and the province of Quebec wants to increase its railway mileage.
Since when, Mr. Chairman, must growth come before the construction of the railway?
The minister said in his statement:
Should the region enjoy an economic growth that would warrant the construction of that railway, the project would of course be considered again.
Mr. Chairman, a railway must come before the growth of a region.
What would have happened if we had had to wait until the western provinces had developed to build a railway line from coast to coast?
Railroads must be the basis of economic development in an area, a province or a country. They must come before development. If the railroad in question is not built, the natural resources of that part of our province, the Gaspe area, will remain undeveloped.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite surprised to see the federal government further encroaching upon a field of provincial jurisdiction by asking its inspectors to check the work done by the Quebec department of highways.

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, is that the government's way of preparing for the by-election which will be held in the riding of Matane a few weeks hence?


Auguste Choquette: Probably.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, why are the Gaspe chamber of commerce and the people of Quebec denied the right to carry out that legislation?
The minister knows the bill was approved. It was endorsed by all government members, including the former minister of transport and member for Laurier who has since been appointed Canada's high commissioner in London.


An hon. Member:: Seven minutes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will prove my co-operation in two minutes. I ask the minister, and I ask the government to construct this railway. It is very important to the economy of Gaspe, and it is very important to the economy of the province of Quebec. We are faced with unemployment. I say to this government, what have you in mind? Why do you postpone this project? The Gaspe chamber of commerce wants this project. We have a government which refuses to take its responsibility. We have a government which is unable to resolve the problem of unemployment and refuses to build this railway. We want to co-operate with the government. We are ready to adopt this interim supply resolution. We hope the Minister of Forestry will be back in the house within a few days because we have many questions to address to him. This is not the time for him to be on a holiday in Europe, when we are at work and when our constituents are asking us to work for them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was suggested to me last week, Mr. Chairman, that there were certain questions which hon. members wished to have answered with respect to my department prior to the usual time when the main estimates are introduced. I have waited until the end of this debate to see whether anything else might arise, but to my knowledge the only questions are the only ones asked last Tuesday in the debate which is recorded in Hansard for July 28. I have gone through the speeches and about 15-odd members contributed to the more than five hours spent on this department. I have gone through the record looking for questions, and I have found one or two with which I should deal.

The first speech was made by my predecessor, the hon. member for Perth. He dealt mainly with the health ministers' conference which had just concluded, and spent most of the remainder of his time making general remarks. He did indeed praise the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare is now in a brand new building out at Tunney's pasture. He also made some reference-and I must confess I think he had a tongue in one or both cheeks when doing so -to the minister moving into the plushiest office in Ottawa. If members of the committee would permit me, I would like to thank my predecessor for the spending of $7 million on that building, and to thank him for having laid out this very magnificent 35 foot ministerial office. Indeed it is far more than such a modest person as I would arrange for myself, but I am very grateful for the foresight of my hon. friend.


Mr. Monieiih:: I think the minister would admit I did let her know I was only jealous.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would be very happy to invite my hon. friend out for a cup of tea and to walk with me around the balustrade overlooking the Gatineau hills and the beautiful river, and perhaps the two of us can find together the peace which he referred to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And how about
the former minister?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, I would be very happy to take with me my predecessor's predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I am afraid he would be a little troubling influence intervening between my predecessor and myself.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would be an influence for good.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Subsequent to the hon. member for Perth speaking, there was a most interesting speech by the hon. member for Waterloo North which chiefly commended my department for its record with respect to the setting up of the parliamentary committee on pesticides, and commended the second report of that committee working under its very able chairman, the hon. member for Halton. His comments were very useful but he did not ask any questions at that point. Later he dealt at some length with a matter which is close to his heart, the fitness and amateur sports program, and I am very grateful for the congratulations he showered upon my department in that respect. He also dealt with the construction of facilities, which

had been dealt with a number of times previously in speeches, but he did not make any inquiries at that time.
The hon. member for Saskatoon, obviously a very gifted new member, made a speech which received commendation, and properly so, from many hon. members. It was a truly memorable maiden speech, and dealt with a subject with which she is well suited to deal as a psychiatrist. It is absolutely clear that she knows at first hand the problems of mental health. She did not pose any questions to the minister, and while much of what she dealt with falls within provincial responsibility, certainly the general principles to which she subscribed are supported by Mr. Justice Hall and his commissioners and have been subscribed to by the Department of National Health and Welfare for some considerable time.
Subsequently the hon. member for Simcoe East dealt with a subject which is often mentioned in the house, and on which he has repeatedly asked questions on orders of the day, namely the anti-cigarette smoking campaign of the department. He was good enough to compliment me for having stopped smoking and for the example which that gave to young people. He also complimented the department on the booklet of statistics it issued regarding fatalities and illnesses arising from cigarette smoking. He did ask a question or two about cigarette advertising and cigarette vending, both of which had been answered on orders of the day a month or so previously.
He also made a suggestion which I cannot really consider very seriously, that perhaps the government would like to set up a medical university in his riding. If he is serious about this I would be happy to discuss it with him, but I am sure he would appreciate that the federal government does not set up universities as such. This is a matter within the very jealously guarded prerogatives of the provinces.
The hon. member for London dealt lightly with assistance programs and did not ask any questions.
The hon. member for Springfield, who was a social worker and has considerable background in that work, dealt with the welfare side of my department. He dealt at some length with sheltered workshops and made a most interesting and helpful speech, but did not ask any questions. He also dealt with the conference on the family, which Their Excellencies the Governor General and Madame Vanier sponsored recently in Ottawa, and 20220-4081
Interim Supply
with the very useful things which it is hoped will arise from that.
The hon. member also raised several matters regarding Indian health and the provinces. This is very topical, since today we notice in the press that as a result of the meeting of the provincial premiers there is to be some further discussion among them regarding their adoption of responsibility for Indian health.
The hon. member for Wellington-Huron made a brief speech on smoking, without posing any questions. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin also spoke very briefly about the question of Indian hospitals.
The hon. member for Regina City dealt with the fitness program and commended me for the new appointments I made in January to the fitness and amateur sports advisory body. He also dealt at length with the possibility of obtaining grants for the soaring association of Canada, something in which he is much interested.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas accepted compliments on her approaching marriage and made a most interesting and able general speech regarding the department for which she had formerly the honour to be the parliamentary secretary. She concluded with the request that the government might consider implementation of one of the Hall commission recommendations, namely to undertake fluoridation wherever possible under its jurisdiction. I am sure the hon. member is aware that my parliamentary secretary earlier this session made a pronouncement on fluoridation on behalf of the department.
Then there was a request by the hon. member for Kootenay West that I and other lady members join together to see action was taken to let the female secretarial staff off early, because the temperature was 95 and the humidity 98. It seemed to me that the hon. member was at that point, although truly concerned as always with the well-being of any young ladies, mainly concerned with the well-being of the committee and hopeful he might alleviate a very threatening atmosphere which appeared to be developing at that time.
In all the five hours and 15 speeches there was one topic of some considerable weight raised by two hon. members, and I am glad to see one of them in the committee and interested enough to be here to hear the answer. The hon. member for Northwest Territories discussed a number of things, but principally he spoke of the question of the

Interim Supply
Charles Camsell hospital, which I had announced would be rebuilt in Edmonton. I am sure he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with his colleague, the former speaker of the house, who represents Edmonton West, or with any other Edmonton member, as I am certain the contents of his speech would not have received much agreement from them. The burden of his speech, which was supported by the hon. member for Athabasca later, was that the Charles Camsell hospital, a ramshackle collection of buildings in the city of Edmonton, put together and utilized at the moment for the special purposes of Indian and Eskimo health, should not be rebuilt.
It was pointed out that the Glassco commission on reorganization of the government, which sat for some time, had made an express comment regarding this hospital and a specific recommendation against rebuilding it. My hon. friend from the Northwest Territories suggested that the Eskimos and Indians in his area and contiguous areas might be better served by the construction of smaller hospitals in the territory, closer to the homes of the individuals. He expressed himself in favour of a policy of integration as opposed to a policy of segregation. I must say I agree with that general statement of policy. I am not in favour of segregation whether it be on the basis of background, colour or sex, and I believe all members of this committee are agreed that under successive governments Canada has for a number of years been moving toward the integration of our native people with those who arrived at a later date.
However the Charles Camsell hospital is a rather specialized matter. May I say that I was not aware, earlier in the day, that this debate would be closing this evening. Accordingly I shall have to speak from memory; I shall be in a position to deal with the subject at much greater length when my estimates are under consideration. This hospital, as has been said, is physically a collection of dilapidated buildings. I went to see it and I was shocked that any government would offer hospital services in such buildings. The maternity room was about 10 feet by 6 feet and had attached to it one bathroom in which the garbage can was kept. I saw babies from all over the territories, from all over Alberta, from the northern part of British Columbia and from the northern part of Saskatchewan brought in to the hospital, and all were kept in large wards without segregation. I looked at the charts over the beds and found that there was not one disease

diagnosed, but half a dozen. I asked about this, and I was told it was the regular practice-all the children were put in wards, together, so that they had an opportunity to catch other childhood diseases and acquire immunity. Incidentally this is something a mother often does when she has more than one child, in order to get them out of this particular stage. Many childhood diseases are not very serious when they are contracted at an early age.
The standard of care at the hospital was incredibly high. Doctors and nurses have come from all over the world to work there. Every facility is available in this scattered conglomeration of buildings. Facilities for operations are extremely poor, but they exist. Medical teams from the university come to the hospital and through this device Indian and Eskimo patients have available to them the best medical skills in our country. In the hospital I saw row upon row of Eskimo babies suffering from such things as congenital hips. These babies have been brought from their homes, and in order that they may recover it is necessary for them to stay for years in the hospital, sometimes from the time they are only two or three months old. I saw babies with tuberculosis who also may have to spend years under treatment. The Indians and the Eskimos, in particular the women, are famous among all people for the tremendous love and attention they show to their young ones, and to the young ones generally of the communities in which they live. Yet nothing can surpass the love and affection which is showered upon these babies so far from their own homes. The Indians and Eskimos to whom I spoke-and they were not many, since very few of them speak English and I do not have any of the native languages-pointed out to me the kind of facilities they have, the food, clothing and care they received. They told me they were homesick. This is something to which the hon. member drew the attention of the committee.
It happens to be a fact that my department, the Department of National Defence and, in some respects, the department of northern affairs are faced with an almost impossible task in trying to secure and keep first class medical people and para-medical people for service in the very far north. It is for this reason that the Charles Camsell hospital, which provides a whole range of services, is built in Edmonton. That is as far as we can go if we are to get the kind of personnel necessary in order to serve these people

properly. The opinion was expressed in the Glassco report that this hospital should be built on the university grounds, possibly as a wing of the existing hospital. It was not known by the members of the commission when preparing their report that the University of Alberta and the government of Alberta would not permit this, had decided that its hospital was already sufficiently large and that no room would be made available for any further extensions for any purpose. I would point out that at one point this project had been approved by my predecessor as the hon. gentleman will agree. Then on December 20, 1962, it was cancelled-I know the date because it happens to be my birthday and I had hoped to be able to make an announcement by December 20 of last year reversing that decision.
It is of course expensive to build such a hospital. It is difficult to justify putting it up for a class of people, and I do not like the idea any more than the hon. gentleman does. The responsibility of my department at the moment is to provide, as close as possible to their homes, the best medical facilities we can for the people who are the least civilized of our population-those who have the least money, the fewest facilities and the most restricted possibilities.
The hon. gentleman was generous enough to say in his speech that he was aware of the kind of money being spent by my department to fly out of the north anyone from children to old people, regardless of what was ailing them, in order that they might receive the best hospital care. We hope, and I am very proud of this as the minister responsible, that we can improve the standard of care by rebuilding the Camsell hospital. If the hon. gentleman would speak with his colleague the former Speaker, who is sitting beside him and who represents Edmonton West where the new hospital is to be built he will realize I think from that conversation the kind of devotion to their patients which is shown by the doctors and nurses and by the para-medical personnel who work there. I was driven to visit this particular hospital by their repeated pleas, and when I got there I felt as though a lot of puppies were following me around, they were so terribly anxious that their patients should have the facilities which they thought they were entitled to-not that there should be marble halls or a fancy public institution to which the local member could point with pride, but so that there would be cleanliness, space, and an opportunity for good health care.
Interim Supply
This is the reason why the department, taking well into consideration the recommendation of the Glassco commission report, which was based upon an erroneous impression, taking into consideration the possibility of further opening up the north by providing improved hospital facilities for Indians and Eskimos there, decided that notwithstanding the fact that it would be more appropriate to integrate, because of the history of absolute inability to obtain personnel and facilities so far above the tree line, the best thing which could be done was to proceed immediately to the reconstruction of this hospital.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Would the hon. lady permit a short question? Is she aware of the fact that the distant early warning line which spans the high Arctic hundreds of miles further north than the place I was suggesting as the site of a new hospital, has always been supplied with medical staff, and this was done by paying them $18,000 a year and everything found. I suggest the basic reason why the department is unable to recruit staff, if this is so, is that they are offering wages which are completely inadequate in the circumstances, so they are unlikely to get the services of anyone unless he is either desperate for experience or has something to run away from. I wonder whether the hon. lady has looked into this aspect of the situation when she says that medical staff refuse to go into the Canadian Arctic.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to pay them the salary members of parliament are paid, or much more than that. I am not certain of the D.E.W. line situation but I assume that the hospitals there are staffed by the military.
Perhaps I should tell the committee of the situation in Churchill. The hon. member for Churchill might be able to hear this out. As hon. members know, recently the Department of National Defence closed down its facilities there and left a hospital. There was some considerable discussion as to whether the Department of National Defence should for a while operate this facility until Manitoba might take it over. After long discussions Manitoba decided to take it over as of August 1. Manitoba has been unable to find medical personnel who will go to Churchill, and accordingly has besought the federal government to keep its military medical personnel there, even such people as stretcher bearers, interns, doctors and nurses-almost all the personnel-until such time as they are able to improve this situation. I am not certain what

Interim Supply
the salary is, but I last heard that over $20,000 was being offered by the province of Manitoba to personnel-with no takers.
As my hon. friend will have noticed if he has been to the Charles Camsell hospital, as he says he has, many of its doctors were not trained in Canada; many of them have come here from different parts of Europe and Asia and the salaries they are receiving are perhaps much in excess of what they would be receiving elsewhere. But unhappily many of them work for a couple of years, get their qualifications and then leave. This has been a difficulty all along with the northern health service. I hope this explanation with regard to the chief question, and the only one which it seemed to me was asked for the purpose of getting information, will sufficiently satisfy my hon. friend and the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the Minister of Transport a couple of questions in connection with the Ste Anne des Monts railway. I heard the minister's comment that the translators encountered some difficulty with the statement. There are a couple of points I wanted to get clear in my mind. Is the legislation completely dead now? That is the first question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I had better dispose of that question right away. I am not a lawyer, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition said I did not understand the act, and I just do not think it would be wise for me to attempt a technical explanation here. All I can say is that it is not the intention of the government, at the present time, to go on with the building of that railway.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad the minister is in what he described earlier as one of his simple, artless moods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say "artless".


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sure the minister has reviewed the evidence that was presented to the railway committee. Has he considered that anyone, either civil servants or politicians, might be liable for perjury charges, in view of the kind of evidence that was given in support of the building of this railway that now the government has decided should not be built?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, not being in the journalistic business but being at the present time Minister of Transport, I have not felt it necessary, being fully occupied with the duties of Minister of Transport, to consider whether or not anyone has committed

perjury; nor do I think it is appropriate to the functions of the head of a department which one of my predecessors has described as being too big for one man anyway, to go around looking for things to do in other people's fields. I will leave that problem to the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad the minister is carrying on in this simple way today. I would hate him to think that I have not beside my bed that book he edited regarding Mackenzie King's diary, and I can never forget what a journalist he is, and an editor, too. With regard to the question of-


An hon. Member:: When do you get time to
sleep?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, one of my bedtime stories is the Minister of Transport's presentation of a hagiography of one of the great leaders of our nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is certainly on the same level as questions of privilege put forward during the present session. It is that I wish to say that work was written when I was unfortunately unemployed. I am unemployed no longer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad the minister considers being in the opposition as being unemployed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assumed that was why the
hon. gentleman had another full time job.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to ask the minister what justification he is putting forward for the unilateral deal that seems to have been made with the Quebec government in this particular case, under no general program of any kind, unless it is as a sop or some kind of recognition after the event and trying to do something with a bad bill. I am not putting this question in direct terms; I am loading it. I would like to know the answer, because this matter bothers me very much. I am concerned about what has followed what I thought was a hopeless bill when it was brought in. The minister and his friends voted for it, and when they came into power I suppose the advice of the C.N.R. officials

finally got through to them, that this was uneconomical, that it was a real boondoggle, and so they stopped it.
But out of this has come, as far as I can see, a one-shot, unique kind of arrangement with the particular region, as compensation. It seems to me the minister should indicate whether other parts of the country can figure on this kind of arrangement if they have transportation facilities that cannot be improved by a railway, or are they going to be in the position of some of the western parts of the country and lose the railways they now have?
Is this a general principle that will be applied to other areas? Is the attitude the government is taking toward Gaspe to be the future policy, or are we to consider it, as the minister put it so simply and so artlessly- this is the way I took it, from his simple and artless approach-"Ha, ha, ha. You fellows thought you were going to buy votes in Gaspe, and now we are outbuying you with a slicker deal".


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am a simple person. I did not say I was artless; I said I was a straightforward person. I try not to load my questions, and I am not going to try to load my answers. But this parliament did decide, with the hon. gentleman dissenting, that $16 million might be spent on improving transportation in this area. When we came into office and examined the information that was available to us, we thought that $16 million could be better applied in improving the transportation in the Gaspe area in the other way I described this afternoon, rather than in building a railway. For that reason-we did not do anything unilateral-we made an agreement with the government of Quebec to spend $13 million on the highway because we thought that was the best way to improve the transportation in that area.
We were told that the government of Quebec-which has a timetable for all its highways all over the province-could not get at this project for a number of years and it could be greatly speeded up if we contributed, in exactly the same way as the Atlantic development board the other day earmarked $10 million of its funds for the improvement of trunk roads in the Atlantic provinces, namely to try to speed up the development of transportation facilities in those areas which the the MacPherson commission said were in need of special help in regard to their transportation facilities. I would like to think that if there are railways that are performing
Interim Supply
a function rather inefficiently and are costing the treasury a lot of money, there would not be too much objection to closing the railway and putting something else in its place. I hope the government would have the common sense to do this, particularly if it would save the treasury money in the long run. It seemed to me this was the sensible way of dealing with this problem, and I hope to be able to deal sensibly with a great many other problems in respect of transportation in this country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask one final question. Will the vote on this particular item be the kind that will be brought in regularly every year under the minister's estimates in view of what he has said about the staging of this item? In other words, will there be a specific item devoted to this which we will be able to speak to during our consideration of the estimates, and will this be a continuing item over a number of years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite frankly, sir, I have not had the time to discuss that matter with my colleagues on the treasury board, and until I do it would be wrong for me to answer. This item is not intended to be paid for out of the general vote of the department. There certainly will be a specific vote in respect of this project. The hon. gentleman said that was his last question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make sure I understand the situation. Are you giving us assurance that there will be an opportunity, for those of us who wish to do so, to vote against this item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course there will be an opportunity for hon. members to vote against this item if they wish to do so.


Mr. Beer:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in this debate in reply to the very polite questions that have been asked by members on the other side concerning matters pertaining to the departments of agriculture and forestry. I realize that most of the questions are related to the Department of Forestry and have been directed in greater detail toward the ARDA program.
I suppose one reason that the agricultural department has been spared somewhat from questioning is due to the fact that consideration of the agriculture estimates concluded on July 10, after some five full days of debate. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that most of the questions concerning the Department of Agriculture were answered at that time.

Interim Supply
I presume also that the notably improved relations in this chamber are the result of the summit conference which has taken place, and I should think that more summit conferences would be helpful.
I think one of the main questions asked by the opposition has related to the presence of the Minister of Forestry in the house. I have a short statement which indicates the Minister of Forestry is attending an international conference in Italy at the invitation of Hon. Mario Ferrari-Aggradi, the minister of agriculture and forestry of Italy. He is on a study tour of the integrated development in the mountainous territory of Italy. In addition he is going to attend a number of top level meetings with the prominent officials of the department of agriculture of Italy concerning the export of Canadian wood products to Italy. In addition there will be a number of meetings held with prominent officials of FAO concerning policies of that country and other countries attending the conference relating to rural development and forestry. I feel quite justified in assuring the committee that while the Minister of Forestry is in Italy at this particular time he is on Canadian business at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bruce Silas Beer: The other matter that has been given some prominence relates to the ARDA program. I think when the minister was here in the house he paid justifiable tribute to the former minister of agriculture and the government for having instituted this program in 1961 and for the steps forward that were taken by that government in connection with the ARDA program.
We of course all remember that this was a three year experiment, that some $50 million was allocated to this particular program, and that the contracts with the provinces are to expire in 1965. The Minister of Forestry, under whose direction the ARDA program has been placed, has undertaken to visit all the provinces in Canada, to assess the problems of those provinces and discuss them with the provincial authorities. He intends to return and prepare a program which will encompass the over-all needs of the provinces as they vary from one to another. He proposes to devise a program to enter into new contracts which will be necessary in 1965.
I think it is fair to add that in addition to the excellent work that was carried out by the former administration, the ARDA program has been pushed forward and is being extended by the present administration.

Some mention was made of the dutch elm disease by the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox. This situation is of continuing concern to the Minister of Forestry, and to myself in particular, because I do not think there is another area in Canada where elm trees are affected more than in my riding, the county of Peel, and where the loss has caused more grave concern. This type of work being done by the Minister of Forestry is being felt everywhere. There is a program in progress in respect of research to meet the needs of changing conditions in forestry at all times.
Some mention has been made of the feed grain policy of this government, which of course now comes under the authority of the Minister of Forestry. Of course we are aware of the changes made as of October last year as a result of which this government undertook to provide freight assistance in respect of grains moving to eastern Canada for feed purposes. In addition the government undertook to pay storage on all these feed grains, because there was a real problem resulting in the fluctuating of the price to eastern users. I think it is probably fair to observe that the price of feed grains has been more or less stabilized during the past few months because there is continuity of supply. Of course it will be of interest to hon. members to know that this matter has been referred to the committee on colonization and agriculture for further study and will be given further attention as required.
Some mention has been made of credit facilities for farmers. We are aware of the improvements which have been instituted in recent months and of some of the anticipated measures which will assist farmers in arranging credit in a more convenient way.
I do not propose to delay this debate in any way, Mr. Chairman, but I felt some of the questions that were asked by members on the other side were worthy of courteous replies. I will be happy to sit down now, and if there are any additional questions I will be pleased to answer them to the best of my ability.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, before the end of this debate, I would like to make some remarks which I feel are necessary.
Since yesterday, we have noted a drastic change of attitude among the members of the official opposition as well as the ministers.
Much importance has been attached during the past two days to the 200 questions asked by the official opposition as a proof that the said official opposition did not abdicate its responsibilities in this house and that it

would succeed in compelling the ministers to speak and to answer the questions asked.
A moment ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) analysed several speeches dealing with her department and only answered a few questions. Therefore, she is not the one who will answer all the questions concerning her department.
Many suggestions were made this afternoon. One might have thought, for instance, that the Conservatives discovered the Gaspe peninsula only a few months before the 1963 election.
After hearing the many suggestions made over the past week during the debate on interim supply, one is inclined to forget that only one year and a few months have elapsed since the Conservatives were defeated. Everything has to be done over again and all kinds of suggestions have been made in the last ten or 12 days.
Up to a year and a few months ago, the Conservatives had been responsible for the administration of the country for six years.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) rose three times in the course of this debate to speak about the serious problems facing Quebec agriculture; however, official statistics show that in 1957 farm revenues in the province of Quebec totalled $185 million and dropped to $179 million in 1962.
Mr. Chairman, we are wondering whether yesterday's summit conference had really anything to do with the change of heart which we have seen this afternoon regarding the end of this filibuster, if I may call it that, or whether we have to go back a few weeks when we read in the press that the Conservatives were demanding that the government withdraw its flag resolution, even threatening, according to certain statements made in Toronto or elsewhere by their leader, to extend the debate for as long as possible before giving final approval to this flag resolution. It lasted what it lasted. For almost a week, we heard about flags. After that, some thought they had found a way to postpone the debate on the flag by threatening the party in office to keep the debate on interim supply going; for a week, they really went in for what can be called a filibuster. Even if they claimed that it was a matter of 200 odd questions put to various ministers, I think that instead they made general remarks on the future policy of the Conservative party which sits in the house today.
However, at the end of last week newspapers which are considered very sym-
Interim Supply
pathetic toward the official opposition, found such tactics unreasonable and useless in the present situation.
The Globe and Mail said that it was inadmissible strategy, when so many economic problems went begging for a solution, to drag on a debate only to prevent a decision from being taken on the matter of national symbols and emblems.
For fear of losing face somewhere along the line, it was agreed to hold a summit conference. As the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) stated this afternoon, in view of the rights of parliament and of its members, which rights are sacred as the Leader of the Opposition often said, this conference which, according to this morning's newspapers, lasted 25 minutes is a complete contempt and denial of the rights of members of third parties who still represent over 25 per cent of Canadian voters in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that the speeches made by various ministers since yesterday afternoon constitute a reply to the 200-odd questions which were mentioned. First, we heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) overwhelm with congratulations the Conservative members who had made suggestions concerning the improvement of his department. He named them all probably for the purpose of putting their names in Hansard so that the record would show the negligible role played by the third parties during the important debate on interim supply. But as a large improvement, he has not yet found the manner in which to tell us what his department will do to stop many Canadian citizens from expatriating themselves, from emigrating to other countries because they are compelled at present to turn to our neighbours to earn a living. As a matter of fact, in 1962, more than 45,000 Canadians asked for visas to go to work permanently for our neighbours to the south. Forty five thousand. And we boast of having invited and received on our territory, under the Immigration Act, approximately a hundred thousand immigrants.
Of course, the minister indicated that immigration would become more and more effective and more selective, in order to meet more adequately the needs of our country for skilled men and technicians.
He mentioned, among other things, Algerian immigrants who, under an agreement reached with the Quebec provincial government, will come and show the Canadians of that province how to farm. They are probably used to farm

Interim Supply
in the African desert, but they will come and show us how we ought to farm in the province of Quebec.
The difference, Mr. Chairman, is that those future immigrants who will join us here in Canada, will not lack credit to allow them to buy two or three farms, under the ARDA program applied in the province of Quebec, where families and generations succeeded one another, earning an honourable but hard living on family farms. Today these same farmers cannot get from the federal Farm Credit Corporation enough credit to be able to improve their means of production.
It is the same as the argument which we often heard expounded by the minister in other parts of the country, when he stated in Toronto, about two months ago: What we lack in Canada is a greater population.
That is why his department planned to facilitate immigration to Canada. We needed consumers, he said.
But I have not much faith in this theory because, to my mind, when consumers are brought in we also bring in mouths-yes mouths-and arms to produce things.
Whenever somebody is invited to come as a consumer he is also asked to become a producer.
If you have ten or 12 lame people who go oil together on a pilgrimage, whether they start one after another or all together, I do not think there will be a great difference with regard to their lameness; they will limp along to the end of the pilgrimage.
The same is true in respect of agricultural problems in eastern Canada. All surveys prove that millions of dollars were paid to western producers under various pieces of legislation.
For a long time the farming industry has been considered solely on the basis of Canadian wheat in this house. In the two years I have been sitting in the house, every time we discuss our farming industry, for days on end the problems of wheat and cattle breeding in western Canada and of western cattle auctions are mentioned. On the other hand, we did not often hear about the farming problems of Quebec. That is probably the reason why under the previous administration the eastern farmers' income constantly fell off whereas in western Canada the producers' income showed an increase of over $400 million during the same period.
We are used to have a policy along this line. What is black in Vancouver is white in Halifax. We have a policy for one part of the country, and another one for the other.

We are spending funds in some areas of the country in the form of grants, subsidies and farm assistance, or else, of crop insurance. Therefore, we are participating jointly with provincial governments, which have established such programs, and the ultimate result is that the implementation of these various acts providing assistance, after a few years, as revealed by the report of the royal commission on the administration of prairie farm assistance, of June 10-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gérard Perron: So it would seem. Under different acts jointly implemented by the provinces and the federal government, in some provinces, it is discovered, that although in 1962 the western farmers were supposed to have had an increase in revenue of $400 million, thanks especially to an abundant wheat crop in that year-it is precisely during that year 1962 that some things happened in the Department of Agriculture, and more particularly in the prairie farm assistance board -not too many comments were heard on this subject.
I went over this particular report twice. I may assure you it reveals some things which, in my opinion, eastern Canada farmers ought to be made aware. And we shall see who, in certain quarters, got the most from the farm policy of the federal government, and why such policy is so much to the disadvantage of some farming groups in other parts of the country.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), who was quite interested in seeing the cheques sent on the date prescribed by the act, said that if farmers were entitled to allowances the cheques should be sent at the latest in December of the same year. The cheques were sent at the end of March, due to certain influence-this is what the report of this commission seems to say.
Last week and even this week, attempts were made to deny the value of this report. May I quote only a few paragraphs in the appendix of this report on page 51. When I read the evidence supplied by farmers directly interested in the matter, I see something significant in the way this legislation is applied.
I admit that the commissioner was right not to name the farmers concerned, but he added that those who would like to obtain further details might get them through the verbatim report. However, here they were known as members. An investigation was

made among 103 farmers in a single district of Saskatchewan.
Some significant facts were brought to light:
Farmer No. 2-500 bushels of old wheat were mistakenly carried over in his 1962 reports. His output for 1962 was incorrectly measured. It should have been 3,313 bushels instead of the 2,005 he reported; that would have increased his yield from 8.9 to 14.5 bushels per acre.
That would have made a very big difference in the P.F.A.A. subsidy-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him to raise a point affecting the business of the committee which I believe is of interest to all hon. members. In view of the remarks made in the committee earlier this afternoon, I should like to ask the committee's permission to withdraw the resolution for two months' interim supply and to substitute for it a resolution for three months' interim supply. The effect of this, if it is done in the next moment or two, will be that the resolution for three months' interim supply will be printed in Hansard and will be before the committee. Then, hon. members will know exactly what items are in that resolution. If we can deal with it in all stages tonight, that would be fine, but if not this procedure would be to the advantage of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, about the point raised by the President of the Privy Council, there is no doubt that if such a proposal were adopted, it would have great significance.
If we are asked to vote interim supply for three months instead of two, what does it mean? That it is expected that the recess will start soon and that we could be asked to study an interim budget when the house comes back in the fall.
How can we decide today without any news about the meeting of the party leaders which is taking place? If they do not reach an understanding, are we going to sit until the end of September? We do not object to that, mind you. In such a case, it is useless to vote three months' interim supply.
If there is an agreement, and, as hon. members must meet their electors during the intersession, and as it would not be proper to start with interim supply immediately after the intersession, then it would be proper to vote three months' interim supply instead of
Interim Supply
two months. But we have no report as yet on this party leaders' meeting.
The Prime Minister said publicly yesterday that that meeting with the five party leaders would take place yesterday afternoon. It has not taken place but there have been secret caucuses between the leader of the party in office and the Leader of the Opposition, no attention being given the splinter parties, which should have had something to say.
They have been openly ignored. Arrangements were made yesterday between 4 and 4.30 p.m. between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. Following those arrangements, it has been noted that since last evening the ministers one after the other have been nicely and politely answering the questions of the Conservative members, something they refused to do previously.
What agreement has been reached in secret by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister? Why has the Prime Minister not kept his promise to convene a meeting of the five party leaders? Only two were called to that meeting.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being six o'clock- [Text]
Order; shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are ready to call it six o'clock unless we are given a report on the discussions which took place between the leaders of the five parties. If we do not get any information about that meeting, I fail to see what good it would do to vote supply for three months instead of two but, on the other hand, if there is an understanding-we are told that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had every intention not to give in and to put off the flag debate until the fall, without any time limit-then we are not interested in seeing that debate postponed until the fall. Moreover, I know that the members of the Liberal party feel the same way and that they are not interested in having it put off until the fall without any time limit, because they know beforehand that it would kill the bill.
Under these conditions, it is better to declare that it is six o'clock, since we do not know where we stand. However, if a cabinet member is ready to give us a report on those discussions, we would be prepared to continue the debate and to reach an agreement

Business of the House
very soon, but if they will not let us have a report, we will point out immediately that it is six o'clock.


Gérard Perron: Since I had the floor, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order that I should be the one to ask you to declare that it is six o'clock.


George James McIlraith: May I point out that the offer I made to the committee, or the proposal I put before the committee, was not contingent upon information from any of the leaders whatever. It was put forward by me on the strength of the remarks made publicly in the committee this afternoon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question. This suggestion was made by the leader of the official opposition, and we wish to stress that we do not care too much for any secret meetings between the leaders of the two main parties, because the other parties have been neglected since yesterday, although they had been told that their views would be sought.
That is why we prefer to call it six o'clock since they refuse to give us any information.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind you that it is six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the acting house leader would confer with the hon. member for Lapointe and let us know what the business will be for tomorrow.


Mr. MacNaughi:: As soon as we conclude the discussion on interim supply, which I assume will take very little time tomorrow, we will go on with the second reading of Bill No. C-111, to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements, and at the conclusion of that we will take up the flag debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Since our requests-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 6, 1964