1964-08-03

Mr. Auguste Choquelie (Loibiniere) moved: for leave to introduce a bill to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964, with respect to the federal state of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Just a brief explanation, Mr. Speaker. Several hon. members are wondering where the expression dominion comes from. In itself, that expression carries no aggressive connotation. But in the province of Quebec we always hear references to the state of Quebec, and the provincial ministers have decided that in future, the only name they would use to call the Quebec government would be the state of Quebec.
Now, in view of section 3 of the constitution, Canada is a dominion.
What I cannot conceive or explain, Mr. Speaker, is that since Quebec is supposed to remain part and parcel of Canada, how could the part assert itself with more independence than the whole?
The dominion carries a bond of subordination. We are proud of our great country, Canada, and since we want our country to assert its sovereignty on a factual as well as on a symbolic basis, I thought that from now on we could say that Canada constitutes a federal state.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this explanation I should like to know whether this is a complete explanation of the substance of the bill the hon. member is intending to introduce. The reason I ask this question is that the hon. member had a motion on the order paper for a number of days during the months of June and July; it did 20220-3981
not come up for debate in the house. Incorporated in that motion was the suggestion that the word "dominion" be not used to officially designate Canada. In addition, the hon. member was suggesting that the supreme authority of Canada be symbolized in essentially a Canadian manner without reference to the sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The hon. member is an avowed republican and is aiming at establishing a republic in this country. I think unless we are absolutely clear about that which is in this proposed bill we should not accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house allow the hon. member to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. Will you call the yeas and the nays?


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. The bill is lost on division.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacEwan: Is the government giving consideration to integrating the shipbuilding branches of the various government departments under one government department and, if so. under which department will this integration take place?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada):: An interdepartmental committee, on behalf of the government, has had this question under study, in the light of the Glassco commission's

Questions
recommendations (Vol. 2, p. 195) that, "consideration be given to a progressive consolidation of all large vessels and husbanding facilities under the Department of Transport", and that "the department become the source of technical advice and assistance required by treasury board and other departments relative to new ship construction..The government has reached no decision in the matter as yet but expects to be able to announce a decision on this matter in the near future.


R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, LUNENBURG, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Has the government given any consideration to constructing a building containing office space and living accommodation for the R.C.M.P. at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Yes, construction of a standard detachment building at Lunenburg is included in the long range construction program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is not anticipated, however, that construction will take place for some years.


SAFEGUARDS RESPECTING EXPROPRIATION HEARINGS, OTTAWA
Mr. Thompson: Are safeguards provided to insure "a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights" under the terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights to every citizen of the national capital region whose property has been expropriated by the N.C.C. and, if so, what are such safeguards?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. The Expropriation Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Petition of Right Act.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION    USE OF SITE BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Choquette: Have officers of the federal Department of Justice visited the site of the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county, with a view to the construction of a penitentiary?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Officers of the federal Department of Justice visited the site of the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county, with a view of assessing the suitability of the site in reference to its possible use for correctional facilities for the penitentiary service. This site was not found suitable since it did not meet the requirements of the service.


PERSONNEL ENGAGED THROUGH CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITIONS
Mr. Pigeon: What is the total number of persons engaged by each of the various departments, since May 1, 1963, as a result of competitions organized by the civil service commission?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the civil service commission as follows:
Appointments made as a result of competitions organized by the civil service commission from May 1, 1963 to May 31, 1964:
Department	Number
Agriculture	815
Air transport board	10
Archives	39
Auditor General	31
Board of broadcast governors	4
Board of transport commissioners	19
Bureau of government organization	2
Canadian maritime commission	1
Chief electoral officer	2
Citizenship and Immigration	263
Civil service commission	134
Defence Production	187
Dominion coal board	2
Emergency measures organization	5
External aid office	23
External Affairs	198
Finance	63
Finance-comptroller of the treasury 272 Finance-mint	53
Fisheries	146
Forestry	299
Governor General's secretary	1
Industry	77
Insurance	11
International joint commission	1
Justice	58
Labour	117
Mines and Technical Surveys	825
National Defence	2,181
National energy board	6
National gallery	6
National Health and Welfare	575
National library	35
National Revenue, customs	802
National Revenue, income tax	2,652
Northern Affairs and National
Resources	307
Post Office	2,368
Privy council	11
Public Printing and Stationery	23
Public Works	414

Department	Number
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	199
Secretary of State	135
Tariff board	8
Trade and Commerce	158
Trade and Commerce, bureau of statistics	629
Transport	958
Unemployment insurance commission	1,517
Veterans Affairs	1,559
Total	18,201


FLAGS ON FEDERAL BUILDINGS, MONTREAL AND QUEBEC
Mr. Coales: 1.	How many federal buildings in the city of Quebec fly the Canadian red ensign at the present time?
2.	How many federal buildings in the city of Quebec do not fly the Canadian red ensign at the present time?
3.	How many federal buildings in the city of Montreal fly the Canadian red ensign at the present time?
4.	How many federal buildings in the city of Montreal do not fly the Canadian red ensign at the present time?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Nineteen.
2.	Five, one building has no mast and another is vacant.
3.	Forty seven.
4.	Eleven, four of these buildings have no mast.


WINTER HOUSE BUILDING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Peters: 1.	How many applications were filed under the terms of the winter house building incentive program?
2.	How many were accepted in the initial stages?
3.	How many were completed?
Questions
4.	Of the initial applications, how many were from persons building their own residence and how many were received from builders applying for more than one unit?
5.	How many of the successful applications were completed and the incentive paid?
6.	What number of these were individual private home builders and the buildings not for resale?
7.	How many were completed by commercial builders?
8.	How many completions were granted under an extension of the program?
9.	What percentage increase in the total Canadian house building program can be attributed to the incentive program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1,	2, 3. See statement attached.
4.	This information is not immediately available but is indicated in the attached statement in respect to housing completed under the program.
5,	6, 7. See statement attached.
8.	No information.
9.	The main aim of the winter house building incentive program was to shift housing construction from the summer to the winter months. The achievement of this aim is indicated by the increase in new residential investment as presented in the national accounts in constant dollars so as to exclude the effects of price changes. The per cent changes in the volume of new residential construction, over the corresponding period of the year before, were as follows:
Per cent increases over previous year: 1st quarter, 1963, -1.1; 2nd quarter, 1963, +2.6; 3rd quarter, 1963, +1.7; 4th quarter, 1963, + 12.8; 1st quarter, 1964, +40.8.
The magnitude of the response to the incentive program suggests that there was a net increase in house building activity in addition to the effects of the shifting of activity to the winter months from the early fall of 1963 and the spring of 1964. However, no precise estimates of that increase can be made.
IMr. MacEachen.l
Winter House Building Incentive Program Record of Applications
Week ending July 17, 1964
	Applications for Certification						Record of Payments		
Received	Cancelled by applicant	Rejected at first inspection	Rejected at final inpsection	Approved at final inspection	Number of units covered by approved applications	Applications received (dwelling units)	Amount of payments issued	Amount of payments outstandingNewfoundland	267	41	53	65	108	135	116	$ 39,500	$ 28,00074	7	27	18	22	23	18	9,000	2,500398	62	39	72	225	280	231	114,500	25,500286	31	39	21	195	231	195	91,500	24,00011,542	1,314	774	869	8,585	10,785	8,515	3,670,000	1,722,5009,482	899	370	1,023	7,190	8,058	6,676	2,869,000	1,160,0001,467	109	30	68	1,260	1,320	1,082	516,000	144,0001,372	136	88	75	1,073	1,104	997	468,000	84,0004,323	427	77	210	3,609	3,770	3,202	1,509,500	375,500British Columbia	3,402	371	152	624	2,255	2,407	2,171	1,032,500	171,000Yukon and Northwest Territories..	34	-	8	19	7	10	10	5,000	Totals	32,647	3,397	1,657	3,064	24,529	28,123	23,213	10,324,500	3,737,000
Further Data taken from Applications Approved at Final Inspection
Cost of construction
(Value SI ,000)	Type of structure

Under 6	 94
6 - 8	 153
8-10	 560
10-12	 2,079
12-14	 5,119
14-16	 5,894
16-18	 4,349
18-20	 2,112
20 - 22	 1,026
22 and over	 3,143

Single	21,773
Duplex	 2,249
Triplex	 176
Quadruplex	 331
Totals	24,529	24,529Method of construction	Structures built for	Financing$	$	$Contract	... 7,506	Occupancy	
9,143	Day labour	... 1,769	Sale	14,543	N.H.A	17,772Merchant builder..,	...15,254	Rent	
843	Other	
6,75724,529	24,529	24,529Total value of houses covered by active applications for certification Total incentive payments if all structures qualify

6288	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the civil service commission as follows:
1.	Nine applications were received in competition 64-W593, for the position of postmaster at Lundar, Manitoba.
2.	Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that publication of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence the names of candidates who were not included on the eligible list.
3.	As a result of this competition, an eligible list has been established containing four names listed in order of merit as follows:
1.	Harold Backman, P.O. Box 238, Lundar,
2.	Mrs. S. E. Arnason, P.O. Box 138, Lundar,
3.	Mrs. K. M. Goodman, P.O. Box 241, Lundar,
4.	Mrs. G. S. Lindal, P.O. Box 52, Lundar. The position of postmaster at Lundar has
been offered to Mr. Backman.


CAUSEWAY BETWEEN MONCTON AND ALBERT COUNTY, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,537-Mr. Bell: (Supplementary) Have any approaches been made by the province of New Brunswick concerning a proposed causeway between the city of Moncton and Albert county as to surveying and/or financing and, if so, with what result?
Maurice Lamontagne: The answer to this question in so far as it relates to the Department of Forestry, is as follows: at the request of the province of New Brunswick the maritime marshland rehabilitation administration made an engineering survey of the proposed causeway, but the province has not yet made a concrete proposal for its construction.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to increasing the amount of pension paid to civil servants who retired prior to the most recent upward pension adjustment?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: This matter was dealt with by the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance on April 21, 1964.
Questions
(See Hansard of that date, pages 2438 and 2439). The situation has not changed.


COST OF TRAINING ARMY OFFICERS AND CADETS
Mr. Cota (Chicoutimi): 1.	What is the per capita cost to the government for the training of army officers?
2.	How much does it cost to train a cadet at Kingston for three or four years?
3.	What is the cost of training a cadet at St. Jean military college?
4.	What is the cost to the Department of National Defence of assisting university students in preparation for a career in the army?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Estimated average per capita cost for the training of army officers to an operational level-$21,700.
2.	Estimated cost to train a cadet at Kingston for three years-$19,500; four years- $26,500.
3.	Estimated cost to train a cadet at college militaire de St. Jean for two years-$12,600; for three years-$18,900.
4.	The total annual cost of assisting university students in preparation for a career in all branches of the army is approximately $1,700,000.


CYPRUS-COST OF CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers are there now in Cyprus?
2.	What is the total cost of all military equipment, food and other supplies required by Canadian troops stationed in Cyprus?
3.	To date, what has been the total cost, in dollars, of the stationing of Canadian troops in Cyprus?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 1,112.
2.	Estimated monthly cost including materiel, food, other supplies, support airlift and services directly attributable to Canadian participation in the United Nations force in Cyprus-$305,000.
3.	Estimated cost to date including initial and support airlift and certain costs recoverable from the United Nations related to Canadian personnel at United Nations headquarters in Cyprus who are not members of the Canadian contingent-$2,200,000. Actual cost to June 30, 1964-$1,881,500.

MEETING RESPECTING WINTER WORKS PROGRAM Question No. 1,571


Mr. Marcoux:: 1.	Did officials of the Department of Labour meet with a group of government members on July 13,

Questions
in order to examine the provisions of the municipal winter works program?
2.	As a result of this meeting, does the government intend to change the program from winter works to seasonal works, as suggested by this group?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	Several of the officers of the department were present at a meeting arranged by a government member to hear a proposal made by him with respect to modifying some of the provisions of the municipal winter works incentive program.
2.	The Department of Labour, in the light of experience and proposals by various persons and groups, is studying a number of suggestions which might contribute to improving the program.


* THOMAS BENSON
Mr. MacEwan: Has Mr. Thomas Benson, executive producer of the C.B.C. resigned or been fired and, if so (a) was he the producer responsible for the film "Mr. Pearson" (b) has his leaving any relationship to that production?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the answer is, "no".


H.M.C.S. &quot;YUKON&quot;  RECALL TO OTTAWA OF COMMANDING OFFICER
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,617
Mr. Coates:: 1.	Was the officer in charge of H.M.C.S. Yukon called to Ottawa when his ship returned to port?
2.	Was he summoned to Ottawa as a result of his ship having flown the government proposed flag design?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1 and 2. No.


WINNIPEG POST OFFICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have any employees working in the main Winnipeg post office been taken to hospital from work after collapse due to excessive heat this year?
2.	How many employees working in the main Winnipeg post office have been sent home because they became ill due to excessive heat?
3.	Has the Post Office Department received complaints from the post office employees association due to the excessive summer heat while working in the main post office in Winnipeg?
4.	Has the Post Office Department received complaints from the postmaster in Winnipeg about this matter?
5.	Has the post office any plans for correcting the conditions referred to and, if so, what are they?
[Mr. Marcoux.l


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes, two.
2.	Two.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	The Post Office Department has requested the Department of Public Works to take whatever steps are possible to improve the situation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
^PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS WITHOUT TENDERS
['That is right, sir. Canada takes the position that the peace keeping operations of the UN have veen properly set up either under the security council or under the procedures open to the general assembly under the uniting for peace resolution.']
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, to ask that
starred question 883 be made an order for return is a travesty on this parliament. This has been a starred question since April 27 and there is just no excuse for not having it answered. Starred questions are to be answered as soon as possible, and in the United Kingdom I think it is done within 72 hours. In this case this question has been allowed to hang on the vine for the past several months, and now it is passed as an order for return. If that suggestion is accepted by the house it will mean in effect that we will not receive an answer to a starred question, and I strongly protest against this kind of treatment, which is in keeping with what we are receiving from this government from week to week.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for not looking before I rose, but I remember so well those days before the Minister of Justice was in the house, when the right hon. gentleman opposite was prime minister, when we experienced the first occasion in my memory of a starred question being made an order for return. I made the kind of protest the right hon. gentleman has now made and suggested it was a very bad practice. However, the right hon. gentleman's government persisted in that practice on many occasions afterward, and were upheld in doing so by successive Speakers. Moreover, anyone who can read this question can see that it calls for a vast quantity of statistical information to be assembled.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It should not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let me read the question, sir. It asks:
What is the total amount of all contracts and orders given or handed out by the Department of Public Works, without the calling of public tenders, since April 22, 1963?
This would involve going over all the orders even for the smallest quantities and adding these things up. It undoubtedly can be done; undoubtedly is being done, and probably in due course a return can be made, but it does not seem to me in view of the number of precedents established by the right hon. gentleman's government he has much cause for protest.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that answer on the part of the minister I congratulate him on taking number one place over the house leader and I would say to the house leader, from now on remain in your seat until the minister sitting beside you has told you what to say.
The answer given by the minister is no answer at all. I am not objecting to the question being made an order for return. My objection arises out of the fact that this question has been on the order paper for almost three and a half months and now it is to be concealed. Never was there such a flagrant case in the history of this parliament or its predecessor. I take the strongest objection to this procedure. It is in keeping with what we are being subjected to; for the explanation given by the minister is as far removed from the truth as it is possible for an answer to be.



Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many advisory boards, advisory committees, etc., are there in the federal administration, and what are the names of all such boards, committees, etc.?
2.	How often is each such advisory board or committee required to meet?
3.	How many times per year has each such advisory board or committee met during each of the last ten years?
Return tabled.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to advise the house as to the foundation for press statements that Mr. Khrushchev has
Inquiries of the Ministry indicated to U Thant that the U.S.S.R. may withdraw from the United Nations in the event that it is required, as the charter provides, to pay its proper assessments? What is the attitude of the government of Canada in this respect? Does it accept the principle that because a nation is powerful it can become a free rider and ride over the principles of the charter?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the secretary general of the United Nations is back in New York, but I was not able to get in touch with him this morning. All I can go by is the reported statement which he made as to his interview with Chairman Khrushchev.
I suspect that what is reported is correct. However, it does not necessarily follow that the situation will result in circumstances that would warrant the course indicated by the head of the government of the Soviet union. It is true that under article 19 of the charter, if a country is delinquent in an amount greater than its total assessment of the previous two years, that country, as the result of a vote in the general assembly, does qualify for the withdrawal of its voting privileges. However, article 18 of the charter has yet to be applied. It may be that this under the procedures of the UN which will be regarded as an important question might prevent any encouragement of the action that the Soviet union has announced it would take.
As far as the government of Canada is concerned, it believes strongly that all countries great and small, which are in a deficit position, should pay off their obligations to the UN. In the case of the Soviet union this obligation runs close to $60 million. That indebtedness, together with other obligations, represents a very severe burden on the United Nations. The attitude of the Canadian government on this question is that we hope no confrontation will occur and that the Soviet union will recognize that, if it is sincere in its support of the United Nations, it should take action that will not make it necessary for nations to give consideration to the implications of article 19.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the action the minister has in contemplation that the U.S.S.R. might be required to make some payment that would result in the actual1 default being for less than two years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be one way out, and that proposal has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the other?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pardon?


John George Diefenbaker: Is there another?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is the only proposal I have heard made, but I should say that the Soviet union has made it known it does not propose to pay anything toward any past obligation having to do with peace keeping operations that were set up contrary to the exclusive power of the security council.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister says "contrary to the exclusive power" he is now quoting the U.S.S.R., is he not?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Canada does not accept the view that what was done was contrary to the charter in any way?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is right, sir. Canada takes the position that the peace keeping operations of the UN have veen properly set up either under the security council or under the procedures open to the general assembly under the uniting for peace resolution.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: I have a question of privilege which is based on a news release issued by the Department of Forestry, Ottawa, July 31, 1964 and which reads as follows:
Two new projects for the development of blueberry plantations In the lake St. John area of Quebec were announced jointly today by federal forestry minister Maurice Sauve and Quebec agriculture and colonization minister Alcide Courcy. Planned under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the projects represent a total investment of $250,000 to be shared equally by the two governments.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry is in Europe at present, and he announces ARDA projects jointly with the provincial minister of agriculture.
The minister is showing unequalled boldness, impudence and barefacedness. The Prime Minister should recall him without delay from his holiday in Europe so that he may justify himself in Ottawa. If the government refuses to bring back the minister to the House of Commons in order to carry out his duties as Minister of Forestry, the government will be entirely responsible.
I am sure the Canadian people do not approve of the Minister of Forestry, who earns


$40,000 a year, taking a month of holidays in Europe when his duty is to be here, in Ottawa, to answer urgent questions concerning agriculture in eastern Canada which has become a problem because of his absence.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that the project announced last week by the Minister of Forestry and "Rural Development" was well received in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area I have the honour to represent and that even the absence of the present incumbent did not prevent the introduction of that legislation.
I feel the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was not well taken and that, above all, it does not come under his jurisdiction.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming a debate. I will listen to the hon. member for York-Scarborough, because he rose at the same time as the hon. member for Lake St. John.


Mr. Moreau:: I was going to ask a question. I did not realize it was a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lake St. John, charging me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion there was no question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lake St. John has accused me; he said that I was wrong, but anyway, the Minister of Forestry was not in the house when-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member does not wish to make it any more difficult than it is for the Chair.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Secretary

of State for External Affairs. Will he give the house some information regarding the four Canadian soldiers who were fired on near Nicosia last week? In addition, can he tell us if it is correct that the dockside area at Limassol has been barred to the United Nations forces by the Greek Cypriot authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the soldiers, I am awaiting an official report on this incident and I would prefer to wait until that has been received.
With regard to the situation at Limassol, the government of Archbishop Makarios has indicated that General Thimayya, the head of the United Nations force, will not himself be denied access as commander of the force. There is to be a meeting tomorrow or Wednesday with the secretary general, and after that meeting I might be able to say more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask whether the United Nations forces have been denied access to any areas controlled by the Turkish Cypriots, particularly disembarkation points and possible disembarkation points?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such incident.


PROPOSED DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on the announcement on Saturday by Britain's foreign secretary, R. A. Butler that he has asked Canada, Poland and India to try to arrange new meetings between the various factions in Laos. I should like to know whether Canada was contacted in this respect, and what was the response to the request.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been approached by the government of the United Kingdom. We have been asked to join India and Poland in pressing the three Laotian factions to meet together outside of Laos. In the past the Canadian delegation to the international commission has encouraged such meetings inside the country when they have had as their purpose the formation of a government of national union, or the arrangement of a cease fire, or some other purpose directly related to the Geneva settlement of 1962.
Inquiries of the Ministry
What we are being asked to do now is to have our delegation urge a meeting for a quite different purpose, namely to encourage the three Laotian factions to meet together and discuss the conditions under which a 14 power conference might be held; in other words, to see whether it is possible to find a way to hold another conference of the signatories of the 1962 agreement.
It is not clear to me why such action on the part of the three commission powers should be necessary. They have no authority, as I see it, under the Geneva protocol of 1962 to reconvene the Geneva conference. Moreover, the three Laotian factions are familiar with the views of their respective friends and will, if I judge past experience correctly, act on their estimate of their own best interests.
The government's views as to what may be expected from a further conference on Laos have not changed; but if the three Laotian factions are in agreement that another conference shows promise of bringing peace to that country we would, of course, wish to give them every possible help, and we have instructed our commissioner to act accordingly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to the Canadian turkey federation, on July 19, 1963 the minister promised the turkey growers of Canada that should the turkey industry meet with difficulties caused by unfair movements of products into Canada, immediate and appropriate action would be taken by the government. My question is, why has the Minister of Agriculture not lived up to his promise?
Repeatedly, as the present situation threatened, the Canadian turkey federation has corresponded with the stabilization board chairman, Mr. S. B. Williams, and other government officials. To point out the impending trouble, conferences have been held with Mr. Williams, along with poultry division representatives, on a number of occasions but without any sign of action, the latest meeting being when-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: -the Canadian turkey federation directors met with the stabilization board chairman-
6294	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This statement is too long. Was the question directed to the Minister of Agriculture; and to what effect?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think I covered this subject at fairly great length the other day. As a matter of fact I was not permitted to finish my remarks, but I would refer the hon. member to Hansard of that day.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: As a supplementary question, would the minister inform the house whether the imports are still rolling in and no stop has been put to them? The turkey growers are in trouble, and so will the government be unless more action is taken.


Harry William Hays: I would like to assure the hon. member that we are watching this situation very closely, and that our turkey breeders at the moment have an 8 cents to 9 cents per pound protection against U.S. turkeys. Our turkeys in Canada are about 10 cents a pound higher in price than turkeys in the United States.
Further, I would like to point out to the hon. member that many of the turkey shippers are also beef shippers. The same situation exists today in regard to beef, and when the tide runs the other way we would enjoy this market very much. We have to take a good look at this before we make any changes, as otherwise we might hurt our own position so far as trade is concerned.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The turkey growers in the United States are not under the same restrictions as the Ontario turkey breeders. The United States breeders are allowed to send them in here with their feet on, which makes a difference to the price of turkeys in Canada.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the house and the turkey growers that in fact he has not forgotten his promise.


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are watching this very closely.
Mr A. D. Hales (Wellington South): As a
further supplementary question, is it correct that United States turkeys are entering Canada packed in Canadian kryovac bags, with Canadian trade names on the packages?


Harry William Hays: Yes. I explained this the other day, Mr. Speaker. This is true, but the turkeys inside the bags are marked "Produce of the United States". This situation has existed for many years, and there is no change so far as this policy is concerned.
[Mr. Cardiff.!


Mr. Hales:: Would the minister not agree that this would be rather confusing to the Canadian housewife?


Harry William Hays: No more than it was three years ago.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. On July 29 he indicated that when the import controls were first placed on turkey imports into Canada, it was to give the turkey industry a chance to become established in Canada. Since United States turkeys are at a lower price in the U.S. because of the fact they are fed by corn that is subsidized by the government, does the minister intend to take up this problem with the United States government?


Harry William Hays: First, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member in so far as price is concerned. He will find that in Canada the price of beef is higher, the price of turkeys is higher, the price of chickens is higher and the price of pork is higher. Also, if he examines the situation closely he will find that the consumption in Canada of all these products is up, due to our very buoyant economy. We suggest that we would have been in great trouble if we had not had a very buoyant economy, in so far as these products are concerned. I must suggest to the hon. member again that the difference in the price of United States turkeys over 26 pounds or 22 pounds is about 8 cents to 9 cents a pound, and when it gets this much higher of course they start moving into Canada.
We are watching this situation very closely. These quotas were put on in the first instance because Canada was not familiar with the evisceration of turkeys. Now Canada can compete with any country in the world in so far as eviscerated products are concerned.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that because the United States producer is feeding his turkeys corn that is subsidized by the government he can produce turkeys more cheaply and sell them more cheaply in the United States, and this is the reason for the lower price there? Because of this fact should the minister not take immediate action and make some representations to the United States government?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for this is the law of supply and demand.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture already given to the turkey growers of British Columbia the kind of information he has just given the house, in answer to their inquiry?


Harry William Hays: Yes, we have been indicating the policy. We are quite prepared, if in our opinion this situation becomes serious, to call in the turkey breeders.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether with regard to these imported turkeys the standards laid down for health reasons are as rigid as those with which turkey producers in Canada must comply. I understand that turkeys may be imported from the United States into this country without feet on them, whereas the feet must be left on the carcasses in Canada so they may be inspected for health purposes before they are permitted to be sold through the Canadian trade.


Harry William Hays: For the last ten years the department has been giving this matter very close attention, and there has been no change in policy even though there have been three different governments. We are watching this situation very closely now, and the consumer in Canada is very well protected so far as this question is concerned.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have devoted considerable time to this question, which is important; but if it is becoming a debate I must try to apply the rules.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to ask the minister, under which government did the evisceration of turkeys become an art, as it apparently is today?


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the turkey problem. In the negotiations which took place with regard to the removal of import controls on United States turkeys coming into Canada, what concessions were given to Canada in return for the concessions to United States turkey growers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will have to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



COUCHICHING CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Is he prepared to give the house the information requested of him on July 10 and again on July 21, respecting the amount of public funds contributed by the C.B.C. to the Canadian institute on public affairs, and how much it cost to broadcast the proceedings of the Couchiching conference?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the C.B.C. that, as disclosed in the annual statement of the Canadian institute on public affairs, the C.B.C. pays a fee of $4,000 each year for services rendered by the institute's secretariat in arranging and publicizing two conferences, namely the winter conference held in Toronto and the Couchiching summer conference. The C.B.C. obtains, on these conferences, two series of broadcasts. The institute has the responsibility for general arrangements and for sessions that are not broadcast. The C.B.C. maintains responsibility for what is broadcast.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Included in the question asked of the Secretary of State was how much it cost the C.B.C. to broadcast particulars of these sessions. I did not hear anything in his answer that gave any indication of what this amount is.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I had a copy of the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on July 21. This aspect of the matter was not covered by the question, but I will be glad to get the information for the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the numerous complaints from all parties in the house against the C.B.C., does the minister intend to recommend the establishment of a royal commission in order to look into everything that concerns that corporation?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether in view of the number of distinguished parliamentarians from this and other places who took part in the conference last week at Couchiching on "Order and good government", the Acting Prime Minister would consider making arrangements to have the proceedings of this conference circulated as a parliamentary handbook so that we all might have the advantage of this distillation of parliamentary wisdom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, whether or not that is a desirable proposal is something I would have to study, but I should think in the meantime that those members who attended the conference might invite the rest of the house to some social function where they could repeat their very valuable speeches.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, and ask whether he can confirm the possibility of a settlement of the Northland Navigation-C.B.R.T. strike with regard to two ships serving northern B.C.; and if it has been settled, when will the two ships involved commence sailing to the northern ports?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, so
there will be no misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm I want to say I am prepared to make an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Labour. Over the week end departmental officials were working vigorously on this matter of a settlement between local 400 of the C.B. of R.T. and Northland Navigation, and after 18 hours of continuous meeting with the disputants they announced, a few hours ago, approval by the enlarged strike committee of a settlement, subject of course to ratification by the membership. It is hoped that the ships will soon be in operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE OF PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question of the Acting Prime Minister. Has any member or official of the federal government been invited to participate in or observe the proceedings of the conference of premiers to be held this week at Jasper, Alberta? I ask the question fully realizing that the conference's primary task is to deal with common problems facing provincial governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has intimated this is an interprovincial conference of premiers of the provinces. There are, however, two observers from the federal public service, an assistant deputy minister of finance and one of the assistant secretaries to the privy council.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, in the hope that the minister will talk turkey in another field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the house whether the federal government has authority to take action to protect the civil and property rights of the residents of the Arrow lakes, which rights are being violated at the present time by the actions of the B.C. hydro and power authority?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this of course is a matter of legal opinion which concerns more particularly the relationship between the province, the persons who own the property and the corporation. I think this is a question which it would be improper for me to answer in this house.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Would the minister give serious consideration to the suggestion of Mr. C. M. Bedford, chairman of the Indian education committee under the Canadian home and school and parent-teacher federation, that a declaration of human rights of the Indians of Canada be made, based on the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations?


Mr, Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring the question to the attention of the minister on his return.



SAULT STE. MARIE, ONT.    EVICTION OF INDIANS FROM MOTEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley last Friday. The hon. member asked if an investigation had been made into a report that Indian delegates to the conference of the national Indian council of Canada, at Sault Ste. Marie, had been evicted from a motel.
I understand from later reports that the attorney general of Ontario, who has jurisdiction respecting any complaints of this nature, will be looking into the matter. The department of Indian affairs will, of course, keep in touch with the attorney general's office, and as soon as the investigation is completed and a report is made it will be made known to the house.



ALLEGED COMMUNIST CONNECTIONS OF PRIME MINISTER AND OPPOSITION LEADER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. A magazine called American Opinion, which is published in the United States by the John Birch society, claims to have discovered that the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are connected with an international communist conspiracy. I want to ask the minister whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating the activities of these two suspicious characters.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have been delaying up till now in giving instructions in this respect.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As leader of the house, can he tell us why the government did not support the bill presented by the hon. member for Lotbiniere?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order. PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can we now be assured that the white paper on the Canada pension plan will be tabled this week?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In all likelihood, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. About a month ago, in answer to a question of mine, he advised the house that his department was giving consideration to devising a new formula to be used in selecting designated or depressed areas. I would ask him whether he is now ready to tell the house about this new formula, and whether the Brantford area will still qualify.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we are unfortunately not yet in a position to outline a new set of criteria; consequently I am not in a position to answer whether the city of Brantford would qualify under any revised scheme.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry a supplementary question. Can he tell

Interim Supply
lis if he has had consultations with the Quebec minister of industry about those areas because, according to the newspapers, the Quebec minister of industry would announce himself, next week, areas designated by the province of Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been held with the minister and the officials of the department of industry and commerce of the province of Quebec.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Industry and Defence Production tell us whether the federal government, as well as the government of the province of Quebec, intend to declare the Nicolet region as a "designated area" where a steel complex is likely to be located?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact answer to that very precise question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On July 6 I placed a question, which is No. 1,434, on the order paper. In view of the fact that hundreds of my constituents are waiting for the answer to this question could the minister give the house any indication as to when the information is likely to be available?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has to do with the Department of Agriculture, not with my department.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 31, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,791.01, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965, laid before the House

of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport items 15 and 25, (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $7,044,425;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 60, fisheries item 20, justice item 1, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 15, northern affairs and national resources items 15 and 35, privy council item 25, transport item 1, loans, investments and advances item L.10 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $9,525,758.34;
(d)	two twelfths of all the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, loans, investments and advances items L17a and L37a, for which no proportion will be granted $20,840,372.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of justice item 12a (schedule C) of the said supplementary estimates (A), $1,806.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Vegreville.


Mr. Fane:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say, to begin with, I am very greatly surprised that members on the government side shout "carried", "filibuster", and other similar expressions, whenever an opposition member commences to speak on this item.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you. When members on the other side applaud the use of expressions such as "filibuster" and "carried", it indicates how little they know about the affairs of Canada, particularly when they do so at such an early stage in the debate on interim supply. The only reason interim supply is required at this time is that the government has failed in its duty to bring these estimates before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: The government has not even brought the estimates before the standing committee on estimates or other designated parliamentary committees. That is also an inexcusable failure in duty. In spite of that fact the members on the other side continue to use these expressions each time a member feels it necessary to examine the request of this government for approximately $700 million to cover the expenditures for August and September. I think we would be remiss in our duty if we did not examine and debate interim supply when that amount of money is involved. We should like to know how and why this money is being spent. I am

sure the people of Canada are just as interested in this spending as the members of the opposition.
I was very shocked when I came into this chamber on Thursday evening last, after being away four days with the defence committee visiting Canadian naval establishments, to hear even at that date, during a debate on government spending of $700 million, cries of "carried" and "filibuster" on each occasion a member of the opposition rose to speak. I am just as shocked today when I hear those expressions because I feel certain we are entitled to know how this money is being spent.


Mr. Gundlock:: Same old bunch.


Frank John William Fane: My hon. friend says "same old bunch", and he has learned to use that expression from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I agree with him because this is the same old bunch who a few years ago said "what's a million", and now say, I suppose, "what's $700 million."


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: I am pleased to have an
opportunity to speak today. There were so many others who wished to speak on Friday that I was unable to maintain my place.
Today I intend to make a few remarks in respect of citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs. As hon. members are aware, I am very interested in citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs because my constituency of Vegreville includes the Saddle lake Indian reserve. Individuals from approximately 40 nations of the world live in my constituency, and all from time to time have difficulty with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
I feel it very necessary that the citizenship and immigration acts be amended to make it possible for individuals sponsored by relations other than brothers and sons to enter Canada. Even a sister sponsored by a brother cannot enter this country. It strikes me as very strange indeed that so much difficulty is encountered by individuals desiring to come to Canada at this time when Canada so very badly needs an increased population. Can you feature a country of this size having a population of approximately 19,330,000? Canada should have a population of at least four times that figure, and I am sure can support such a population. I am sure no one would question that suggestion. I am sure with a population of that size Canada's production would be used and there would be less unemployment, because the
Interim Supply
requirement then would be such that these people would all be employed to meet the increased demand.
While the United States is not plagued by unpleasant weather and conditions of that nature that beset parts of our country, it has a papulation ten times the size of our population. I am sure Canada could support a population four times its present size. I am also sure the population cannot be so increased without bringing people from other countries of the world. People from every nation in the world desire to come to Canada. While some of them may not be welcome, I suggest we would be happy to accept the vast majority. I am sure we could provide homes and a living for them without having to beg support from the government.
On many occasions, both in this house and in letters to four or five ministers of citizenship and immigration over the past several years, I have made representations with respect to changing the practices followed by the citizenship and immigration department. Nothing has been done as yet, though I hope I will soon be able to contact a minister in favour of granting citizenship to the type of individual to whom I have referred in previous speeches. There is a young lady who has lived in this country since 1939 and who has taught high school for 12 years. This young woman cannot obtain citizenship in spite of the fact that the judge of the citizenship court in the city of Edmonton has recommended on five separate occasions that she be granted citizenship without question. I cannot be told why she has been unable to obtain citizenship. I am only a member of parliament, just a backbencher in the highest court in Canada. In the name of heaven why cannot we and these people be told the reason they cannot get citizenship?
This is only one case. There are people in Poland and other countries who want to come to Canada. They cannot do so because the person who wants to sponsor them is an uncle. Can you imagine anything so stupid as that? They are not closely enough related. Is that not a silly thing? One wonders how we can be so stupid in framing our immigration laws. At one time it may have been thought that we were protecting Canada by being so stuffy about our immigration laws. I do not believe we should be so terribly careful any more.
In this country we have a great many people who do not look upon government as we do. There are many who are communists. Seven years ago, in the election of 1957,

Interim Supply
there were 973 people in my constituency who voted communist. In the last election there were only 455. Do you think those people are doing my constituency any harm? Certainly they engage in some propaganda, but I do not think we should be so tough on them when they have lived in Canada practically all their lives. They are Canadians too. They simply have a slightly different outlook. They go a little farther in their views than my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is an avowed socialist, or the squire of the Kootenays, the hon. member for Kootenay West, who is also an avowed socialist. If the chips were down neither of them would be any more socialist than I am.
I think people should be allowed to own what they work for. Free enterprise is what has made Canada, and if somebody looks at thinks a little differently from the two original political parties in this country they may have something. They cannot be altogether wrong. So I think we should be a little less stuffy about our method of granting citizenship to certain Canadians who have proved that they are Canadians.
There should be an effective citizenship appeal board in this country. I know there is one that is called on at times to help the minister, but there should be a citizenship appeal board which could listen to the appeals of people like the young lady to whom I have referred, who has been turned down five times. Her latest application is before the minister. I have tried to find out what has happened, but he has told me very nicely he will let me know when a decision has been made. There should be an appeal board to which this girl and the many others in similar circumstances could apply rather than having to apply to the minister. There should also be a body other than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which would make the final investigation of a person applying to the appeal board for citizenship. The R.C.M.P. does a wonderful job in its initial investigation of applicants for citizenship, but when appeals are necessary there should be another body to do this work.
I will leave that issue there and turn to the department of Indian affairs. To my mind there should be a separate minister in charge of Indian affairs, not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If he does his job as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration properly, believe me he has plenty to do without looking after the big job of Indian affairs. The superintendent general of Indian

affairs should be a person who has Indian affairs as his main job, and it should not be a secondary job which is approached with the attitude that if matters are looked after today, well and good; but if not tomorrow will do.
I want to make a few remarks about the Indian claims commission. We have heard a great deal about this commission. The former minister in charge of Indian affairs, now Minister of Justice and house leader, suggested that legislation to establish an Indian claims commission would be brought before the house long ago. So far very little has been done about the matter. I believe it was announced at one time that there was a cut-off date for the registering of Indian claims. If the Indian claims commission does not get going soon, how in the name of heaven are we ever going to resolve the troubles of the Indians if there is nobody to listen to their claims? Every Indian band in the country has a claim to make against the government of Canada or a provincial government. The claims commission should be established and put into operation right away.
On the claims commission we must have Canadians who know the Indian problem and who can look at things the way an Indian does. You require people who have lived among the Indians and know what they are talking about. The Indians themselves claim there should be a qualified anthropologist on the commission to look into their origin. Because they ask for this I suppose we should have it, but personally I cannot see exactly why we need to have such a person. Many of the tribes I have talked to have referred to a certain individual from another country, but I will not mention any names today. I cannot see why the Indians, of all people, should want somebody who is not a Canadian citizen to pass on their claims for redress of offences allegedly committed by the government of Canada or the provincial governments.
At the time the former government was defeated the Indian Act was in the process of being remodelled. It is high time that the remodelling was put into effect. The idea the former government had of submitting changes to the Indians for their approval was a very good idea. The Indians must be consulted about any changes to be made in legislation which concerns them. They are the original settlers of this country, and they should not be pushed aside and forgotten.

There are many things connected with the administration of reserves that must be changed. I feel that the Indian superintendents, the people whom we used to call Indian agents, should be North American Indians who are trained to be Indian agents and to look after these reserves. This is something that is necessary. In so far as the Saddle lake reserve in my own area is concerned-there are six or seven reserves under the one agent-I must say that we have at St. Paul, Alberta a superintendent who is or was a treaty Indian. He has done a marvellous job since he came there about two years ago. I have not heard within the last month or two whether he is still there, but I hope he is. Somehow I am not told as often as I used to be what is happening on the reserve, nor as soon as I used to be. In any event, I feel that people who administer Indian reserves should be Indians, because they are familiar with the outlook of their people and are able to deal with it.
Indian reserves should have access to electricity. They can get electricity now through the use of their revolving fund if they pay 25 per cent of the loan as a deposit. I feel that when they have this revolving fund they ought to be able to get the full amount of the loan from the revolving fund, and then they can start to repay it. So far as my reserve is concerned, these are very good people. They are honest and they are industrious, in the main. Some of them are not too industrious but the vast majority are. They would pay off a debt like that without too much difficulty, because they are willing to work at all times and they get good pay. Some of them do not work steadily, but on the whole they work very well.
These Indians should be given more consideration in the matter of housing. I know that a lot of the houses are provided from the welfare fund belonging to the band. These houses are normally all built along the main road, the gravel road, that goes through the reserve. If there is only one road, they are dotted along the side of it. There is not sufficient room on my reserve along that road for all the houses. There are probably well over 1,200 people on the reserve, and they would need about 400 homes. There is no room along the road to build all these houses because there has to be some land connected with the house. There is no point in providing them with a home which is some distance away from the land which has been allotted them. These homes should be provided for them on their land, wherever it is. They
Interim Supply
should be provided with other things, but I do not believe the Indians should expect to have these things provided for nothing. They should work for them and they should have to repay a certain amount for the privilege of having the facilities that are provided.
I notice that my time has almost expired, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to mention that within the last few days I received a letter from the chief of the Six Nations band at Ohsweken, Ontario. He says that the administrators of the Lady Willingdon hospital are charging Indians for hospitalization. I do not understand this, because when Indians are ill in my part of the country they receive free treatment. They claim this as part of the agreement made when they signed the treaty with the Canadian government in the name of Queen Victoria. I should like to quote from the letter:
By explicit assurance, the Six Nations council were informed on May 24, 1956, that the Department of National Health and Welfare would in future cease sending accounts for medical services rendered until arrangements for a health plan were realized.
These people have received bills for hospitalization from the hospital in their district. I hope when the minister or his parliamentary secretary reply to some of the questions that have been asked they will tell us why the Six Nations band is being charged for hospitalization.
There was a news item in the Ottawa Journal for Friday, July 31 from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, in which it was stated that some 30 Indians were removed from residence in a motel because the accommodation was needed for other people. If there was not a good reason for removing these people from this accommodation, then I say this is a disgrace to Canada. I hope the minister will have the report investigated and tell us exactly what the true story is. The newspaper article refers to the fact the attorney general of Ontario is investigating a case, but since the federal government is responsible for Indian affairs I believe the federal government should investigate the matter. We are entitled to a report on that as well.
I know a great many people on this side of the chamber have a lot of things they wish to say about interim supply. I shall have more to say on other issues, but in the 30 minutes allotted me I cannot say more at this time. Therefore I thank you for allowing me a hearing, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this motion on interim supply has been before the committee

Interim Supply
since one week ago today and, judging by the remarks of the last speaker, it may be before us all the balance of this week as well. While the members of the official opposition decry the use of the word filibuster, so far this debate has had all the earmarks of a filibuster because the major part of the time for the past week has been taken up by the official opposition. I am not complaining about that; I merely want to point out some facts to see if we can find some solution to the impasse parliament has reached.
It is said that we must scrutinize the $700 million involved in this motion but, as each member of the committee knows, all these matters can be much more appropriately discussed on the estimates when they are called item by item, something which does not happen when an interim supply motion is before us. As a matter of fact, interim supply is usually used to raise major grievances and not to deal with individual departments. It is said that the reason for the long delay is that we are waiting for answers, but of course there have not been questions asked; there has not been any scrutiny during the past week of the different items before the committee. Instead there have been innumerable speeches all of which could equally well have been made on the first item of the estimates of each department.
The feeling one has in listening to this debate is that many of these speeches are being made for the sake of delaying the next item, or the item which will come after we deal with the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, namely the flag debate. I am not saying this in any criticism of the Progressive Conservative members. I am simply seeking to bring out into the light of day what I think is the real malaise in the House of Commons at the present time.
Members of the Progressive Conservative party, at least most of them, feel very honestly and strongly about the flag debate and the flag issue. There are certain things they would like to see in the flag; and while I do not share their views I certainly respect their right to advance their views and to register their opposition. But I think we might as well recognize the fact that the real impasse in the business of the Commons revolves around the flag issue, and if we can find some way of resolving that I am sure the House of Commons could get on with the business which should properly be before it.
As I said before, and I want to repeat very briefly, from the very beginning we in the

New Democratic party have felt that the government was making a mistake in introducing the flag issue at this time. We felt there were many much more important and vital issues before the Canadian people and the House of Commons. We felt that by introducing the flag question the government was very successfully blocking its own legislative program.
On June 3 the Prime Minister announced some 38 items he would like to have disposed of before a summer recess. Only by a great deal of discussion and debate did we finally get an agreement among all parties that there were six items which would have to be dealt with before we returned to the flag debate. It is now apparent that if the debate on interim supply is going to go all of this week, and then the second reading and committee stage of the federal-provincial fiscal relations measure goes on all of next week, followed by the flag debate, the house will be sitting well on into September and will probably carry on to Christmas.
I think we have to try to find a solution. In essence, the government has said "No flag, no recess," and the official opposition is saying no-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that I hesitate very much to interrupt his remarks at this time. I have assumed until now that the references he has made to the flag debate are merely introductory to the substance of the speech he wants to make, but I have some grave reservations as to whether the comments he has made until now are relevant to the resolution before the committee. The hon. member might wish to indicate to the Chair in what way these remarks are related to the resolution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly abide by your ruling, but I am not seeking to debate the flag. The motion on interim supply allows an hon. member to raise any grievance, and I am raising the grievance that the procedures we have adopted for the business of the house are delaying the passage of this motion and are holding up the business of the house. I did not rise for the purpose of arguing about the flag debate but with the idea of bringing forth some possible solution by which we might bring the present debate to a speedy conclusion. I was saying that the government's position is that if there is no flag decision made there will be no recess, and the official opposition is saying

that if there is no recess there will be no money voted, so we are in an impasse.
I suggest that when parliament reaches a stalemate there is only one way to resolve it, and that is for reasonable men to try to find a compromise by which each side will give way to some extent and find a solution. I am not suggesting a compromise because I think it is terribly important that we have a summer recess. I am just as anxious as any other hon. member to get back and spend some time in my constituency, but that is not of paramount importance. I am prepared, as I am sure other hon. members are, to stay here right through to Christmas if it would serve any useful purpose, but I am more concerned about the image which parliament is projecting on the Canadian scene.
I am concerned about the fact that parliament is declining in public esteem. The Canadian people know this country faces very major problems, know that we have on the order paper legislative programs which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with speedily, and they know that parliament is spending its time day after day, and it may be week after week, debating interim supply, and will later be spending still more time debating the flag question.
All of us have to be concerned about what happens to the public image of parliament. We are living in a fast moving age, and people expect parliament to be able to conduct its business with efficiency and dispatch. If the public ever lose faith in our parliamentary institutions, then we shall have done serious damage to democracy itself. Therefore all of us ought to be concerned, and I am sure many of us are, about this decline of parliament in public esteem.
I am not going to go into the question of the need for changes in our rules. We have set up committees for that purpose. What is needed most of all is a change in attitude by which we ourselves accept some measure of self discipline. This means that when we reach an impasse both sides should be willing to give way and reach some compromise that will enable parliament to conduct its business efficiently and effectively.
I say this without casting reflections on any person. I think those who hold strong views against a distinctive national flag do so honestly and sincerely, but I think the government-while it may have been in error when it introduced the flag issue-is with equal sincerity trying to get this matter brought to a head. Therefore I am offering this suggestion as a possible compromise, in the hope
Interim Supply
that the Prime Minister and his supporters and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and his supporters will give some thought to it.
I am suggesting two things; first, that the government be prepared to postpone the flag issue, after the amendment has been voted on, until the fall. I am suggesting that when we come to the flag debate we vote on the amendment which was moved by the official opposition, and then adjourn the debate until we meet some time in the fall.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not adjourn it now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the other hand, if the government will agree to that, I suggest that the opposition groups agree to an order of the house which would limit the debate on the flag, when it comes up, to a period of one week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is closure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There would be no value at all in postponing the flag debate unless when it does come up the time is limited; for if we are going to spend weeks on the flag debate we would be better to spend that time now, in what would normally be a recess, rather than taking up time this fall which ought to be devoted to some very important legislation, including the Canada pension plan, the railway legislation, a national labour code and other things which ought to be dealt with this fall.


Richard Russell Southam: And agriculture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And agriculture, yes. It seems to me this calls for concessions on both sides. The government has said it does not want to leave the flag debate until the fall. I think if they are prepared to give way on that point, we on this side of the house should be equally prepared to give way by agreeing that when the flag debate comes up it will be limited to a stated period of time. I am suggesting one week, but that is a matter, of course, for negotiation among the house leaders.
I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, without having any ulterior motive in mind or any sinister purpose. I and my colleagues are prepared to sit here as long as anyone else, but I do not think we are serving any useful purpose, and I certainly do not think we are serving democratic institutions well, if we have weeks of protracted debate simply for the sake of talking. I believe that a compromise could be worked out, if not by the house leaders then by a meeting of the party leaders, in order to get the business of parliament back on the rails, and to see if we

Interim Supply
cannot dispose quickly of this motion and the legislation dealing with federal-provincial relations, deal with the flag in so far as the amendment is concerned, then adjourn until the fall with an understanding that when we come back we will deal with the flag for only a limited period of time.
It seems to me this would partly serve the purposes and desires of both sides of the house. It would mean both would have to give way to some extent, but I think it would commend itself to the Canadian people if they saw parliament back working on important matters rather than appearing to be wasting time frivolously. We in this house do not want to be accused of being governed by childish petulance and wilful stubbornness. I think if we want to avoid that accusation we ought to try to find some common ground on which we could proceed together to do the public business efficiently and effectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I naturally have been very interested in the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I take it from the reaction of the Acting Prime Minister, who applauded the remarks of the hon. gentleman, that he is in agreement therewith. Indeed, there are in the house at the present time five ministers, at a time when we are discussing some $700 million of expenditures, and the reaction of these gentlemen would seem to indicate that the suggestion made by the hon. member is acceptable to them.
Certainly I am one of those who at all times have believed in the need of compromise in parliament while not sacrificing principle. If, as a result of what has been said by the hon. member-with the evident approval of the ministers opposite, who in applauding must have accepted the suggestion-this suggestion is acceptable, I would be most happy to meet with the Prime Minister at once in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member has spoken of the image of parliament. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. Today there are those who criticize parliament, who speak of its ineffectiveness and of its wastefulness of time. Those people have always been with us. I was particularly interested in the discussions that took place a week or so ago at the Couchiching conference. I was interested in the views expressed there, and particularly those of Dr. Crick, who recently wrote an

outstanding work on parliament. I have not the summary of it here, but I read it two or three weeks ago when it came out. Those who send to the library and secure that work will learn of the widespread criticism in the United Kingdom. I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He is a constitutional expert.


An hon. Member:: Sometimes.


John George Diefenbaker: I was interested in the expression of his views the other day, that while there is such a thing as cabinet solidarity that does not apply to parliamentary secretaries, who are required only to agree with the policies of the ministers of their own departments. That is a constitutional position that has no basis in fact and would be a dangerous expedient to be accepted by any parliament.
I am not debating that matter, sir, but I saw the charming countenance of the parliamentary secretary, and as he had been kind enough to give me his views in this connection I thought I would also give him my views in the same spirit of good fellowship that he always exhibits in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have referred to this book. It is of interest to read some of the views expressed therein, for as I deal with them I am also reviewing the Canadian position with regard to parliament. It is the responsibility of members of parliament to examine the expenditures of the government, and that is what is being done.
The hon. member indicates that only important matters, as he put it, should be dealt with. His major contribution in the course of this debate-I say this with the greatest of deference to the hon. member-had to do with the subject of taxis and taxi service at the Toronto airport. I am not criticizing him for dealing with that, but if only matters of transcendent national importance are to be considered at a time when $700 million of estimates are before the house, I would ask him to judge that contribution of his on the basis of his own measurement of this committee.
I have taken it upon myself today, while the debate has been going on, to look up what Mr. Ward, a professor at Saskatchewan university, had by say on the subject of the public purse, and it is very interesting. He says at page 252 of his book entitled "The Public Purse".
The new Auditor General.. .has suggested in his first report how the picture can be made clearer still.

This is in connection with estimates, sup-plementaries, and the like.
Like supplementary estimates, interim supply and governor general's warrants (both of which are explained in preceding chapters) could if improperly used almost destroy parliamentary control. Just as a government could evade unwelcome scrutiny by asking for supplementaries embodying important proposals at a time when parliament was preoccupied with some other weighty matter, or during the hot humid summer days when members are anxious to get away (and both of these events have been known to occur), so a government could time its requests for interim supply in such a manner that the House of Commons would have considerable practical difficulty in refusing. Sir Robert Borden, while prime minister, informed the house of one revealing experience he had had:
-and these are his words:
"I should like to say that I myself tried once, in opposition, under what I thought were somewhat serious circumstances, the policy of refusing any vote on account (that is, interim supply), and before ten days were over, I got very tired of my position, because I heard, I think, from every province and from nearly every community in Canada on the subject".
Then Mr. Ward continues:
Two safeguards protect the Commons, and thus the citizens, from almost all improper uses of interim supply nowadays.. .Interim supply, as W.S. Fielding and Sir Robert Borden agreed in the debate just quoted, can be voluntarily obtained only with the consent of the whole house; a fact which, paradoxically, forced the government in the same debate to impose closure in order to obtain any interim supply at all.
The hon. gentleman has spoken of compromise. In the days when he and I were members of this house before he left for the salubrious atmosphere of Saskatchewan to become the premier of that province there was a spirit of compromise shown by Mr. Mackenzie King. Mr. Ward's book deals with this in these words:
Two clear demonstrations of the house's power over interim supply have been seen in modern times: in 1942, Mr. J. L. Ilsley, while minister of finance in a government supported by a large majority, asserted that interim supply was "wholly within the control of the opposition, not of the government," and reduced a request for interim supply in half, taking one twelfth instead of one sixth, in the face of resistance from the opposition; and in 1956-
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, with that acute memory which he possesses, will recall the pipe line debate of that year.
-as a by-product of the momentous pipe line debate and the subsequent motion of non-confidence in the Speaker in June of that year, the government found itself almost out of funds and at the mercy of the opposition. No one who witnessed that sitting of the house could have any doubts of the power of the weapon which the
Interim Supply
members held, until spokesmen of the various opposition parties made clear that they had chosen to lay it down.
There are further quotations I could place before the committee which clearly indicate the great responsibility resting on members to get information. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said "Oh, we can wait until the estimates come in". He is certainly filled with optimistic hope in view of the rate of action of this government in bringing forward estimates, a matter I intend to place on record. In this regard it is the worst record in Canadian history. The government has failed to bring the estimates before this house. It is a record which brings about a diminution of respect on the part of people for parliament. The hon. member has said' that the image of parliament diminishes. I sometimes wonder whether the degree to which that trend is apparent is the result of managed news or managed information regarding parliament, but I will deal with that on another occasion.
Parliament can never be effective unless full information on its activities is available. Parliament can never be effective if what goes over the airways and what appears on television is selective information. I emphasize that because I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, one of the fine exponents of television art, will concur with that view. Indeed, I am not here to be flattering, but I always listen to him on television because he displays that same graciousness which he always shows in this house.


Mr. Pepin:: I had better leave.


John George Diefenbaker: No, don't go away. Perhaps the hon. gentleman finds himself too close to the Minister of Justice, who himself has not in his period of time shown the same regard for parliament as the parliamentary secretary who sat beside him a moment ago.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member does not like sitting next to me because I can see his blushes.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no danger of the Minister of Justice blushing over compliments about the way he has been carrying on. Of course I also say of him that he is gracious no matter how arbitrary he may be.
Dr. Crick whom I mentioned a moment ago went on to say:
By comparison with the popular assembly of almost any other free country, parliament has fallen hideously behind the times both in its procedures and in the facilities that it extends to its members, and there is good ground for thinking

Interim Supply
that it would benefit from some fairly drastic internal alterations and repairs which would go far beyond mere patching. Despite the general complacency of M.P.'s themselves, there has been evidence lately of public concern: flare-ups of indignation and mockery in the popular press, worried soul searchings and reassurances in the heavier papers.
I am not going to mention that we have had similar experiences, nor endeavour to define which of the Canadian papers would qualify as the heavier ones. He continues:
Parliamentary reform has actually become a newsworthy topic. Some M.P.'s are aware of a growing scepticism, even hostility, certainly bewilderment, among the public; but the house as a whole seems to react only by an increasing touchiness about "privilege"-
This indicates that the same criticism we have, and it is healthy that there should be criticism, is taking place in the United Kingdom.
While the rules in the United Kingdom, as here, are not as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians they are subject to change: parliaments are loathe to change the rules. I am speaking of the British parliament, which was good enough to assure the survival of freedom through two world wars.
The author then deals with the levels of confusion in the public's mind and says:
Parliament is to be seen as a form of publicity- its real functions are those of alerting and informing the public on matters relevant to the decision which way (or whether) to vote.
The power of parliament lies in its means and right to control the cabinet in respect of expenditures it makes, and to ensure that the imposition of taxation shall be carefully examined and scrutinized; because governments, even though they are minority governments, become arrogant. They do not like to be examined, and they do not like to answer questions. I am going to refer to the number of questions that have been asked during the last week and then point out the fact that we have not been able to get any answers. I do not know where the ministers are.


An hon. Member:: Europe.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been an indication in answers to questions that one has sought the sweetening climate of Capri. While parliament sits he suns. When questions are asked he is not here to answer them. It is a strange development that is taking place among the ministers opposite. We saw the beginning of this during the debate on the defence bill, when the minister of defence refused to answer the questions of the opposition, or simply disdained to answer. We have seen this attitude on several subsequent

occasions. Only Friday I asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Agriculture was speaking for the government when he announced in Prince Edward Island that loan legislation would be brought in in order to permit groups of farmers to buy farm machinery under the best possible circumstances for them. The name of the legislation was given by the minister outside the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said, apparently not knowing what the Minister of Agriculture had said, that an announcement of policy will be made in the house.
This attitude has been held in respect of various departments, and it continued during the past week. How many questions were asked last week? The computer shows the number of questions asked on Monday as 148, on Tuesday 32, on Wednesday 3, on Thursday 12 and on Friday 37, a total of 232. How many answers have we received? We have not received one answer, and have not seen any endeavour made to answer the questions. The hon. member for Vegreville has asked, about $700 million? It has been suggested that we wait until later on when the estimates come in, at which time we will be given further information. We actually have not even been told that, and I should like to know the reason.
The first principle that is enunciated by every parliamentary authority is that governments shall answer questions during the debate on interim supply. Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada-and I use the word "dominion" advisedly even though some would establish a republic here and do not like the word-states as follows:
One of the principal purposes of the House of Commons is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditure; and the committees of supply and ways and means are the parliamentary machinery through which the house chiefly exercises these political and constitutional functions.
Durell says the chief functions of the House of Commons "-are to criticize, discuss and amend, and finally approve or disapprove of the policy of the government as laid before it". In order to carry out this function it is necessary that members are given full information and freedom to discuss various issues. We are asking for information. I say to you, sir, there is no filibuster in the demand of the opposition for its constitutional right to have information from the government, which sits there, if it is present at all, silent and contemptuous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The bedrock on which the parliamentary system is built is the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes. Durell has summed that up in these words:
-the House of Commons should control the finance of the country...It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries, beginning from the fourteenth century down to the seventeenth century, when it was fully confirmed and since then it has never been practically disputed.
It has not been disputed, but it has been arrogantly flouted by this government which has refused to answer questions. I intend to place before this house some of the questions that have been asked in respect of which answers and information have been refused. I realize that the committee of supply, which is the chief apparatus through which the House of Commons makes effective its absolute control over the expenditures of government, is not the most effective body. The hon. member mentioned the fact that speeches are made by members. That is true. It is not the most effective body but through the generations it has proven to be the best there is in that connection.
However, there are some who suggest that greater attention should be given to committees in parliament. It is of interest that on Friday last the house leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition asked this question with regard to the business of the house:
Will the government, In response to the many requests made from this side of the house, refer three or four departments of estimates to special or standing committees?
Sir, why will they not do so? Are they afraid they will have to answer if these estimates go before committees? Is that why they go ahead in the house behind a smokescreen?


William Heward Grafftey: They want to charge the opposition with obstruction.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason? The reason they are not answering questions is simply that they want to lead the people to believe that the opposition is frustrating them. That is what they are trying to do. The only frustration to parliament consists in hon. gentlemen sitting opposite who apparently do not want to answer. Certainly they have not answered. Is it because they do not know the answers? In all the years I have been in the house I have never known any government which has refused any 20220-399
Interim Supply
answers to parliament to the same extent. Never before has this happened. What are they trying to do? Was not the first question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre a reasonable one? Certainly some departments have been sent to committees. The Department of External Affairs-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the only one.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the only one. Are they trying to have an examination made? Last Tuesday one of the members of the press gallery said that the opposition was engaged in a filibuster. That is what he said on Tuesday, one day after the discussion got under way. He has been backtracking ever since. Finally he came out and said: There will be no more trouble in this connection because there is division in the opposition, or the Leader of the Opposition is going to change his attitude. I have no attitude except to see that parliament works as parliament should work, rather than being frustrated by a government which would emasculate this institution for its own purposes.
This was the next question asked by the house leader of the official opposition:
Will the government give an undertaking to the house that for the remainder of this session at least two full days a week will be set aside for a discussion of the main estimates, as has been the practice in other sessions?
I am going to place on the record what has been the practice. Just imagine. On the 118th day of the session the government has not brought a main estimate before the house. What manner of subterfuge is this on the part of the government? What are they hiding? What are they concealing? The next question was:
If neither of these plans is followed, will the government let us know when during this session the main estimates are to be considered and how much time will be made available for that purpose?
What was the answer? The new Minister of National Revenue as acting house leader stated that he could not answer because consultation was necessary. What is the reason for this? Is this a campaign of silence? Give us the answers. Give us replies to the questions asked before you ask the House of Commons to say to you that for the next two months you have got $700 million to do with what you like. I cannot say to the government house leader, what happened in the past, because he was not here; but I ask other ministers with experience: Why do you do this to parliament?

Interim, Supply
I listen to the so-called objective observations that are broadcast over radio and television. Some of them, so far as spontaneity is concerned, appear to be inspired by the government of the country. Sir, on Friday 23 questions were asked the ministers and 18 suggestions, recommendations or charges were made, but not an answer was given. What is the reason?
Up to the present time I have quoted textbook authorities. I shall quote one more and then I will quote the present Prime Minister. Mr. Bourinot in his book entitled Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, has this to say on page 423:
On going into committee of supply or ways and means it is the practice for members to ask questions of the government, but when a minister has replied it is not regular for him to speak again until a new question is proposed from the Chair...
If we waited until replies were received there would just be the question and then there would be a vote. Why this conspiracy of silence? Why this attempt on the part of the government to hide the facts from the Canadian people? Many commentators I have read are saying it is common to pass interim supply perfunctorily. That was not the view of hon. gentlemen sitting opposite in 1962. They took seven days on $300 million. Were the parliamentary rules not in effect in December, 1962? What did the Prime Minister say at that time?
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored-
You can just hear him as he emphasized each of those words.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: No, not now.


George James McIlraith: -would the right hon. gentleman give the page reference?


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon. It is page 2834. I am sorry I am not able to quote the hon. gentleman in this connection because he remained silent during those days. The Prime Minister went on to say:
When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward its destruction.


An hon. Member:: Seven days for $300 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, acting as prime minister, and to the government: Physician, heal thyself. When parliament does not get information it is violated.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would permit a question on the quotation he has made-


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


George James McIlraith: -in which he quoted the words "these rights are being violated". Would he agree with me that the rights that were being discussed then concerned the right of parliament to have a budget brought before it for examination?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has earned the applause of those who sit around him because they do not realize that he was as close to the facts in that question as he usually is. Here are the words:
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made.
This is what he was talking about, and then he said:
When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated-
Then, we find these words:
No matter how wide a circulation we give and no matter in what form, to the bill of rights, and no matter how much we may talk about Magna Carta and the bill of rights, no matter how emotionally we may wrap ourselves up in parliamentary or national flags-
Those are pertinent words, "no matter how emotionally we may wrap ourselves up in parliamentary or national flags"-
-both these rights I have mentioned are being deliberately and systematically violated by the present government.
I never knew before I would be able to pay such tribute to the Prime Minister's vast power to look ahead because, as the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam has said, the flag question plays a large part in the Prime Minister's plan for the people of Canada. Yet at the same time, on the order paper, there are a great many matters that deserve attention and which have been shoved aside. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot-hon. gentlemen on the other side laugh. Their contribution in that corner has never been greater than the depth and importance of their laughter.
These hon. gentlemen pointed out the serious situation of agriculture in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada. What is the answer?


William Heward Grafftey: Let them eat cake.


John George Diefenbaker: They answer with silence; there has been no answer.


Clément Vincent: Watching closely.


John George Diefenbaker: Why emphasize one matter at the expense of the others? Look at these matters on the order paper which are not going to be dealt with, and yet there was no reference to the flag in the speech from the throne. Rome was not built in a day, but a flag was planned for Canadian people in a rush in nine days. Why this haste? Everything is being shoved aside, and parliament and its functions are being circumscribed. Parliament has ceased to be an instrument whereby the opposition can secure information simply because the Prime Minister and those associated with him want to bring about something that will not improve the economic conditions of Canadians today and will not meet the problems that have been brought before this house in the last week or during this session.
It is a serious commentary on a government that is trying, with those who give it their support, to lead the Canadian people into believing the opposition is holding things up. I spoke on the opening day of interim supply. I dealt with a serious situation in connection with the board of trustees. I asked questions that Canadians had a right to have answered. There was not one answer, not one word. I asked for an opportunity to examine these trustees in a committee of parliament. There was not one answer, just uncertainty. Here we have $700 million in expenditures which we cannot hope to examine in detail. We have the right to ask for redress of the things we say are wrong. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is not here today, but veterans affairs have been mentioned. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked questions in connection with the serious derogation of rights of individuals.
What about the questions asked by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories and the plans to save millions for Canadian taxpayers? What about questions asked by one hon. member after another? Is this what you call parliament? The government sits-I am not going to say "thinks"-the government sits and, yes, thinks it is going to get away with this. I want to thank the hon. member for Wellington South for furnishing me with a survey of the sessions 1955-56; 1959-60 and 1960-61, all of them non-election years. This survey indicates the time required to deal with the main estimates amounts to 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the total number of sitting days. We have not had these estimates as yet. For what reason are they kept back? All the government does is say to us, 20220-399J
Interim Supply
"gimme, gimme, gimme", in advance. It will not bring in these main estimates.
That was the record in the past. In so far as this session is concerned, 15 departments have been called and 2 have been completed, agriculture and post office. The estimates of external affairs have been transferred to the standing committee on external affairs. The estimates of public works have been before the committee for one day. There are 11 other departments that have been available for consideration since the supply motions of April 21, May 5 and May 26. Six more departments will be called after two more supply motions have been called. The departments that have been called so far are citizenship and immigration, labour, northern affairs and national resources, and industry. I should like to look into that department. All one has to do is to look at the answer given today to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, to see what is happening under this government. There has been a multiplication of positions. It used to be said that rabbits multiply, but rabbits have nothing on this government.
Appointments made as a result of competitions organized by the civil service commission from May 1, 1963 to May 31, 1964 numbered 18,201. What manner of thing is this? These are appointments as a result of competitions and we have a multiplication of bureaucracy. Questions are asked and no answers are given, except today. This answer indicates there were 299 appointments in the Department of Forestry. Where is the Minister of Forestry?


An hon. Member:: Capri.


John George Diefenbaker: I have often heard romantic songs refer to that place.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I can answer the question as to where the Minister of Forestry is.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always glad to have answers from the hon. minister.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Forestry has been attending an international conference on forestry affairs, along with the corresponding ministers of 32 other nations, in Italy. The other countries invited were: Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Syria, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab

Interim Supply
Republic, United Kingdom, the U.S.A. and Yugoslavia.


John George Diefenbaker: The impossible has been achieved; an answer has been secured. Today the dominion bureau of statistics reports federal employment increased by 4,032 over March 1963. That increase was as follows: national defence, 2,181, post office 2,368, national revenue, income tax branch 2,652-I thought when we were in office we had enough income tax officers and officials-public works 414, secretary of state 135-I would think they had enough in that department before they started to increase the number-trade and commerce, bureau of statistics branch, 629.
This is the government which says it has solved unemployment. There are a few less unemployed than when we were in office, but they do not refer to that any more. The unemployment insurance commission increased by 1,517. I wonder what they are doing. What was the reason for the increase? When I mention increases I point out that is the number appointed as a result of competitions, and no doubt there have been some withdrawals. Sir, nothing else has been achieved. Now we have got an answer from the minister. It was the first time he has ever been able to answer a question but he was fortified by the civil service providing him with that list of countries.
During this session only eight days have been allotted for main estimates, that is, only one third to one half the time normally given to main estimates during the first 110 days of a session. Then they ask why we ask questions. Just imagine that. Sir, parliament operates in co-operation, but if one side says, "We are just going to let the opposition ferret things out on their own; we are not going to answer any questions" then parliament becomes a hollow shell. It becomes a caricature of its responsibilities, and that is what is happening. We ask for these answers, and we will ask for these answers. I make that formal request now, that the ministers who are absent, either with or without leave, answer the questions asked. I have a list of questions which I will put on the record on a later occasion when I speak again, if necessary. I told you the number that has been asked and of all the hundreds of questions that have been asked one has been answered.


Mr. Winkler:: How many days did that conference last?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was an incomplete answer.


John George Diefenbaker: We will have to have the minister tell us how many days this conference will last. Possibly he will have this information and I shall sit down immediately to enable him to furnish it. What are the dates on which the conference is held? When did the minister leave and when will he return? These are simple questions that the President of the Privy Council should have no difficulty answering. Is the minister now ready to depart from the customary manner adopted by the government and tell us how many days was the conference?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not ready to depart from the customary procedure. If the Leader of the Opposition wants this information it can be obtained for him and put on the record in the proper way. That will be done. I can tell him that the main part of the conference lasted for three days, and I will get, and give him the rest of the information.


John George Diefenbaker: According to my computations he has been gone a longer while than the time to allow him to get over there and back. Where is he now?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Capri.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister expressed his view that if he were to rise to answer questions he would be departing from the rules of parliament. Isn't that a new one?


George James McIlraith: No, I did not say that. The right hon. gentleman ought not to misquote.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, one cannot misquote anything that has never been said. Well, I declare. "Don't misquote" said the minister. I wanted him to give the information and then he says, "Put it on the order paper and we will answer it". What a record that is. We had an example of it today. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm asked a question. He asked it as a starred question on February 25, five and a half months ago. Then the government brings it along today and passes it as an order for return. A lot more questions will be referred to that have not been answered.
We asked the government to give the answers to the questions we have asked. Questions asked by members of the Social Credit party have received no answer. I see I now have the support of one member from that party. It is not holding up parliament to demand information.
What are they concealing? What are they hiding? What about the labour department? What about Banks? There was a short answer

given about Banks. They do not know to the same extent where he is as they do the Minister of Forestry. What of these trustees? They are going to decide whether they are going to appear before parliament.
All of this adds up simply to one fact, that this government has something to hide. It does not want the Canadian people to have the information we have requested. Somebody has to take the responsibility of an opposition to ask these questions. The only answer is the echo of filibuster. Was there a filibuster on the part of the Liberal party in December 1962 when it took eight days on $300 million? When is a filibuster a filibuster? Apparently when a Liberal is in the government position but not when he is in opposition.
I come back, sir, to the point where I started, by saying we are not trying to hold them up. We are trying to get them to give parliament information. I hope for once it will be reported to the Canadian people, the hundreds of questions that have been asked, and the answers given to only two.
Sir, I am not going into particulars as to questions asked, but I am asking this government to give the house answers to these questions between now and Wednesday. They are not going to get away with a policy of hiding, of concealment, of unaccustomed taciturnity. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is a man who has a capacity for language, and I am sure that if we asked him these questions we would have some answers, even though-I am sure he will take this in the kindest spirit-only a person with a dictionary knowledge and a capacity for imagination would be able to actually ascertain the answer when he had spoken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to-


Gordon Minto Churchill: To answer questions.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -reply in kind to my right hon. friend. I can well understand the satisfaction that he gets out of the kind of debating effort in which he has just indulged. I have done the same thing on some occasions myself when speaking from that side of the chamber. I can very well understand the psychological impulses, and other impulses, that cause a man to speak for such a long time without really saying too much.


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


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I say that to my right hon. friend in the generous spirit in which a few moments ago he addressed himself to me. He and I do not agree on many things, but we have a certain empathy which allows us to understand why it is not possible for us to have full agreement. But he did ask one question, Mr. Chairman, and I simply want to say, in giving him the reply, that there were 1,684 questions on the order paper, out of which some 1,554 have been answered. That is almost 92 per cent.


Guy Favreau: It is more than 92 per cent.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I believe that constitutes a record. Of the 130 remaining, 80 have been put on the order paper since as late as July 20.


John George Diefenbaker: How many since April?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not made that calculation, but I will be very glad to make it for my right hon. friend. But what I rose to do, Mr. Chairman, was not to endeavour to reply to the right hon. gentleman in all of the particulars which he mentioned, but to say to him that we have before us a suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. It was, I am sure, a constructive suggestion and one that was put forward by that hon. gentleman because he feels that parliament must get on with the business before it.
It would be possible for me to offer arguments in answer to my right hon. friend. I could refer him to speeches that have been made on both sides since I have been in this house and since he has been in this house. But at the present time the mood of the nation does not lend itself to an encouragement of this kind of activity in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While I do not believe that every public criticism of the manoeuvring that goes on in parliament is always justifiable, I do believe that at this time all of us on the government side, the official opposition and the other parties, have a responsibility to the very institution of parliament itself, which responsibility we should face. It was because the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam felt this was the case that he put forward a suggestion that might enable us, without in any way interfering with obligations in opposition, to proceed with the public business with greater dispatch. The hon. gentleman has made a suggestion. I will see that suggestion is brought

Interim Supply
to the attention of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been engaged in public business in his own constituency today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are going to carry it back to the Prime Minister.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: When he returns tonight I will see that this suggestion is put before him. I will also call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that, while my right hon. friend did not in any way respond to the suggestion-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He did.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -he did say he
would meet with the Prime Minister at the earliest moment.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a response.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That is a response, but that is not a direct reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the hon. gentleman making a direct reply now?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am not saying that the right hon. gentleman had an obligation to make an immediate response; I am simply saying the only response he did make was that he would be happy to meet with the Prime Minister on this matter. But I did notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


An hon. Member:: He hasn't spoken.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -did not accept for his party the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. As far as those of us on this side are concerned, including myself, I applauded the hon. gentleman for Burnaby-Coquitlam because I thought he made honestly a constructive suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Will you accept it now?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, my right hon. friend asks if I will accept it. I would want to give it consideration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -as my right hon. friend would expect, because the Prime Minister of the country is out of the house at the moment. But this matter will be brought to his attention. This worthy suggestion is one that will be carefully considered not only by the Prime Minister but by his colleagues in the government. That is what a suggestion of
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
that kind warrants and merits, and will receive.
What I do say to the right hon. gentleman is this. I could indulge now in debate with him point for point with regard to the various points he has raised; but this would settle nothing. It would satisfy the debating instincts of the right hon. gentleman and myself, but it would not satisfy the Canadian people at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No one denies that the opposition has the responsibility to examine the expenditures proposed by the government. No one denies that the granting of interim supply lies, in the final analysis, with the opposition. No one denies the right of the opposition to scrutinize to the hilt every proposed expenditure-


John George Diefenbaker: And to get information.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -that is put forward by the government. No one denies that, and that is not in issue. My right hon. friend does injustice to parliament itself when he suggests there is any contrary view. But I do say to my right hon. friend seriously that he is an officer of this house, and when parliament is attacked within and without, those of us who have been in this house for a long time, who treasure this institution and who have made our contribution to it according to our talents, must not in any way unwittingly be parties to the process of destruction that is going on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Remember your dates.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I said at the outset that I remember sitting where my right hon. friend is sitting, or close by, and doing what I could to criticize the government of which he was the head. I played my part in the attack, but the records of this house will show, I think, that there were at least limits, and I suggest that we have reached those limits now.


John George Diefenbaker: There were no limits.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My right hon. friend says there were no limits, but I would put to him this. The test of statesmanship is not to give tit for tat, not to say: "Because you did this we are going to do it". I would say to my right hon. friend now, let us acknowledge that we have had a worth-while suggestion made, a suggestion that we should carefully consider. Let us examine that suggestion on its merits not because we have in our memories the shades

of events in the past. Let us devote ourselves now to the public business. If we do that we will find that our political interests will not suffer. The political interests of the government or of the opposition groups will not suffer because a few less speeches are made. I urge that we examine this proposal. We on this side will certainly examine it. I know the Prime Minister will be desirous of giving it very careful consideration. I would invite my right hon. friend, who has-I hope he has- the authority for directing the course of the official opposition, to give now the kind of leadership, along with the leadership which the Prime Minister of this country will give, which would assist us in getting down to the public business, and showing the nation that this institution of parliament is destined to continue and flourish in its present form for a long time, an institution which must continue because it is the guarantor of the liberties we cherish.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is noticeable that none applaud that peroration more than some who sit opposite and who destroyed parliament during the pipe line debate by their contempt for parliament. Naturally they applaud today the pontifical statements of the hon. gentleman; but he did fail to do one thing. He failed to remove all the underbrush. Ask yourself this question, Mr. Chairman: Did he say that we were going to get answers to the 232 or more questions which we asked last week and which up to the present time have been contemptuously disregarded by ministers, most of whom are absent?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the secretary of state. I should like to ask him whether, in view of the remarks he has just made, he would recommend to the leader of his party that he withdraw the two flag resolution?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend knows that the answer to that is clearly, no.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee was suitably touched by the sweet reasonableness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I am wondering just on what premise he could stand up in this committee and say the things which he did. He now says that, now that the Liberals are in government let everybody be sweetly reasonable and make sure that we go ahead so that the Liberals can remain in power. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was the man who when in opposition said: "Any
Interim Supply
means we shall use to bring down this government". We remember those words. Any tactics were justified when the Liberals were in opposition. But now they are in government parliament must reform and put such matters aside. Were those tactics reprehensible in the hands of the Liberal opposition if today hon. gentlemen opposite say they are reprehensible in the hands of the present opposition? However I will not indulge in any long exchange in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, we have reached the 118th day of this session. The past week has been used in the study of the estimates of certain departments on a cohesive, logical basis. Speeches were made by members of the opposition-and an opportunity also existed for government members-which would have been made on the first item of those departments. The reason is quite clear, and I do not intend to repeat the statistics quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam conveniently glossed over the performance in December, 1962, and prior to his entry into this parliament the performance of some of the more experienced members opposite, in the consideration of supplementary estimates and interim supply during the period when the Liberals were in opposition. I know we hear shouts of "filibuster", and that sort of thing, but they are from members whose experience here dates from last year and whose contributions have been even shorter.
I have found a lack of logic on the part of certain commentators and editorial writers who ask-I believe this was also raised at the Couchiching conference-what is the role of the backbencher; and then we see those thunderous ukases on the editorial pages to the effect that the backbencher is nothing but a tame individual subject to the party whip and that instead he should assert his independence; that if he fails to agree with the party stand he should stand up and say so. In the so-called spirit of the words of the hon. member for Northumberland, he should disagree. Well, Mr. Chairman, how does one disagree but by speaking and expressing his point of view?
On the other hand these selfsame editorial writers and others are saying that parliament must get on with the dispatch of the public's business, and get on with it at a most amazing speed. I notice that some editorial writers feel that if they agree with government policy, then further discussion is unnecessary; that as long as you are on the side of the majority then opposition to that majority is negligible and should be stifled; that as long as one

Interim Supply
agrees that anyone who disagrees must not be heard at length, this is acceptable.
I am touched by the stand taken in certain newspapers which suggest we have now spoken, should cease this discussion, vote and get on to something else. These people are not here. They like to use high sounding phrases which they polish in their ivory towers. I should like to see some of them come here and acquire some knowledge about this institution. I disagree entirely with these people who spend their time denigrating this institution. Certainly it has its faults: We are human beings.
There certainly is a logical process in criticism. One may diagnose and as a result of the diagnosis identify a disease, but unless he prescribes for the disease all he has done is engage in some philosophical exercise. Nowhere do we see any concrete suggestions, which we would undoubtedly welcome. After all, this house is not composed of perfect mortals. I believe a realization of the purpose of this chamber and its organization, as in respect of any democratic system, will show that there can be delays. The delays certainly are not as bad as they are made out to be.
I should like to see a great deal more emphasis placed on those things this parliamentary system has contributed to the good of the country rather than on isolated instances where mistakes have been made. Let us emphasize that which has been done right, for a change, rather than those few wrongs that exist. I am not trying to curb the right of criticism but I think one must be constructively critical.
I suggest the proposal of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in regard to the discussion that is now taking place is inaccurate, and I cannot accept his premise that I am participating in this debate in an attempt to postpone something else. I should like to discuss the estimates of certain departments and have not had an opportunity to do so. I should like to discuss these estimates, in the same way as some members who are not present in this chamber today discussed items before granting supply and continued to discuss them until they were satisfied.
I should like to refer to the former member for Laurier, who has departed this chamber, and who on many occasions asserted that he had something to say and intended to say it. This is the right and purpose of an elected member to this house. I feel certain that any reasonable man who will think about this suggestion will agree with me.
I have repeated on many occasions that a simpler procedure in dealing with these

estimates is to send them to various committees for study. Many of the standing committees were organized late in the session. I feel they were organized at a snail's pace and a good many of them are merely window dressing. These committees do exist on paper but have not met to do any work. Certainly it would have been easy to send the estimates to them for consideration. The estimates of at least two or three departments might now have been studied by the estimates committee.
Some members complain about a conflict in attendance at committee meetings and that members have been named to too many committees. I quite honestly feel that our committees as organized have too many members, thus making them unwieldy. Why should a standing committee have 45 to 60 members? I do not feel these committees should have more than 15 members. We know the difficulties involved in a fully or well attended committee when each member has the right to speak and ask questions. How many questions can a member ask with cohesion during a two to four hours committee meeting? I think it would be much better to have 10, 15 or 20 members dealing with an examination of the estimates in an intelligent manner than to approach this examination from the point of view of using a blunderbuss or a doublebarrelled shotgun.
I am sure my experience indicates that we have had two or three times as much information in respect of these estimates in past years. I think one has only to consider the information provided in November of 1963, which of course was a difficult year when we sat from May until the end of December. In December the hopper was filled with main estimates in an attempt to complete our consideration before Christmas. Great pressure was brought to bear and many of the estimates of the departments received only cursory examination. No wonder these estimates were examined in detail at the first opportunity this spring, at which time opposition members were doing nothing less than that which would be done by hon. members opposite when they sat on this side of the chamber. However these youngsters who spend their time as gad-flies continue to shout "filibuster". I suggest that is utter nonsense. I think these members are doing a disservice by acting in this way.
I am well aware of the attitude taken by the more serious minded members on the opposite side when they were in opposition. That attitude was more constructive in the consideration of estimates. For the benefit of

those who have not sat in opposition I should point out that the feeling in 1958 was that government backbenchers had to learn their lessons by bitter experience. Many hon. members opposite do not subscribe to the theory of infallibility, yet their attitude is that because these expenditures are listed in the blue estimates book they are correct. When the chairman calls an item it is sacrosanct, and seven or eight members shout "carried, carried, carried". I suggest they are nothing but parrots on a perch.
I must say I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that the purpose and role of a member of parliament is that expressed byindividuals who should come here and learn a great deal more about this system. It is very easy to criticize glibly.
We can always run our neighbours' affairs better than we can our own. But let us be a little more humble about it.
Look at what we are doing. Under these circumstances we have been asked to grant further supply to the government. But the government has not been prepared to give answers. I have never heard of an instance of interim supply when there was not one minister prepared to answer. The opposition today is no less competent than the opposition of yesteryear and in those days those members put forward various meritorious points that were worthy of consideration. It is no less so today. I am sure I could get the Minister of Transport to nod his head violently in agreement on that point because when he was in opposition he certainly felt that any criticisms he made or any inquiries he directed were worthy of consideration and that any speeches he made on interim supply were worthy of consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman chose to refer to me and I should like to ask him this question. Does he not recall that, except for the occasion at the time we were in opposition when supply was asked for the tenth month and it was mathematically certain the estimates would never be brought before the house, we did not hold up interim supply at all? '


Norman Platt Lambert: This I disagree with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Look at the facts.


Norman Platt Lambert: All right, the hon. gentleman says they did not. We know what happened in 1962 in connection with estimates. We know
Interim Supply
what was discussed under the circumstances. The Liberal platform for the forthcoming election was primarily discussed, as it was in 1962 at the time of the supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are talking about interim supply.


Norman Platt Lambert: It was discussed on interim supply. The hon. gentleman and I disagree. I do not agree with him so let us indicate that we have agreed to disagree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about the facts?


Norman Platt Lambert: The hon. gentleman has stated his version of the facts and mine is different. Therefore we disagree.
Having said these things, I wish to turn to a particular department which unfortunately we cannot say should have been sent to a committee, because the government in its choice of the departments to be called has not yet called the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is unfortunate because I think that department should have been called and its estimates sent to the committee. The estimates were considered by the committee last year.
Under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Renfrew North we had a very useful examination of the policies and problems of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Since that time new issues have arisen and I am sure that in a relatively short time we could have had an appropriate discussion and exposure of these problems. We must never forget that until 1958 the discussion of veterans affairs was always a hit or miss proposition, subject to the bringing forward of a special resolution by the government to set up a special committee. Until 1958 it was not one of the standing committees of the house. It was a part of the 1957 platform of the Progressive Conservative party that veterans affairs would be made a matter of study by a standing committee of the house. This was implemented.
We remember that on March 16, a memorable day also because it was budget day, the Minister of Veterans Affairs chose to make a statement with regard to the government's policy concerning veterans hospitals and the relationship of those hospitals with municipal and provincial hospital authorities. There has been discussion with regard to that matter. On a motion to go into supply moved on April 20 the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre moved an amendment in the following terms:

Interim Supply
This house deplores the announced decision of the government to abandon its responsibilities for the administration of veterans hospitals by assigning and transferring certain veterans hospitals to provincial or municipal control, and further deplores the failure of the government to accept the request of the Royal Canadian Legion and other national veterans organizations that the administration and control of the veterans hospitals remain with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There followed a debate and the amendment was negatived. I do not wish to resurrect that debate, Mr. Chairman, because there was a decision of the house, but since that time when the question of veterans hospitals in this country was very much to the fore the matter has died down. But I do not think the problem has disappeared at all. I am sorry the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not present although I am glad to see his parliamentary secretary here.
What has happened in the interval in regard to this matter? I am very mindful of the recommendation last year of the veterans affairs committee that this whole question be discussed again before the committee, with the national veterans organizations, before the government came to a decision. The government obviously has not accepted that recommendation because it is in the process of coming to a decision. It made a statement through the mouth of the minister. Even though members of the veterans organizations were sitting in the gallery and due to see the minister later that afternoon, a decision was announced prior to the interview.
What has happened in the interval? We would like to get confirmation from the minister or from the government with respect to the situation in Calgary because Calgary seemed to be the most sensitive point. There had been a demand that Colonel Belcher hospital be turned over to the municipal hospital authorities under some proposition involving the province. I gather that this has now been abandoned. What about Edmonton? What is the state of negotiations with regard to the provision of chronic and domiciliary care? We see various snippets in the newspapers with regard to this matter, but just what is to happen? Even if we are told that no decision has been reached, at least there must be an indication with regard to the situation, but there has been an infernal silence with regard to the matter.
What about other centres? What about Sun-nybrook in Toronto? I understand that portions of the pavilions there have had civilian patients placed in them. To what extent has this been done and how is it working out? I think we are entitled to know this

before the whole system is committed. What about Ste. Anne de Bellevue? Are plans going forward for the replacement of those really outworn facilities? We all recognize they are inadequate. Just what has happened in this regard? There was a high intensity of interest last March and April when the government's decision was announced involving a change in policy. After all, the recommendations of the Glassco commission are very much before us. Where are we going? Many thousands of dollars, being one sixth of the annual budget for treatment services, are now in issue before the house.
I think the parliamentary secretary will recognize that we would not have to be talking and asking these questions in the house if the veterans affairs committee had been allowed to discuss these matters with the minister or his parliamentary secretary or the director of treatment services. Dr. Crawford has always been the most co-operative of witnesses. He has always been very helpful and most patient in listening to the points put forward by hon. members on both sides of the house who have an interest in veterans affairs. I am no professional veteran but, like so many other members who were of the right age at the right time, I saw service in our country's forces. We have an interest in our comrades in arms and in what facilities are provided for them.
After all, under the legislation we have on our books we say to a veteran, if you have a pensionable entitlement you are entitled to get service as quickly as possible. We have provided hospitals and we have provided staffs, good staffs. At this point I should like to say I do not agree with some of the implications in the minister's statement of March 16. I absolutely repudiate them. I must say that as his immediate predecessor I found these words passing strange coming from his mouth. This is my first opportunity of saying so. I feel those words would have been better left unsaid because I do not believe our veterans hospitals are approaching any state at the present of what was implied.
Be that as it may, our servicemen and women who have a pensionable entitlement are told, by law, they have certain rights. We cannot disturb those rights by placing these hospitals under municipal authority without ensuring that those rights will not be infringed upon. We know that at the moment there is tremendous pressure on all hospitals from the general public. In some areas you almost have to be an emergency

case before you can be admitted. The veteran is not an emergency case. The law says he does not have to be an emergency case to be admitted to hospital.
There is a provision also under the Pension Act for the veteran who wishes to be treated for a non-pensionable illness in a veterans hospital. You may say he has an advantage because he can gain admission if he has appendicitis or some other illness. If he were to wait on the general, public list, he would have to wait until the cows come home, literally. This is just a part of the general situation that faces us in connection with our general hospitals. However, under the provisions of the act, the veteran has been given the right to be admitted to a veterans hospital and to pay for it himself. Are we going to take that right away from him? The law has been in existence for a long time. This is one of those things the country has said it is going to give to the veteran because he offered his services. I feel it is a small recompense. Why try to get out of that by the back door?
I have not a closed mind in connection with the administration of hospitals in conjunction with municipal authority. In certain areas it has worked out very well. In so far as general administration and housekeeping are concerned, as well as affiliation with a teaching hospital such as the University of Alberta, I think the set-up at the Colonel Mewburn hospital does provide a fine framework within which the proper treatment of our veterans can be given. However, sometimes on week ends there is difficulty with admissions because people are absent on week ends. However, I believe that can be gotten around.
I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that we must get a report at the earliest opportunity from the Minister of Veterans Affairs in regard to this hospital situation. Frankly, I felt the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam was being naive this afternoon, with all due respect to him, when he said we will be able to discuss these things on the main estimates. When will that be-in December? We have to have two more supply motions before we get some of these departments before us. Has there been any indication when we are going to have these supply motions? Perhaps we will get them next November and these departments will be open to us in December. What chance will we have to discuss them at that time?
Negotiations on the hospitals will take place during the next five or six months. I think 20220-400J
Interim Supply
this committee is entitled to know what the present situation is. It is for this reason I repudiate any charge that this afternoon I am speaking because I want to defer some possible debate. I want to talk about veterans affairs. There are other departments about which we would have had a chance to speak if the estimates had been before us weeks ago. There are some things in connection with the Department of Justice upon which I should like to comment, and that is another department that has not been called. Then there is the Department of Transport, that great, monolithic department which should be before a committee. As I said before, you do not have to have 45 people in attendance at a committee meeting. If there are 10 or 12 people who are really dedicated to learning about that department, they can get on with the job. We would be getting more interest and better administration than we are at the present time.
I may be running close to the end of my time, Mr. Chairman, but there is one point I should like to make. The hon. member for York-Sunbury is going to speak about this. I want to refer to the prisoners of war, and primarily those from Hong Kong. At this point I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) who, on June 22, put forward a resolution during private members hour dealing with these prisoners. I think we had a worth-while discussion amongst the few who had the opportunity to speak. I must say I did not appreciate the official attitude of the parliamentary secretary to the minister in this regard. I know we had a job to do and, personally, I do not believe he felt this way. However, this was the official attitude taken toward the discussion. Something definitely has to be done now, and we should not wait for these Hong Kong prisoners of war to come forward. The experiences of these men is quite different. Their numbers are small, approximately 1,200 now. There should be an independent survey made on the initiative of the Department of Veterans Affairs or under the aegis of the pension commission to ascertain how these men are faring 20 years later. We do know their mortality rate has been much higher.
I am not talking about the statistics we must get to prove that a man is suffering from a pensionable disability. I feel it is absolutely essential that, from the pension point of view, from the point of view of administration and pension predictability in the event the same situation should recur, we should ascertain what the negative effects

Interim Supply
have been over the years on these men who were in their prime in 1941.
The Depuly Chairman: Order.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I be granted about two minutes to finish my peroration.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Platt Lambert: What has been the diminution in their capacity? Are they holding down second rate jobs or giving second rate performances as a result of this experience? I am not going to suggest this for myself, but some of my colleagues might: Are the prisoners of war from Europe giving a second rate performance? Immediately everybody might say, aye. Seriously, I should like to ask about the incidence of tuberculosis. Are these men going to be prematurely aged? Are we going to get more of these men needing domiciliary care under the war veterans allowance? The time to look into these cases is not when a man totters up to the pension commission and says, "Look, I am beat; will you look after me"? It is now, when you can give it more time. Look at him in his everyday surroundings, at how he is feeling, and see if his family life has been affected by these experiences. Has he been phychologically affected?
We have something to do here. This is one of the remaining tasks; and one can go further and say, let us look at the prisoners of war in Europe. I know some chaps who were knocked down in December 1939 and were still behind the wire in April 1945. I have seen men go wire-happy, which was the term used.


Mr. Francis:: Two minutes.


Norman Platt Lambert: Apparently the hon. member for Carleton finds these remarks a little extensive. I do not know what interest he may have in veterans but I do feel we should be doing something in this field, and anything we can get done in support of the proposal by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) would be a step forward.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this debate by unnecessary repetition but I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I noticed that the parliamentary secretary was taking notes and I think he is very eager to reply. We look forward to listening to his response to the plea made by the hon.

member for Edmonton West with respect to the question of policy in connection with veterans hospitals, the study with respect to Hong Kong veterans, and the consideration of the conditions and circumstances of those who were prisoners of war in Europe.
I know that the hon. member for Edmonton West in dealing with this question was dealing with a subject that is treated on a strictly non-partisan basis. I am sure there are veterans in all parts of the chamber who are equally concerned about government policy with respect to veterans hospitals, but unlike the hon. member for Edmonton West I do not take a hidebound attitude. I realize we are living under changing conditions and circumstances and that in the public interest there will be some changes and improvements. But like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I would like to make certain none of those changes or, shall I say, improvements with respect to administration and the use of buildings affect the rights of veterans to receive the treatment and care they are guaranteed by the veterans charter.
I do hope that consideration is given to the plea made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and previously by other hon. members, with respect to the study concerning the Hong Kong veterans, and the same applies to prisoners of war in Europe. These questions are all related and I know the parliamentary secretary is very interested in these problems. Another matter in which the Hong Kong veterans are particularly interested is getting a complete report on the disposition of the funds that were to be used for the alleviation of the circumstances of prisoners of war who suffered unusual hardship. With those brief remarks, and looking forward to hearing a reply on the part of the parliamentary secretary, I resume my seat.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Edmonton West for raising the matters of veterans. As he has pointed out, there have been no meetings of the veterans affairs committee so far this session, and so this does provide the opportunity to bring up one or two matters of urgent interest. It is not my intention to discuss the business of the house. That has been ably done by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and others. Dealing with veterans affairs I would like to discuss a special group who are very dear to my heart, namely the Hong Kong veterans.
It is said that when a member of parliament is elected he should first work in the national interest, and second he should work

for the interests of his constituents; but I am sure that every hon. member, in addition to performing those two tasks, has certain groups in whom he is deeply interested. In my particular case for the last 20 years I have been deeply interested in the welfare of the veterans of our nation, veterans of the two world wars, of the Korean conflict, and those few who are left of the Boer war.
The matter of the Hong Kong veterans is a pressing one. It is a specially touching one because I think, of all the men who served in world war II those who were taken prisoners by the Japanese suffered more than any others. Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton West, who was a gallant officer and was taken prisoner at Dieppe, or the hon. member for Yorkton who was also a prisoner, or the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, or the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, who did not suffer under the Japanese but under the Germans, would disagree. Because I come from a part of Canada that provided one of the regiments that served in Hong Kong, the Royal Rifles-the other was the Winnipeg Grenadiers-and because many of my kin served in Hong Kong and many did not return, due to brutality, torture and starvation, I am deeply interested in this group.
Over the past six or eight months I and a few others have been talking to those men who were prisoners of war at Hong Kong. They have submitted many facts to us in writing, and of course we ourselves know many of the facts. We know there were roughly 1,900 men there. We know that 300 were killed in the fighting of December 1941. But I think many people are too prone to forget that there were more than 300 Canadians who died of starvation, brutality and rough treatment in prison camps. It is on their behalf I speak now for a few minutes in this debate, and I make no apology for bringing their case forward at this time.
What have these ex-prisoners of war said? I would like to quote some of the things they have written to me, and I may say that all of these facts can be substantiated. They have said:
All Hong Kong veterans at the time of return from imprisonment showed the adverse effects of their experiences in varying degrees. The treatment which was provided then and subsequently has in many instances been beneficial but in many cases disability, either physical or psychological, remained. With the passage of time, the condition of many of these veterans has in fact deteriorated and it is the contention.. .that compensation in the nature of disability pensions has not shown an appropriate corresponding increase. In addition, that treatment for disability at D.V.A. treatment
Interim Supply
centres across Canada varies and should be brought to a uniform level.
The brief from which I am reading goes on to say that the diseases which occurred when they were prisoners of war and the complaints they have had since would seem to be of a permanent nature.
The reports which have appeared in medical literature show that the effects resulting from malnutrition and other diseases suffered by these veterans while P.O.W.'s are widespread and involve all body systems (central nervous system, cardiovascular system, genito-urinary system, gastrointestinal system etc.). It is the contention of the association that many diseases which have subsequently arisen among these veterans may well be related to the service-incurred disability. Particularly with reference to coronary disease, the association feels that the high incidence of this disease among Hong Kong veterans strongly suggests that there is a relationship with service-incurred disability and that evidence to the contrary is lacking.
The psychological stresses to which Hong Kong veterans were subjected during their period of imprisonment were severe and long continued. Four years of rough treatment, beatings and constant threat of torture in many forms, stress of undernourishment, inadequate clothing along with forced labour under intolerable conditions have left hidden personality scars which continue to lower these veterans' ability to adjust into normal civilian life.
I suppose other members have talked to those who have come back. There is the case of a young lad whom I knew very well; I taught him in school during my teaching career. This young lad was beaten to death by the Japanese with rifle butts because he did not obey an order. A year or so ago there was a series of programs on the C.B.C. radio, one of which dealt with the case of a prominent lady from Toronto who was in Singapore at the fall of that city and was taken prisoner. With her indomitable spirit she not only kept up the spirits of the other prisoners but perhaps kept alive many of those who were in prison camp with her. When she was released she was down to half her normal weight; she was covered with sores and scars. One of the things to which she had been subjected, according to her statement made on the radio, was the taking out of her teeth by the Japanese, without anaesthetic and with just a chisel and hammer. This is the kind of treatment to which these people were subjected. I suppose every one of us who has spoken to these men and women who were prisoners of war of the Japanese would have similar factual stories to relate.
I think in all the history of mankind the blackest chapter in the history of our civilization occurred in the ten years between 1935 and 1945 in Hitler's Germany, with

Interim Supply
the treatment of European Jewry. There is nothing to compare with that particularly black chapter in the history of mankind, when those people were stripped of all dignity and tortured and beaten to death. The same sort of thing happened to these men and a few women-not too many women-who were taken prisoner in Hong Kong; and, of course, to many, many women and thousands of male civilians and soldiers who were taken prisoner at Singapore and elsewhere in the Far East.
On behalf of this particular group I plead with the Minister of Veterans Affairs-I am sorry he is not here today; I am sure he is away on official business, but his parliamentary secretary is here-and I hope before this year is out this group of Hong Kong veterans will be listened to with sympathy, compassion and understanding, as I have said, of all those who served in our armed forces in world war II none suffered as did these particular men. I will continue reading what they have written to me:
As a result of this experience, many Hong Kong veterans show psychological disorders. Where a psychological disorder was evident immediately after return to Canada, the pension commission has recognized its relation to service. However, many Hong Kong veterans made a determined effort to readjust to a normal way of life and only after a passage of several years has it become evident that they are unable to do so. Therefore, the association contends that in all cases of psychological or emotional disturbances among Hong Kong veterans any question of doubt as to the relationship with service-connected disability should be resolved in favour of the veteran.
I see that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is listening and I am sure he will agree with this. These veterans have made a series of suggestions to the veterans affairs committee of this house, and I have no doubt these suggestions were also made to previous veterans affairs committees. I would like to put them on the record again. They feel there should be a complete and thorough review of pensions in the case of Hong Kong veterans. Second, they ask for a revival of the survey that was started in 1950, and a yearly regular check-up of every individual who was a prisoner of war of the Japanese. They say there should be a thorough study of the effects of beri-beri, pelagra, dysentery, etc., to establish without question the connection with present disabilities such as optic atrophy, cardiac deficiencies, nerve destruction, stomach conditions, etc.
The Hong Kong veterans feel there should be an award of a minimum 50 per cent of pension for the residual effects of avitaminosis

in the case of every ex-Japanese prisoner of war of world war II. This is a contention with which I agree completely. Avitaminosis is of course a disease which is simply caused by malnutrition. These men have told me that they had as much rice as they could get in the palm of their hand, and that was all the food they had each day-they worked under slave labour conditions. The net result was that in many cases the weight of these men was reduced to only half their normal weight. I saw many of them before they left, because our embarkation leaves happened to coincide. When they went to Hong Kong in the fall of 1941 they were normal, healthy men, but they came back trembling, diseased and unable to continue in the professions and jobs they had before they enlisted.
They feel there should be an annual increase of 5 per cent of pension as from 1962 for the residual effects of avitaminosis caused by starvation. They ask that all ex-Hong Kong prisoners of war be given complete entitlement, and finally they ask that the Canadian pension commission review all cases where a Hong Kong veteran's death has been attributed to coronary thrombosis, especially where there is a history of beri-beri. The members of this group are much concerned about the many decisions in these cases to the effect that death was not attributable to service-related disabilities or conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I have made my plea on behalf of this very special group of Canadians who served their country in time of war and who I believe suffered more than any other Canadians in the defence of freedom. There are a number of other subjects I would like to cover. The hon. member for Edmonton West discussed the matter of veterans hospitals. I now understand that the negotiations in regard to the Colonel Belcher hospital and other veterans hospitals have ceased. I was told some time ago by the minister that with regard to the Lancaster military hospital, in which I have a special interest, there have been no discussions about its possible transfer to civilian control. However, I have no doubt that other members of the house will want to discuss that question.
There are many subjects which we could discuss in connection with veterans. I would like to pay my special tribute to the members of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think this is an excellent department. I am not one of those who see horns on the heads of the members of the pension commission. I think they have done their job conscientiously. I feel very strongly about the war

veterans allowance board; I think that is one of the finest groups of men in the public service of this nation. The army benevolent fund has been exceptionally well administered over the years, as has the commonwealth war graves commission. I have had some experience with this body. 1 see the parliamentary secretary nodding agreement. No doubt he would concur in these particular sentiments. I would ask him to tell us, if he is going to speak later on behalf of his minister, what success he has had with the government in connection with the Newfoundland foresters. I remember that over the years he pleaded their case very strongly with the previous administration and I would be interested in knowing what success he is having on their behalf. Perhaps he would answer these questions a little later in this debate or when the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs are brought down. I will now yield the floor, Mr. Chairman, to others who wish to make their contribution in a most important debate for this most important group of Canadian citizens.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of this committee for a few moments. It is not often that 1 do this, but I have certain matters I wish to raise, particularly in regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs. However I should first like to refer to something which is much broader and probably of much more concern to the Canadian people. We are considering an interim supply bill in the amount of over $700 million. I submit the Canadian people are not aware of what is taking place in this house at the present time. A good deal of criticism has been made of this house by the people of the country, emanating I suppose from what they read, see and hear. I should like to ask this question of the government through you, Mr. Chairman. Why are we spending the time of the house talking about an interim supply bill of over $700 million when there are other more important matters which could be brought before us?
As I said earlier, it is very seldom I take the time of this committee or this house, but when we are asked to pass a bill involving over $700 million, without being given any details about it, it is time that some of us did take the time of this house to ask for that detail.
We have been asking questions but so far not too many answers have been given. We occasionally get an answer to the effect that everything is wonderful, business is good, employment is up. But what are the real facts?
Interim Supply
What happens when a veteran's wife, or the wife of a member of the press gallery, or when the housewives of Canada in general go to the corner grocery or the shopping centre? Their dollar disappears much more rapidly today than it did one year ago. Why is this so? I contend that when the cost of living index rises so rapidly as in the last year, as compared to the few previous years-


Eric Alfred Winkler: The Minister of Finance should resign.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear the remark that the Minister of Finance should resign and I agree with that remark, Mr. Chairman.
Now Mr. Chairman, what do we find with regard to the promises made by the government? What did the Liberal party promise on the hustings? This is what brings us to rise in our places at this time and be criticized for supposedly filibustering. Are we filibustering? I do not think so. As I say, I have taken very little of the time of this house, but from now on if these kinds of tactics are to continue I will have to take a lot more time.
We get so-called answers to the effect that the gross national product is up, that employment is up. But what are the real facts? What does your wife, Mr. Chairman, say when she comes back from the market?


Mr. Robichaud:: There is more money
available for her today.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: But it does not go as far as it did, when the cost of living index rises so rapidly. This is a very serious matter for most Canadians, particularly those who have a family to support. I am proud to admit that I am a father of six and a grandfather of four, so I know that when the cost of living index rises one point, or even a tenth of one point, it means something to the average Canadian. It does not apparently mean much across the way, but to those of us with certain limitations and only so much to spend it means a great deal.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget your garages.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I do not even have one garage. It is obvious you have a two-car garage.
We have been criticized for holding up legislation and that sort of thing. There is even talk that we are holding up the flag issue. This is not quite the case. The real issue, when we get down to it, is that we are asked to pass over $700 million worth of

Interim Supply
expenditures. That may not mean much to the Liberals, but to the average Canadian it means a lot. I can recall the time when they asked "What's a million"; but what is the answer to "what's $700 million"? That is the answer we want.
Where are the estimates? How long have we been here, looking for details of the estimates so that we can get down to the real facts? We have been told many times that business is much better, that employment is much better. How about the person who is not working? And how about the person who is working? Where does his money go and how much is it worth?


An hon. Member:: You are repeating yourself.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: They are the questions we would like to ask.
I should like to deal with a particular department, the Department of Veterans Affairs. I appreciate the fact that is is a very important department, and I want to relate a branch of that department, the administration of the Veterans Land Act, to my own constituency. Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from a letter which relates to what I said earlier. This letter is from a constituent complaining about a case which I investigated personally, during a special trip I made recently.
This gentleman has the following to say:
I am writing in complaint against V.L.A. in their recent decision to deny me a choice piece of acreage, for which I applied under the small holdings section of V.L.A.
I applied for a 20 acre farm one half mile south of Coaldale, on the main road, and could have bought it for the exceptionally low price of $8,000. It had clear title, power, good cistern, good outbuildings, including garage, machine shed, chicken-house, coal shed, granary, and cattle barn, also root cellar and two dugouts. The house was small, for our requirements, as I have five children, but there were three bedrooms, and at our own expense we were going to add to it, including running water, bathroom, in other words, completely modernize it. This could have all been done quite easily according to the local V.L.A. representative, and with least possible expense, as the house was ideally suited for this renovation. Again-I say-at our own expense.
The land was laid out perfectly for the project I had in mind, the raising of beef cattle. It was good land, easily irrigated and cross fenced exactly to suit my purpose.
The most important point is that It met my requirements for my family. It was five minutes from school, hospital and doctor, being as previously stated, only one half mile from Coaldale. The school bus stopped at the door, with my children being the last on in the morning, and the first off at night.
Ten years ago, V.L.A. paid $7,300 for the 20 acres adjacent to this property and it had abso-

lutely nothing on it except a house not comparable to the one on the site I wanted. There was no power, fences, outbuildings, and the only road to it was a quarter mile dirt road through a beet field.
V.L.A. could have purchased this property for me at exactly the same price (the power making up the $700 difference) as this they bought ten years ago, and there is no comparison between the two, the one I wanted being far superior in all respects. The value of the land alone has more than doubled the past ten years in this area.
The most frustrating part of all is that it was passed by the local office, with a strong recommendation, passed by Calgary district office, and then turned down by Edmonton office. This I cannot begin to comprehend.. .what is the economics of paying local V.L.A. representatives $7,000 per annum, men in Calgary in the district office more, only to have their recommendations totally ignored by someone in Edmonton (who must be in an even higher salary bracket) who apparently knows nothing of conditions in our own locale? What are these men hired for?
On Edmonton's letter of refusal, they stated that I should acquire suitable property and then build a house on it under V.L.A. It appears quite apparent that V.L.A. does not want to establish veterans on small holdings, but rather have them build minimum $12,000 homes under their V.L.A. grant. Is this true? If so, the small holdings portion of the V.L.A. should be immediately repealed, before other veterans and their families are led down the garden path-only to be disappointed, frustrated and made sick at heart-as was mine. If this is not true

and the government is sincere in providing for a veteran under this portion of the act-then someone in a position of some authority is making a mockery of it, and should be made answer for it-
I have not read the entire letter, Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out a suggestion in answer to this man's request as stated in the second paragraph of a letter dated March 6, 1964, by a district supervisor. He has stated:
It is suggested that you endeavour to locate an acreage without improvements and apply to this administration for a loan to build a home more in keeping with the needs of your family.
A director followed the practice laid down by this department and stated the property was inadequate and unsuitable, mainly because of the dwelling, a small four-room frame building lacking the accepted conveniences, with the exception of electricity. We find that two different officials of the same department have come to entirely different conclusions.
I am sorry the minister is not present at this time because I feel sure he could explain this situation. At one point the individual concerned is told to find property without any building at all, and on another occasion told to find property with a more adequate house.
I understand there is a further policy to the effect that the price for a property should

relate to the price of adjacent property. The property involved in this case was offered for approximately half the price received for an adjacent property.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the attitude expressed in this letter and the attitudes expressed by members here you can understand why we desire to examine the estimates of the various departments. I am sure the members on this side of the chamber are willing to come to some agreement, even one in respect of the flag debate, in order that we may thoroughly examine the estimates.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, when I was dealing with interim supply before the recess I pointed out to the committee that there were certain points that members of the official opposition wanted to discuss, and we hoped we would be able to do so before dealing with other legislation. I mentioned to the committee the fact that when we are considering over $700 million in supply it should be our prerogative to discuss the matters in detail. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee, and even at the expense of repeating myself I do so again for the sole purpose of emphasizing that when we are asked to consider the granting of an amount of $700 million in a very short time it is hardly fair that the official opposition should be criticized for filibustering or obstructing, or whatever word may be used in this connection. To the Canadian people and certainly to myself as the representative of a particular area of this country an amount of $700 million is not something to be considered lightly.
I have asked why we have not been given the opportunity to deal with the estimates in detail. After all, we have been here for many months, and no one knows better than you, Mr. Chairman, that we have been here for so long and have yet to consider in detail estimates which amount to much more than $700 million in total.
I referred earlier to some of the answers we get. Earlier today we heard a respected member of the government relate the many good things that have happened under the present government. The gross national product is up, employment is up. But I should
Interim Supply
like to remind the government and other hon. members opposite that there are other things that should be considered in detail, and the main one is the estimates.
There is something the Canadian people should realize with reference to the cost of living index. How rapidly has the cost of living index increased in relation to the increase in the gross national product, the decrease in unemployement and so on? Is it not a relative thing? I said earlier and I repeat by way of emphasis that when housewives across Canada, particularly the wives of veterans, spend a dollar, what do they have for it when they get home?
I referred earlier to the complaint of a particular veteran with relation to the Veterans Land Act. I quoted a certain letter and certain reactions of the department and I took some exception to the answers given. Admittedly I was trying to relate the matter to certain actions or lack of action or reaction on the part of the government. Maybe someone is at fault and maybe not, but what is involved is a matter of service to a particular Canadian citizen who is a bona fide veteran and who made a bona fide request to the Department of Veterans Affairs and received a certain answer. Probably this involves a grievance and it may not even be in order, but I have brought this matter to the attention of the government and have raised one or two points in connection with it by way of a specific instance of something that should be considered by the minister when we are dealing with interim supply.
By way of summary, though it may be more than that, there is a rumour in my constituency-it is related to the grievance I raised earlier-that the V.L.A. office is going to be closed or curtailed. I would offer my prayers that this will not happen. I have referred to the service that is provided in our area. I could go into a great deal of detail about the number of veterans located in the area covered by this office whose territory extends to the Saskatchewan border and practically to Calgary. There is some thought of closing the office or curtailing the service in this area. This may be a grievance but my main point is that this office should not be closed or curtailed. Actually the service of the office should be improved. If that were done it is probable that complaints of this kind would not have to be brought to the attention of the house. But here is a case of a bona fide Canadian citizen and veteran who is concerned about his right to benefit from

Interim, Supply
the veterans affairs legislation, particularly the Veterans Land Act. I have referred to this matter in some detail, though not completely because I wanted to save the time of the house.
I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, the time that I have been allotted. I reiterate however that I have taken very little of the time of this house or of these committees. If this sort of thing continues, then I and many others on this side of the house will take much more time, as I believe we should. Perhaps I may refer to certain writings of a gentleman by the name of Brown who, very early and before the articles of confederation were finalized, drew attention of people interested to the fact that a member speaking in the House of Commons was not limited to a 30-minute speech or a 40-minute speech. He sometimes continued speaking until four or five o'clock in the morning and then resumed at two o'clock in the afternoon, for a good purpose. I believe this gentleman named Brown may have been defined as a Liberal reformer at one time, and he pointed out that these facts should not be buried.
As I said earlier, some of these facts have been buried right here in this motion for interim supply. I want to ask where we find the time to discuss interim supply? I am not obstructing, I am not filibustering. I am asking a simple question, Mr. Chairman. Where is the time to discuss these very important issues?


Mr. Clancy:: Since this is the time to ask questions, I should like to ask a few questions concerning veterans affairs. I note that the veterans affairs committee, which is a standing committee of the House of Commons, last met on December 10, 1963. I cannot understand, and I should like to ask the minister, why the estimates of veterans affairs could not have been sent to that committee. We would have had an opportunity to go through them, and perhaps everything that was said in the committee would have been repeated in the house; but at least we would have had competent witnesses before the committee and we would have been able to get answers to a few of our questions.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the government to the fact that the veterans affairs committee reported to the house on December 10, 1963. This report contained certain recommendations. I assume that the chairman of the committee, being a member of the government, is in close liaison with his minister. Since December we have

not heard one thing about veterans affairs, except the taking over of veterans hospitals. I should like to ask if this department has given any consideration to section 70 of the Pension Act, the benefit of the doubt clause. I should like to refer the members of the committee to paragraph 8 of the report of the veterans affairs committee. We have not heard anything from the Department of Veterans Affairs since the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek brought a private bill before us touching on this very problem. It was adopted in the house and referred to the committee. All the witnesses and the committee agreed that some small amendment should be made to insure that the original spirit of the act was being carried out.
In other words, it was decided that the veteran was not on trial before the commission. The commission should give him the benefit of the doubt and if there were any questions, the benefit of the doubt would go to the veteran. I should like to know if the government intends to do anything about this. I think it is important to a good many thousands of men.
Another thing to which I should like to refer is the appeal board. May I read one of the recommendations presented by this committee, after a great deal of impartial study and the hearing of impartial witnesses. Paragraph 10 of the report reads:
Your committee further feels that instead of a "one-shot" appeal which is both final and binding, there should be two appeals as follows:
(a)	a preliminary appeal in which all the evidence is transcribed and then a ruling is given in the form of a written judgment in which all points of evidence, both medical and legal on which the ruling is based is set forth in writing and signed.
(b)	a second ruling as at present. Your committee recommends that this procedure would correct the disadvantage the veteran now suffers as he would know what arguments must be rebutted instead of having to prepare his appeal blindly as at present.
Now, according to the evidence given by both the veterans organizations and the department, a veteran is not supplied with the proper information on which to base an appeal. I think it is only fair that this should be done and there should be a regulation or a directive from the department to this effect. Where does the veteran go to secure this information? I feel that a mimeographed sheet should be sent to a veteran setting forth the various steps in the appeal procedure.
The veterans rights are being looked after better than ever before. We have more people interested, and we have our service organ-

izations. However, there are still some veterans who are left out on a limb. These things are not being done. They have been recommended. If the government feels there is no reason for them to be done, then let the government tell us. I feel that the procedure is a trifle arbitrary when you consider that most of these men are kept in the dark. I know you cannot help it, but you can help them find their way.
Well, those are two points mentioned in this report which have never been brought before this house by the government, which has responsibility for introducing legislation. There is one more thing I should like to mention, namely the Hong Kong veterans. This subject was mentioned in the committee, and of course we know the Hong Kong veteran is in a special position, for a special reason. Not only was he in the cage for four years but he suffered malnutrition. He suffered both mental and physical abuse and was almost without hope. Officials of the department may say, "Oh, well, 1,200 of them are getting pensions;" but we ask for a breakdown of those pensions and of the reasons why they are given.
What studies are being made with regard to Asiatic prisoners of war, and when I say Asiatic prisoners of war I mean studies by Great Britain, Australia and the United States, which countries have undertaken special studies. Our last study, I believe, was in 1950, and I feel it is time a little positive action was taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which may be beginning to feel that its activities and usefulness are over. They are not over and will not be over until the last veteran dies.
I believe that the intent which parliament had when it passed this legislation is not being carried out. I would not like to say where the fault lies but I believe there should be a reorganization of the department. I appreciate that this is a very difficult problem for any government, but I believe minor changes in the legislation could also assist.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke about V.L.A. and small holdings loans. Everyone knows that in case after case the judgments handed down are not consistent. If we must have regulations let them apply to the whole country and provide for the right of appeal. Too often veterans have been turned down when they wished to acquire a piece of land worth $7,500 and later that same piece of land has been bought by civilians for $15,000. There should be an appeal from these rulings, and again I ask why the
Interim Supply
committee on veterans affairs cannot at least have a look at the estimates of the department?


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few brief minutes to reply to the questions that have been raised, particularly with respect to veterans hospitals and treatment services for the Hong Kong veterans. In order to allay any fears that might exist in the minds of hon. members, and even in the minds of veterans, with respect to veterans hospitals I should like to repeat the assurance given by the Prime Minister at the 20th dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion, at Winnipeg on May 17 last. Speaking to that convention the Prime Minister said, and I quote from page 43 of The Legionary, July 1964 issue:
Tonight I want to say merely this. All those who have examined the problem know that it is changing and that, in the interests of the veterans, changes may have to be made in dealing with it.
The government has no intention, however, of trying to solve these new problems overnight, or of adopting either a cavalier or a casual attitude towards the matter. Certain fears have been expressed in this regard by the Legion and by veterans which I am sure will not materialize.
I can assure you tonight that in anything we seek to do about veterans medical and hospital care the government's primary consideration will be to protect the interests and promote the welfare of the veterans themselves. They are not problems but people. Veterans, especially older veterans, deserve and must receive special and humane and generous consideration. There will be no change which will remove control of veterans' admissions and their treatment and their domiciliary care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That department is not going out of business. Its responsibilities are not going to be reduced. Moreover, there will be full consultation by the department with veterans' organizations in the area before any changes are made.
We have only one concern: to guarantee to our veterans the high standard of treatment and service to which they are entitled and must continue to be entitled-even in the face of the doctor shortage and the changing nature of the patient load in our D.V.A. hospitals.
I repeat: we are not following a rigid course or one which is intended in a short time to solve all hospital and related problems. We are not going to rush into any radical change, and we are not going to make any change of any kind that will operate against the interests and the welfare of the veterans.
It is our duty to continue to ensure the highest standards of medical treatment available. It is, of course, our duty also to effect economies where possible but only when compatible with the standards I have mentioned, and never at the expense of the needs and the interests of veterans whose care indeed may require more, rather than less, expenditure by government. Their welfare comes first.
With respect to negotiations for hospitals the department has not taken any initiative

Interim Supply
and never intended to take any initiative in this matter. The situation was that the department was interested in inviting proposals on certain terms, and these terms were very clearly specified at the same dominion convention in Winnipeg on May 18, by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. For the information of the committee I would again quote from The Legionary at page 47, where the minister said:
Now, let me summarize the situation:
1.	The objective is to ensure the highest possible standard of care;
2.	We must have absolute, guaranteed priority for active treatment in any hospital where operational control may be transferred to another authority;
3.	Veterans will report to D.V.A. medical staff on the premises, and D.V.A. staff will continue to have full authority to decide when a veteran is to be admitted to hospital or discharged. They will also decide who will occupy the priority beds we will have;
4.	Domiciliary care institutions, satisfactory to D.V.A. medical staff, must be available, and priority use guaranteed;
5.	And of course we must ensure adequate safeguards for our staff where any changes in operational control may become effective.
These are very stringent terms and not many agencies are in a position to meet them.
Dealing with individual hospitals referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West, negotiations with regard to Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary were discontinued and this was caused mainly by delay in drawing up agreements containing suitable guarantees to safeguard the interests of the veterans. With respect to the Edmonton domiciliary home negotiations are still going on. Government house was offered to the Alberta government in exchange for a modem nursing building which would be operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have to be satisfied that this building will meet all our requirements. With regard to the Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital, nobody has shown any interest or put forward any proposals. The same thing is true of Lancaster hospital, in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury is interested. However, with respect to Ridgewood hospital, negotiations are going on with the workmen's compensation board, who will continue to use this hospital for rehabilitation purposes and arrange for the same number of beds to be available for veterans as are in use at the present time. At Sunnybrook in Toronto we have rented an empty ward at cost to Wellesley hospital, and in it they have set up an arthritic unit which is working extremely well. So much for the individual hospitals.

I should now like to spend a few minutes dealing with the question of Hong Kong veterans. Reference was made to a motion by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) which was talked out. I remember that occasion very well because I had that very unpleasant duty myself. I can assure the committee that I was not very happy in discharging it, but I felt it was in the interests of veterans to do so. With regard to surveys on Hong Kong veterans, there have been several surveys in past years. The first survey was carried out in 1950 by Dr. Crawford who is now the director general of medical services. He was in service at that time and was borrowed by the department to make this particular survey, and his report was published. Five years afterwards another survey was carried out by Dr. J. D. Adamson, who found that 30 per cent of the Hong Kong veterans had quite serious disability which had a sound pathological base, another 30 per cent had a variety of complaints which could not be attributed to discernible pathological causes, and a further 30 per cent were found to be in very good condition. In addition to that, special surveys have been carried out-one with regard to visual defects-in Quebec city and in Toronto. A survey with respect to psychoneurosis has been going on for just about a year. The standing committee on veterans affairs recommended a survey, in their report last December. It is to be found at page 430 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 13, and is recommendation No. 14:
In view of the special problems that time and experience have revealed concerning the Hong Kong veterans this committee urges that a special study and survey be made of their problems and particularly disabilities.
The Canadian pension commission acted immediately on this recommendation of the standing committee on veterans affairs and began to take steps to set a survey in motion. It takes several months to plan such a survey and to negotiate all the arrangements that have to be made regarding personnel and the facilities to carry it out. When the motion sponsored by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) came before the house this survey was just getting under way. There are very few Hong Kong veterans; the sample is hardly big enough to carry out even one survey. One survey, as I said, has been going on for nearly a year and a second survey has been initiated by the Canadian pension commission. To superimpose a third survey on top of that would be totally impracticable. We were then faced with the problem of discon-

tinuing this one and placing responsibility elsewhere, or vetoing the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.). It does not seem right that six months work should be wasted in this way, because this is preliminary work that would be essential in any case and would have to be done before any further study could be initiated by the standing committee.
With respect to pensions entitlement and pension assessments, hon. members know that these are medical decisions. The pension commission, under the present legislation and until that legislation is changed, have sole responsibility for interpreting the pension act and administering it, and nothing we can do can alter that fact, unless we change the legislation. In any case, Mr. Chairman, most of these decisions are based on medical judgments and as lay people we have to accept the best medical advice we can get.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I thank the hon. member for Yorkton for his reference to the bill I introduced in this house, Bill No. C-7. I intend, if my time does not run out, to make further reference to that bill. While I am in this grateful mood I would also like to say thank you to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. At least we are now getting answers, and if all along we had been given answers such as the parliamentary secretary has given this evening, we would not have had to debate that matter in the house this afternoon. Answers are what the opposition have been after. While I am on the subject of the parliamentary secretary, I will say-and I think I speak for all members of the standing committee on veterans affairs-that we only regret that when the cabinet was formed by the present administration, the hon. member was not made minister of veterans affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. member for Yorkton, myself and many others in this house have been members of that standing committee ever since we were elected to parliament, and we know the parliamentary secretary has been a very ardent worker in it and a very reasonable member to deal with. I am quite sure that if he had been made minister of veterans affairs the problems we are speaking about tonight would not have arisen, particularly in regard to veterans hospitals. I intended to say something on that subject, but in view of his explanation I will refrain from doing so.
I have mentioned Bill No. C-7 that I introduced into the house. I introduced another
Interim Supply
bill this session, with regard to war veterans allowances. Because of the introduction of those two bills I have received from all across Canada, and not just from my own constituency, a great deal of correspondence from veterans who have complaints. The most recent correspondence I have received in this connection has been in regard to the increase in the cost of living. This may not be important as far as the government is concerned, but with the increased cost of living is coupled another problem, that of inflation. I think the government should go along with us by bringing down the estimates, when we could look into these two problems.
I know some members of the committee tonight will say, "What about the increased cost of living? It is a buoyant economy; nobody is suffering because of the increased cost of living". However, I would suggest to those who say this that if they had received some of the letters I have received from these pensioners who are on a fixed, low income, they would appreciate that it does mean something to them. I am not blaming the government for the increase in the cost of living, but I would suggest to the government that this is one of the things they should be watching, and inflation is another. One of the things the economists tell us is that the way to inflation is excessive government expenditures, a matter we have been trying to discuss for 118 days. But the government has only let us deal so far with two departments.
The government should be concerned about the expenditures which have been taking place. Perhaps there are answers for this; we do not know. The committee heard this afternoon about the number of questions which have been asked and the very few answers received in reply. Perhaps our system of parliament has outlived itself like the parliament of France, although I am not prepared to debate that. However, I suggest that if any hon. members watched television last night and saw the hon. member for York East and the hon. member for Essex South, it would have been a revelation to them. It conveyed to me the impression that we in the opposition were not the only people concerned about what was going on in this house. I commend them for that program and I suggest it is regrettable that all hon. members did not see this program and listen to the very constructive suggestions which were made. These two hon. members referred to what we have asked for ever since the session started, and that is for more work to be

Interim Supply
given to standing committees. Estimates should be referred to our standing committees. As they said last night, the backbenchers on the government side feel they are not doing the job they were sent here to do. We on this side of the house also feel that the government is not allowing us to do the job we are supposed to do.
I said the other day that our main purpose as members of the opposition is to examine the estimates of the government and to scrutinize its expenditures. For some reason the government has been concealing these from us, and that is our cry. Possibly this is one reason, if it is the case, that the people of Canada think that parliament is not doing anything. I am sure that everyone in the committee tonight will admit that we have done practically everything we can to force the government to bring down the estimates.


Maurice John Moreau: Prolong the debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That could be, but I would say this to the hon. member, that very seldom since he came to the house have I heard him get up and make a speech. It appears to me that his prime object in being here is to interject, and sometimes sarcastically. If that is why his constituents sent him to parliament I am sure Hansard should record this fact so that his constituency is aware of it.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: When I have finished. Two of the main components in the consumers price index which have contributed to the increased cost of living, I am told by economists, are the question of housing and the question of food. Why housing comes first I am not sure, and I am not particularly concerned with housing. Perhaps one of the reasons it is a factor is because of the 11 per cent tax which the government put on and which the opposition tried to get removed. But I am concerned about the cost of food because I represent an agricultural area. I am concerned at the price of grain and the price of cattle, they being the two main industries in my constituency. I am not going to say too much about grain at the moment but I do want to say a few words about the price of cattle.
In a question I asked a week or 10 days ago I made reference to the British market and I asked the government what steps it had taken to gain a portion of that market. There were two reasons I asked the question. One was because at one time we had a

portion of the British market while today we do not; the other was because of the fear of drought on the prairies. I see the Minister of Agriculture is leaving but I should like him to wait a few moments and to explain to the house why the producer on the prairies -this was also a matter raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale the other day-only receive in the neighbourhood of 16 cents a pound for his cattle while the consumer in the east apparently pays as much as $1.39 a pound. There is quite a gulf between those two figures. I admit that the 16 cents a pound to which I refer is live weight, and those who know anything about butchering say that this meat dresses out about 40 to 60 per cent. Therefore, if we make it an even 50 per cent, let us call it 32 cents a pound. Why is there this spread between what the producer on the prairies receives and what the consumer in the urban area pays?
The reason I ask this question is that in my remarks to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I suggested that the top price in Canada for choice cuts was around 79 cents a pound. Then two days after I put that question I received a letter from a lady in Montreal asking me where she could get choice cuts or any kind of cuts for 79 cents a pound. In fact she enclosed with her letter a number of purchase slips which she had obtained from a departmental store in Montreal which show that a T-bone steak costs $1.39 a pound, sirloin steak $1.29 a pound, cube steak $1.25 a pound, flank steak 95 cents a pound and ground round steak 89 cents a pound. I suggested that the top price in Canada was around 79 cents a pound so I was amazed when I saw that this was what the consumer was paying for meat in eastern Canada.
I am suggesting that the minister should go to the Department of Justice and ask the investigation branch of that department to look into this wide spread in price, I can see why people in eastern Canada do not understand what is happening in western Canada when they pay $1.39 for T-bone steaks, when the average received by the producers in western Canada is 32 cents a pound. It seems to me that something is wrong.
Perhaps I am in error but I suggest that it is the government's responsibility to look into these inequities. There may be an explanation. I know that the meat has to be handled several times before it gets on to the

counters of the retail stores; but it also seems to me that whoever handles it must be getting a great deal more profit than the producer is getting. That is where there is such a great misunderstanding between the people in the west and the people in the east.
I presume that the same applies in the case of grain or, if you like, bread. I would request the minister to look into this matter and give the people of Canada the explanation to which I think they are entitled. I think it is the duty of the government to investigate such matters as this. I am not blaming them, but I would ask the government what they have done about matters like this. I suggest that this is more the business of the government than the red herring they have drawn across the floor of this house in the name of the flag. I believe that is not parliament's responsibility.
I should like to say a few words about inflation. Economists state that there are six major problems resulting from inflation, and I suggest they are evident ones. It is the responsibility of the government to let the people of Canada know whether there is a danger of inflation and to reassure them if there is not. I am very pleased that there is a buoyant economy in Canada, although I am not so pleased that the Liberal government is in power. I think the reason for that buoyant economy stems from the measures put into effect by the Conservative government when they were in power. I suggest devaluation was one way of accomplishing this. There are many other suggestions I should like to make, but I am pleased there is a buoyant economy in Canada. I suggest the government should be investigating these signs of inflation and reassuring the people of Canada that inflation is not going to take place.
I should now like to refer to six problems which economists tell us we are facing. First, they suggest inflation aggravates labour and management tensions. I have listened to debates and answers to questions in the House of Commons over at least the past week or ten days which indicate that labour-management problems are brewing and that they hit low income groups more severely than others. I have received letters from pensioners, and I am sure other members have received similar letters, which indicate that the recent increase in pensions passed by this parliament has been offset by the increase in the cost of living. I am surprised that this increase is no longer serving the purpose we thought it would serve when it was passed.
Interim Supply
The third result of inflation is a spurring in general social unrest. As far as I am aware there has been more social unrest in Canada in the last nine or ten months than I can remember at any time during the history of Canada, and I should like to remind hon. members that I am not as young as some of them.
Inflation also destroys public confidence in our currency, and destroys incentive to save. It dries up the capital and pushes up interest rates. The Minister of Finance is in the chamber and I hope he will tell the people there is no danger of an increase in interest rates. I should like to pose several other questions for him to answer when he does speak. I should like him to assure the people of Canada that when the next budget is presented the deficit will not be more than $1 billion. I would like to discuss this situation further at some later date, but intend at this time to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Yorkton, and his reference to the recommendation of the standing committee on veterans affairs. My remarks will also have relation to the television program of last night to which I have referred.
The suggestion was made by one of the hon. members who participated in that program that we refer more of our estimates to different committees of the house, and the reasoning behind this suggestion is sound. One of the hon. members stated he had 20 years experience in municipal affairs, and pointed out that municipal and city councils established various committees to study estimates. These committees consider the estimates, obtaining answers to questions asked and report back with recommendations to the council. He pointed out further that very often following this consideration questions were asked by members who were not either on the committee or not satisfied with the answers obtained, but that a great deal of time was saved by this procedure.
The hon. members who participated in that program suggested that a similar procedure or practice should be followed by this parliament. I agree with the suggestion; but as the member for Yorkton said, last year a very thorough investigation took place during meetings of the committee on veterans affairs as a result of which recommendations were made to the House of Commons as well as to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like to refer to several of those recommendations.
I have before me the third report to the House of Commons of the standing committee on veterans affairs. This report indicates that

Interim Supply
the hon. member tor Kootenay West was concerned with Bill No. C-13. The committee recommended in respect oi that bill as follows:
With respect to the subject matter of Bill C-13. it was unanimously agreed that more effective steps should be taken to observe November 11 as a national holiday and a solemn day of remembrance in all parts of Canada.
As a result of that statement the committee recommended as follows:
In this connection your committee recommends that this matter be made the subject of federal-provincial discussions with a view to attaining the desired objective.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, what steps have been taken in respect of that recommendation of the standing committee which was composed of members from all parties.
The point I am attempting to make is that there is no purpose to be served by committees meeting and making recommendations unless the house or government acts upon them.
Some reference was made last night on the television program to that situation, and I do not think I am revealing anything I should not reveal in stating that one of the backbenchers on the government side made certain proposals to the treasury benches, which were received with little indication of acceptance.
Another recommendation made by the committee on veterans affairs reads as follows:
Your committee was Impressed with the amount of evidence that seemed to indicate that the original and obvious intention of parliament as set forth in section 70 of the Pension Act (benefit of doubt clause) is not uniformly applied in that case where the circumstances appear to be identical or extremely similar received quite different rulings.
This recommendation dealt with cases of cancer and multiple sclerosis which developed while veterans were in the armed services. Usually in cases of this kind the ruling of the pension commission is that the condition is not attributable to war services. I should like to know how in the name of heaven the pension commission can make that ruling in view of the fact the medical profession is not aware of the cause of cancer or multiple sclerosis.
The report of that committee then continues:
There was general agreement In committee that this situation should be corrected. There was unanimous support for the purpose of Bill C-7 and substantial support for the principle involved.

Hon. members will recall that Bill No. C-7 proposed to allow judicial appeal from rulings of the Canadian pension commission. Most members are aware that the Pension Act, as I refer to it, is one of the few acts passed by this parliament in respect of which the judiciary in our country cannot rule. Parliament through error or necessity when this bill was presented and passed in this house included section 5(5) which stated that the interpretation was the sole responsibility of the pension commission. Clause 70, which I believe is the benefit of doubt clause, was also included. I believe the explanation given in this regard by the member for Yorkton is correct.
I should like to have had time to read into the record the report of Lord Denning's maiden speech in the British House of Commons, in which he refers to exactly the same point I have made in respect of Bill C-7. Fortunately the committee made this recommendation to the government, and I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs what action the government has taken, and what direction has been given by the minister to the pension commission. If he suggests his hands are bound because of the act, I should like to know what action he will instigate to amend the act. I think possibly it is time the interpretation section of this act was amended, taking the responsibility for interpretation out of the hands of the commission and making it subject to judiciary ruling, as is the case in respect of all other acts passed by this parliament.
Recommendation No. 9 of that committee reads as follows:
Your committee feels that the time has come when major pieces of pensions legislation should be reviewed and is of the opinion that much of the difficulty can be overcome by reviewing the sections in question so as to clarify the following points:
(a)	'Benefit of doubt'. At the moment there is some evidence to show that the interpretation now being given by the commissioners is not sufficiently broad to be entirely in keeping with what we believe to be the spirit of the act.
I might also say that is true of the intention of parliament at the time it passed this act. The interpretation that the pension commission put on that cannot be disputed because they have the sole power to interpret the act in any manner they wish.
We suggest that the word "doubt" in the phrase "benefit of doubt" be interpreted to mean "a reasonable doubt" as might be expected to arise in the mind of a reasonable man in the street.
(b)	That the burden of proof rests with the commission and not with the veteran applicant.

I would say again: See the extract from Lord Denning's report. The tenth recommendation that the committee presented to the house was as follows:
Your committee further feels that instead of a "one shot" appeal which is both final and binding, there should be two appeals as follows:
(a)	a preliminary appeal in which all the evidence is transcribed and then ruling is given in the form of a written judgment in which all points of evidence, both medical and legal, on which the ruling is based is set forth in writing and signed.
(b)	a second ruling as at present. Your committee recommends that this procedure would correct the disadvantage the veteran now suffers as he would know what arguments must be rebutted instead of having to prepare his appeal blindly as at present.
I suggest to the hon. member for Essex South and the hon. member for York East that if their suggestion were implemented and these estimates and the proposal they have made were sent to the committee, another thing we would have to guard against would be inaction on the part of the members on the treasury benches in regard to the proposals made by the committee. I would suggest that maybe these two members at some future date or even now could get up in the house and explain their proposal, because I think it has merit and the house should consider it. But this is one problem that would have to be overcome.
The committee on veterans affairs is, I think, a non-partisan committee. Very seldom have I ever heard politics discussed or reference made that one member belonged to a different party from that of a member speaking. It was one of the best committees of the House of Commons to work on, and I cannot remember any time when its decisions were not unanimous with regard to proposals to the government.
But what good is a recommendation of this sort if the government will not act on it? I am inclined to think that possibly the time we spent in this committee was wasted because, as the hon. member for Yorkton said, the report was submitted last December and to date apparently no action has been taken. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to get up and tell us what has happened to the report submitted to the government, and particularly to his minister. I would be pleased if he would explain what action, if any, has been taken.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes.
Interim Supply


Maurice John Moreau: When the hon. member suggested earlier in his remarks that I never spoke in the house I was wondering if he was present on Friday when I spoke on two occasions?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I used the word "never".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the mood of the house today seems to be inclined toward the answering of questions that have been propounded during the course of the discussion. I think it will be recalled that on Friday last when I entered the debate in connection with the consideration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration several questions were propounded to me. While I protested at the time that I was not the responsible minister, I feel that inasmuch as the questions from government backbenchers arose because of certain statements I had made I should at least have the courtesy to reply to two of them.
In the first place, the hon. member for Carleton questioned my statement concerning the immigration policy enunciated by the government of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King which, when it was analysed carefully, indicated that there was discrimination in terms of ethnic and cultural matters. I informed the hon. member for Carleton at that time that he would find the statement recorded in Hansard and I also intimated that I would look up the record for him and reply in the house. It is found in the record for Friday, February 18, 1955. The statement is included in a speech that was made by the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. Walter Harris. I quote the statement:
Mr. King, then prime minister, said that immigration should not and would not alter the fundamental character of our people. Mr. King, I believe, meant two things by that phrase: (a) that the racial background of our people would be maintained within reasonable balance, and because he was not a Presbyterian for nothing, he also meant (b) that we would avoid an influx of persons whose viewpoint differed substantially from that of the average, respectable God-fearing Canadian.
That statement is recorded on page 1288 of Hansard for that date. He went on to say:
It is true that from time to time racial origin may not be in balance and some alarmists might be concerned about a temporary trend, but we should judge the results on the over-all period. For example, we have always felt that the British people should represent the greater proportion of our immigrants and we have done our best to increase the flow from the United Kingdom in the past four years, realizing that the figure of 13,000 at that time was too low. The figure has risen steadily to over 48,000 this past year.

Interim Supply
At the same time, one cannot disregard the advantages of having a mixed population and of adding to those other national groups already here who have demonstrated their ability to adapt themselves to Canadian conditions.
I think that will substantiate the observation I made on Friday last that it was high time that the government of Canada moved to broaden its immigration regulations so that they would be more in tune with the prevailing humanitarian spirit of the post-war world. This is precisely what was done in the year 1962, and as we examine the immigration records year by year since the new regulations began to be implemented I am sure we will see the broadening base for immigration to this country.
Arising from that statement the hon. member for Hamilton West posed another question to me in which he asked whether a certain order in council approved by the government in 1959 was not of a discriminatory nature, inasmuch as it restricted immigration from certain European countries-he did not specify which countries-to sponsored immigrants. I can only reply as I intended to reply last Friday afternoon, when unfortunately I was interrupted so frequently that my time expired and I did not have the opportunity. But I can only add to the explanation I gave on Friday afternoon last, that this was a problem right across the board with respect to our regulations previous to 1962. They restricted immigration to Canada to sponsored immigrants and those from the United Kingdom or western Europe. I do not see how this in any way detracts from the fundamental change that was made in the amendments to the regulations in 1962.
I had intended also to say a brief word at that time concerning what I regard as the next or perhaps the most important function of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I refer, of course, to the welfare of Canada's first citizens or to the group that should be regarded as the first citizens. Certainly they were here long before any other Canadians arrived. I refer to our Canadian Indian population. It has often been said that if the North American Indians had been more selective in their immigration policy there would be no problem for them at the present time.
I think it is quite fitting that one of the most effective presentations that was put before the first meeting of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism here in the city of Ottawa last year was made by Mrs. Ethel Brant Monture, who is a descendant of one of the great chiefs of the Six Na-

tions Indians. She pointed out that if there is any priority as far as racial or ethnic groups are concerned in this country, certainly her people have the No. 1 priority. She went further and pointed out that racism, as such, should have gone out with the horrors of world war II, which were perpetrated by the Nazi politicians whose whole philosophy of government was based on race and narrow nationalism. She made the point that the time had arrived to speak of Canadians as a whole and not speak in terms of Canadians derived from their ethnic or racial origins. It was not surprising that that presentation, coming from an outstanding spokesman of Canada's first citizens, received a resounding vote of confidence in the applause of the people who had gathered for that first session.
It is not necessary to review Canada's record in regard to the treatment of our Indian population. This has been done many times in the house. There was a time during the consideration of the estimates of the department of Indian affairs when hon. members gave scant attention. It is rather interesting to note that since the Indians received the vote there have been more speeches on behalf of them during the discussion of estimates, be they supplementary, interim or main estimates, than ever hitherto. I do not want to place myself in that category because I was interested in this problem long before the Indians received the vote, which I believe was in 1959.
My interest derived from the fact that I had two reservations in my constituency, both of which accommodated large groups of Sioux Indians who had settled in Canada after escaping from the United States following the Custer massacre. My contact with these two reservations has convinced me down through the years that there has been neglect; there has been discrimination; there has been segregation in the attitude of the government of Canada toward these first citizens. However, the record is improving, and I want to be positive in the few remarks I make tonight. There has been a dramatic improvement in the attitude of this parliament to the welfare of Canada's Indian population. This is keynoted by the basic gesture in a democracy of giving each Indian the vote. It is keynoted also by the stress on education that has been in evidence during the recent years, and keynoted by the policy of educational integration which is bringing together for the first time large segments of the Indian young people as they move into the classrooms of the public school system across the nation.

This program was implemented, I believe, in 1960. A reading of the latest report from the department of Indian affairs, I think it is found on page 16 of the report for 1962-63, reveals that up to 1962, 36 per cent of the Indian young people were accommodated in integrated schools across the land. I could talk about the rapid trend away from paternalism. This kind of administration of Indian affairs, which had removed responsibility from the reservation for so many years, has now been reversed. As a result of the elective system applied to band councils they are assuming more and more responsibility for the administration of their own internal problems. This of course will eventually lead to a situation where they have full responsibility as local municipal governments.
The education of the young people is not sufficient and education in integrated schools is not sufficient. It is dealing with the current situation, but there is a great backlog of young people who were educated under the old system. They were educated in residential schools, perhaps up to grade 7 or grade 8. Having learned the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic, they returned to the reservation and their second state was worse than the first because they had become marginal people. They were not part of the main Canadian way of life, and they had received sufficient education to remove them from the way of life on a reservation. It became imperative, therefore, that they be included in the vocational training programs that were launched in 1960, particularly the educational upgrading program. It has been encouraging to note that in each of the classes, the vocational training classes and the educational upgrading classes that have been held in Canada over the past four years, there has been a good representation of our first Canadians.
I had the privilege of attending the first graduating class in my own city of Brandon last fall, when some 63 young people were graduated from the vocational training program launched in 1960, and amongst them were the children of residents of our Indian reservations. It is particularly interesting to note that before such students graduate they must have become successfully established in a useful occupation for a period of at least one year.
Then there is the question of adult education, and I took heart from the minister's recent announcement indicating a sum of money would be set aside to encourage community development programs on the reserva-
Interim Supply
tions. This of course is a real fundamental attack on the problem of depressed social conditions. I hope this will mean the provision of community development officers on these reservations, and the provision of placement officers to act as counsellors in assisting these people to obtain gainful employment in the Canadian economy.
I also hope it will include the expansion of adult education programs. Very few reservations have organized adult education programs. Some excellent work is being conducted by voluntary groups, such as the friendship councils that have been referred to, which are developing rapidly in the major cities, but there should be something that would be tied into a formal educational program. I trust when the minister replies he will indicate that the progressive program launched by the former Conservative administration is being continued under the new administration.
It is interesting to note that there is a strong flavour in this of the kind of program undertaken by the department of northern affairs in recent years, dealing with Eskimo people. I am sure the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will agree with me on this point, that his department's program for Eskimos has included all these broad ramifications. I think it is not accidental that the same spirit is moving into the Indian affairs branch, because that branch has been successful in enticing from the department of northern affairs some of the key personnel who had been pioneering this program in the Canadian north.
I believe the time has come to make provision for school boards on reservations. It will be agreed that the system of giving more and more local responsibility to the band councils is proving highly successful, and now that they have grasped the nettle of local democracy for the first time the next step forward should be the provision of local school boards to handle the problems of schools which still remain on the reservations. This is one of the areas where I have had the greatest problems in the two reservations in my constituency, the Oak River and Oak Lake reservations. The Indians there would like to have some share in selecting their teachers. There is great mobility among the teaching profession on reservations, and they feel that they should have some say in the choice of teachers in order to get personnel more suitable for local prevailing conditions.

Interim. Supply
The time is not far removed when the remaining schools on the reservations will be staffed by Indian teachers. Now, with more and more young Indian people going into university and taking teacher training courses, this would be the ideal solution. Indian teachers would have a tremendous impact on the rising generation.
I could deal with many other subjects with respect to Indian affairs. I would like to reinforce the suggestion made by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka, that it is high time we had a spokesman for the Indian population in the House of Commons. We have one in the upper house and I think all will concede that this has been a worthwhile development. I may also mention that the hon. members for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have often suggested that there should be a spokesman for the Eskimo population in the house. This is something which is done in countries like New Zealand and Australia with reference to their aboriginal populations. Now that we are conscious of our obligations to these first Canadians, now that we have begun to move forward, this is a further step that would have a tremendous impact on their morale and on their gradual acceptance of full responsibility as citizens of Canada.
In summing up, in short discussions of this kind we always tend to generalize, and so I should like to underline a few points which we should recognize as pitfalls in the program presently being implemented. One of the great problems of the Indian reservations system is chronic poverty. People talk about the poverty of the underprivileged in the various countries around the world where refugee problems exist, but I do not think one could find conditions worse than those which exist in a good many of our own Indian reservations. Constituents of mine have become very exercised about this matter and have written asking what the government is doing about it. The only reply one can give to letters like that is to point out the government programs that do exist, and stress that if flesh and blood is to be put into these programs there must be initiative on the part of the local citizenry.


Mr. Gregoire:: Carried.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I see my hon. friend from Lapointe is here this week and that he wants this particular matter to be carried. I have heard him wax long and eloquent on matters that are of particular interest to his own area. If he is going to be a first class Cana-

dian himself and think of the needs of Canada and Canadians generally, he would be well advised to give some attention to this extremely sensitive and difficult problem.
There is a problem of hard core poverty which should exercise the consciences of all of us. Unfortunately, this is a self-perpetuating problem. Where grinding poverty exists, it tends to become a way of life after two or three generations. The parents are poor, they are undereducated, they are underemployed, and they become dependant on public assistance. The same pattern will be followed by their children. They will be weakly motivated, they will drop out of school, they will be underemployed, and they in turn will be dependant on public assistance. The only way you can get at this rut is to approach it from several directions at once. Welfare workers now recognize the difficulty of the chronic problem family. You are not going to get at the problem by dealing in isolation with one smaller aspect; you must move in with all your welfare resources and tackle it right at the roots. Neither is education enough; it is not enough to say, "We have expanded educational facilities", just to salve our conscience. We in North America tend to believe that education will solve all problems, but education is only one tool. I am sure this is recognized by the government.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to recognize that wars are expensive, and the war on poverty is no exception. However, I think we will all agree that new interest and enthusiasm in tackling this problem is going to not only bring great immediate benefits to the people of Canada but will also be a rich investment for Canada's future. If we in this house forgot this business of harping so much on the rights of the founding races, on problems of racism in this country, and looked around and saw that we have a responsibility to Canadians whatever their ethnic or racial background, we would be making a large contribution to resolving the problems of these, our first Canadians.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take part in the debate; I just want to point out that it is excessively boring.
The chief whip of the Conservative party is going around with pills to keep the members of his party awake. I think that of all the evenings I have spent in the house, tonight is the worst, and I will ask the Conservative members to be kind enough to give us a chance to adopt the motion on interim supply, otherwise we will have to ask

the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) to take out of the interim supply we are dealing with tonight a portion of the federal grants to mental hospitals and to send the money to the Conservative caucus, because if they are listening to their own speeches tonight they will realize that they are erecting a monument to human stupidity.
This has been going on for five days. There are 265 members in the House of Commons. It seems to me that there are more important matters to discuss, namely the legislation to establish a department of agriculture for eastern Canada or of rural development, and several other bills. We would be ready to discuss those matters. But I keep hearing the same speakers repeating the same things. I feel the Conservatives should make an effort, if they are able, to pass interim supply, and then, if they so wish, sit all through summer -I am not against that-to do useful work. Let us give something to the country, but let us stop useless and fruitless discussions like those we have been hearing these last five or six days. It is a waste of time.
A moment ago, I was going over the measures still to be passed. There are many much more important than the ones under discussion at this time.
If the purpose of these discussions is to have us sit all summer, we are prepared to do just that, but let us discuss intelligently of matters which will benefit the country.
I think the Conservatives should be the first ones to allow us to do that.
The whip of that party gave me to understand earlier that there were still ten speakers on the roster. If they are going to be anything like the ones we have heard tonight I would ask him to spare us all that.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to stress the fact that standing order 5 provides that "every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house." Now, I think the Liberals will agree with me that tonight's debate is one of the dullest we have had in a long time. Therefore, I would ask the house to give me leave of absence at least for the rest of the evening.
I have been here since eight o'clock. It has been an hour and a half-


Mr. Canlelon:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Gilles Grégoire: I am on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Kindersley, on a point of order.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder how the hon. member can make such statements when on the bill on student loans his party took eight days of the time of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I would also like to ask him how he can make such statements when this afternoon at 3.45 there was not a single member of his party in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gilles Grégoire: It is easy to explain why there was only one member of our party in the house this afternoon. Our members are intelligent enough not to stay in the house when you cannot hear anything but foolish speeches as the ones delivered since eight o'clock.
Mr. Chairman, a wise man once said- [Text]


John (Jack) McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am still on a point of order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: There is a point of order here, Mr. Chairman, because in the opinion of the hon. member those who have spoken tonight are stupid. That is no reason why he should rise in the House of Commons and cast such a reflection on everybody who has spoken tonight. I would say that one of the best speeches made tonight, and one which should have been made before, was that of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would endorse what the hon. member for Kindersley said, and I think it would be seen, if Hansard were checked and analysed, that the hon. member for Lapointe has spoken more often than any other member of this House of Commons this session, and said less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think it might be just as well if the committee confined itself to the resolution now before us. The hon. member for Lapointe.
6336	HOUSE OF
Interim Supply


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to refer to a remark which was made a few moments ago. When we devoted eight days to the bill concerning student loans, there was a principle at stake, because we were objecting to the passage of such a bill unless an amendment was made to it-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member is now commenting on a procedure of this house which has been concluded.


An hon. Member:: Make your speech.


Gilles Grégoire: No. I figure I would be demeaning myself if, at this stage, I made a speech after so many dull contributions we heard to date.
A moment ago, I referred to standing order 5 where it is said that an hon. member may take leave if he is given leave of absence by the house. Under the circumstances, I am asking for leave for the rest of the evening, because I consider I did my share, as I have been sitting here since eight o'clock listening to speeches by hon. members and that I fully deserve to be allowed to leave the house now for the rest of the evening. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Text]


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure for us to give the hon. member for Lapointe permission to take his leave from the chamber. He has not been here for the last three or four days anyway, and therefore his contribution this evening is just about in line with what it has been during the last three or four days. It seems to me that the hon. member for Lapointe has been appointed the new speaker for the government, the new house leader, judging by the way he was rhyming off a number of measures which might be put before this house. As I have said before, we would be very pleased to accept some of the measures on the order paper at the present time instead of sitting here and waiting, or not necessarily waiting but-


Some hon. Members:: No, waiting.


Mr. Ricard:: Waiting for answers.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting interjection from hon. members opposite. I listened this evening to the hon.
[The Deputy Chairman.]

member for York-Scarborough first of all accuse people on this side of the house of prolonging debate-his precise words. Then he asked whether we knew he had spoken twice last Friday-which is quite true, but it was only to talk out, if I remember correctly, somebody else's bill. The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam, who today made the proposal to meet with the government side, called that intervention and that of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice Liberal hypocrisy at its best.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a contribution to the debate today. It is a peculiar thing, but in entering a debate like this, with the opposition endeavouring to do that which the government has not given it the opportunity to do, I am reminded of the actions of that minister when he sat on this side of the house. I am reminded of the great interest he, the great artist of doom and gloom, took in affairs of labour and employment. He produced his own bureau of statistics to prove that everything was bad and going down the drain, that everything was in tough shape. He also became a specialist in agriculture for southern Ontario. Now he seems to have forgotten all these things. Now that he thinks he is in a responsible position, everything is fine, and he is going to make it rough for us if we do not go along with him. That is the twist which events have taken today.
With other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, I should like to compliment the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in rising to answer questions regarding the contribution the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek made in regard to that department. I also noticed with interest that the parliamentary secretary said that it was his unpleasant duty to talk out the bill of the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.). If it was his duty, then he must have been instructed to do it. Therefore he did what he was supposed to do, against the interests of one of his own members. That is what we said at the time, in agreeing that the measure proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) was a very worthy one. I should like to repeat some of the words used that day in the debate on the hon. member's motion. He had this to say, as reported at page 4566 of Hansard:
Before entering the house today I was informed that the Canadian pension commission is being authorized to undertake the kind of survey to which I have just referred. I was of course pleased to hear this, since it was in order to encourage such a course that I placed my motion on the order

paper last February. However, I do not intend to ask that my motion be withdrawn. I feel that the two proposals-mine, and that of the veterans affairs committee-are complementary and I should like to feel that the members of this house through the committee on veterans affairs would have a hand in directing the course of the survey suggested.
We agreed at that time-and I think this was indicated today by the parliamentary secretary-that another course would have to be followed, had that measure been adopted. However, I do not think that is the case. At that time we had the same attitude that we have now, that the house should have been given the opportunity to be unanimous. As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said this evening, this is one of the best committees of the house as far as freedom from partisanship is concerned. Little partisanship if any is displayed in that committee. Therefore I feel that the minister and the government would have been wise to allow the entire house to give its approval not only to the suggestion concerning the pension commission but to the terms of the resolution as a whole, as proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.).
The reason I am entering the debate this evening is due to a press report which appeared at about the time of our discussion of that resolution. I regret now that I did not see fit to raise this as a question of privilege at the time so as to straighten matters out, but I did not believe it was that important. However, inasmuch as this opportunity now presents itself I wish to take advantage of it. A Canadian Press report quoted me as saying that special allowances should be paid to all former prisoners of war, not just to the Hong Kong veterans. That is not correct, Mr. Chairman, and that is not what I said. What I said was that I felt that equal treatment should be extended to prisoners, regardless of what theatre they served in. I said nothing about allowances. I did not want any selfish attitude to be projected in this respect.
However, at that time I did refer to several specific instances concerning comrades of mine who had passed away, and I alluded to the circumstances in most of these cases. I think that the members of the press gallery will be aware today that another colleague of mine passed away a few days ago under similar circumstances to those referred to in my speech, which is reported at page 4572 of Hansard for June 22. Mr. John Norman Harris was a writer of some note from the city of Toronto, and as I said was a comrade of mine in eastern Germany. Without any prior illinterim Supply
ness and under exactly the same set of circumstances to which I referred in that debate he just passed out of the picture when he was vacationing with his family in Vermont.
I wanted to take part in the debate this evening to correct the error which had been made in the report of the debate that day, and also to say that we are very pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has seen fit to be the first in the course of the last six days to rise to his feet and make some reply to our questions. I have just been informed that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has done the same. However, it is a peculiar thing that the parliamentary secretaries have to be carrying on this responsibility at this time, and it is regrettable that the ministers have not taken the responsibility for answering questions about the departments which have been discussed during the past week. I hope that in the time that is left there will be some greater measure of responsibility on the part of those ministers of the crown to examine the number of questions which have been put and that they will come forward with some of the answers. If they do not provide the opposition with the time to debate these matters they must realize that we must take this responsibility unto ourselves, because of the serious picture which we feel is presented to the Canadian scene.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, tonight I should like to commence discussing a new topic. The subject about which I wish to speak involves a question of government enterprise versus private enterprise and the extent to which this government believes it is the function of crown corporations to compete with private enterprise, the methods by which they may compete and the lengths to which they may go.
I am very happy tonight to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his seat because I know he has been very interested in this subject. I intend to refer specifically to the Northern Transportation Company as the crown corporation which provides the most striking example of the malaise I find in government circles today.
I should like to refer to this subject now, without deferring it for any length of time because of the indication of some urgency in an answer given to me by the minister several days ago, to the effect that the Northern Transportation Company has let tenders for the construction of a boat in Vancouver. This

Interim Supply
situation indicates to me that Northern Transportation Company intends to extend further its operation. I have reason to believe I will be able to show this committee that such further expansion of these operations can only be done at the expense of private enterprise. I have every reason to believe, and hope that I have the evidence to show the committee, that a private enterprise, Arctic Shipping Limited, will almost certainly be forced out of business by this continuing expansion. I think there is much evidence to show that pressure on the Yellowknife Transportation Company, the only other private shipper on the Mackenzie river, is going to increase in direct proportion to the expansion of Northern Transportation Company operations.
Mr. Chairman, I think every member of this committee with any regard for private enterprise should be interested in this subject. I realize I have referred to the tactics in respect of the Northern Transportation Company on grievance, and I am sure that members have noted the number of questions I have placed on the order paper in an attempt to obtain more and more information on this subject. I will indicate at this time that I have many more questions now on the order paper in the hope that the answers will provide evidence enabling every member to understand fully the situation as it exists today.
Never before in this chamber have I had the opportunity of referring to this subject in chronological order. I think members will be interested in the position of the government in respect of crown corporations as it relates to the intention enunciated in this chamber at the time the corporations were established. I am sure that a consideration of the growth and purpose of these corporations together with a consideration of the type of operations they are carrying out, their extent of growth and changing conditions, will enable members to appreciate that the original purposes have been served in many instances.
We are faced with a situation in which there has been the creation of a giant which has accumulated so much equipment it must compete more and more strongly with private enterprise to put that equipment into useful operation. In other words by degrees and stages, and by various means, the government has slipped into the habit of allowing crown corporations to expand further and further in competition wtih private enterprise.

Some of the things we must consider are: What was the original policy? How far have these corporations grown? How far have we departed from the original policy? What is the change in the concept of the functions of some of these companies? What is the policy of these corporations as enunciated by the companies and government? What is the extent of resources behind crown corporations? How much can these corporations accumulate? How much of the taxpayers' dollar can be stated to be legitimate capital of the corporation, which the corporation can plan to use? Is there any limit in this regard? What tactics can management of crown corporations use in competition with private enterprise? What should be done with crown corporations set up for one purpose, when that purpose is found to be no longer necessary? When do we stop empire building in the civil service? What is the method of hiring as compared to private enterprise? In this connection what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report by a parliamentary committee which spent a whole session studying this situation?
At the commencement of my remarks I should like to state that I realize the continued growth in activity of Northern Transportation Company has taken place during the last several years. The previous government did at least refer part of this problem to a special committee on research. I will also show that the situation involving the L.S.M. Sally being brought into Canada did not come to the attention of the government until just about the time of the change of government, and this government did exactly what the previous government did. The previous government did not pass an order in council allowing that ship in, when it should not have been allowed in through normal channels. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was approached he also refrained from taking the necessary steps to have the order in council issued as requested by Northern Transportation Company.
Part of the difficulty which exists today, as it existed when the Conservatives were in power, resulted from the gradual expansion in the activities of crown corporations. I am sure the accumulation of equipment was carried out for legitimate purposes. This equipment was acquired to carry out jobs which the corporations were instructed to undertake and the growth took place stage by stage. The gradual encroachment in the field of private enterprise was accidental rather than planned, and took place by degrees rather than as a

result of a sudden change in government policy. I do not think anyone in government two years ago would have been prepared to enunciate government policy in this regard. As a result of answers I have obtained from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to which I will refer later, and as a result of physical statistics that have been supplied in relation to the changing situation in the north, I do not think the present minister can clearly enunciate policy in relation to the activities of this company.
When crown corporations were first established by Mr. C. D. Howe in 1946 the concept was that they should carry out essential government services not being provided by private enterprise. Private enterprise either did not exist, or did not or could not undertake a task in the realm of public interest which the government felt necessary, as the result of which the government found it necessary to provide these essential services. In 1946 during a debate in respect of crown corporations Mr. Howe had the following to say as reported at page 2176 of Hansard for that year:
-it has never created a company that is in competition with private business in any way, shape or manner. If private business was able to carry out the war objective, private business was given that opportunity. The government has created crown companies only to undertake work that private industry was not willing to undertake.
Mr. Howe then went on to say:
I know of no government company that has ever been in direct competition with private industry; and certainly those that will be continuing companies cannot possibly be considered to be in competition with private industry.
I think that quotation makes my initial point very clear. I am sure that the Liberal party regards itself as a free enterprise party, as does the Conservative party. I know the Creditistes and the Social Credit party make much of this point, and I am sure the members of the New Democratic party are interested in this subject, perhaps not because they are against direct competition as such, but because of a desire to make sure that government enterprises are run efficiently and fairly, and compete on a basis under which competition is honest and fair without the use of undue influence by crown corporations as a result of the positions they occupy.
When 1 have referred to this matter previously in the house I have not bothered to make the statement that my argument is not based on a lack of efficiency on the part of the personnel of Northern Transportation Company compared with Yellowknife Transportation Company. Both companies have a very 20220-401
Interim Supply
good reputation in the north for service and the individuals employed by them are efficient and hard working. Certainly if the people in any crown corporation did not work hard and efficiently in carrying out their duties to make their company the best they could, they would be doing less than what they are required to do.
I have no quarrel with that aspect. My quarrel and my argument concern government policy. They concern the top public servants who run the company and advise the government on policy and the top civil servants who advise the minister on policy. It is the change from the policy as indicated by C. D. Howe to the present policy, which is not so much enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as indicated by the activities of the company, that I should like to emphasize tonight.
It might be a good starting point to refer to the matter of policy as enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when I have queried him about it in the house. On the 4th of October, 1963, I put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on policy. It is to be found on page 3208 of Hansard for that year and the last part of the question reads as follows:
Does the government intend to permit Northern Transportation Company to extend its operations in the north in direct competition with private enterprise?
The minister replied as follows:
This is a question of which I would require some notice. As the hon. gentleman knows, there have been discussions between the Northern Transportation Company and some of the other carriers. We have had this matter under consideration for some time, and I think it would be in the interests of all concerned if I had a little time to prepare an answer which would be as clear and satisfactory as possible.
I then asked the following clarifying question:
Is it true the minister is being advised on this question by a committee composed of his deputy and the president of Northern Transportation Company, although the question being considered is the competition between Northern Transportation Company and private enterprise in the north?
This was the answer:
I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am receiving advice from many quarters, including those he has mentioned.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I question the source of his advice. I cannot see how the minister can feel that any advice he would get from the people in charge of Northern Transportation Company or the president of Eldorado Mining and Refining in response to the complaints that I and many others have

Interim Supply
brought to his attention could be anything other than that this situation is healthy for the company and that this is the proper method of proceeding. I might say that in a minute I am going to refer to the further answer given by the minister, but the question of policy, whether further expansion in competition is going to be allowed, has not been clearly enunciated yet.
Some time ago some assurance was given by the minister to the president of Arctic Shipping and the president of Yellowknife Transportation when Northern Transportation took over the Hudson's Bay Company boat, the Banksland. At one time the Hudson's Bay Company turned over to Northern Transportation Company its facilities on the Mackenzie river, and then a year or two ago sold the Banksland to Northern Transportation Company. Up to this point there had been no operation in the Arctic as such by Northern Transportation Company, other than the operation which that company had carried on in connection with supplying the D.E.W. line.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave the assurance to Arctic Shipping and to Yellowknife Transportation Company that this did not mean the expansion of the services provided by Northern Transportation in the Arctic and that all they were doing was to take over the business that had been done by the Hudson's Bay Company. This is the first point where I think the minister must have been misled, or else the company did gradually expand after he had given that answer.
Up to that point there had been no bulk oil shipments handled in the Arctic by either the Hudson's Bay Company or Northern Transportation Company. But not only did Northern Transportation Company take over the Banksland; they started hauling barges behind it, a type of service never before provided. They started to go into areas where the Hudson's Bay Company had never gone. In other words, the minister had received assurances from these people that this did not in fact constitute an expansion of the service when in fact it did; and I am sure the reason he answered as he did was that he did not know about this business of shipping in the Arctic.
I can recall the fuss that was raised when, after Yellowknife Transportation Company had made their plans to carry certain shipments of oil and it was so far advanced in the season it was too late for them to re-

arrange things, that company was summarily dismissed because another department had already issued orders that the Hudson's Bay Company would carry this oil. Of course, the policy in the Arctic had always been that the transportation of oil would be given to Yellowknife or Arctic Shipping or Hudson's Bay and that Hudson's Bay Company was entitled to half the business. As it turned out, however, Hudson's Bay Company never had the equipment or never really used it and in fact Arctic Shipping had always done the work.
What happened when Northern Transportation took over? They said it was always intended that Hudson's Bay Company would get half of the business so they were not expanding. Certainly this is a specious argument in view of the fact that Arctic Shipping had been struggling to provide a service in the Arctic and had become accustomed to carrying this business, because it found too late in the season for it to do anything about it that the situation had changed. In the first year their anticipated income was knocked down by $30,000. I do not think this is a minor thing because Arctic Shipping cannot stand that type of competition. It cannot stand losing that amount of business.
I believe most members feel that the government should encourage private enterprise to open up the north and that it is necessary for this purpose that private companies remain strong and healthy. The deliberate expansion of the facilities of Northern Transportation at the expense of a small company is simply going to cripple that small company and this matter must be looked at most seriously by the government.
I hope I do not do the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources an injustice when I now state what I believe he has stated to be the policy of the government with regard to helping open up the north. I know he is very sincere in his interest in that area and I certainly am convinced from what he has said that he is much in favour of private enterprise. His view seems to be that the role of the government is to provide those services which private enterprise cannot or will not provide, that where it is advantageous and will help to open up the north if the government moves in the government should do so. I think he would probably go further and say the government should not be too slow in moving in there.
But I have never heard him make any statement of policy that is in line with what is actually happening in the Arctic today.

I refer again to C. D. Howe's statement of policy under which it was laid down that crown corporations after they are established are not intended to be in competition with private enterprise. In other words, even on the view of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with regard to the role of government enterprise in the north, they are only intended to fill that gap that private enterprise cannot or will not fill, or to enter into the picture if private enterprise is slow moving. Certainly, nothing less than this is going to be of assistance. Nothing has been said by the minister of northern affairs, and I will give him time to correct me right now. I want to be fair, and I am glad that he is in his seat tonight.
I should like to refer now to some of the other problems we have in connection with these companies. As I said, I think the reason we now have the problems we have today, where competition is so fierce that one private shipper is going to be frozen out of the Arctic, is directly due to the growth and expansion of this company. The purpose for which this growth was allowed was not to permit the company to be in competition with private enterprise. To begin with, Northern Transportation is a subsidiary of Eldorado Mining. It was required to look after the mine and provide the hauling available in the north. There was just not sufficient private enterprise available to make sure the government's mining program could be carried out. Eldorado was charged with the duty of providing tugs and barges so that this function could be carried out. I have no quarrel with that; it was necessary.
There was another instance of growth in connection with the D.E.W. line supplies. Northern Transportation Company was made the official agent of government to make sure that there would be sufficient transportation available for the building of the D.E.W. line stations. I may say that when Northern Transportation was so. appointed, its duty was to act as the voice of the private carriers as well as the government. It was really supposed to survey the transportation facilities then available, to co-ordinate those private facilities and to plan such other facilities as it felt were necessary in order that there might be sufficient service to carry out this work.
When we are considering the growth of these companies, I think it is well to remind ourselves that Northern Transportation-here is where the empire building came in- ignored the private facilities then available 20220-401J
Interim Supply
in Canada. At that time Yellowknife Transportation Company, which since the depression had been struggling to provide a service in the north, had a tug or two and several barges surplus to business on hand. The company could not get enough business to keep them busy. It would have been of considerable assistance had Northern Transportation Company, by reason of being the agent of the government, made use of this equipment and given private enterprise a chance to share in the growth of the transportation business that was going to result from the defence construction. This company was completely ignored and all that business was handled by Northern Transportation Company. The other companies could struggle as much as they wanted.
I cannot imagine any other sphere of activity in Canada, whether it be aircraft production or the production of any other supplies for the armed services where, if a certain crown agency had a duty to survey the material available and to act as spokesman for those engaged in the industry supplying that material, the crown agency would be allowed to ignore private Canadian enterprise and set up its own company to handle this business. This is the equivalent of what has happened in this case. Then, you would have the equivalent of the crown organization ending up with a huge fleet and edging over to compete for the private business in the north in competition with private enterprise.
Certainly, I believe this might be the appropriate time to comment on the method by which businesses can grow and expand. Every company, especially those we like to think form the backbone of this country, is set up by men of daring, vision and imagination who are willing to get in there and slug. They generally have to build out of profits. Certainly, if such a company is going to meet competition from a competitor who has unlimited capital resources, then they are in trouble. This is now the situation on Mackenzie river and in the Arctic. We have a crown corporation with millions of dollars worth of equipment and with all the resources of the government behind it competing on the Mackenzie river with Yellowknife Transportation, which is struggling to build itself up.
Yellowknife Transportation is now a respectably sized company but it still has to have due regard for the amount of capital required when it is going to plan its facilities. To illustrate this fact, I think we only have to repeat the story of the L.S.M. Sally.
I brought this question up on a grievance

Interim Supply
period, but perhaps in view of what I have said the story may make a little more sense to hon. members now. The L.S.M. Sally was a government surplus war ship purchased by Northern Transportation Company and brought into Vancouver. Since it is quite old it was unable to pass the maritime regulations which prohibit a boat more than five years old being brought into the area for use. They could not get a licence. Yellowknife Transportation tried to do the same thing three years before. Yellowknife thought they could use this boat to advantage, and since it was old they believed the amount of capital required could be financed. The company believed it may be the best way of providing equipment to take care of expansion. When Yellowknife tried this three years before and found they could not do it, they had to make alternative plans. They built additional tugs and barges to take care of the business for which they could have used the L.S.M.
Now, Northern Transportation meets the same situation. They cannot use the Sally. What does the minister's latest communication tell me they are going to do? They have tenders out to build a new boat. They first tried to accomplish their purpose the sneaky way, I submit, by trying to get an order in council passed so they would be above the ordinary law to which Yellowknife Transportation was subject. Failing that, they have allowed this ship to stay in Vancouver harbour for a year and a half. The company now has tenders out for a new hull. They will take the insides out of the Sally and put them in the new hull, thereby getting the same type of ship without the expense of building it all from scratch.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that only a government agency could afford this sort of thing. Northern Transportation Company has, of this date, 97 barges licensed to cover the Athabasca and Mackenzie sectors. I am not sure how many tugs they have. I do know, according to figures supplied in an answer given me by the minister, that only 89 of these barges were used last year. One or two were leased out to Yellowknife Transportation. What is more, an examination of the figures relating to the total tons hauled by the two companies shows that Yellowknife Transportation company hauled a greater tonnage with only half the barges. This is the situation we are facing today. I say again every member in this house, including the minister, will want to look at the situation closely. What private enterprise company can afford to do business this way? Having invested in

more barges than were needed, Northern Transportation is going ahead to make a further investment in this type of ship.
I would like to refer now to the minister's subsequent statement on policy that he gave to the house on October 9. It is fairly long but I want to read it all because I think it is only proper in the context of this speech that his statement be complete. Then I shall refer to it bit by bit later. It appears at page 3369 of Hansard for October 9, 1963, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go contrary to your advice with regard to the answer to this question-
I had a little trouble with the Speaker in getting him to recognize the question as urgent, which explains the minister's opening remarks.
-but I do owe an answer to the hon. member which I think I perhaps should make now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have been following the presentation of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona with a great deal of interest and I would hope there might be time for a reply from one of the ministers concerned. My reason for rising at this time is to suggest this might be a suitable opportunity for such reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think the committee would mind if the hon. gentleman finished his remarks briefly. I do not think it is necessary for him to read all my speech, but if he would like to finish his speech I would say a word or two in reply.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give consent to the hon. member to finish his remarks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is starting a new speech; he has 30 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the house leader has any unusual announcement to make tonight?


Guy Favreau: It should be an unusual announcement to say that with the hope that we will have passed interim supply tomorrow we will carry on with second reading of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements bill, after which we will be taking the flag debate.


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

Tuesday, August 4, 1964