1964-03-26

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege which affects parliament. I will state it immediately. My question of privilege refers to a report in the newspaper, confirmed by outside sources this morning, that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) appeared at the united services institute meeting in Montreal last night and delivered an address called "Some aspects of the white paper on defence". Unless the minister is prepared immediately to deny that he was present at that meeting and did not talk on the white paper, I will have to proceed with my question of privilege. As the minister does not deny his presence there and the subject of his address, may I draw to the attention-


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I assume I am supposed to interrupt the hon. gentleman to make a denial. I was present last night at the institute meeting, as the hon. member has suggested. I did make an address, the text of which I have upstairs and would be glad to furnish to the hon. member if he wishes to see it. I pointed out that some time ago I had agreed to speak to the institute in Montreal, in the hope that by that time the white paper would have been published. The chairman of the institute meeting made it quite clear-of course the hon. member was not there-that I could not and would not talk on what had been advertised as the subject of the address because the white paper had not yet been tabled in the house, and consequently I would not talk to the white paper and the advertised subject of the address unfortunately could not be adhered to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the statement that-


Mr. Roxburgh:: You would never understand.


Mr. Monieilh:: Well, who are you to talk?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Grit arrogance shows itself here every day with interruptions and the prevention of freedom of speech. I fail to understand the minister's statement that he would not "talk to the white paper." He has not said that he did not refer to the white paper or its contents, and for him to do so is an infringement of the rights of parliament. The minister appeared at a meeting of the united services institute in Montreal, with an armed guard standing outside the door-


An hon. Member:: With a tommy gun.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With a tommy gun, I am informed-and at this meeting within closed doors, according to this report not categorically denied by the minister, there was a discussion on the part of the minister of matters referred to in the white paper.
The white paper, Mr. Speaker, as with any other announcement of government policy, should be presented to the House of Commons first before being disclosed to the general public.


An hon. Member:: Or any part of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no excuse for a minister of the crown using special information that he has with regard to a major matter of policy and disclosing it to any group in the country, the united services organization or any group whatsoever. This is an infringement of the rights of parliament. It is typical of the approach of the Liberal party to the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and it is on that ground that I rise on this question of privilege. This is an instance where a minister of the crown should make a complete and full statement to the house immediately-


An hon. Member:: He already has.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -which he has not yet done; and if he has disclosed the contents of the white paper and has thereby violated his oath of cabinet secrecy he should resign.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not seen the newspaper account to which the hon. member has made reference. I do not know, therefore, what I am alleged to have said. Clearly the hon. member who has raised the question of privilege does not know what I did say. He was not there.

National Defence White Paper


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would I have been permitted entrance, with an armed guard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can say that I made it abundantly clear that the House of Commons has the right and privilege of being the first to receive announcements of government policy, and that I respect this and adhere to it. Consequently, in spite of the invitation issued to me some time previously to speak on the white paper, I made it clear that I would be unable to do so last night. I could not, would not and did not. As has been done by the Minister of National Defence on a number of previous occasions, I was able to deal with some of the historical background leading up to our present defence situation, but I can say quite categorically to the house and to the hon. member that I did not disclose or make any statements with regard to new policy or about to be new policy which will be apparent in the white paper.


Mr. Bell:: How about the armed guard? [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that an armed member of Canada's armed forces was placed on guard at the united services institute in Montreal, where the minister gave an innocuous address last night? If so, what was the purpose of that guard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the united services institute in Montreal has no premises of its own. Through the facilities of the Quebec command of the army it was able to make use in the evening of the Quebec command headquarters on Atwater avenue. The normal patrolling arrangements for Quebec command headquarters at Atwater avenue were observed last night as they would be on any other day or at any other time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Nalional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and in French of the white paper on defence. Additional copies are being made available immediately to all members of the house through the distribution office.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether it is

the intention of the government to reappoint the committee on defence at an early date and, if so, whether it is also his intention to refer to that committee for study and report the white paper which was tabled today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to move to set up that committee soon after the Easter recess, and I am sure the committee will wish to examine the white paper and the policy matters referred to in it.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As I indicated to the right hon. gentleman opposite yesterday, I am in a position now to give a very brief statement about tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. I am making the statement now because parliament, we rather hope, may be in adjournment for a little while and certain things may have to happen during the adjournment. I should like the house to know what may take place.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority has advised me that the authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the United States expect shortly to reach tentative agreement on a notice to be published for the purpose of public hearings on the subject of the review of seaway tolls. This notice will be issued as soon as it is available.
On December 23, 1963, the government of Canada and the government of the United States exchanged notes agreeing to repeal the suspension of tolls on the Welland canal effective April 1, 1964. The result of this action would have been to restore the level of tolls as they were established in 1959 by the previous administration.
The government has now decided not to reimpose the tolls on the Welland canal at the present time. Accordingly, Canada and the United States have agreed to exchange further notes to withhold the reimposition of Welland canal tolls, and in doing so the government reserved its freedom of action to meet future developments.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this action on the part of the government is most commendable. This is another example of retreat by this government. In December, with precipitate haste, they rushed in to announce that Welland canal tolls, which we had removed, were going to be reimposed on April 1. They have had to retreat from that position. I know everyone will be very happy that the

government has once more followed the policy of the administration of which I had the honour to be the leader.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: We are
pleased, Mr. Speaker, that a decision has been made not to reimpose tolls at this time. However, the minister gave no indication of something that has been linked with the whole question of tolls, and that is the idea of the twinning of the canal and the financing of both the seaway and the proposed twinning. It seems to me that he might have gone so far in his statement as to give us something of this background material. I think he would have to agree that since there has been no ruling, and since he reserved the right of the government to reimpose tolls on some future occasion, we still have what you might call a lobbying or pressure situation upon all parties. I know the minister will regret this as much as anyone else, and that is the reason I think we should expect, either today or in the near future, an enlarged statement taking into account the financial position of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the expenditures for twinning the canal.



EFFECT OF NEW WHARFAGE RATES ON FERRY SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question based on an answer he gave to the house on March 16 regarding the regulations relating to wharfage rates. As reported at page 951 of Hansard the minister said:
But, at the same time, I asked to have all the others looked into to see if there were any anomalies of any sort and, if there are, they will be corrected.
I wonder whether the minister has completed his examination of these regulations with respect to wharfage rates and discovered any anomalies and, if so, will they be corrected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated some days afterward that as far as the proposed new rates with respect to motor cars and trucks going on to ferries were concerned, it was thought better to revert to the regulations which had existed prior to this, and that action was being taken to that effect. Just before coming into the house I signed a recommendation to that effect, which I am sure will receive the approval of the governor in council because the decision in principle had already been taken to approve them, and it was a mere matter of getting them properly drafted.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I think what the hon. gentleman probably has in mind are the regulations respecting wharfage so far as fishery products are concerned. An administrative problem was drawn to my attention, partly perhaps by the hon. gentleman drawing it to the attention of my department, and I do not think there is need for any change in the regulations. But there is certainly need for some clarification about the administration, and that is being proceeded with.



CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FERRY FOR P.E.I. SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to have to tell the hon. gentleman that it appears that some months will elapse before the government will be in a position to call for tenders, but I have asked that the utmost speed be exercised in this matter.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister's predecessor said in May of last year that he hoped tenders would be let before the end of the fiscal year, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General made the statement later in July that he expected tenders to be let last fall, does the minister's statement mean that this program has been decelerated rather than accelerated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, it does not mean that; but, as the hon. gentleman knows very well, it is frightfully important in these matters to design these vessels properly. I can assure the house that I am nearly as anxious as the hon. member, and I may say I am being prodded constantly by the Solicitor General in this matter. Everything I can do to speed up the project will be done.


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of prods, I should like to ask the minister if he has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Prince Edward Island legislature urging the immediate construction of this vessel and immediate construction of the causeway, and would he indicate the tenor of his reply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Both matters are receiving immediate attention.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLICATIONS



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In the regrettable and unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. On behalf of the whole house, may I express the hope the Prime Minister is getting along all right. I do not know who the Acting Prime Minister is at the moment.
What is the present position with regard to prospective legislation to implement certain provisions of the O'Leary commission report; and will that legislation be brought in shortly after we come back from the Easter recess?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for the solicitude he has expressed on behalf of the whole house for the Prime Minister. I will be happy to convey it to the Prime Minister.
In so far as the question is concerned as to when we will reach the resolutions, of which notices were given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I have not had a chance to consult the house leader, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance about the precise order of business that is contemplated when we resume our sessions after whatever recess we may have at Easter. But I would think the government would be very anxious to complete all the business connected or associated with the budget as quickly as it could.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman will be able to answer my next question, but I would like to ask him whether he would ascertain-if he does not know-whether the co-ordinator, if I use the right title, had any authority from the government to advise any of the magazine owners and publishers that there was no possibility now of legislation to implement the O'Leary commission report being brought in before the latter part of June or July?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question. I am not quite sure who the right hon. gentleman means by the co-ordinator, but if he would like to become a little more personal in these references then perhaps I could make suitable inquiries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understood we are paying $25,000 a year to Mr. Kent to occupy that position, and he was so described in the press, and that it came from the government that he is the co-ordinator.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman, with that respect for public

servants he has shown throughout his public life, has now said what he wanted to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: And with the same respect to ministers of the crown sitting opposite, may I ask the minister whether he will ascertain whether the government is in the position today of being about to retreat from its declared intention regarding foreign publications?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the grammatical structure of that question, if it was a question. I will examine it in Hansard and if it is capable of being answered I will try to answer it.



AUTOMOBILE PARTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of the comment that has appeared on the very long answer he gave on Tuesday in connection with the refusal of United States subsidiary companies to ship automotive parts to China. Is the minister prepared to make a statement, in effect to answer the charges that he was probably or could have been lying in his remarks?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to the hon. member for Port Arthur for relieving me of the necessity of raising a question of privilege. As I understood the front page story in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, Mr. Grinkus of the Gain Import Company is charging me with misleading the house, and he has charged me with telling a lie.
May I read what I said as recorded at page 1398 of Hansard for March 24. The particular charge Mr. Grinkus has made, according to the newspaper article, is that I had denied I had received complaints from his company, and I should like to read what I said on Tuesday. The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquit-lam asked me a question; first, if I had received any complaints from Canadian exporters with regard to the refusal of automobile companies in Canada which are subsidiaries of United States automobile manufacturers to supply automotive parts to China. This was my reply:
As I said yesterday, I was unaware of any complaints but I found that last summer I had received a complaint from one exporter, whose name I believe was Mr. Ginkus-

Perhaps he was annoyed because Hansard misspelled his name, which should have been "Grinkus".
-of Gain Import Company Limited, who was unable to obtain a supply of certain types of automotive parts for export to mainland China.
It is clear from Hansard that I did refer specifically to the complaint he registered.



WHEAT AND FLOUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since the date of the seaway opening has just been announced and activity in the St. Lawrence is beginning, will the minister guarantee that the grain shipments through Halifax and Saint John, which have been of tremendous help to these ports this winter, will continue? Will he further guarantee that the flour shipments to Cuba, which were promised to the ports of Halifax and Saint John, will take place this summer through those ports?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall be glad to inquire into this matter and perhaps, after the recess, give a report. During the recess I shall be meeting with the chairman of the wheat board.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question into which the Minister of Trade and Commerce might also look. Will he endeavour to assure a larger share of the flour shipments through these two ports which the hon. gentleman mentioned because, I am advised, this would mean the hiring of 125 men per ship instead of the 10 or 12 men hired to load grain?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will look into this, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister now give us the assurance that there will not be any redirection of the flour shipments, as promised by the former minister of transport, from Halifax and Saint John through Montreal or some other port?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman expects any more information than I have given. Lacking information I cannot give this assurance, but I shall certainly inquire and see that, so far as possible, there is fair treatment to all ports in Canada.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. mem-
Question of Privilege
bers of the house. On Monday last the Leader of the Opposition focused the attention of this house and, indeed, of the whole nation on a program which was shown on television last night, namely "The Open Grave." Had it not been for this service provided by the right hon. gentleman I know that I for one and, I have no doubt, many others would have missed what turned out to be a most excellent program; and I feel all hon. members and indeed the nation as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I
should like to ask the Secretary of State if he does not feel that this C.B.C. production was a mark of denigration reflecting on the devout followers of the Christian faith.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: It is quite clear now that the program was not "a flagrant, scandalous and sacrilegious insult to the majority of Canadians" and that those who criticized the program without even having seen it acted, in my view, in a most irresponsible way; and that the government was very wise indeed not to interfere with the decision of the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What I said the other day was that I had not seen the program, and no one else had; but I had the fullest information as to the nature of the program, and I am unchanged in the expression of the view that I made the other day, despite the self righteous words of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State?
Is it true that, after having seen the videotape of the program "The Open Grave", the C.B.C. decided at the last moment to cut certain scenes from the play and to add others, with the result that there was a lack of continuity at certain times?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything concerning the allegations of the hon. member. I shall inquire of the authorities of the C.B.C. and reply in due course.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Could the Secretary of State inform the house whether the national religious advisory council to the C.B.C. saw a preview of the film "The Open Grave" before the decision was made to put the program on the air?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: This question was asked the other day. I have not yet received an answer from the C.B.C. with regard to it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary of State is reporting to the C.B.C. the views expressed in parliament on this matter, will he include in that report the fact that many of us in this house would like to commend the corporation on the presentation of an allegory which some of us think will help people today to understand certain age-old forces.


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be glad indeed to do so.


Mr. Caron:: Before we go ahead, I want to say that the public address system does not appear to be working.


An hon. Member:: It is working now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise what steps his department is taking to investigate and deal with oil leakage from a barge which has sunk in the entrance to Howe sound, on the west coast, which may endanger-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, normally I would quite agree with what was said opposite about the order paper, but I am told that this barge is sunk in Howe sound and affects the whole-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did you not say that this question should be on the order paper, and are you not the Speaker?


Mr. Starr:: Whose barge is it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right; the Chair did say that this question should be put on the order paper, but I understand the minister rose on a question of urgency. If this question has to do with the blockage of shipping and navigation I think it is urgent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to indicate to any hon. member that I was not perfectly willing to abide by the


ruling of the Chair, and unless I have unanimous consent to give an answer to this question I shall take my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that the Minister of Transport does much better in the portfolio of prime minister than he does in his present one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I have unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I understood the house correctly I think it did give unanimous consent to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I call on the hon. member for Greenwood.


Grant Deachman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of extreme urgency and deals with an oil leak which may immediately destroy wild life on the west coast, and tends to threaten tourist and recreational areas of considerable value. If immediate action is taken and the matter is dealt with it will prevent suffering to wildlife in the area and preserve a very valuable locality. I plead that the matter be dealt with now, and I submit it is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his statement, and I am quite sure the minister thoroughly understands the problem by now.



BRIEF RESPECTING WINTER NAVIGATION ON ST. LAWRENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house whether he has received the brief of the office of metropolitan Quebec concerning winter navigation?
I did not send the minister notice of this question, but could he tell us whether he will be in a position after the Easter recess to report to the house on the suggestions made by that office concerning winter navigation, which would be beneficial not only for the St. Lawrence river, but for the whole country and would have very few prejudicial effects on Atlantic ports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has opened up a very big question upon which I would not attempt to embark on orders of the day, and upon which he did not ask me to embark. I shall be glad to take the matter under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister make any statement to this house, either now or before the prospective adjournment, in regard to the reported statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that satisfactory conditions have been worked out in respect of the operations of the United Nations force in Cyprus?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that, but I believe the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs might be able to clarify this point.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I might read a short statement on the current situation in Cyprus.
General Gyani, who has been designated by the secretary general as commander of the United Nations peace keeping force, has now arrived in Cyprus from Geneva. As has been reported in the press, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had an opportunity to hold detailed discussions with General Gyani in Geneva concerning the operational role which the peace keeping force will undertake on the island. We understand that the advance party of the Swedish contingent will arrive in Cyprus today, to be followed shortly by elements of the Finnish and Irish contingents. Consequently it is expected that the secretary general will inform the security council, possibly tomorrow, that the United Nations force has become operational.
Yesterday it was announced that the Finnish ambassador to Sweden, Sakari Tuomioja, has been named by the secretary general as United Nations mediator on Cyprus. The governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain have agreed to the nomination of Mr. Tuomioja, and after consultations with the United Nations secretariat in New York this week end he is expected to arrive in Cyprus the middle of next week.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With respect to the terms of reference under which Mr. Tuomioja will carry out his functions on Cyprus, these were broadly defined in the security council resolution adopted on March 4. The relevant portion of the resolution calling for the appointment of a mediator reads as follows:
The security council recommends further that the secretary general designate, in agreement with the government of Cyprus and the governments of Greece. Turkey and the United Kingdom, a mediator, who shall use his best endeavours with representatives of the communities and also with the aforesaid four governments, for the purpose of promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problem confronting Cyprus, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, having in mind the well-being of the people of Cyprus as a whole and the preservation of international peace and security. The mediator shall report periodically to the secretary general on his efforts.
Thus it is apparent that the mediator is to be directly responsible to the secretary general. As in the case of the United Nations force, any directives from the secretary general to the force commander and additional information concerning the terms of reference for the mediator may be expected to be made known to the countries contributing to the United Nations force. However, the secretary general has made it clear that he does not feel it is in the best interests of law and order on the island for promoting a peaceful solution to make public details of the terms of reference.
It is apparent that the presence of the Canadian contingent as part of the United Nations peace keeping force on Cyprus has had a calming effect on the island. It is hoped that this influence will continue after the United Nations force becomes operational and elements of this force replace certain British forces who have been keeping the peace throughout the island. With the presence of the United Nations force commander on Cyprus and the anticipated arrival of the mediator within a few days, the task of maintaining and restoring law and order will commence, which it is hoped will make it possible for discussions to begin on seeking ways and means of bringing about reconciliation between the two communities.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday in the course of an answer to a question the minister said:

Inquiries of the Ministry The obligation to register, or to apply for a social insurance number, applies to persons in insurable occupations normally covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Does the application of this obligation apply also to the citizens of the province of Quebec?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While I am on my feet may I answer a number of questions asked on this subject yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
There has been no mailing of application forms directly to individuals, since the registration for social insurance numbers is being handled mainly through employers. Up to the present time I think almost two million social insurance number application forms have been sent to employers. These are being sent on a progressive basis to all employers who have employees who are either covered by unemployment insurance or who may become contributors to the proposed Canada pension plan.
Unemployment insurance legislation contains the only requirement for persons to register, but the government is soliciting the co-operation of employers in obtaining registration from the group not covered by unemployment insurance in order to facilitate the introduction of a proposed Canada pension plan. It is expected that employers and employees in the non-insured group will cooperate fully. This will obviously reduce the total cost of the operation and will eliminate in the future the necessity of approaching the many employers to twice register their working force.
In reply to the question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, persons who are now employed or are about to enter employment and wish to obtain a social insurance number can make the necessary arrangements by applying directly in person or by mail to their national employment office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible for some of these forms to be made available in post offices, to which many people find their way a little more readily than to the national employment offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to have that suggestion considered by the commission, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour with further reference to the matter of social insurance numbers, about which there were questions and answers a few minutes ago. In view of the fact that the Canadian Teachers

Federation is urging its members not to fill out these forms because of what I think is a misunderstanding, because of the belief that this will enrol them in unemployment insurance, will the minister consider doing whatever public relations work is necessary so that this group of people, and there are many thousands of them across Canada, will understand what is being sought in this project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall undertake to have officers of the commission get in touch with the officials of this federation. It ought to be made clear that the seeking of social insurance numbers is quite a separate matter, and is not related in any way to the question of the extension of coverage of the unemployment insurance system, which I think is at the root of the concern expressed by the teachers.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (Yoik-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of recent representations from many people in the house building industry regarding the extension of the $500 winter building bonus, I wonder whether the minister has anything to report to the house or whether he has reached any decision on this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, questions along this line have been asked by the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Longueuil. I wish to advise the house that I have directed that final inspections under the winter house building program will take place on April 15 rather than March 31 as previously planned. While most housing units under the program will be substantially completed by March 31, the success of the program itself makes necessary this delay in inspections. Almost 35,000 housing units have qualified under the program, which has led to an unusual pressure on labour and materials as this substantial volume of housing reached the final stages.
It would not be the wish of the government to deny the incentive payment on the grounds of shortages arising from the success of the program itself. We think this change in the final inspection date will afford substantial relief, but I would like to emphasize in this connection that the government does not intend to postpone the final inspection date beyond April 15, and for that reason builders and others ought to make haste in completing these dwellings.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am assuming that the minister, in arriving at the decision to extend the final inspection date from March 31 to April 15, has had some estimate of the additional cost to the government. I wonder whether he could give us that estimate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there will be an additional cost caused by the extension of the deadline, but in my judgment it will not exceed the estimate that was given to cover this program, which is in the amount of $20 million. I think the ultimate cost will be less than that estimate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Could the minister not give the difference in cost as between a March 31 inspection date and one on April 15? Could he not tell us the actual difference, and not whether it comes within the estimate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will appreciate the difficulty of giving a precise figure or even an estimate of the change in cost, because it would require an examination at the end of March, on an individual basis, of all the dwelling units that had not reached the completion stage; and that has not been undertaken, for the reasons I mentioned.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I only asked the minister the question, Mr. Speaker, because I assumed the government would have some idea of what would be the additional cost.


Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister's statement mean that any work carried out between March 31 and April 15 will count toward eligibility for this bonus? The minister merely said that the inspection date will be deferred. Does this mean that work completed during those 15 days will count toward the bonus?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the extension of the inspection date will have the effect of allowing builders to continue working and to complete their houses to further stages.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house whether the 8 per cent tax on building materials and production equipment will also be delayed until April 15?


Mr. Graffley:: In one pocket, out of the other.
Inquiries of the Ministry WORLD FAIR


STATEMENT ON USE OF SYMBOL DELETED BY PARLIAMENT FROM BILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised last Tuesday that he would make inquiries and reply to questions that had been raised about the emblem for the world exhibition. The Prime Minister has made these inquiries and has asked me to say that the corporation has made the following explanation.
First, the question of the emblem has been on the agenda of the board of directors since March 19, 1963. The emblem which was confirmed on March 13, 1964 had first been adopted by the board at a meeting held on August 12, 1963, under the chairmanship of the previous commissioner general, Mr. Bien-venu. The corporation registered its copyright in the emblem with the copyright office in Ottawa as early as August 28, 1963.
Second, the choice of the emblem is the responsibility of the board of directors. When the emblem was originally adopted, the board instructed the management to seek maximum legal protection for it in respect of both copyright and trade mark. As existing legislation in these fields could not provide the corporation with the full protection it needed, an amendment to this effect to the incorporating act was requested. Obviously the purpose of the amendment was not to seek the approval of parliament for the emblem itself, but rather to obtain the additional legal protection for it that was considered necessary. I might add that the government, for its part, has never assumed that it had any responsibility for the choice of the emblem itself.
Third, the amendment finally adopted by the house states that "any symbol adopted by the corporation not later than December 31, 1964, is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition, as of the date of its publication in the Canada Gazette". The board of directors has interpreted this provision as allowing it, after giving due consideration to the views which were expressed in the house on December 20, 1963, to confirm the emblem if, in its best judgment, the board continued to regard it as the most suitable one.
Fourth, the board has made every effort to secure the best artistic advice available, both before the original adoption of the emblem on August 12, 1963 and before its confirmation on March 13, 1964. As a result of the criticisms made in the house early in January, the corporation established a subcommittee of its fine arts committee to re-examine the whole problem of the emblem. The subcommittee
14S4

Inquiries of the Ministry was under the chairmanship of Mr. Evan H. Turner and consisted of Mrs. Baillargeon of Montreal, Mr. Paul Arthur of Ottawa and Mr. J. C. Parkin of Toronto. The subcommittee held a number of meetings and reviewed all the symbols previously submitted to the corporation. It came to the unanimous conclusion that the design created by Mr. Julien Hebert was the most successful.
Fifth, the board, on the suggestion of the subcommittee, gave consideration to the advisability of holding a national competition to be conducted on a professional basis to select a new symbol. Since 184 different symbols had already been considered by the corporation, the board came to the view that a national competition was not likely to produce a symbol that would receive a greater measure of general support or would be less exposed to criticism than the present one.
Finally, the corporation has already received well over 100 requests from individuals or firms to be licensed for the immediate use of the symbol of the exhibition for commercial purposes, with offers of royalties in favour of the corporation. These offers have had to be withheld pending a definitive decision on the emblem, with a consequent loss of appreciable revenues to the corporation.
These are the reasons which have led the corporation to confirm the symbol. It is very understandable that members who dislike the symbol should feel impelled to express their disappointment in the corporation's decision. It seems to me, however, and to the Prime Minister that the assertion that the corporation's action constitutes an affront to the rights of parliament is, in the circumstances, a matter of subjective judgment.
In view of the decision taken by the house last December, which protected any symbol rather than a particular one, and notwithstanding the condemnation of a particular symbol by many members at that time, the directors acted within the powers conferred on them in confirming their earlier decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of this statement I am sure there should be a right to comment on it. All I can say is that the House of Commons acted unanimously-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Unanimously.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Mr. Diefenbaker. Some of you who are
saying "no" were not even here. Unanimously.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the amendment passed was drafted by the Minister of Justice

after discussion in large part with me and other members of the house. I am going to say no more than that these corporations which secure their funds from parliament, as this corporation does on such a tremendous scale, will require review by parliament; because certain crown corporations that use parliament's money indiscriminately and act as they choose should receive the fullest scrutiny by a committee of the House of Commons.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO MEMBERSHIP OF FEDERAL DELEGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform the house which members of the government, in addition to the Prime Minister, will compose the federal delegation to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference in Quebec?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information under my hand at the moment. If, as is expected, we complete our business today I will endeavour to get the information and make it available before the end of the day.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio a supplementary question?
Can the minister tell us whether he will take part in that federal-provincial conference with the Hon. Rene Levesque?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question?
May I ask him whether federal ministers who are going to Quebec will be accompanied by the R.C.M.P.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think we in the government of Canada have the view that the government of Quebec is perfectly able to administer justice in that province, just as other governments are, though there might be some doubt expressed about that in some particular instances.


PEACE RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I gave him notice yesterday, but I think the question is still current today.

Has any application been made by or on behalf of the British Columbia government under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for approval of construction of the Peace river dam?
Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, it is true that notice of this question was given to me yesterday. Unfortunately I did not have time to check the information, but as far as I can recall there has been no application.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister's assumption is correct, and I understand it is, as the minister responsible under the act will he advise the house if the government acquiesces in the continuing breach of a federal statute by a provincial government?


Mr. Deschafelets:: I will look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries with regard to seal hunting in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Can he now enlighten the house in respect of the continuing disturbing reports, especially from the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, to the effect that young seals are being skinned alive?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have already made a statement in the house on this particular problem. As I said before, the matter is under very serious consideration by my department, and it is expected that before the opening of the hunting season next year we will have regulations to take care of the situation.


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wonder if 1 may direct a question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, and ask him whether he has seen news reports-I saw one in the Ottawa Citizen-to the effect that an allegation has been made concerning a price fixing conspiracy in connection with certain commercial activities in the market area of Ottawa? Will his department investigate these allegations?


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a question for the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY


MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF COMPLETION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works a question of which I sent him notice. Can he tell the house whether the final layout of the trans-Canada highway on Montreal island is ready and whether the highway will be completed for 1967?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the press yesterday that as far as the western part of the layout is concerned, plans had been submitted and the site had been approved.
I think that east of Frontenac street the layout has not yet been set and I do not think that this last section will be ready for 1967.
The essential section for the world fair will be ready for 1967.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am advised that numerous representations have been received from nonoperating employees of the Canadian National Railways in respect of certain amendments to the Canadian National pension plan. Will the minister convey to the Canadian National management the substance of such representations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to do that, sir.


CROWN ASSETS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May I ask what may be called a doublebarrelled question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It is a matter of urgency. It is my understanding that the Department of National Defence, within three days, is officially turning over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation the Kitsilano R.C.A.F. area land. It is also my understanding that the minister, one other minister and the Liberal member for Van-couver-Burrard, are meeting with the mayor

Inquiries of the Ministry and city council and parks board at three o'clock this afternoon, Vancouver time. Is the minister in a position to inform us as to the government's stand with regard to this most important area of Vancouver?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I will reply to this question only because I am the minister resident in the city of Vancouver. It had been our intention that the Postmaster General and I and the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard would meet city council this afternoon. However, we have been grounded. I think this afternoon the Postmaster General will be meeting the city council and listen to their representations in respect of the allocation of that property, which has been the selection of the C.B.C. and various other departments. I think he will hear representations from the city of Vancouver and convey them to the government, and a policy decision will be taken in respect of the disposition of the property.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a short question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that in three days the R.C.A.F. Kitsilano plant is being transferred to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation may I ask the minister what disposition he has made of the letter which I understand he and the Prime Minister received a week ago from the Kitsilano Indian band, to the effect that during the last war they were misled and defrauded, and therefore claim ownership of this area?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I think I should advise the hon. member that the Kitsilano property has already been transferred to the Crown Assets Corporation as, I think, of March 16.


Harold Edward Winch: What has happened to the letter which the hon. gentleman received from the chief of the band claiming ownership? I refer to the letter which was sent to the hon. gentleman's department.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That letter was looked into. According to our records there is no claim that can be justified.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs, and ask him if he is aware of the allegation that he gave the house false information which is made in a column in the Ottawa Journal of March 25,

written by Gordon Dewar. The allegation carries the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and is concerned with shipping charges on 140 prefabricated houses, about which it is alleged the minister gave false information to the house. I did not think we should recess before the minister had an opportunity of replying to this charge.


Arthur Laing: I am
delighted to have this opportunity of replying to the accusation that I gave false information to the house. The hon. gentleman knew that the Easter recess was at hand and he would have no other opportunity of gaining publicity, so he went down to the press rather than make his charges in the house. He may have an opportunity of making two exposures.
I gave this information, which had been supplied to me by my officers, in respect of freight by truck from Grimshaw to Hay River. I could only give the information on the basis of the information given to me by my officers, who used the only published tariff available. Now, all of us have had the experience that you can go to private truckers at times and get special rates. I contend I was fully justified in giving the published tariff rate. I want to assure hon. members that we have now asked for a requotation on the laid down basis in Hay River, and we will see if we have an opportunity to use the splendid rate which the hon. member says is available to us. If it is, we will certainly use it. I may remind him, and he will agree with me, that at the end of this year the whole problem will become completely academic, because the railway will be completed at that time and of course shipments to the mouth of the Mackenzie will be handled via Hay River.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since my name was brought into this. I assure the minister that the only reason I have not made a speech in this house long before this is that I have not had the opportunity. If the supplementary estimates had been brought forward earlier, I would have had a chance to make this speech if we had reached his department. I have been waiting since March 10, when he gave this most evasive and incorrect answer. I did not think I should bring it up as a question of privilege, and I have been waiting eagerly to make a speech in this house.


ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of northern

affairs. Will he inform the house whether the government has now abandoned the idea of turning jurisdiction over the Eskimos in Quebec over to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the situation whatsoever.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, in view of the minister's answer and since the agreement was made between the province and the federal government on February 29 to set up a consultative commission, could he inform the house whether there have been any subsequent meetings regarding the setting up of that commission and, if not, when does he expect the commission to be set up?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was asked yesterday and I said no. The answer would be the same today. The commission has not been set up. The first matter that will have to be discussed is the implication of the financial arrangements. That is a matter between the two governments, and that has not been discussed as yet.


Erik Nielsen: I asked the minister in my supplementary question whether there have been any meetings subsequent to February 29 with respect to the setting up of the commission.


Arthur Laing: No, there have been conversations but no meetings.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he has now given an answer to the Royal Canadian Legion, who requested that he discontinue immediately all action on the proposed handover of D.V.A. treatment facilities to other levels of government. What is that answer?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have not yet replied to the letter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister give an assurance to this house that no hospital under the control of the veterans affairs department will be transferred to other authorities until the matter has been discussed and approved by parliament?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is quite an involved question. I do not know that I can reply to that directly. My impression is that I answered that question the other day. I said that the government would have to take a decision on it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question was simply this. Will the minister give an assurance to the house that he will not transfer any hospital under the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs without the approval of this house?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I believe I have answered that question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Nothing of the sort.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful affront to parliament when ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question of privilege is the failure of ministers of the crown to answer questions, and answer them distinctly, clearly and honestly. This is false for the minister to say he answered the question the other day. He has not answered the question because it has not been asked before, and I request an honest answer from the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I was asked this question the other day as to whether I would submit this to the house, and I simply answered that the government would have to take its decision. Parliament, of course, passes upon government decisions, and in that sense of course it will come before parliament. Parliament is always free to decide on a government decision; but as to submitting the matter and debating it before parliament in each instance, I think the hon. gentleman will realize this is an impossible thing to do because it would require or may require 11 or 12 different submissions to cover each instance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it we now have the assurance of the minister that he intends to transfer the veterans hospitals to other authorities. Is that correct?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The statement I made in the house the other day was, I think, quite clear and I do not intend to pursue this matter further. I do not think I can supply an answer to my hon. friend because he won't accept it.


Mr. Peters:: That is a fine attitude to take.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The divine right to rule.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old bunch.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker,
I have a not very contentious question for the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Labour. A month ago a large delegation from Elliot Lake was here and received undertakings from the minister and the Prime Minister regarding certain steps which the minister's department would take. I would like to ask why these undertakings have been delayed and why officials, whether they be provincial or federal, have not taken action with regard to the retraining proposals and the examination of the unemployed or those about to become unemployed in Elliot Lake.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss with the representatives from Elliot Lake possible training courses and other measures that might be taken to meet future problems in the area, but the difficulty under which we are labouring is that the companies involved have not yet, according to my information, made any clear statement as to their intentions.
In a situation of that kind, action taken at this stage by the department or the national employment service might prove to be more disruptive than helpful. That is the only consideration that has delayed any follow-up to the representations made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As a supplementary question, what explanation is there for the companies' delay, in view of the fact that so far as we know they are on public record indicating when they are going to close up shop or reduce their operations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I understand it is not that clear that the employment prospects of the men affected have been so indicated by the company. Until that is done, a venture into the area by the national employment service might create more difficulty than provide assistance. We want to help, but we want to do it in circumstances that will be truly helpful.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister concerning the workers in the asbestos mines at Thetford Mines and Black Lake. Will the minister consider taking the same steps for that region as the steps to be taken at Elliot Lake?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in connection with those mines we would be glad to consider any proposals in the way of training or replacement, in co-operation with the local authorities, the employers, and the unions in question.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkfon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him if the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) was expressing government policy when she made the statement that rural routes and post offices were now the prerogatives of the presidents of the Liberal associations in the constituencies; or has there been any change?
Miss Pauline Jewel! (Northumberland): On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not make that statement.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an answer I gave yesterday to the hon. member for Skeena on motion No. 62 for the production of papers. I said I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to withdraw the motion inasmuch as there was no correspondence. I should have said that there was correspondence but in view of the extent of the file, which is an extensive one, dating from 1954 to December 1962, that I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion for the time being.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of privilege may I thank the parliamentary secretary for the qualification and say that his statement today is precisely what we discussed about a week and a half ago. I had assumed when I withdrew the motion yesterday that there was in fact no correspondence, but in any event I had agreed beforehand to withdraw it on the basis that it covered an extended period of time.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Gordon moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $684,120,260.18, being the aggregate of:
(a)	Two-twelfths of the total of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional five-twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 20 of the said main estimates, $402,291.67;
(c)	an additional four-twelfths of the amount of atomic energy item 5 of the said main estimates, $416,666.67;

(d)	an additional three-twelfths of the amount of national research council item 10 of the said main estimates, $5,838,000.00;
(e)	an additional two-twelfths of the amount of fisheries item 15, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys item 25 and transport item 95, of the said main estimates, $6,661,116.67;
(f)	an additional one-twelfth of the amount of finance item 25, labour item 30, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 45, 50 and 60, national revenue item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 1, trade and commerce item 15, of the said main estimates, $12,203,766.67, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the problem raised yesterday by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume).
In the second report it submitted in 1961, the joint committee on Indian affairs recommended that negotiations be undertaken between the federal government and the provinces for the eventual transfer of certain Eskimo affairs to the provinces. The committee also set out the standards which should be adopted in the future if such a transfer ever became a reality. It further stated that this action should be agreeable to the Indian population and, in the case with which we are concerned, to the Eskimo population, the provinces and the central government.
The matters in question come fundamentally, in my opinion, under the provincial jurisdiction, for instance, education and the development of human resources, under which falls the question of schools and education for the Eskimos. As a matter of fact, schools coming under the provincial jurisdiction were mentioned, as well as health and social welfare.
Mr. Chairman, one must realize that the present talks deal exclusively with an administrative transfer. It is not, and it is good to remember that, a legal or constitutional transfer because, in my opinion, such a transfer, as stated the other day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), could not be made legally or constitutionally except through an amendment to the British North America Act.
It will be remembered that in 1912, by virtue of chapter 45 of the statutes of Canada, the federal government yielded to the province of Quebec its jurisdiction over the vast area known as New Quebec, Ungava and Rupert's Land, including the area of the Great Whale river. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the Indians living in these areas remained with Ottawa. This situation was confirmed in 1939 by the Supreme Court of 20220-95
Interim Supply
Canada, when it was asked by the federal government to determine which of the federal or the provincial governments should have jurisdiction in the matter.
In that judgment the supreme court held that, for jurisdiction purposes, Eskimos were on the same footing as Indians, and came under federal jurisdiction by virtue of section 91, paragraph 24, of the British North America Act, which gives the federal government authority on Indian affairs and the land reserved for them.
However, in order to satisfy the desire expressed in the report of the joint committee on Indian affairs, discussions had been instituted between the federal and provincial authorities, and I submit that those conversations-if they have any meaning, at all- have been instituted in order to give the province of Quebec the right to exercise a legitimate jurisdiction in a field for which it is responsible, over people living in a part of its territory.
Now, this being said, the committee must ask itself what standards any possible agreement will have to follow. First of all, such an agreement must take place, but up to now, and this has been somewhat confirmed by what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) said this morning, it seems that the discussions with regard to the agreement have dragged on.
There is no doubt about that, for the minister said that since February 29, not a single meeting was held between the federal and provincial authorities to discuss the matter.
That is why we must respect the wishes of those people and first think of their interest when a solution is adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that Quebec will want to preserve in its entirety the culture, the language and all the human values which the Eskimos represent for Quebec and Canada.
I must tell you that the Eskimos themselves are aware of their contribution to Canadian culture and, on other hand, of the fact that they are members of the great human race. That is why they like to call themselves "Inutuinaq" which, in their language, means "man".
It is at this higher level that we must consider the problem.
The minister said vaguely that there had been discussions, but this boils down to very little and, in any case, would have no bearing on the final solution of that problem.
Another rule, which was said to be essential, must be followed. And it meets the views of the committee. It is that the Eskimos should be consulted on their own destiny. I completely agree that those people, citizens of our country, who were among the very first

Interim Supply
inhabitants of our continent, have the right to be consulted and that, in a very effective manner, as to the steps to be taken concerning them.
I say this because, on the one hand, the Eskimos already have the right to vote in a federal election and they exercise that right in a proportion of 80 per cent of their eligibility. Besides, it is an admitted right of any nation or of any group of individuals to determine their own system or way of life.
We all know that this right to self-determination is recognized by the United Nations charter and must apply to any nation. That right is recognized by the Canadian Bill of Rights which was passed by this parliament, and also by the United Nations universal declaration on human rights.
In short, I am convinced that for those who live in the province of Quebec, the right of self-determination cannot be questioned. If there is a group in this country which should keep that right for itself and all the others, it is the people of the province of Quebec.
I therefore think that any federal-provincial agreement should consider the wishes of the Eskimos themselves.
Finally, I submit that the sovereignty of this parliament should be taken into account. To my mind, the final decision in this transfer of jurisdiction should be ratified by the federal parliament, in the same way, I suppose, as the agreement will be submitted to the Quebec legislature.
Finally, the problem and its solution should be integrated into the larger issue of an eventual transfer of jurisdiction over all Indians-a much wider problem of a constitutional nature, which concerns not only the federal authorities and the province of Quebec, but also most, if not all, other provinces in this country.
Therefore, we, on this side of the house, would like to have from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) as well as from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) a clear and straightforward statement with regard to that agreement as well as to the demands of the federal government in its talks and negotiations with the province of Quebec.
So far, no clearcut statements have been made either by the minister of northern affairs or the Minister of Justice, not to mention the Prime Minister himself, on this matter. It would appear, judging by the replies given to the many questions raised about that on this side of the house, that there is a rather wide difference of opinion between the two ministers chiefly concerned, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on one side and the Minister of Justice on the other.

That would naturally indicate the existence of more serious difficulties which could raise doubts as to the solidarity or the unity of views that the cabinet ought to show concerning any question, but especially the one now before us.
This is why I ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, provided that the latter makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the cabinet as he should normally do, to set forth the guiding principles under which the transfer will take place.
As for myself, Mr. Chairman, while I am not personally acquainted with the Eskimo, as the member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) who spoke yesterday, since I did not have the opportunity of travelling in those areas or living with Eskimos, I feel that the advantages of an administrative transfer to the province of Quebec are unquestionable; they are completely evident and obvious to everyone, and for the following reasons.
First, the matters to be transferred come essentially under provincial jurisdiction, such as education, health; those are matters of local interest in an area entirely located within the territory of the province of Quebec.
On the other hand, I am inclined to believe that once the transfer is effected, it would not be impossible that the province of Quebec would set up constituencies for those people, thus giving them full franchise. I would even consider the possibility that they could elect to the legislature a representative of Eskimo extraction. It is not impossible either that such a representative should also be elected to the federal parliament.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with what is primarily a human problem, namely the disposal of human beings which are part of an alert people gifted with a sharp mind and artistic talents, who have, in fact, created an art of their own which is recognized throughout the world. These people have shown and continue to show that they are the depositaries of a native culture which is theirs alone and which substantially adds to our Canadian culture.
Mr. Chairman, let us respect the wish of the Eskimos. Let us respect their deep desire to remain themselves and let there be, before any final decision is taken, consultation absolutely free of pressure.
I think that in this perspective it would be normal that the Eskimos chose to be administered by the authorities of the province in which they live, that is the province of Quebec. Personally, I am sure that that government will preserve intact the value which the Eskimo people represent to the whole of Canada.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the hon. member tor a moderate and very sensible speech on this subject. Did I understand the hon. member to say that he saw the eventual transfer of all Indian peoples to the provinces as natural and inevitable?


Paul Raymond Martineau: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I simply stated that the solution of the Eskimo problem should also take into consideration the fact that there will be at some future date-as was recommended by the joint committee on Indian affairs of 1961-a meeting of a federal-provincial nature to discuss the eventual transfer of Indians within the provinces to the jurisdiction of the respective provinces.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the importance of the subject discussed by the hon. member for Northwest Territories and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue who has just spoken. However, I wish to raise another matter, as briefly as I can, which-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order, with the hon. member's permission. I believe it is the practice of the house that when dealing with a supply motion subsequent speakers must speak on subjects relevant to the matter raised by the initial speaker. My point of order, if I may be allowed to put it before you rule on it, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe subsequent speakers on this interim supply motion must be relevant in their remarks to the subject matter raised by the initial speaker in the debate. I believe that the rules make provision for this.


Frank Howard: If I may comment on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, particularly in view of the fact that I sat here and listened attentively to the hon. member for Northwest Territories, the hon. member for Pon-tiac-Temiscamingue and the minister and wanted myself to participate in the debate on precisely the same subject matter, namely our native and Eskimo peoples, in my submission the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon would be applicable on a Tuesday evening, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, when we had concluded a vote on a supply motion and were then in the field loosely referred to as discussing a grievance. In that case anyone who wants to speak on the grievance must follow that subject, and one cannot bring in a new subject until the particular grievance under discussion has been exhausted. But that rule does not apply in committee of the whole on interim supply. I submit that the hon. member for
20220-95J
Interim Supply
Greenwood-even though I want to take part in the debate on the Eskimo people-has a perfect liberty and right to debate what he wants to debate on this interim supply motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I comment on the point of order raised, because academically and practically it is a very interesting problem and a very material one. I think the hon. member for Skeena is quite right, and that when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, after we have concluded the vote on the last amendment and some period of time has elapsed, a grievance, by long tradition, may be raised. It has been the custom in the house, so far as I can recall, that such a grievance should be debated to its conclusion and that all subsequent speakers should discuss matters which are relevant to the grievance. I do not think this is to be found in our standing orders. I think that, like many of our customs and practices, it has been built up and accepted over a very long period of time.
My submission, in support of the hon. member for Yukon-and I think it is very advisable to have a ruling on this matter-is that we must relate the rules which are applied in the house to committee of the whole. I think it is a general practice that where a rule has been established and is applicable in the house when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, it naturally follows that the same rule applies, and the same practice, when we are in committee of the whole. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, in an academic way I wish to support the views put forward by the hon. member for Yukon.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think it is the usual custom, after debate on a supply motion, to raise grievances, and in order to facilitate some order of business it has been generally accepted by the house that the grievance raised by the first speaker shall be continued as long as there are member in the house who wish to speak on that particular topic. But that is not the position in which we now find ourselves. We now find ourselves in committee of the whole in the course of a general debate on a motion for interim supply. The different parties in the house will have their turn to speak, but I know^ nothing in the rules which says that the chairman must indicate to any member of any party that he must make his remarks relevant to the subject of a previous speech. While I say that to the hon. member for Yukon, I must also say that to my mind this is a new interpretation of the rules; and while I would say at the moment that the rule does not apply in this case, as it does after a supply motion, I will consider this particular

Interim Supply
matter. However, I doubt that it applies at the moment. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the committee that before I decided to speak on this matter I did consider the question of the rules, and I would have hesitated to interrupt a discussion of such an important matter as we have been discussing did I not think that the matter which I proposed to raise was one of considerable urgency and that the opportunities to raise it were relatively limited. For this reason I propose to raise it now.
The subject I want to discuss at this moment and call to the attention of the government is, as I have said, in my view a matter of grave urgency, not only to my own constituents and to all constituents of the metropolitan area of Toronto but to very many people outside that area. I refer to the acute crisis caused by the lack of hospital beds in that area and the degree of responsibility which I believe falls upon this government to assist in remedying that situation. The existence and gravity of this crisis has been fully documented in the press. A report of a special committee of the Ontario hospital services commission estimated the need for hospital beds in that area at 2,360. Two of the hospitals in Toronto, out of three, have no emergency beds even for those who are in danger of dying. It takes from three weeks to two months at least to find accomodation for painful illnesses such as hernia and gallstones.
I have in front of me a news story which appeared in the Toronto daily Star of yesterday under the following heading, "Babies' lives at stake in hospital bed crisis-M.D." I read a brief extract from this report:
Metro's critical hospital bed shortage is risking children's lives.
This is the warning of Dr. Harvey Agnew, director of a study sponsored by the Ontario hospital services commission.
Dr. Agnew, in case hon. members of this house do not know this, is no person to speak lightly. He retired in 1961 as head of hospital administration of the University of Toronto. This is what the report says:
He said-
This is referring to Dr. Agnew:
-the acute shortage of suburban hospital beds for children endangers the lives of emergency and some newborn cases.
Hospital officials and doctors agreed the "situation is serious and additional beds in fairly substantial numbers must be provided shortly", he said.
I do not intend to go on and recount to the committee the numerous illustrations of this urgent need. I could do that at length
[The Deputy Chairman.]
but, as I have said, they have been fully brought out in the press. This is a problem which is particularly serious for older people in that many of them who are suffering from serious illness and should be in hospital are kept waiting two or three months before they can get a hospital bed.
The matter has reached the stage that the provincial government-in this particular field I would say that the federal government is the junior partner-has been accused of fraud in accepting money for hospital services which they are not in a position to provide after receiving the money for them. This matter has been under consideration by the federal government since October or November of last year. At that time the executive of the metropolitan council made representations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other ministers, including the Minister of Finance whom I am glad to see in the house at this moment. In these representations it was urged that the federal government should, in line with the increased grants already made by the provincial government and those made by the metropolitan area government, increase its present grant of $2,000 per bed. In fact, if I recall aright, I think it was suggested that the federal government should double its grant. The grant of $2,000 for hospital bed construction has not been increased in over a decade with the result that the level of federal grants has not kept pace with rising costs.
On the 3rd of December last year, I believe, I questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to what reply she was going to give to the request of the executive of the metropolitan council in this matter. She said then that the matter was under active consideration. My colleague, the hon. member for Danforth, and myself have continued to question the minister and latterly the Prime Minister with regard to what decision the government has reached on this matter. So far we have had no definite answer. We are still told that the matter is under active consideration.
In my respectful view, Mr. Chairman, this is not merely a local matter. People from all over the province of Ontario and, indeed, from outside the province of Ontario avail themselves of the services of these hospitals. Nor is it merely an economic matter. There is a moral obligation of leadership upon the federal government. It is perfectly true that under our constitution the provision of hospitals is essentially a provincial responsibility, but the federal government in the past has recognized its share of responsibility and the necessity for giving leadership in this field.

I want to touch on a political note in this regard. In the last federal election the Liberal party, as is well known, swept the metropolitan area of Toronto and succeeded in electing members from all but the two constituencies represented by your humble member now speaking and the hon. member for Danforth. There are in fact in the metropolitan area of Toronto more members of parliament and electors than in seven out of the ten provinces of this country. I am aware that in the rest of Canada Toronto is not the most popular section of our country-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it is.


Michael Starr: You made it that way after your last budget.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -but I suggest to the government that is no reason why these urgent needs should be disregarded.
As one who comes from Toronto I think I made a very apt understatement but I do not want to invite comment on it. I urge the distinguished members of the cabinet from the Toronto area-I am looking now at the Minister of Finance and this would apply equally to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Trade and Commerce- to urge upon their colleagues immediate and practical action in regard to this urgent need. There may well be other metropolitan areas, and no doubt there are, in which the same urgent need exists. I have referred to the Toronto area because I am thoroughly familiar with it.
I do not think this is really a laughing matter and I do not think the Minister of Finance was laughing at what I was saying, but I suggest that when the lives, welfare and health of people in a large area are at stake and where the federal government has a degree of responsibility the federal government should give leadership. I warn the members of the government from this area that if they do not show a real regard for this situation, if they will not make up their minds in this respect, this will become widely known to their constituents, and we shall make sure that it is widely known to their constituents. It may be that the tide that swept Toronto last time will not be quite as efficacious next time unless they decide to do something about this matter and do it soon.
I am not talking now about some newspaper theory; I am talking about what doctors and medical men generally have repeated is an urgent problem at the present time. I see it is about one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I will conclude by appealing to the members of the government, particularly the Minister
Interim Supply
of National Health and Welfare and those members of the government who represent the area of metropolitan Toronto and, indeed, to all elected representatives from that area and all members of the house, to urge upon the government that this situation requires immediate and decisive action.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all impressed by the speech to which we have just listened. There is a very serious situation in Toronto in the hospital field. I think it is a question of where the main responsibility lies. I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood would expect me to go into the matter specifically on interim supply. Certainly I am not in a position to do so now. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether there are other members of the committee who wish to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It had been hoped that we could get through interim supply before the luncheon break because there are a number of hon. members who are anxious to participate in the discussion of the supplementary estimates which it had been hoped would come forward at 2.30. I do not know how hon. members feel. If they were willing to let us proceed with interim supply and get it through we could then do what had been hoped would be done, proceed with the supplementary estimates at 2.30 which some hon. members are looking forward to.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, we will agree to the passage of interim supply now.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, we still have some speakers on interim supply.


Michael Starr: May I interject? I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would be agreeable, if it is agreeable to the committee, to making the speech he wants to make on the supplementary estimates? He would not lose the opportunity to say what he wants to say.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think we might assure the hon. member for Lapointe the floor if he would so agree.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would certainly be prepared to give the same undertaking on behalf of the government.


Gilles Grégoire: We still have some points to raise on interim supply. There must also be an interim supply bill, and we have an amendment on interim supply.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Interim Supply AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in the discussion on interim supply, we are authorized to draw the members' attention to various matters which are of interest to us all. I therefore would like to start by mentioning a program which was televised yesterday on the English network of the C.B.C., under the title: "The Open Grave".
Mr. Chairman, the comments which this program gave rise to illustrate a point which we have been trying to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) for some time, to the effect that it might be appropriate, and even necessary, to set up a committee of the house to consider certain programs presented by the C.B.C. which is a crown corporation.
To my mind, it might be important to have such a committee to study those matters, for several reasons.
First of all, the C.B.C. might benefit by knowing the point of view of hon. members. As a matter of fact, we are constantly in contact with the people and we might convey the people's opinion to that crown corporation.
Yesterday, I listened to the telecast entitled: "The Open Grave". I wonder why there was so much fuss and noise made about that show. Personally, I saw nothing sacrilegious or scandalous.
There might have been a somewhat indirect reference in the scene where disciples of Mr. Corbett were shown, one of them betraying him. There was the allegory of the open grave. But possibly nothing scandalous or sacrilegious.
However, I must say, our attention having been called to such a play, that I expected worse than that. In my opinion the literary style was very poor, there were leitmotivs which by the end became boring. The vocabulary was very poor, and this play was certainly not a first class drama, far from it.
In my opinion, what saved the play some value was the excellence of the artists interpreting this drama, or at least what has been called a drama, as well as the excellence of the producers.
Now, as concerns the substance of this so-called dramatic play, I think the C.B.C. may be somewhat criticized, for it meant to convey a certain idea.
I consider this corporation as an agency not to be influenced or subjugated by politics. Therefore, that agency should not endeavour to convey some ideologies or political messages.

The substance of that play-at the beginning, I mostly discussed its form-carried a unilateral message resting on erroneous premises and, because of the style of the play, was beside the point.
There was an attempt to impress on the public a widely fashionable tendency in this country recently, and that was done with pressure when, for instance, interviews were carried out on the street where a consonant image or character was given of those approving the leader, while a clearly unlikable character was given to those against the leader of the "Peace in Action" movement, like the character who would not go on strike with the other demonstrators around a war plant. On the evening of Mr. Corbett's hanging, we could see motorcyclists waiting at the jail door and those characters were clearly antipathetic, once again to try to influence the public.
An attempt was made to ridicule the efficiency of the R.C.M.P., as it is done sometimes in this house. An attempt was made to ridicule the efficiency of our judicial institutions.
When such an argument is presented, people should at least have the decency to mention that it is a theory and not a theatrical work. I think it was done with such naivete that for a long time, the people fell for that sort of program. The author of that play gave me the impression of being a commercial publicist rather than a theatrical author who is trying to push through a philosophy, rather than attempting to present a theatrical work.
When we consider the amount of money the C.B.C. had to pay for such poor work- in French, we usely call that a turnip and it means something neither bad nor good, but something insipid-as the one shown on T.V. last night, I begin to wonder whether it would not be better for the corporation to appear before a committee of the house in order to receive suggestions.
As far as I am concerned, I do not object to appropriations, even large appropriations, for an agency like the C.B.C. which has work to do and can be a most important institution for the broadcasting of ideas and thoughts aimed at the development of art in Canada as well as understanding between the two main groups of this country. I have no objection to even larger appropriations.
If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation finds insufficient the $85 million voted by the parliament of Canada, let us give it more, but its work should be at least well done and the money spent in a sensible way.
I am convinced that over the French network, between 80 and 85 per cent of expenses

are sensible ones. The majority of plays produced by the C.B.C. during the last five or six years have been successful. But in other cases, perhaps there is a lack of money or inefficient people in some positions. In any event, there is certainly need for an investigation in that regard.
Far be it from me to blame the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, I believe that the corporation, in the field of the theatre, for instance, as well as in the sport and language fields, is doing work of a high social order which helps the advancement and progress of the arts, culture and sport in this country.
However, there comes a time when it may need some advice or information. Then again, we could be the ones to require information on what is going on inside that crown corporation. That is why we believe it would be important and essential now to set up a committee of the house to study those problems. The fact that we are now in full evolution makes it all the more necessary.
I am less familiar with the English network, and I hope you will excuse me for that, because I do not have as many opportunities to watch it. True, I did watch it yesterday, but that was because I wanted to speak about a certain program.
I wish to congratulate the actors of the English network for their splendid performances, and I must not forget the producers who gave us a most beautiful play, even if its theme was more or less insignificant.
On the French network, we have very good performers and excellent producers, and if they need a bigger budget-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? He has given us the benefit of his assessment of one of the performances he saw on English television last night. Would he tell us what he thought about the one just ahead of it?


Gilles Grégoire: I will say this, the actor was no good.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I have not seen it, but the actor was no good.
I must say that I have not seen the play, but some comments I heard about it indicate how much we need a parliamentary committee to inquire into the C.B.C. activities and more particularly when that crown corporation pretends, nowadays, that it is authorized to bear judgment on the present historical facts, while no worthy historian who wants to be absolutely impartial would dare to do it.
Interim Supply
I still feel that the C.B.C. is biased in certain respects, especially as far as politics are concerned. At least, from what I learned during yesterday's program, the corporation tried to be and perhaps it is not the proper organization to produce such a program.
All that to say, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members would like to see a committee set up to examine the operation of the C.B.C.
Another point which is very important, in my opinion, is the question of federal-provincial relations which will be discussed next week in the historic city of Quebec. We hope that those talks will be followed by action and achievements and that changes will be made to keep pace with the present evolution.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring home another point. In view of the tendencies now existing in this country, in view of present conditions, the government must go to Quebec, to this federal-provincial conference, with the clear idea that it will hand back to the provinces as much as possible of certain sources of income, so that the provinces may look after themselves and solve their own problems themselves.
And here I would like to use an argument which was put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) himself, in his budget speech, when he said that generally in the country as a whole, we have succeeded to settle the unemployment problem, since, by and large, it has declined. But, he admitted that the unemployment situation remained to be settled in some particular areas. In brief, while general measures have been beneficial in a general way, unemployment still remains a serious problem, since it has not been solved at the regional level. In other words, legislative centralization could succeed to check unemployment on the whole, but not to eradicate it in underdeveloped areas of the country, scattered all over the country, since there are 35 of those designated areas.
Centralized solutions have not helped settle the problem. On the contrary, and unemployment is a typical example. Now, it is intended to solve the problem of unemployment, and the Minister of Finance wants to solve it on a regional basis; but even in so doing, by legislating on a national basis, on a Canadian basis, for the country as a whole, in a standardized fashion, strictly general, without taking into account various regional characteristics, he cannot arrive at a solution to the problem of regional unemployment. The problem has not been solved because the measures were applied as a whole, and specific cases, in specific areas, were not considered. The problem has not been solved, because the solution was sought in a centralizing way, when it should be sought at the regional level.

Interim Supply
It is to be noted that the winter works, in some areas, have not solved the problem, because some of those areas have weather conditions which do not make for an easy implementation of the general legislation, as it has been voted by Ottawa for the country as a whole. This means that the solution consists in favouring the decentralization of implementation methods, various solutions for various situations.
This is the proof that the remedies should differ according to different areas. This also underlines the necessity of decentralizing and turning over to the provinces the necessary sources of income so that they might bring about the required solutions.
Therefore, let us turn over the sources of income to the provinces, especially those faced with the greatest number of problems, such as the province of Quebec. Those factors should be kept in mind during the next federal-provincial conference to be held next week in Quebec city.
The province of Quebec is exceedingly rich at present and has a tremendous capacity for development, as well as all the manpower, engineers, scientists and technicians required to achieve this development. But the province is at a standstill; Quebec has 40 per cent of the unemployed of the country, because it is the victim of a way of thinking which is not its own, of an atmosphere which is not its own and because the given solutions do not satisfy the aspirations and characteristics of its people. Although Quebec has a tremendous potential development which would contribute to enrich the entire country, it remains underdeveloped, because it is not given the opportunity to apply its own methods of development, its own solutions according to its character, its way of thinking and its procedures.
These regional factors should be taken into account in the over-all economic solutions for the development of the country, exactly as the Minister of Finance must take them into consideration when a specific unemployment problem must be dealt with.
In such a case, I can assure the people of other areas that Quebec will do more than its share to co-operate with enthusiasm and with a deep sense of equality to the development of the whole country. But this means that Quebec must get back its sources of revenue, its rights so as to ensure its own development.
On the other hand, I entertain certain fears, and I mention them here because to give utterance to one's fears beforehand is sometimes the wise thing to do. I fear that the Prime Minister will arrive at the federal-provincial conference surrounded by advisers

who do not want to grasp the real meaning of the solutions to be found, who are blind to the real problems and their solutions.
I also fear that, on the other hand, the Quebec premier will take a sit-on-the-fence attitude at the federal-provincial conference, and take no real stand, as he did on April 5, 1963, three days before the last general election when he said: "We insist on a better distribution of revenue sources from the federal government, Quebec wants 100 per cent of the succession duties, 25 per cent of the corporation income tax and 25 per cent of the individual income tax."
By using that approach, he obtained the support of everybody. That was a year ago, or will be, in 15 days. Afterwards, the Quebec premier gave an ultimatum and we all got behind him.
He stated exactly the needs of the province of Quebec, what Quebec wants. He described clearly the requirements of the province of Quebec, so that it might really develop in this modern age.
Quebec was unanimous at that time and we must say to the premier of Quebec that we expect from him a very strong stand on those points, because any softening would result in a wave of disapproval on the part of the citizens of the province of Quebec.
Such a stand would discourage them, because they would understand that the premier of Quebec is not ready to do what he has been preaching for so long, namely give to the province of Quebec the means and the opportunity to become master in its own house, by developing itself to the advantage of all its citizens.
However, we do not want this to be done at the expense of the other provinces. We wish all regions of Canada, all Canadian citizens, to get the same opportunities, but we also wish the province of Quebec to get its own, and we feel that the country as a whole will profit by it, will make progress. The whole country will then take a step forward since when a part of the country is being developed, the other parts also profit by it.
Mr. Chairman, on the eve of this provincial conference, which will be extremely important, indeed strategic, we believe that the governments which will meet around the same table, the federal government and that of the nine other provinces, must look to the future, not in seeking to centralize everything in Ottawa, but in granting every province, every region, means and opportunities to develop themselves according to their own conditions.


Erik Nielsen: I do not intend to take up too much time in this debate but I do have one or two things to say with respect to the proposed transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos living in northern Quebec from the federal government to the government of the province of Quebec.
In order that the situation may be put into proper perspective, I think I should refer to one or two things which have been said in this house by the Minister of Justice, by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There seems to me to be as much difference between the minister of northern affairs and his cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, with respect to this question as there is between the Minister of Agriculture, if indeed he can still be called that, and the Minister of Forestry. The minister of northern affairs said on March 4 that there would be consultation with the Eskimos of northern Quebec before a transfer was effective-I think the words he used were "before an agreement is signed". As reported in Hansard of that date, the minister of northern affairs set forth the agreement, or rather the consensus of understanding, as he called it, between the representatives of the government of Quebec and the representatives of the government of Canada. In one of the conditions which was attached to this consensus of agreement, number four to be precise, which is recorded on page 506 of Hansard, it was stated that the government of Canada and Quebec undertake to consult jointly the Eskimos of New Quebec, or nouveau Quebec. The paragraph went on:
The consultation, that is the communication of the terms of the agreement, excluding the financial provisions thereof, and the receiving of the views and comments of the Eskimos concerned, would be made through a commission-
From what cabinet ministers have been telling us, it appears that agreement to set up this commission was reached between the two governments on February 29 last. This agreement was announced in the house by the minister of northern affairs on March 4. But as yet, according to the answer which the minister of northern affairs gave me this afternoon, there have been no further meetings between the representatives of the government of Quebec and the government of Canada in connection with this matter, nor has any progress been made toward the setting up of this commission.
It seems to me there can hardly be the kind of consultation which we have been led to believe will take place between the Eskimo people and the government of Canada if, as the minister says in the agreement which he 20220-96
Interim Supply
put on record on March 4, the terms of reference of the commission provide merely- and I quote again from page 506 of Hansard- that consultation is to be only "the communication of the terms of the agreement", excluding the financial provisions. If this is what the hon. gentleman and the Prime Minister mean by consultation, it seems to me that the Eskimo people, 2,500 of them, will be presented with a fait accompli in the form of an agreement reached between the province of Quebec and the government of Canada. They will simply be informed that this is how things are to be. We have been urging that the Eskimo people should be consulted in the fullest sense of the term. It would appear that the fairest means of achieving this degree of consultation would be to invite representatives of the Eskimo people involved to serve as members of the commission which the two governments intend to set up and, in addition, to invite representatives of the Eskimos to express their views at any interim meetings held between the governments.
Here we have a situation where the minister of northern affairs, who is constitutionally and legally directly responsible for the welfare of these people, is entering into consultation with a provincial government, on behalf of the government of Canada, without having any regard whatsoever for the opinions and views of the Eskimos who are the subject of those consultations. The minister read into the record on March 4 the provisions of a consensus reached by the two governments, but there was no indication that the Eskimo people had been consulted as to the contents of even that concensus. It seems to me that the 2,500 Canadian citizens who are most directly involved should have been asked to express their views on the subject. They should have been asked to express their views as to the setting up of the commission. They should have been asked whether or not they wished to be represented on this commission. It seems to me it would have been fair to have done all these things rather than to have proceeded unilaterally, because of political pressure applied by the minister's cabinet colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, arbitrarily to transfer jurisdiction to the provincial government for purely political reasons.
I am not the only one who holds these views. One of the leading newspapers in this country, a paper to whose editorial policy I am sure those who sit on the government benches will not take exception, the Winnipeg Free Press, has called this whole matter an exercise in political appeasement, and that is precisely what it is. Here we have the

Interim Supply
province of Quebec demanding, and indeed threatening, that the federal government turn over to it administrative responsibility for these people.
It is a responsibility which has been residing in the federal government, if not by the treaty of Paris of 1763, certainly from 1939 onwards. A decision was reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1939, at the insistence of the province of Quebec, that the responsibility for the welfare of the Eskimo people should reside in the federal government. In other words, the supreme court decided they would come within the classification of original people as contemplated by the Indian Act. From that time on the federal government has assumed the responsibility and I might say that during the years 1957 to 1963 the responsibility was discharged as never before in Canadian history.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the consultation which the minister of northern affairs and the Prime Minister have assured the house will be carried out is a very shallow device to hide the fact that it is the intention of the federal government to come to an agreement with the province of Quebec, and then hand that agreement as a fait accompli to the Eskimo people. Why has the government not considered Eskimo representation on the commission, and why does the government not ensure that independent counsel be provided both prior to the consideration of the terms of this so-called agreement and at the time the completed agreement is considered by the commission?
The minister of resources in Quebec said that it would be utterly undemocratic to hold a referendum on this question. The minister of resources in Quebec has been very outspoken on this subject. In some of the earlier meetings he said that unless the federal government follows the wishes of his province in this matter, they will not give the Eskimo people in northern Quebec jobs on provincial projects but rather will take residents from the central portion of the province and substitute their labour for the labour which is more readily available. Some newspaper commentators have called this blackmail. I hope that since the time when Mr. Levesque made this statement the federal officials involved, including the minister of northern affairs, have made some progress in bringing some modicum of rational thought to the minister of resources for Quebec.
The Eskimo people in this area are Canadian citizens and cannot be treated as human pawns, as appears to be the case. As the Leader of the Opposition stated the other day in this house, the Eskimo people are being treated as chattels in this transaction. They

are being shunted from pillar to post without regard to their feelings in the matter. The hon. member for Northwest Territories pointed out that he knew these people and how they feel, that they are fearful and confused. He further said that if the federal government insists on enforcing their views and on giving in to Quebec on the question these people will move out of New Quebec and on to the islands.
I have a suggestion to make if the federal and provincial governments insist on going through with their plan without consulting the Eskimo people. I suggest to the minister that the government consider payment in full of the expenses for removal of all their community property as well as their individual persons from their location in Quebec to any other place in the Northwest Territories-all of which is their home-to which they desire to move. That is regardless of whether one or 2,500 express the view to go. It seems that the fair and democratic thing to do is to hold a referendum among these people and find out their desires in the matter, rather than superimposing on their own personal feelings an arbitrary decision of the federal and provincial governments which has been dreamed up in concert-as the Winnipeg Free Press puts it, as an exercise in political appeasement.
The national unrest which this arbitrary action on the part of the government has caused-this typically Liberal arbitrary action of a Liberal government-is by no means confined to the province of Quebec or the province of Manitoba. In every centre of this country editorials have been written. One can pick editorials from any provincial newspaper condemning the action of the government in treating these people as human pawns. I should like to read an editorial in the Calgary Herald of March 3, the heading of which is precisely the phrase I have used- "Human pawns". The editorial commences in this way:
There is little justification for transferring jurisdiction over Quebec's 2,500 Eskimos from federal to provincial hands...
A meeting last week-
This editorial is dated March 3, 1964-
-between federal and Quebec authorities indicates that Ottawa is, after all, prepared to surrender to the demands of the Quebec resources minister, Rene Levesque, for the transfer of that province's Eskimo population to provincial authority.
Two sound arguments are advanced against this policy. The first is that-
-the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1939 that Eskimos were Indians and subject to federal jurisdiction. To turn them over to provincial jurisdiction is to be guilty of flagrant disregard of a judgment handed down by this country's highest court.

That is precisely what such a decision would mean; the government of Canada would be flying directly in the face of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Second, has sufficient consideration been given to the views of the Eskimos themselves? Last month, Quebec officials reacted in a somewhat petulant manner-
-a manner in which, I might add, the Minister of Transport ofttimes acts in this house when answering questions-
-when a federal spokesman suggested that a referendum be held to determine the Eskimo point of view.
Where is that referendum? Last August, for example, the Minister of Justice said, although not in so many words, that it would be held. He, like the disciple of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he is, is becoming extremely proficient in skirting around direct answers to questions which are asked in this house. Both he and the Prime Minister have said, and not only on one occasion, that the Eskimo people will be fully consulted. That consultation, to be achieved in its fullest possible measure, should be consultation by referendum, not by merely explaining to the Eskimo people, as the minister of northern affairs put it on March 4, the terms and provisions of an agreement which has already been reached and decided upon and presented to the Eskimo people as a fait accompli. It is the fate of 2,500 Canadian citizens who have the federal franchise of which we are speaking here. They are people who are the direct responsibility of the federal government, not simply as a matter of constitutional law but because of the confirmation of their position handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1939.
On March 10 the Minister of Justice was asked in this house a question by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm as reported at page 735 of Hansard:
When does the minister contemplate holding a sort of referendum, once the agreements are signed, in which the Eskimos would be asked whether they are in favour of that transfer?
The answer of the Minister of Justice was this:
Mr. Speaker, it is a question I would not like to answer without previous consultation with the other party involved in the discussions-
-namely, the province of Quebec: Not the Eskimo people; their feelings do not seem to concern the minister at all.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked this question a little later on, as reported on that same page:
Will the Minister of Justice meet the Hon. Mr. Levesque in this connection?
20220-96J
Interim Supply
The Minister of Justice, in sloughing this off, said:
That matter is of minor importance, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that the matter of prime importance here is the feeling of the 2,500 Eskimo people. These people apparently do not want any change in the federal relationship which they now enjoy. These people do not want to be treated as political pawns. These people do not want to be the subject of an exercise in political appeasement that seems to be the whole reason for the federal government dealing with the matter at all. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is a very conscientious individual and takes his responsibilities seriously. He is given certain responsibilities under the act which set up his department, and one of those responsibilities constitutionally followed is that of caring for the welfare of the Eskimo people of Canada-not just those of any one particular province. I do not believe that he wants to see any transfer of jurisdiction. I think pressures are being applied from within his own cabinet by the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to comply, for political purposes, with the demands being made by the province of Quebec. It is a shameful exhibition of complete surrender for political expediency and for the purpose of obtaining votes in the province of Quebec.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the democratic process dictates that the Eskimo people themselves are the people who should be making this decision. The federal government is bound to care for the welfare and the administration of the affairs of these people by our own laws, as confirmed by a supreme court decision. They cannot all of a sudden slough off this responsibility simply because another province wants them to do so. The Prime Minister in the house, in answer to one of these questions the other day, said that all the provinces will be treated equally in this regard. This is another indication of co-operative federalism, where they want to come to one arrangement with one province and do nothing with regard to other provinces. This knife cuts both ways, Mr. Chairman. If there is to be a transfer of the jurisdiction of the federal government and administrative responsibility for the Eskimo people in this country, surely it should apply to all provinces; and this applies equally to administrative jurisdiction in matters concerning the affairs of the Indian peoples.
I suggest, sir, that there is a division in the cabinet over this question. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources deserves every assistance to see that the constitutional question here goes the way that it

Interim Supply
should; to see that the rights of the Eskimo people are protected. It is the duty, I would suggest, of members on all sides of this house to support the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in insisting that the responsibilities which he is given under the act creating his department, and by the other laws of Canada, are carried out with regard to the Eskimo people and the protection of their rights. These responsibilities should be carried out to the fullest extent and should not be made the subject of an exercise in political expediency by his colleagues in the cabinet.
I would suggest also that apart from the question of a referendum the minister should very seriously consider the provision now, not after the provisions of the agreement have been drawn up and reached between the two governments, of independent counsel, untainted by the officialdom in his department or the federal government and untainted by that in the province of Quebec, so that the Eskimo people can be advised independently of their rights and so they can be advised on any questions which they may care to put as to whether they must accept the decision which is arbitrarily reached by the two governments concerned. If the federal government is to insist on the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs, then I feel this house should insist that a referendum be held among the Eskimo people concerned so that their wishes are paramount here, and not the wishes of the federal government or the wishes of the government of the province of Quebec.
If the federal government arrives at the decision that it is a good thing, a desirable thing that the administration of the affairs of these people should be transferred, then they must, in keeping with the Prime Minister's undertaking in the house the other day, apply the same principle to the province of Manitoba, because there are Eskimos living in the northern portion of that province, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources knows. It seems to me that one province cannot be treated in any different fashion than another; the principle upon which the transfer is being made must be uniform. I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Royal, I think it was, first raised the point as to whether this parliament would have the opportunity to consider any agreement that might be reached between the federal government and the provincial governments. There may not be time for another of our members to cover this point, but I would say that the hon. member for Peace River has raised this matter on a number of occasions, as well as the hon. member for Royal. I believe that if the matter is examined very carefully, it will be found that there is a

constitutional obligation on the part of the federal government to place any such agreement before parliament before it is given effect. I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head in negation, but I believe that if he will look into this matter carefully he will find that the responsibility for the caring of the affairs of the Eskimo people is placed on the parliament of Canada and that respon-sibilility cannot be delegated until the parliament of Canada gives its approval-not the minister's department, because the minister certainly is not given that authority under the act which constitutes his department. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources does not want to do that. He knows very well that the fair thing to do is to retain the responsibility for the care of these peoples in his own department. He is a conscientious individual and I know that he wants to discharge his responsibilities.


Arthur Laing: Flattery will get you nowhere.


Erik Nielsen: Well, I hope it gets the Eskimo people somewhere. I know that he wants to do the right thing because of his conscientiousness. He wants to ensure that the rights of these people are protected. Initially when he approached this problem, from reading the press reports I gather he was one of those who believed in a referendum, and I think deep down in his heart of hearts he still believes that a referendum is a proper way to approach this question, so that the views of the Eskimo people will be the governing views in this matter.
I can quite realize the pressure he must be under from his colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; but I say to him, "Disregard this pressure. They are not the important people, nor are the people in Quebec who are threatening and who are trying to insist on the transfer being made. The important people here are the Eskimo people themselves". This is one principle, judging from what I have been reading and hearing in this house, that the people of Quebec understand; that is, the principle of self-determination. They will be the first to stand up and insist on that right being enjoyed by all Canadians, from whichever part of the country they come. So I think that in order to clarify the matter once and for all, either the minister or someone in authority in the government should stand up and say that the government does not propose to proceed further with this matter; or indeed, if they do, the alternative is to hold a referendum in the democratic way so that the people most affected, namely the Eskimo people of New Quebec, will have the right of determining their own future without having changes

superimposed on their future lives and those of their children by government officials.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, primarily I should like to say a few words on the same subject on which debate was started yesterday by the hon. member for Northwest Territories and has been continued today by others. Before I do so perhaps I might be permitted to say how much I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the co-leader of the Ralliement Creditistes, the hon. member for Lapointe, especially his reference to certain television programs. I can only say to the co-leader of the Ralliement Creditistes that he convinced me for one thing, that if one wants to look for something sinister in anything he will be able to find it.
While we are on the subject of television programs may I say I was one of those who were enticed by the advertising by the Leader of the Opposition to watch the program "The Open Grave". I also took advantage of the occasion to watch the hour long program preceding it entitled "The Chief". I hope that someone on the government benches, presumably the Secretary of State who reports to the house for the C.B.C., will communicate my own thanks and I am sure the thanks of many other hon. members to the C.B.C., especially to the producer of the program, Doug Leiterman, and will commend that organization and Mr. Leiterman for producing such an excellent television program. They portrayed the Leader of the Opposition in a wonderful light, I think, and they did the job even better than Allister Grosart could possibly have done in his wildest moments. I am serious. I think it was an excellent program. I commend the C.B.C. for it and I hope that if they undertake incisive studies of other political leaders they will approach them in the same way.
With respect to the Eskimo and Indian problem in Canada I am sure it is well known that the New Democratic party and those of us who were formerly in the C.C.F. developed some time ago a program and concept relating to native Indian and Eskimo affairs that coincides precisely with the arguments we have heard today. We certainly welcome this late support and endorsation of the idea we have had for many years, namely that so far as government jurisdiction is concerned in relation to the Indian and Eskimo people the primary factor that should never be lost sight of is that they must be officially consulted and their desires must be heeded. This is of prime and paramount importance and we must never retreat from that position.
Some ten years ago the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I sat in the legislature of British Columbia.
Interim Supply
He was then leader of the Liberal party in that province. I am sure he does not need to be reminded and no doubt remembers precisely that in those years one of his clarion calls throughout the province of British Columbia with respect to the Indian people was that anything done in Indian affairs must be done with the consent initially of the Indian people themselves. That was his position ten years ago and I heard him expound on that idea in the legislature. I have read newspaper accounts of him saying the same thing throughout British Columbia and I hope he has not backed off from that position. Our guidepost in dealing with Indian and Eskimo affairs must always be that these people themselves should be the ones to decide initially, and not somebody else.
With regard to the particular matter under discussion, from what I have read about it and have gathered from listening to others it is evident that no group of Eskimos or no individual Eskimo made any approach to have jurisdiction over their affairs transferred into the hands of the government of the province of Quebec. The idea originated in the minds of people like Jean Lesage, Rene Levesque and others of their sort in order to satisfy some sort of inner craving for expression of their parochial ideals, and unfortunately they have dragged the federal government along with them. As a result the federal government has lost sight of the initial goal of consultation with the Eskimo people themselves. When I speak of the Eskimos I am also referring to the other group of original inhabitants of Canada, our native Indians, because the same thing holds true with respect to them. We must never lose sight of the fact that they are the ones concerned, that they should make the initial decisions and that the government should only be the agency to carry out what they decide should be done in the first instance.
Unless that is the case, then as far as I am concerned there should be no further negotiations with the province of Quebec or anybody else on the particular matter of transferring jurisdiction over the affairs of these people to the various provincial governments. I subscribe to the idea that as long as we maintain a constitutional structure that sets people apart on the basis of their racial background we are going to have two classes of people, one of whom is going to be considered second class or inferior. This has been the case with our native Indian people for many years. As long as we maintain one group of people under the jurisdiction of the federal government in respect of their civil rights, education and so on and the remainder of the people under the jurisdiction of the

Interim Supply
various provinces we are going to maintain and develop discrimination in favour of one group and against the other.
Our goal must be the transfer of jurisdiction but it must be done only with consent and after the people involved fully understand what is happening to them. The matter should never be negotiated at the top, as I gather is likely to be the case now, and a plan developed and presented to the Eskimo and native Indian people with the statement: This is the plan, here is our public relations explanation of it; do you want it or not? To do so places these people in the unfortunate position of having to make up their minds at a moment's notice on a matter that is most important to them when they have had very little opportunity to discuss it or to understand what is involved.
It is all right, I suppose, for the federal government to succumb to the pressures of a province, as has happened with this government, and to capitulate to threats or blackmail, if you want to call it that, on such matters as pension plans, taxation rights, the world's fair and a variety of other things, but in this instance we are dealing with the lives, the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people and we cannot possibly think of tossing these rights and freedoms away.
All sorts of suggestions have been made as to the approach that should be taken, but in essence I think this is what we would like to have the minister tell us. We would like to have the minister say to parliament that he is going to consult with the Eskimo people involved in this particular transfer to find out their views, their ideas and their opinions. On that basis he could then proceed to enter into discussions with the officials Of the province of Quebec, but first of all he should find out what the attitude of the people concerned is. If their attitude is that they are not interested in being transferred into the hands of Rene Levesque and others like him, then the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the government should stand up for the rights of these people, represent them properly and tell Rene Levesque to go to blazes. First of all let the government base its position on the desire of the people concerned.
Second, I think that in any event nothing should be done in this whole field of transferring jurisdiction over the original inhabitants of Canada until such time as we have had this dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs, which I think will take place some time in May. This is the sort of place, with all the provinces there and with all the representatives of the federal government there, where we might be able to thresh out

a general understanding as to what course should be followed. Once there is some general agreement as to whether or not it is desirable to approach the native people on the question of transferring their jurisdiction, then we should go to the people concerned and say, "Do you want us to proceed or don't you want us to proceed?" We should outline the pros and cons, the benefits and drawbacks of such a transfer. Once the opinion of these people is ascertained, you can proceed with negotiations. If you do not consult with the people themselves first, what you will be doing will be selling their rights down the proverbial river. You will be disregarding the human dignity that everyone has and, unfortunately, you will be setting a pattern, whether or not that pattern is good or bad for all future discussions which may take place concerning the original inhabitants in Canada.
I just want to leave this one simple thought with the government. For heaven's sake do not do anything to jeopardize the rights of the people themselves. For heaven's sake go and consult with them and ask them first for their views, their ideas and, if necessary, submit a referendum to them. The situation should be explained thoroughly to these people, and you should submit yourself to the most incisive criticism and questioning by them. Tell them the truth about what is likely to happen and what is not likely to happen if jurisdiction is transferred. Let these people decide first what the government of Canada should do with regard to these negotiations, and then act like true, honest negotiators in representing them when you are dealing with the province of Quebec. If you do that first, you will have no complaints levelled against you. The people themselves will have no complaints because they will be the ones, initially, who started the whole process. Do not do it above, as has been the case so often in the past when governments have been dealing with the original inhabitants of this country; because if you make an agreement above, then you superimpose it on the individuals concerned.


Mr. Caouelie:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to make a few comments, before the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is passed and consideration is given to the interim supply bill which will probably be submitted to the house this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) spoke a moment ago of the program presented last night over the English network of the C.B.C. and said that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) could find something sinister in anything or anywhere, but, as I have not seen the program

myself, the only comments I heard were to the effect that the whole thing seemed to be a lot of publicity to promote socialist ideas which are overrunning the world. It is hardly surprising then that the hon. member for Skeena should be so interested in that play which was shown on the English network of the C.B.C. last evening.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we are again threatened with the sword of Damocles which was held over our heads on several occasions last year. Indeed, since yesterday, we have been told time and again that if interim supplies are not voted today, civil servants will not be paid, government bills will remain outstanding and the financial administration of the country will be paralysed. We wish to inform the Minister of Finance that we strongly object to this method used by the government to impose its decision on the house under the pretext that civil servants will not be paid and that the financial administration of the country will be paralysed if we do not adopt a certain piece of legislation at once.
The Minister of Finance does not even have to be here this afternoon to provide for civil servants' salaries and pay government bills. He just has to telephone the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, and ask him to issue the necessary cheques. Then, everybody will be paid, since no Canadian bank will refuse such cheques unless the present Minister of Finance has completely lost our confidence.
Interim supply will probably include an important item, that is a short term loan, which means 91 days, bearing interest at 7 per cent. That loan to meet government obligations will amount to about $1.5 billion. At 7 per cent, that means an interest of $26,222,222.22 for three months. Twenty six million dollars in interest only on a temporary loan of $1.5 billion. And the government complains that it is short of credit, short of money and that the people do not want to invest in their country's development, whereas it is the government itself which tolerates a monetary system that is falling to pieces, a fact which is becoming more and more obvious.
Not so long ago, on March 24, the newspaper Le Droit published-not on the front page, because when news of that kind is made public, you find it most of the time near the obituary column, which goes almost unnoticed unless you happen to be interested-that news item which you find in the most hidden corners, the least interesting corners of any newspaper.
Here are, according to a report from Washington, the dangers of automation:
Interim Supply
A group of American professors, trade unionists and economists submitted to President Johnson a report in which they point out the dangers of automation.
Automation threatens to bring about in the United States unprecedented economic and social disorders, say the 32 signatories to the report-
Please note, Mr. Chairman, that I am not one of those signatories. Those are the views of economists, trade unionists and professors in the United States.
To go on with the quotation:
-among whom may be noted the Swedish-bom economist Gunnar Myrdal and Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling.
The report states the United States and the remainder of the world-
-this includes ourselves, here, in Canada. This also includes the Minister of Finance.
-will before long fall prey to a revolution which will bring unlimited production, thanks to machines, without the necessity of the co-operation of human beings.
So, means should be taken to ensure an income to all, the signatories to the report add.
Mr. Chairman, steps must be taken to guarantee income to all, not only in the United States but also in Canada.
We read in La Presse for Wednesday, March 25, 1964, an article entitled:
Means to be taken to relieve the poverty of 30 million Americans.
Thirty million people in the most wretched poverty out of a population of 200 million, while in Canada we have 500,000 unemployed, and if we consider an average of five individuals in each family, that would mean 2,500,000 people living in dire poverty. Besides, I would dare say that if we add to this figure all those who are not registered with the unemployment insurance commission, we could easily get the astonishing total of 5 or 6 million people, while the total population of Canada is 19 million. Six million Canadians are actually living in poverty in this country. Mr. Chairman, this is an intolerable situation.
On the other hand, the Minister of Finance tells us that the situation is improving. He tells us that only 5.5 per cent of the available labour force is unemployed. Five and a half per cent, in the public mind, does not mean such a large number of people. But if we take the trouble to consider the meaning of 5.5 per cent, we find that it represents more than 500,000 Canadian unemployed. That is the danger now existing in our country and the problem facing us at present.
How could an income be provided for everybody without accepting the theory advocated for many years by the Social Credit, namely the payment of a monthly dividend to each and everyone, so as to create the purchasing power called for by automation and to

Interim Supply
acknowledge that automation, instead of being detrimental to man, should serve his interests? That is what we want, what we are demanding and requiring of the present government.
Instead of racking our brains to find extravagant schemes like the winter works program -while machinery or power shovels are put aside to use men and give them some work why not use this program to make the equipment available to men, in order to help them rather than to enslave them? Instead of racking our brains, we should help organizations which are trying to look after people's leisure time. It would be so much more Christain and humane than to consider man like a beast of burden who must sweat and toil in spite of progress and actually be punished.
Mr. Chairman, it is this interim supply that is put before us at the very last minute, on Easter eve, and we are requested to accept it quickly. We are told: Accept, if you want to leave today for your Easter recess, accept it if you want to catch your train at 4.30 p.m. or your plane at five or six, or at eight o'clock tonight.
Mr. Chairman, we in this corner of the house are fed up with this sudden rush at the last minute. We no longer want that sort of thing for any consideration and for any minister. We no longer want the government itself to push us around or drive us into a corner, saying: accept that, or else we will sit tomorrow, holy Saturday, even on Easter day. We will sit as long as necessary.
We will no longer be pushed around like that in an endeavour to have us pass measures which should have been put before us perhaps two or three weeks before, so that all members of the house could discuss the subject matter, the advisability and the merits, in the minutest details, of everything that is not in the interest of the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, this interim supply will indeed provide for expenses. It will also provide for loans. As I said a while ago, when I called the attention of the Minister of Finance to that fact, all he has to do is what we suggest. The Bank of Canada should be used, without interest, when the bill is introduced, for the short term loan of 91 days and the $1 billion or $1.5 billion loan, so that we will not have to pay two or three times the amount of the capital. Let us pay the amount of the capital only. I do not mind that administrative expenses be charged to us but when, for example, we have to pay every three months $26 million in interest on those loans, it is a shame, it is like taking money from the pocket of the taxpayer.
[Mr. Caouette.l
Mr. Chairman, I have here newspaper articles saying exactly what we said during the last two sessions and during this one. I have here an article published in the Western Producer, on March 26, that is in this week's issue. It reads as follows:

For a long time purchasing power in the pockets of consumers has not been sufficient to buy the goods they need and which are available for consumption. Those who listen to "commercials" on radio and television need not be reminded of the savage competition among sellers for the buyer's dollar. They hear every day tempting offers with no cash down and ever lengthening periods to pay which competing firms dangle before the public in frantic effort to steal customers from one another.

We can read the following:

Time and again it has been asserted in these columns that a radical recasting of the monetary system is long overdue.

And that article by Mr. Waldrum was certainly not invented by the Social Credit organization, because the author is a man entirely outside the political scene; he just relates the facts as they are.
Here, in La Presse of Wednesday, March 25, we see that the United States have to deal with 30 million paupers.
The world is progressing; there is no better proof than the war waged against pauperism, as President Kennedy saw it, and which President Johnson is carrying on. A quarter of a century ago, it would have been taken for granted that this struggle meant taking the money from the "haves" to give it to the "have-nots". For until lately, indeed, it was presumed that the social cake was just so big and that the social problem consisted in sharing it.
Today, people here are preaching solutions as in the United States. They advocate certain remedies. These are the principal reasons for pauperism and distress. There are four categories of have-nots; for instance those whose proverty is due to lack of education.
Here, in this country, our young people have been urged for the last five or six years to go to technical schools, and become technicians, professionals. And, when they come out of those technical schools, when these young people of 20 or 22 years try to obtain a job, they are told that they lack experience.
When they have experience they lack education, and when they have education they lack experience.
That is the dilemma facing us.
Mr. Chairman, we do not go along with those pointless solutions which lead us nowhere. There is only one way to set up a practical economic order taking into account

the needs of the human person and that is to put the monetary sign directly in relation with the production the Canadian people are capable of. Then, we shall certainly have the liberation of the individual and the monetary sign will no longer be the master of the human person, but rather a servant, as we have been advocating for so many years.
Mr. Chairman, Social Credit would not do miracles and we do not need a Social Credit government to apply its plans. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), being an accountant, can understand Social Credit, but some circles around him probably prevent him from taking action. If he knew to what extent he would get the support of the Canadian people who are now in a dire situation, the Minister of Finance would not hesitate one minute more this afternoon and he would make an Easter present to each and every Canadian by calling the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, instructing him to make available the billions of dollars needed for the good administration of Canada and the economic recovery in all Canadian provinces. [Text]
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

['To the best of my knowledge-and I can assure the hon. gentleman\nBusiness of the House\nthat a very careful search has been made by people much more competent than I am to do so-there was nothing in that category at all.\nProgress reported.']
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, the sum of $684,120,260.18, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I am afraid I perhaps did not hear as well as other members of this committee and I would like the figures to be repeated.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The figure in this resolution is $684,120,260.18.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-84, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['The figure in this resolution is $684,120,260.18.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: When shall the bill be read a second time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Ways and Means


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses one to four inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Power to raise loan of $1,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deliver a speech on this matter. I only ask you a minute or a minute and a half in order to prepare an amendment to section
5.	Through this amendment, we propose that the short term loans be obtained from the Bank of Canada at the ordinary administrative rate. That is the amendment that we want to move.
Since we have received the bill at the very last minute, we were ignorant of its terms and we did not know at what stage we could move our amendment. We, therefore, request that a minute be allowed to us in order to prepare this amendment that we want to submit to the members of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in clause 5, the government is asking from us the authorization to borrow $1 billion for public works and general purposes.
That clause reads as follows:
(1)	The governor in council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by parliament, by any act heretofore passed, raise by way of loan, under the Financial Administration Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums, at such rates of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole, the sum of $1 billion, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
(2)	All borrowing powers that are authorized by section 7 of chapter 1 and by section 4 of chapter 15 of the statutes of 1963 and are outstanding and unused shall expire on the date of the coming into force of this act.
Mr. Chairman, we now wish to move an amendment to suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the government to use the Bank of Canada instead of ordinary channels in which the Canadian people are practically overwhelmed.
It is stupid to pay excessive sums of interest on capital which will be used to pay for public works general projects as well as for the development of our country.
As I said earlier, if our Canadian workers have the power, the ability, the intelligence to accomplish things in Canada, to build the country, the Canadian parliament should at least be intelligent enough to order the Bank

Ways and Means
of Canada to give credit according to the accomplishments of the Canadian people. That is all we are asking. It is useless, and even senseless, to ask the United States or other foreign countries for the money required to develop our country or to carry out public works here.
If we are in a position to carry out the works, we should at least be able to provide the corresponding credit.
Mr. Chairman, in that connection, we should like to move an amendment and we feel that every member is anxious to free the people overburdened with taxes and interests. I think that all members without exception will readily endorse the amendment we propose to move.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Do you not charge interest when you sell cars?


David Réal Caouette: That is not the same thing.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That section 5 be amended and that the following words be added after the word "Canada", in the 34th line: "from the Bank of Canada, at an interest rate not exceeding the administrative cost".
And that all the words following the word "Canada", in the 34th line, up to the word "approve" in the 36th line, be deleted.

Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 75.


The Chairman:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 5 carry?


Mr. Nowian:: I presume the minister will give the assurance that clause 5, which deals with borrowing, is in the usual form which has been used in interim supply bills in the past?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Yes, Mr. Chairman.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


David Réal Caouette: On division.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


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


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply. Supplementary estimates (E) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.



[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before I begin to make the statement that I wish to make on behalf of the Prime Minister, though perhaps the proceeding is a little irregular I am sure all hon. members will permit me to do what if my memory had been a little better I would have done at eleven o'clock this morning, and that is to congratulate the right hon. gentleman opposite on the 24th anniversary of his election to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I well remember the day the right hon. gentleman was elected to parliament. It was on a Tuesday, and the fact that most of us are elected on Mondays makes this unusual event one of the things which have been unusual about his career throughout. I think we can all say without partisanship that neither parliament nor Canada would have been the same had he not been elected.
For fear of lapsing into politics, unlike my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is absent, perhaps I had better get on with the chore entrusted to me by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has asked me to make a statement which he regrets, owing to an indisposition, he is not able to be here himself to make regarding the transfer of duties between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry, a matter which was under discussion in the committee some days ago. I hope I will not be called to order if I follow pretty closely the notes I have, as I should like to carry out as faithfully as I can the mission entrusted to me.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that the government had not complied with the provisions of the Regulations Act which require the publication of the order in council of February 3 made under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. The hon. member knows, and I am sure all members know, that the Regulations Act does not apply to all orders in council. It deals with orders made-I quote from the definition of the act-"in the exercise of a legislative power". That act was passed

in 1950, when I believe the hon. gentleman was in the house, to ensure that the public would be informed of so-called delegated legislation. The aim was to make sure that parliament and the public knew what the law was as a result of the exercise of regulatory powers of a legislative character delegated to the government or to individual ministers. Orders in council under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act were then, and always have been since then, regarded as administrative orders since they affect the internal operation of government, not the rights and duties of the public; and therefore they have not been included among orders "of a legislative character" which have been published pursuant to the Regulations Act.
At the time the Regulations Act was passed the government prepared a consolidation of all the orders of a legislative character then in effect; that is, all the orders of the type which in future would be published. That consolidation did not include any orders passed under the transfer of duties act, although a number of such orders were in effect at the time. A further consolidation in 1955 also omitted any such orders. This same position was taken by the administration headed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister. In that period from 1957 to 1963, according to the information furnished to me there were 21 orders made under the transfer of duties act. Not one was published in the way which would be required if the Regulations Act was applicable; that is, by publication in the Canada Gazette. So far as the Regulations Act is concerned, the same practice has been followed by the present administration. While the present administration did not publish the order of February 3 and the subsequent orders because orders of the kind never have been published under the Regulations Act, the privy council office has readily made such orders available on request, as I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre acknowledged when he was speaking.
As to the content of the three orders in question, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the order made on February 3 would have left the Minister of Agriculture largely bereft of his powers. I think that is a paraphrase of what the right hon. gentleman said. Such a statement ignores the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the administration of over 30 statutes, not just for the three or four affected by the orders of February 3 and March 5.
Hon. members will no doubt recall that at the time the cabinet was reorganized the
Supply-Agriculture
Prime Minister announced that it was proposed to give the Minister of Agriculture the ministerial responsibility for the proposed branch lines rationalization authority which, if and when parliament has acted, will add substantially to his powers and responsibilities. It is true, of course, that certain responsibilities previously entrusted to the Minister of Agriculture were entrusted by each of these orders of February 3 and March 5 to the newly appointed Minister of Forestry. It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that the present government from the day it took office was committed to having two ministers associated with agricultural matters, one from western Canada and one from eastern Canada.
While the policy of this government has always clearly been that a minister from eastern Canada should be associated with some aspects of agricultural policy, it is not an easy matter to make a delineation of responsibilities which achieves that purpose -and I think that purpose has not been challenged anywhere in the house-and at the same time provides a good administrative structure.
The government decided some time ago that the core of the responsibilities to be transferred to the minister from eastern Canada should be those for rural development. But we also realized that this distinction could not be entirely clearcut. For example, it seemed to make sense that administration of the feed grain subsidy should be a responsibility of a minister from the eastern part of the country; but that is not strictly, if indeed it is at all, part of development policy. On the other hand, P.F.R.A. is essentially a matter of development and yet it is peculiarly a western concern. Farm credit is another marginal area; it has a lot to do with development, but it also has a lot to do with established agricultural undertakings.
The order in council of February 3 transferred five activities of the Department of Agriculture to the Minister of Forestry, but it did so on the assumption that the two departments would become organically a single department, with the Minister of Agriculture as the senior minister with final responsibility, and the minister of forestry and rural development with certain defined duties and functions in the field of agriculture. After the Minister of Forestry was appointed on February 3 it became possible to have more detailed discussions among all the ministers directly concerned and the Prime Minister. Both the Minister of Agriculture and the new Minister of Forestry quickly came to the view that they would

Supply-Agriculture
like to take a few weeks to work out the best arrangement of their functions.
Accordingly, it was decided not to implement the order of February 3 which had been prepared in advance of the new cabinet appointments. The order was at once withdrawn. The copies were called back. At that stage there should really have been a formal revocation of the order of February 3, which did not take place until February 20. That delay was occasioned by the pressure of other business, though the Prime Minister has asked me to say that he does not regard this as a sufficient excuse.
One of the problems which was being worked on by the ministers concerned was the question of the best administrative structure in the long run. They came to the view, and jointly proposed, that it would be best to have a division of functions and responsibility between two separate departments. That decision altered the earlier view of the appropriate division of functions. The number of transferred functions was reduced from five to three, P.F.R.A. and farm credit being retained by the Minister of Agriculture. Coordination of the work of the two departments was to be provided for, not by the organic linking of the two departments, as had earlier been contemplated, but by the establishment of an executive committee on agricultural policy consisting of three ministers-the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Forestry or, as the government hopes he will become when its legislative proposals are accepted by parliament, if they are, the minister of forestry and rural development -under the chairmanship of the Minister of Agriculture. These conclusions were put forward jointly by the two ministers, and as a consequence a new order was passed accordingly on March 5.
This decision was made with the full agreement of the ministers concerned. There was, of course, the technical error-and the government does not pretend for a moment that it was not a technical error-of failing to revoke the first order until February 20. It has been suggested that the government acted illegally in not following the transfer of duties prescribed in the order between February 3 and February 20. The government has been advised that, as a matter of law, no member of the public would be or would have been adversely affected as a result of the Minister of Agriculture doing anything which, under the order, the Minister of Forestry could have done. The Minister of Agriculture did in fact sign eight ARDA agreements with the provinces. I understand they were with two provinces, Ontario and 
Nova Scotia. The validity of those agreements, like any other external act of the government, is covered by the protection that the law and jurisprudence afford in cases where there may be a technical defect in the authorization of anyone holding a public office. For greater certainty the government would be quite prepared to have the Minister of Forestry also sign the ARDA agreements to which I have referred.
Of course, public money was spent during those 17 days. It was spent under the authority of parliament. It was subject to all the normal checks of any public expenditure. There has been a suggestion that funds may have been spent illegally. Funds have been appropriated by parliament from year to year for ARDA, maritime marshland rehabilitation and other purposes involved in the recent transfer of functions. When funds are appropriated by parliament for a purpose, their release is subject to a great many rules. These rules are made under the Financial Administration Act and they prescribe the precise kind of authority that there must be before an expenditure can be made. They are not, for the most part, provisions of law; they are provisions of administration. They are internal requirements adopted so that administration can proceed, but with full safeguards.
What undoubtedly happened and what probably has happened in every case of a transfer of duties, and I emphasize "in every case", is that an expenditure may have been made under authority granted by the minister formerly responsible after the authority had technically been vested in a colleague.
I am glad to be able to assure hon. members that a check has been made and that there was no expenditure authorized by the Minister of Agriculture personally in the period from February 3 to February 20 in any of the areas transferred by the order of February 3 to the Minister of Forestry.
There is one other possibility. An official in the Department of Agriculture might, in those 17 days, have authorized an expenditure of the kind he could deal with under the authority he had received from the Minister of Agriculture after he should have had a new authority from the Minister of Forestry.
The government is advised that this frequently happens for a week or two after transfers of duty are made. The business of government goes on while the necessary consequential changes are being made. I could give an example in another case.
According to the best advice the government could get, it would appear that the suggestion that any law had been disregarded is not well founded. Orders in council under the transfer of duties act have never been

published before under the Regulations Act, and the 17 day delay, while a technical error, is one that does not involve illegalities any more than it may have done in similar situations, and there have been many of them, in the past.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak at length after the kindly reference to me at the beginning of the hon. gentleman's remarks. I am not at all suspicious and it may well be that these well intended and sincere good wishes may have been in the contemplation of the hon. gentleman. However, I do thank him and the members of the house. Twenty four years is a long time and it was after many endeavours to get into this house that I finally succeeded. All I can say is that the spirit shown today in the words of the hon. gentleman is entirely consonant with that which I have found in the house at all times. Sometimes I have been known to disagree with those sitting opposite, but at all times recognizing, I hope, the fact that the House of Commons is a great club in which friendships are built up irrespective of disagreements that take place from time to time. The Minister of Agriculture has not been here very long, but after he has been he will find that this is a place in which the amenities are practised despite the asperities that sometimes pass between us.
Having said that, I now come to the subject matter of the exculpatory epistle by the minister in respect of a series of errors that cannot be brushed off as merely technical mistakes. These are serious errors. These are things that indicate the government is new to its responsibilities and to the need of carrying out the statutes and laws that are in effect. In this regard there has been a serious departure. Indeed, the Montreal Star, which I have never regarded as one of the major supporters of the Conservative party, had this to say in an editorial:
What is one to make of a government which gets as tangled up in its administrative traces as the Pearson government in Ottawa? Who is doing its planning and how is it being run? The confusion surrounding the functions to be allotted to forestry minister Sauve is to be cleared up shortly by the Prime Minister himself but the memory of a month at cross purposes will remain.
Sir, we used to hear of bumbling and bungling. The postgraduates in these arts who sit opposite. I doubt that there has ever been a series of errors and mistakes so consistent in so short a time as we have seen since the present government took over.
On February 3 the Minister of Agriculture was, to use the words that the minister quoted, bereft of many of his responsibilities. No doubt he will say that what happened was entirely satisfactory to him. After all, if you are not discharging your responsibilities losing
Supply-Agriculture
them does not cause you much concern. It has been an interesting division. The Minister of Agriculture, with wide experience in that field has for some reason or other had his powers and authority trifurcated. On February 3 he lost ARDA, P.F.R.A., which has always been in the Department of Agriculture and should be nowhere else, farm credit, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act Administration and the administration of freight assistance for western feed grains. He lost all of them under one order in council. A few months before he had the wheat board removed from him.


An hon. Member:: Stripped to the bone.


John George Diefenbaker: One after the other these very important adjuncts of the Department of Agriculture were removed from him, and there he stood almost naked of responsibility except for a number of statutes that were referred to a moment ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the bare truth.


John George Diefenbaker: But the important things were removed, transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce, transferred to the Department of Forestry. A kind of troika was set up. I know that three heads are better than one but as one coming from western Canada, it does strike one that with his capacity he could very well have discharged these responsibilities. Yet they were removed from him. Why? Was it a matter of his effectiveness? Was it because he felt that someone else should look after these matters? We do not know. All we know is that the press has stated that there has been a power struggle going on. If there has been a power struggle, all I have to say is that the Minister of Agriculture did not have any of the power.
What has happened? On the 3rd of February these things went from the Minister of Agriculture. An order in council was passed. The Minister of Transport is an expert on the privy council. He occupied the clerkship of the privy council. Yet today, in all seriousness, he advances the argument that, after all, nothing took place but a technicality. He said the government decided that the order in council of February 3 should not be proceeded with and they withdrew it. How can they withdraw anything that has received the approval and consent of His Excellency the Governor General? He says they merely wished to change their minds, but he knows better than that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did say it was an error, did I not?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, an error; it is more than an error. It is a colossal example of the

Supply-Agriculture
negligence that characterizes too frequently the actions of the present government.
Well, from the third to the seventeenth, we-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to make an error; it was the twentieth.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the hon. gentleman had more than three days of grace. For 17 days, the hon. member for Calgary South went about this country as Minister of Agriculture, denuded of his major powers. I doubt whether he knew anything about it. It is said, however, on responsible authority that a power struggle is taking place. I want to be fair. The minister gave an interview on March 20 in Calgary and he said this;
We have had no arguments about this. We could not afford to have arguments. We are only a minority government. 11 we were to fight, we would not be there.
Well, that is sound reasoning. All I can say about that is that for 17 days he acted as a minister, carrying out responsibilities that had been removed from him. I need not add any more in that regard. It shows the slip-shod methods, the short cuts through parliamentary requirements and responsibilities, the denial of the rule of law that, while regarded as casual by the Minister of Transport, seriously challenge the responsibility of a government that would permit such things to happen.
On the twentieth, the order in council of the third was cancelled. The minister has said, as I understand it, that there was no expenditure of money made during those 17 days under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the right hon. gentleman would want to have it technically accurate. I said one authorized personally by the Minister of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: I can see the distinction the minister has in mind. We want to find out what orders were made during the period from the third to the twentieth that were signed by the Minister of Agriculture in respect of this department, authority over which he no longer had.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I gave that in my statement. I think I said there were eight ARDA agreements signed, four with Ontario and four with Nova Scotia.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say nothing else took place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all of which there seems to be any record.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the first thing the government will have to do will be to

have the Minister of Forestry sign those agreements, otherwise they will not be effective. I think that there should be an explanation of what took place on the twentieth, for from February 20 until March 3, was it, another order in council was then passed. What happened during that period of time? Once the Minister of Agriculture was denuded of powers and they were transferred to the Department of Forestry, unless there was an explicit order in council retransferring those powers to the Minister of Agriculture, the mere abrogation on the twentieth of the earlier order in council would not be effective. I think they will have to pass an order in council to ratify what was done. Indeed, when they have done that they will have to come before the house and ask, and they will receive-ask and ye shall receive- forgiveness for what they did and legalization for what they ought not to have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the government perhaps deserves to be congratulated upon the honesty of the statement that has been made on its behalf today by the Minister of Transport. I think that, particularly in the last few sentences used by the Leader of the Opposition, the proper treatment has been given to the government for what it has done. Even so, Mr. Chairman, I believe that one or two things might be added, and that I might be permitted to add them because of the points that I raised on orders of the day when we first learned of these errors, to quote the Minister of Transport, that were made by the government.
Some of us on this side of the house made a number of statements that might have been called charges or allegations, and some of them the Minister of Transport admitted today to be correct. We contended that once the order in council of February 3 had been passed, the government had no legal right not to put its terms into effect. The Minister of Transport has now admitted that but says it was only a technical error. He says the order in council should have been revoked right away instead of leaving it there for 17 days. At least, he has now admitted the correctness of the charge that was made from this side of the house.
I remind him of an occasion when the previous government was in power when it, too, forgot to pass an order in council amending a decision that had been made. The then member for Bonavista-Twillingate thought this was a case of fumbling, or whatever term it was he applied to the government of that day. This was the occasion when the previous government, by order in council, appointed Hon. Earl Rowe as lieutenant

governor of Ontario. Hon. members will recall that the first order in council not only-appointed Hon. Earl Rowe to that position but fixed the date on which he would begin his new duties. Later, the then government decided to change the date, I think it was by exactly one month, but for some days or weeks the then government forgot to pass an amending order in council to change that date. As the Minister of Transport will recall, this was drawn to that government's attention in an interesting way, and it corrected its mistake by quickly passing an order in council amending the previous one.
No harm was done by this error or oversight in the intervening period, and all that happened was that a news report was not substantiated by an order in council. At any rate, the present government realizes it can make the same kind of mistake that the former government made. It too can delay by forgetting, if you will, to pass an order in council it ought to pass.
But the main point about what I am saying in this portion of my remarks is that the government has now admitted what we contended when we raised this matter on orders of the day, that the government had no legal right-just because the ministers decided it between themselves-not to put into effect the provisions of order in council P.C. 1964-157 of February 3.
Another point we made when we complained about this was that there was a 17 day period during which there was a possibility some of the acts of one or other of the ministers might be illegal. At the time it was contended that we were making wild charges, but in his statement today the minister has admitted that this was a possibility, to the extent of saying some of the acts, orders and expenditures have been checked or are being checked. The minister has also admitted that the government is prepared, if necessary, to get another signature on some of the agreements that were signed or to take any validating action that may be necessary.
As I say, this simply adds up to a confirmation of the point that we made, that there was some question about the legality of actions between February 3 and February 20, 1964. Even though we are treating this matter today in the friendly mood one would expect, after a confession on the part of the government, and after the kind of words the Leader of the Opposition has used on this, the 24th anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons, a day some of us remember very well, we must not overlook the seriousness of what is before us. If the rule of law means anything, then surely the people who should be most zealous in carrying it
Supply-Agriculture
out are those who make up the government of the day. We hope, as a result of this experience, this kind of thing will not happen again. However, the trouble is that it is too often we have to stand up in the house and say we hope this sort of thing will not happen again, yet it goes on happening.
The other contention that was made by me-I do not know if others made it-was that the government should have published the orders in council of February 3 and February 20 in the Canada Gazette, part II. The Minister of Transport gives two reasons by way of defence for this not having been done. On the one hand he says it never has been done in the past, that orders in council under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act have not been published in the Canada Gazette, part II. The other defence he uses is that the language of the Regulations Act refers to orders in council having legislative effect.
I would like to deal with that second point for just a moment. It is quite true-in fact I read this portion of the Regulations Act-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question. The hon. gentleman, who is very assiduous in all these matters, was here in 1950 when the Regulations Act was passed. He was here when the original consolidation of the statutory orders and regulations was made. He was also here when the revision of the statutory orders was made in 1955, and during all that time a great number of orders were passed under the transfer of duties act. They were never put in the original revision; they were never put in the revised document and were never published at any time and, since there were 21 in a six year period, there were probably at least twice that many in the whole period since then. In view of that, does the hon. gentleman think that now suddenly a change should have been made from the practice that was followed, going right back to the passing of the Regulations Act?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall deal with that, but first may I confirm what the Minister of Transport has said, that I was here on all those occasions to which he referred. In fact I have a volume of the 1950 Hansard in my hand and I shall be quoting from it. I shall not be quoting from myself, but there are things in it to indicate that I took part in that debate, and I remember it very well. But may I interject at this point to say that the fact it has always been done a certain way does not necessarily mean that is the right way and that it is in conformity with the law.
It may be that this incident is the kind that tests the practice, and brings out the

Supply-Agriculture
fact that perchance the practice has not been in conformity with the law or with what was the spirit and intent of the law.
It is clear, as I was about to point out, that the Regulations Act defines a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations Act as:
-a rule, order, regulation, bylaw or proclamation (i) made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament, by the governor in council-
-and so on. Section 6 of the act says:
(1) every regulation shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is made.
I should like to take a minute to dwell on the word "legislative." The act says:
-a rule, order, regulation, bylaw or proclamation (i) made, in the exercise of a legislative power-
The minister seeks to draw a line between legislative and administrative functions, and I suggest that may be a line which the government has been drawing without the right to draw it in the way it has done.
I have checked each of the four statutes to which reference was made in the order in council of February 3, the Agricultural Farm Credit Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation and Development Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In each of those statutes, in words enacted by parliament, it is prescribed by legislation that the minister means the Minister of Agriculture. Parliament in its legislative capacity so ordered.
The effect of order in council P.C. 1964157, as is the same with subsequent orders in council in this field, is to change a fact that was determined by parliament, to change a situation ordered by legislation. By virtue of this order in council these four acts were changed and the minister, instead of being the Minister of Agriculture, became the Minister of Forestry. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in effect that is the exercise of a legislative authority, that it is actually a case of legislating, and that the government does not get around this by calling it administrative.
I recognize that there were 21 of these orders in council during a six year period referred to that were not published, and it may be there were many more during the years the Liberals were in power. But I should like to read to the Minister of Transport a portion of what the then prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, said on June 12, 1950, as reported in Hansard at page 3497. This was on the occasion when we were passing the Regulations Act, under which we still operate. We were dealing with the definition, a portion of which I have just read, and Mr. St. Laurent said this:

With respect to this definition, I want to state again that we found it would not be possible or prudent to make statutory exemptions with respect to the application of this statute. We wanted it to include everything, to make it necessary for us to call attention to anything that was not going to be governed by it. So we said we would make it as sweeping as possible so it would apply to every kind of order that has legislative effect, made under authority given by parliament; and if we wanted to take anything out of that general, sweeping declaration we would have to call attention to what we were taking out so if there should be any controversy as to whether it should be in or out the matter would be brought to the attention of hon. members and the public.
In other words, Mr. St. Laurent was dealing with three things-the definition, section 6, which calls for publication, and section 9 which permits a special order in council to exempt certain other orders and regulations from publication. The whole spirit of the legislation as presented to us on that occasion was that the inclusions were to be of a sweeping nature comprising everything that had legislative effect or was done in the exercise of legislative authority unless the government felt something should be omitted, in which case there had to be a special order in council exempting that class of order from publication.
I have not been able to find any indication of any order in council which exempts from publication orders in council made under the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. It may well be that a mistake has been made during the years in not publishing orders in council made under this act, but the statutes of Canada are quite clear. Members opposite say, in the case of the four statutes we are talking about, that the changes made in the status of the Minister of Agriculture were only administrative, that they did not have to publish the orders in the Canada Gazette. I grant that there was no deliberate concealment. The matter got into the newspapers and, once we learned about them, the orders in council could be obtained by asking for them at the privy council office. But, for my part, I did not know of their existence until I read about it in a newspaper.
Let us say that there is no case against the government of deliberate concealment, but the failure to publish this kind of order in council means that for a period of time the law of Canada has been changed by the cabinet. I suggest the argument that this has not been done over the years since the new method of procedure came into being does not justify the government's failure to comply with the appropriate statute. It certainly does not justify this particular example. I think what we have gone though now makes it clear that the pattern ought to be changed and that orders in council passed under the

Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act ought to be published in the Canada Gazette so that there may be no question but that these things will be found out.
This is an embarrassing situation. The government felt happy that it was not obliged to publish this, so that it would have time to sort things out. But parliament depends upon the operation of the rule of law in a matter such as this. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that if the government finds, on further consideration, that it needs some legislative enactment to cover the errors, then because of the spirit of contrition in which the Minister of Transport has come before the house we shall be forgiving, and pass any such enactment. But I hope that as a result of this experience a little more attention will be paid to the niceties of keeping the law, because not just niceties are involved in this question, but the whole question of the rule of law itself.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member a question, to fill in the time between now and five o'clock? When the hon. member referred to section 9 of the Regulations Act he used an argument which I had in mind. He said he was not able to find an order in council which did, in fact, exempt any regulation or class of regulations. Do I understand him to say that no such order in council was passed, or that notice of such an order was not published?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said I know of no order in council under section 9 exempting from publication orders in council passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Oh, there are a number of orders in council under section 9 passed to exempt certain classes of order in council from publication. The best example of this type of thing was given by Mr. St. Laurent, as reported on the same page of Hansard from which I was quoting earlier, when he talked about orders given from time to time from the control towers at our airfields. These would be multitudinous. There are orders in council under the section excepting that class of order in council or regulation from publication.
Again, I think the government acted as it did simply because it believed this was an administrative matter. I think it was both a mistake and a contravention of the clear terms of section 6 of the Regulations Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can we be assured there were no penalties of a quasi-judicial nature imposed by these regulations? If there were, I think they could be seriously challenged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge-and I can assure the hon. gentleman
Business of the House
that a very careful search has been made by people much more competent than I am to do so-there was nothing in that category at all.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Favreau:: By unanimous consent of the house I move that this house proceed with government business until six o'clock.


Frank Howard: Before agreement is reached, I should like to point out that it was on the understanding that the business which the government wishes to see concluded before Easter would be completed before six o'clock that we agreed to proceed and dispense with the private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just one
technical point. I readily agree to this but I think it should be by agreement, rather than by motion. We do this all the time by agreement, and if we get too many precedents through doing things of this nature by motion we may find ourselves in some awkward situations.


Guy Favreau: Let me make it clear that it is by agreement and on the assumption that everybody tries to get the business of the house through by six.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What happens if we do not? Let us be clear about this. What happens if by six o'clock we have not finished the program which the government have in mind?


Guy Favreau: May I suggest to the house leader for the opposition that we reserve decision on that point till then, if we get to that point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before we start at all, what are the items which have to be passed? Because we are not going to be placed in the position of the government simply choosing the items which ought to be passed. We are certainly not going to pass the supplementary estimates before the house at this time, regardless of the circumstances.


Guy Favreau: I hope I have not been misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. I propose to ask unanimous consent of the house, when we

Business of the House
reach that point, to sit later this day to see how far we can go with these supplemen-taries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, let us settle this matter. The minister says "to see how far we can go". What happens if we do not get very far? Do we complete the business and have an Easter recess or do we not?


Guy Favreau: I think it would be proper if I were allowed to confer with hon. gentlemen while the next hour proceeds.


Frank Howard: If the views of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition prevail, then we may as well come back on Monday and proceed from there.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a
question of my view or anybody else's. Hundreds of millions of dollars of supplementary estimates have to be looked into, and this house cannot permit itself to be made the puppet of the government and to pass these things without full consideration being given to them. I want to make that clear. It is not an attitude of endeavouring to obstruct; it is an attitude of ensuring that we discharge our responsibilities. The organization of the house and the business of the house rests with the government. If the government wanted to get these estimates through they should have introduced them earlier or made time available to discuss them fully.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that in what I said was clearly implied the conclusion that I agree with the right hon. gentleman's proposition that estimates are not to be passed without all due consideration. That is precisely why I said that if we were not through with the estimates by six o'clock I would propose, and I think this is the right thing to do, to ask this house to sit later this day. Of course, if we have to come back on Monday we will, but it may well be it will not be necessary.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks made by the house leader on the other side are altogether unexpected at this time. He has suggested we should come back here on Monday. After the instructions given the house during the last few days, hon. members have made reservations. In view of the Easter holiday and all that is implied therein this is, I submit, a very unexpected suggestion from the house leader, and one which we did not expect of him.
Motion (Mr. Favreau) agreed to.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DELEGATION TO REPRESENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wonder if I can give the house, with unanimous consent, the information asked for earlier today concerning the federal delegation to the federal-provincial conference; and perhaps I might be permitted to table an outline of the proposed agenda, and if it met with the wishes of the house even have it made an appendix to Hansard so that it will be available for information purposes.


Mr. Depufy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we revert to government motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The ministerial members of the federal delegation-that is all I will take the time of the house to give-are the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve).


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if I might ask the Acting Prime Minister, since I did not hear the name of the minister of northern affairs mentioned, who will be representing the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories at the conference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, was it agreed, as I hope it was, that this document and the material connected with it will be made an appendix to Hansard for today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so agreed and ordered by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For abovementioned document see appendix.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
The Clerk Assistant having called the order of business: Government orders; house again in committee of supply.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not see how we can go into committee of supply when this is private members' hour and we have not agreed to waive it.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: It was the understanding of the Chair that there was agreement to the proposal made by the house leader that private members' hour would be postponed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I understood there was agreement, and the agreement was that this was not a device to force estimates to be voted hastily or while hon. members still wanted to talk. But I did understand there was agreement that private members' hour was being waived to allow us to go on with government business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to know what is the wish of the house. If the desire of the house is that we postpone private members' hour then we will, of course, revert to government orders.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said he would agree to the postponement only on the condition that government business would be finished. If that agreement has been withdrawn, then that is all right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood the matter had been settled by subsequent discussion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there were no conditions attached at all. I said we would agree to postpone private members' hour on the general assumption that there would be a desire to try and finish by that time; but if we do not finish the consideration of the estimates by that time, then at six o'clock we should look very seriously at whether or not we should come back on Monday and do so. I am prepared to come back on Monday and all next week if necessary.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is it now agreed that the house will return to government orders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply, Department of Agriculture, vote le.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, we are on citizenship and immigration.


Lucien Lamoureux: The chairman of the committee called the Department of Agriculture earlier this afternoon. We were apparently on that before five o'clock. If it is the desire of the committee that we now call citizenship and immigration then the Chair is in the hands of the committee.
Supply-Agriculture


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would suggest that, having reverted to agriculture, we should proceed with it, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bigg:: I believe I had the floor when we were talking on immigration. I am willing to yield it, provided I have the opportunity to continue at a later date.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the committee would have no objection to that.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
le.-Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, earlier we were discussing the activities of the government under the transfer of duties act in transferring certain responsibilities from the Minister of Agriculture. I would suggest that they would do Canada a much greater service if they were to transfer some more duties from the Minister of Agriculture, namely his function under the Cold Storage Act as that act applies to fisheries products.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could put the Minister of Agriculture in cold storage.


Frank Howard: My colleague says that we could put the Minister of Agriculture in cold storage, if desired. That is something the government will have to consider, not me. But I would earnestly appeal to the government to consider my request and would point out that we used to put forward this point of view years ago when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was merely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and not a member of the cabinet. I would ask him to take up the cudgels while he is in cabinet as he used to when he sat on this side of the house, in order to get some decent and fair consideration for fishermen under the Cold Storage Act. Right now they are being completely swamped with the situation that exists in agriculture, and no fair or reasonable consideration is being given to the requests and desires of these people for subsidies and subventions under the Cold Storage Act for purely fisheries products. If the government would take that course and make another transfer of duties and exclude the Minister of Agriculture from dealing with this matter, I am sure we would be much better off.


Mr. Hays:: I would just like to comment on this matter, Mr. Chairman. In so far as cold storage is concerned, we have taken a very close look at every application we have received and most of them have been approved. Hon. members will remember that the previous government had an austerity program and

S upp ly

A griculture
cold storage grants were frozen; but I suggest that we have approved more applications in the last few weeks than were approved in the preceding 18 months.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I should like to mention in connection with what has been said this afternoon. I think hon. members of the house will be interested to know that so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, we are interested first in farmers across Canada and the job we can do for farmers. ARDA has been mentioned many times in this house, and I would like hon. members to know that although perhaps we have not talked about it very much, since May 1, 1963 until the present time the government has spent a little over $11 million on ARDA projects. The previous government, from the inception of the act on June 22, 1961 until the time I was appointed Minister of Agriculture, had carried out $2,185,000 worth of projects. I might say that since May 1 we have completed over five times as many ARDA projects, in dollars as the previous government.
I think I should possibly say something about feed grain because this is a very important matter to eastern farmers. Hon. members will recall that on August 27 we changed our feed grain policy whereby we would pay the storage on feed grain at eastern spots, and we would also pre-price the grain and provide the same price as applied to China or anywhere else. As a result of this policy we found that on March 12 we had 47 per cent more feed grain on spot in eastern locations than we had a year ago; that we will not have to bring one bushel by rail, and the prices have been stabilized. I do not have the most recent figures, but from the middle of October until the middle of February there was no substantial change in price. I should also perhaps mention something about farm credit.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question at this point?


Harry William Hays: Yes.


Clément Vincent: Has the minister the figures right now of the price of, let us say last October, 1963 and the price of January, 1964 or February, 1964, on oats and barley? Does the minister have those figures?


Harry William Hays: I could obtain them in a moment for the hon. member. I had that information at noon. There have been some changes up and down, but for the most part there has been no change in price. The fact that we have had the grain on spot is responsible for some stabilization in so far as price is concerned. On March 14 we had 21 million bushels of oats, wheat, barley and corn in eastern locations, and this will be ample to

take care of the feed requirements of eastern Canada. As I pointed out before, this is 47 per cent more than was in eastern locations just a year ago.
With regard to farm credit, Mr. Chairman, some people think we have not done anything in this connection. I would like hon. members to know that from April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963 the number of loans serviced was 7,438, for a total of $90,924,000 lent by the Farm Credit Corporation; and from April 1, 1963 to February 29, 1964 we serviced 8,613 loans for an amount of $106,708,000. It is perhaps well for hon. members to know at this time that I was in complete agreement with the changes so far as my department was concerned. Personalities were not involved at all. We asked ourselves, "What is good for agriculture? How can we better serve the farmers"? That was the only thing we had in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harry William Hays: My department has over 30 acts to administer and employs something over 10,000 people. Taking ARDA away from the department will reduce that number by eight or ten employees, and as far as the administration of feed grain is concerned, not more than one employee will be affected in this transfer. So I will lose possibly eight or ten people from my staff of 10,000. I know that ARDA is very important as far as farmers are concerned. I think this is exemplified by the fact that our government believes in it; we believe it is a good act-the early planning of it goes back to 1955-and since May 1, 1963 we have done five times more than was done by the previous government.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could pose one question to the minister about cold storage activities. I think the minister said that in the last few weeks they have approved more applications under the Cold Storage Act than were approved in the previous 18 months. Did I hear the minister correctly?


Harry William Hays: This figure may not be too accurate; I do not have the exact figures here and I would not want to mislead the committee as far as this matter is concerned. We feel that more thought should be given to the question of cold storage, because I personally do not believe that the grants are doing the big job that is required today with regard to cold storage, We have apples to think of, fish, vegetables and all these things, and it seems to us that there should be some change in policy. Nevertheless we are giving careful consideration to the applications that come to us. We are considering them on their merit so we can do something in this regard

where co-ops and people are going to be affected, until such time as we have an opportunity to present new legislation which will include a change of policy which we think will do a better job for all those in need of assistance across Canada.


Frank Howard: Has the austerity program been rescinded or is it still in effect?


Mr. Ricard:: They wouldn't know what it is anyway.


Harry William Hays: This program is partially in effect. As I said, we are considering each application on its merits.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a few words first about the statement made by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Prime Minister on the point that I raised originally in this house with regard to the possibility of the illegality of any action taken by the government between February 3 and February 20. My first reaction to the rather lengthy statement of the minister was rather one of great disappointment. Hon. members will recall, I am sure, that we made quite a to-do about this and many questions were asked in the house. We asked for a strong opinion as to the legality. We felt it was necessary for this house to be reassured that any actions taken by the government during that period were legal, and I suggested that remedial, retroactive legislation would have to be introduced.
The statement read by the minister certainly contained no strong legal opinion. In fact, there were one or two suggestions in it that led me to believe that the legal advisers could go no further than to suggest that the government might get away by bringing in the word "technicality" and by making statements such as no member of the public was affected by anything done in this period. If this is the sort of statement that the government is going to make in order to try to whitewash this matter, if the government is going to give us a nebulous statement of this sort instead of the candid opinion we have asked for, then I am sure the house has to inquire a little further.
I noticed yesterday that the government asked to stand two motions by the hon. member for Provencher, under notices of motions for the production of papers. These items dealt directly with action that could have been taken during the period in question and if that information was before us we would be able to determine for ourselves just how far the government has to go to patch up the series of blunders that occurred during this period. I found also that I was more than a little shaken by the effrontery of the government with regard to the manner
Supply-Agriculture
in which they deal with their duties, and the way in which they regard orders in council. An order in council is passed which has the force of law. It affects departments that are very important and the attitude of the cabinet seems to be that it does not matter what the law is, that it does not matter whether the action is legal, that they will do what they like, fix it up somehow and push it through.
I should have liked to hear further assurance from the minister than just that he would have the Minister of Forestry sign these eight ARDA agreements. I may not be the best lawyer in the house but in my opinion this may not take care of the legality of the situation at all. I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture had the authority to sign those agreements. In other words, they are not in effect now, and that is not a mere technicality. Complete absence of authority cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a technicality. The Minister of Agriculture had no authority. These agreements are not in force in law and I do not think the signing of them now by the Minister of Forestry will give them legal effect.
We would like to hear from the minister that he is going to bring in retroactive, remedial legislation at the earliest opportunity. I know it is a little difficult to conceive of the government bringing it in this evening. Right after Easter would do. I was also somewhat shocked by the suggestion of the house leader that these estimates have to be passed tonight. I remember asking the Prime Minister on Monday to discontinue the budget debate. Once the budget was presented to the house there was no need to carry on with the very general budget debate.
The government knew quite well that it had to have interim supply. The government now says that these estimates have to be passed, but if that is so they also knew that before. Despite requests from this side the government persisted in continuing with the budget debate on the first two days of this week. In my opinion it again shows the government's contempt for parliament that they will unnecessarily spend two days on the budget debate and at the last minute come on their knees and say that these estimates have got to be passed.
This attitude makes me somewhat fed up because there was a speech I very much wanted to make this afternoon on interim supply. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources referred to me this morning rather gratuitously and rather unfairly, I thought, and the speech I have had ready for two weeks waiting for an opportunity to deliver it is still resting here. I want to make that speech on northern affairs because I

S up p ly-A griculture
think it is very necessary that the minister take a little instruction. But in order to assist the government and because I thought it was necessary to pass interim supply I sat and said nothing. I am prepared not to have the opportunity to make the speech before Easter, if that is necessary, but if the government thinks it is going to get these estimates passed before the house adjourns for Easter, then all I say is I am sure we will be back here next week, not because some members are stubborn, not because they refuse to cooperate, but simply because the government has taken the high-handed attitude that it is going to handle things the way it wants to and members are going to do as they are told by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: The steamroller.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It has never been my opinion that the government is mightier than parliament and this is one time that we had better show the government it is not. I trust the government will content itself with the knowledge that these estimates are not going to be passed before Easter. If they had any honest belief that they should be passed before Easter, then they should have brought them in at a time when essential and necessary measures should have been discussed instead of insisting on proceeding with the budget debate.


Mr.   Eicard@: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking this afternoon but I see that the Minister of Agriculture is in the saddle. I also speak as one who represents a constituency which is very much interested in agriculture, and I do not feel I should let this opportunity go by without saying anything. We have been accustomed to listen to the Minister of Agriculture tell us that everything has been bright and rosy since he has been the minister, but I should like the minister to come with me and consult the agriculturists and farmers of my riding and also the agriculturists of the whole of Canada. If he did so he would indeed find that their story is different from the one he tries to put across. I have before me a clipping from the Manitoba Co-Operator of February, 1964, and contrary to what the minister would like us to believe prices are going down rather than up under his efficient and able direction. I should like to refer to the average price for good slaughter steers for 1962 compared with 1963 on the Toronto market. For 1962 good steers averaged $25.65 whereas in 1963 under the minister's able leadership they only averaged $23.65 per hundred pounds. What about hogs, grade A, Mr. Chairman? In 1962 the average price for grade A 
hogs was $29.60 whereas under his great leadership they only averaged $27.80. And so on.
It was music to us a while ago to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that ARDA was a great law and that it was the hope of the agriculturists and farmers of Canada. But he went on to say that the credit for it should go to the Liberal party. You and I know, Mr. Chairman, that the ARDA program was instituted under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and also with the co-operation of the then minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who is now, although he is in the opposition, on a trip abroad selling Canada and the products of Canada. Let it be known to the whole country that faith in agricultural policies was never greater than when the Conservatives were in power from 1957 until 1963.
The Conservatives were the ones who gave the farmers hope. We were the ones who instituted the stabilization act which was a general charter for farmers and permitted our farmers to know in advance from year to year the prices they would receive for their products. This measure gave our farmers some hope, and it was instituted long before the hon. member for Calgary South became the Minister of Agriculture.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to refer to what the occupants of the treasury benches promised during the campaigns in 1962 and 1963 in order to deceive the farmers and in order to capture power. I have in front of me a pamphlet issued in 1962 in which they promised the farmers a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. Where is that minister of agriculture? They have retreated on this matter just as they have on many others. They have been going backwards rather than going forward as our farmers would like them to do. One of the first things they did when they assumed office was to take away the 25-cent subsidy which was given to the producers of milk all across Canada. What was the effect of this action in my riding, as well as in the province of Quebec? During the time we were in office the total amount paid to farmers in Quebec under this subsidy program was about $21,800,000. In my own riding, the total subsidy payment was $1,576,000.
I should like the Minister of Agriculture to come to my riding and try to sell the farmers the idea that they are more prosperous under the leadership of the Liberals than they were under the leadership of the Conservatives. I should like him to come to my riding and go from farm to farm asking whether they prefer the leadership of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party. I am sure the answer he would receive would be that the Liberals

were trying to take away what our farmers deserve. I could not let this opportunity go by without asking the Minister of Agriculture to re-establish this subsidy. It would not be a big chore for the government to back up because it has been backing up ever since it came into office. The government is always putting forth legislation and then taking it away. Once more I would ask the minister finally to accept the fact that the farmers want this 25 cents per hundred subsidy on milk re-established.
I am speaking here on behalf of my fellow farmers in the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I want nothing more or nothing less than the best that can be obtained for the farmers of my riding and the farmers of Quebec. I am imploring the minister to re-establish this 25-cent subsidy because I am telling him he is the cause of the farmers in my riding losing thousands of dollars. I think it is my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the government. Even if I have to get down on my knees to ask for the re-establishment of this 25-cent subsidy for the benefit of my farmers, I would do so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am always trying to catch up on things that have happened here in the past, and in his remarks the minister referred to the fact-I was not completely clear on this-that in the year 1955 the government of that day, I presume a Liberal government, had done something or created something or was involved in something like ARDA. This is a complete mystery to me and I think the minister having raised it should satisfy our curiosity and interest.


Harry William Hays: In answer to the hon. member I may say that I was referring to the Senate committee on land use. It was as a result of the findings of that committee in so far as rural rehabilitation was concerned that this program was developed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is delightful. I know the minister is relatively new to federal politics, but this is the first time I have heard that the Senate committee on land use had anything to do with the development of ARDA. I think I am one of the few members who has read the proceedings of that committee carefully.
I do not come from an agricultural or farming riding. All one has to do is to look at the Laurentian shield and you know why. We have a tremendous area of cut-over forest land or what might be called settlers' areas. This is a problem that rims all the way from northern Ontario through Manitoba and Saskatchewan and, certainly, it is very prevalent in Quebec. One of the reasons those of us from these areas were so enthusiastic
Supply-Agriculture
about the ARDA concept was that at last we had a program that offered a marriage be-twen forestry and agriculture, and a program that could go into those regions where far too much of the forest had been eliminated, in so far as agriculture was concerned, to suit the wishes and needs of bygone generations.
I may tell the minister that we were involved in a committee on lands, forests and waters a few years ago and also in a committee on agriculture, and both of these committees came forward with suggestions which I might refer the minister to, and which predated the introduction of ARDA. In so far as the Senate committee on land use is concerned, I recall that they brought in experts from all across the country to express opinions but they did not take the trouble of crystallizing all the evidence and offering recommendations. Perhaps the minister is suggesting that all the time the officials of the Department of Agriculture were moving toward the ARDA concept, as a result of what the Senate committee on land use was uncovering. This would be sensational if it is factual. Again I cannot believe it because I know how difficult a time the previous government had selling the ARDA concept to the officials of the Department of Agriculture. One of the reasons the minister can stand up and take credit for $11 million under his regime, in contrast with only $2 million under the previous regime, is just because of that lack of enthusiasm on the part of the permanent officials of the Department of Agriculture.
The minister made the point that he did not lose many people in the way of employees by the slough off of ARDA to the Minister of Forestry. This proves the point. The Department of Agriculture and its senior officials never had any great enthusiasm for ARDA. That is one of the reasons why the program has crept and limped along. At the time he lost his portfolio due to the last general election, the previous minister of agriculture was working up a pretty heavy head of steam and temper about the response from the department, and for the minister to come in here and give the impression he is bulling ARDA through to greater success is much more than I can take.
This is neither the time nor the occasion for the rebuttal of the partisan hyperbole which the minister engaged in, but I do not believe any minister of the crown should be allowed to get away with that kind of stuff in this chamber. I suggest that due to the different things which have happened in the last month or so, despite the way they happened, we have at last got an imaginative program like ARDA not only out of the hands

Supply-Agriculture
of the officials of the Department of Agriculture but out of the minister's hands, and that that is good.


Harry William Hays: Almost any day, Mr. Chairman, I can pick up a paper and see where a lot of wind has come from some corners. I am hearing a little more of that wind today. I would like to assure the hon. member that it is something to talk, but it is something else to do things. All I am saying is that we are doing something with ARDA. We are not just talking about it, like it has been talked about this afternoon.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have been waiting for some months to reach the Department of Agriculture estimates and I am very pleased to see the minister here today, apparently quite ready to take on all comers and answer a few questions. Dealing first with the Farm Credit Act, I would like to know how many loans would have been made to farmers if those loans had not been arranged at 5 per cent by the previous administration?
Further, it takes a great deal of time to process all loan proposals. It took our administration time to process them, and I would suggest 50 per cent of the loans for which the minister has taken credit were already well processed by the time he took office.
I am glad to see that the minister supports the farm credit program. It loosens up credit all across the nation, and has made it possible for the family farmer to get on his feet. I can only compliment the minister on supporting this program.
In his public utterances the minister, time and time again, has suggested that all the problems of agriculture are well in hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You may well cheer, but see if you cheer when I finish. It is fine for people who have had good crops and who had grain to sell under the imaginative sales program which we launched. They have sold their grain at good prices, but what about the people who did not have crops? They are the people who need crop insurance, and I want some action taken in my province through co-operation between the federal government and the Alberta government to see to it that the small farmer who does not get a crop has some security.
In my district of Athabasca we were not fortunate last year. We did not have a great crop and the people there do not think all the problems of agriculture are solved. They are looking for something like the acreage payments they used to get. They got them three times in three bad crop years and it saved them. It may be that some of my colleagues have sympathy with rich farmers. I know the

Minister of Agriculture has, but the people I am talking about think that $200 to buy underwear for their children is important. If they do not get acreage payments they will want to know why. They need this kind of help.
I am pleased to see that the price of hogs has not fallen to disaster levels. It is always possible that it may reach the danger point. I am not going to blame the Minister of Agriculture for this, but I suggest he should not wait to do something until it reaches disaster levels.
I am personally in favour of the hog quota. I have never believed in supporting hog prices across the board, but I do believe in a reasonable family farm quota, and if prices continue to slip I suggest that the minister lower the hog quota to 75 and increase the support price to 25 cents a pound. If he looks at the statistics over the past five years he will see that, from the time our administration introduced this scheme, it has not cost the people of Canada one cent in deficiency payments. Before that it used to cost them from $23 million to $24 million a year to support hog prices. I suggest that the minister should not forget the lessons of the past. He should lower the quota when there is a danger of overproduction and lower prices, and raise the price which the small farmer gets.
I can say the same thing about the grade A hog bonus, and I suggest the minister look at the statistics showing how many grade A hogs were raised due to the sensible program of supporting the price of grade A hogs with the $3 bonus. With the price per pound that the farmer gets, and with the addition of the grade A bonus, it makes all the difference to him.
If the Liberal government has no program for agriculture, and I have reason to believe it has none, I suggest it take the advice of the farm unions. We took the suggestions made by the farm unions and they were put into effect by our minister of agriculture. The problems of agriculture have only been scratched, but to come to the question of the ARDA program-


Harry William Hays: Are you speaking of the Hon. Douglas Harkness or the Hon. Alvin Hamilton?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am speaking of our whole agricultural program. The stabilization prices act was introduced by Hon. Douglas Harkness.


Harry William Hays: Then give him credit.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have no quarrel whatsoever with our program from the time we took office. It was imaginative and the people of Canada know it was effective. The present minister is very proud of our wheat sales,

but I ask who made the breakthrough? Who promised the $2 wheat? We promised the $2 wheat and we produced it for the western farmer by selling the wheat we had. Look at the record. I have been consistent. I have always pressed for the sale of wheat to China, or to anybody else who wanted to buy it.
Now I want to speak about ARDA. It is a program I back, and I do so for this reason. I am a federal member of parliament. I am not only the member for Athabasca in Alberta but I represent every farmer in Canada, and the ARDA program will give the same kind of hope to the eastern farmer that the western farmer has now. I repeat that the western farmer's problems are not over by any means, but the ARDA program will give to the small eastern farmer the same kind of hope we have established west of Winnipeg. Let us give the credit for ARDA to whom it is due. Maybe the Liberals dreamed about this program quietly, but it was our administration which put it on the statute books.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I would have many things to say on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), but I find the situation we witnessed last year is still the same this year. Before the Christmas recess, we studied the estimates of the Department of Agriculture on the last day, and this year we study them at the last moment.
It seems the government intends to submit the estimates of the Department of Agriculture only when we have very little time to discuss them.
We would have much to say on the Department of Agriculture, and more particularly on the needs of the farmers.
At the present time, in eastern Canada, and especially in my province, farming papers contain editorials to which I would like today to call the attention of the house. I would mention in particular the editorial published in the newspaper Terre de Chez Nous on March 19, 1964, which was entitled:
Look out for fancy skating, Mr. Pearson.
And then we read:
Agriculture up for auction in Ottawa.
This well indicates the way our eastern Canada farmers and those of the province of Quebec understand the agricultural policy of the present government.
Some time ago, I put to the minister a question concerning ox and calf hides.
Nowadays packers and farmers sell such products at 6 cents a pound, that is $2.50 or $3 for an ox hide and about 75 cents for a calf hide.
Supply-Agriculture
I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question on that point, and he answered in these terms:
The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that we are eating in the neighbourhood of 6,000 head more cattle, so we have 6,000 more hides, and the population has not increased enough to absorb them in the use of leather goods.
That was the reply by the Minister of Agriculture.
Later on I received information from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the effect that in 1962, there were 2,452,320 oxhides in the market in Canada, as against 2,462,996 in 1963.
Besides, if we refer to page 942 of Hansard, we find out that the price for cowhide, on the Canadian market, was 14.4 cents in 1963, compared with 13.8 cents on March 1, 1964.
Since I raised that matter on February 24 last and again on March 16, I would ask the minister if he can explain immediately why farmers and packers in my area must accept a price of 6 cents a pound when the market price, according to the Department of Trade and Commerce, is 13.8 cents a pound.
Also, I should like the minister to tell us, in view of the fact that the question was put to him on February 24, why farmers and packers in my area and in my province have to accept a price of 6 or 7 cents a pound for calf hide, when the Department of Trade and Commerce tells us that the market price, on March 1 last, was 20 cents a pound.
The minister can see that there is a big difference and he will understand that the farmers want to know why that price is much below the price I got from the Department of Trade and Commerce. Moreover, the minister maintains that our production is too high, and that there is no market for all those skins in Canada. He says that our exports to the United States and other countries are higher than our consumption.
Before going further, I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to tell me whether he has considered the problem and why the farmer does not receive the actual market price for his ox and calf skins.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking that question to the Minister of Agriculture, I asked the same question on February 24 last and I would like to know now whether he is in a position to answer today.


Harry William Hays: I do not know. I cannot answer this question, and I am sure no one else can answer it. The law of supply and demand enters into these things and the hon. member's particular problem may be a regional problem. But I will be glad to look into it. This is the first time I have heard of it.

Business of the House [Translation]


Clément Vincent: I asked that question on February 24; that was almost two months ago.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Guy Favreau: May I have permission to draw to the attention of the house the fact that unless, somehow, we have unanimous consent to proceed, then otherwise, under the rules this house will have to sit tomorrow, Good Friday, a course with which I personally would not agree. I therefore suggest that we give unanimous consent to carrying on with government business-that we should not adjourn at six o'clock tonight but that we carry on with government business as long as possible in order to see what advance can be made.


John George Diefenbaker: I point out immediately that the understanding was that there would be an adjournment, provided interim supply were passed. We passed interim supply. There never was any question that before the adjournment for Easter recess the supplementary estimates were to be passed. At no time was there such an understanding.
Here we have before us $240 million of supplementary estimates. Every session parliament is criticized for the precipitate pace with which it approves the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars without examination. Our responsibility is to carefully examine them. That responsibility is not discharged when a government proceeds as it has during the past few days. On Monday and Tuesday it proceeded with the budget debate. There was no reason in the world for that course unless the position of the government was that these supplementary estimates did not have to be passed.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, what took place in this house on March 23, as reported in the translation of the remarks of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) at page 1358 of Hansard. The hon. member asked:
Could the Prime Minister publish a notice showing the holidays of secretaries-
And so on. Then there is text by the Prime Minister underneath as follows:
I thought it had already been indicated to the house that it is our hope and intention to adjourn Thursday evening and resume our session on April 6. There is one reservation to that, of course, and that is on the understanding that interim supply is passed by the house.
Now, that was the understanding, but it went further than had been the case on an earlier day; and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) commented:

No, you did not say that the other day.
Then the house proceeded to give the government interim supply, as it should, because we have the fullest opportunity to examine expenditures. But to suggest that the house is to be browbeaten by the proposition that unless we concur and vote hundreds of millions of dollars we are going to sit on Good Friday is one which I say will not be acceptable to the people of Canada-let that be clear. This cannot be justified. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether the house could sit on that date without unanimous consent, although I will not say-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman a question. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman caught the statement made by the house leader, which was that under the rules of the house we are bound to sit tomorrow at 11 a.m. unless there is unanimous consent to change the rules. The house leader said that he did not want to sit tomorrow, and I do not think any of us want to sit, but we will require unanimous consent to prevent us from sitting because there has not been 48 hours' notice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this sort of-


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not use the word I have in mind. This is an endeavour to bamboozle the house and force us into a position where we vote hundreds of millions of dollars without examination. I say that there is no necessity for the passage of these supplementary estimates at this time; they can be passed after we return. It is not a question of holding up salaries because we have passed interim supply. I am beginning to realize now what the plan was-to waste the time by having the budget discussed. I am using the phrase "waste the time" in the sense that the time should have been used for discussion of the supplementary estimates.
The government now come along and say that we are going to sit tomorrow. The very suggestion that we sit this evening for a couple of hours and pass $200 million worth of supplementary estimates is a travesty of parliament, let me make that clear. We are not going to be placed in the position of being the puppets of those people over there who have not properly organized the business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with part of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said we are in agreement. We are in this jam, and it has to be called that, because the program announced by the government on February 28 for the period up to Easter was later changed. On February 28 the program of business was outlined. It did not

include the budget. It was putting into that program not only the presentation of the budget but several days of budget debate which upset the schedule and put us in the position in which we find ourselves at this time. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think we should act as mature people and face the fact that this kind of thing frequently happens and that we do get to a place where certain necessities have to be met.
The Leader of the Opposition has read the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to a question about another matter to support his contention that we were never told that the supplementaries have to be passed before the end of March. It was my understanding all the time that both interim supply and supplementary estimates had to be passed before the end of the fiscal year, but even if that understanding is not clear it seems to me it is the tidy thing to do. It seems to me that we have been bedevilled for a couple of years with estimates which have been dragging on which we have had to pass after the event, and it would be a good idea, if parliament wants to do things in a businesslike way, to get all the estimates for the fiscal year 1963-64 out of the way before the end of that fiscal year. In other words, I think we should put the blame, as it should be put, on the government for changing the program and putting us in this jam; but as a parliament I think we should face the fact that something must be done and that we should decide without passion or a lot of emotion what we are going to do. If the Leader of the Opposition feels it is useless to sit tonight and that we cannot do all this in two or three hours, then that is a statement of fact and let it be put that way. I submit we should face the facts of our job and that we had better come back on Monday and Tuesday and try and finish it then.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, we are against any attempt by the government to use force and threats in order to hasten the passage of supplementary estimates. However, we do not think it is logical to delay their passage, since we shall have the opportunity, when the budget debate is resumed, to criticize the government about certain pieces of legislation we do not approve, along with other parties. If the official opposition is unwilling to allow those estimates to be considered more rapidly, it is merely to put grit in the bearings and not for some serious reasons, because they are well aware that they will have every opportunity to consider those supplementary estimates on resumption of the budget debate.
The members of our group do not want to prevent passage of those estimates and will 20220-97J
Business of the House
readily agree to any compromise proposed so that they may be passed as soon as possible.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we do not agree, as I said earlier, to pass the supplementary estimates speedily and accept anything as if it were a mere pittance.
We are ready to sit tonight. As for sitting tomorrow, we object for several reasons. If we had to come back Monday or Tuesday, we are quite ready, but not without knowing exactly what the government requests. I find it hard to understand that we should always be placed in that situation. It was the same when the Conservative party was in power and now when they blame the Liberal party for acting this way, it is an indication of their lack of responsibility.
Anyway, we are prepared to co-operate, but not to pass in a lump sum all the estimates without previous scrutiny and consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the house that we now have under question the word of the Prime Minister of this country. This is not something that has come upon us suddenly. On March 11, as is reported at page 778 of Hansard, you find the heading "Business of the house" and then, "Announcement of Easter recess". Then there are the words of the Prime Minister as follows:
I informed the house the other day that today I would announce the plans for the Easter recess. It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the house should adjourn at the end of business on Thursday, March 26 and reassemble on Monday, April 6.


An hon. Member:: The business is not completed,


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then, as has already been drawn to our attention, the Prime Minister of this country reaffirmed that position on March 23, and although the question that brought forth his answer was on another subject, nevertheless his answer referred to the adjournment of the house, and I repeat it. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, I thought it had already been indicated to the house that it is our hope and intention to adjourn Thursday evening and resume our session on April 6. There is one reservation to that, of course, and that is on the understanding that interim supply is passed by the house.
That is the word of the Prime Minister of this country. Everybody has made plans and arrangements based on that. With regard to the business of the house, we have gone through this time and time again, session after session, but we are not pressed at this particular moment to effect what the hon.

Business of the House
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) calls a "tidy operation", passing $240 million in just a few hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I made no such suggestion. The hon. member knows that I suggested we pass these items in this fiscal year, and I suggested that in view of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, we come back and do it decently and properly on Monday and Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hansard will indicate what was said. The organization of the business of the house failed because of the obstinacy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) insisting on having his budget discussed rather than dealing with these other matters, which are also his responsibility, namely the supplementary estimates. There are no salaries involved here. These are debts owed by the crown and can be settled in due course. But to ask us to continue and to sit on Good Friday or on Easter Monday is contrary to the given word of the Prime Minister.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that two years ago the Liberal party of this country, in the person of their then house leader, Hon. Mr. Chevrier, requested that the house should not sit on the Thursday before Good Friday because he said it is a holy day. I drew this to the attention of the present Prime Minister and asked him to look back at Hansard for April 12, 1962, page 2894, when Mr. Chevrier put forward that proposal. The Prime Minister said he would look at it, but he did not report on it. At that time the prime minister of the day, Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker said that under no circumstances would the house sit on the holy day, and consequently we did not sit on the Thursday before Good Friday, at the request of Mr. Chevrier. Now the present group are asking us to sit on Good Friday.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this just cannot be done.


Guy Favreau: -I shall not allow anybody to distort my words-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: -and try to suggest that I even implied that this house ought to sit on Good Friday. I said clearly that I disagreed with that proposition, and this was why, to circumvent the rule or to modify the rule, for that particular purpose I said we would need unanimous consent. I said exactly the contrary of what the hon. gentleman has contended.


Erik Nielsen: What about holy Thursday?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, did the
minister imply that in order to avoid that we would have to sit tonight and pass the supplementary estimates that are before us?


Guy Favreau: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend's speech, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to continue with my question of privilege. If the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg South Centre has finished, I would ask your permission to answer the allegation that there was, or would have been, an agreement to adjourn to April 6 as soon as interim supply was passed. Nobody should allow the words of the Prime Minister of this country to be put in doubt. When the Prime Minister referred to that reservation first, he was expressing a hope; and second, he stated so after I had at least once, if not twice, announced in the house that the house would be proceeding with supplementary estimates first, and then with interim supply. It is clear that when the Prime Minister said that, that he implied-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -that these matters would both be dealt with first.


An hon. Member:: What a weak argument.


Guy Favreau: I now suggest, Mr. Speaker, that under the reserve of having to sit on Monday, if we must, but to avoid sitting on Good Friday, this house do not adjourn and that it sit tonight until the house decides on an adjournment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You break the Prime
Minister's word.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary to have unanimous consent to avoiding sitting tomorrow, feeling as I do about the way the government has mismanaged the business of the house, I am giving notice now that the only way I will give consent to avoid sitting tomorrow is that this house adjourns now until April 6, and on no other condition will I give my consent. If the government does not want to sit tomorrow, that is too bad. I want the Prime Minister's word kept, and the only condition upon which I will give consent, in order to avoid sitting tomorrow, is on that basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the absence of any order of the house, if we adjourn at this point, then of course according to the rules of the house we will resume tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Guy Favreau: -having to sit on Good Friday, I suggest that the house give unanimous consent to adjourning until Monday, March 30, at 2.30 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Business of the House


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Refused.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Since there is obviously not unanimous consent, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty one minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.


[Stage Direction]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE (March 31, 1964)
Proposed Agenda and Procedures
A.	Proposed Agenda
1.	Relations between shared-cost programs and fiscal arrangements, including the implications of contracting out.
2.	Canada pension plan.
3.	Reciprocal arrangements regarding taxation of government departments and agencies.
4.	Other aspects of fiscal relations.
5.	Federal proposals regarding loans to university students.
6.	Liaison arrangements, with particular reference to calendar of meetings for 1964.
7.	Report on Canadian 1967 world exhibition.
8.	Other matters.
B.	Proposed Procedures
All provinces agree that the procedures adopted at the November conference were generally satisfactory and should be followed again at this conference. There will be an opportunity at the opening of the conference to discuss such possible changes and improvements in these procedures as might be considered desirable.

[Stage Direction]
Federal Delegation Federal Government
Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson, Prime Minister, head of delegation; Mr. G. Rouleau, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister; Hon. W. L. Gordon, Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Hon. M. Lamontagne, Secretary of State for Canada; Hon. A. J. MacEachen, Minister of Labour; Hon. J. LaMarsh, Minister of National Health and Welfare; Hon. G. Favreau, Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Hon. H. Hays, Minister of Agriculture; Hon. M. Sauve, Minister of Forestry.
Advisers
Mr. R. G. Robertson, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; Mr. J. E. G. Hardy, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet; Mr. R. B. Bryce, Deputy Minister
of Finance; Mr. A. S. Abell, Director of Federal-Provincial Relations Division; Mr. H. D. Clark, Director of Pension and Social Insurance Section; Mr. T. Kent, Policy Secretary, Prime Minister's Office; Mr. E. A. Driedger, Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. D. S. Thor-son, Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice; Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, Deputy Minister of National Health; Dr. K. C. Charron, Director of Health Services; Dr. J. J. Horowicz, Principal Executive Officer, Health Services Directorate; Dr. J. W. Willard, Deputy Minister of Welfare; Mr. J. A. Blais, National Director of Family Allowances and Old Age Security; Dr. L. Z. Rousseau, Deputy Minister of Forestry.
Federal Secretariat
Mr. J. E. G. Hardy, secretary; Mr. J. Garner, assistant secretary; Mr. E. C. Aquilina, executive secretary; Mr. R. O'Hagan, press liaison officer; Mr. J. Regan, special services; Mr. P. Groulx, administrative officer; Mr. J. Ville-neuve, administrative officer; Mr. G. Brady, press liaison officer.
Reporting Staff
Mr. J. Garner, Department of Finance; Mr. E. C. Aquilina, Privy Council office; Mr. C. D. Allen, Department of National Health and Welfare; Mr. D. B. Clark, Department of Finance; Mr. A. R. Roy, Department of Finance.
Interpretation and Translation Staff
Interpreters: Miss P. Cyr, Miss M. Ouimet; and Messrs. R. Robichaud, E. Plante and D. Fleury.
Translator: Mr. J. M. Begin.
Secretarial Staff: Miss A. L. Walls; Mrs. G. Ouellette; Miss G. Hebert; Miss J. Morin; Mrs. A. Biard.

[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1964
The opening meeting of the conference will be held in the legislative assembly at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 31, 1964. Termination date of the meetings will be established by the conference.
Places will be available at the main conference table for the Prime Minister of Canada, four of his ministers, for the

premiers of the provinces and one minister of each province. A section will be set aside for other delegates.
Delegations
A list of the members of the federal delegation is attached hereto. The list of the provincial delegations is being compiled and will be issued in a supplementary release.
Proposed agenda and procedures
The proposed agenda and procedures will be issued in a following release.
Opening statements
Since this conference is a continuation of the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last November, it is anticipated that most delegations will not be issuing an opening statement.
Interpretation
As in the case of recent federal-provincial conferences, simultaneous interpretation, in English and in French, will be provided in the main conference room.
Official functions
1.	On Tuesday, March 31, the prime minister of Quebec and members of the cabinet will receive the Prime Minister of Canada, provincial premiers, ministers, delegates and news representatives at a reception in the Chateau Frontenac at 6:30 p.m. Dress: "Lounge Dress".
2.	On Tuesday, March 31, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, will receive the Prime Minister of Canada, the federal cabinet ministers, provincial premiers and ministers at a dinner at Bois-de-Coulonge at 7:30 for 8:00 p.m. Dress: "Black Tie".
3.	On April 1, a reception for delegates will be held in the legislative council chamber at 12:30 p.m., followed by a luncheon in the parliamentary restaurant at 1:00 p.m.
Coverage Arrangements-Press, radio, t.v. etc.
Still, television and newsreel photographers will be admitted to the main conference room at 9:30 a.m., March 31, to prepare for general photographic coverage of the formal opening of the conference. Picture taking will end at 10:15 a.m. sharp.
Official photograph
An official photograph of the heads of delegations and delegates to the conference will be taken in the legislative council chamber at 12:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 31. Accreditation
Special press passes will be required for admission to the conference area. These passes will be issued on arrival in Quebec city.
Facilities-Press, radio, t.v.
The conference press room-rooms A-81 and A-85-(the legislative assembly private bills' committee room) will be equipped with telephones, typewriters and cloakroom facilities. This room is for the use of all news representatives, accredited to the conference, except those from Quebec who will use their regular facilities in the legislative assembly press gallery, t.v. production room, room A-198; press conference and briefing room, room A-199; press office, room A-80; press enquiries during the conference sessions should be directed to the press office in the legislative assembly building (as listed above). Tel.: 693-5268 or 693-5269.
A press working room will be available in the Chateau Frontenac hotel for the benefit of out-of-town news representatives.
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific telegraph facilities are permanently located in the legislative assembly building. Arrangements for filing will also be available in the press room at the Chateau Frontenac hotel.
Travelling arrangements
In co-operation with the executive of the parliamentary press gallery, a chartered Trans-Canada Air Lines aircraft will carry members of the press from Ottawa to Quebec city, on Monday March 30.
In order to provide sufficient time for research and filing, the aircraft will depart from the T.C.A. Uplands terminal at 11.45 a.m., arriving in Quebec city at approximately 1.00 p.m. Lunch will be served on the aircraft. Ground transportation will be provided from Quebec airport to the hotel.
Because of airline regulations, T.C.A. advises all passengers must obtain tickets prior to the aircraft's departure. The charter fare (including ground transportation in Quebec city) is $20 return.
Tickets may be obtained, upon payment, from James B. Regan in the Prime Minister's office. Cheques should be made payable to T.C.A. Hotel accommodation has been arranged for all members of the press at the Chateau Frontenac, where members of all delegations will be staying. Rooms will be assigned on arrival.
Conference secretariat
Mr. J. E. G. Hardy, secretary; Mr. J. Garner, assistant secretary; Mr. E. C. Aquilina, executive secretary; Mr. P. Groulx, administrative officer; Mr. J. Villeneuve, administrative officer.
Conference press liaison
Mr. R. O'Hagan, press officer; Mr. Gerard Brady, associate press officer; Mr. J. B. Regan, special services; Mr. Guy Hogue, special services.

[Stage Direction]
Federal Delegation Federal Government
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, Prime Minister, head of delegation; Mr. G. Rouleau, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister; Hon. W. L. Gordon, Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Hon. M. Lamontagne, Secretary of State of Canada; Hon. A. J. MacEachen, Minister of Labour; Hon. J. LaMarsh, Minister of National Health and Welfare; Hon. G. Favreau, Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Hon. H. Hays, Minister of Agriculture; Hon. M. Sauve, Minister of Forestry.
Advisers
Mr. R. G. Robertson, Clerk of the Privy
Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; Mr. J. E. G. Hardy, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet; Mr. R. B. Bryce, Deputy Minister of Finance; Mr. A. S. Abell, Director of Federal-Provincial Relations Division; Mr. H. D. Clark, Director of Pension and Social Insurance Section; Mr. T. Kent, Policy Secretary, Prime Minister's Office; Mr. E. A. Driedger, Deputy Minister of Justice; Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, Deputy Minister of National Health; Dr. K. C. Charron, Director of Health Services, Dr. J. H. Horowicz, Principal Executive Officer, Health Services Directorate; Dr. J. W. Willard, Deputy Minister of Welfare; Mr. J. E. E. Osborne, Director of Research and Statistics; Mr. J. A. Blais, National Director of Family Allowances and Old Age Security; Dr. L. Z. Rousseau, Deputy Minister of Forestry.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 27, 1964