1965-04-02

Hon. Gordon Churchill (for Mr. Lambert) moved: that the seventeenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to this house on March 26, 1965 be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['In\nview of these questions and answers may I ask the Prime Minister for the name of the psychiatrist on the B and B commission?']
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: that the twentieth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to this house on March 26, 1965, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: In connection with Viet Nam and the desirability of having a conference of the Geneva powers, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to advise the house if it is a fact that the British government has sent a message to the Geneva powers asking for their views as to the conditions which should be laid down as a basis for the convening of a conference, and what will Canada's views be in that connection? I have another question that no doubt will be supplementary to the answer.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have received, only a short time ago, a note from the British foreign secretary, on behalf of his government, one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva powers, asking Canada, as a member of the international control and supervisory commission, along with its two colleague
states and the original members of the Geneva conference, for a statement as to the views of the government with regard to what conditions we believe should be considered precedent to the calling of a conference on Viet Nam.
I just received the note a short time before coming into the house, and I would not want to give a precise reply until I have had a full opportunity of considering the matter. But I would like to say, without anticipating the details of the reply the government will make, that our views have been stated, beginning with those expressed by the Prime Minister on February 10 when he said the government was of the view that there should be a cease fire on all sides. As I have repeatedly said, we think that military means are not enough to bring about a solution, and that a conference is necessary.
However, I have had to point out that before a conference could be held there would have to be a disposition for this on all sides, and there is no evidence at the moment of any agreement or disposition on the part of North Viet Nam to the holding of such conference.
Perhaps at this juncture I might just throw out what I suggested a week ago, that if there is no agreement with regard to the holding of a conference on Viet Nam, the time may have arrived when we could give consideration to a conference on the problems facing Laos. The members of that conference would be the same member states that would attend a conference on Viet Nam. It might be that the holding of such a conference would afford an opportunity for considering the matter involved in my right hon. friend's question.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and I base this question on the summary of the message from the British government for the convening of the convention-is it not a fact that the government of the United Kingdom, a socialist government, takes the unequivocal stand as a government, that the United States is justified in carrying on its policies in South Viet Nam, and carrying them on so long as North Viet Nam continues its aggression?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I think it is clear from statements made by the British prime minister that what the right hon. gentleman has said is a correct interpretation of stated policy of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
May I just add one more observation to my answer to the right hon. gentleman's first question. The suggestion of a conference on Laos was put forward by the British government and reaffirmed by the former British foreign secretary, who is being sent to Viet Nam by the British government.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the suggestion of calling a conference on Laos simply a means whereby these various nations can be brought together, with the opportunity of discussing the Viet Nam problem, where it is expected that would be one of the subjects discussed?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There are very serious problems involved in the Laotian situation, and there have been suggestions made that the time is at hand when some of those problems might be faced and possibly resolved by a meeting. There has been no opportunity for direct contact by most of the Geneva powers with Hanoi, and as the North Vietnamese government would in all probability attend a conference on the Laotian problem, this might afford a contact which is not now available.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with the appeal of Yugoslavia and other non-aligned nations to which he referred yesterday. At that time he said he had not the opportunity to study the text of the appeal in detail. I should like to ask him whether, having now read the text, he approves the appeal of these nations for immediate negotiations without preconditions and, if he does approve, whether the government of Canada has communicated that approval unequivocally to the government of the United States and to other interested governments.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I cannot add anything at this time to what I said yesterday. I indicated yesterday that on first reading I could not approve of all that was involved in the appeal, but that much of the appeal did commend itself to the government of Canada and seemed to be consistent with previous declarations of Canadian foreign policy. Beyond that I cannot go at this moment.
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Can the
hon. minister tell us whether he has been contacted by the government of the United States or by the secretary general of the United Nations with regard to the proposal that the secretary general should proceed on a peace making mission of his own to North Viet Nam, South Viet Nam or red China, as is reported this morning?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It would be expected that a country such as Canada, loyal to the charter of the UN, would be anxious to see the secretary general use his good offices for the purpose of bringing peace to Viet Nam. Anything the secretary general could do in this context would of course receive the strong support of the government of Canada. I might say that when the Prime Minister conferred with the secretary general some time ago he gave the secretary general the fullest encouragement to use his office for this purpose.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is aware that the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism, through its representatives, is making a psychoanalytical survey of certain members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: What a task.


Mr. Knowles:: Somebody should.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: This very important matter has not yet been brought to my attention. I would hope that if the commission feels inclined to do this it would not make any exceptions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: In order to arouse the curiosity of the right hon. gentleman I would ask him, as a supplementary question, to tell us of what benefit it would be to the B and B commission in carrying out its terms of reference to receive answers from members to questions or statements such as "politics is a dirty game". Members are asked to comment on questions such as that. Is this within the terms of reference of the commission?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see how any supplementary could arise from the original question, which was more in the nature of a statement, or allegation.


Stanley James Korchinski: If it is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it is a related matter. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not put a stop to the questioning of members by the B and B commission on political matters; such statements as "the local party organization has had very little to do with getting me elected". This is in no way connected, even remotely, with the subject matter under study and is a burden on the taxpayer, though it may be of assistance to Liberal headquarters.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
view of these questions and answers may I ask the Prime Minister for the name of the psychiatrist on the B and B commission?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I regret I have not had an opportunity to give him notice. I have just received from the president of the national defence employees association at Point Edward naval base this telegram, prompted by fear of further unemployment. I quote from this wire:
Will the maintenance and security of the base remain the responsibility of the Department of National Defence? This we were led to believe by the minister of defence and the Minister of Labour.
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on a related matter. Is the minister in a position to announce today the new civilian complement for Point Edward naval base, since he will recall he advised that it was anticipated that a decision would be reached on this question before the end of March?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The decision has not yet been reached, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Associate Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. In taking the question of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria as notice, is this an indication that there is going to be a change in the announced policy by the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Solicitor General. In view of the strike action at gasoline outlets in the Georgian bay area is the government undertaking a comprehensive review, under the Combines Investigation Act, of long standing complaints of price fixing by major oil companies?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughf (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I shall take the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Justice, who will bring in an answer in due course.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on March 19 I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the study relating to the Alaska Panhandle and means of access through it. Again on March 26 I posed a similar question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On each occasion there was the indication that a statement might be made about this matter. Inasmuch as this looks like the last day of this session, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to make some comment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not answering the question before. I have had the answer on my desk for two or three days and I should have given it to him earlier in the week.
The problems of access through the Alaska Panhandle from the Yukon and northwestern British Columbia have been under consideration by the government with United States

Inquiries of the Ministry officials for some time. As my hon. friend knows, an agreement has been reached with Alaska for the winter maintenance of the Haines road. There is also a study going on of a rail route from the Arctic circle to the Pacific ocean and, as my hon. friend knows, of paving the Alaska highway and an evaluation of the roads to resources program in northern British Columbia.
The discovery in 1964 and the imminent development of mineral and hydroelectric power resources behind the Panhandle underline the importance of the access of this territory to the Pacific ocean, and a departmental committee has been dealing with this particular matter both as to the location of routes and the manner by which agreement might be reached with the United States for free access along those routes. This committee-and it is dealing with a very complicated and important subject, of course- has been asked to have an interim report ready early this summer.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be kind enough to tell us who are on the committee, or at least what departments are involved, as was done in the case of the interdepartmental committee relating to the hunting and fishing rights of Indian people. Perhaps the Prime Minister might also indicate whether, if and when this report is completed, it will be made public.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer that question, I would say that the departments involved are the Department of External Affairs, of course, and very naturally the Department of Transport. As the hon. member knows, last year we had an interdepartmental committee of five men visit the territory on transport matters, and I think he would agree with me that no better work has ever been done in the particular area than was done by those five men. Therefore they will be interested in this matter, and my own Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; and I would think the Department of Justice would have to be represented.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question. Does the minister's last statement, that he thinks the Department of Justice will have to be represented,


indicate that the committee is not yet established?


Arthur Laing: The preliminary work is already in the hands of my department, and when we get further into discussions of the problem other facets will undoubtedly arise. I think in the end a great number of government departments will be interested.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: have a supplementary question for the minister of northern affairs. Is he in a position to advise the house of the present status of inquiries into the possibility of using Tarr inlet as a Canadian port of access to the northland?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, our information is that Tarr inlet would at this time provide no outlet for a Canadian port because, contrary to the first statement that was made, we now find that the ice extends into the United States portion of the Panhandle. You will recall that the first report indicated that the glacier had receded one half mile into Canadian territory. In addition, it appears that it would be very difficult to build a highway or a railway on top of a sheet of ice, so we believe there are other areas which are more propitious for the development of a port than Tarr inlet.


Frank Howard: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask whether during the consideration of the approach we should make to the United States government in this regard, any consideration was given to trading access rights through the Panhandle for some portion of the province of Quebec.



HAMILTON FALLS-POSSIBLE TAX CONCESSIONS TO ASSIST DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether discussions have been taking place between him and the premier of the province of Newfoundland in connection with the development of the Hamilton falls project in Labrador by Brinco. Has there been any request that there should be substantial tax concessions given to Brinco with the understanding that this development will proceed? Can the Prime Minister give the house any information in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland has not raised that matter with me.



BAY OF FUNDY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction in Hansard for March 31, 1965. The change may result in a different reply from the Minister of Transport. I asked a question regarding an investigation into the feasibility of harnessing tides in the bay of Fundy. That question as it appears in Hansard has the word "concluded" attached to it, and that word should not be there. What I was endeavouring to determine from the minister was whether the government has arrived at a decision to go ahead with a $500,000 investigation into the feasibility of harnessing the bay of Fundy tides, as was recommended by the Atlantic development board. Is the government yet in a position to announce a decision?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, subject to confirming my recollection, my impression is that the Atlantic development board at its meeting next week is going to consider representations regarding this matter from the government of Nova Scotia, and until the board itself has made a recommendation it would be inappropriate for me to indicate the position of the government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he is aware of the statement made by Mr. Dillon, former U.S. secretary of the treasury, who asks for a reform of the international monetary system and, if so, could we know whether Canada intends to support a move along those lines?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the statement which was made by Mr. Dillon to which my hon. friend has made reference did not, as I understand it, describe a reform of the monetary system
20220-828J
Inquiries of the Ministry but dealt with arrangements in respect of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.



SIGNIFICANCE OF TRIP TO FAR EAST BY LEADER OF OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Canadian Press report to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition is planning a trip to the Far East mean that there is an understanding between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition not to hold a general election this year, or does it have some other significance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not draw any political conclusion from our joint peregrinations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you both going?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the Prime Minister in that regard. It is always of interest to note that the right hon. gentleman is concerned with world affairs, and he is to be congratulated for the care he exercises in reading the newspapers.



CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT-STATEMENT BY U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is the minister considering any step to follow up the statement made by the United Kingdom high commissioner on the freeing of trade within the automobile industry?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of automobile trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is receiving the careful and serious attention of both governments.

Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN-POSSIBLE AMENDMENT IN COMING SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the Canada pension plan has passed both houses, is the minister considering suitable amendments for inclusion in the throne speech proposed for Monday next?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre directed a question to me as to whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had received a request from the international typographical union for an opportunity to reply to some of the criticisms of that union that were made on the program "This Hour has Seven Days" last Sunday evening.
I am advised that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on its own initiative, has invited Mr. Robert McCormack of the international typographical union, local 91, and Mr. Bernard Thall of the Toronto Star, to appear soon on the program "This Hour has Seven Days" for joint or separate interviews. Mr. McCormack has already accepted the invitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which arises from his statement that the government of Canada and the city of Vancouver have signed an agreement for the restoration and preservation of the historic Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessel St. Roch. I congratulate the minister for completing these arrangements, but I am now anxious to know when that work will commence and when the minister expects that it will be completed.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the first task in this regard is to be undertaken by the city of Vancouver, and that is the provision of a rather unique cover for the vessel. When this is completed we will begin immediately the reconstruction of the vessel to bring it to a condition where we are certain there will be no further deterioration. I am sure the hon. member will be interested in learning that we are undertaking an investigation into the possibility of placing in the maritime museum there a fairly representative quantity of Arctic materials which would relate itself to the vessel itself and its historic voyages.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the house whether an agreement has been reached between the government of Canada and the province of Manitoba respecting reinsurance pursuant to amendments recently made to the Crop Insurance Act?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. We have some problems that we are in the process of ironing out, but we hope it will be accomplished fairly soon.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Is there a possibility that agreement can be reached before the crop insurance corporation lets the contracts for reinsurance for the coming year?


Harry William Hays: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.

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



SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Commission-
Id. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $257,975.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us want to hold up the passage of the supplementary estimates today any more than is necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is a change.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, some comments are being made, but I do not think I can be accused of holding up the estimates at any time. I have one or two observations I should like to make concerning the civil service commission which I think are rather urgent. First of all, some time ago the Secretary of State, who is the spokesman for the civil service commission in the house, indicated that a statement of policy would be forthcoming concerning bilingualism in the civil service. I bring this matter to his attention again today for this reason. I put forward this reason some time ago, and it still exists to a very large degree.
From first hand information and also information that has been conveyed to me it is my understanding that there is a great deal of uneasiness and uncertainty among many federal servants in all parts of the country concerning their future as civil servants. There are all sorts of rumours, and one can also draw the implication from the wording of civil service competition notices that in some way or other people who do not speak both languages are going to be discriminated against so far as promotion is concerned.
I think the spokesman for the civil service commission in the house should make a clear statement of policy in this regard just as soon as possible, so those who are members of our very large federal civil service will know where they are going and will know positively what the policy of the government and the civil service commission is going to be. As I have already mentioned, there is a great deal of uneasiness and uncertainty as to the future of members of the civil service. They are very worried about the situation. They want to know what the policy is in respect of bilingualism, whether they are going to be frozen in the same jobs they now hold for the rest of their days, whether they are going to have the same chance of promotion or whether their chances are going to be less favourable than they have been.
I think the situation should be made very clear because there is a great deal of uneasiness among civil servants concerning this matter. I have had all sorts of complaints and requests made to me, and I am sure most other hon. members have too. Therefore I believe either the chairman of the civil service commission or the spokesman for the commission in the house, the Secretary of State, should make very clear at the earliest possible date what the policy of the commission is
Supply-Secretary of State going to be with respect to bilingualism, and what chances people have for advancement if they do not speak the two languages. I think that is something that should be made clear so as to remove the great uneasiness and uncertainty that exists at the present time among federal civil servants.
There is another point. The civil service commission is a creation of parliament and not an arm of the government. It seems to me that just as soon as convenient in the the coming session a parliamentary committee should be set up to examine the civil service commission again, and ask questions. This happened a number of years ago when the previous government first took office, and I think it was helpful. Quite a bit of time has elapsed since and in my opinion it is high time, particularly in view of the increasing emphasis on bilingualism by the civil service commission, that the commission should appear before a parliamentary committee again.
May I also say that not only in the federal civil service commission but in all other civil service commissions, whether municipal or provincial, there has been an increase lately in the emphasis on paper qualifications required for people to obtain jobs. Paper qualifications requiring certain levels of education are all very well. Nobody would disagree with that, but it is my feeling that a great many times paper or academic qualifications are stressed to far too great an extent, and other qualifications that are just as important in many civil service positions, such as basic and native intelligence, ability to work hard, integrity and conscientiousness, are almost entirely disregarded. I think it would be a very good thing if a parliamentary committee would look into that matter.
There is also the question of the tests and qualifications drawn up for certain positions. As I have mentioned before in the house, I should like to find out just what are the qualifications of those who draw up the tests and qualifications. I think it would be very helpful to get information on this point, and we could do so if a committee were set up to look into the civil service commission.
There is another matter which I think is very important. I am sure every member of the house is constantly faced with requests and complaints of people between the ages of say 40 and 60 who, because of the educational system in the country in the past, lack the paper or academic qualifications to obtain jobs in industry or elsewhere. Despite the comments that have been made over the

Supply-Secretary of State years by the civil service commission and others, it seems to me that people in the 40 to 60 age group have very little chance of getting jobs through the civil service commission or anywhere else.
This is one of the biggest problems we face in Canada today and it is certainly one of the biggest problems that any individual member faces. I think it would have a very salutary effect if this matter could be examined carefully by a parliamentary committee which could call before it members and senior officials of the civil service commission. If the civil service commission makes no attempt to help in the employment of people in the 40 to 60 age group, they have virtually no other chance of finding employment. This is a very serious matter.
As was mentioned only a few days ago in the house, the Department of Labour and its minister have made a serious attempt, I believe, to encourage employment of older persons. Yet we hear that the Department of Justice has said it will not employ people over a certain age. Employment for people in the 40 to 60 age group is one of the biggest problems we have in Canada at the present time. I am sure every member of the house knows this, and I think the policy of the civil service commission in this regard should be very carefully reviewed.
As I say, recently the Minister of Labour made an attempt to encourage the employment of older workers, but apparently this policy has not worked out. I give him full marks for trying, but it would seem that the methods used were not very satisfactory. This is a matter that goes beyond the civil service commission and will have to be dealt with at another level, but certainly the commission through its policies can do much in this regard. Therefore I strongly request the government that in the coming session of parliament a committee be set up to examine those aspects of the work of the civil service commission I have mentioned, as well as a great many others.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be very brief but I wish to raise a very important subject. I want to take the opportunity under this supplementary vote to deal with a most serious matter. For many years there has been a confusing conflict with regard to the policy of the government and the civil service commission in respect of the payment of salaries or wages. I have in mind the situation with regard to those who are paid on the basis of current trade

union rates in the particular area and others who are journeymen in other trades and are employed by the same department but are paid on an entirely different basis.
Since I come from the city of Vancouver, I know of one department of government in which certain journeymen are paid what is known as prevailing rates. In other words, six months after a trade union contract is established these journeymen receive whatever increases may be involved. However, in the same department in which these journeymen receive prevailing rates you have other journeymen who do not receive prevailing rates and are paid between $100 and $140 less than the prevailing rates. I have never been able to understand why journeymen in one trade are paid prevailing rates while journeymen in another trade are paid on a different basis.
We have a situation also which has been brought forcefully to the attention of Vancouver members relating to the orderlies in the veterans hospital there. They proved to us at a meeting that they have to accept greater responsibilities as orderlies in Shaughnessy than do the orderlies in Vancouver General, St. Joseph's, St. Paul's or any other hospital. Yet there is no prevailing rate for them. They receive far less, with greater responsibilities, than do the prevailing rates employees in all the other hospitals not only in Vancouver but throughout the province of British Columbia. Year after year this matter has been raised. Less than a year ago I recall we were told by a member of the cabinet that this matter was not only being considered very carefully-I think the present Minister of Transport made the statement-but there would be an extension of the prevailing rate principle.
I completely agree with the prevailing rate principle. I hope we can now have an answer as a result of the study we were told was being undertaken a year ago. I hope we can be told there will be an extension of the prevailing rate principle, and there will not be discrimination between journeymen of one class and journeymen of another.
There is one other point which I believe is of vital importance, which relates to the continuation of what I consider to be a nonsensical practice. I could give an illustration in Vancouver but I should like to go now, if I may, to Victoria and Esquimalt. In certain categories there-let us take the ammunition depot-you have a prevailing rates structure. I agree it is absolutely correct. However, all the supervisory staff who are respon-

sible for the work and the direction of prevailing rates employees receive less money than those who come under their jurisdiction. Surely, sir, one should not have to say very much on this point. When in the name of heaven are you going to correct the situation where your permanent staff at the supervisory level receives less than those whom they supervise? Do not misunderstand me. I want the prevailing rates principle maintained, but something is absolutely unjust when you accept a prevailing rates structure in certain aspects of an operation, yet those responsible for the direction of the prevailing rates employees receive less money.
I am certain that other hon. members from Vancouver will have something to say about this. I have discovered, because I asked for a report, that those under the prevailing rates structure are not temporary employees. They are working steadily and I hope they will continue to do so. Why do those who supervise get less than those whom they supervise?
I said I would try to be brief on a most important question. I sincerely hope that we can have an answer now as to how far you have proceeded with this study, undertaken a year ago, to extend the prevailing rates principle so that all employees of the federal government receive trade union rates established by those in private enterprise. I should like to request also that you change the policy so that those in supervisory capacities will receive at least as much as, if not more than, those they direct, because they have the greater responsibility.


Mr. Groos:: I should like to associate myself with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. He has brought to the attention of the house a situation which I too feel is quite ridiculous, as it applies to the wage scale of those in the supervisory categories who are working in conjunction with men who are being paid at prevailing rates. This is a situation which I did mean to bring up when the national defence supplementary estimates were before the committee, and I shall reserve my substantiating remarks until that time.
Briefly, I should like to say this is a very important matter. I cannot understand how it is that supervisory personnel are being paid less than those persons whom they are to supervise. I will go into specific details when the Department of National Defence estimates are being considered. As the hon. member mentioned, this situation applies also to some
Supply-Secretary of State of the personnel employed at veterans hospitals. In the latter case, I should like to deal with that situation when the supplementary estimates for the Department of Veterans Affairs are before the committee.


Mr. Challerlon:: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Perhaps I could interrupt the discussion at this point. The situation raised by the hon. member for Oxford is a basic one and would require a rather more thorough answer than I am able to give now. However, the suggestion about the committee will be taken into consideration. I had not, frankly, considered that matter heretofore, but in the light of his remarks it will be taken into consideration by the government.
The other question he raised related to bilingualism in the civil service. That was dealt with in a speech by the Prime Minister. I understood the purport of his remarks to indicate what he regards as the need for a carefully worked out definitive statement on that subject. I will consider that too. It is a matter of basic importance to the service.
The question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Victoria is a problem throughout the public service. In addition to its regular civil service employees, the public service has always had employees who may be journeymen or tradesmen paid at prevailing rates, whose pay is based on comparable pay in the area in which they work. The general condition throughout the country is that nearly all prevailing rates men are seeking to come under the civil service commission in their regular jobs. The civil service positions are based on even rates across the country, with one or two minor exceptions where extra allowances are paid, such as northern allowances. Leaving those aside, the pay is the same across the country, and that is the principle upon which that pay is determined.
The prevailing rates men are paid on a different basis, according to the rate of pay prevailing in their particular trades in the areas in which they work. One of the consequences of this is that on the west coast we have a situation contrary to that in other parts of Canada, because the prevailing rates men there do not want to come under the civil service commission. Their prevailing rate is high in comparison with that prevalent in other areas.
The converse of that has been stated by the two hon. gentlemen who spoke. They expressed it by saying that the average rate paid to civil servants across the country was

Supply-Secretary of State rather low. In any event, that is the nub of the problem, and the matter is now receiving examination by the appropriate personnel staff of the treasury board. As has been stated, it is a matter of great concern to the employees and it is one of some difficulty, but it is under quite active consideration at the moment to see if some basis can be worked out to remove the apparent difficulties which it is considered exist at present.


George Louis Chatterton: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon.
member for Victoria (B.C.) as my advance agents on this question. I also thank the President of the Privy Council for his answer, but I would point out that, for instance, the situation in the dockyard has been under investigation for the past two years, and these people in supervisory capacities are entitled to an answer.
One result of not giving an answer soon will be that we will lose some of these people, because there is a great shortage of skilled people in B.C. and no shortage of jobs for them. We have these skilled people getting less money than the men they supervise, and if this continues they will not stay with us much longer and it will be a loss to the civil service if they go. I realize that generally speaking the same salary must be paid for the same classification across the country, but I point out that there is provision for reclassification of positions.
There is another case which is the reverse of that. Some employees now in classified positions are receiving much less money than people on prevailing rates of pay, and they want to transfer to prevailing rate positions in order to get the higher rates of pay. For instance, this is the case with electricians at Patricia Bay airport. These people are entitled to an answer soon.


David Walter Groos: If I may add one final word, since we are taking up this matter now and not waiting until the department actually concerned is under investigation by the committee, I would like to amplify my brief remarks by pointing out the great danger that exists if this situation is allowed to persist for too long. I support the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich who said it has gone on long enough, and in fact I say it has gone on far too long.
I am thinking in particular of the supervisory personnel. Since the work they do is obviously of a much more important nature than the work done by the persons they


supervise, inasmuch as a lot of it is highly technical work and technical work must be passed and supervised, we are in grave danger, for example in the Department of National Defence, if we do not have the best supervisory personnel available.
When supervisory personnel leave they must be replaced, and the proper place for replacements to come from is the ranks of the men who are being paid at hourly rates. But since men paid at hourly rates are getting more money than supervisory personnel, naturally they are reluctant to step forward, and as a result we are not getting proper numbers of people coming forward to take over supervisory jobs. If we do not correct this situation our standards will suffer, and this will affect the efficiency of the departments concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: The matter brought before the committee by the hon. member for Oxford is one that deserves an answer in greater detail than was given by the President of the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council is thoroughly acquainted with the problem of the civil service of Canada. For 25 years he has represented a constituency in which there are many civil servants. I say he must have found that in the last year or so there has been a feeling of fear and frustration in the civil service.
The morale of the civil service is greatly subject to a feeling that all is not well, and this is due to the uncertainty of the utterances of the Prime Minister and other ministers in connection with the subject of bilingualism. No one has any argument to raise as to the necessity for the preservation of the principle of bilingualism in every regard, but surely those in the civil service today have the right to know what is the attitude of the government, and who in the government speaks with authority.
We have had a number of trumpets played by representatives of the government, all more or less with an uncertain sound. Is it intended that all civil servants desiring promotion shall have a full knowledge of both languages? The minister has stated that the Prime Minister made a speech somewhere, but speeches made outside the House of Commons do not answer the legitimate desire of civil servants to know what the situation is.
Is it the intention of the government that promotions are to be denied to civil servants, who for years have been giving of their best, because they are not bilingual? I mention

civil servants in Ottawa, but what of civil servants in other parts of the country? What are the rules that are applied to them? I know something of the civil service. My father was a federal civil servant for 25 years, and I know at first hand something of the difficulties of those who serve, and also of that spirit of dedication that has characterized Canada's civil servants throughout the years.
Certainly in the last two years there has been expressed by many of those who have been 10, 15 or 20 years in the service a feeling of trepidation, of uncertainty. I feel the minister should give a fuller answer than the concise but uncertain one he has just given to the committee. The suggestion by the hon. member for Oxford that a committee of the house should be set up to examine this problem fully is one which deserves the support of hon. members on all sides. I recall one of the committees presided over before I came into the house by Mr. Pouliot, now a distinguished member of the other place, and the benefits which followed the discussions and hearings of that committee.
I should like to ask the minister to let the civil servants know frankly what the situation is. It is no answer to say that the Prime Minister spoke somewhere; that is merely passing off a serious question, one which is exorcising the hearts and souls of civil servants everywhere. What is to be the attitude? What determination, if any, has been made, first as to bilingualism in Ottawa and, second, as it affects civil servants in other parts of the country? Knowing the capacity of the President of the Privy Council for giving lucid and complete information I would ask him to be a little more generous in providing the committee with information than he was a few moments ago. Let him not leave this matter in a state of uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds a lessening of morale. Fear denies that high rate of efficiency which our civil service enjoys.
I ask the minister, one who is sincerely interested in the civil service, to rise now and give an explanation to the house which will dissipate the fears being expressed in the civil service, and will give to those who serve a degree of certainly which at the moment they do not possess.


George James McIlraith: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has questioned my earlier answer on this important subject. I believe there should be a carefully worked out definitive answer placed on the record. The
Supply-Secretary of State hon. member for Oxford did raise what I felt was an important issue, that is the wisdom or the possibility of setting up a committee of the House of Commons or of parliament, as the case may be, to examine the whole matter of the civil service. The Leader of the Opposition supported his hon. friend in making such a suggestion. I stated by way of reply that this had not received consideration by the government but that I thought this was a very important matter and would see that it did receive consideration by the government.
As to the question of the fears of the civil servants, I have been of the impression that those fears were allayed by the speech which the Prime Minister made a few weeks ago to one of the associations, the professional institute of the civil service of Canada. This is the kind of speech which is published in the official publications of the civil service. After all, it was a speech by the head of the government and it has been my impression, for what it is worth, that it has allayed-


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister epitomize it?


George James McIlraith: I would prefer not to attempt to do so, because I do not have the text here. I should like to put a definitive and carefully worked out statement on the record if it is felt this should be done.
There is one point with which I should like to deal now, because I think the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue may possibly create fears, though I am sure this was not the intention. It has to do with promotions and the possible inference from the right hon. gentleman's remarks that the right of promotion is to be denied civil servants who are not bilingual.


John George Diefenbaker: What I suggested was that many civil servants fear this.


George James McIlraith: That is correct. I wish to make it clear that such fears are not justified. What is being sought is to provide that in those areas of the country where the people dealing with civil servants are bilingual, or may be speaking either language, the civil servants with whom they are in contact shall also, as far as possible, be able to speak the two languages. I might add that we have set up language schools which have turned out to be very well received by the civil servants. Such positions as I have mentioned would be filled as far as possible by bilingual civil servants, but this should not arouse any concern or fear with regard to promotions

Supply-Secretary of State in those groups of civil servants of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke.
The right hon. gentleman may think I am cautious, but I do not believe I should go much further on supplementary estimates in trying to set out a definitive statement. However, I should be very glad to try to have an authoritative statement made on this subject in a way which would make perfectly clear to all hon. members what the policy of the government is in regard to this important matter, and also would serve as a statement upon which employees of the government could rely.


Mr. Skoreyko:: I wonder whether the minister is aware that certain people in Canada's military service today have been notified that as of recent date men in the lower ranks cannot expect to be promoted unless they are completely bilingual. I know of one or two cases, particularly in western Canada, where junior officers have been told they can expect no further promotion unless they are completely bilingual. As a matter of fact they have letters to this effect, although I cannot produce them at the moment.


George James McIlraith: No, I am not aware of that. I will look into it immediately.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I have a couple of
thoughts on this matter, and as usual I will try to express them with laconic brevity. The question raised by our colleagues from the west prompts me to reiterate a point of view which has been in my mind for some time, namely that some thought might be given to the prevailing wage rate differential. I have never yet found convincing reasons why someone working on a government building in Prince Edward Island should receive 25, 35 or 40 cents less per hour than a similar employee working on a similar project for the same government department in the city of Toronto or the city of Vancouver. Certainly there is no differential in the cost of living which these men have to face, a cost of living which is rising painfully and rapidly. The point brought out by the hon. member for Oxford is, I think, of tremendous importance. It certainly cannot be dealt with in the heel of the session, which we are led to believe this is.
Of course the administration of the national government must reflect the bilingual fact of parliament, if parliament is in fact bilingual; but I think a most careful study should be undertaken before putting this concept into practice, which concept could be not only harmful but extremely painful and,


in the long run, detrimental to efficiency. I mentioned a couple of years ago-and I am not old enough or important enough to be quoting myself-that I thought then there was a danger of a situation developing wherein linguistic ability would transcend other abilities in the governmental service and this would be a most unfortunate development, as important and as cherished as is the knowledge of languages. No one envies more than I do the people who have that ability. But let this not be raised to become the most important factor in the over-all spectrum of a man's ability if he is working in the government service.
The last matter that I have in mind, Mr. Chairman-and it is a matter of some urgency-is this. I believe we have all received an appeal from the employees of the nation's penitentiaries taking bitter exception to the extent of the recent increase in their wage scale. They point out that 16.2 per cent of the penitentiary service employees of Canada received no increase at all in the latest raise; that more than one third received less than $200 a year. These people, quite rightly, are coming to Ottawa to protest about this injustice, and I think all sympathy and understanding should be given to them.
We are living, unfortunately, in an age when there is a great tendency to snap your fingers at authority, and I suppose the Rivard and Banks episodes dramatize and symbolize that very unfortunate development. These men who work in penitentiaries have a most difficult job, which is becoming more difficult. The hours are long, the anxiety is great, the conditions are not always the best. I hope when these people come to meet the cabinet or the responsible minister these facts will be borne in mind. They are going to come to Ottawa before Easter, and I hope some measure of sympathy and consideration will be meted out to these long suffering employees. They have plenty of troubles in prisons. There are problems in building the prisons, and keeping people in them, and so on; but surely those who are bearing the heavy burden, the wardens and guards, should not be thrown the small crumbs that were given to them in the recent pay increase.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I should deal at once with the point raised about penitentiary staffs. The group the hon. member was speaking about does not include the custodial staffs. They were well satisfied- and their organizations have expressed this satisfaction-with their pay adjustments. The dissatisfaction with the pay adjustments is in

the smaller proportion of the total penitentiary staffs. When they wrote expressing themselves I immediately offered to set up a meeting with them and tried to have it last Monday. They were not able to keep that date and indicated that the earliest they could be available was, I think, Monday, April 12. There is a meeting arranged for that date. I can assure the hon. member that the points raised will receive careful attention from the government.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by consideration of supplementary estimates D to make a few remarks.
However, since this session is to be closed soon, I am sorry that we have to rush a discussion which is most important, because it is closely related to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, as well as the whole stated policy of this government, with respect to this understanding which should exist, to the representation of French Canadians in the civil service commission, and especially to the equal treatment which should be given to the French speaking employees in the civil service commission.
On several occasions the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) stated that his government would seek to give priority to bilingualism, the theme of the Liberal policy.
Unfortunately, after two years of Liberal administration, and despite the fact that many representations have been made to the government, the only result which has been obtained is that the taxpayers must pay for a national inquiry on biculturalism and bilingualism, which, incidentally, has brought no practical results so far.
In fact, the results have so little practical value that not long ago in spite of the promises of the Secretary of State, the civil service commission, in application notices for candidates to higher positions in hospital administration, especially in nursing and in the medical field, mentioned among the qualities required of applicants, that candidates had to be able to understand and speak English. However, contrary to what I think and in contradiction with the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, it was also mentioned that a knowledge of French was desirable but not essential.
Mr. Chairman, these are quite important positions since the salaries attached to them vary between $14,000 and $17,000. Now, for these appointments to higher positions, to
Supply-Secretary of State executive positions even, the government does not require the candidates to be bilingual.
This attitude is contrary to the principle it has already stated in connection with its policy program. The government did not deem it necessary to require the candidates to these new positions that have just been created, to be entirely bilingual, even though this is obviously necessary.
I wonder how the Secretary of State and the President of the Privy Council can reconcile all they said in favour of bilingualism with the practical recognition of French at the higher levels of administration of the civil service commission.
Mr. Chairman, surely the ministers are aware of what is going on in their departments. If not, they are incompetent to hold such important positions. I think we should receive a clear answer. Would the ministers concerned tell us whether the publicity to the effect that they really are standard-bearers of total bilingualism in the country is but political propaganda or whether they are really sincere when they say they are tackling the bilingualism problem in the federal administration?
Of course other questions of particular interest to post office and penitentiary employees could be asked, as my colleague mentioned earlier.
The deplorable conditions under which St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary guards are working, for instance, are well known. Those employees are exposed to all kinds of ill treatment and reprisal by prisoners under their custody, and they are risking their lives for starvation salaries.
I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would consider with his colleagues this unfair situation and pay salaries commensurate with the risks to which penitentiary guards in the country are exposed.
Also, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party has promised a long time ago that if they came into office they would see to it that the salaries of post office employees across Canada are adjusted. In several cases, postal employees get ridiculously low salaries. Those people have to work long hours under trying conditions, and I wonder why the Liberal party does not consider the many requests it has received from them, for those employees are still waiting for results.
Mr. Chairman, if the government does not want us to feel that it has thrown away the $1.5 million which the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has cost so far, it will have to announce today, before a new

Supply-Defence Production session begins, whether it truly intends to implement complete bilingualism within its departments. Then, and only then, will we believe in its good intentions.
I feel that the Secretary of State and the President of the Privy Council should require all candidates to senior positions within the civil service to be bilingual. Indeed, complete bilingualism should first be practised within government departments, and especially at the higher levels.


The Chairman:: Shall the vote carry?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Before you call the next item I should like to know whether the minister intends to correct a situation, which is illogical, regarding the superior officers in the administration department, employed by the civil service, and bilingualism.


Maurice Lamontagne: Following the representations already made to me by the hon. member in that connection, I inquired from the civil service commission and was told that the main reason why French was not considered essential for those positions is that the program was in no way applicable to the province of Quebec.
The hon. member stated that we were not progressing fast enough in the field of bilingualism. I think he should have listened more carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Oxford with regard to the fears which seem to exist within the civil service. In accordance with our undertakings we are gradually taking steps toward increasing bilingualism in the civil service. I believe this is desirable, provided vested rights are protected.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
40cL. Canadian Arsenals Limited-Administration and operation, $437,000.
['Let me remind the committee of that old saying, that every man has his price. In view of the fact the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has cut me short I am quite willing to admit that in this particular case I would be willing to throw my principles overboard in return for that kind of legislation through a $1 item.\nMy colleague says I am beginning to talk like a Liberal. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should sit down and let you report to the house.\nResolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make a statement; rather I want to pose a question, because I am sure that others, like myself, are a little confused as to the position in respect of Canadian Arsenals Limited. May we be informed whether Canadian Arsenals Limited has been sold? If it has not been sold, will the minister give some indication as to government policy in this regard; and if it
[Mr. Valade. 1
has been sold will the minister tell us why it was sold?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the plant at
Valleyfield has been sold and the plant at Long Branch has been closed. I believe it has been sold also, but I am subject to correction in this regard. In any event, the operations there have been cut down. The plant at Val Rose, Quebec, has not been sold but it has been advertised for sale and negotiations are pending.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister answer the last part of my question?


George James McIlraith: What was the last part?


Harold Edward Winch: Canadian Arsenals Limited is a crown corporation with a magnificent history during times of war and peace, and I should like to know why the government has decided to wipe out this crown corporation by selling it to private enterprise, which would only purchase it for the purpose of making a profit.


George James McIlraith: This decision was taken in order to save money. The crown was paying a good deal of money each year to maintain facilities which were considered to be no longer necessary because they were being used only at a portion of their total capacity to produce defence requirements. The sales were made in such a way as to make sure that a source of supply would be maintained, so it seemed only reasonable to sell these crown assets.
It was felt that these sales would increase employment in the areas of these plants which would be used to capacity. The machinery, equipment and tools can be used to full capacity for other items of production, and it was felt that if the sales were made additional employment would be created. For that reason also it was considered desirable to attempt to dispose of these plants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Id. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates-to extend the purposes of external affairs vote 1 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to provide, notwithstanding article XI of the agreement set out in the schedule to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission Act, for the total cost o£ developing, operating and maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello international park (one half thereof recoverable from the United States government) and to provide a further amount of, $726,350.
Mr.   Nesbill@: Mr. Chairman, it has been a long time since we have had a full scale debate in this house on foreign affairs. This is something that has been requested by many members on many occasions. I realize that there is very strong disposition in the house to complete the present session of parliament today, so I do not expect we will have a full dress foreign affairs debate at this time. I hope the President of the Privy Council will not suggest to me that I can debate this important subject during the throne speech debate or in relation to some other debate, because I do feel that at an early date in the next session one or perhaps two days should be set aside for this purpose.
In spite of the fact that we are limited in our time today, many of us hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will give us at least a truncated statement particularly with reference to Viet Nam. Many questions have been asked in this house regarding the situation which exists there. Certainly there is a great deal of justified apprehension, worry and concern in Canada about the situation which does exist in Viet Nam. I think the Canadian people as a whole are greatly disturbed, perhaps even more so than in respect of any other event which has taken place for some considerable time. Although I did not hear the minister, it is my understanding that he said in a broadcast an evening or two ago that he felt the situation in Viet Nam is the most dangerous which has developed since the end of world war II.
I do not wish to make things any easier for the minister-I say that somewhat facetiously-but there are more members who on other occasions have held jobs related to that of the minister and who realize some of the difficulties the minister is facing. The minister has told us on various occasions that the Canadian government has been making strong representations to the United States and to a number of other countries to try to work out some kind of negotiated settlement, or at least to start negotiations. Only a few moments ago the minister mentioned one or two ideas he had on the matter, a conference on Laos and the like. I am sure all of us in the house would agree that negotiations should be started as soon as possible and that a negotiated settlement is the ideal thing. I do not think there is any argument about that but it takes two to get negotiations going.
Quite frankly, however, I have been rather surprised at the remarks of some members
Supply-External Affairs of the house, not to mention some commentaries in the public press. One would honestly think the United States was our enemy rather than the people of China and their allies in Southeast Asia like North Viet Nam. Some of the publicity given some groups in Canada, including some members of the house, in the public news media seems very shortsighted. One would wonder who was the enemy.
It is quite true that we may disagree with some of the methods and procedures used by our close friends the United States and others. We may disagree with some details of procedure, but I think we must realize that whatever happens to the United States ultimately happens to us. We are part of the same continent, and what is basically their interest is in many ways basically our interest as well. Whether or not we like it, those are the simple, unvarnished facts of life. Where we have strong views as to methods of attaining objectives, I think we should do everything we can to press those viewpoints. The minister has told us that, directly and indirectly, he has tried to press the Canadian viewpoint, and I hope he has.
There is another matter. The minister has told us that he will give us a full statement as soon as conditions are appropriate. I think any reasonable person might gather that at the moment conditions are perhaps not appropriate for a full statement; but while the minister cannot give us the whole loaf of bread at this time I would request him to give us a slice or two so we may have some idea of what is going on. I hope he will avail himself of this opportunity.
There are other aspects of foreign policy in addition to Viet Nam, although it is perhaps holding public interest at the moment in that it is of world importance. However, there are other matters which I think the minister could clear up this morning and I see no reason why he cannot do so. One is the question of aid to Tanzania. I believe that last summer the government of Tanzania requested Canadian officers to train their army. This request was turned down for reasons which never have been made entirely clear, but some officers were sent by Canada to train the officer corps.
As soon as Tanzania found out that officers to train her army were not available from Canada she immediately approached red China and got the officers from there. You can bet your bottom dollar that the officers sent by red China to train the Tanzanian army were not there for purely technical, military

Supply-External Affairs purposes. I would imagine that their skill in propaganda was probably the principal qualification when they were sent to Tanzania.
Because of the difficulties that have arisen between West Germany and other states in Africa, there is an opportunity again at this time to provide training for the Tanzanian air force. It is my understanding that this would cost approximately $10 million. The minister has told us that he is giving the matter careful consideration and that the government is thinking about it. I think it would be a very good idea, and I hope the minister is in a position to tell us that the government has thought about it enough to make a decision because, if not, the next thing we know Tanzania will have red Chinese officers training its air force.
At the moment Tanzania is probably the leading and most important country in east Africa. If that country keeps coming to us first for such help and we continue to turn a deaf ear to their requests and give them the cold shoulder, resulting in their turning over the training of their armed forces to the most militant communist countries, I wonder what will be the eventual outcome with regard not only to Tanzania but perhaps all east Africa. While at the moment this matter may be on the back pages of the newspapers, it may well be on the front pages before very long unless some decision is made.
There is also the question of military aid to Malaysia. I understand we have provided them with six Caribou aircraft and spare parts to last for a year plus 250 motorcycles. The minister has told us recently-I hope he has not had occasion to change his mind-that the wheat flour authorized to be sent to Indonesia, which I am told is used in military ration packs, has not been sent. I am very glad to hear that, and I hope it is not sent. These are some of the things on which I hope the minister can enlighten us.
There are broader questions like our relationship with the organization of American states, but in view of the shortness of time I will not go into that question now. If the minister would provide us with a one or two day debate, preferably two days, in the very near future after the new session starts, it would be a good idea.
Apart from general observations there is one question I should like to ask. One of the items in the supplementary estimates is for telephones and telegrams in respect of our mission in Indochina, in the amount of $200,000. This is in addition to what has already been appropriated. It seems to me this


must represent a terrific number of telephone calls and telegrams. I realize that our mission in Indochina is probably providing us with a great deal of information of one kind or another, but it seems to me that a supplementary vote in the amount of $200,000 for communication services in respect of Indochina requires some explanation by the minister.
I do not see how we can allow this item to pass until we receive some reasonable explanation, because the amount does seem a bit large. If there is a hot line between the minister and Viet Nam and this amount represents the rental charge for that service, all well and good, but the figure is so extraordinary that we would like to know what it represents. When I first looked at it I thought it was a misprint. I hope the minister will have a very good explanation for it.
There is one more observation I would like to make of a more general nature. As has been said, a great many reasons have been given for the position of the United States government with regard to Viet Nam, but in my opinion a number of those reasons have been rather obscure. Certainly I think no very strong reason has been given to the public at large. I think this is perhaps the fault of the United States public relations department because, of course, there are reasons or the United States would not be there. There may be a number of reasons.
I think one might make the observation that there are other places in the world besides Viet Nam where the same kind of problem is either occurring or can potentially occur. It is the old story. We thought we had learned our lesson in 1939 and 1940 when we saw a similar kind of thing, although at that time it was not the communists but the nazis and fascists in Europe. It is the old salami business; a slice here, have a conference, settle the matter, and certain things have been gained by the aggressor powers. There is a very close analogy in this case. If Viet Nam goes communist, next will be Thailand and then the Philippines and Malaysia. We have got to call a halt somewhere.
There may well be other reasons, but that is certainly one that is very important. If we continually permit the aggressive and militant powers of the communist world to move into certain areas by methods of subversion, and say all right, let them go, it is a long way off, it does not matter, then the next step will be taken into another country and another country and so on. Eventually a halt has to be called before we find that the

next step will be into our own country. 1 realize that you have to use moderation and try to get a sense of balance in assessing these things. Certainly this is one aspect of which no one should lose sight when trying to assess the situations that arise as a result of communist aggression in some fairly remote part of the world.


Mr. Herridge:: Let me first of all congratulate you on your temporary elevation to the chair, Mr. Chairman. While we have agreed to limit debate on these supplementary estimates, we simply cannot allow this item to pass without some comment on the tragic situation that exists in Viet Nam. I am going to confine my remarks on external affairs to that particular issue. As the previous speaker said, we have asked on occasion for the opportunity to discuss this situation and related subjects in external affairs, but to date we have not had that opportunity.
I have often heard it said that there are no votes involved in foreign affairs policy. I can say this, however, that if I believe in something I believe in standing up for it whether or not there are any votes involved. There are a good many people concerned with the Canadian government's policy in Viet Nam. I must say I have found a great deal of encouragement in talking to young people. I have talked to students at Queen's University, Toronto university, Montreal university and other universities. While possibly some of our older people are not so aware, shall I say, of the developing situation in the world today, I find that our young people are very concerned and are very anxious that our government take a stand in these circumstances of which they can be proud.
We have had numerous occasions in Canadian history when the Canadian government has shown a lack of courage in international affairs. I am not going to take the time to refer to them now, but I recall the failure to back up our delegation in Geneva when the question of sanctions against Italy was proposed. We are told that United States forces are fighting for freedom and democracy; it is supposed to be a Christian war. I want to bring to the attention of the house the real reason for the presence of United States troops in Viet Nam. President Eisenhower, at a state governors' conference on August 4, 1953, inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. This is what he said on that occasion:
Now, let us assume we lost Indochina. II Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The peninsula, the last bit of land hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible. The tin
Supply-External Affairs and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming...


John George Diefenbaker: From what is the hon. member quoting?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will give the citation at the end of the quotation.
So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of a most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the richest of the Indochina territory and from southeast Asia.
I am quoting these statements from a book "War and Atrocity in Viet Nam", written by Russell D. Stetler, Jr., and these statements appear on page 27. These statements were referred to in a press release at that time and have never been officially denied to date. Reference is made to the fact that state department officials were horrified on that occasion at the complete frankness of the President of the United States. Now, that is the real reason the United States defence forces are in Viet Nam, the real reason behind this fight for freedom and Christian civilization. In some instances it has been called a Christian war.
I should like to quote briefly from the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 27, 1965.


Robert Norman Thompson: Why don't you quote from April 2?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because I wish to quote from this issue. The article refers to the United States use of gas, and says:
The gas was described by state department officials as a type of tear gas that disables the enemy temporarily. It causes coughing, vomiting and chest pains.
I have had a bit of experience with tear gas myself, and it causes a lot more than that. I continue:
Newspapers around the world commented editorially that the use of gas had a peculiar horror associated with it, even when it was not deadly. ''Whatever the arguments of legality and humanity, this new development looks foolish to the point of dementia," said the Liberal British newspaper the Guardian. "How many battalions will those two gas attacks be worth to the communist world?"
In Asia, Japan's newspapers in particular were bitterly critical. "The United States has been experimenting on the Vietnamese people as a guinea pig," said the influential Tokyo daily Yomiuri. "It obviously represents Americans contempt for Asia."
This is the unfortunate world reaction to this use of gas by the United States in Viet Nam. Then I should like to refer briefly to the Montreal Gazette for April 2, 1965. The

Supply-External Affairs article is headed "Rainfall Washes Out Defoliation Effort." I quote:
A thunderstorm washed out the U.S. air force's massive scorched earth operation against the Viet Cong in the 19,000 acre Boi Loi forest, 55 miles northwest of Saigon.
Later the article reads:
The thunderstorm had put out fires from tons of napalm, phosphorous bombs and fuel oil that 70 U.S. planes dumped on tinder dry trees and jungle growth Wednesday.
The elements thus intervened in a three month campaign that Major General Joseph H. Moore, the U.S. air force commander in Viet Nam, had hoped would leave the woods burning for some time. Spokesmen declined to say whether the air force will try again.
Here is a frightful effort to destroy the natural resources of a country which will be sadly needed in the days ahead. Then the Montreal Gazette of April 2 carries this article from which I quote briefly:
In Paris, George Ball, United States under secretary of state, was reported as telling the NATO council Thursday that a negotiated settlement of the Viet Nam fighting now is an "academic question".
I am sure even our government does not think it is an academic question at this time. This indicates the attitude of these people toward a situation which, I am quite sure, in many cases they do not fully appreciate so far as the political implications are concerned.
I should like to congratulate the conference of the heads of state of the non-aligned countries held in Cairo in October, 1964 for their concern with this very important and vital problem and for their final declaration, a copy of which I have here but to which I do not intend to refer. I do hope, anyway, that our Secretary of State for External Affairs will do all he can toward giving effect to the objectives these people are seeking in their declaration. I congratulate them upon giving leadership to all governments interested in maintaining world peace by inviting those governments to assert themselves as soon as possible.
I wish to say I think it is time we had a new approach to this very serious and complicated question, and I do urge it is not possible to deal with these problems by treating them all as black and white under present circumstances in the world. They are not as simple as that.
Let us be clear in our interpretation of the situation in Viet Nam. What is at issue is not how to defend a nation against attack or subversion, but what to do when nothing will prevent a nation from adopting a communist


economic and social system except the forced installation of an oppressively anti-communist regime. This is the situation these poor people are faced with, and I am quite sure the majority hardly know what it is about.
I maintain that the latter alternative is completely indefensible. Morally it leaves nothing to choose between militant anti-communism and the worst aspects of militant communism; and practically it confirms that communist view of the western nations which is the greatest threat to our own security, the belief that we will destroy them if they are weak.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is it the desire of the committee that I should call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When we adjourned shortly after one o'clock to obtain some bodily sustenance and get the holes in our heads repaired I was dealing with suggestions with respect to approaching this problem presented by the situation in Viet Nam from a somewhat different angle.
While I was putting forward those suggestions let me say that those communists who questioned the inevitability of attack by the west and supported the possibility of peaceful coexistence had been discredited by the United States attack on North Viet Nam. Some people claim that a withdrawal of South Viet Nam would destroy faith in America's resolve to uphold her commitments to other anti-communist regimes dependant on massive United States support. This is true. The United States must accept the debacle in South Viet Nam as a defeat for this policy wherever it occurs, in Latin America, Korea or even Taiwan, and it must be flexible enough to find more effective and constructive means of confronting communism as an ideology or as a group of allied states.
The first thing necessary is to accept this sort of distinction. The adoption of communism by the Vietnamese, is in no way analogous to the forced imposition and maintenance of communist regimes in eastern Europe. In the latter case, all historians con-

cede that Russia was largely motivated by the fear of being ringed by hostile bases right on her borders in countries which had joined the Nazis in invading her territory. An analogous situation would be China's imposition of a pro-Chinese puppet in some southeast Asian country if she were to decide there was a strong possibility of the United States establishing military bases in the country otherwise. Obviously, the bombing of North Viet Nam can only heighten the insecurity that is a source of the major part of the danger communism presents to us. Guaranteed military neutralization of the area would be a constructive alternative. In saying this I am not underestimating the difficulties and complications surrounding this question.
The second type of communist expansion, ideological conversion of populations, is a completely different matter. For one thing, it represents no intrinsic threat. People who feel communist economic and social methods will increase their well-being are not necessarily going to be hostile to the west unless we ourselves meet them with an implacable hostility. If we are prepared to accept diversity of social systems and help alleviate the suffering arising from underdevelopment, there is no reason why we cannot coexist with these people. The only alternative in the long run is war. And if we fear emulation, the constructive solution is to out-do them not attack them. The proven ability of the American military might is the major barrier in the world today to communist ideological expansion. If the United States were to support progressive, non-communist governments with a fraction of the money and manpower she has sent into Viet Nam, and demonstrated that non-communist methods of economic development were superior, communism would be defeated, not martyred as in the present circumstances.
In this connection I wish to quote briefly from the London Times of February 26. This is an article reprinted under the heading: "The Freedom We Defend in South Viet Nam Does Not Include Freedom to Ask for Peace".
Slightly unnerving to the Americans was today's petition for peace. The police dispersed a gathering of 50 people who wished to hold a press conference to launch the appeal. Their resolution calls on both the government and the national liberation front to agree to an immediate cease fire. Dated February 16 and distributed in Vietnamese, French and English, it considers that the war, increasing in intensity, threatens to exterminate the Vietnamese race and to ignite a
Supply-External Affairs world war on its national territory. It further states that the whole population demands a cease fire.
That is the wish of the people. The dispatch continues:
The resolution is signed by an author and two doctors. Vietnamese journalists claim that more than 400 "leading personalities and intellectuals" have also signed None of the original three was available at home today and one is said to have been arrested.
A later dispatch in the Times of the following day says:
This is the first such peace effort to have dared come into the open.. I met today someone who had signed the resolution. The police action, though drawing a request for anonymity, had not silenced him, and the charges of communism were scornfully dismissed.. .My informant was convinced that everyone was fed up with the war... All that the people wanted was their independence: let Vietnamese talk to Vietnamese without interference. It was not a matter of 'isms'...For the man in the street-and my informant was not one-the only thing that mattered was peace.
That is a dispatch from Saigon by the correspondent of the Times to his paper on February 27.
In conclusion I wish to emphasize that while the Canadian government talks in terms of action when the tensions in Viet Nam lessen, the people of Viet Nam continue to suffer and be slaughtered; United States forces are now attempting to destroy invaluable forests, the natural resources of the country. As we read in the press only today, some 18,000 square miles of forest territory were threatened, but fortunately saved by a providential rain. Therefore I urge the government to join with all those other nations which have met together on various occasions in an effort to find the solution to this most dangerous situation and to join forces with the powerful voices in the United States which are opposed to United States policy in Viet Nam, a policy which at the present time is identical to the policy announced by the defeated candidate for the presidency, Mr. Goldwater. These voices have been raised in the United States senate as well as in the house of representatives, and by other leading people across that nation. Let us join forces with them.
I was talking recently to one of those persons in the United States who are much concerned with this question. He expressed amazement that Canada had not taken a stronger stand as a friend of the United States against the present policy, while at the same time dissociating herself publicly from the use of such nefarious weapons as gas and napalm bombs, the employment of

Supply-External Affairs which has had such a disastrous effect on world opinion, particularly on Asiatic opinion.
Surely it is possible for the nations concerned in this matter to arrange for a cease fire, bring the belligerents to the conference table and do all we can to bring peace to this portion of the world. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I realize the difficulties and I know the heart of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the right place in this grave matter; but we do urge the government to take a stronger and more courageous stand in line with the other nations which have already given the lead.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be short and to the point as they relate to the items of supplementary estimates that are before us in connection with external affairs. I would commend the minister for the stand he has taken with regard to the situation in Viet Nam. We have just heard an appeal to the minister to be courageous in taking more definite action with regard to that situation. I do not know what courage means here. If it means to surrender our responsibilities to a nation that is being attacked by a communist nation that apparently has no intention but to take over that nation, then I do not think it is courage that is needed; it is just a little bit of common sense. I am sure that all of us are interested in peace and realize that any escalation to all-out war would be disastrous at this time; but, Mr. Chairman, I can find no evidence in history that supports the idea that appeasement will ever result in peace. It has not. Aggression must be blocked. While doing this we must understand that the needs of all parties must be met. However, we cannot, and dare not, appease and allow one nation or one idea to make a slave of another. I think we have that responsibility today in the world as never before.
I was rather impressed by the remarks of the foreign minister of Thailand, a neighbouring country to Viet Nam, who when asked the other day if a negotiated peace was possible in South Viet Nam said, "Who is asking for negotiations? South Viet Nam has not asked for talks. Red China and North Viet Nam are not interested. Their position is perfectly clear. They want control of South Viet Nam and complete and unconditional withdrawal by the United States. What do you negotiate? Complete surrender of South Viet Nam to the communists? If that is your intention, then do not waste money and time negotiating. When one is willing
[Mr. Herridge.l

to surrender, then surrender. It is very easy". Then he went on to say that the United States must continue to support South Viet Nam or withdraw, because talk of a negotiated peace is impossible until both sides are willing to deal honourably with each other in such negotiation.
Some peacemongers at work in the world today are actually running the risk of bringing tragedy to the world. Therefore I believe that the policy the government has been following these past weeks is the only logical policy that one can follow; although I would encourage the minister to take the initiative in the two developing opportunities that seem to be before us at the present time. Just today the government of Great Britain called for the views of 11 other nations who are directly interested in the situation in Viet Nam. I think that here is an excellent opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for Canada to express itself clearly on the principle that appeasement settles nothing, but that every possible attempt should be made toward negotiation. I am convinced that red China is going to have to face up-and North Viet Nam as well- to the fact that there is a point beyond which they cannot go in their ambitions to take over more territory, bringing it under their sphere of influence. As they realize this, there is going to be more opportunity for negotiation, particularly if there is pressure from influential nations of the world. I think the call of Great Britain is an opportunity. It is to be noted here that the socialist government of Great Britain have been very careful to assess the situation in Viet Nam and have expressed their support for what is going on there at the present time, as it relates to the aggressive intentions of North Viet Nam, albeit they are willing and intend to do everything to bring about an honourable negotiation, not just an appeasement.
I would think, also, that the suggestion that has come today from the United States itself, with regard to the avenue of the United Nations and using the secretary general himself in personal diplomacy, should be explored and I would hope that Canada would encourage U Thant to take such action if there is any possibility of its bringing any degree of honourable negotiation. This is something for which many people seem to have lost hope for since the 1954 Geneva conference, because certainly there has not been very much honour in keeping those commitments which related to the respect of the territorial boundaries of South Viet Nam. So, Mr. Chairman, without prolonging this

point at all I would say that I believe the minister is taking the right stand. I would encourage him to move forward and use Canada's initiative and good will to do whatever is possible to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this problem before it does reach a proportion where it is completely out of hand and cannot be controlled.
There is another point as it relates to the supplementary estimates that are before us. I refer to Africa. I think it is opportune to take a few minutes at this time to mention this matter. The situation in Africa is far from calm and settled. There are many critical areas, even though Africa has not been so much in the news these last few weeks as it was earlier in the year. But I am concerned, as I look over the estimates themselves and as they relate to the two twelfths approval that these supplementary estimates are intended to give, that there has been no provision for the expansion of our own diplomatic representation in some very vital areas of Africa.
I am speaking particularly now of the country of Ethiopia, although I am not thinking only of the nation of Ethiopia itself, but also of those pan-African organizations which have their headquarters in Addis Ababa. There are three very important organizations today in Africa which are going to be concerned most vitally in the future with the political and economic development of that continent. The first is the organization of African unity, now having 35 members representing the independent African states. The responsibility of this organization in bringing about a peaceful solution to the political problems of Africa cannot be emphasized too much. In addition to this there is the United Nations agency, the economic commission for Africa, also located in Addis Ababa. This organization having been in existence now for a number of years is doing a very commendable job in trying to bring about coordination in the economic development of this vast continent.
In addition to this there is the new organization, the African development bank, which has its temporary headquarters in Addis Ababa, later to be established in West Africa at Abadan. The presence of these three panAfrican organizations presents not only a responsibility to us and the country of Ethiopia, but also an opportunity for us in our own interest in that continent. Canada is doing a very commendable job in many areas of the continent. We understand that our resources are not such that we can have an
Supply-External Affairs aid program of the size which would reach across to meet even a small part of the overall needs of that continent; nevertheless, Canada does have a very important role.
It is necessary that priorities be established quickly so that we can meet those opportunities in a most effective way, in light of the resources we have, through our external aid program. This means that the planning for the future development of the present programs must be co-ordinated with these various organizations in order to obtain the maximum effect from them.
To do this I think it is necessary for our Department of External Affairs, and specifically the department of external aid, to have direct and constant liaison with these organizations, particularly as they plan for the future and as they attempt to establish areas of the greatest priority need.
It seems to me that one of the immediate projects the government should consider in their external aid expansion program is the establishment of direct diplomatic relationships with Ethiopia on the basis that our representative there would be able to provide that liaison I am speaking about, with this very important pan-African organization.
One of the main things we do not have in our aid program in an area like Africa is over-all supervision and co-ordination between the various aspects. Again this would be a logical area for that kind of supervision, when thinking of the necessary liaison and co-ordination which should exist with these pan-African organizations.
I was interested when looking at the estimates to see that in respect of a small country like the Cameroons, where we have a total staff I think of 13 including both the national and Canadian staff, the cost of the mission there is about six times the value of the trade that takes place between our countries. I am not suggesting there should not be diplomatic representation with a country like the Cameroons, but it does seem that we are not putting our priorities in the right order when, investing that kind of money in a small country, we neglect any representation at all with a very large country such as Ethiopia, which is at the very hub or centre of the political and economical picture of Africa. These various pan-African organizations are located in such a position, and I suggest to the minister that one of the first things that should be done as far as this year's external aid program is concerned is to extend diplomatic recognition to that country, because our representatives there

Supply-External Affairs would be performing an important twofold purpose. Not only would they be developing the traditional ties of friendship that have existed between the countries, they would also be able to provide that liaison with the O.A.U. and the E.C.A. which is necessary, and at the same time assist in over-all coordination and supervision of our aid programs on that continent.
I speak on this subject now because its importance is such that we should not wait to act on it until we are further along in next session's business. Certainly I would agree with the hon. member for Oxford that general world conditions are such that we require at least a day early in the next session to have a full-scale debate. On the other hand, it is also important that the government move ahead with some of those priority things which are before us. It is very easy to get lost in the pressures of our responsibilities to the United Nations, the peacekeeping operations, in the difficult situations that are developing, and in the planning that is inherent in our association with NATO, not to mention those areas of Cyprus and Viet Nam. But we must not let the immensity of these tasks prevent us from carrying on our other responsibilities in respect of such areas as Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I will not speak any further at this time, but again I should like to say 1 do appreciate the policy which the government has been following in regard to both the situation in Cyprus and the situation in Viet Nam, in recognition of the fact that we must, while following this policy, do everything possible to bring about an honourable settlement, keeping in mind that our purpose is not just to combat communism from a negative standpoint but to show the emerging countries that Canada in its privileged position is interested in doing something to meet the needs of people whether or not they are behind the iron curtain or the bamboo curtain. We realize our responsibilities to each other as human beings and must use our influence to assist in bringing about peaceful settlements to the problems that are now before us.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the second last item of vote Id, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what kind of wedding gift has been offered to Queen Anne Marie of Greece for which $1,500 has been allocated?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Is the hon. member waiting for the minister to reply?


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would make his contribution to this debate while the minister is looking for the material in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, while I am waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am pleased to let the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) begin his remarks.


Colin Cameron: I will not take up too much time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, as I do not propose to delve into the political background of the situation in Viet Nam, or attempt to assess blame, particularly in light of developments which have taken place in the last two days-and I refer to the presentation of the unaligned nations by the ministers of Yugoslavia and the United Arab Republic, and the request by the British government for some assistance from Canada and the ten other nations in respect of possible grounds for negotiating a settlement, using the offices of the secretary general of the United Nations.
This might lead one to hope that we may now move toward negotiating a settlement in this area, but I do think there is one other important thing before us which involves a moral question. In spite of these rather hopeful and encouraging signs we are appalled by these events which are continuing in North Viet Nam, including the use of the napalm bomb, the phosphorus bomb, that particularly hellish new invention which scatters thousands of razor-sharp pieces of metal, and the burning of the large forests. These things are still taking place and it seems to me that Canada's voice should be raised in opposition to and in rebuke of this kind of behaviour. I cannot think of any conditions or any political aim that could possibly justify the frying of human beings with napalm, the burning of human beings with phosphorus and the bombing of human beings with high explosives in order to obtain an ideological advantage. This seems to me to involve a supreme moral question.
I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs joins with the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the

shame and horror we feel in respect of these events which are taking place in southeast Asia. I know he will tell us that he is obliged to adopted his present cautious stand because our friends are involved, and that we must not do anything that would in any way embarrass that friend and neighbour, the United States. This strikes me as being a very strange concept of friendship. To me, a friend is a man who will tell me when he thinks I am wrong, who is prepared to rebuke me if he thinks I am in error, and is still my friend. I know of no occasion when a lickspittle was ever able to be a worth-while friend, and with all due respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs there are many Canadians today who feel with dismay that our government is presenting Canada and Canadians to the United States in the light of lickspittles instead of a real friend of our neighbours to the south of us.
I think we have an obligation to the millions of decent, honourable Americans who are today dismayed at what is being done in their name in southeast Asia, and it does seem to me they have the right to expect from Canada a voice of warning and caution about the continued use of these particularly damnable weapons against a largely unarmed people, with men, women and children being destroyed in this evil and savage war. I think this can be done not only without detracting from our friendship with the United States but rather it could very well reinforce it because the United States would then realize that they had a real friend, a friend that is not afraid to speak out when it becomes obvious that the authorities in the United States, or some of them, are outraging the conscience of the world in this particular endeavour in southeast Asia. I would hope that if these negotiations are long delayed and if these savage attacks are continued by the United States, Canadians may have the satisfaction of seeing the spokesmen of their government have the courage to stand up and speak out against these inhuman atrocities.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? I have heard his remarks today and I have also heard reports of the remarks made by the leader of his party the night before last in which he said to the United States: Brother, you are wrong. What I should like to know is whether the hon. member thinks the United States is wrong in continuing the resistance against aggression, or is it merely wrong in the methods it is using? I would appreciate
Supply-External Affairs it very much if the hon. member would clear that up.


Colin Cameron: I would be very glad to. As I said, I did not intend to go into the question of the political aspects, but if one looks into the matter he finds that the scale of retaliation, if you wish to call it that, against North Vietnamese aggression, which no one denies -it has been an aggression of infiltration, not of very large magnitude, into South Viet Nam-is out of all proportion and totally unnecessary to hold the situation in southeast Asia, and for that reason I say it should be condemned.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I realize that all of us are anxious to terminate this session, but the fact remains that a debate on this question should have taken place days ago. We in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have frequently asked the government to set aside a day to discuss this very important matter, because it is one upon which I would have thought the government would have welcomed the views of members generally. However, that was not to be. Request after request for a debate on the subject has been met by qualified promises and nebulous affirmations.
I rise merely for the purpose of saying that I should not like the views of the gallant and hon. member for Kootenay West or of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to go forth as the general view of the members of this house. So far as the hon. member for Kootenay West is concerned, he is one of those to whom I listen at all times with great respect. He is a man of fearless speech. His courage is known to all of us. But those qualities do not always assure complete objectivity in the conclusions reached by those possessing such qualities.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands who used some very strong language. He never expresses himself with uncertainty. He always uses language that will secure headlines. Such words can easily be found in books of antonyms and synonyms. His expression a few moments ago about the United States and the conduct of that nation was not such as to earn for him the description of a frank and fearless friend. Through the years I have contended that Canada ought not to be the tail on the American kite, but those who express themselves in such extravagant language do not contribute to a solution of a serious prob-

Supply-External Affairs lem, one that merits the objective consideration of members no matter what their party.
Through the years I have tried to come to a general consensus of agreement with the government of the day on those things that affect the nation internationally. I said a moment ago that I was not one who accepted stands taken by the United States regardless of their merit. Often it was made clear to me when I was prime minister that stands Canada was taking were not acceptable to the administration in the United States, and I made it perfectly clear that Canada would take the course that in Canada's opinion was the right one. We were criticized for that. We suffered the importation from the United States of extraterritorial assistance to the Liberal party in two elections as a result of our stand.
But the fact that I contended over and over again for a policy for Canada in keeping with Canada's position and responsibilities does not mean that I would resort to grandiloquent and vituperative language to describe the conduct of the United States. It stands in southeast Asia today in a position which no other nation in the world would like to occupy. They are suffering the casualties and pouring out their blood and treasure.
I have not got notes of the adjectival recriminations that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands used with regard to the stand of the United States, but he did use strong words such as "inhuman", "outrageous" and "savage". These words always hit the headlines. He said Canada should speak as a good friend of the United States; that it should condemn what is taking place. I ask him, why is it that the socialist government of Great Britain, with all the experience that Britain has had in hundreds of years of diplomacy, is not speaking the way this socialist party in the House of Commons is? Do you think Britain would not speak out if the descriptive words used by the hon. gentleman were based on other than oratorical affectation?
No one likes the situation that prevails there. When he was asked a question by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, he rather softened his position. He said he believed that the scale of retaliation was out of all proportion. This is an argument that one can understand, an argument that appeals. I tell you quite frankly that I believe the United States made a psychological error in the use of lachrymal gas. I cannot understand that. I say that it is a rather strange thing that the use of gas took place without the knowledge of the President of the United States, the commander in chief of the armed


forces. This frightens me, for if military commanders in the field can do this, what is to stop them from going farther and using atomic or nuclear weapons? I still believe in the adage that war is too important for generals; in other words, that governments have a responsibility to watch the progress that is made and the recommendations made by those in the armed forces.
We have not been able to find out what Canada has done. We have been told that the matter is receiving close and careful consideration. Mention was made of what the United Nations might do. The United Nations cannot do very much. The United Nations, in consequence of the adjournment by reason of the failure of several of the nations to discharge their responsibilities under the charter, is today an emasculated body in international affairs. If the United Nations were sitting today, something might be done. I am not suggesting this as a means, but it has been suggested that the United Nations might make South Viet Nam a United Nations trust territory for a limited period of seven to ten years. This would certainly give an opportunity for the cooling off of passions.
However, it cannot be done today. The United Nations can do nothing. It adjourned, not because it did not have anything to do but because it knew it could not do it without a vote, and to have a vote would have meant a confrontation between the nations in the United Nations. So far as the secretary general is concerned, whatever the benefit of his services may be, if he goes into southeast Asia he will not have behind him the prestige and authority of a body that might be effective, if it were actually sitting.
Now, it is a popular thing to say how wrong the United States is. One would almost think that the forces in North Viet Nam were all saints; that they have no thought of aggression. They do not realize that they have along that north boundary line eight or more divisions of Chinese communist troops that regularly feed so-called volunteers into North Viet Nam. I think we should look at the record. One of the things that impresses me is the attitude of North Viet Nam. One of the reasons that country has proceeded in the way it has was revealed in May of 1962 when the military forces of the government of Viet Nam captured a number of Viet Cong documents. One of these documents contained instructions from the provincial committee of the Lao Dong party, the communist party, to the party's

district committees concerning formation of the new people's revolutionary party.
It read as follows:
In regard to the foundation of the people's revolutionary party of South Viet Nam, the creation of this party is only a matter of strategy; it needs to be explained within the party; and, to deceive the enemy, it is necessary that the new party be given the outward appearance corresponding to a division of the party (Lao Dong) into two and the foundation of a new party, so that the enemy cannot use it in his propaganda.
Within the party, it is necessary to explain that the founding of the people's revolutionary party has the purpose of isolating the Americans and the Ngo Dinh Diem regime, and to counter their accusations of an invasion of the south by the north. It is a means of supporting our sabotage of the Geneva agreement, of advancing the plan of invasion of the south, and at the same time permitting the front for liberation of the south to recruit new adherents, and to gain the sympathy of non-aligned countries in southeast Asia.
Then, later it reads:
During these explanations, take care to keep this strictly secret, especially in South Viet Nam, so that the enemy does not perceive our purpose ...
Do not put these explanations in party bulletins.
Well, that is what has happened. What should we do? As I say, the United Nations cannot do anything that will be effective. It has been placed in a position in vacuo, as a body for peace by the policy of the U.S.S.R., its satellites and one or two other nations who will not pay their just contributions. What is to be done? There remains only the question of negotiation. The United Kingdom today is not following the flamboyantly incendiary ideas of the socialist party in Canada. The United Kingdom has suggested that there should be a reconvening of the Geneva conference provided certain conditions are achieved, and it asks a number of nations to give their views on what those conditions should be. I should like to hear from the minister what condition Canada believes should be imposed as a condition precedent to the convening of the conference. Certainly, the convening of the conference without an agreement in advance of certain conditions will be simply to add chaos to the serious situation that already prevails. All of us desire peace but we will not bring peace about by a campaign of propaganda, of abuse of one nation that stands today in the position that Great Britain stood for so many generations in all parts of the world.
I had no idea of rising to take part in this debate, but having heard the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands I could only say I would have been recreant to my position as member of par-
Supply-External Affairs liament to have sat silent and allowed his message to go out as representative of the general view of parliament.
We want peace. What can be done to that end I have not heard anyone say as yet. If we could get to the negotiating table and there was any hope that negotiation would succeed, then indeed progress would be made; but we cannot get to the negotiating table unless North Viet Nam decides to end its policy of insurrection, attack and infiltration. If North Viet Nam will but give that assurance I am sure there would be little delay in the convening of a conference that all mankind hopes will be convened at the earliest possible date. All of us recognize that if the situation continues as it has for the last few months, in particular during the last two months, such a conference cannot be long delayed, else what is happening will gradually explode into a conflagration that will envelop nations far removed from southeast Asia.
Stand the Americans must, on the basis of the undertakings and commitments they accepted. If they do not stand and simply walk out then, as the hon. member for Oxford asked today, what happens? What happens in Malaysia, our commonwealth ally? What happens to Thailand; what to Burma; what to the Philippines?
It is so easy to sit here and criticize, and say what is being done is wrong, but the great problem that faces world statesmen today is what can be done. All I see Canada can do at this time is to make her voice known to the freedom loving nations of the world, calling upon them to negotiate and, at the same time, exerting whatever influence she can on the U.S.S.R., and also on France, to do their respective parts to secure approval by the Hanoi administration of a discontinuance of its belligerent activities. That done, we at least have a basis upon which to go forward. Undone, we face an accelerating position of grave danger, not only in Asia but generally throughout the world.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I think the last hour or two demonstrates the great unwisdom of not having a debate on external affairs at this vital time. I am just going to mention a couple of items, one of them complimentary to the minister and one critical.
We are a little concerned in Canada that foreign policy has lost the elan, dash and momentum it used to have in earlier days, and we wonder why. I am personally dis-

Supply-External Affairs appointed in the minister's seeming inability to carry through his once obvious interest in the Latin American region. I had thought we would see the day when he as minister, and his chief as Prime Minister, would lead this country into the organization of American states. I have had my speech of congratulation ready for two years on that subject. I am not going to destroy it, but I am putting it further and further back into my files because I do not expect to be using it now.
Under both the minister's predecessors great things were done in the Latin American region, and great appreciation was obvious in Latin America for what Canada was doing. Now I feel the momentum has been lost, particularly in the region which was formerly the British West Indies islands, in which I feel we have a great opportunity and tremendous responsibility. If we get to another session I am going to make a more prolonged plea to the minister to take initiative there, and for Canada to take initiative there.
I would also like to say that I am reminded of what took place in 1940 in the British house of commons when, in an era of appeasement, the leader of the opposition was called upon to speak for England. I believe that on the question that was discussed in this chamber during the last three quarters of an hour the Leader of the Opposition spoke for Canada. He spoke for many, many more Canadians than those members of the New Democratic party, who made their remarks before he expressed his cogent, reasonable and tremendously pertinent views. This is another reason why we should have had debate.
It is all very well to say the voice of Canada should be raised, but the voices I have been hearing of late have been those voices that are quite ready to sit in righteous judgment upon the United States for their internal policies, and especially for their external policies. There always seems to be an open season upon the United States in certain quarters in this country. I remember the people of the left wing in Canada who used to talk about these gentle agrarian reformers sweeping down from north China. Always the more tender support is shown to those of the north in Asia. But one essential fact we must never forget is that we in Canada gain nothing when the United States is embarrassed, and certainly we are not furthering Canadian foreign policy by irresponsible utterances which make the United States' great task all the more difficult.


I do not think the government or the minister-and here is where I am going to speak on his side-has shown through the Viet Nam crisis any tendency to portray our country as a lickspittle. He has shown himself a friend of the greatest friend of peace the world has, namely the United States of America, and we should remind ourselves occasionally of the tremendous burdens which the American people bear.
No country in the world has ever undertaken, for so long a period, the burdens of maintaining peace in such a far flung world. To put it in the area which is much less important than the human area, one thinks of the tremendous burdens on the American taxpayers, year after year after year, bearing burdens in all parts of the world, and quite often the only gratitude is, "Yank, go home," or the occasional self-righteous criticism of those who should be their friends.
As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, far more important is the human suffering. Who bore the greatest burden in Korea? Who is bearing the burden in South Viet Nam? Who is always called upon to man the ramparts when freedom is assailed-and freedom is always assailed? These "gentle" people in North Viet Nam are those who precipitated these difficulties. Putting it very simply, if they would refrain from incursions upon their southern neighbours-and in this context I recall North Korea and South Korea-these problems would not arise.
I do not know how I or any of my colleagues can judge with too great finiteness the use of gas. I notice that a member of the United Kingdom house of commons asked yesterday: Is it worse to make your enemy cry or die? I think perhaps we do not have sufficient information. No party in this house has a monopoly of virtue or concern for human life, no matter how strenuous are the efforts to carve out such a monopoly. I feel that reckless criticism of the United States ill serves our foreign policy and ill serves the cause of peace. In this connection I commend the minister's constant retraint, often in the face of provocation. Knowing that he represents people who are deeply devoted to peaceful processes, he has never attempted to gain momentary publicity by striking out recklessly at the United States upon whose exertions the cause of freedom so largely depends. On this I congratulate him.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The remarks I had intended to make, Mr. Chairman, have been much better

phrased by the Leader of the Opposition and by my hon. friend from Queens. The reason I put a question to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was this: I wanted to find out what was the real attitude and policy of the New Democratic party with regard to this situation. Listening to reports of the speech made by the leader of that party in Toronto on Wednesday night I came to the conclusion that he was assailing the United States and in favour of the communist forces of the north. If this is what the leader of the New Democratic party intended to say, and if this is the attitude supported by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands I think the people should know, because that is not the general feeling of people in this country. If it is not what he intended to say, then I think he should correct it, and that right quickly.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Perhaps I could deal with a number of questions which have been asked before addressing myself to the main subject we have been discussing.

In answer to the question put by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), Canada presented Queen Anne Marie with a mink stole.

The hon. member for Oxford asked me a number of questions. One of them concerned government policy with regard to the suggestion that Canada assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the air force of Tanzania. This question has been before the government for a few days. We have sent a communication to President Nyerere. Our ambassador has advised us that the president will not be back in his country until Monday. I hope we will soon be in receipt of a reply from him regarding the matter. We would then be able to announce our policy, I would hope, before the middle of next week.
With regard to Indonesia, the situation still stands. We have not sent any wheat flour to that country although we are continuing, as the hon. member knows, our aid under the technical assistance program to some 40 students from that country who are studying in Canada.
With regard to the $200,000 for telegrams, telephones and travel on the part of the supervisory commission in Viet Nam, the explanation is that we have provided $100,000 in our main estimates. Our expenditures to December 31 amounted to $223,000. The sup-20220-829
Supply

External Affairs plementary estimate is intended to replace the $100,000 borrowed to take care of telegram costs to December 31 and to provide $100,000 for costs to March 31, 1965.
Most of these costs are recoverable, of course, as the hon. member knows, from the international commission itself. There has naturally been an increase because of events in Indochina during the past few months; we have been anxious to be fully informed on the important developments taking place there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the hon. gentleman permit one question in this regard? The figure of $200,000 is mentioned under the heading of the supervisory commission for Indochina but there is another $200,000 under "departmental administration". Altogether this makes more than $400,000. Is it all the same thing, really? It seems more than a coincidence that the items should be identical.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: These are estimates, of course. They cannot be anything other than estimates.
The hon. member for Kootenay West spoke today about the problem which is of concern not only to Canada but to all countries at the present time-the situation in Viet Nam. He said I should not look at this question as being black and white. I fully agree with him. This important question does not lend itself to simplification and cannot be looked at as if the issues involved were black and white. But the hon. member will, I hope, pardon me if I say that the position which he and his party have taken on this matter does suggest that, in their minds, the position may be resolved by looking at it as if it were either black or white.
The leader of the New Democratic party said the other day in this house, and outside, that we in Canada had taken a one-sided position-that we appeared to be protagonists of the United States, and that our true role should be one of objective assessment and that we should have the courage to take a position regarding this highly dangerous situation in the light of our friendship with the United States, as he put it, and pursuant to a desire to bring about peace in the area. I cannot agree that we have taken anything but a balanced position on this question. I do not quarrel with the statement which the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the official opposition made today on Viet Nam. I agree with his interpretation of the situation in Viet Nam as he described it a few moments ago. That, too, was a balanced position. I

Supply-External Affairs am glad to know, too, that the hon. member for Queens is also of the opinion that the Canadian government has adopted a balanced position, taking into account not only the circumstances in Indochina at the moment but the circumstances as they have evolved since the Geneva conference was held in 1954. I agree with the right hon. gentleman and others that a matter of this sort does warrant discussion in this house.
It is not without significance that the first debate on this question in the British house of commons took place only yesterday and that there was a discussion this week in the Storthing in Norway, and only a few days ago in Denmark and in Holland as well. I would ask those who criticize what I call the balanced position the Canadian government is taking, which seemingly is supported by the great majority of the members of this house, to remember that it is consistent, as the hon. gentleman observed a few moments ago, with the position taken by a socialist government in the United Kingdom. It is worth recalling some of the things that were said yesterday by Mr. Stewart in his first statement as foreign secretary of Great Britain. Speaking of Viet Nam, he said, and I am now quoting from page 4 of today's New York Times:
Some people, he said, keep suggesting that the Viet Nam problem could be solved if the United States just withdrew.
"That solution has the merit of simplicity", Mr. Stewart said, but it would reward "aggression from the north" and "would be regarded with profound alarm by all the non-communist countries in that part of the world".
He rejected any thought that the United States was pressing the war too far by bombing the north.
I would point out, by way of parenthesis, that at no time have I ever made a statement that went as far as this:
It is too much to ask people to sit and be attacked without any recourse, he said, and he mentioned some restrained words by President Johnson.
"On the evidence in the record", he said, "I think it would be quite wrong to argue that the action of the United States is the action of a country engaged in reckless escalation of warfare".
Nor is it permissible, Mr. Stewart said, to speak of "cruelties" by the anti-communist side alone.
He said the Viet Cong had killed innocent civilians in South Viet Nam at the rate of more than 2,000 a year.
Whether one agrees with this position, the fact is that the government of Great Britain, a socialist government, has in the light of its consultations and the information available to it taken a position that is generally consistent with the position which we take here, which has been taken in Australia, in New

Zealand and which, interestingly enough, is being taken in the Scandinavian countries as well. I have before me a statement made the day before yesterday by Mr. Halvard Lange, the foreign minister of Norway, a country not looked upon as warranting the suggestion that it blindly follows the foreign policy of our great neighbour. The position taken by Mr. Lange is along the lines we have taken. It is consistent with the policy enunciated by the prime minister of Denmark and by the foreign minister of Holland as well.
No one for a moment thinks that this is an easy situation. No one can help but be filled with dismay every time we hear of bombing in Viet Nam. None of us likes war. We are all convinced now that war is an anachronism. We know perfectly well that a war, certainly of the dimensions of warfare today, is not calculated to achieve the kind of victory which at an earlier period it was assumed warfare could bring about. This situation has to be understood in the light of events that have brought the United States into South Viet Nam.
We have before us, on our table, the majority report of the commission of 1962, a report supported by Canada and by India. We have the minority report of Canada of February 13 last which, in the words of Mr. Wilson, the prime minister of Great Britain, presents a balanced view of the facts in that divided country. We have got to recall the circumstances which brought the United States into South Viet Nam. In 1954 the Geneva powers determined that until such time as there could be free elections, until such time as there could be unification of North and South Viet Nam, each territory would be regarded as having the attributes of sovereignty. From 1954 up until about two years ago there was one form of government there. Whether we agree with its totalitarian or quasi totalitarian methods is beside the question. There was a government in control of the situation in South Viet Nam; a government that had harboured over one million refugees, whom I visited in 1956, who had come from the north. This government, in its effort to resist infiltration and aggression from the north, called upon the United States to give it defence support. No one can suggest that the intervention of the United States in these circumstances is illegal. This kind of assistance is pursuant to article 52 of the charter of the United Nations. Successive governments in South Viet Nam have asked the United States to continue to assist them to meet agression, infiltration

from the north, and armed resistance by the Viet Cong in the south.
News of bombings of course is disturbing; but so, I would remind my hon. friends who take issue with the government's position, is the chronicle of communist murder and armed attacks against innocent civilians which form the pattern of activity of what is called a "liberation" struggle. Our own observers have established the fact of North Vietnamese interference in South Viet Nam. It is not just an internal rebellion plain and simple. It contains, certainly, domestic South Vietnamese elements, but without North Vietnamese encouragement, supply and direction, it would not have had the same strength. The division of Viet Nam into communist and non-communist halves results from native political forces; this I admit. However, this difficulty is not a creation of the west; its continued existence represents the conviction of those Vietnamese who were concerned that a communist Viet Nam under Ho Chi Minh would be little more than a province of China, a fate which the Vietnamese people have feared and rejected throughout their history. At Geneva in 1954 both North and South Viet Nam had separate representation. The South Vietnamese at that time refused to accept the political aspects of the Geneva settlement as inimical to the interests of the Vietnamese people. Violations of the Geneva accord were begun following aggression by the north in the early part of 1955. This is the conclusion of the majority and the minority reports of the commission of 1962 and of February 13 last.
When it became clear that the south was not going to fall under northern control as the result of elections which would not have been fairly carried out, the north decided that a more aggressive policy would be needed to accomplish its ends, and whether we like to admit it or not, the fact is that through terrorization of villages and the deliberate assassination of local administrators the Viet Cong established control over wide areas of the countryside. Local support of guerrillas obtained in this way is scarcely the same as spontaneous expression by electoral choice.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just my own notes.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry; and I beg your pardon.
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a paraphrasing of the report of February 13 last.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry. I thought the hon. gentleman was quoting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot understand the attitude that suggests in this situation that the United States, our neighbour, a country with whom Canada must have and has such close association, must be assumed to be regarded as the villain in the piece. Hon. gentlemen assumed right from the beginning that the fault lay on the doorstep of the United States. I suggest there was no objective assessment made of the contemporary history of this situation. Had there been I am sure this conclusion could not have been reached.
The United States is, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) observed, bearing a heavy responsibility. It is not only assisting South Viet Nam in this struggle, but because of its armed superiority, because of the pre-eminent position as one of the five great powers, sharing with the Soviet union at the moment pre-eminence in the field of arms, it is defending the free world to an extent greater than any other country. When I say it is defending the free world and defending freedom I am speaking of Canada as well as Asia.
It is easy for us to brand the United States action as imperialism of a U.S. type, but I suggest that it is as the result of United States strength in the military field that many millions of people in the world today, in the light of events since the end of the second world war, are able to enjoy the freedom they now possess.
I am not suggesting that United States policy in this situation is right in every particular. As the right hon. gentleman said, speaking as a former prime minister, we have taken issue-his government and this government-with the United States on important matters of foreign policy. We took issue with them in the matter of trade with China, we took issue with them on a number of other matters. We do not fully agree with every aspect of their policy in this particular situation; but I suggest that one of the responsibilities of a government, in charge of the affairs of a country so closely related geographically and otherwise to the United States, is to consider and exercise care over any disagreement with the United States in a matter of such importance, in the light of our own national interest. This is an elementary principle in the foreign policy of any country. If my hon. friends were sitting here on Mr. Speaker's right, they would take the

Supply-External Affairs same position we, and the present government of Great Britain, are taking.
Great Britain is taking this position not only because of the general reasons applicable to United States foreign policy in Indochina, but because it is part and parcel of Britain's own interest to examine very carefully any situation which would cause a breach between Britain and the United States.
Mr. Chairman, Viet Nam is a test case; I suggest that if the North Vietnamese aggression with Chinese connivance succeeds, it will only be a matter of time before the next victim is selected. The issue then concerns the security, integrity and independence of small nations not only in Asia but all over the world. If the United States were to leave Viet Nam at the present time, what would happen to that country? What would happen to Burma? What would happen to India, a commonwealth country? What would happen to Malaysia, a commonwealth country? What would happen to the Philippines, and what would happen to those island countries of Australia and New Zealand? What would be the position of Japan? These are considerations that must be borne in mind by anyone who simplifies the problem in the way that my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay West, has sought to simplify this complicated problem.
An exclusive military response to the challenge that faces the United States is, of course, admittedly dangerous and inadequate. I suggest that we have never been able to successfully dispute how dangerous it would be to surrender to communist aggression. But surely a middle course can be charted.
Our first objective in Canada is to continue appealing for a cease fire by all concerned. We have done that right from the beginning. Second, we must find a way to bring about negotiations, and this requires a will to negotiate on both sides. The President of the United States, in the most recent statement that I have had made available to me, said that he and his officials would do anything that any honourable man could do to negotiate. I am not aware of any similar statement or any statement along those lines having been made by those in charge of operations in the north, or by those who direct the fighting that is going on by the Viet Cong in the south. There is no evidence, I repeat, of any disposition on the part of Hanoi to stop their aggression, to stop their infiltration or to agree to a cease fire, and to give consideration to what conditions might be discussed in order to bring about a con-
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
ference which might lead to a peace in Viet Nam.
My hon. friend said that we must have peace. I agree we must have peace; but to get peace in this situation requires more than one party. Negotiation requires at least two sides, and it takes a manifest willingness to avoid provocation, and a desire to reach compromise. I ask my hon. friends what alternative they have offered. Do they suggest that the government of South Viet Nam should lay down arms, that the government of the United States should withdraw its forces and that they should leave the situation in Viet Nam entirely to the Viet Cong? If that is the course they propose, and that is the only alternative apparent from the position they take, then they do render insecure those friendly countries with whom we have close ties in Asia, as well as other countries with whom we maintain satisfactory relations.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? Will he tell the house the conditions precedent that he thinks should be applied?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we have said that we ask for a cease fire and evidence that a cease fire will be observed. In the appeal that has been made to Canada and other countries by the Belgrade powers, the suggestion is that there should be no preconditions posed by any one of the belligerents. We are not imposing any preconditions at present.
I have seen a suggestion that the United States takes the position that not only must there be a cease fire but there must be a withdrawal of the Viet Cong from the south and evidence of a willingness on the part of the north to avoid aggression and infiltration. I am not aware from anything I know that this is the official position taken by the United States, but we have had no indication whatsoever of any kind from the north as to what conditions it would impose before laying down its arms.
Mr. Gromyko, the foreign minister of the Soviet union representing one of the cochairmen, met the other day in London with Mr. Stewart, the British foreign secretary representing the other co-chairman, and refused-I am not critizing the Soviet union for this refusal for certain reasons-to join with Great Britain in an appeal to all parties to agree to a cease fire. I suspect that one of the reasons for this refusal is the knowledge that such action could not be expected to come from the north at this particular time.

I am satisfied that if Hanoi were to show any willingness to desist from provocative acts and to cease its aggression against South Viet Nam the United States would respond in kind. Unfortunately there have been no signs that the Hanoi authorities and their friends in Peking are prepared to talk in preference to fighting. They have repeatedly rejected the idea of negotiations, demanding instead a unilateral United States withdrawal. More flexibility than this would be required if negotiations are to take place.
We have been asked what we are doing in this situation. This is a fair question to ask. We have a responsibility, not only arising out of our membership on the international control and supervisory commission but because, like any civilized community, we abhor war and wish to make our contribution toward reducing its possibilities and its existence. We have been engaged in the fullest possible diplomatic negotiations with the United States, with Great Britain and with other countries. We would have liked to be able to have direct contact with the other side so that we could express the same views we have expressed to our friends in private, in the kind of negotiation essential to achieve results.
I said the other day that our representative on the commission, because of the fact that he is on the commission, has access both to the authorities in Saigon and in Hanoi. Within the past six or seven weeks he has had two contacts with Hanoi as well as a continuing contact with Saigon. We have made our views known as well to the secretary general of the United Nations. We have discussed with him ways and means of trying to bring about a cease fire under conditions, however, that are not going to leave the people of South Viet Nam to a merciless fate. That we cannot agree to for the reasons I have already stated. To give in under those circumstances would be merely to postpone a similar experience, when the situation facing the people of South Viet Nam would erupt elsewhere, perhaps in Thailand or in some other country in southeast Asia.
Our approach to the problem of a peaceful settlement has had a threefold objective. The first has been to contribute wherever possible to creating conditions for negotiation. For example, it might be possible to balance off the preconditions stipulated by the two sides as a basis for settlement. It might also be possible, as I suggested this morning, to take advantage of a conference on Laos, if
Supply-External Affairs one is convened, to help to keep the channels of communication open.
Second, in whatever negotiations come about every effort must be bent toward securing a fair and final settlement. There can be no surrender of the basic principle of the right of any people to choose freely the path they wish to follow in their political and economic development.
Third, a negotiated settlement must provide for an adequate degree of control to ensure that these provisions will not be upset by aggression from outside. We had a conference in 1954 and a division was made of Viet Nam into two parts. A separate, new, sovereign state of Cambodia was set up, and we thought in	1954 we	had	set up	thesovereign state	of Laos.	We	will not besettling this problem, as the right hon. gentleman suggested, if we approach a peace conference ill prepared or if we reach conclusions that are	bound to	be	ignored	andviolated before	almost at	once. This	was
done in 1954. The agreement had no sooner been signed than aggression began from the north. Those are the facts and no one who has studied those facts or has read the reports of the commission can come to any other conclusion.
Canada favours a settlement of this problem that would set up an independent or neutral Viet Nam or, if the country cannot be unified, a neutral South Viet Nam and a neutral North Viet Nam. But in order to give substance to this objective of a neutral or independent community we have to envisage the kind of guarantees that would guarantee such independence or neutrality. The Prime Minister has made the suggestion that there is to be found in the international community a responsibility to provide for the guarantee which I am sure would be insisted upon by the United States and by South Viet Nam.
What would that guarantee consist of? We would like to see the United Nations used for this purpose. The peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations has been used on other occasions. It has kept the peace in the Gaza strip for over 10 years. Cyprus is another such situation where peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been established.
But we have to look at the realities facing the United Nations at this time. It is not practical to suggest in the face of differences over article 19 that have divided east and west, an agreement could be reached that would now permit the establishment of a United Nations force in Viet Nam.

Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: In any event, would not the establishment of a force of sufficient size to patrol South Viet Nam and North Viet Nam, with the communist hordes immediately to the north, mean a force so large there could be no hope of recruiting it under the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would say in response that undoubtedly the fact that China is not a member of the United Nations, that China is such a powerful country and so heavily populated, does present obstacles to this suggestion.
In any event, we all know that no matter how strong a force is provided in a situation like this, the success of such a force depends in the final analysis on the willingness of all parties concerned to give the force an opportunity to carry out its mandate. There could never be established a force that would be comparable, numerically, to the populations that are available to the heavily populated countries of Asia, particularly China.
We have had peacekeeping operations that have been successful. When we think of the situation in the Gaza strip where 4,000 to 5,000 men have kept the peace for ten years, we find in that a precedent and a model, but only because both the United Arab Republic and Israel have been prepared to co-operate with this force which they now recognize as an indispensable factor in the preservation of peace in that area.
If the United Nations is not available, for the reasons I have given, the Canadian suggestion involves a consideration of the contribution that might be made by the international community. This international community might be made up of the countries represented at the Geneva conferences of 1954 and 1962. It may be that this would not be possible. It may be that only a force or a presence made up of Asian countries, would be acceptable to the parties. In any event, what is important is the substance of the suggestion itself. A conference such as we are talking about, such as we hope will take place, could only succeed in its objective if a step were taken to guarantee whatever settlement is made. I am sure that will be insisted upon both by the United States and by South Viet Nam. I would hope it would be supported by China, by North Viet Nam, by the Soviet union and by the other countries whose influence must be considered.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Order; I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman in this very interesting explanation, but unless

he has unanimous consent of the committee to continue, his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: We are just under way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to conclude this statement by saying that we will
continue to use the normal techniques and channels available to us. This we are doing. Our membership in the commission makes Canada an independent witness, and this role we must continue to exercise objectively and impartially. We must insure that our judgments and those of the commission are balanced and equitable. Although there are difficulties in the way of the United Nations playing the role we would like, I do agree that the office of the secretary general is so prestigious it could be used at this time to co-ordinate the efforts that are being made on a wide front.
Finally, I would want the house to know that we, too, on this side realize there is a danger point in this situation. I am satisfied that the government of the United States, with its heavy responsibilities, is equally aware of the danger point. I only hope that our combined efforts will see no violation of the rights of self-determination in the south and, that we will be able to embark on courses that will bring about a settlement in this disturbed area, thereby localizing any possibility of the expansion of a situation that could not only engulf Asia, but if it were allowed to spread could engulf the world.


Mr. Barnett:: I wonder if the minister would allow me to ask him a couple of questions in relation to the remarks he has been making?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister, in relation to the reference he made to the fact Canada had been able to have direct and detailed negotiations with the United States and Britain on this matter and, if I heard him correctly, that he would have liked to have similar negotiations with the other side, why he does not consider it desirable that we exchange diplomatic representatives with mainland China so that there might be a channel for such communications?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question was asked of me yesterday and I dealt with it in the only way I could.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one other question. After expressing some criticism of the re-

marks that have been made by one of my colleagues, the minister gave us an historical review of the situation in South Viet Nam. I realize, of course, he had to start at some point in time. In doing so, he made particular reference to the fact the United States was acting legally, according to the charter of the United Nations, in sending assistance to the government of South Viet Nam. The point that puzzled me, if I heard him correctly, was the indication that even though this was a dictatorial regime, he did not indicate how this regime came into being. Who decided it was going to be this particular authority that invited the United States to come to its aid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true it was not a government fully supported by the people of South Viet Nam. However, my hon. friend knows there are many precedents of countries that now exercise authority that are not democratic, and they are not all on the side of the west, either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33d. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965,
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main estimates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote);
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund); and
(c)	any amounts provided by parliament during the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund:
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith including authority
(d)	to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council-and
(e)	to provide educational and technical training for persons from the said countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council, $1.
John George Diefenbaker: There are a number of these items to which I intend to make reference, and I might as well do it all at once. We have before us supplementary estimates, in other words, these are expenditures that were not contemplated at the time the estimates were before the house or which, as a
Supply-External Affairs result of intervening legislation, now must receive the attention of the house.
I do not want to go into the particulars of what comprises supplementary estimates, but for those who are interested I would refer them to May's work at page 715 and following pages. What I find here is that the government, in the dying days of this session, has decided to legislate by way of so-called supplementaries. There is more legislation in this group of so-called supplementary estimates than has been passed by the House of Commons in the last several weeks.
I want to say immediately that so far as supplementaries represent the expenditure of money we will make an examination in keeping	with our	responsibilities,	but	wecannot accept the means now being adopted of endeavouring to pass legislation through the medium of items under supplementary estimates. I know that on one or two occasions it has been done by consent, but a pathway that is taken because of the urgency of some	particular	matter should	not	beallowed	to become	a highway	in this
chamber.
As I said a moment ago, legislation is to be passed under the guise of supplementary estimates. If we pass various items-and I will refer to them all at once-we will in fact be	legislating	without discussion	or
examination. I say at once that there should be a restriction to those things that are actually supplementary rather than attempting to amend resolutions or statutes passed by the house. Once I mention that, you, sir, will immediately ask yourself can it be so that statutes are to be amended in the next hour or so as we consider supplementaries? To me it is the most unusual, barefaced, bureaucratic scheme to get legislation through, without its being considered by the house, that I have ever seen in the 25 years I have been here.
Let me point out how wonderfully this plan has been evolved. It has all the appearances of bureaucratic short cuts because, after all, bureaucrats do not like parliament.
I hope that having become ministers, they do not carry with them some of the instincts of bureaucracy which they possessed when they occupied high positions in the administration of this country. There is at present quite an assortment of them with wide experience, and now they come to the House of Commons and, under the guise of supplementaries, they will have the house pass amendments to existing legislation.

Supply-External Affairs
The very fact that I would say this would immediately cause one to ask how could this come about? I sat here this morning and I studied these various resolutions. I shall refer to them in a moment because we are going to challenge and challenge definitely, the right of a government in the dying days of a session to have amendments passed to legislation which was given lengthy consideration at the time it was originally passed.
The first I mention is 33d, external aid office, which reads:
To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965-
Why not wait until the new session of parliament and introduce this in the form of legislation?
- (a) The unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance...
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund...
(c)	any amounts provided by parliament during
the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund:	.
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries-
In other words we are going to legislate in respect of the unexpended portions of these funds, and we are going to legislate that regardless of what section 35 of the Financial Administration Act says, hereafter the funds may be used in this way.
It starts that way and then it becomes a disease. In fact it is an easy way in the last hours of a session to bring in a hodgepodge of amendments under the guise of supplementaries. The very thought of it must bring joy and pleasure to those who think parliament should act with expedition and that too much time is spent on examination.
Let us look at the other items. Under the heading "Finance" on page 10-and I take these all at the one time as examples of what I intend to challenge the right of the government to do-there is the following item:
Vote lSd. To amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act as follows:
(a)	Subsection (2) of section 32 of the Public Service Superannuation Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
Can you imagine the short cuts through parliament, asking the House of Commons

under supplementaries to deal with a statute, repeal a section and substitute another for it? This is indeed an unusual proceeding and one that, if it were adopted, would certainly provide paradise for those who do not like examination by parliament.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a question at this point. In his opening remarks, the right hon. gentleman seemed to be dealing with legislative items, or items that were clearly legislative in kind, and made an argument on that.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to carry on with my argument I will answer questions at the end.


George James McIlraith: I wanted to be clear on one point here and, if I might


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will just wait with that patience that is always characteristic of him on occasion, I will be able to explain. Vote 18d continues:
(b)	Subsection (2) of section 24 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor-
I am not going into detail. The next part reads:
(c)	Subsection (2) of section 23 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor-
These are supplementary estimates but in effect this is simply legislation by indirection. I venture the opinion that if I were to ask the President of the Privy Council what did the original section 23(2) say, he would have no idea whatsoever. This is simply a plan to get a lot of legislative changes through by a method that does not commend itself to me, and I hope not to other members of the committee.
Then there is vote 21d which is to amend subsection (5) of section 20 of chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada-I have got that statute here-by striking out one expression and substituting another expression and by adding immediately following one expression, another expression. This amounts to amending statutes of parliament by means of supplementary estimates. It is indeed a novel method of short-cutting parliament and one which can only produce the most illegitimate offspring.
How are we to know what are the purposes of these amendments? What are the objectives? For what reasons must we pass these things as supplementary estimates? I will go on. There is vote 23d-
To authorize the governor in council to add to part II of schedule A to the Public Service

Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers.
We should naturally like to know why this group should be added in this fashion. It goes on:
-and to provide that forthwith upon the addition thereof
(a)	the council shall be deemed to be a public service corporation for the purposes of section 23 of the Public Service Superannuation Act;
(b)	the Government Employees Compensation Act shall apply to the members of the staff of the council;
(c)	for the purposes of any regulation made pursuant to section 5 of the Aeronautics Act, the members of the staff of the council shall be deemed to be employees in the public service of Canada.
Compare this with legislation in the ordinary way, where there is examination of the principles involved, where reasons for the amendment being placed before the house are given and discussed, and then the question is examined in the committee of the whole.
There are some even better examples as one goes along. Pages 17 and 18 contain similar items-again these appear as dollar items. But they are not of the variety to which I referred a moment ago.


Mr. Nowlan:: There is a good example on page 29.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it gets worse as you go on. I could pick out example after example. Vote 73d:
To provide that section 115 of the civil service regulations shall apply to any person notwithstanding that he was not employed in the civil service on the date that the regulation was made.
I venture a guess that the President of the Privy Council could not tell me at this moment what section 115 says. It was simply put in there in the expectation that they would get it through-why, we do not know. What possible justification could there be for treating parliament in this way?
Then we really get to one on page 29. Here is a good one. Vote 75d.
Air transport board-
Salaries and other expenses-to extend the purposes of transport vote 75 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to authorize the governor in council, notwithstanding section 7 of the Aeronautics Act-
I venture the opinion that the minister could not tell me at the moment what section 7 of the Aeronautics Act says.


George James McIlraith: Oh yes he could.


John George Diefenbaker: It goes on:
Supply-External Affairs
-to appoint two members of the air transport board in addition to the number provided for by that act-
What goes on here? This is bringing in two new members to the air transport board regardless of what the law says at the present time and it is being done through the medium of a so-called supplementary estimate. Then the vote goes on to say:
-such members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years and to be paid such salary as may be fixed by the governor in council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The act said there should be so many members. The government-and it shows the hand of bureaucracy among its members who are used to this kind of thing; they look for short cuts-has tried to take a short cut. Just imagine what the Minister of Transport would say if he were sitting over here. Arms and legs would be going at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes I get frightened when the hon. gentleman gets like that. I am afraid he will take off into interterrestrial space.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman regret it?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to get into that. I am not going to tell the hon. gentleman the direction in which he should go. But the Minister of Transport, that lover of parliament, with all the affection he has for parliament, has decided to get two more Grits appointed, I suppose, to the air transport board by a supplementary estimate providing for an amendment to a statute. Now what was he afraid of? Did he think that if he brought down a bill there would be too much argument about it? Is there any reason why we, on the second day of April in the closing days of this session, should be required to give consideration to a measure so urgent as the appointment of two additional members to the air transport board? No doubt those who worked out this plan thought: We will slip this through in the dying days of the session and no one will know anything about it; after all, it is a supplementary estimate and supplementary estimates cannot be discussed-you would be holding up parliament if you did. Well, we are not going to pass these things without a fight. We are not going to grant this power to amend statutes by way of supplementary estimates.
13114	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
There are other examples. This is on page 30:
To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit in subsequent fiscal years, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund.
In other words, we are asked to give power not only during this period but in future years for these things to be done.
Then at page 31 under the Department of Trade and Commerce we read:
To provide that Northern Ontario Pipe Line crown corporation... shall cease to exist on the 1st day of April 1965-


George Clyde Nowlan: That was yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, we are asked to confirm that on All Fools day it ended.
-and that all rights and property held by or in the name of or in trust for the corporation and all obligations and liabilities of the corporation existing immediately before that day shall be vested in, and shall continue as the rights, property, obligations and liabilities of, Her Majesty in right of Canada.
I have simply pointed out a few examples of this kind of thing and I say again that we do not intend to allow parliamentary procedure to be filled with as many holes as a sieve in order to gratify the desire of the government to make short cuts through procedure, despite the wish of all of us to end the session. I would therefore ask the minister to look at these supplementary estimates and remove the legislative parts. Otherwise, we must discuss them.
We are not going to pass amendments to these statutes without knowing fully why the amendments are necessary. In any event, we are not going to allow this government to make a mockery of parliament. If it was in a rush in respect of one item or another, something had to be done urgently, that would be another matter; but no one can say there is such urgency in connection with the appointment of two extra members of the air transport board. And this is just an example.


Mr. Fane:: I see here they are making senators out of them.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for
Vegreville has a concise way of analysing a problem so that all of us can understand it, and I thank him for his contribution. I simply ask the President of the Privy Council to get the scissors ready and delete this delightful plan that has been developed


because parliament is not going to pass amendments to statutes in the guise of supplementary estimates, without having had an opportunity to discuss them.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council, I hope with some good humour, can get the scissors out right now. The right hon. gentleman started his remarks by asking me and the committee, "how could all this come about?" in referring to the $1 item. It came about through many years practice. I do not know whether I should take the time of the committee or not to refer to the how it came about part of his remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Legislation?


George James McIlraith: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I was not granted the privilege of questioning the right hon. gentleman when he was speaking, and I know he would wish to use the same degree of good manners as I hope I will be able to use. In any event, this is how it came about. For instance, in 1960-61 the government headed by the right hon. gentleman had 31 of these items in the supplementary estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not legislative.


George James McIlraith: When I was appointed a very new minister of the Department of Transport I found that one of my very first jobs was to deal with a $1 item passed by that former government, under which commitments approved by the treasury board, had been made running to something over $60 million and other commitments, not yet approved by treasury board, for an additional $48 million. To meet the immediate pay-out problem, I had to bring to parliament an estimate of some $40 million. This was for the shipbuilding subsidy. It was a perfect example of a legislative item that gained parliamentary approval by being put into a $1 vote in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: I never objected to the $1 item. That is always done. That is not what I was talking about.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the right hon. gentleman would be as forbearing as I was, and will make as little noise as I did when he was speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. gentleman this. Does he not realize that I was not dealing with a $1 item at all; I was dealing with legislating under the guise of supplementary estimates. Those $1 items

have always been there. I never dealt with that whatever.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I noted with some interest that all the items the hon. gentleman referred to were $1 items. In any event, the shipbuilding subsidy item was a $1 item and a legislative item. I have never been one in this house who accepted the thesis that because someone else did it previously, it necessarily is right; but I merely point out the consistent pattern over the years to show that this practice, whether good or bad, was carried out by the opposition when it was in government, and by the former Liberal government before the present opposition formed the government, and is a continuation of an existing practice.


John George Diefenbaker: I made no complaint about the $1 item.


George James McIlraith: Supply-External Affairs true that technically some of them may involve amendments to legislation, but they are in the nature of accounting items which arose because of technicalities in respect of the wording of the statutes. It has always been the practice to accept this kind of item without question, and I wonder whether, in light of my remarks, we can continue to consider these item by item, dealing with the supplementary estimates as we go along. It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman's remarks were applied much too widely and were not supported by the examples he sought to use to illustrate his point. Only two of the cases could be used as examples in illustration of his argument. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we can now continue our discussion of this particular item.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to the committee that we try to restrict our discussion to the item now before the committee. We could consider each item as it comes before us, but the discussion up to this point has been rather general and it seems to me to be in the interest of progressive consideration to consider each item separately. We now have before us for consideration vote No. 33d, and I suggest that we limit our discussion to that item.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, before we turn to a consideration of item 33d could we agree to continue our consideration of these estimates after five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that we do not see the clock?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, would it not be better to report to the house and allow the house to make a decision in this regard?


Lucien Lamoureux: That is what we will do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, you have just made reference to orderly discussion of these items, and I am wondering whether in the interests of that orderly discussion, in view of the fact there has been some reference made to the general principles which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition feels are involved in this bill, we could dispose of this aspect of the matter before going any further.
Let me say at once that if this matter had not been raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I intended to raise it, although I could not speak with the authority and experience of the two hon. gentlemen who have just been discussing this matter.

Those hon. gentlemen, as we all know, are 25-year veterans in this chamber. I have never attempted to pose as an authority on either parliamentary rules or constitutional practice, but it does seem to me on looking through the supplementary estimates that we were going a little too far in the direction of poor parliamentary practice.
I do not agree entirely with the remarks made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a short time ago when we were discussing the situation in Laos, but I do agree with the sentiments he expressed in opening this particular aspect of legislation by $1 items. Inasmuch as the hon. gentleman has probably said a good deal more than I originally intended to say, I am not going to attempt to repeat the arguments, but certainly no matter what the practice has been on the part of any government, we are moving in a direction away from that which must be followed to protect the ordinary rights of parliamentary discussion. The proper way to deal with legislation is through the various readings of bills after notice.
Mr. Chairman, I have counted seven or eight items of this nature in this thin book of supplementary estimates, and if this is a practice that is going to grow, apparently all we will do in parliament is deal with estimates. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminded me a moment or two ago that he has quite a thick file on this subject in his office, but I suggested to him that he should not go up for it unless this debate develops into something of rather serious proportions. With his usual forethought he suggested that perhaps if the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be good enough to bring in a national medicare plan under a $1 item in these final supplementary items we might throw our principles to the wind on this occasion and proceed to deal with them.
Mr. Chairman, apparently the manner in which I have made my remarks might lead one to conclude that I am repeating something the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, and that is not the case. That hon. member did suggest that it might be a good idea if the Minister of National Health and Welfare did bring in a $1 item to establish a national health plan. I was expressing my own sentiments when I suggested that if she was kind enough to add such an item to these supplementary estimates, I for one would not quarrel too much with the other $1 items which are included.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What you mean is that you can be bought.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the way we got the health grants program in the first place-by an item in the estimates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Let me remind the committee of that old saying, that every man has his price. In view of the fact the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has cut me short I am quite willing to admit that in this particular case I would be willing to throw my principles overboard in return for that kind of legislation through a $1 item.
My colleague says I am beginning to talk like a Liberal. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should sit down and let you report to the house.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['Agreed.\nResolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be well to try to set out a course of action which would be agreeable to all hon. members. It is my understanding that there is firm opposition to two of the private bills that would now come before the house and that there is no reason to expect that they will pass; indeed quite the contrary.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are the two?


George James McIlraith: The two bank bills. That being so, subject only to what private members may wish to say about item No. 3 under private bills, an act respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, I would ask unanimous consent of the house to revert to the business we were taking up before five o'clock and, if things are going well, to continue after six o'clock without the chairman having to leave the chair. I wonder whether that course of action would be agreeable?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that we have some amendments to propose with respect to the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company bill which may be somewhat controversial. If they are accepted, that will dispose of the matter, of course, and the bill will pass, but if there is any great controversy over them we may take the full hour on that particular bill.


George James McIlraith: In the light of that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether the house is ready to forgo private members' hour and continue with the business we were considering before five o'clock?
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



[Stage Direction]
33d. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965,
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main esitmates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote);
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund); and
(c)	any amounts provided by parliament during the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund;
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith including authority
(d)	to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council; and
(e)	to provide educational and technical training for persons from the said countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council, $1.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, you were suggesting a little while ago that we should restrict our remarks directly to the vote now before us. However, the Leader of the Opposition raised a matter which was not satisfactorily dealt with by the President of the Privy Council, and if we are going to expedite the passage of the supplementary estimates I think the point he raised should be settled now. Otherwise it will be raised on each one of the seven or eight items that he dealt with. I should like to speak generally with regard to the principle-


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. Would he not agree with me that the point he raises basically affects only the two items I referred to, the Northern Ontario Pipe Line case and the Aeronautics Act case?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, that is not my impression of the matter at all, and I have been

Supply-External Affairs studying it for some considerable time. Let me say this with regard to the earlier remarks of the President of the Privy Council. First he tried to confuse the issue by talking about the 31 $1 items that he had examined in the appropriation bills of the session of 1960-61, but the point at issue is not the $1 items. The point at issue is the attempt to effect legislation by items in the supplementary estimates.
Over the years we have been accustomed to the use of $1 items for various purposes, but that was not the point raised this afternoon. The point raised was the attempt to legislate by the use of supplementary estimates. The President of the Privy Council did not give us instances in the past to support his argument. There have been occasions from time to time when legislation has been modified by a supplementary estimate, and the most recent occurred just last November. When the government finally got around to increasing the payment to disability pensioners and war veterans allowances last November, the house agreed that could go through in the form in which it was presented to us, namely by means of a supplementary estimate, but it should have been by way of amendments to the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act.
But consider the circumstances then. Time was very pressing. We ourselves requested that if the government was going to take this action which had been announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs it should be done promptly so that the veterans would have their cheques before Christmas. The only time in which to get the action approved by way of a supplementary estimate was during that period of seven days which at my suggestion had been set as a time limit for the consideration of estimates for the year that still remained to be considered. The supplementary estimates came before us during that last week when we were dealing with estimates. It was under those conditions that the house agreed as a special case to permit a statute to be modified by a supplementary estimate. But that is a rare occurrence.
In the supplementary estimates we have before us now the Leader of the Opposition has drawn attention to at least eight instances where the modification of statutes is contemplated, and it is to this procedure that we are objecting. My suggestion to the President of the Privy Council is that he withdraw those items to which there is objection unless he can show us that within the next two

months somebody is going to suffer because action is not taken today.


George James McIlraith: That is precisely what I said when I suggested that we proceed to a discussion item by item as we go through these estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The items were all mentioned, and surely it is within the power of the President of the Privy Council to tell us right now that these items will be withdrawn. Then they will not have to be called. We will not have to debate the matter and we can proceed. But if we are going to discuss and debate each one of these items we will obviously not finish this session today. This is the problem that faces us, and the quick way to deal with it is to withdraw the items to which the opposition raises objection and acknowledge the fact that it is improper to legislate by a supplementary estimate.
The minister can point out to us if there are any of these items with regard to which we would in some way or other cause inconvenience or hardship to some individual if we did not pass them. If that is not the case, then I say withdraw them and we will pass the other items which are presented in the normal way as extensions of the main estimates. That is all the supplementary estimates are intended to be-extensions of the main estimates, or in some instances the fulfilment of a program which arose subsequent to the submission of the main estimates to the House of Commons. I make the suggestion to the President of the Privy Council that we should deal with the matter en bloc and dispose of the issue.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I thought that was what was in my earlier remarks. There are two cases here which, by their nature, are mainly legislative and do not involve payments to individuals or do not work hardship on an individual in the way the house leader has indicated. These two items are an item referring to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line and an item that has to do with increasing the size, temporarily, of the air transport board.


John George Diefenbaker: On a temporary basis- three years?


George James McIlraith: Yes. Those are the two I picked out. I tried to work on this as best I could this afternoon when the committee was working.
Now, in so far as the other cases are concerned, I think we can show as we go along that each one does involve hardship on an

individual if an item is not passed. I have picked out two as examples of my general remarks. One involves a public servant who, as a result of wrong advice given some years ago and which did not show up until he retired, was really given a wrong deal on his superannuation. This was one of those administrative errors that happen from time to time and I think it is one which should be corrected. This is the right way to correct it.
The other one involves the case of the employees to whom I referred in the council of resources set up by the former government. Through inadvertence there was no provision made at the time for these employees being brought under the superannuation legislation. It should have been done at the time, but it was not. There are other cases of that nature throughout. These are two examples I picked at random. If we could go along item by item, I could show the cases of individual hardship to some person, and for that reason I believe the committee would wish to have the item passed, except in the two cases I have mentioned.


Robert Norman Thompson: There are some ten items, I think, in these estimates that fall within the category referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Some of them involve payments to individuals and some are definitely statutory. The house leader mentions there are only two in this latter category, but I am not so sure of that. Certainly, we are treading on dangerous ground when we substitute legislation by way of estimates, as we are doing here, for the actual legislative process.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, we should proceed through the items from where we are at the present time, which is item 33d, and deal with each one as we come to it. The house leader can explain the situation in connection with each one of these questionable items and we can deal with them individually. If they involve payments to individuals where definite hardship is going to be worked if the item is not approved. If the item is statutory and we are thereby bypassing the normal procedures, then I believe the government is going to have to delete such items in order that we may finish this tonight. Certainly under the pressure of the last hours of the session we should not abrogate our responsibilities in connection with items which are very important. I refer, for example, to the item concerning the air transport board. I suggest we proceed from this basis.
Supply-External Affairs


George James McIlraith: I think that is the only effective way of getting by this problem. If we could do that, I would ask my colleague the minister of external affairs to explain the present item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; I think after this general debate this might be a reasonable way of dealing with each item. I should like to explain what would happen in the event that a course such as has been generally suggested were followed. If vote 33d is not passed, the effect would be as follows: The unexpended balance of vote 35 of the main estimates would lapse. Projects have been initiated on the basis of the funds provided for in that vote, but in many cases they have not yet been completed. Without vote 33d we would have no authority to honour that portion of the commitments which did not fall due in 1964-65 but will fall due in 1965-66.
Now, if paragraph (b), for instance, were to be dropped, the funds in the Colombo plan fund account could not be consolidated and used exchangeably with the funds in the international development assistance fund. Consolidation is essential, and therefore I could not recommend the deletion of that paragraph.
However, I have been looking at paragraph (c), which merely provides that further sums appropriated by parliament could be placed in a fund which this vote seems to establish so that they could be used by both the Colombo plan and for industrial development assistance purposes on a non-lapsing basis. As I say, paragraph (c) could be deleted. It would mean that authority would have to be sought again. But with regard to the others the consequences would be as I have indicated. I suggest that we could drop paragraph (c) but we could not drop the others without the greatest difficulties.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I agree with part of what the minister says. However, there are sections of this in addition to paragraph (c) that should, I submit, go by the boards. Why should we authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund, to which shall be credited after this date these various amounts? What we are doing here by this item is legislating for the setting up of an international development assistance fund without there having been any discussion by parliament.

Supply-External Affairs
The argument that was put forward by the hon. gentleman that certain items would expire, the Colombo plan expenditures and others he mentioned, has no application to the fund as it stands at the present time. Why does the minister not delete these words and then the legislative aspect would go by the boards:
To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965-
If this were reworded so as to authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated fund to include the unexpended balance in the Colombo fund, there could be no objection if paragraph (c) were deleted.
There could be no objection if the whole of paragraph (c) were deleted, and the minister said he is willing to have that deleted. All that is then required in order to do away with the legislative function being exercised in this way is to leave out the words, "international development assistance fund," because we cannot legislate on that. We do not know the implications of such a fund.
If the minister would simply say that vote 33d would authorize a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to which would be credited on and after March 31 the unexpended balance at March 31, set out in the sub-vote, and the unexpended balance in the Colombo plan fund, the argument I advanced would be met.


George James McIlraith: There is a technical question there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is acceptable.


George James McIlraith: There is no objection to the removal of paragraph (c), but I want to look at the remarks made about the removal of certain words in paragraph (a) because it is my understanding that that fund already exists, and was voted on and approved by parliament in the ordinary way.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not say that. It says that a special account be established.


George James McIlraith: I want to check that one point, and possibly we could let the item stand so that I could check that point on the wording.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is an amendment being moved to vote 33d?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the government might consider accepting the suggestion made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman was satisfactory. However, the President of the Privy Council has not had an opportunity to study it fully, so I think we should let the vote stand for a moment.


Lucien Lamoureux: In any event an amendment will have to be submitted in writing.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply want to point out that the removal of paragraph (c) does in fact bring about everything I had in mind, except for the naming of a fund, and that question will have to be looked into.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
Id. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of finance vote 1 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to include the administration of the Canada Student Loans Act and to provide a further amount of $280,000.
George Louis Chatterton: Could the minister explain why this extra amount of $280,000 is required? I have asked for an explanation, Mr. Chairman, and if it is not forthcoming I would like to make a few remarks; but if the committee would like to stand the item while an answer is found, I am agreeable.
Item stands.
Government administrationlOd. Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $6,000,000.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, a question was asked with regard to Id.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it was stood.


Lucien Lamoureux: It was agreed by hon. members that the item would stand.


George Louis Chatterton: I know this item refers to the Municipal Grants Act but I want to refer to the Municipal Development Loans Act and I think my question is in order because it deals indirectly with municipal grants. I would like to know what are the proposals of the government with regard to the Municipal Development Loans Act.


George James McIlraith: This item has nothing to do with the Municipal Development Loans Act.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am afraid I have to go by what the minister has said, as I do not know whether this item covers the point being raised by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
18d. To amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act as follows:
(a)	Subsection (2) of section 32 of the Public Service Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "32.(2) There shall be credited to the superannuation account, following the authorization of any salary increase applicable to at least 1 per cent of the contributors, in five equal annual instalments commencing in the fiscal year in which the salary increase is authorized, such amount as, in the opinion of the minister, is necessary to provide for the increase in the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada for the benefits payable under this act, as a result of such salary increase";
(b)	Subsection (2) of section 24 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "24.(2) There shall be credited to the superannuation account, following the authorization of any pay increase applicable to at least 1 per cent of the members of the forces, in five equal annual instalments commencing in the fiscal year in which the pay increase is authorized, such amount as, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, is necessary to provide for the increase in the cost to Her Majesty of the benefits payable under this act, as a result of such pay increase";
(c)	Subsection (2) of section 23 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "23. (2) There shall be credited to the superannuation account, following the authorization of any pay increase applicable to at least 1 per cent of the members of the force, in five equal annual instalments commencing in the fiscal year in which the pay increase is authorized, such amount as, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, is necessary to provide for the increase in the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of the benefits payable under this part, as a result of such pay increase." $1.
John George Diefenbaker: It is all very well to say that these amendments are designed to meet individual cases, but that is no excuse for taking a means such as this to amend statutes. I have before me the Public Service Superannuation Act, passed by parliament in 1960, and which we are asked to amend as follows:
Subsection (2) of section 32 of the Public Service Superannuation Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor-
I am not going to read the substitution, but this is a flagrant example of an attempt to amend an act in this improper way.
I ask the minister when, if ever, did we amend a statute under the guise of dealing with supplementary estimates? One example was mentioned when we agreed last fall to make a change in connection with veterans
Supply-Finance
allowances, but that was because of the urgency of action. Now we are asked to make amendments through votes 18d and 2Id, and surely no argument is needed. The minister has admitted that we should not proceed with this principle in connection with the transport board and one other item, and I say it is a bad principle. It is a denial of parliament.
What could be worse than this, to insert in the midst of supplementary estimates items amending the Public Service Superannuation Act? It may be that circumstances make necessary the amendment, and where there has been injustice certainly the house would amend the act, but here we are asked to repeal a section passed by parliament,-by both houses of parliament,-one that was discussed and considered, and because one individual case now exists, instead of bringing the statute before parliament we are being asked to amend it in committee. This is something that cannot be accepted, and it is amazing that the government would not recognize that.
I do not want to repeat what I have said, but vote 18d sets out to amend three acts, as follows: A subsection of the Public Service Superannuation Act is repealed and another substituted therefor; next, subsection 2 of section 24 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is repealed and another substituted; third, subsection 2 of section 23 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is repealed and something else substituted. Surely the government must realize that this kind of thing cannot be done. I thought the minister would have been the first to stand up and say: We certainly would not want to do this. As far as I am concerned, this would be fatal to the House of Commons and recognition of the degree to which we should examine changes in legislation.
The minister said we had made a mistake in these three acts. Well, he was here at the time. I was here, and many other members were here. This legislation was examined very carefully and passed. Yet in a fraction of a second we are supposed to accept amendments such as this. I for one intend to oppose this and to oppose it strongly because it is a bad principle. Worth-while cases which require amendments to the law in order that justice may be secured have an appeal, but this is not the way to do it, and with all the force at my command I stand against this. If we ever start on this road we do not know where it will end. There are subsequent items here which are an equal affront to the legis-

Supply-Finance
lative system. I ask the minister to withdraw
them.	After all, parliament will be sitting next session; the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act can be amended
then.	These are things which I think could be started in the Senate.


George James McIlraith: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? I should like him to separate his remarks on the three items. Is he addressing himself to 18d?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: In that case I would be content to let that stand. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will permit me to let it stand for a few moments.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that item 18d shall stand.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Item 18d stands.
Id. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of finance vote 1 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to include the administration of the Canada Student Loans Act and to provide a further amount of $280,000.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee feel we might now go back to item Id? Perhaps the minister is now in a position to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. There are no amendments.


Mr. Benson:: I think I can answer the question. The purpose of this vote is to extend vote number 1 to cover the administration of the student loan fund. The details are set out in the estimates as originally distributed. That is the purpose.


George Louis Chatterton: I am sorry but I do not
have access to the original estimates right now. I hope that before very long the government will make a statement and give an accounting to the house with respect to the operation of the student loan legislation because ample evidence has been presented to me, by way of individual cases, that anomalies and difficulties are arising by virtue of the fact that the government of Canada allowed the provinces complete freedom to administer this act without supplying them with any guide lines to follow. I have evidence, for instance, that a student from one province cannot get a loan to go to a university in another province. I have evidence of distinct differences among provinces in granting certificates of eligibility. I have evidence showing

that one province certifies a certain institution while another will not.
I am prepared to make a long speech on this subject but at the moment all I am asking is an assurance that at the earliest opportunity the government will make an announcement in the house through one of its spokesmen telling us how this act has operated and some of the difficulties which have been evidenced, as well as the means by which it is hoped to overcome these difficulties.


Edgar John Benson: I believe such an assurance has already been given by the Minister of Finance, who indicated during the past week that there had been a meeting in Ottawa of the officials, both federal and provincial, involved in the administration and that he would make a statement in the house along the lines requested by the hon. member.


George Louis Chatterton: The assurance given by the Minister of Finance when he made that statement was not satisfactory. He merely said that a conference was being held. He did not give an assurance that he would give a complete report to the house either on motions or on some other occasion giving us an account of the way in which this act has operated since its inception.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The amendments have not as yet been called.


Lucien Lamoureux: There are no amendments to this vote.
I hope this is not getting too confusing, but would the committee wish to return to external affairs vote 33d. An amendment was to be proposed by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
33d. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965,
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main estimates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote):
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund); and
(c)	any amounts provided by parliament during the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund;
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of

the international development assistance fund in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith including authority
(d)	to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council; and
(e)	to provide educational and technical training for persons from the said countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council, $1.
George James McIlraith: If I understand the matter, it is that an amendment had been offered striking out in the second line after the words "revenue fund" the words "to be known as the international development assistance fund" and also striking out paragraph (c) of the item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And inserting "and" after "behind".


George James McIlraith: And putting in "and" after "behind". If this is agreeable to the committee I would ask the Minister of Transport to move it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


Mr. Baldwin:: After paragraph (c) you will find the words "notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund". If you eliminate the international development assistance fund in one place you will still find it here in this operative clause.


George James McIlraith: There is no difficulty on that score because the fund is already in existence. It is the new fund which would have in it the Colombo plan fund, and the international development assistance fund would be transferred to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Could we have the amendment in writing? It might be easier for the minister to make the changes on the original resolution in the hands of the Chair.


Mr. Cowan:: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? It has to do with this very point.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for York-Humber.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am a printer and have been all my life, and when they are talking about withdrawing subsection (c), with which I agree 100 per cent, are they trying to withdraw only the first three lines of type or are they going to withdraw ten lines of type? I do not understand why the last seven lines of type are set wider than the top three. To me subsection (c) includes all ten lines of type,
Supply-External Affairs narrow set and wide set. Is the idea to withdraw ten lines-which I say should be done- or are they going to try to withdraw three lines?


George James McIlraith: Three lines.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I will speak on the matter when the amendment comes up, then.


Lucien Lamoureux: It has been moved by Mr. Pickersgill that item No. 33d, Department of External Affairs, be amended so that it will read thus:
To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965,
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main estimates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote); and
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund);
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of

The rest of the resolution is not changed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, (c), (d) and (e) go out because they are all part and parcel of the same thing. Paragraph (c) provides:
Any amounts provided by parliament during the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund;
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund-
Then it goes on to say:
-including authority
(d)	to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries.. .to provide educational and technical training for persons-
All of that should go out, too.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the point can perhaps be more grammatically covered, at least, if the words after subparagraph (c) "international development assistance fund" are stricken out and the words "said account" used.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right, and everything else deleted from there to the end.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then the third last paragraph would read as follows:
-notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act to provide for payment out of the said account in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance-
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee now wish to return to item 18d?


Mr.   Mc@: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then we are dealing with item 19d.


[Stage Direction]
19d. To authorize the payment out of the superannuation account, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, of interest in respect of contributions made under section 6 of the Public Service Superannuation Act to the account that
(a)	have been on deposit in the account for at least two years from the date of their receipt, and
(b)	cannot be applied for the purpose for which they were originally paid into the account because the election pursuant to which they were made is void;
such interest to be compounded and to be calculated and paid at such rate and in respect of such period as the governor in council may prescribe, $1.
Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, I think I should explain that in the case of deposits byindividuals to the superannuation fund, if the contributors are found to have no right under the fund or withdraw their contributions, under the act as it is now worded, they cannot get any interest if the payment is made after two years. This is to take care of individual cases where people are caught in this kind of situation; that is, there are cases that arise where a contribution may have been made and it is found that the contributor is not eligible to make that contribution and this is not found out until two years after the contribution has been made. It works a hardship, and is something that would appear not to have been contemplated by the act, if that contributor is denied his interest when the contribution is returned after the two year period.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with regard to items 19d and 21d, in both cases this consists of an amendment to a statute. I am not arguing the merits or the reasons why this change should be made; but there is only one way in which we can amend statutes, and that is the legislative way, through parliament, in the ordinary processes. I am not arguing the legitimate reasons for the amendment that has to be made; I am arguing that it should not be done, and must not be done, under the guise of supplementary estimates.
I could ask the minister the simple question: How does subsection (2) of section 32 now read, the subsection that is being repealed? Would the minister say how it now reads, so that we know what we are repealing? The very fact that the minister is
[The Chairman.]
not in a position to do that is indicative of the position of affairs.
I ask him to take the same kind of reasonable attitude that was taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to this -I was going to call it a novelty, but it is more than a novelty; it is a departure from parliamentary practice. It is something that we cannot accept, no matter how desirous we are of getting this session through. We cannot accept a principle whereby a government can come along in supplementary estimates and amend statutes. Let us be reasonable. Bring this in next week, just as soon as the government can. They can introduce it immediately as an amendment; and if it has all the merits the hon. gentleman says it has [DOT]-and no doubt it has those merits-it can be passed in the regular way.
But what is behind this? Why the haste, for a couple of days? Why take parliamentary practice of many years and throw that procedure out the window because there are one or two cases that deserve an ameliorating amendment? If the amendment has to be made, if we passed a bad section, one that was never intended and ought to be altered, let it be altered and let all such alterations be made in the normal, legislative way.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to develop this subject, but if the right hon. gentleman is concerned about this, I would hope he would not press it. I can read section 6 of the superannuation act; but the point here is rather narrower than that raised in some of the other cases. It has to do with the very few employees who were contributors under the superannuation act and who were found not to be eligible to contribute. When their contributions were returned to them, they were denied the interest because their rights were not defined within the two years, or were wrongly defined. It does seem to be an injustice to the two or three individuals concerned. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would, in the light of what I have said, reconsider his attitude with regard to item 19d, because it seems to me that, notwithstanding what he said about the question of principle, it is really a matter of a few cases of hardship. It could be argued, but I am not going to do it here, since it is a mere accounting item.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, is the minister suggesting that item 19d is not an amending procedure?


Mr.   Mc@: That is my suggestion.


George Clyde Nowlan: And that therefore it is different from the point raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. With regard to items 18d and 21d he admits that they are amending, but 19d is not?


George James McIlraith: I would like to deal with each separately, Mr. Chairman, but that is precisely my suggestion with regard to 19d.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with 19d, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister prepared, then, to drop 18d and also 21d? If he is prepared to drop these, then vote 19d is an authorization which I would be prepared to accept. It is not an amendment to a statute but an authorization to provide for an interest rate.


George James McIlraith: In respect of vote 18d, I am having a check made before giving a firm commitment to drop it. I want to make sure of certain details of information I have. In respect of vote 19d, I think it would be proper to pass it, notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman has said. I want to say something about vote 2 Id when we reach it because it falls in a different category again.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about vote 19d. I am aware of an individual who lives in my riding who was improperly advised by members of a department as a result of which he proceeded along an improper course, under the impression that he had some protection under the superannuation act. This supplementary estimate would bar such an individual from having the whole matter discussed.


George James McIlraith: This is based on the supplementary estimates of 1961-62 in respect of the act, and this practice has been followed continuously since then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
21d. To amend subsection (5) of section 20 of chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1960 by (a) striking out the expression "before the time he became a contributor" and substituting therefor the expression "before or after the time he became a contributor"; and
(b)	adding, immediately following the expression "failed to elect under that act within the time prescribed therefor", the expression, "or under clause (F) of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Public Service Superannuation Act", $1.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Let this vote stand.


John George Diefenbaker: Vote No. 21d should be allowed to stand.


George James McIlraith: Yes, perhaps we could allow 21d to stand.
Supply-Finance
22d. To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $1,117,485.77, of which $451,991.49 represents 42 items that have been carried as assets in the statement of assets and liabilities, $451,992.


Mr. Peters:: Would the President of the Privy Council give us some indication of the type of debts that are being written off under this item? Some of them may relate to individuals but it is obvious that others would relate to companies.


George James McIlraith: These are normal write-offs each year. Perhaps I could pick out an example and give an explanation which would serve the hon. member's purpose. One involves a debt created by the presentation of an incorrect birth certificate by a man who died while still in the service. The man died, but because the whole matter had been wrongly set up there was a debt shown against him. These matters have to do with accounting procedures rather than anything of substance.
The next one has to do with a court case in respect of which the crown recovered the costs incurred, and the individual was directed to reimburse the crown. It was then found that part of the costs were recovered but that the rest would have to be written off.
That is the sort of item covered by this vote. I might add that all these were examined and approved individually by treasury board before being included. There is no other authority for writing off these claims, even though it would be hopeless to try to collect the debts, and if we did not do it in this way, we would have to carry them on the books long after it became obviously impossible to collect them.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to refer to the mines and technical surveys debts specifically. Under the heading "department" it indicates that this is a debt in respect of mines and technical surveys, and under the heading "number of debts or claims", it is indicated there are three, amounting to $334,549.45.


George James McIlraith: These claims represent unpaid balances by certain oil companies. I could give you the names of the companies if you wish. Three companies operated oil wells, the production of which was not sufficient to enable them to pay the charges which had been made by the department, and it became obvious that there was no prospect of collecting the charges. The companies did not have sufficient assets and the wells did not produce to an extent which would enable

Supply-Finance
them to pay. Those charges amounted to $475,000.


Robert Muir: Would the minister be kind enough to explain the debt in respect of the dominion coal board in the amount of $39,989.46?


George James McIlraith: Does the hon. member want the name of the firm? This represents an unpaid balance of a loan granted under the provisions of the Coal Production Assistance Act. This is authority to write that item off.


Robert Muir: Would the hon. minister continue with his explanation and supply me with the advice I am seeking?


George James McIlraith: What is that advice?


Robert Muir: I thought I had made myself clear. Would the minister give me the name of the firm involved?


George James McIlraith: Yes. It is S. J. Doucett & Sons Ltd.


Robert Muir: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
23d. To authorize the governor in council to add to part II of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers-le conseil Canadien des ministres des ressources (hereinafter called "the council") and to provide that forthwith upon the addition thereof
(a)	the council shall be deemed to be a public service corporation for the purposes of section 23 of the Public Service Superannuation Act;
(b)	the Government Employees Compensation Act shall apply to the members of the staff of the council; and for the purposes of that act, such persons shall be deemed to be employees in the service of Her Majesty; and
(c)	for the purposes of any regulation made pursuant to section 5 of the Aeronautics Act, the members of the staff of the council shall be deemed to be employees in the public service of Canada, $1.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the argument I advanced in respect of an earlier vote applies to this vote. We have no information regarding this matter, yet we are asked to authorize the governor in council to add to part II of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers, and to provide that forthwith upon the addition thereof that council shall be deemed to be a public service corporation, and the Government Employees Compensation Act shall apply to the members of the staff; and for the purposes of any regulation

made pursuant to section 5 of the Aeronautics Act, the members of the staff of the council shall be deemed to be employees in the public service of Canada.
All these sections with which we are dealing under this vote could be covered by one amendment, even though three statutes are involved. I am sure there would be no objection in that regard; but certainly this is not the way to legislate and not the way to designate the application of a statute to an additional group, in this case the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers. I am not arguing that it may not be proper to have them included, but for the life of me I cannot understand the attitude of the government in attempting to amend acts of parliament in this way. It might be a different situation if there was any haste or rush to make these amendments, but there is no haste or rush. All the government has to do is issue a general amendment to these various acts and bring it before parliament at an early date. What is behind this move on the part of the government? The adoption of this kind of method will simply make a shambles of the House of Commons. We should not amend statutes in this way in order to qualify certain groups for inclusion under any regulations. Those are matters to be dealt with in the ordinary legislative way. They are not involved or difficult. They are not going to take much time, but whether or not they take time this is a method that cannot be accepted by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We agreed to sit later.


George James McIlraith: This particular item is an unfortunate example of how a part of what is commonly regarded as the public service of Canada, presumably through inadvertence, was not given the kind of legislative treatment that is common to all members of the public service and which the former government thought they had provided. If the right hon. gentleman wants examples, I would point out that this has been the traditional method of dealing with this problem under all governments.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


George James McIlraith: Take item 684 of supplementary estimates (5) for 1960-61.


John George Diefenbaker: What does it say?


George James McIlraith: Supplementary estimates (5) for 1960-61 are a good example. I just do not understand the right hon. gentleman seizing

on this particular item. I should have thought that if he knew the facts he would have been less enthusiastic in attacking the present government than he appears to be at the moment, because what is being done in this particular case is merely to follow the traditional practice under the Public Service Superannuation Act. In this particular case it would normally have been done long ago, and all the evidence I have been able to get leads me to believe that it would have been done by the former government if they had been aware that it was required to be done. This is the unfortunate situation we are in in this case, and if the right hon. gentleman really means to imply that public servants who work for the Canadian council of resource ministers should be denied-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is no way to get co-operation. I am just as anxious that they get their rights as anyone else. The hon. member was a member of the house when this legislation was passed and he did not notice this omission and nobody else did. The proper way to amend legislation is by following the ordinary accepted principle of the presentation of a bill to parliament. I object to this procedure now being suggested. When he says that I should be anxious to see the change made because this group of individuals are entitled to be included, I say that I am not arguing that. I am simply saying: Bring in a bill with all their considerations instead of subterraneously attempting to amend statutes through the guise of supplementary estimates. Bring this in and it will be accepted, but why do it this way? Why should the House of Commons be placed in the position of amending statutes through the medium of supplementary estimates? I am not arguing about the objective in respect of the individuals in question but I am arguing that this whole procedure shows a disregard of parliamentary practice.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call it six o'clock. I know there is a desire to finish this evening but I would suggest that we call it six o'clock and agree to sit later this day. It seems rather silly to me to sit through the supper hour when members of the house and the staff would find it more convenient not to do so. I suggest that we agree to return at eight o'clock and continue until ten o'clock tonight.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee that we interrupt the proceedings?
Supply-Finance


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Would it be agreeable to rise now and return at seven o'clock?


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, may I as a newcomer be permitted to say, with great respect, to the right hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The committee is considering a point of order at the moment


William Arnold Peters: It is ten minutes after six now so perhaps we might adjourn until 7.30.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall we suspend the proceedings until 7.30? Is it agreed that we will resume at 7.30 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: When we adjourned at six o'clock we were considering vote No. 23d of the Department of Finance and votes Nos. 18d and 21d had been allowed to stand.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I just take one minute to say that I have just been talking to the Prime Minister who is in Philadelphia tonight making a speech at Temple University where he is receiving an award. It has been arranged that the Prime Minister will meet with President Johnson tomorrow around noon at Camp David.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 23d carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: When you asked if vote No. 23d shall carry, I may say that I wish to participate in this debate that has been going on since we started consideration of the supplemental estimates of external affairs. In paragraph (c) of vote No. 33d-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is vote No. 23d for the Department of Finance.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I understand that perfectly, my friend. I am not participating in this debate because of some recent conviction or some conclusion reached today. My position was made clear to this house as long ago as last November when this government introduced some supplementary estimates. At that time they sought to legislate by supplemental estimates, and a number of members in this house protested strongly to the members of the cabinet. While it is true that

Supply-Finance
I had occasion to rise twice and say I protest about estimates being introduced in that way, Hansard will not show any discussion on my part. The minister for the department involved stood up and announced that because the legislation he was trying to effect by supplemental estimates involved a contentious matter, he would allow the item to be laid aside.
Now, I do not believe in legislation by supplemental estimates. Certainly, we are getting a prize example of it in these supplemental estimates tonight, which total something around $346 million. I have to agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert when he says it is more like supplemental legislation that is involved in this process, rather than supplemental estimates. I have read every word in these supplemental estimates three times since the noon hour. This vote 23d for the Department of Finance will authorize the governor in council to add to part II of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers-and to provide that forthwith upon the addition thereof, (a) the council shall be deemed to be a public service corporation, and then paragraph (b) says that "such person shall be deemed", and paragraph (c) also uses the words "shall be deemed". We are legislating by supplemental estimate in the amount of $1.
I ran on the Liberal party ticket in 1962 and 1963. I must say I get a little provoked when I come down here and listen to Liberal cabinet ministers standing up and saying, that is the way you did it so it is all right for us to do it that way. I ran against Conservatives in my riding because I thought we could legislate better; but down here they say: That is the way you did it, and it was wonderful, so we are going to follow your example. In November when I was investigating this question of legislating by supplemental estimate, I went to see three different lawyers. I am not a lawyer; I am a businessman who engages lawyers. I spoke to them about this legislation by supplemental estimate. I was told by the lawyers in whom I have every confidence, and one of them is a highly placed legal officer of the crown, that legislation by supplemental estimate is probably done three times in ten years. I expressed amazement that legislation was possible, and this was at a time when I was opposing the government on the question of community antenna for television. This highly regarded lawyer informed me that every time

we passed a supplemental estimate it came back to us as a printed bill, and the bill was an enactment of this house. When I expressed resentment over the fact that this could be done in this way in the dying hours of a session, I was simply told, "Well, you may resent it, but that is the way it is done about three times in ten years".
Today, we are told that this legislative method was adopted 31 times in 1961. I should like to look at the items. I do not believe it is 31 pieces of legislation. There may have been 31 $1 items, but we are not protesting the $1 items. I am protesting only this method of legislating under the guise of supplemental estimate. I do not know of a single figure in these supplemental estimates in this booklet to which I would object. However, I certainly object to about ten pieces of legislation that the Liberal party has tried to foist on us under the guise of supplemental estimates. I am ashamed that the Liberal party name would be attached to legislation by supplemental estimate. I wish there were more Liberals who felt the same way about it.
I go back to external affairs vote 33d in order to ask two questions. I am going back to external affairs, in case somebody wants to know, at this point in our discussion on vote 23d for the Department of Finance. If they want to call me back to finance, all right, but I am going back to external affairs to state that ten lines in paragraph (c) should be deleted-not three. The fourth line of paragraph (c) says:

notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act-
We are setting aside an act of this parliament by a vote in the supplemental estimates. It is not clear in my mind whether or not we have set aside in paragraph (c), three lines or ten. We should have set aside ten. If we have only set aside three lines we have passed legislation under the guise of a $1 supplementary estimate in vote 33d, under external affairs, and I believe the House of Commons should look at that again because we should not be legislating through supplementary estimates. When people stand up and say, "You did it that way; therefore it must be all right," let me say two wrongs do not make a right. There is only one right way to do this. The legislation should be brought in by the government at the proper time, and not under the guise of supplementary estimates.
The first speaker who opposed legislation by supplementary estimates covered the field pretty thoroughly from page 9 to the back

of the book, and some hon. members questioned him for wandering because we were dealing with a particular vote under external affairs. However, he was covering the point that is in dispute and 1 thought that should have been clear to everyone in the chamber. To stand up and say it has been done before, does not justify it. Vote 23d under finance should not be passed because it is changing an act of the House of Commons.
Somebody stood up this afternoon and made a great howd'ye-do about parliament going to rob one poor fellow who was the victim of an error made in some department, and said surely the house would be anxious to correct a mistake. That is governed by vote 59d under national defence, at page 17, and at no time was that vote mentioned. I am the first person to mention it directly.
There are about 10 cases in which the government is trying to pass legislation under the guise of supplementary estimates, and Canada expects more of its government than that type of action. I am opposed to the passage of vote 23d, under the Department of Finance, at page 12.


William Arnold Peters: I am also concerned, but perhaps not in the same high technical detail as some other members, with vote 23d, paragraph (c), which appears to be setting up a new council that was not agreed to in the past, and I think the Minister of Transport should give some indication of what is involved in this.
The previous speaker mentioned the community antenna section that appears to be set up in this manner. I do not have the statute before me and am not familiar with section 5 of the Aeronautics Act, but it would appear that under this vote the staff of a new council is being established. I suggest that the minister responsible should give some explanation of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) because obviously they do not mean what they say, or at least I presume they do not mean what they say. The item states:
To authorize the governor in council to add to part II of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Canadian council of resource ministers.
I presume this refers to the secretariat that was discussed at great length following the meeting of the resource ministers, and if such a secretariat is being established all hon. members interested in the relationship between provincial governments and the federal government, on the matter of natural resources, should examine it.
Supply-Finance


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind me interrupting to say one thing. This council of resource ministers was created some three years ago under the responsibility of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle, who was a minister in the previous government.


John George Diefenbaker: But is it a statute?


William Arnold Peters: I presume what we are discussing here is the secretariat of that organization.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


William Arnold Peters: Obviously we do not have to pay the ministers. As I recollect it, the secretariat was to be comprised of representatives of the federal and provincial governments. Are we suggesting that the secretariat be a federal agency and, if so, why are we not formally establishing it?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member for York-Humber talked about two wrongs not making a right. With the greatest respect may I say I have looked at a number of precedents and I thought we were following the right procedure. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to grant me a moment or two before the dinner adjournment and, if I may, I should like to repeat that in adopting this method we were following a method that had been accepted as perfectly legitimate in other years.
I would invite the attention of hon. members to the estimates of 1961-62, vote 520, and I quote:
To authorize the governor in council to add to part I of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act
(a)	such part of the staff of government house as is paid by the governor general from his salary or allowance,
(b)	notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 9 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, and
(c)	notwithstanding subsection (1) of section 5 of the Government Companies Operation Act, Canadian Arsenals Limited;
and to authorize the governor in council to make regulations respecting the terms and conditions under which any employee of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation or Canadian Arsenals Limited who is, on the addition of those corporations to part I of schedule A, a member of a pension plan to which either corporation contributes in respect of him, may elect not to become a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
May I say with the greatest respect that the estimates now before the committee falls on all four corners within the method adopted at that time, and I refer particularly to the words, "to add to part I" of the

Supply-Finance
schedule. May I say further that the very purpose of this estimate is to right a wrong inadvertently done to certain members of the secretariat, and it seems to me the prime responsibility resting upon us as members is to do justice to our employees. This is what we are attempting to do.
Rightly or wrongly in the method we have adopted, we will at least do a justice to these people by correcting an oversight so that they can become entitled to pension provisions and compensation, and I would earnestly urge the committee to accept the vote.


John George Diefenbaker: The argument is not quite as simple as that; but before advancing it further I would ask the President of the Privy Council whether the Canadian council of resource ministers is provided for in any statute? If so, what is the statute?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I cannot answer that. It was set up by the former government. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman himself could tell us.


John George Diefenbaker: It has no authority by statute of parliament, as I understand it. It was set up, and what is attempted now is to give an unofficial board certain rights. To accomplish this requires an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act, or whatever act applies. It is all very well to say, as did the hon. gentleman who just resumed his place, that the object of parliament is to do justice to employees. That is right-to do justice to employees in accordance with the proper application of law. There is no rush about this. What has happened here? Why this ungodly haste on the part of the government to bring in a series of so-called supplementary estimates making provision for the amendment of these various acts at this time? Why not wait until the new session of parliament and make a general amendment to cover these things, instead of using this abysmal method of having parliament act in a way which is not in keeping with the general tenor of parliamentary procedure? I do not understand why the government should wish to press ahead. One would almost believe there was not going to be another session- that there is to be a dissolution of parliament and the government wants all these things done right away. The Minister of Transport shakes his head in a negative manner. Why not have one amending bill brought in to cover all these acts which seem to require consideration, instead of adopting this subterranean plan-it must be a plan because there

cannot be so many instances of departure from the ordinary rules of parliament without there being a reason.
The Minister of Transport told us there was no possibility of this being done before dissolution. This being so, with a new session about to begin, cannot the government simply allow these items to stand and bring them forward in the form of one amendment in the new session? Whenever injustice has been done there will be support from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ensure a remedy for any omissions which may have taken place. I cannot understand what is behind this. I am never suspicious of actions by the government. I look at anything of this kind in an objective way in the same manner as is characteristic of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, removed completely from political considerations. But the government has not answered this question: Why this unseemly haste?


An hon. Member:: Why did you do it
before?


John George Diefenbaker: Who let the cat out of the
bag on the back seat? I am surprised that one as scrupulous as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice should be supporting this. I know how careful he is- and in that department there has to be care. In any case, if the government wishes to get on with our business it is not going to get on by trying to browbeat this committee into passing something which it should not pass.


Lawrence T. Pennell: There is no wish on my part to browbeat anyone, but the committee which is asked to pass these items is no different from the committee which in 1961-62 was asked to authorize the governor general in council to add part I, and so on. I submit that this, too, was legislation by an estimate. It cannot be any clearer. My submission is that if there were no undue haste on that occasion it should not be said there is undue haste on this occasion.


Arthur Laing: I hate to enter this area of high drama into which the Leader of the Opposition has moved.


John George Diefenbaker: Low drama on the part of the government.


Arthur Laing: I think that when the facts are known concerning this resources council everything will become clear. At least, I hope so. The council of resource ministers is a product of the resources for tomorrow conference which was held in Montreal in 1961,

under the leadership of a predecessor of mine in this office, the present hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I have said in this chamber on other occasions that I hoped the papers covering that particular conference could be made require reading for every Canadian, because nothing has contributed quite so much, in my opinion, to the acknowledgment in other countries of the extent of Canadian resources.
We wanted to develop something out of that conference, as did my predecessor. He was working toward the establishment of a resource ministers council when the government changed and we came to power. We continued along those lines and implemented that policy. The resource ministers council involves the resource ministers of the ten provinces in Canada and myself, a total of 11 ministers. The idea is to endeavour to bring the resources of Canada, wherever they may lie, into a plan for concerted action, a national policy for the good of Canada as a whole. As we developed, we established an office in Montreal, a secretariat which was headed by a very good man. He stayed with us for 18 months and we have now appointed another engineer, Mr. De Laet. I suggest that the secretariat is doing an exceedingly good job.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody is arguing that point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not the point.


Arthur Laing: The secretariat numbers some eight or ten people. They inquired if it were not possible for us to provide the advantages which the civil service of Canada provides for its ordinary employees. The provisions included here represent an endeavour to give the same advantages, the same security, the same perimeter advantages, as civil servants have. Nothing more than that.
I might take this opportunity of saying that I deeply appreciate the co-operation shown by all the provinces of Canada in the development of the council of resource ministers and for the maintenance of the secretariat in Montreal. The federal government contributes one third of the total cost of about $150,000 this year and the ten provinces contribute the other two thirds.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not arguing that this provision in vote 23d does not serve a good purpose or that these people should not be added to schedule A of the Public Service Superannuation Act. I think the minister of northern affairs has missed the point entirely.
Supply-Finance
May I point out that included in votes 23d, 21d and 18d are three votes of $1 each, all altering the Public Service Superannuation Act. Our suggestion is that this act be amended by a short bill presented to parliament in the usual way. This is the way to deal with legislative improvements.
May I remind the house that when the house is dealing with matters that are not controversial-and I submit that the amendments here, if brought forward in a proper bill, would not be considered controversial- it acts with the greatest rapidity. On March 4 of this year, if hon. members will look at Hansard, page 11989 and the following page, they will find that within a period of ten minutes this house passed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, provision for capital expenditures for the C.N.R., and implemented an amendment to an agreement to avoid double taxation with Japan. That is how rapidly the house can act when the proper measures are put in front of it; and that is all we are suggesting. Withdraw these items, bring in a bill, and next week when the speech from the throne is being dealt with, the speech from the throne could be interrupted for ten minutes and a bill could be passed through the house to deal with these matters. That is how simple it is.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to accept that suggestion, but I want to point out to hon. members of this committee, before doing so, exactly what this involves. These men, for example, in addition to losing their superannuation rights-which can presumably be picked up-also lose their rights under the workmen's compensation act, which operates over a wide field in this country. As long as it is well understood, and clearly, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition takes the responsibility for the position he has asserted, I would be very glad to put this into the form of legislation that will be more agreeable to the committee. The same remarks would apply-


Robert Muir: You had better read Dale Carnegie on how to win friends.


George James McIlraith: The same remarks would apply to items 18d and 21d. I am wondering whether hon. members wanted to apply it to 2Id, and if so, I wish they would look at that item again. I am quite willing to withdraw it as well. I am referring to items 18d, 21d and 23d.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, if the President of the Privy Council is seeking to place

Supply-Finance
the onus on the opposition for denying these rights to individuals, why was not the legislation brought in before, in these cases?


George James McIlraith: I did not mean to do that; but I want to make it clear that I hope hon. members understand exactly the implications involved in entering into what has been referred to as the wrong method of legislating. As long as they do understand, I am quite content and happy to withdraw the three items. That is what I was seeking to make clear, because I must confess that the wording of estimates is not always as clear to me as I would wish it to be and I suspect this is the case with other hon. members in the house. I am quite satisfied to withdraw the three items on the undertaking given by the house leaders of the opposition parties.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is this. There is no question of the Leader of the Opposition taking responsibility. I am carrying out my duties as a member of parliament, upholding the rights of parliament. Those rights have now been admitted by the hon. gentleman and I am glad to see that he has decided, after consideration and review of the matter-and this apparently was not clear to him earlier- that this would be a contravention of our practice. I only hope that the amendment is brought in at an early date and these people, including those covered by item 18d, will receive their just due by the proper method, namely an amendment to the legislation in question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I would drop the items now, if it is agreed by the committee. If the committee does agree, I would ask Your Honour to drop items 18d, 21d and 23d.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that items 18d, 21d and 23d be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether just before the item is dropped I could ask one question arising out of the remarks made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Lucien Lamoureux: I have no objection to that, but if the items are going to be dropped I suppose it would be rather pointless to have discussion on them. They do not appear in the estimates, if they are dropped.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was trying to get your eye, Mr. Chairman, before the item was dropped.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is dropped now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was wanting some information with regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I can assure you, sir, and the members of the government-


Lucien Lamoureux: My suggestion to the hon. member is that we have been discussing for the last hour or so three items which by agreement are now being dropped, and we should be allowed to make some progress in view of the fact that agreement has been reached in the committee to withdraw these three items, and go on to the next one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I should now like to revert to vote No. 33d.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has been passed.


John George Diefenbaker: I think we made a mistake with regard to the amendment that was introduced. If you do not want to deal with it now, that is all right; but there is a mistake in the amendment.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, is the right hon. gentleman referring to item 33d of the Department of External Affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that the committee revert to item 33d?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Items 18d, 21d and 23d withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
33d. To authorize the establishment of a special account, in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the international development assistance fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965,
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main estimates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote);
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund); and
(c)	any amounts provided by parliament during the subsequent fiscal years for the purposes of the fund;
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the international development assistance fund in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith including authority
(d)	to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council; and

(e)	to provide educational and technical training for persons from the said countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council, $1.
Lucien Lamoureux: This is the item that had been approved as amended. We will return, by unanimous agreement, to vote No. 33d, Department of External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as I looked over the amendment which we thought we were accepting, I found that a mistake had been made. I suggest it should be looked over again by the minister. It has in it a great portion of paragraph (c) which should not be included. That was agreed, I believe, and perhaps the minister would look it over and he will see that there is an error in the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I am clearing it away now so there will be no mistake. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs will look at it, he will see that the portion with regard to engaging advisers, and so on, and the providing for payment out of the assistance fund and for economic, technical and educational assistance, was to have been deleted. If Your Honour would allow the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see that, I am sure he would move the necessary amendment later on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that this item stand in order that the minister may consider this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: The item will stand while the minister considers it. The committee will return to item 24d, Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
24c2. To authorize the deletion from the accounts of Canada of $396,217,000 shown therein as the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation account and the charge of that amount to net debt as an adjustment in respect of prior years' transactions, $1.
Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, item 24d is to authorize the deletion from the accounts of Canada of some $396,217,000. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue could give us some explanation as to why he wants to transfer this amount and add it to the national debt, because it is rather a significant amount of money.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on March 6, 1964, the Minister of Finance made an announcement concerning this matter of han-
Supply-Finance
dling the public service superannuation fund so that it would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Auditor General. This is an effort to do that. Perhaps I could give more detail, Mr. Chairman, although I do not know how much detail the hon. member wants me to give on it. This amount is to be written off to net debt and it represents the unamortized portion of the deferred charge credited to this account in respect of the deficiencies which had arisen up to December 31, 1962, plus interest, to the date of the crediting of the deferred charge. The additional deficiencies which have arisen as a result of the salary increase authorized since March 31, 1963, are to be dealt with by means of another item to be considered separately.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to translate that into merchandiseable English.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or French.


John George Diefenbaker: What does it really
mean?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this says that it is to take from the account the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation account. What does this mean when it refers to "actuarial deficiency"? Does that mean there is a deficiency in the superannuation account, or are there some statistics which have been worked out by actuaries who say that there ought to be so much there, but in fact there is not that much.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has the right explanation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this nodding of the head does not appear on Hansard. I would like someone to get up on his feet and explain what this means in language which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has described as merchandiseable English.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has the right answer in this regard. There is an actuarial deficiency in the account. There are one or two items which will be transferred to a special bill, which I am sure will be dealt with by this house in ten minutes, and which will look after the actuarial deficiency in the future to make sure that when civil servants retire there will be the correct amount in the

Supply-Finance
fund required to carry out the purposes of the legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Now that this has been put into merchandiseable English, perhaps it simply means that there has been a mistake made in the provisions of the superannuation fund. This leads to one or two more questions. Is the government taking any steps to see that this type of error will not be repeated? If one looks at the civil service salaries he will find that they are not very high, and will come to the conclusion that the $396 million is a tremendous amount. That is almost $400 million, and I assume that this deficiency has occurred over the past year.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps it has not occurred within just one year, but why in hell do you not say so in these supplementary estimates? Why should they be stated in this manner? I am not at all satisfied with this kind of explanation and it seems to me that if the government is in a hurry to pass these supplementary estimates it ought to make clear and satisfactory explanations in respect of these items. My understanding is no less than anyone else's and it always irritates me to hear someone say that they understand these things. I do not believe that they have even thought about them, let alone understand them.
If this type of deficit has been incurred over a period of a year, or over a longer period of time, then I think this fact should be stated, and I think we should be told what steps are being taken to bring about a change in the necessary provisions to ensure that these actuarial deficiencies will not occur in the future. I do not believe that we can expect the Canadian public to accept an expense of this kind to be paid out of the treasury without some kind of an explanation. If these debts are to be paid by the treasury and added to the national debt, there are two ways of doing this. It can be added to the debt or paid out, and it does not seem to make much difference which method is adopted.
I think this sort of thing should be explained in a better way than has been adopted, and I personally intend to keep on asking questions until I am satisfied that I understand the situation thoroughly.


Edgar John Benson: I do not want to fix the blame in respect of this actuarial deficiency on anyone. What has happened over the years, and I would refer my hon. frend to the reports

of the Auditor General from 1958 onwards, is that salary changes have taken place in the civil service without provision having been made for the additional contributions encumbent upon the government to make under the superannuation act. What this provision will do in one step, by a charge to the national debt, is bring the superannuation fund up to the amount required in order to carry out the obligations inherent in the Civil Service Superannuation Act. In addition to that, and this has been mentioned previously, other provisions will make sure that this sort of thing cannot happen in the future. The government will be required to make a charge against revenue in the current year, and over a five-year period, in order to keep the fund in line with salary changes which result in additional obligations under the superannuation act.


William Arnold Peters: That answer has made the situation much more clear. The last question I want to ask is, what have we done to correct this situation in the future? The correcting measures are not contained in this item, obviously, and if they were it would be wrong. It seems to me that there should be some changes made to the public service wage structure so as to automatically provide for changes which will occur to the superannuation fund. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation which will correct this situation and bring these things into their proper relationship?


Edgar John Benson: I should point out to my hon. friend that this item will take care of prior accumulated deficiencies, and that item 18d, which has now been dropped and which is to be incorporated in a bill to be presented to parliament, will ensure that this sort of thing will not happen again. I refer my hon. friend to the wording of vote 18d which is designed to prohibit any government from doing the same thing in the future.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
15d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $200,000.
Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, vote 15d deals with assistance in the construction of fishing vessels in respect of which capital subsidies are not payable pursuant to any other federal authorization. It also includes an amount to recoup the fishing vessel indemnity account

and the lobster trap indemnity account. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries is in his seat tonight, will he give us some explanation of this vote? I am in agreement with the principle of providing assistance to the fishing industry, but I should like to have an explanation of the $200,000 figure.


Mr. Robichaud:: Conditions in the fishing industry were so good during the last fishing year that more applications for assistance in the construction of new vessels were received. As a result, at the end of this fiscal year we realized that we needed an extra $200,000 to pay the subsidies which became due on account of the greater number of vessels constructed during the year. This item applies to the regular subsidy program.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) tell us how much out of the $200,000 was paid to the province of Quebec and in how many grants?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not have here the breakdown showing the amounts paid to each province but I could send it to the hon. member. I can say that the province of Quebec received quite a substantial amount.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what I wanted to ascertain, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries one or two questions regarding assistance under the lobster trap indemnity account.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That relates to the next item.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall this vote carry?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Would the minister indicate in general terms the nature of the assistance provided in this vote, particularly with reference to the size of fishing vessel? In general terms, what kind of fishing vessel is included?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I did not catch the hon. member's question. Is he dealing with vote 15d?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He wants to know the size of the craft covered.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am interested in the general category, whether it is small craft, large craft or just what it is.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member should know that up until early in January of this year this type of subsidy was applicable
Supply-Fisheries
to fishing vessels from 45 to 75 feet in length or of approximately 100 gross tons, but as of January of this year, because of changes that were made in the application of the subsidy, the subsidy is also applicable on the basis of 25 per cent of the total cost of vessels from 35 to 45 feet and 30 per cent on vessels from 45 to 75 feet in length.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So that this $200,000 is for this new group to which the minister referred, or is it over all?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, this $200,000 applies to fishing vessels from 45 to 75 feet in length.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am rather puzzled by the last remark of the Minister of Fisheries. I had the impression that there was a program of funds for construction assistance payable under the Department of Transport which covers larger vessels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But that only changed on the 1st of April.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My impression was that this special vote under the Department of Fisheries was to cover smaller vessels. The minister has me thoroughly confused, because I thought we had an announcement by the Minister of Transport not too long ago indicating a division of responsibility for fishing vessel construction assistance.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is fairly easily confused, because this item has nothing to do with that announcement made about a month ago to the effect that a new program would take effect on April 1st. This item has to do with the subsidy applicable under the fisheries management and development program, and it applies to fishing vessels from 45 to 75 feet in length. As I have just mentioned, since January this subsidy has been applicable to fishing vessels from 35 to 75 feet in length but applications are just coming in now under the new program.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, just so that I may understand this item, the amount of $200,000 is to cover the funds necessary to complete commitments or applications under the old program?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It has nothing to do with the new program?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It only started yesterday.


Robert Carman Coates: When the minister started he made a flippant statement to the hon. member

Supply-Fisheries
for Queens-Lunenburg to the effect that the reason for this money being in the estimates is that the fishing business was so good this year, but now we learn it is in the estimates because a new group of vessels has qualified for the subsidy. Will the minister give us the facts? What is the reason for this money being in the estimates?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This money is in the estimates because a larger number of applications were received during the year than anticipated. Those applications were justified, so we are asking parliament to provide the funds to cover the subsidy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17d. Estimated amount required to recoup the fishing vessel indemnity account and the lobster trap indemnity account established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, and vote 527 of the Appropriaiton Act No. 6, 1956, to cover the net operating losses in the said accounts as at March 31, 1965, $81,000.
Robert Carman Coates: I should like to have some information from the minister with regard to the very substantial trap losses in the Yarmouth district, where I understand it is estimated that a quarter million traps were lost as the result of a hurricane. How much assistance was made available to the fishermen of that area from this fund for their trap losses?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the details of the money that was paid to individual fishermen but, as the hon. member should know, this type of insurance was applicable up to a maximum amount of $12,500. Again, just a month or two ago we amended this to cover vessels up to a maximum of $15,000. Larger vessels are not normally insured under this program. This covers smaller boats such as lobster boats and herring boats.


Robert Carman Coates: I am not interested in the boats. I am interested in the traps.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The same applies to lobster traps. There was quite a heavy and substantial loss of lobster traps during the year on account of a severe storm in the area mentioned by the hon. member. In order to recoup the loss to the indemnity fund we require an additional amount of $8,424. That is why we are asking parliament to approve this amount.


Robert Carman Coates: Is the money that is involved here all related to that storm or is it associated with other trap losses in other areas?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, as I have just indicated this is the amount that is required to recoup

the indemnity account for the whole year. Because of the storm the losses were heavy and we had to take care of and pay more claims. That is why we require this amount of over $8,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
5d. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $100,000.
Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address my remarks to whichever minister is looking after this item dealing with the program for forest stand improvement. When the minister is describing the program to us I wish he would answer one or two questions. First of all, what will be the provincial share? We know that the details of the agreement may require some working out. Second, is this a new type of shared cost program indicating that the government now supports the principle of shared cost programs between the federal and provincial governments? Third, what has the minister got to say about the fact that we are asked to approve a vote here which makes provision for the establishing of conditions by the governor in council?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, this program of forest stand improvement was initiated by the former government in an effort to meet the employment problems created by mine closures. It has been continued under this government under a sharing program to meet jointly the labour costs in regard to displaced miners. Presumably the words "terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve" refer to the approval that would be given by the governor in council to the agreement that is normally signed each year by the federal and provincial governments to carry out this particular program of forest stand improvement. The agreement in this case is between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. That in essence is the reply to the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I take it this is similar to one of the three or four or five different types of joint programs between the federal Department of Forestry and the provinces, but what you are doing now is going beyond the formula laid down in the agreement between the federal government and the provinces and instituting a special program as an extension of one of the agreements. You are making it a works program and putting the vote under forestry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was treated this way in the past. It has the same purpose and it operates substantially in the same way as it was developed by the former government in order to meet the special problems created by mine closures. It is still intended to deal with displaced miners in Cape Breton, and they are employed each summer and fall on this particular project.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, would the minister advise us briefly where this work was carried out? He said it was a continuing program which was initiated by the previous administration in conjunction with the province of Nova Scotia. Would he also advise whether the present administration plans to continue it in the future-I believe he said something like that-possibly with the thought of expansion.
Could he also tell the house what has happened in connection with this program so far as forest improvement is concerned? What are the reports?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot evaluate the program from a forestry point of view. I presume that the ministers in both jurisdictions have found them useful for that purpose. The projects are, as my hon. friend knows, on the island of Cape Breton. There was one down in Margaree in the area of Inverness county. I am not sure whether or not there was one in Victoria county. However, many miners were drawn from my hon. friend's constituency for employment on these projects.
With respect to the intention of the government, it will be the intention of the government to recommend the continuance of this program for another year if it secures the concurrence of the provincial government.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister has indicated it is the intention of the government to continue this program. Will he then assure the committee and possibly the Nova Scotia government, that there will be no delay in initiating the agreement when the time comes for renewal? Further, will the minister once again emphasize the fact that this program has been initiated, and will be continued, for displaced miners and that there will be no change in that, as there has been in connection with the centenary program at the fortress of Louisburg where the Grits are getting the jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If my hon. friend knew of all the discontented Grits who wrote me
Supply-Forestry
about the difficulties of securing employment at this project he would not make that statement. However, we intend to move ahead quickly on this. The purpose is to employ displaced miners, and that is the intention in future years.


Malcolm MacInnis: Possibly I should amend the statement I made about who is getting hired at Louisburg. What I want to draw to the attention of the minister is that the policy adopted and followed by this government, in his own constituency, is one that has been detrimental to the original intent of that program and displaced miners are no longer being hired at Louisburg. Would he correct that situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I disagree, of course, and dispute the statement made by my hon. friend. This is not the occasion to debate the Louisburg project, so we may reserve our dispute for a future occasion.


Robert Muir: Can the minister assure the committee that the government will continue this program until the recently announced investigation initiated by the Department of Industry concerning the exodus of approximately 1,000 people annually from Nova Scotia is completed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can give the assurance that the program will be recommended for next year because I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Forestry and know that is his intention. I have not discussed the program beyond next year, so I am not in a position to tell him one way or the other on that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
37d. Payment in respect of extra costs resulting from unloading the S.S. Wheat King at Quebec while en route to deliver grain at Halifax, $83,000.
Robert Carman Coates: May we have an explanation of the reason the payment of these extra costs resulting from the unloading of the S.S. Wheat King while en route to deliver grain to Halifax is under the Department of Forestry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps since the Minister of Forestry is not here and my department was involved also I could explain it in a very summary fashion. The Minister of Forestry is responsible for the administration of the feed grain transportation subsidy. It happened that a cargo of grain destined for Halifax had to be unloaded at Quebec because there was no room in the elevator at

Supply-Justice
Halifax, since grain was being held there for export. The consequence was that an additional cost was incurred for which, if we had been very legalistic in our attitude, the government was not responsible. It seemed to be really no one's fault, but it had to get to Halifax in order to satisfy the farmers in that province and give them feed grain which they needed this spring.
After a lot of consideration the government decided that the house would, in the circumstances, probably be willing to make this payment and not leave someone else stuck with this loss. Really, you could not say it was the fault of anyone. We are very sorry it happened, but we are also very glad the feed grain is in Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
department of justice
Legal and other services-
Id. Administration, $27,000.
Robert Carman Coates: Could we secure information as to the results of representations that were made by the custodial officers in the Canadian penitentiary service to the Department of Justice over what they considered to be very unsatisfactory pay raises that were provided to the custodial officers? Indeed, a good many of the individuals in the Canadian penitentiary service were left out.


George James McIlraith: I gave this information this morning when the civil service item was before the committee. Perhaps I could repeat it briefly. The custodial officers, I believe, are well pleased with the recent pay increases. It is the other part of the penitentiary service who indicated dissatisfaction with the increases. They wrote, by way of complaint about this matter, or the associations wrote, and I offered last Monday to see them immediately. They were unable to keep the appointment earlier than April 12. There is an appointment set up for April 12 and the associations will be making representations on behalf of these people. I gave the assurance the government would give careful consideration to these representations when we received them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I had
hoped the minister would have been here during the passage of these estimates so that questions could be asked of him. No doubt the President of the Privy Council will be able to give us a report as to how the department is getting along in tracing the elusive Lucien Rivard. Is any part of this $27,000

connected with the amount of the reward? Can he tell us something about whether or not the government is considering raising the reward offered of $15,000 up to at least $20,000, which seems to be par in the scale of underworld bribes today?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the particular item before the committee has to do with extra costs resulting from the increased work load in connection with patent cases in the exchequer court, and some costs having to do with the inquiry into hate literature. I regret very much to have to tell the right hon. gentleman that I know nothing about Rivard. I might as well be frank and tell him I simply do not know anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is in the same position as the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Id. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $219,000.
Robert Carman Coates: I wonder if we might be able to get some information from the minister as to what he plans to do to assist the Atlantic area to eliminate the high unemployment rate that is in existence there?
Indeed it is higher than it was this time last year. The policies he promised the people of that area are not having the necessary helpful effect, and since he represents a constituency in that area he should devise policies to eliminate unemployment or, at least, bring it in line with the rate in the rest of Canada.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, to save time I should like to follow the example of my hon. friend from Cumberland and ask the minister what he intends to do to reduce unemployment in the province of Quebec.
I have addressed that question to the minister several times during the session. Since the session is drawing to a close, I imagine he will want to save his reputation and that of the government by announcing some extraordinary measure to relieve the lot of the unemployed in my province. I would not like him to merely state as he did in the past, in reply to my request for information, that an announcement is forthcoming. The unemployed of my riding and of the whole province, where 39 per cent of Canada's labour force lives, wish to earn an honourable living and would like this government

to carry out its promises and create full employment in this country.


Robert Muir: Is the minister in a position tonight to provide us with the statement of policy on unemployment in the Atlantic provinces that he promised some weeks ago? The hon. member for Cape Breton South and I are interested in what will be done by the government on Cape Breton island, particularly with regard to placing more people in work. It is a big problem, but during the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963, so far as the minister was concerned it did not appear to be insurmountable. As I mentioned in the house the other day, there are presently 78,000 unemployed in the Atlantic provinces, some 13 per cent of the working force, or a total of 5,000 more unemployed this year than at the same time last year.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wish to associate myself with my three colleagues from the Atlantic region, where it is a shocking situation that unemployment is higher than in the rest of Canada. Great pride is occasioned when the national unemployment figures go down, but it is a serious matter when they rise in the Atlantic provinces, whether because of the government's policies or lack of them.
I did not hear the minister make any election promises on Prince Edward Island in 1962 and 1963. We would have loved to have him with us, but he did not come, and if he had any recipes or formulas at that time I hope he will reproduce them, because we do not want to sink further into the relative pit of unemployment vis-a-vis the rest of the country.
During the last six or seven years, thanks to the great assistance that came from the former government, we in the maritimes were beginning to find our feet, and latterly the initiative of the Stanfield and Shaw governments brought about a new spirit of adventure. However, unemployment is again becoming heavy and I hope the vigorous and intelligent Minister of Labour will do something about it.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to know, is the special services branch the one responsible for the $500 program for winter housebuilding.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: Has the program been a success and how far has it extended across Canada? Some areas seem to get more ad-
Supply-Labour
vantage from it than others, and my own area has experienced considerable difficulty because houses cannot be painted in winter. Sidings cannot be applied, and when there are three or four feet of frost during the terminating days of the program, it is very hard to instal sewerage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At this point I do not wish to engage in a provocative debate with hon. members about the question of unemployment. Even if we wished, it is too large a subject to debate tonight, and all I want to say at this time is that I cannot accept in their entirety the views put forward by members of the official opposition.
With respect to additional proposals to meet unemployment, we shall have a speech from the throne early next week, and following that disclosure of plans it will be possible to debate the problem better. Further, in that debate if the opportunity arises I will be glad to discuss the general unemployment situation in Canada, in the Atlantic provinces and on Cape Breton island and, if I am given time to continue beyond the normal span allotted to hon. members, I may outline all the projects that have been developed to meet unemployment, especially in Cape Breton.


Robert Muir: Is the minister taking credit for all the projects for which, thank God, we have Bob Stanfield in Nova Scotia, and Industrial Estates, to bring new industries to Nova Scotia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. He cannot thank God for Bob Stanfield and then bemoan the distressed conditions in his province. We believe in co-operating with the provincial government, and some recent developments in Nova Scotia have illustrated the value of sincere co-operation between the two levels of government. We want that co-operation to continue. I am not particularly interested in detracting from the achievements of the premier of Nova Scotia, provided my hon. friend does not detract from the achievements of the federal government.


Robert Muir: What I blame you for is the closing down of the Point Edward naval base and places like that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the question about the special services fund, this additional amount of $40,000 is required to meet the fees which by law must be paid by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the

Supply-Labour
inspection which is conducted at the beginning of a program, and at the end. Our requirements are greater than anticipated because we expect that inspection payments will be necessary for 35,000 units.
The purpose of the winter housebuilding program is to combat seasonal unemployment and the bonus is given as an encouragement to get the work done in the winter months. It is true it would be easier for those parts of the country where houses can be built more easily because of good fortune in having favourable weather conditions at certain times; I do not know of any way by which we could even out under this program the weather variations which occur from one end of Canada to the other.
The program has been a success; there is no doubt about that. There was a big program last year. It will be the same this year and nobody now suggests that we terminate it. Even the house builders who found it somewhat upsetting at the beginning have concluded that it is a good program and that it has contributed to employment stability.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister of Labour has clearly indicated that he made no promises during the last campaign. However, members of his government did. He and the Minister of Transport took delight in making claims about the wonderful things which had been done in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton in particular. I would ask the minister to take a few short moments and name, if he can, two or three programs which have been initiated for the benefit of Cape Breton by his government. There is no need for him to elaborate on them; I ask him just to name them. If and when he does, I will have something to say, though I do not intend to say it tonight; I shall do that at a more advantageous time and at a later date.
The minister told us earlier of his government's intention to carry on complete cooperation with the Stanfield government, thus supporting what the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria has said. Had it not been for what the Stanfield government and Industrial Estates have done and the establishments they initiated in Nova Scotia, the situation would be a great deal worse even than it is today, because the federal government has done nothing except to give some assistance to joint programs initiated by Industrial Estates and the government of Nova Scotia.
I ask the minister to name quickly two or three projects which have been initiated in Cape Breton by his government. Let him do
[Mr. MacEachen.l
so, since he and the Minister of Transport have taken great delight in laying claim to all the wonderful things they are supposed to have done in Nova Scotia.


Robert Carman Coates: Although it may be desirable to complete the work of this session without undue delay, I do not think we should allow the Minister of Labour to shrug off two years of Liberal government and all the promises which have been made on the basis that there will be another speech from the throne next week. Mr. Chairman, we have already had two speeches from the throne and statistics in the Atlantic area show that unemployment is higher now than it was when we started. The Minister of Labour is telling us, in effect: Wait until Monday when we bring in another speech from the throne; unemployment is only 13 per cent now, and it may be 17 per cent next time.
We have waited for two years for this government to bring forward policies which would provide the kind of assistance to the people of the Atlantic area capable of placing them at least in a position where unemployment would be no worse than in any other part of Canada. Instead, unemployment in the Atlantic area today is two or three times as great as it is in the rest of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In order to relieve the gloomy picture he is painting, will the hon. member not admit that unemployment has decreased substantially in the Atlantic provinces in the past two years and that total employment has increased substantially, as can be verified by referring to figures of the dominion bureau of statistics? Hon. members opposite have made certain statements but they have not supported them by official statistics. These show an improvement in every part of the Atlantic provinces every year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not intend, however, to be drawn into a general debate on employment tonight.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the minister that the hon. member for Cumberland has the floor and perhaps he should be allowed to continue.


Robert Carman Coates: I was willing to let the minister rise and make some statement which might possibly be of benefit to the Atlantic area and to the 13 per cent of the people in that area who are unemployed. Instead of that, he gets up and gives me an argument about statistics.

He is a member of a party which has the services of a great expert on statistics, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is no longer in politics; he does not bother with statistics any longer. I am not arguing with the Minister of Labour about statistics. I am talking about the 13 per cent of the labour force which is unemployed, and saying he has done nothing to assist in the two years he has been in office, although he comes from the area concerned. What does he tell us when he rises to address the committee? He says, wait until Monday. Well, we have had a lot of Mondays but we have seen nothing from the Minister of Labour which would indicate to me that he has done very much about the unemployment problem in our region.
When the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport are asked questions about unemployment in the Atlantic area they tell us about all the different projects which have been undertaken to provide assistance to the people there. But let us face the facts. The facts are that all they have done is maintain the legislation which was put on the statute books by the former Diefenbaker administration. While that legislation was excellent, they destroyed the effectiveness of the main vehicle which the Diefenbaker administration proposed to use to eliminate the problems of the Atlantic area, namely the Atlantic development board. They did this by reducing it to the position of a gap filler provided with the insignificant sum of $100 million-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: Insignificant in the light of government expenditures today.


An hon. Member:: What's $100 million?


Robert Carman Coates: An hon. member asks "What's $100 million?" I will tell him. It is just what we are giving to the C.B.C. in the coming year.


An hon. Member:: Touche.


Robert Carman Coates: That is as much as is available for the four Atlantic provinces, and, remember, this has to serve those provinces over a number of years.
It is available to the C.B.C. for one year, and the president of that corporation says, "Give it to us for at least ten years without asking us any questions as to how we spend it". That is the difference, and that is the reason why I feel we have a right to expect from the Minister of Labour tonight some
Supply-Labour
explanation as to what he thinks can be done for the Atlantic area to eliminate the high degree of unemployment that is in existence there today and with regard to which the people of that area sent us here to try and get them jobs. Let us hear from the Minister of Labour, not next Monday but now, what he is going to do, instead of this business that we are going to hear it in the speech from the throne. Let us hear tonight what he is going to do.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the late coal critic of the former opposition has now turned Minister of Fisheries. This is very confusing. The financial critic is now Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. We don't know where we are going with this outfit. The Minister of Labour was asked a very simple and straightforward question. We know that employment has been increasing over the last two years, but I am not just referring to the last two years; I am referring to possibly the last ten years. Employment is always on the increase, relatively.
The hon. member for Cumberland mentioned this problem and the Minister of Fisheries says that is not true. But he has the statistics from his own department to support the statement. I ask the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport, who has taken great delight in jumping up and saying what wonderful things have been done for Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, to get up now and indicate just two or three projects that this government has initiated which have been of any benefit to Cape Breton. If he is stuck, perhaps he will get up and just mention one project.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour gets up to do that-I would not tax him with too many statistics, and if he does not have them I will send to my office for them-I would like to know if he will tell me, the committee, and particularly the hon. member for Cumberland what percentage of the labour force, according to his latest statistics, is unemployed in Canada; and what is that percentage in relation to the Atlantic region? Then, in the face of those statistics, would the minister say that things are getting better in the Atlantic region in this field?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. It is a fact that unemployment rates in various parts of Canada are higher than in others. One of the highest such rates is in the Atlantic provinces. I admit that. I state it every time I make a speech about

Supply-Labour
unemployment. But I also point out that there has been a very significant decrease in total unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, a very significant decrease. There has been a very significant decrease in total unemployment on Cape Breton island over the past two years; there is no doubt about that. It is quite clear that the unemployment rate, tor example in the province of Ontario, is certainly relatively low, on the prairies it is relatively low and in British Columbia it is certainly relatively low in comparison with the Atlantic provinces. It is clear, also, that the remaining areas of the country which require continuing special measures to reduce further unemployment include the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec. This is true, and we hope that in the speech from the throne it will be possible to conduct a more constructive debate on this question, in the light of proposals that may be made in that document, to reduce further unemployment in these areas.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfair to the committee really to expect a general debate on supplementary estimates on the question of unemployment, when we are dealing with three or four items in the general administration that do not raise the question at all. I am ready to debate the question on the speech from the throne, and there we will all have a chance to put our position before the house. However, I do not think it is fair to ask the committee to deal with the question on this particular vote, which deals with grants to the international institute for labour studies, legal fees, and so on.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may just say a word or two with regard to what the minister has been saying. I come from British Columbia and admit that we do have a very much better employment picture than the Atlantic provinces; but as a Canadian, and coming from British Columbia, I would like to see in other parts of this country the same level of employment and the same lack of unemployment as we have in British Columbia. The minister has suggested that perhaps in the speech from the throne he will be able to answer all these questions. I put it straight to the minister now: How is he going to answer all these questions? He is going to get on his feet perhaps once, not subject to questioning at all, and he is going to give almost the same wonderful, rosy picture of everything that he has given in the past. The minister and the Minister of Transport will get to their feet and give the same wonderful, rosy picture that was handed out prior to the
[Mr. MacEachen.l
last election as to what they were going to do in the province of Nova Scotia and in the other Atlantic provinces. They said, "We are going to cure unemployment. We are going to make employment as good as elsewhere in Canada". The minister's own statistics, which he knows so well, show a figure of 13 per cent unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, which is much higher than elsewhere in this country, where it is 6 per cent. It is bad enough in the rest of Canada, but they said they were going to cure this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the statistics the hon. member has given relate to the situation three years ago in the Atlantic provinces.


David Vaughan Pugh: Don't worry about what it was three years ago; merely say to yourself, "Am 1 carrying out my promises that were given prior to the election in these rosy speeches made by myself and the Minister of Transport as to what we were going to do to solve the unemployment situation?" The minister has been asked to answer this question tonight, not in a debate starting on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday next. He has been asked to stick on the record one, two or three special things which he and his government have done for the Atlantic provinces in order to cure unemployment. I am not asking for just those specific things which were instituted by the last government and carried on by this government, but we want the special programs which have been brought in by this government for the advantage of and to reduce unemployment in the Atlantic provinces.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends have assured me that they would be satisfied with at least three such policies.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So I will give them three. One is the $100 million that has been put aside for the disposal of the Atlantic development board. That is a very important, new policy. Second, the present government has contributed 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, 90 per cent.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is that a brand new one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a new policy which is having very substantial effects in the province of Newfoundland, in the province

of Nova Scotia and elsewhere. The third is a new designated area tax policy which has made it possible to establish in eastern Nova Scotia at least three plants which, in the absence of this tax policy, would never locate in that area of Nova Scotia. I refer to the heavy water plant, to Canadian Motor Industries Limited and to Clairtone in Pictou, Nova Scotia. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I discharge the request by indicating three new policies that are contributing to improved employment conditions in the Atlantic provinces, and especially in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the minister that we do not want to get into any extended debate by any means. I know that on that side of the house they do not want to hear anything about unemployment. I would also agree with him that employment has increased and unemployment has decreased somewhat throughout the country. I think the hon. member for Queens asked the minister for the figures for mid-February with regard to the Atlantic provinces, which he has not yet produced.
The minister keeps saying these figures are a little lower than they were two or three years ago. Would he also agree with me that the economy of this country started to improve early in 1961? Naturally as a result we would hope that unemployment would decrease and employment would increase.
After a lot of pressuring and coaxing by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and others, the minister finally mentioned three magnificent steps, as he called them, that have been taken by this government, including the establishment of the Atlantic development board. Let me remind the minister that the Atlantic development board was initiated by the former administration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did not take credit for the establishment of the Atlantic development board.


Robert Muir: One of the faults of the minister is that he is a bachelor and does not have patience. A married man must have patience.
The Atlantic development board was initiated by the previous administration and the viewpoint of that administration was that funds should be made available. There was no amount set, as has been set by this government. The amount decided upon now is $100 million, but the province of Nova Scotia has not been able to get very much out of
Supply-Labour
that fund up to the present. The Minister of Transport apparently does not want to assist that province. It is true that he can point to the 90 per cent share in respect of the trans-Canada highway, raised from 50 per cent, but that only means-
I hear the Minister of Fisheries, while sitting on his brains as usual, whispering "trans-Canada highway, trans-Canada highway", but it took some time for the Minister of Transport to catch on. Let me ask the Minister of Transport how many people will be given permanent jobs which will last for years to come as a result of this increase in the share?
The minister has mentioned designated areas. I have asked the minister on several occasions if any special consideration was given to Canadian Motor Industries to move to these designated areas which would not be given in respect of any other part of the country. I suggest that C.M.I. could have settled in Brantford, or anywhere else in Canada which was classified as a designated area.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Or Windsor.


Robert Muir: Or Windsor, as the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has suggested. They could have easily settled there. They decided on Nova Scotia as a result of the efforts of Industrial Estates Limited which enticed these companies to establish there. The same applies to the establishment of the heavy water plant. The minister knows that that industry received the advantages of a designated area circumstance, but that could easily have been established somewhere else because they are not receiving anything more in our island than they would get in any other designated area in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Robert Muir: I am always glad to hear from the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what government awarded the contract for the production of heavy water?


Robert Muir: I am only too pleased to inform the minister that the contract was awarded by an outfit by the name of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or some such similar name.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly correct. In other words, it was awarded by the government of Canada.


Robert Muir: Would the minister tell me whether this company received the contract because it tendered the lowest bid per pound of water, or was it awarded the contract because the government of Canada like that company? Was it not given on the basis of dollars and cents?


Robert Carman Coates: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member tell me who provided the financing for Deuterium Company of Canada Limited, and who also provided the financing for the Clairtone Company which established a plant in Pictou county. Was it the federal government?


Robert Muir: It certainly was not financed by the federal government. I think we are all aware that it was financed through Industrial Estates Limited of the province of Nova Scotia. I do not understand the attitude of the Minister of Transport, who is always jumping up on his feet, flying all over the place, telling us this was done, that was done and everything else was done. Why does he not get on his feet and calmly tell us in reality what has been done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want to prorogue.


Robert Muir: I ask the Minister of Transport to tell me how many people are going to be provided with work as a result of this government action, and how many are going to be put out of work in the town of North Sydney? The international longshoremen's union has suggested that there will be 600 stevedores put out of work by the Minister of Transport as a result of his action as indicated by the famous joke he made at a board of trade meeting to the effect that he would do more for Newfoundland than for anywhere else. It looks as though that is what he is doing, because North Sydney is certainly going to be pushed downhill. The figures I give are not mine, but those provided by the union.
I have asked myself on many occasions when the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport are going to meet with these people. Surely the time has come when the Minister of Transport should meet with them and explain to them how they are going to find work. If the minister should make a trip for that purpose I hope he will call a meeting of the former employees of

the naval base, which was closed down. I understand there are about 400 of them who would like to know how they are going to meet their mortgages, feed their children and earn a living in the future. It was the motorcycle kid, the Minister of National Defence, who closed that naval base and put these people out of work. They have nowhere to go for employment now, and that is a direct result of more foolishness on the part of this government.
I would be pleased to hear the Minister of Transport tell the house how he is going to re-employ these stevedores who have been put out of work. Both he and the Minister of Labour are always facetious when answering questions I have asked in this regard. They shrug their shoulders and say, maybe everybody will die; perhaps there will be an atomic bomb drop and nobody will have to work again. Both ministers are facetious about this very important and vital subject, particularly when answering questions in the house.
I would ask the Minister of Transport to relax, and not to get cross or excited, not to lose his temper, but to get to his feet calmly and tell us what he intends to do. I see that he is now going out to tell somebody else some answers. Perhaps he is going out to call Mr. Rivard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: In any event, I trust the Minister of Labour-


An hon. Member:: What a nasty sense of humour.


Robert Muir: I do not intend to deal with you tonight, but I promise I will deal with you on another occasion.
The Minister of Labour did make some statement regarding the heavy water plant which was established in Nova Scotia. A contract was awarded to Deuterium of Canada. Will the minister inform the committee whether this contract was awarded because this company tendered the lowest bid, or was it awarded out of the goodness and kindness of the government's heart-out of the milk of human kindness because these poor people needed some assistance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me say that the heavy water contract was awarded in large part because the plant was to be located on Cape Breton island and in view of the economic advantages that would flow to the area from that location.


Robert Muir: If it were not for the fact that my rheumatism is bothering me, I would get down on my knees to thank him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You get down on your knees to Bob Stanfield.


Robert Muir: Would the minister tell us whether or not it is correct that this contract was awarded to Deuterium of Canada because the figure they quoted was $20.50 a ton, which was lower than any other bid, or was the Minister of Industry kidding someone when he gave those figures in this house? Would the minister answer that question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I am sure that the problem which has been raised by the hon. members for Cape Breton is a very important one, but I do not see anything to which it could be related under vote Id. Surely we cannot properly have a full-scale debate on this vote.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It seems to me that we are straying a long way from the subject when we are discussing contracts awarded for the production of heavy water and other things. I would apreciate Your Honour considering the vote with which we are now dealing in order to ascertain whether this discussion can be related to it.


Robert Carman Coates: Was the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I rose on a point of order.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, this item deals with general administration and I am sure that anything in relation to the general administration of the Department of Labour is relevant, and for that reason I do not believe the hon. member was out of order.


William Skoreyko: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that on vote Id we are provided with the only opportunity this session to discuss matters relevant to the Department of Labour.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about the throne speech debate on Monday?


William Skoreyko: I am prepared to stay here for some time tonight in order to deal with those matters which I feel should be considered. I suggest to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that if he wants to defend the Liberals he should sit on the other side of the house. We have had enough of that 20220-832
Supply-Labour
kind of nonsense. These questions must be answered.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Has the hon. member concluded this remarks?


William Skoreyko: No, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were calling me to order. I simply say that there are questions before the house that should be answered.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I put a question to the Minister of Labour, and while I was behind the curtain for a moment he began his answer in which he listed three items and said he had fulfilled his obligation. Since then the matter has been pretty well hashed over but I should like to review for a moment what he called new policies. I emphasize the word "policies". He maintained they were new policies. He began with the Atlantic development board. That is not a new policy. The amounts of money available have been changed and I am afraid they have been changed to the detriment of the province of Nova Scotia.
He also referred to the 90 per cent federal share of the trans-Canada highway as a new policy. This again is not a new policy. There is nothing new about it. He also referred to the tax incentive to industry to establish in designated areas. I would point out to the Minister of Labour that industries establishing in Nova Scotia today are not doing so because of any advantages made available to them by the federal government's tax incentive program. As other members on this side have pointed out, there is nothing special about this tax incentive so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. It is available to every designated area throughout the country.
Those are three of the policies which he referred to as being new and as being helpful to Nova Scotia, and they are anything but helpful. They are not policies to the advantage of Nova Scotia at all. I asked him to get up and name two or three projects which the government had initiated to the advantage of Nova Scotia and he has not fulfilled his obligation because he has not given one example of any kind of program that this government has initiated or had any responsibility for initiating.
He also referred to the heavy water plant. For a long while the people around Glace Bay were calling it the hot water plant because this government was playing around with the matter. They played around with the requirements of the atomic energy commission when the plant was first established in Nova Scotia. They said there was only

Supply-Labour
going to be a requirement for so much heavy water in Canada, but suddenly the amount needed has doubled in a few short months.
The Minister of Labour as the minister from Nova Scotia should be primarily interested in this development in Cape Breton and I ask him this question. How is it that the government has announced another successful tenderer when the minister in charge of the atomic energy commission, the Minister of Industry, has stated in the house that Western Deuterium's process for the manufacture of heavy water has not been approved? How is it that we have such a situation? It is true that in Cape Breton we do have a heavy water plant under construction and we understood it was a plant that would manufacture the full requirements. But suddenly in a few short months the requirements have doubled and, according to the Minister of Transport, the government has now permitted a contract to be awarded to Western Deuterium, even though the Minister of Industry has stated in the house that their process for manufacturing heavy water has not yet been approved by the atomic energy commission.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me that when he discusses an atomic energy plant he is not dealing with a matter which is within the four comers of vote No. Id. It may be a matter which is of interest to the hon. member's particular area but I suggest it is still outside the confines of vote No. Id. Perhaps the hon. member will want to return to a consideration of this particular item.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am happy you have seen fit to call my attention to the fact that I should not be discussing heavy water, but I would point out quite clearly to the Chair and to the house that the subject of heavy water was first brought up by the Minister of Labour. I never mentioned the heavy water plant and was not going to say anything about it until the Minister of Labour tried to imply that it was established in Nova Scotia because of the activities and the initiative of the government, which he knows is not the case. I am sorry, sir, but heavy water was brought into the discussion by the Minister of Labour who once again is making wild claims as to what the government is doing for the Cape Breton area.
Again I say to the Minister of Labour that as a representative from Nova Scotia he should be vitally interested in that province. I do not agree with what the Minister of

Transport said, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Minister of Transport can stand up in public and say that if it comes to a choice between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland he is going to favour Newfoundland, I think the Minister of Labour should get up and take the same stand on behalf of Nova Scotia. Let him get up and say that if there is a choice between provinces he is going to be primarily concerned with his own province. Let him do what other ministers are doing. Let him get up and fight for Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Again we hear from the former coal critic turned Minister of Fisheries. Once again he is yapping from his seat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think this debate is getting entirely out of control. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should co-operate with the Chair. It seems to me that vote No. Id is not concerned with the present general situation in Nova Scotia, although I am sure this is a matter of interest to all members, but is related to the administration of the Department of Labour. Again, I am not trying to restrict the hon. member but I do feel that his speech should be restricted strictly to the labour aspect in so far as it affects the hon. member's province, if this is what he wants to discuss.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will be glad to go along with that and co-operate with the Chair. I would only ask that the Chair co-operate with members of the opposition so far as the attitude and behaviour of other members of the house are concerned, particularly the Minister of Fisheries who as usual interrupts from his seat. With regard to what I was saying about labour and employment conditions in Cape Breton, it is not my fault that the Minister of Labour who comes from Nova Scotia is not responsible enough to get up and make representations and fight on matters that concern Nova Scotia in the same way that other ministers in the government fight for their own provinces.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter I want to bring up other than the one that has been under discussion. It has to do with unemployment insurance for farm labourers. With regard to the question that has been brought up by members from Nova Scotia and the maritimes, the minister said a few minutes ago that we should wait until Monday, and I think this would perhaps be a good time to remind him of one of the

pledges made by the Liberal party during the last election campaign regarding the introduction of legislation to give farm labourers the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I can assure the minister that in agricultural areas today there is a shortage of skilled farm labour. The situation is becoming more serious with every passing month. Perhaps the most important contributing factor is the fact that people with unemployment insurance books cannot secure stamps when they take employment on farms. 1 know this is an involved problem and I should like to see the government bring forward legislation to permit anyone with a book to be able to secure stamps if he takes a job on a farm. This, in itself, would not I believe create those abuses some people imagine might arise if the door were opened wide. It would be a step in the right direction and would be very beneficial, not only to those employing labour on the farms but also to those who wish to work on the farms.


Robert Muir: Before we go on, may I extend an appeal to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member from Prince Edward Island, to assist-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; the hon. member can put forward his own views on the matter that is before the committee now, but I do not believe he can reflect on the views or the participation of other members in the committee.


Robert Muir: I speak to the point of order, sir. I do not understand how you knew what I was going to say because I did not say anything about the views of any member. I just happened to mention several members. You could check Hansard for a precedent and you will find that this has taken place previously when members on the other side have made this suggestion. I am only asking if they would stand with us on this side and impress upon the Minister of Labour the serious unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces, and assist us in this manner?


Robert Carman Coates: It would appear the minister is either unwilling or unable, and I am going to assume he is unable, to provide this committee with the information as to policies this government has that will in any way correct the very serious problem of chronic unemployment in the Atlantic area. We have asked the minister to enunciate new 20220-832J
Supply-Labour
programs that have been initiated by this government in the past two years that have been specifically advantageous to the Atlantic area.
Now, I will agree that there have been extensions to existing programs that have been of some benefit. I certainly want to dissociate myself from the minister's statement that giving the Atlantic development board a fund of $100 million has been of advantage to the Atlantic area, especially in view of the fact the $100 million has almost disappeared. It would seem to me that it becomes more and more evident just how much of a disadvantage this action by the present government was. However, I will say that the extension from 50 per cent to 90 per cent on the payment of construction costs of the trans-Canada highway was a real advantage and will continue to be an advantage until that highway is completed in the Atlantic area.
What we are looking for, what we were led to believe in the Atlantic area by the present governments during the election campaign of April, 1963, was that there would be new policies of specific benefit to our area that would eliminate the high unemployment that has been with us for many years. This unemployment was attacked and reduced, and would have continued to be reduced if there had been no change of government. Indeed, let me say that would have been reduced at a far faster rate all over this nation than is presently the case, because of the policies of the former government, many of which are still in effect.
It would seem to me that while the Minister of Labour might have created a favourable image in this nation as a result of his performance in the House of Commons, he has been a complete failure so far as producing any new labour policies that have been of material assistance to the unemployed of this nation, especially in the Atlantic area. Certainly the present figure of 13 per cent unemployed in the Atlantic area is an indication of the justification for the statement that he has been a failure. If he has new policies ready on Monday that will be of benefit to the area, then I will be the first to congratulate him. They will be the first new policies that have been produced by this government that have any application to the Atlantic area.
The people of the Atlantic provinces were sold down the river by the pie-in-the-sky talk of members like the Minister of Labour during the election campaign of 1963. They have produced nothing but high sounding

Supply-Labour
words and small, insignificant deeds for the people of that area. Let me tell the Minister of Labour that if he thinks he is getting a lot of letters complaining about his performance in his constituency, it is nothing to what he is going to get in the way of adverse votes from his constituents, as are Liberal candidates in the other constituencies in the Atlantic area, unless this government smartens up and smartens up fast so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say another word or two. I suppose one should allow Cape Bretoners to have the last word. I was disappointed that the minister should look with pride on putting a ceiling on the Atlantic development board. This is not something in which he should take pride.


Miss LaMarsh:: You did not have ten cents in it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We had no limitation. At the time we said that $100 million was not sufficient to redress the ancient wrongs of the Atlantic region.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You had nothing but form, no substance.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps the hon. lady will tell me what she is going to do for the Atlantic region. I think her truth squad ended there.
I should like to say that not only has there been a failure to take new, constructive steps but very definite contributors to unemployment have occurred since this government took office. I see no remedial measures taken whatever. A few years ago in the city of Charlottetown, under the leadership of Hon. Raymond O'Hurley, a fine aircraft industry was established. It employed many people and was a great boost to our economy. It has been closed in recent months, but nothing has been done. I suppose these men are going to Upper Canada on the subsidy of the Minister of Finance. Then, we had the Queen Charlotte naval establishment closed, and no provision made for that. Now, the minister speaks about the many things he will tell us in the speech from the throne. I am prepared to listen to the minister when he speaks in the throne speech debate. In fact I always listen to him whether he speaks in English or in Gaelic, but he said it would not be fair to carry on a full scale discussion tonight. I represent part of the country where 13 per cent of the work force is unemployed and I make no apology for discussing it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the member tell the committee the percentage of unemployment there, when his government was in office, when unemployment reached its peak? The actual figure was 20 per cent.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Considering how difficult it is to pry figures from the minister, may I tell him I can go to my office and get him the figures for the last two years. I can make comparisons with the rest of the country to show that we in the maritimes are sinking down in an absolute and relative scale.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the minister assessed the impact on unemployment of the 11 per cent sales tax, on building materials and production equipment?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It may be very important but the hon. member will admit there is some question whether this is relevant to vote Id. We are ranging far afield when going into the matter of sales tax during discussion of this vote.


David Vaughan Pugh: On the contrary, with respect I submit it is relevant with regard to the general field of labour and employment. If you will hear my question out, I wish to point out that we are dependant upon full employment, and as a nation must produce for our exports and internal consumption. The government has placed this tax on building materials and on production machinery. Has this bothered the minister? Has he taken it up with his cabinet colleagues? Has he said to them "I have figures in my department which show this 11 per cent tax is an iniquitous one"? Has he assessed its impact on unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the minister say what that assessment is?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I reported the fact that despite the dire prophecies made by my hon. friends opposite, construction activity increased substantially.


Robert Muir: Since the Minister of National Defence has scuttled the navy, I would point out that prior to that action a lot of naval repairs were carried out at the North Sydney marine railway and also at Sydney Engineering and Drydocks. Perhaps the minister would keep that at the back of his mind, speak to his cabinet colleagues in one of his brave moments, and impress upon them something should be done to take up the slack caused by

the action of the government through their plans for the armed services.


Malcolm MacInnis: A moment ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaking from her seat, said to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) that the truth squad started in Halifax, where two Liberals were elected. Did she get to Inverness-Richmond?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, and the truth squad appeared in Moncton where a Liberal member was elected, in Charlottetown where two P.E.I. Liberals were elected, and in Halifax which also returned two Liberals.


Paul Tardif: Order. I have not been sitting here long but I do not see anything in this vote which has to do with the truth squad, then or now.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On a question of privilege, I represent Charlottetown and I am not as the minister described.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5d. Payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements; payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to employers of 50 per cent of monthly wage paid or $75 per month, whichever is less, on behalf of each full time worker 45 years of age or over engaged during the period November 1, 1963 to March 31 1964, and who is otherwise eligible under the older worker employment and training incentive program-To authorize payment in the 1965-66 fiscal year of amounts, not exceeding in the aggregate the unspent balance remaining at the conclusion of the 1964-65 fiscal year in labour vote 5, main estimates, 1964-65, to meet undischarged commitments under the older worker employment and training incentive program that might otherwise have been paid pursuant to the appropriation based on the said vote during the 1964-65 fiscal year if they had come in course of payment, $1.
Robert Muir: Would the minister briefly explain this vote?


William Arnold Peters: I presume this relates to the program for older and disabled workers, and I find it refers to "undischarged commitments under previous agreements." It goes on to say:
To authorize payment in the 1965-66 fiscal year of amounts, not exceeding in the aggregate the unspent balance remaining at the conclusion of the 1964-65 fiscal year in labour vote 5, main estimates, 1964-65, to meet undischarged commitments-
By this item are we extending this program for another year, and will the same amount of money be made available? I do
Supply-Labour
not want to get into another maritime squabble about how it has been distributed, but I would like to know how successful the scheme has been.
I can only speak for the people I know who have made application under it. There have been so many forms to fill in that most employers will not complete the applications that have to be made. I think the minister might operate it under the unemployment insurance commission, which would provide a method of giving faster consideration to the applications that are made. In some cases seven months have passed before applications were processed. I know good results have been obtained after all the rigmarole of red tape has been gone through, and the program has provided employment in new fields for workers who would otherwise have difficulty getting employment. But the red tape should be curtailed.
If the government is going to continue this program is it intended to step it up so that it can be enjoyed by more than the limited number already in it? Can he say how many have taken advantage of it to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose of the vote is merely to extend into the present fiscal year authority to pay some bills and to spend some money that had been voted in the last fiscal year. The main estimates provided $3 million for this program. There are some claims. This amount has not been expended because the program has cost less than a million dollars. The purpose of this item is to allow us to pay in this fiscal year bills or claims falling due and to use the unexpended balance of the vote.
The present older workers program has applied to about 800 workers. As originally announced, it was intended to be an experimental program. I regard it as a moderate success. It provided us with a good deal of information upon which to base further development in providing opportunities for older workers. It is my intention very soon to announce a further stage in this older worker program. This particular program has been terminated but it will be followed by another based on the experience we have gained in this experiment


William Arnold Peters: In the complaints I made about red tape, I did not realize that only 100 people were involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I am not being critical for that reason. But three or four cases came to my

Supply-Labour
attention and in each there was an unholy amount of red tape involved. I am not asking for any information with regard to the minister's forthcoming proposal, but would it not be possible for these questions to be settled in future at least on a regional basis or even on a local basis rather than be handled from the provincial headquarters as I understand has been the case up to now? This has involved long delays and a great waste of time. In one case with which I am familiar two or three unemployment insurance areas were concerned, and should the head office of a company happen to be in another province, additional delay results. Would it not be possible to consider the use of local unemployment offices and to give them a bit more autonomy in assessing the job placement potential and other factors involved? I recall one case where over six months elapsed before a satisfactory conclusion was reached. At no time did departmental officials indicate that the application would not be successful. But the company got tired with the red tape involved and the prospective employee became disillusioned with the assistance he was getting. This seems to me to be the biggest weakness in the program. Even so, I thought it had a limited success.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I could begin by making a slight correction. The figure I used -800 workers-was the number employed in the last month of the program. The period the hon. member mentioned for dealing with an application was obviously outrageously long and I hope that in the continuance of our efforts we would get ahead more quickly.
I agree we ought to consider giving room for more local initiative so that consideration could be made and approval given quickly. The form of the new program will be announced reasonably soon and we shall have a chance to take our experience into account, as well as the views expressed by the hon. member.


William Arnold Peters: I understand from the minister that $2 million is available for these purposes. If the operation is extended, how long is it expected the program could continue on the basis of these funds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We do not intend to continue the present program. We have a further program in mind. The amount which will be authorized by the continuing authority granted last year will be relatively small, something of the order of $50,000. The remainder will lapse.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was interested to hear the minister say he proposes at an early date to replace the present program. I rise to express the hope that any new plan he brings forward will make it impossible for employers to take advantage of this legislation as a means of securing cheap labour. I think the hon. gentleman will find in his office a communication from the British Columbia federation of labour citing examples of how the old project was subject to abuse of this kind. I know of one case in my area where quite obviously this has been done. An employer was able under these provisions to secure an employee at a rate of pay which barely complied with the minimum wage standard of the province. We should relate this to the fact that he was being repaid to the extent of $75 a month, which meant he was getting the services of an employee for a very low outlay indeed. It was obvious to me that there was no question of training or retraining an employee in this case.
I do not know whether the minister has instances of similar practices in other parts of the country, but I should like some indication whether this was one of the problems presented by the old program and one of the reasons it was wound up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We had the view that we ought to provide for a greater amount of training than we had insisted upon in the earlier program. I took the view that the return to work of a person who had been chronically unemployed for a considerable length of time might in itself constitute work reorientation that would be tantamount to training, especially on-the-job training. But I think we have to go beyond that and provide some training, and this is one of the problems that we encountered in the program. We attempted to guard against exploitation, or employers taking advantage of the program, by insisting that this bonus would be applicable only to new jobs or jobs that had been created subsequent to the program or because of the program, otherwise individuals could be laid off and others brought on and $75 a month would be paid as a bonus. We guarded against that, I think successfully.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have one last question on this plan. Would the minister indicate how much money was spent on advertising this program, and second, what is the percentage figure of the administration costs to benefits in this particular program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have not with me the exact advertising costs. They have

been made available in answer to questions in the house, and I will get them for my hon. friend. I have no way of segregating the administrative costs of the program as administered by the special services division. The total amount, as I recollect, that was expended last year was close to $1 million. This $1 item authorizes us to spend in the new fiscal year part of the amount authorized last year, which will amount, we think, to about $50,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30d. Unemployment insurance commission-Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including the transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $320,000.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, on vote 30d I have a "beef" which will take only a few minutes, but it is one of those things that keeps cropping up all the time with regard to the unemployment insurance administration. I am referring to appeals from an insurance officer to the board of referees. Time and again I get letters from constituents who have had their appeals heard in their absence by the board of referees, and when I write to find out why they did not appear at the hearing they send me a form letter that comes from the unemployment insurance commission. I do not have one with me, but it says in effect, "You don't have to appear at this hearing. The board will consider whatever you send them in writing and they will let you know what they did with your appeal". The letter in effect says, "Don't bother appearing; we will look after you". They do look after them; they generally throw their appeals out because there is nobody there to present them.
There are two reasons for this. One is, as I just mentioned, that by the letter from the commission they are encouraged not to attend the hearing, and second, there are people who are unemployed, who have been disqualified for some reason or another, and they do not have the money to travel maybe as much as 100 miles to the hearing place of the board of referees. I know that from many communities in my district they have to travel 75 to 100 miles, and the same distance back, and sometimes it is an overnight trip.
The two things I would like to bring to the attention of the minister are these: First, that he ask the unemployment insurance commission to encourage people to go to the board of referees and put their case forward. The hearing is completed, their case has been
Supply-Labour
thrown out, and then they write back and say, "Where can I get a hearing?" and they think that maybe their member of parliament can do something for them. If they were only encouraged to go, they would feel they had presented their case and put forward everything that could be put forward, and had received a fair hearing. If this were done I think a good many of the complaints with regard to the unemployment insurance appeals system would be alleviated. Perhaps also their appeals would be allowed; because it is very difficult to obtain any further appeal to the umpire.
The second thing I would like to suggest is that if there is an appeal these persons be given a mileage allowance to appear before the board of referees, if they so desire. I believe this would be only fair to those people who are unemployed and have been cut off benefit, some of them retroactively, and in some cases unjustly. The insurance officers are not infallible, but if these people do not get a chance to present their case because of a letter which they have received, I do not think this is right. They are not encouraged in any way to appear and present their case. I would like the minister to direct the unemployment insurance commission to change this form and to encourage people to go to the board of referees for their appeals, and also to provide some sort of mileage allowance so they will be encouraged to do this. This will effectively improve the administration of justice in the unemployment insurance commission, and it may result in more appeals being allowed, to the benefit of those people who really need this assistance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I want to reply briefly to the hon. member and put forward one or two points in this connection. First of all, as the hon. member realizes, the unemployment insurance commission operates as an independent body under the authority of parliament and is not subject, in its administration, to the direction of the minister. But I will be glad to draw these problems to the attention of the commission for their consideration because I think it is, where possible, appropriate that persons go before the boards of referees to present their case. It should be remembered that the board of referees is composed of a chairman expected to be an impartial person, another person nominated by the employers and a third person nominated by the workers, so that employers and employees have on the board

Supply-Labour
persons who are appointed to put forward the appropriate representations. However, Mr. Chairman, I do agree that where possible the persons directly affected should have a chance to go before the board.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have raised this matter with the unemployment insurance commission on several occasions. The chief commissioner has been quite good in this connection and on three or four occasions has directed a rehearing on the basis of the fact that the people misunderstood their rights because of the letter that was sent out. But they are still sending the letter out. I do not know who can direct them to change it, but the same type of letter is still going out, certainly from the Toronto office.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will look at that letter, Mr. Chairman, and see if we cannot get it changed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister, when he is drawing the request of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to the attention of the commission, would also draw to the attention of the umpire a recent case in which he made a decision in Cape Breton during a mine tie-up, when a group of railway workers were disqualified from collecting benefit because of his particular ruling. Would the minister point out to the commissioner that these men were operating under a constitution which stated that they did not have to cross a picket line? This is the reason they were disqualified, namely because they did not cross the picket line.
The constitution does not require them to cross any picket line; in fact it emphatically states that it is not necessary for them to do so. Would the minister also point out the fact that the company, in calling these railway-men to work, placed a condition on their employment for that particular shift which was contrary to the labour laws of Nova Scotia. That being the case the umpire and the board of referees have gone astray and are obviously wrong in the decision which was handed down. I ask the Minister of Industry on behalf of these Cape Breton railway workers to bring this situation to the attention of the umpire and the board of referees. Would he do that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend will realize that, under the law even the commission itself has no authority over an insurance officer who has given a judgment. The judgment of the insurance officer is subject to an appeal to the board of referees. The judgment of that

board can be taken before an umpire, who in this case is Mr. Justice Kearney of the exchequer court. That is the apex of the situation. I do not know whether it would do very much good to bring this case to his attention, or whether it would even be proper, but I will consider this and if I decide that it is a proper course I will then consider taking that action.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister tell us who appoints the board of referees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The chairman of the board is appointed by the governor in council, and the representatives of the employee and employer are appointed by nomination of the employer association and the employee associations.


Malcolm MacInnis: Since there is no connection between the minister's office and the appointment of these referees, does he not consider it proper to call the circumstances of this case to the attention of the board of referees, pointing out that they were entirely wrong in deciding to deny railway workers that which they allowed miners under similar circumstances? The minister must be aware of the fact that these men are operating under a constitution which states that they are not required to cross a picket line, and for that reason this ruling was wrong.
I should also like to point out to the minister that if he reads the Nova Scotia labour laws he will realize that no company is allowed to impose the conditions of employment, which in this case were imposed on these railway workers, calling them out to work and asking them, before they went on shift, whether they would cross a picket line. I suggest in that way a condition of employment contrary to the law was imposed on these men. I am sure the minister has the authority to pass on to the referees the information in respect of this case, and I think he should pass it on in very strong terms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think any minister of labour would be subject to a great deal of justifiable criticism if he attempted to impose or express his opinion on a board of referees which is set up by law for a definite purpose, namely that it shall be completely independent in reaching decisions. I am sure my hon. friend would not want me to do something that is contrary to the purposes of the law.


Malcolm MacInnis: All I am asking the minister to do is have this matter re-examined. We can

exchange very high-toned statements back and forth across this house during a debate, but the minister is well aware of the fact that there have been exchanges between himself and other people in responsible positions. He is not fooling anyone in this house if he denies that fact.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to state, on a matter of privilege, that since I became the Minister of Labour I have not had any communication of any kind with any board of referees, or others, in any part of Canada.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am quite sure that the Minister of Labour is fully aware of the fact that-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I did recognize the hon. member for Skeena, but if he will relinquish the floor I will allow the hon. member for Cape Breton South to continue.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the Minister of Labour whether he would care to amend his last statement to the effect that he has never been in touch with any chairman of any of these boards, because he is aware of the fact that he has been in touch with at least one, although perhaps at a social level.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, some things are changed only as a result of repetition and as the result of being brought continually to the attention of this house and the ministers here. I should like again to raise a matter that has been brought to the attention of this house on many occasions in the past. This matter has been raised publicly, in the House of Commons, in its committees, and by way of correspondence. I refer to what I consider to be the rigid interpretation of a section of the act which disqualifies people from benefit, and as a result treats them unfairly. The section in question is section 54(2)(a), if my memory serves me correctly, and relates to the interpretation of availability for work- that is, whether or not an individual is available for work.
The rigid interpretations which have been placed on that section are compounded and made worse by leading questions that insurance officers ask claimants. The result of the answers given to these leading questions usually means the diqualification of these claimants. This is the kind of thing that happens. An insurance officer will interview a claimant and, after obtaining his or her name, and other relevant information, will ask whether he or she will accept work for
Supply-Labour
the same wages they received in former positions. Naturally the claimants answer in the affirmative.
Another type of leading question advanced has reference to the category of employment. One particular case that comes to mind relates to a woman who had worked in a hospital. She was asked by an insurance officer whether she would be prepared to accept employment in a similar position in a hospital, and she naturally answered in the affirmative. These people who were led into giving answers in the affirmative to this type of question were disqualified on the basis that they were willing to accept employment at approximately the same wage or in a similar category, thereby limiting their availability for work, and were, therefore, not available for employment under the meaning of section 54 (2) (a).
Decisions arrived at on the basis of these answers have been appealed, but unfortunately the claimants always come up against decisions made by umpires which, under the act, conclude the cases. The commission has no authority to hear an appeal or reverse the decisions. The minister has no authority to change a decision made by the umpire.
At one stage of my naivety I wrote to the minister and the commission about these matters, and always received a lengthy page and a half explanatory letter substantiating the decision of the insurance officer or the decision made by the umpire. It was only after I discovered that the commission and the minister did not have the authority to change the decisions that I realized I was wasting my time.
One other situation which is unfair to claimants, particularly in areas such as the one 1 represent, which is fairly large geographically, is the remoteness of communities from larger centres. The unfairness to claimants in these areas is that they are deemed to be not available for work because the area in which they live does not provide an opportunity for work in the particular category in which they were working before. If they have been snared into answering the insurance officer's leading question in the affirmative, thus restricting themselves unknowingly to a particular type of work, they find themselves disqualified.
I have explained to some of these people the full complexities of the situation, and what is occurring is that this sort of rigidity in the interpretation of the law and the leading question approach of some insurance officers are resulting in claimants probably lying in their answers by saying that they

Supply-Labour
are willing to accept employment anywhere at any wage rate and in any capacity, thus getting away from the strictness of application of that particular section. I submit that once this sort of attitude toward the law becomes prevalent, and it is becoming more and more so as people become more conversant with what is taking place with regard to the interpretation of the section, the law falls into disrepute and people are led into dishonesty in order to get the benefits that they consider are legitimately theirs under the act. They do not see anything wrong in doing that sort of thing. Persons in large metropolitan areas such as Vancouver, Toronto or Winnipeg are in areas where there are great employment opportunities in a variety of trades and jobs and these other people do not see why an individual, merely because he happens to live in a large metropolitan area, should be able to receive benefits when they who have been living in the north or in some other remote area have been denied benefits. They do not see anything wrong about being expansive in their remarks to the insurance officer and saying that they are willing to work anywhere at any time and for any wage rate.
I realize this is something which can only be dealt with by an amendment to the statute because the interpretation of the present section has been so narrow and confined as to not permit of any broadening, and the only way we can break out of this rigidity is by changing the law itself. I point out again to the minister, as has been pointed out before, that this situation is working an undue hardship on many claimants. Because of the rigidity of the section and the leading nature of the questions asked, there is an unfair and unjust application of the law to many claimants who apply for benefits. I think the only solution open to us is for the minister to introduce an amendment to the section so that it can be applied in a broader manner than it has been in the past few years.
I do not know if the minister wants to make any comments pro or con. I have refrained from mentioning the names of individuals because it is not the thing to do, especially when there are quite a number of cases that revolve around this point, but I am sure the individuals who are interested as claimants would be interested in having the minister at least give this matter sympathetic consideration. If the minister would care to make any comment it would be helpful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am sure almost all members of the house have representations from claimants and one of the most important subjects in those representations has to do with the application of the availability for work provision, because it is of the essence of qualification for benefits. As the hon. member for Skeena has said, the commission is powerless. I am quite ready to give a clear undertaking that this matter will be considered in the light of amendments we hope to introduce to the insurance system as quickly as we can. We will consider this question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
5d. The Senate-general administration, $107,600.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before you put the question on this particular item I should like to make a few comments. It applies to the operation of what is politely or impolitely, depending upon the mood of the individual, referred to as the other place. This has always seemed to me to be a strange way to refer to it and I would prefer to refer to it as the Senate because that is what it is, and it is almost always referred to in that way.
The program of the New Democratic party, as was the case with our predecessor, the C.C.F., includes the abolition of the Senate. As that is one of the things we would like to see accomplished I cannot in conscience lend my support to the item before us for the simple reason that by so doing we would be running counter to our belief. We cannot support an item which tends to perpetuate a structure that we would like to see abandoned and cease to exist.
For many years the Senate has been nothing more than a haven for political appointees, regardless of what various prime ministers and political leaders have said over the years, even from the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, who I understand wanted to bring about some beneficial changes in the institution at that time. He had some idea that the Senate would be able to give what he called sober second thought to legislation which might be passed by a presumably rash House of Commons. It might be that sort of sober second thought one would give after overindulging in food and drink, a sort of sobriety arising out of sluggishness. This is the type of thing that has existed in the Senate, more an operation out of lethargy than anything else.

In recent years some proposals have been made by two governments with regard to what they have called reform of the Senate. One proposal was presented by the Conservative government to retire senators at age 75, and one was presented by the present government to retire at 75 only those senators appointed subsequent to the passage of a law providing that senators will retire at age 75. This sort of bland, anaemic, reformative approach really will not result in anything worth while in regard to the institution itself. In fact, I do not think it is amenable to reformation. It might even be considered incorrigible or beyond reform. Perhaps we should toss up our hands, admit that there is no possibility of reform and accede to the suggestion of this party that the institution itself be abolished, because in the whole scheme of things it is relatively useless.
Perhaps one could argue that it does perform one service, and I suppose this would depend upon which party one belongs to, in that in recent years the former governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne, gained his day in court which I agree was denied him by the Conservative government of the day, and denied him in a most reprehensible fashion. On the other hand, there was a Liberal majority in the Senate who saw fit to reflect the political atmosphere that existed in the House of Commons. If there had been a Conservative majority in the Senate, I do not believe anyone could argue that James Coyne would have had his day in court. The Conservative majority in the Senate, if it had existed at that time, would have carried out the edict of the government of the day and would have refused the governor his democratic rights under our free society. It could not even be argued that the Senate qualify by performing a useful function because it performed a useful function only by reason of the fact there was a Liberal majority who wanted to carry out the political fight that had been conducted in this chamber, incidentally not only by the Liberal party at that time but by the C.C.F. members who numbered some eight or nine on that occasion.
Now, there have been suggestions of alterations in the Senate, as I have stated, dating back to the time when Sir John A. Macdonald was prime minister. This was almost 100 years ago now. For many years, therefore, everybody, particularly prime ministers who have been asked to deal with this question, has said, yes, there needs to be some change in the structure of the Senate. In fact,
Sup p ly-Legis lation
I have a book here I obtained from the library entitled "Senate Reform", and it contains a reprint of a speech delivered by one C. Berkeley Powell, Esq., M.L.A. in the legislative assembly at Toronto, dated March 21, 1899. It is interesting to note that the legislature at that time had presented to it a motion by the attorney general, who incidentally was then a Liberal, with respect to the Senate of Canada. One of the provisions was that the British North America Act should be amended so as to provide that senators should be appointed or chosen for a limited term of years only, and not for life as at present. It is interesting to note that 66 years later we are still toying around with the idea of placing a limit on the term of years a person can serve in the Senate, but we have not got around to it yet.
I was amused also to note that in this book there are 14 pages that deal with the Senate and what it had accomplished at that time, what they thought were some of its worth-while attributes. Then, there are 147 pages that deal with the worth-while aspects of the Senate and the things which make it a commendable institution. Those 147 pages are absolutely blank. There is nothing on them, and to me that is an indication of the value of the Senate itself. It, likewise, has accomplished nothing worthy that could be marked up on the credit balance side. Rather than use my own words, I should like to make a brief quotation from an article written by John N. Turner, who at that time was associated with Stikeman & Elliott, barristers and solicitors in the city of Montreal. On page 57 of this particular book entitled "Essays in Honour of Henry F. Angus", there is an article entitled, "The Senate of Canada-Political Conundrum". I quote- and this pretty well summarizes everything that has been said about the usefulness of the Senate:
Today the debates in the upper house are so dull, dreary, and futile that the press rarely thinks it worth while to give them any coverage. Even more symptomatic of its decay is the political fact that recent governments of the day seem to have abandoned and ignored it. Saddest fact of all, the Senate has become an object of ridicule. Cynics call it the most exclusive club in the country, a haven of old men, retired politicians, and contributors to party funds.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the hon. member who has the floor now is well aware of standing order 35 which says that no member may use offensive words against either house. The hon. member may argue that these are not his words, but he knows he

Supply-Legislation
cannot use somebody else's words in contravention of the provisions of the standing order. I realize it is not easy to determine what is offensive and what is not, but it seems to me the hon. member is now getting very close to the borderline.


Frank Howard: I had no intention, Mr. Chairman, of trying indirectly to get around that provision by quoting from this particular book. I would use the same words. I only took the liberty of saying that almost every person feels this way. I do not want to transgress the rule which you have just cited, although I understand that at one time the Prime Minister did say there was no use putting any good men in the Senate because that would only create a problem for the government. He obviously speaks in this way perhaps of the appointments of Senator Denis and Senator Bourque to that particular place.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; certainly the hon. member now is going beyond the limits of propriety, I suggest to him.


Frank Howard: I started out to say that the position we hold is that the Senate should be abolished. I hope that is within the bounds of propriety according to the standing order. Our position is fraught with a certain amount of difficulty because it is a simple fact of life that in order to abolish the Senate we would have to get approval of the Senate itself. I am sure no senator in his right mind, if such be the case, would agree to the passage of legislation that would eliminate him from his position by eliminating the Senate itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might rise in a non-contentious way on a point of order? I think the hon. gentleman is making a most entertaining speech.
He referred to the futility of debate in the other place, and nothing could be more futile than to debate the constitution at this time. Under our rules estimates are for certain sums of money for certain services. We are confined in our discussion to that, without broad questions as to whether the Senate could or could not be abolished.
The hon. member may also be offending against the rule of anticipation because there is a motion on the order paper dealing with the Senate. Would the hon. gentleman not consider this at some other time and let us get on with the estimates?
[The Chairman.]


Frank Howard: I must congratulate the minister on his prescience because I was just going to get to the point of dealing precisely with that subject, and coming to a conclusion by suggesting one of the ways in which we can abolish the Senate is by dealing with items which are particularly before us now, namely items relating to administration.
While it may be futile to hope the Senate would agree to signing its own death knell by endorsing any legislation we might pass to abolish it, one thing we can do is dry up its source of funds so that it withers on the vine, and eliminate or reduce the amount of money, one, for its administration and, two, when we get around to it, reducing the salary of senators to a point that is commensurate with the amount of work-excuse me, I will withdraw that word work-with the amount of activity they engage in.
The Senate is really a sort of superfluous and luxurious appendage to our parliamentary structure, which we cannot afford. I would like to conclude by moving that the item under consideration be reduced to $1.


Lucien Lamoureux: The amendment proposed by the hon. member is as follows:
That the item under consideration be reduced to $1.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: yeas, 4; nays, 55.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Frank Howard: On division.
Item agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
70d. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $7,035,000.
Frank Howard: Since the minister is not here I would ask whoever is dealing with this matter to indicate whether any of the payments are for the movement of coal to Japan, and whether the arrangement with respect to the coal industry in the Femie area comes up in that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be very hard to segregate the amount in the additional vote from the amount in the original vote because it all goes into one fund. Some of the money is required for the payments on western coal, on Cape Breton coal and on New Brunswick coal. I could give a lot of figures but I do not expect the committee wants them on

this occasion. Perhaps we could consider the matter when we come to the main estimates.


Frank Howard: If part of this is for the purpose of paying subventions on shipments of coal to Japan, it indicates one of the silly things we do in Canada, because we take the taxpayers' money and subsidize the sale or shipment of coal to another nation. In my own province we also make arrangements for the shipment of iron ore to Japan from the Queen Charlotte islands and other places. Then the Japanese people use their ingenuity, which we in Canada do not appear to be able to do, and put the coal and iron ore together and turn it into steel, and we in turn buy it back again.
By doing this we perpetuate something which is economically wrong for our nation, by continuing to assist the exploitation of its natural resources in their raw form. It would be much better if we used our money and ingenuity to turn our coal and iron ore into steel.
Even though this program may be helpful to the community at Fernie, and even though the export of Fernie coal and iron ore from mines on the west coast is helpful to those communities, I still raise objection to the fact that it seems to be senseless to continue to export raw materials, pay for part of their shipment, and then re-import the finished product at a much higher price. I wish to heaven somebody in the government would put on his thinking cap and try to devise ways and means to turn the iron ore and coal into steel in Canada.


Robert Muir: Would the committee give permission to revert to vote 65d for one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should permit the hon. gentleman to ask his question on this item.


Robert Muir: Thank you. Vote 65d deals with administration and investigations of the dominion coal board. With so many investigations going on in this government, is the coal board being investigated? I don't think it will be, but would the minister explain what the $25,000 is for?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very quickly. It is an investigation in the Minto-Chipman area of New Brunswick, in diamond drilling.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Malcolm MacInnis: On the question put by the last hon. member, I am sorry-
2, 1965	13157
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The item is carried but perhaps the hon. member would be allowed to ask a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman just has a question I would be glad to answer it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I don't see how the vote could carry when I was trying to get to my feet to follow up a question. For the clarification of the hon. member, would the minister indicate who benefits from coal subventions? So far as Cape Breton coal is concerned, the coal company and miners do not benefit. It is the transportation of coal which benefits. Is this also the case with coal going to Japan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to enter into an argument at this stage but I have a feeling that there would be a certain lack of benefit if the subventions were only for that.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is true. I do not disagree with that statement. Perhaps the minister could tell us, by way of clarification as far as the Japanese coal market is concerned-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This item was carried, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. member was given the opportunity to ask one question. It was understood we were not going to start a debate.


William Arnold Peters: Don't be nasty.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not see how the amendment could have been carried-


Lucien Lamoureux: I can only tell the hon. member that it was carried. It was called, carried and signed by the Chair. So it was carried. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to answer a further question if I can.


Edward Nasserden: The same thing happened last night. I cannot see how any item can carry when someone is on his feet trying to catch the eye of the Chair. This is one of those cases where an item has been passed while an hon. member still wished to speak on it. I know we are all in a rush tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Though the item has been carried I expressed a willingness to answer the hon. gentleman's question. If he has a further question which can be answered briefly I will do my best to answer it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I believe there was some misunderstanding as to my original question. I agree there are indirect benefits. I go along

Supply-National Defence readily with that. Possibly this applies to the Japanese coal market as it does to the coal market in Cape Breton. But I should like to know whether transportation subventions paid on Japanese coal are paid to Canadian transport companies or whether they are paid directly to the Japanese.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are paid tor the transportation of the coal in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
20d. Canadian Army-Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $7,000,000.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a question about this item which has to do with the procurement among other things of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. If the President of the Privy Council has something written down in his book I will get a far better answer than I would if the Minister of National Defence were here. I should like to know what type of tank is being procured, and how many; whether they are being used in Canada only or whether they are for the brigade in Europe. With regard to the armoured fighting vehicles, how many are to be purchased and are they available to the brigade in Europe?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I am not in a position to give answers to the questions asked by the hon. gentleman. They are much more precise than anything I have. This item, a $7 million item, has to do with a shortfall in an item of some $426 million which was provided earlier. I do not have the kind of detail for which the hon. gentleman asks, though I regret it very much. However, I will be glad to try to get it for him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is somewhat unfortunate because I have such difficulty in getting answers from the Minister of National Defence.


George James McIlraith: I will try to help you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was hoping that the
President of the Privy Council would be more forthcoming. Surely we should be able to find out the state of our armed forces tonight on a subject such as this. Is there nobody available who could tell us whether these armoured fighting vehicles are available or whether they are just on order-things of that nature? Is this a new type of tank we are getting? The hon. gentleman will recall that the guillotine fell last year on the estimates of the Department of National Defence

and we did not have much opportunity to get answers to questions such as I have asked.


George James McIlraith: Well, I am sorry I do not have the kind of information for which the hon. gentleman is asking but I will try to get answers to the questions he has raised. I think I can properly say I will be on his side in trying to get the information from my colleague the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope you will be more successful than I have been.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
59d. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe, in the case of a contributor under any enactment of the parliament of Canada providing for the payment of pensions to members of the forces based on length of service who, by reason of erroneous advice which he received from a member of the forces or a person employed in the public service whose normal duties included the giving of advice as to the counting of service under any such enactment, failed to elect in respect of service prior to becoming a contributor under such enactment within the time prescribed therein to pay for that service, the circumstances under which the contributor may elect to pay for that service and the terms and conditions (including conditions as to interest) upon which any such election shall be deemed to have been made by him under the applicable enactment within the time prescribed therefor by such enactment, $1.
Frank Howard: This, to me, is a strange vote. Somebody gave somebody else some bum advice, by the sound of it. They call it erroneous advice, here. I wonder whether the minister could explain just what is involved. Who might have given bad advice and how much is it likely to cost?


George James McIlraith: Yes. Army personnel come under the command of their superior officers, as is well known, and they have to get their advice from this source. There are a few cases of men who have relied on the advice given by those who are authorized to give it with regard to the various funds from which the people in the forces derive benefits. As a result of that advice, they did not take the proper action to claim their rights or to elect under the legislation.
This does not involve many persons. I do not have the numbers here but the total is very few. For instance, one case I have here concerns advice being given to a man that he was not entitled to include part of a period during which he was in the service. Under the law, he is entitled to include that period. As a result of this advice he did not claim it. In this case the benefit to the man amounts to only $23 a year. However, it is important that these men should not be denied rights

to which they are entitled in accordance with the law, because of some action on their part based on the wrong advice by persons to whom they were entitled to look for advice.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in assuming that if this wrong advice had not been given it would not have cost the taxpayers any more than will be the case if we pass this vote to cover the situation?


George James McIlraith: In some cases, it might cost the taxpayer a little more, but the sums involved are very small.


Frank Howard: Is it possible that this would allow other cases not yet known to the administration to be re-opened? Would it permit others to come forward and say that they also have been given bum advice and that their cases should therefore be reconsidered?


George James McIlraith: It could, but these cases are few and they would have to be dealt with individually by treasury board.


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell me how many cases and how much money might be involved?


George James McIlraith: No, I cannot give that information precisely. I might say that in another case, particulars of which I have here, the difference in the amount involved is $7.65 a month. We are dealing with sums of this order.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps it would be helpful if we knew how these cases were established. I presume that when retirement age is reached a board or agency reviews the pension rights of the serviceman. Is this review a continuous thing, and have applicants the right to ask for additional hearings?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to attempt to summarize here the rights of men who are still in the services. They have rights set out under military legislation for the redress of grievances. If they are out of the service they have a right to appeal directly to the crown. In any event the cases are examined individually. This is rightly a petty injustice, if you like to call it that, done to men who are taking instructions and advice from those to whom they are entitled to look for that advice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Health and Welfare DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Id. Administration-Departmental administration, $20,000.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I hate to let the Minister of National Health and Welfare think that we did not realize she was here and were not pleased to have her with us on what is becoming a very lengthy evening. I just have one short question for the minister and hope I can get the kind of answer that will be helpful to the many people who write to me in my constituency and, I am sure, write to her as well with regard to the regulations associated with the disabled persons allowance. We had a debate in this house not too long ago on this matter. I wonder what the minister might be doing with regard to this question. I know that at the time of the debate she said her department was studying this matter, and I wonder whether we can look forward to some amendments in the regulations that will eliminate some of the problems associated with them as they are being administered by the provinces at the present time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend for mentioning the fact that I am here. I think this is the thirtieth consecutive sitting day that I have been here, and I am getting kind of used to it now. In respect to the question asked about the regulations, I must say to my hon. friend that discussions were held in May of 1964 with the ministers of welfare about this matter in particular, and we have been continuing the discussions among our officials. However, it is contemplated that at a meeting of the ministers of welfare which will take place next week in Ottawa another approach may be taken with respect to this one of the categorical programs, which may not continue in existence beyond the currency of the present agreements with the provinces.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I want to put details of a matter before the minister and assure her that I do this in all sincerity, because this request comes from people who consider this to be a matter of life and death. It is concerned with a drug known as laetrile, alleged to be a controlled drug, used in connection with cancer. The minister is probably aware of this. I think I can do no better in outlining the facts than to read to the committee the contents of a letter written to the right hon. Prime Minister not too long ago. I cannot vouch for and do not accept the accuracy of the statements contained in the letter, but the sincerity with which it

Supply-Health and Welfare and one or two other letters have been written compels me to put this matter before the committee. This letter is addressed to the Prime Minister and reads as follows:
Over a year ago I was told by the experts at the cancer clinic in Edmonton that I had cancer and had but three to six months to live.
Subsequently I was treated for cancer of the lungs in University Hospital here but my condition continued to worsen. In March of this year-nine months ago-I left hospital in a wheel chair- weak, unable to walk, or to care for myself.
By dint of diet and exercise I was able to build up sufficient strength to make the trip by air to Montreal. Perhaps to you an airplane trip is a relatively relaxed affair, but in my condition it was a major ordeal. At Montreal I received treatment for cancer with a drug called laetrile. Within three weeks I was free of pain and in six weeks I was walking a half mile to a mile a day as routine exercise.
On my return to Edmonton I continued taking laetrile and my condition continued to improve.
However, action of the federal food and drug administration has caused my supply of laetrile to be cut off. In the weeks since I have been deprived of medication my health has deteriorated and the pain has begun to return. I am dying again, and I ask you to use your influence and power to persuade food and drug to return my supply of laetrile. I am asking you to save my life.
There are many of us who can attest to the value and effectiveness of the drug which is now banned by this department. We ask that we be allowed to continue treatment. If there are doubts as to the long range effects of laetrile, surely this cannot be a matter of importance to a man who is dying anyway. We who need this drug ask only that its use be permitted in terminal cases or those who have been receiving it in the past.
I consider it a matter of life and death-my life or my death-when I ask your help.
I have another letter here from another person; I will just read one paragraph of it:
I was so ill that I spent the summer in bed. In the fall of 1963 I persuaded my daughter, against the advice of my doctors, to take me to Montreal where I received treatments with the drug laetrile. After five weeks of treatment I returned home under my own steam and in excellent health with no sign of pain. This drug is not a cancer cure. But it does control cancer and my health remained excellent until the recent ban on laetrile imposed by the food and drug administration.
I have one more letter from another person, and this is the last one:
After I took cobalt treatments for cancer the people at the clinic sent me home. They said X would be bed-ridden within three months and there was no hope for me. That was this past May. When I asked them how it was with me they said it was hopeless.
After that I heard about a drug called laetrile and I went to Montreal to get some. When I went down there I was so weak they had to take me off the plane in Winnipeg in a wheel chair. After I took treatments in Montreal the pain went away and I could walk again-
Now they won't let me have any more laetrile and the cancer is getting worse-and the pain

has returned and I can hardly walk again. Can you help me?
I served on the food and drugs committee and understand that following the thalidomide cases the act was amended, the regulations amended and a new schedule was brought into effect. The use of this drug, which under these regulations had been very restricted, was banned entirely until such time as those who are sponsoring it are able to prove effectively to the food and drugs administration that it has some benefits. The onus is upon them.
The food and drugs administration are of course compelled to abide by the law. I suggest to the minister that in the light of these letters written to the Prime Minister by those patients who are regarded as terminal cancer patients, and written with all sincerity, who believe that their prospects for future life are diminished or shortened, she will use her ingenuity to ascertain whether there is some way by which these patients can receive the benefit of this drug.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has raised the question of a drug about which I have received a number of letters, particularly from people in Edmonton. There seems to be sort of a campaign from that area recently. I think my hon. friend knows, as do all those who have written me, that this was a new drug. The McNaughton Foundation put it out in Canada, and neglected or refused to comply with the law which is enacted to protect all Canadians from the use of new drugs that have not been properly tested. Over some two years, beginning before I became minister, increasingly stern warnings were given to the foundation asking them to prove the assertions which they made for the drug and asking them to produce the evidence, if any, which they had. The foundation neglected or refused to do this. Solicitors on its behalf saw me shortly after I became minister, undertook to do certain things but never complied with those undertakings. Accordingly the department thereafter moved in the courts of the province of Quebec, where this drug was being made available, and obtained an injunction against the foundation, closing up their operation until they complied with the Food and Drugs Act. I am as touched as my hon. friend, and as anyone else, by the kind of letter that he has read into the record, but I have an obligation under the law in respect of which I have no discretion.

I do not want to hide behind the law in this particular case, but I think the ethic to which my hon. friend subscribes is a questionable one. He suggests that we should use a drug which is unproven, simply because certain individuals feel that it helps them. My hon. friend is a well read man and knows, I am sure, a great deal about the kind of self-hypnosis which people who are in deep pain can bring about. This is much like faith healing which is believed in by certain people because they feel someone or something is helping them.
I cannot say definitely of my own knowledge whether or not laetrile is useful for anything other than as a placebo. However, I would not be prepared as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or even as a private individual, to play with the lives of persons who at this moment are characterized as terminal cases.
We know there have been breakthroughs, small admittedly, but what will ultimately be man's knowledge? There will be discoveries about the origin of cancer and the way it spreads. They may be made the day after tomorrow, and it may be possible to stop the spread of cancer. I do not wish to make anything available to these people which may hasten their demise, or which may even appear to lull them into thinking they are getting better, resulting in their denying to themselves the benefits of modern medicine which have been proven. I think what my friend has suggested is close to euthanasia, which is against the law of this country.
I listened with great care to the representations made, and have read many such letters, but this is not the first alleged cancer cure in respect of which the promoters have infringed the law and had to be stopped. I can only say to my hon. friend that the best professional advice I have received is that this compound cannot, or does not have the effect which it is alleged to have, and in any event the promoters have not really attempted to comply with the law.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I say that I appreciate what the minister has said, and I know that she is under an obligation by her oath as a privy councillor to uphold the law. I hold no brief for this drug or for the people who manufacture it. However, it has been the subject of representations made to me during the last few months and I think I would have been derelict in my duty had I not brought these facts to the attention of the minister at this time. I have already been in touch with
Supply

Health and Welfare the administration, urging that the minister do her best to look into this situation as closely and with as much care as possible, because in the event that this drug is of benefit to terminal cases it should be given some consideration. My duty I believe is to place the facts before the minister, as I have done, and I hope she in turn will look into them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I should like to ask the minister whether she has considered making some changes in the law similar to those made in respect of thalidomide. Those changes were quite radical.
I have also received letters, not only in respect of this drug, but in respect of others which seem to indicate that there is some reluctance on the part of manufacturers to comply with the law or to even consider the regulations. Has the minister considered that the federal government should undertake some research in respect of these drugs which perhaps cannot be done by other firms in their laboratories, in order to speed up the normal proving processes?
What the minister has said is very nice, but it sounded a little bit like a religious sermon. It was similar to that old story that we cannot do anything because it might hurt someone. On the other hand, there might be some value to these things as far as terminal cases are concerned. Usually when an individual is declared to be a terminal case he knows that nothing can be done for him and he completely loses any faith he had. The minister has suggested that perhaps this drug produces the same effect created by faith healing. I suggest that in itself is an advantage to these people.
I hope that the minister is looking for some way of preventing what happened in respect of thalidomide from happening in respect of other drugs. There should be more active participation in the field of drug research. We passed some very stringent regulations in respect of thalidomide and I think this may have had some bearing on the acceptance of new drugs. The department has some obligation to investigate the effects of new drugs, but I hope new drugs will be allowed into Canada under limited conditions in order that they may be tested. It may be unfair to suggest that the regulations adopted in respect of thalidomide were too restricting, because perhaps they were adopted at the time as a result of the terrible circumstances which developed from its use. I hope Canada will adopt less restrictive regulations, similar to

Supply-National Revenue those of other countries which will allow the testing and developing of new drugs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise-3d. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of section 10 of c. 12 of the statutes of Canada 1963
(a)	a refund or deduction of tax, and
(b)	payment of an amount equal to tax, subject to all the terms and conditions relating to such refund, deduction or payment set out in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section 10 of c.12 of the statutes of Canada 1963, except that the said subsections shall be read as if there were no reference to December 31, 1964 set out therein, $1.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the items to which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred earlier today as being an estimate by which legislation is being achieved. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that this item should be treated in the same way as the others, and withdrawn. These changes in the legislation should be introduced by way of bills to be considered and passed by the house in the normal manner.
As I read this vote it strikes out the words "December 31, 1964" which appear in section 10(1) of the Excise Tax Act. The vote reads in part:
Vote 3d-To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years-
It is not intended that this apply only to this year, but to subsequent fiscal years, so obviously this means a modification to the act. For that reason I suggest that the act should be amended in the normal way rather than by the inclusion of a supplementary estimate. There is another factor to be considered in regard to the question of amendments by means of supplementary estimates. If these amendments are passed by the house they will appear in an Appropriation Act and if a person is searching for amendments to a statute he should not be called upon to look through Appropriation Acts in order to find the amendments to various statutes.
I do not question that there is good reason for the proposal. That is not the subject under consideration so far as I am concerned. I am simply dealing with the method by which once again in this book of supplementary estimates we are asked to amend a statute by means of a supplementary estimate, and I suggest that this item be withdrawn and that the proper course be followed as is going to be done with some of the others to which we have drawn attention.


Edgar John Benson: The purpose of this vote arises from the amendments to the Excise Tax Act which took place in 1963, lifting the exemption on construction materials with regard to the application of the sales tax. At that time it was stated that the government did not wish this action to be retroactive and provision was made in the section quoted by my hon. friend to give the Department of National Revenue the right to make refunds to particular taxpayers in order to alleviate any retroactive effect of the legislation. The date, December 31, 1964, which is the only thing that is being changed by this particular amendment, was put in in order to arrive at some finality with regard to the determination of when these refunds should be made.
Since that time there have been representations to the government indicating that there are some contracts in Canada which were entered into prior to June 13, 1963 and which could not possibly be completed by December 31, 1964. For the information of hon. members I might mention that one of the most important is the Peace river project in British Columbia which has some $54 million still to be expended on it.
The position of the purchaser is fully protected by the fact that he has a fixed price contract. However, the position of the vendor or person who has to perform the service is not protected and therefore he is caught in a squeeze. He must absorb against his business operations any losses arising because of the application of the sales tax on construction materials.
I think it is very important that this item be passed in order that these contractors, who entered into these fixed price contracts in good faith before the enactment of the legislation, may continue to receive the same sort of treatment they have received to date under the legislation as originally enacted. If this were long delayed it would put the particular contractors in a very dangerous position financially in some instances and I commend the vote to the house as an alleviating item to allow us to deal with these contractors in the future in the way we have previously dealt with them.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I rise to protest the passing of this item. I do not question for one moment that it is vital and necessary but this is not the proper way to handle it. I would ask that it be withdrawn and that the necessary changes in the statute be brought in by way of amendment to the act, and not by legislative action through supplementary

*estimates. I do not want to speak at length on this matter again, but when another member of the House of Commons referred tonight to 10 or 11 items he was asked to speak on them individually when they came forward. This one is before us now and I am protesting against its passing as I did at 7.30 tonight with regard to other items, and as I will protest with regard to a few more as we get toward the end of the book. This item should be withdrawn and a legitimate amendment to the act should be passed by the parliament of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr Chairman, I do not want to prolong the discussion but there is a fair amount of endurance over here. The minister made a good explanation of the purpose of the proposed item but, as I said earlier, I am not concerned with the substance of it. I do not question the value of what the minister is attempting to do but I urge that it be done in the normal method, by way of an amending bill.
The minister said it would be unfortunate if the suggested change were too long delayed. I do not anticipate a long delay with regard to this matter. As I mentioned with regard to the other items which will subsequently be introduced in the form of legislation at the next session, why can we not have a small bill with one line in it striking out the words which are to be struck out, and why would such a bill not be passed by the house within minutes? Again I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that when urgent matters have to be considered it is not unusual to interrupt the address in reply to the speech from the throne and deal with matters that should be dealt with quickly.
What I foresee with regard to matters like this, to which we are not offering objection as to substance, is that next week we can take fifteen minutes some day at a quarter to six or a quarter to ten or from ten to 10.15 and pass two or three small bills which have already received discussion in committee today, thus regularizing the amendment of our statutes. That is the point I am making and this is the request I put before the Minister of National Revenue and the President of the Privy Council.
The subject matter that has delayed the passing of the supplementary estimates is the attempt in these estimates to effect changes in legislation by means of the supplementary estimates. It is to that we are objecting. Whether or not it was done in the past is of no concern. I think we should now set our course for the future and see that this does
Supply-National Revenue not happen again. It is for that reason we are emphasizing this point. Let us have supplementary estimates for the purpose for which they were intended, as extensions of the main estimates just as was the case when we were dealing with national defence a few moments ago. The President of the Privy Council said that the $7 million in that case was just an extension of the $400 million voted for tanks and armoured fighting vehicles when the main estimates were before us. There was an underestimating of the cost. That is what supplementary estimates are for and this is clearly understood by the house. Supplementary estimates are not intended for the amending of the statutes of Canada, and this is one item which should be withdrawn.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I agree to some extent with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he suggests that major amendments to statutes should not be made by supplementary estimates. However, the minister has explained that the purpose of this item is simply to do justice to certain contractors who had entered into firm contracts for work that could not possibly be completed before the sales tax was applicable. It is simply a case of doing justice to these contractors who were faced with an act of parliament over which they had no control. By that I mean that if the tax were applicable their costs would be substantially increased after they had entered into contracts from which there was no escape. It seems to me that this is not really a major amendment to legislation because if contracts were entered into after the sales tax on building materials was known to the contractors, they could have included that in their estimates.
I would hope, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would reconsider, because this is not intended as a major amendment to the legislation imposing the sales tax. It is simply giving redress to those who found themselves in a position from which there was no escape.
I recall clearly, so far as some of the contracts in relation to the Peace river dam are concerned, several members of our party suggested to the government that something of this nature should be done because there were contracts in the amount of several millions of dollars for which the materials could not possibly have been purchased. As I said, I think it is just giving simple justice to people who got caught in point of time because of an act of parliament. I hope that we can, in fact, recognize there is some justice that needs to be done.

Supply-National Revenue


Edgar John Benson: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I say I believe this is not a major amendment to the act but rather provision for the department to continue expenditures beyond December 31, 1964 in order to assure that no one is affected retroactively by legislation which was introduced in this house on June 13, 1963.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask a question? The minister says these contracts were signed prior to the first introduction of the sales tax. If this is so, why did the department wait until now? Why is it so urgent to have this done now when everybody has known since that time that the 11 per cent was going to become effective in April of this year? Can the minister answer that?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I have an answer. In answer to the first part of the question, the hon. member is quite correct that over the past 18 months these contracts have come forward. However, only in the recent past have we known how much was involved in this and how many contracts there were. People came forward gradually and indicated their contract was not going to be finished. When the legislation was passed many contractors did not know their contracts could not be finished by December 31, 1964. I think all contractors who could finish by that time made every effort to get their contracts completed. However, the department could not have known the full implications involved.


George Louis Chatterton: There must have been some contractors who came to the department after December 31 last year, but you have had January, February and March, three months, to take action. Do you mean to say all these contracts have just come forward before the supplementary estimates were introduced? Surely you had knowledge as to what contractors would not be able to complete these contracts in January or early February?


Edward Nasserden: The Minister of National Revenue has referred to the fact that this is really not of any great importance. Actually, what we have before us is a budget resolution, and not a supplementary estimate at all. While we are not questioning the importance of the action that is proposed under this measure, we do protest the instrumentality for achieving that purpose. When I consider the number of items that have been withdrawn today and compare them to this one which has to do with the remission of taxation, I cannot help but think it is even more important that this item be set aside.


Robert Carman Coates: It does not appear as if the minister is willing to go along with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It would certainly eliminate a lot of questions which we wish to ask him about the 11 per cent sales tax and the manner in which it is being collected at the present time. Earlier, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary the Minister of Labour stated that the 11 per cent sales tax had not affected the construction industry in any way.
There is no better example of just how seriously it affected the construction industry than this item before us. It is an indication of just how seriously it has affected some of the construction companies in this nation. I should like to ask the minister certain questions for verification purposes, because I still get a great many complaints from lumber industries in my constituency about the collection of the 11 per cent sales tax.
I do not know how aware the minister is of the number of complaints relating to the difficulty his officials are having in interpreting the act. I should like to obtain his views on the subject because I had a letter from one constituent who is rather a substantial dealer in lumber for the construction industry. He told me that when the act first went into effect the Department of National Revenue was willing to go along with a $5,000 fidelity bond to permit the dealer to collect the taxes. After some time the officials of the department went over the books of the concern in question with the result that the company has had to purchase a $250,000 fidelity bond at their expense in order to collect this 11 per cent sales tax for the government.
I think this is a serious situation because not only are we asking the lumber dealers to do the government a service, but we are charging them or we are forcing upon them an extra expense in order to do this. The small lumber dealers in my constituency are in the same position. Surely, we should have some explanation as to what the department is going to do to eliminate this irritating situation.


George James McIlraith: Without in any way getting into the validity of the arguments involved, particularly of the last hon. member who spoke, the discussion does not seem to be relevant to the item before us. I am quite content to withdraw the item.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the intention of the committee to agree to the withdrawal of item 3d under Department of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item withdrawn.
15d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964, for housing research and community planning as contemplated by Part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,233,106.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, apparently in 1964 the policies dealing with housing research and community planning were changed somewhat. As a result it was harder for many communities to receive benefits from the corporation. The minister in charge of the corporation is not in the chamber, but I would urge another change in the policies so that communities, towns and large municipalities may be able to avail themselves of loans from the corporation.
At present there is much talk about urban development, and many communities in urban areas would also like to avail themselves of loans from C.M.H.C. I urge the minister to take another look at the policies of the department in order to ensure that they are not more restrictive than they were in previous years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This completes consideration of the supplementary estimates for the Department of National Revenue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret, Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the last two you called.


Lucien Lamoureux: Vote No. L21d and vote No. L22d.


Robert Carman Coates: What page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 31.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre satisfied?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, thank you.


[Stage Direction]
20d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-to extend the purposes of northern affairs and national resources vote 20 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include authority to make preliminary expenditures on the proposed new national park in the areas of Kejimkujik lake in Nova Scotia, $1.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The planning of this park was done by the Conservative government and
Supply-Northern Affairs handed to the present administration on a silver platter, but it has taken this government a long time to announce this addition to our national parks.
There is considerable unemployment in the Queens county area of Nova Scotia, particularly in the district where this park is to be established. In view of that I ask when can we hope to see a full scale start made on developing the park in order to provide much needed employment in the area, and to provide necessary facilities for the tourists who will be arriving in Nova Scotia in June? Also, what happened to the sea front that was planned for this park, a section of which was incorporated in the plan drawn up in 1962? We have heard nothing about it from the present administration. There are suitable areas available in Queens county and also in the Crescent beach area in Lunenburg county. I ask the minister to give us some idea of his plans along these lines.


Arthur Laing: We have received complete cooperation from the government of Nova Scotia with respect to this park, co-operation which is required because it has to obtain the property for us and turn it over to us free of encumbrances. This vote is not asking for any new money. We had the money in our estimates, but it is putting a proper allocation to the money. We have spent it on certain roadways within the territory and on surveys in co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia.
We are extremely happy to be making large expenditures during the next three years in this area, because an economic survey indicates the economic situation there is very bad, with high unemployment and extremely low individual family incomes. We think these expenditures will have the effect of raising the nature of its economy perceptibly.
It is our intention to spend something like $650,000 during the current year, on work in the park, $1,375,000 in the following year and $1,850,000 in 1967-68. A great deal of the work will be on roads and certain small improvements within the park. It will be a day park. It is not our intention to build accommodation within the park, but rather to encourage the building of accommodation outside in the economically difficult area.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for his explanation. I should like to take this opportunity to urge upon him the necessity in my view of making a thorough study of the need to add this seashore area to the park. After all, it is hoped this park will serve as

Supply-Northern Affairs a great tourist attraction at the western end of Nova Scotia and no doubt tourists visiting this part of Canada will expect to find a suitable shoreline made available in conjunction with the park. I hope the minister will give this favourable consideration when he begins to plan his estimates for next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
55d. Reimbursement of the northern administration branch stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable, $53,439.
Frank Howard: Reading this item one comes to the conclusion that some materials have deteriorated. What happens to them in such a case? Does the government make a gift of them to somebody, or does it sell them. What about the obsolete part of the material?


Arthur Laing: This item pertains largely to northern administration-inaccessible places where deliveries are made about once a year. The most astonishing thing I came across in this department was when I went to Frobisher. I found there were warehouses there stockpiled with materials of all kinds, including two or three carloads of cement which had hardened like stone and a carlot or two of plywood. I asked my officials to bring me an inventory of the contents of those three warehouses and it reached a total value of no less than $665,000.
There had been careless purchasing all along. The government of the day apparently intended to revive the economy by buying goods in southern Canada and shipping them out to the Arctic. There were a dozen or more washing machines. There were items which could not conceivably be used in the northern territories.


An hon. Member:: Farley Mowat.


Arthur Laing: We have arrived at a point where we have to pay attention to this situation and write these things off by means of a bookkeeping entry.
The hon. member has asked what we do with these things. Disposition is statutory, of course. Those things which have any value at all are turned over to surplus assets for disposal. We shall do our best to put them to some use in those particular areas but there are numbers of items which have no utility at all.


Frank Howard: This is the type of interesting explanation of bureaucratic bungling which should be provided to parliament in a voluntary way without our having to ask

questions about it. It is well known that over the years people within the administration of the department we are now considering, people in the south as they are called, do not have, generally speaking, the foggiest idea about the situation in the north, but try by means of an ivory tower approach to conceive what should take place in areas with which they are not familiar. This is an example of the loss to the taxpayer which results because of the empire building which has gone on in the hon. gentleman's department in the past. It indicates also, by the very dollar value attached to the material in question, the extent of the benefits which might have accrued to the people who live in the north had there been some sensible consultation with them in the first instance.
One could spend a great deal of time deploring this state of affairs. Suffice it to say, I hope this is a sufficient lesson for those who are handling these things to profit by the mistakes of the past and try to operate this aspect of northern affairs in such a way that it benefits the people in the north. It is a disgraceful and deplorable state of affairs for a minister to have to report that there is such a degree of waste of the taxpayers money-obviously waste which results from ignorance or the desire to build empires within the department or for some other foolish reason. I, for one, hope we will not see any more of it.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister referred to materials stored at Frobisher and I think he mentioned the figure of $600,000. He referred to cement and plywood which were no longer useable. I wonder if he would tell us just how long this material had been in storage. To which government was he referring?


Arthur Laing: I thought the hon. member would have known. The cement went up there in the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 and the plywood went up at the same time. Many thousands of feet of copper piping for the conduct of gas went up at the same time. They do not have much gas around Frobisher. I can only explain supplies of this kind on the basis that the government was determined to revive the economy of southern Canada by buying certain commodities to send north, because they had no utility there at all.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would it put a strain on the minister's memory to recall millions of dollars worth of similar equipment stored not only in

Frobisher but all round the northern outposts for which the administration previous to that of my right hon. friend was responsible, resulting in a far greater waste than the $600,000 to which the minister just referred?


William Arnold Peters: I am interested in this item and I am not really satisfied with what the minister has said. I think it is safe to say that though an attempt has now been made to say that one government was no worse than another, neither government had a thing to do with this. The administration of the department of northern affairs is in the hands of civil servants. It is they who made the decisions then and it is the same people who make the decisions now. It is my belief that with few exceptions the minister has not yet been able to seize the whole potential of his department.
I think the minister is aware that, in practice, materials declared surplus in the north have always found their way into the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts for resale. The hon. gentleman and his officials have no doubt seen a film, which I also saw a year or so ago, which indicated the waste and extravagance which takes place. I am not prepared to blame any particular government for this. I think it is caused by loose administration. For example, cans of oil were shipped to the north. They were found not suitable for outboard motors, but when this material was declared obsolete the Hudson's Bay Company got hold of it and sold it to the Eskimos in that area. This resulted in the ruin of most of their motors. This oil was bought for very little, and sold at an exorbitant price in places where no alternative oil was available for the motors. The minister is surely aware of this.
I would like to know if the minister-and I am sure he has considered it-has taken precautions to see that the things declared as obsolescent do not find their way back into trade. I think it is wise and advantageous for northern affairs, if they are going to declare some of this stuff surplus, to put it through their own agents and if possible give it as gifts, or in lieu of other kinds of consideration, to the local populations. This has happened not only in northern affairs. Everyone knows that obsolete pork was being sold across the counter in stores throughout Canada when we had paid a near fortune for it. It was not the fault of any particular government, but both governments and their officials were involved.
The fault lies in our inability to handle obsolete goods in many cases. We should give
Supply-Northern Affairs them to the local people or keep them out of the trade, where they work to the detriment of the people. I could name other things that were declared obsolete in the past in the area and were used to the detriment of the people. I would like an assurance from the minister that he has considered this problem, because he is well aware of the fact that this oil was involved because it was brought to his attention by the senior officials of his department. It is something that I think the minister should assure the members of the committee is not being repeated.
If we are going to write it off I believe there is no one in this house who would not agree with our giving it to those who can use it, rather than putting it back into the trade. This has always been a problem, and I think the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will find himself in exactly the same position as anyone else who has been involved in northern commerce, whether it be government or private industry. All he needs to do is travel anywhere in the north and he will find empty gas drums that could be collected and probably put back into some use. These articles are being held in very large caches because it is not possible, feasible or economical to bring them to any place where they can be put back into commerce again. This is a fact. Once you have the cement in northern Canada, what are you to do with it? You cannot bring it back. What are you going to do with the plywood? You cannot bring it back. If it cannot be brought back, it should be given to the people in the area to be used to their advantage. I could cite the example of the rancid butter being sold by Hudson's Bay that was originally purchased for government requirements.
If these things had been declared obsolete before their value deteriorated completely, they would have been useful to the people living in the area. In the case of the butter and oil, they became a liability to the people up there, and a liability that cost them a considerable amount of money and at the same time was detrimental to them. I am always scared when I see something declared obsolete and written off, because there is really no indication as to what happens to it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if I could wish you a good morning.


Paul Tardif: Along with those good wishes I think a little speed might help.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should come into the chamber at this late hour and start making political charges. Surely if he is interested in concluding the session this morning he will take some advice from the hon. member for Timiskaming, who indicated that no particular government is necessarily at fault for what has occurred, and will admit that the hon. member for Timiskaming might just be in line in pointing out that the administration in the northland might have something to do with what has occurred, which he has indicated as being stupidity or whatever it might be called on the part of the former government. I am sure that if we wanted to argue about this all night we could find there would be a great many examples of the same thing happening in the past.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has advanced an entirely new doctrine. I always thought that the minister, the head of the department, was responsible. If we are going to accept the fact that the minister has no responsibility and are going to blame our civil servants, then we come to an irresponsible situation. The minister must remain responsible, as my hon. friend knows.
I can assure the hon. member for Timiskaming that we are trying to run a tighter ship than has been run in the past, and I think it is tighter already. But it is more difficult to send goods up to the north on once a year delivery, because if you make an error it is a real one. There is new machinery up there costing $3,000 or $4,000, and my hon. friend knows that if we were to bring it back to southern Canada it would only be worth $10; all the rest would be freight. But we are supervising our supplies much more closely than they were watched, and I think we have registered economies already.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, could I ask what decision the department has made in the particular cases that I mentioned of the butter and oil? This was brought to the minister's attention, I am quite sure, because he must have known that some inquiry had been made. There is no secret about where the information came from; it came from Bill Eccles who went up into the east side of the area and ran into a great deal of difficulty with the Hudson's Bay Company. He made a film which was seen by the officials of the department and a number of charges were made at that time. If I remember correctly, there was an agreement or a commitment
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif).]
made by some of the officials that there would be some investigation into the charges that were made. I wonder whether the minister has any knowledge of a report that came from the charges that were made and from the visual picture that the officials got from seeing this film?


Paul Tardif: Shall vote 55d carry?


William Arnold Peters: I am not interested in just making a statement, Mr. Chairman; I do not know what happened and I want to know, because I was very impressed with the presentation that was made at that time. The minister again falls into a very particular failing that his government is continually falling into. One of his colleagues the other day got up and said, "I have complete faith in my officials", and somebody else gets up and says, "I have complete faith in my officials". If the minister does have this complete faith, he must be either all-knowing or the reverse, because his department is a very extensive one. I have been in parts of the north; it is fairly isolated and I am sure the minister is not completely aware of what happens in every area there. Charges have been made that there has been monkey business between the officials of his department and the factors of Hudson's Bay. Take, for example, the case of this oil selling at 90 cents a quart, as has been mentioned. If you can get the oil for nothing because it is surplus to requirements, and it is sold for 90 cents, there is 45 cents for the local administrator and 45 cents for the factor of the Hudson's Bay Company; and they keep the other oil in the containers until they have unloaded the surplus. To my mind it is a fairly complicated problem and the minister is really stretching the bounds of credulity if he expects us to believe that he can really take responsibility for everybody in his department. It is very nice to hear this, but it does not really mean anything.
Personally I would like to know whether he has received a report on this particular problem. We are not asking him specifically what has been declared obsolete in Fort George or Moosonee, for example, or any of the other particular areas; but it is quite possible that the same situation continues to develop. I suggest that the minister should be able to give us some assurance that he is either looking into this matter or is prepared to look into it. If he does not, then I am not sure we should write this off. Perhaps we should hang on to it because this could

be very detrimental to the operation of good government in the territories. After all, the government here is the government of the territories. There are no representatives of local government in these areas. The real administrator is this government, and I think this could be used in a detrimental way.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the minister coming into this house at midnight and making statements of the kind he has made. When did he learn of these facts-at ten minutes to midnight? Did he feel at that time that he had to come down and give these facts to this committee? When was this information brought to his attention and how long has he been carrying it as a great burden on his soul, keeping it from this house?


Frank Howard: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and I will repeat it again, the operations of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the territories is closely allied with the operations carried out in the Soviet union. This involves a communal system in which the state is all powerful, with crushing oppressiveness, and this is the same whether it operates in Canada or the Soviet union. As long as the rules are the same, the results are the same.
The minister enunciated a correct doctrine which applies under our form of government, when he said that the minister must accept responsibility for what takes place within a department under his jurisdiction. We agree with that doctrine. Sometimes there are ministers who are incompetent, or incapable of knowing what does take place, or incapable of accepting responsibility. I do not include the present minister of northern affairs in that category.
Once the minister of northern affairs declares that he is going to accept this responsibility, with which we all agree, or has an obligation to accept this responsibility, there are several results and obligations. The minister has to either accept responsibility for what occurs in his department and correct the abuses, or fire the officials who are responsible for the abuses. In the alternative he must resign. He cannot simply stand up and say that he believes that he should accept responsibility for what has occurred. It is not good enough for him just to make a simple declaration of that kind, unless he is prepared to back it up with some action.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Anyone who has a remote understanding of what has occurred within the department of northern affairs, and the hon. member for Timiskaming only mentioned one or two things which had come to his attention as a result of a film made about a specific area of the territories, knows that there are abuses as a result of incompetent officials, and knows that there are officials who have not even a vague idea of what is taking place, but who try to operate from the sanctity of their offices here in Ottawa. These officials try to transmit their dreams or visions, as they were called at one time, into reality in the north, but they usually turn into nightmares for the people who live there.
I hope the minister will follow through and take his responsibility seriously, and will present evidence to this house at some subsequent date, perhaps during our consideration of the main estimates, to show that he has accepted his responsibility seriously, with the result that these abuses have been terminated by the removal of those individuals who have been responsible or delinquent. If he is not able to do this he should tender his resignation.
There is a motion now on the order paper in respect of a procedure and rules committee which, if passed, will change the committee structure. I hope one of the first items referred to an appropriate committee will be the estimates of the minister's department, so that there may be a complete and thorough examination of its operation at which time we will be able to ferret out those things which have been kept under cover and hidden for so long.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak during the consideration of these supplementary estimates, but having listened to the debate that has taken place, I now want to be very sure that I understood correctly what the minister has said. Has the minister made the charge that there was over $600,000 worth of goods in warehouses at Frobisher which was placed there during the period I was the minister which has now been wasted? Was the figure $600,000, as he inferred or the $50,000 in this estimate, or just what is the figure?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, of course the hon. member knows that I did not say there was $600,000 worth of material wasted at Frobisher Bay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Supply-Northern Affairs


David Vaughan Pugh: Why did you leave that impression?


Arthur Laing: The hon. member for Okanagan South need not think that-


David Vaughan Pugh: Okanagan Boundary, get that correct.


Arthur Laing: I am sorry only the hon. member
for Okanagan Boundary could think that.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is what I thought you said, and so did everyone else.
On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I specifically mentioned the amount of $600,000 plus in reference to materials that were wasted, and mentioned cement and plywood as referred to by the minister. The minister can in no way withdraw from his statement that there was $600,000 worth of wasted material shipped up there under the previous administration.


Arthur Laing: When I want the hon. member to put words in my mouth I will tell him, but until that time I will make my own statements. I made the statement that there was an inventory of $660,000 worth of goods in that small area. I said there was a wastage of cement and plywood, and that there were items in stock which were not useable in that area. I have found similar situations, to a lesser degree, in other areas. There was also a wastage of rations which had been shipped and kept over from year to year. There was some breakage by way of shipment, as the former minister is aware. A good deal of the rations had to be broken open and repackaged, and a great deal had to be removed. Of course I want to say to all members who have spoken on this subject that this is a very difficult area to service.


David Vaughan Pugh: This is a little different now.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member is not going to make me withdraw my statement to the effect that the situation I found was an example of the worst business inefficiency I have seen in a long time. I can assure this house that goods which have no value in the area of the Arctic will not be sent there under my administration.
The hon. member for Skeena made this point. It is so easy to ship materials or items into the north that have no value to the people of the north. On the other hand, there are some very simple things sent there from southern Canada that have the greatest value to people of the north. We are making changes as rapidly as possible in the direction that has been indicated tonight. There is the old

story of the acres of drums. We are replacing them today with storage tanks in most of the larger settlements. We are getting out of state domination as fast as we can. We are about to let a contract for $350,000 in services to a private individual in one place, involving sewage and water supply as well as other services. In other words, it seems to us that the sooner we can turn over these services to individuals who live there the year round the better for us, and the greater permanence there is for the people there. These are the things we are attempting to do in that area.
I am not grossly critical of the department. I do not agree that there are a great number of employees in the department at Ottawa who care nothing about the north. This is not the case. We have a tremendous number of dedicated servants both in the north and in Ottawa, but I do insist that errors and waste have occurred in the past, which I am going to try to prevent from now on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister has admitted that there was no waste of $600,000 at Frobisher Bay but I think he should give us some precise figures. I will accept the responsibility for some waste because you cannot operate in the north as you would operate a business in the south. But I do not think the impression should be left that the waste is slightly less than $600,000. Would the minister estimate whether it was $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000? Do not leave the figure of $600,000 lying around or you will have started a real battle.


Arthur Laing: I wanted to make it very plain to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and I think he is aware that I stated that the inventory in three warehouses was $660,000. That is too much for a little community like that, and he knows it. As to the waste estimate, he was not high enough in his highest figure of $25,000.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to get that straightened out. I do not want to leave anything up in the air. The minister has admitted to less than $600,000 and he said that $25,000 was too low. Would he say $30,000?


Paul Tardif: Shall
the vote carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. The minister has got himself in a box and I want him to get out of it. I want to know what the waste was. If he is going to make charges at this time of the night he is going to have to give us the facts.


Arthur Laing: I would be very happy to let the hon. member know as soon as I possibly can what the exact waste was but I have not got the figure with me tonight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister came in late tonight when we have been here all day-


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and stirred up a storm and now he has got to answer for it.


Arthur Laing: -on a question of privilege, this nonsense started-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Laing: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Tardif: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member for Cumberland, looking at the clock, made the statement that I came in late tonight. I have been here all day and all night, and I do not want this nonsense repeated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Robert Carman Coates: On a question of privilege, I was not referring to when the minister took his seat in the house. I have seen him here during the debate all evening. He has been in and out of the chamber. I was referring to the fact that at ten minutes to twelve or thereabouts he informed us-


Arthur Laing: "He walks in here", you said.


Robert Carman Coates: If I said you walked in here, it may be that you walked in here at some time prior to that. I am not sure. You were in and out. I am just saying that you came in here at ten minutes to twelve and made this charge and now you are telling us that you have no facts to back up your charge. What the devil are you doing, coming in here at that hour and making a charge, if you have no facts?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister has been here all evening, he entered into the debate at a very late hour just when we were prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -in co-operation with the other side, to move along very quickly; but this minister has slowed things down by a good 40 minutes by making a charge that he cannot back up. He has tried to leave the
Supply-Northern Affairs impression that there was tremendous waste at Frobisher. He has been asked to withdraw that remark and he has hedged. He said that the figure of $20,000 or $25,000 mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is not high enough, and at the same time he has been talking in terms of $660,000. Let the minister give us the facts. Let him make a definite charge and give us the figure. Let him not leave a smear, for that is what it is, on the record against the former minister of northern affairs. We are quite prepared to debate this issue for some considerable time. We are just beginning to settle down to the situation. This minister, who should have kept silent, has now got everything nicely stirred up and we have got our second wind. We are waiting to hear from the minister. Is he going to withdraw his statement and clear the record or is he going to leave it there? If he is going to leave it there, we will be here for two or three more hours.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I read what I have in front of me we are dealing with an item of $53,439 which is a reimbursement of the northern administration branch stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable. The thing that is puzzling me as a result of the developing altercation across the floor is whether the figure is the one that appears in this vote. I would have thought this was the amount representing stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable. I should like to ask the minister whether in fact this is the amount. I do so because I was one of those who was puzzled by his earlier reference to $600,000. I realize we cannot always catch every word exchanged across the floor of the house, but certainly some of us who are a bit outside the immediate argument did have an erroneous impression of what the minister said in his first statement. I am wondering whether this figure of $53,439 is not the figure that certain members are trying to have the minister give.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, the sum that is to be written off as a loss this year is, of course, the sum stated in the vote.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, as I looked at this figure before we got into all the hassle about it, the thing that surprised me was that it was not greater than it is. The minister himself has admitted that the situation in regard to these northern points is much different from what pertains in the southern part of the country. I figure I am just as good a manager as anybody else and I

Supply-Post Office
know that if repair parts and other things that become obsolete in the normal course of events on my own farm are allowed to accumulate at all, the amount involved goes far beyond what a lot of people would think would be reasonable. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of development in the north, I do not see anything wrong with the item in the estimates.
The minister has mentioned certain articles that deteriorated in storage in the north. The thought occurs to me that sometimes the plans of the department change. I know that in every business plans change from time to time. We all know that cement, if not used at once, will deteriorate. I venture to say that if the minister has ever bought any cement there has been some deterioration and I take it he thinks he is a pretty good manager.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Id. Postal services, $328,700.
Frank Howard: There is an item in the vote of $19,700 for mail bags and letter carrier satchels. Can the minister tell us if this for purchases or repair of these items and where do we get them-from penitentiaries?


George James McIlraith: This is an item to permit the write-off of this amount of money for equipment which has become obsolete on the inventory.


Frank Howard: If that is what it is, why is it listed under operations including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, railway mail service staffs, etc.? If it is a write-off for material that has become obsolete, why does it not say so? I think it is somewhat misleading.


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Chairman, the method of making up the public service accounts must account for every item that is purchased. The practice has been to show it in the estimates. It is a matter of following the previous form. I do not say it is right. I did not look at it critically when the item was printed; perhaps I should have.


Frank Howard: Could we ask that in future, if it is a write-off of obsolete or outworn equipment, that it say so; then we will know what it is?


George James McIlraith: I will certainly look at this point.


Mr. McIntosh:: Could the minister explain the expenditure of $275,000 for mail service by air? What does that cover, and where?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it results from the increase in volume from air mail. There is an increase in the volume which results in an increase in the cost of carrying the mail.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Postmaster General told us during consideration of his estimates that the charges for air mail carried the cost and there was no subsidy.


George James McIlraith: It does, but the method of accounting is that revenue is not shown as an offsetting item. We vote the post office the whole amount.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister take notice of a recent statement made by a highly placed official in the post office, that it is no longer safe to drop first class mail in letter boxes?


Paul Tardif: Shall the vote carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like some kind of explanation.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will give an explanation. I never heard that statement before.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister bring it to the attention of the Postmaster General, who probably has not heard it either?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
15d. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $195,500.
William Arnold Peters: May we have an indication if the report of the inquiry into the serious air crash outside Montreal is available?


George James McIlraith: No; I have an indication it is expected to be completed by the end of April, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
30d. Harbours and rivers engineering services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property): provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1.
William Arnold Peters: A few minutes ago the minister of northern affairs mentioned the water and sewage branch of northern affairs. I see there is an item here for a water system, and the only one of which I know is in the area of Churchill, $165,000. I presume this is an addi-

tion to the system already there. He mentioned the system would be turned over to a private agency for operation. Are we bringing it up to a particular standard before it is turned over, or what is the significance of this item?


George James McIlraith: I have quite a lengthy explanation here, but I shall summarize it. It is an attempt to recognize the fact that the public works department is taking over responsibility for the administration of this area. It is a transfer of an item that used to be under national harbours board. It is really a transfer rather than an expenditure.


William Arnold Peters: Is this the item that is going to be turned over to a private company for
operation?


George James McIlraith: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Under vote 30d there is an item for a total cost of $30,000. Previously the figure that had to be listed in the estimates was $25,000 or more, and I am wondering if there has been a change of policy in this regard?


George James McIlraith: I believe there is no change.


George Louis Chatterton: When the Minister of
Public Works was dealing with his estimates he announced the establishment of a new policy with regard to marinas, to encourage tourists. I am bringing this to the attention of the government, and since the minister announced such a policy it is time we received some further information about the policy. We look forward early in the new session to some elaboration of this promise made by the minister last May.


Edward Nasserden: In so far as engineering services are concerned, I should like to mention a request made by the Hudson bay route association, for a study of the feasibility of a breakwater at the mouth of the river at Churchill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would not be public
works.


Edward Nasserden: It occurs to me that the item covers harbours and rivers, and this is another harbour and another river.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think Churchill is a harbour under the national harbours board.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): There is an item for $5,000 for Little River, Victoria, Nova Scotia. I understand the contract was awarded some time ago. Is this just additional money?
Supply-Public Works


George James McIlraith: It is a matter of identifying the item. The detail is not shown in the main estimates.


William Arnold Peters: Is there an item in this vote to cover the request of the Georgian bay tourist association, that the committee recommended after discussing the water levels on the great lakes?


George James McIlraith: There is nothing in these supplementaries for that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Ever since this question of water levels on the great lakes came up, the government has promised it would make extra efforts toward dredging, particularly in Georgian bay, for those people who have lost contact with the present water levels. I regret the absence of any item here for dredging. It certainly does not indicate any great urgency on the part of the government to remedy the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National capital commission-
60d. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national eapital region, $318,000.
William Arnold Peters: Does this include any appropriation for acquiring the property known as the union station?


George James McIlraith: No, there appears to be nothing in this vote for that.
Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition-
70d. Toward federal share of the cost of construction of an ice control structure, $1,825,000.


Frank Howard: A limit of $20 million was established as the amount to be spent from the federal treasury under the act setting up the Canadian corporation. Is this sum of $1,825,000, and the sum of $150,000 in the next vote, within the confines set out in the act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first is for the structure that had to be constructed to protect Montreal harbour from the ice coming down in spring. It is right by the Champlain bridge.


Frank Howard: That may be what it is for, but is it an expenditure within the $20 million limit set out in the act?


George James McIlraith: It is a separate item.


Frank Howard: Then I intend to register my voice against it, because parliament was told it would only cost the taxpayers up to the amount of $20 million. I do not want to raise

Supply-Secretary of State anything too controversial at this stage, but all this is because of the influence of an individual who is not a member of the house. The federal government has got itself into a pickle because it would not stand up and exert its authority on behalf of the people of Canada. As a result we have a few extra millions of dollars going into this monument to the mayor of Montreal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Are tenders being awarded for this job on a public tender call, or otherwise?


George James McIlraith: This particular item is a public works tender called in the regular way.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is there more than one job, or is it just part of one job?


George James McIlraith: There is more than one contract but it is one job. This item does not come under the corporation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Neither do I want to start raising a controversy at this point, but there is a great deal of concern at the manner in which tenders are being called in connection with the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Id. Departmental administration including the expenses of the committee on broadcasting-to extend the purposes of Secretary of State vote 1 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to include the expenses of the committee on election expenses and the committee on feature films and to provide a further amount of $145,000.
Robert Carman Coates: I read the speech made by the president of the C.B.C. which he made to an audience in Montreal recently, and in which he hoped the Fowler commission would recommend that the government give a ten year charter to the corporation. Has that commission been empowered to make such a recommendation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot recall offhand the terms of reference which were tabled, but I will look up the matter and let the hon. gentleman have the information. But since that kind of recommendation was made in the original Fowler report, and as the commission was asked to comment on that report, it would be quite within its scope.


Robert Carman Coates: I strongly oppose that type of attitude shown by the president of the corporation, in making public speeches about what the commission should recommend. It should be a job for the commission itself to determine on the basis of plans and proposals put forward by the C.B.C.


Robert Muir: Would the commission be dealing with matters such as censorship in the C.B.C.?
I refer to an instance where a clergyman, the secretary of the synod of the Presbyterian church in the maritime provinces, was cut off the air in Sydney, Nova Scotia, because he happened to be expressing a particular theological belief. He has forwarded copies of his text. Since I am not a theological student I would be glad to let the minister read this text for himself, but there is nothing in it to be found by me or by others who have read it which appears offensive to other denominations. However, the manager of radio station CBI cut this person off the air during the series known as "Plain Talk" on this radio station.
I have some questions on the order paper at the present time with reference to this series. As yet there has been no chance for an answer to be given, but this is a matter which I think should be brought to the attention of the committee and of the minister. Number 8 in this series of questions asked: "How much plain talk is allowed by the C.B.C. in their series "Plain Talk"? Apparently the manager of CBI does not believe in allowing freedom of speech. It seems that if whoever is speaking does not please the manager of the station he wants to cut them off.
I hold no brief for the Rev. Mr. Bean, who has written to me on this subject, nor do I have an animosity toward Mr. Kenneth Hill, the manager of the station. I do not know either of them. But it is a serious situation in this day and age when a man who speaks on the C.B.C. is not allowed to expound certain philosophies. In question number 9 of the series of questions I placed on the order paper, I asked:
In the past 15 months, apart from news columnist and broadcaster Gordon Sinclair, how many individuals have been allowed by the C.B.C. to expound the philosophy of atheism on their faculties?
Mr. Sinclair is a member of the C.B.C. backscratcher club, and it would seem that at any time he is able to boast on the air that he does not believe in God. Surely, then, we can allow Catholic priests, Presbyterian clergy, rabbis and others to express their philosophy without the manager of a radio station cutting them off on the ground-in this case, at least-that what was said was offensive to other religious denominations.
To be fair to Mr. Hill, I should like to quote from the Cape Breton Post of March 31, 1965:

Meanwhile, CBI manager Kenneth Hill said the decision had been made with respect to Mr. Bean's program on one ground-that the program "Plain Talk" was not designed to be used for airing of theological positions or differences.
I submit it would be difficult for a clergyman of any denomination to express himself on radio or anywhere else unless he is able to talk about his theological position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member allow me to interrupt him to say this: if there were an item relating to the C.B.C. in the estimates, what the hon. member is saying would no doubt be appropriate. But these are appropriations for the Department of the Secretary of State; they really have nothing whatever to do with the administration of the C.B.C. I wonder whether at this late hour the hon. gentleman would mind if we undertake to see that this matter is brought to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that he receives his answer in the usual way.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for those words. Would he allow me to quote the manager of the radio station in order to be fair to Mr. Hill? Then I will let it go to another occasion. Mr. Hill said:
Personally, whether or not I agree with the views taken by Mr. Bean is of no consequence and has no bearing on this matter. I defend his right to set out his views but in the right place. The program "Plain Talk" was not intended for this use. That was the only question here and it was upon this basis that decisions were made.
According to Mr. Hill the only place where a speaker can express his theological position is in a church. The program, he says, was not intended for this purpose. However, it seems to me we do have a situation here where censorship has been used and I do not think there should be censorship within the C.B.C., despite much of the filth expressed by speakers of television and radios on occasion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I cannot recall the setting up of a committee on feature films. It is completely new to me. Could the minister tell us when this committee was set up, and why? There is $25,000 set aside for it. I have been inquiring among my hon. friends and I find that no one has ever heard of the committee before.


Maurice Lamontagne: This is an interdepartmental committee which was set up by the cabinet before I became Secretary of State. The item6 here are related to two special
Supply-Secretary of State studies being made by experts in the field of production and distribution of films.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the minister tell us who are the members of the committee?


Maurice Lamontagne: They are civil servants.


John (Jack) McIntosh: For what purpose is this $25,000 required?


Maurice Lamontagne: Because of two special studies which are being made by Dr. Firestone and Mr. Cadieux.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What is the purpose of the committee?


Maurice Lamontagne: It is to propose ways and means of helping to develop a feature film industry in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10d. Translation bureau, $48,000.
William Arnold Peters: Looking at the translation booths tonight I am reminded that the translators have been there since eleven o'clock this morning.


An hon. Member:: They are inside translators.


William Arnold Peters: They come under the bureau. We seem to abuse them here. We have had real problems in translation in the house tonight.
After discussing this matter with people who are familiar with the situation in which the government of Canada has responsibility for providing a translation service, it occurs to me it might be advantageous for the government to consider purchasing a machine capable of doing translation work, similar, though possibly on a smaller scale, to the one in use at the United Nations. Information which is placed in that machine is translated into another language. I presume there is a possibility of operating such a machine 24 hours a day, provided sufficient material is available. It occurs to me that much of the translation with which we have to deal involves the translation of reports and documents of a routine nature. I do not know whether Univac or IBM translators would serve this purpose. No doubt there are several types of machine available and we should perhaps think of using something of this nature in the Department of the Secretary of State so as to make translations of at least documents and reports. I wonder whether the minister has considered this matter. Is there some merit in a committee examining the whole problem we have in translation? I

Supply-Secretary of State think it is generally agreed that the work that has been done in this field has been good; it is probably fairly accurate, and it has been done under duress because it has grown from nothing a few years ago to a very large and necessary service.
It seems to me that if the United Nations found it necessary-although it is true that they are translating into five languages rather than just two-to turn to some other means, it is quite possible that the Canadian government would find itself much more able to meet some of the needs, if they did the same, particularly in view of the need that developed not long ago when it looked as though it would be advantageous to fly this stuff to the United Nations and use their machine to speed up the translation. We might find that a machine of this type would be within the scope of the federal government and would probably eliminate some of the problem that appears to be growing, rather than diminishing.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I can only tell the hon. member that we are very conscious indeed of the problem that exists and we are also considering all ways and means possible to make the service the most efficient that we can have.


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is generally true. I believe it is also true that this is a relatively new field. We may think we are bilingual, but I am sure that when I came here in 1957 this was not the problem that it is today. There were no translation systems even in the house, so the problem has grown very rapidly. For this reason I hope the minister will consider what I think would be a pretty stereotyped translation system, where machines might be able to do this work. I am not suggesting- and I hope it is not conveyed to anybody that I am suggesting this-that we should eliminate the other forms of translation that we use, but for certain fields we might save a lot of our people if we were able to provide that type of service which appears to be working in other areas.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could just give us a breakdown of these outside translation fees so that we have an idea of what is actually involved?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am afraid that I have no breakdown here, Mr. Chairman; but there was, as all hon. members know, a great

increase in the volume of work to be translated and the result of this was that we had to get more work done by translators outside the public service. If the hon. member would agree to wait for a few days, I would be very happy to give him any breakdown that he wants; but 1 do not have it available at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
18d. Special-Special grant, within the meaning of section 20 of the Canada Council Act, to the Canada Council to be used for the general purposes set out in section 8 of the act, $10,000,000.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in a sentence that perhaps of all the votes we are going to pass in this marathon session, this may perform a greater service for this country than any other. I should like to take this opportunity to commend the government for this vote to assist the Canada Council. I would hope that the people of means in this country would follow the example and assist this tremendous organization.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, representations were made the other day by an organization that raised the problem of where there is a left and a right wing of organization they were particularly interested in these grants. I understand they made representations to the minister and I was wondering what decision was reached with regard to their representations?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that this has nothing to do with the Canada Council but has a great deal to do with the centennial commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
L37d. To amend vote L37a in supplementary estimates (A), 1964-65, to provide in subsequent fiscal years for stockpiling costs of uranium concentrates acquired pursuant to the contracts described in the said vote, $1.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion that Canada is prepared to enter into a long term arrangement with France in relation to uranium, and I am wondering whether the minister is prepared to say whether or not some of this will come from the arrangements that were previously made for the stockpiling of uranium in Canada.


George James McIlraith: I could not say, Mr. Chairman, but the proposal has nothing to do with

this item, as I understand it. I am referring to the proposal of the private company.


William Arnold Peters: The connection it would have would be a fairly simple one, that you either buy it from suppliers who are not now producing uranium or you get it from the stockpiling of uranium already taking place. I would think it would have a considerable effect on the proposals that we have undertaken in regard to the stockpiling of uranium.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, a contract that may be made in the future has nothing to do with this item. This item is to clarify the wording of an item, at the request of the Auditor General, having to do with the storage of uranium bought by the government and provided for in the estimates in the usual way. What the hon. member is referring to in his remarks is negotiation going on between a private company and a foreign buyer to sell the uranium that we have. The government is not directly involved in the sale of the commodity. The government may have other concerns, but they are not directly involved in the sale. That is something that has been talked about for the future. It is not something that I can give any information about now, because it is far too anticipatory.


William Arnold Peters: We will accept that, Mr. Chairman, but as I see the relationship, the company that has been negotiating with France is also the major producer of the uranium that is going into the stockpiling; so there is a relationship, as I see it, between the two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Id. Departmental administration, $70,000.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Transport if this item of $70,000 for travelling and removal expenses was incurred on behalf of Hal Banks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that he was never in my custody.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27d. Canadian National Railways benefit, 1964- amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the "company'') upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising in the calendar year 1964, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, $38 -726,000.
Supply-Transport
John (Jack) McIntosh: On March 25 the minister authorized a press release regarding new policy in respect of small community airports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Vote No. 27d has reference
to the C.N.R. deficit.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry, I am referring to the wrong item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say that this is the lowest deficit the C.N.R. has had for many years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation-
45d. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, $50,000.
John (Jack) McIntosh: I am now referring to the right vote. In the minister's press release he said that particulars would be made available within a week. It is almost a week since that statement was made. I notice that the $50,000 under this item has reference to the corporation of the town of St. Anthony, Newfoundland. In the minister's release he stated that funds would be made available, and would be increased in respect of single applications from $50,000 to $100,000, is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This item relates, of
course, to something that was done before the new policy was announced.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Will the minister elaborate in that regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This was arranged after the main estimates were brought down in which other airports were mentioned. This one was not included in those main estimates because it was done afterwards.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to item 45d, particularly after the announcement he made last week concerning the assistance his department intended to give to the construction of airports in towns located near important centres.
The municipalities of Chapais and Chibou-gamau, which are in my riding, are quite distant from other centres. The municipal authorities have already prepared construction projects for small airports which could serve the population of those towns, and knowing that the minister has already received from those municipalities a request for financial assistance to improve those air-

Supply-Transport
ports, I would ask him to take the same into favourable consideration, so those towns may get an adequate air service as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
73d. To provide that section 115 ol the civil service regulations shall apply to any person notwithstanding that he was not employed in the civil service on the date that the regulation was
made	.	.
(a) who ceased to be employed m the civil service at any time during the period commencing on the first day of April, 1962 and ending on the 23th day of February, 1964 and
(b)	who immediately prior to becoming employed in the civil service was employed by Canadian Marconi Corporation, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to speak very briefly in explanation of this vote after which, if it is found objectionable, I will not pursue it.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee by pressing this item, but I think it will be acceptable.
This item as I see it does not attempt to change legislation but simply changes certain regulations which have the effect of providing for one individual-possibly for several others-to come within the provisions of section 115 of the civil service regulations. This individual was seconded in some fashion or another from a private company to the civil service in the manner of-I am trying to find the wretched explanation. Perhaps somebody could tell me what the number of this vote is.


An hon. Member:: It is 73d.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I have now found it. This vote is in reference to one Wilfrid Ser-rick, and I will read the gobbledygook.
This is to authorize the application of section 115 of the Civil Service Act and of the sections referred to in section 115 to the case of one Wilfrid Serrick a former radio operator, St. John's, Newfoundland, and to the former employees of Canadian Marconi Corporation who were taken over by the department in 1957 and who retired from the civil service prior to the coming into force of section 115.
The facts of the Serrick case, and particularly the matter of a payment for 26 weeks retiring leave, were referred to treasury board in July of 1964 and, in essence, the board suggested that the department deal with the situation by placing an authorizing item in these supplementary estimates. In so doing, Mr. Serrick, as well as other former Marconi employees who are in a similar position to that of Serrick, would receive the same treatment for leave and pension purposes as though they had been employed continuously in the public service from the initial date of employment with the Canadian Marconi Corporation.

It does not seem to me that this is the kind of case that would normally require an act of parliament. This simply brings employees who formerly worked for a company, and whose pensions were taken over, to be integrated into the public service.


Mr. Leboe:: Will the minister tell us whether he expects there will be many more cases in Canada of this kind requiring this sort of thing to be repeated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This vote does not change anything. It has reference to a man who retired before the act was passed so that he can be treated in the same way as other employees are treated.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am not indisposed to agreeing that we should make changes in order to compensate individuals who, through no fault of their own, have run afoul of the regulations, and thereby experienced difficulties in respect of income or pension. On the other hand, I am aware of two employees of the post office in the city of Prince Rupert who suffered an injustice as the result of similar circumstances. I do not intend to relate the circumstances involved at this time, but these two individuals were performing identical work, and had identical classifications. One employee received different treatment from that applied to the other because of the date of the coming into effect of the new Civil Service Act and the regulations thereto, which allowed an increment applicable to the particular position. These two individuals were doing identical work and had identical classifications, but received different wage rates because one happened to be promoted to that position before the other, who came within the beneficial parts of the new regulations. This case has been referred to the civil service commission and has gone around and around in circles, but has ended up in the same way. That service indicated that nothing could be done in that regard because of existing regulations.
If parliament is now being asked to allow these regulations to apply to individual cases because of certain existing circumstances, I think they should also be made applicable to the individual to whom I have referred on a parallel basis.
Perhaps the minister will be kind enough to tell me how I can draw these circumstances to the attention of treasury board, or whichever board is responsible, so that this individual can be treated in a like manner.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Frank Howard: We asked the civil service commission to do something about it and they refused to do anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member remembers about King Bruce and the spider.


Frank Howard: I remember a few things about the Liberal party too but I would not ally them with spiders at this late hour. However, I will send them to the Minister of Transport. I know how loquacious he is and how influential he is behind the scenes on all of these matters and I hope he will come up with something.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
74d. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or de-troyed, $98,800.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to precipitate a discussion similar to that which was precipitated on a somewhat similar item under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but has the minister any comment on this particular item? Is this greater than the usual degree of obsolescence or was there any unique incident or is this traditional?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge and belief I have not been any more efficient than my predecessor, the President of the Privy Council.


Edward Nasserden: What portion of this figure represents stores that were lost or stolen?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite frankly I have not taken an inventory. I could not tell the hon. gentleman but I will be glad to go into it if he would like me to do so and give him a report.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would care to remark on this item for stores that have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot hear the hon. member.
20220-834J
75d. Salaries and other expenses-To extend the purposes of transport vote 75 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to authorize the governor in council, notwithstanding section 7 of the Aeronautics Act, to appoint two members of the air transport board in addition to the number provided for by that act, such members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years and to be paid such salary as may be fixed by the governor in council, $1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to drop this item before anybody says anything about it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, have we got a new house leader?
Item withdrawn.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on this item-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I be told what item we are on?


Lucien Lamoureux: To what item is the hon. member addressing himself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Item 75d has been dropped.


William Arnold Peters: What happened to 85d?


Lucien Lamoureux: May we have order to go back and make the situation clear? Item 75d was dropped and 85d was carried We are now calling item 90d. Is the hon. member going to speak on item 90d?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
90d. Steamship subventions for coastal services as detailed in the estimates, $1.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I was about to say, I am rising on this item because of what the hon. member for Skeena suggested was the all pervasive influence of the present Minister of Transport and also to say that the people who are involved in this service between Gold River and Zeballos are most grateful that this item of $12,000, after a good deal of heartburning, has been included in the supplementary estimates. As the minister will know, this is the one and only item of subvention for western local services.

Supp ly-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the only supplementary item.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The only supplementary item. However, I do not think I will be misleading the house if I draw to the attention of the minister the comparison of the totals for western local services and eastern local services.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I interrupt the hon. member in the hope that he will perhaps not want to continue this line of argument very much further. Would he look at the amount of the subsidies paid by the government of Canada for building ferries for the B.C. ferry service? I think he will then reach the conclusion that there is not such a disproportionate situation as the supplementaries would seem to indicate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not going to quarrel about the amount paid for the building of B.C. ferries. I do not know how that figure would contrast with what might be paid for the building of ships on the Atlantic coast. The point about which I was going to inquire of the minister was whether he might possibly be interested in, shall we say, swapping constituencies for a couple of years having in mind that it might redress the balance of payments between the eastern and western coasts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will guarantee me 75 per cent of the vote and be my election agent I will consider his offer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It will have to be understood that there will be no politicking involved but rather a straight matter of serving the constituents.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the vote of eastern local services may I say I realize the minister's skill and capabilities, and possibly he does not carry the information in his mind, but I should like to refer now to the Sydney-St. Lawrence coastal service along the coast of Cape Breton. There may have been something in the main estimates but I do not see it here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I am only briefed tonight to speak about the supplementaries, but if the hon. gentleman wants any information about the main estimates and will give me a note I will be very glad to look up the information.


Robert Muir: The only reason I mention the matter now is that there has been some talk in the past

three or four weeks that this service will not operate this spring.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will write me a letter I will look into the matter right away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
107d. Payment as of January 1, 1965 to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, upon application, approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the accumulated Welland canal deficit incurred by the authority for the calendar years 1959-64, $27,092,866.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, this is a substantial item and I should like to ask how it has arisen. It is a cumulative item for a period of five years which apparently has not been brought up to date previously. Second, I should like to know why it now appears before us in these supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman may remember that it was intended to have tolls imposed on the Welland canal. A decision was made some years ago not to impose tolls. When the twinning program was announced there was some thought that in view of the additional expenditure tolls might perhaps be imposed as was contemplated in the original legislation but they were not imposed. The St. Lawrence seaway authority then represented to the government that it was rather unfair to burden the accounts of the seaway with the cost of the Welland canal when it was not allowed to charge tolls to offset the expenditure. Therefore it was decided that as long as there were no tolls on the Welland canal any expenditures thereon should be made directly out of the treasury and not out of the revenues of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. There are two items that cover this bookkeeping transaction and that is precisely what it is. One of them is this item and the other is the loan item, and perhaps this explanation will do for both.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
LAVd. To authorize, upon application approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to the Minister of Finance, (a) the conversion as of January 1, 1965 of $21,800,000 of indebtedness by the authority to Her Majesty to an interest free loan repayable on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister of Finance, which represents the principal owing to Her Majesty as of January 1,	1965, in respect of certain loans made by
the Minister of Finance to the authority pursuant to section 25 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and (b) loans to the St. Lawrence seaway

authority in the amount of $13,200,000 in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $13,200,000.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with item 107d, are we not?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes.


Gérard Laprise: Then I wish to ask the minister a question about the deficits of the St. Lawrence seaway authority which asks for a reimbursement of $27,092,866. Is it expected that those deficits will continue for a long time?
And further on, there is another item asking for the conversion of the sum of $21,800,000.
Could the minister tell us if it is expected that the situation will improve to the extent that such deficits of the St. Lawrence seaway authority will be eliminated? Also what happens to the interests due by that authority? [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I was not explicit enough in my explanation of both of these items. The Welland canal is under the administration of the St. Lawrence seaway, but since there is no revenue collected and the Welland canal will always be in a deficit position, unless and until we impose tolls on it, it was felt it would be unfair to the rest of the seaway where tolls are charged, to charge as well the Welland canal against the seaway account, thereby giving a false impression of their accounts. The seaway did better last year than it did the year before, and we hope it will do still better this year. We hope it will get into balance in due course. Traffic is increasing steadily. I hardly dare hope for quite as big an increase this year as there was last year because we had this tremendous wheat traffic, but the prospects look very good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Treatment services-
30d. Operation and maintenance, $925,000.
George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister explain briefly the purpose of this amount of $575,000?


George James McIlraith: It results from an underestimate in the rise in the cost of hospital care and an increase in the consumption of materials and supplies.


George Louis Chatterton: I had hoped to make quite a few comments on veterans affairs. However, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs ap-
Supply-Veterans Affairs peared before the standing committee last September he stated categorically, and I can quote the page, that he would introduce legislation dealing with the veterans charter before the end of last year. He said that on two occasions, and there were no qualifications. I hope the President of the Privy Council can assure us that legislation dealing with the veterans charter will be brought before the house early in the next session.


George James McIlraith: I cannot give an assurance for the minister but it is hoped that it will be done.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Those are the very words the minister used almost a year ago. He hoped he would bring it in this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us end this session and give him a chance.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am afraid we may have the end of another session and there will still be no veterans legislation.


An hon. Member:: We will not reach that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We will not reach the end of another session? Why not? If the voice of wisdom coming from the back benches is correct, I think it is high time we on this side had some assurance there would be some legislation introduced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since I seem to be the senior minister here, I can say I know that is the intention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I know he has pressed his colleagues a great deal to get on with this. I think all of us know there has been quite a lot in this parliamentary timetable. We would like to start another session and try to get ahead with it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am quite prepared to sit down if the senior minister present will give us some assurance as to what type of legislation the Minister of Veterans Affairs intends to introduce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that it would be constitutionally improper, to attempt to anticipate the Queen's speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there is a change of government, I can assure the house there will be immediate action with regard to this legislation.


Mr. Patterson:: I should like to take a moment to call attention to a situation that exists that could militate against veterans receiving the very best of care and attention. I refer to a situation that exists in Shaugh-

Supply-Ways and Means nessy hospital in Vancouver where the rates of pay for nursing orderlies is not as much as is received for those engaged in similar activities in other hospitals.
There was a reference to this matter earlier today, but I wanted to call it to the attention of the government once again. I believe the high turnover in orderlies in the hospital could militate against the best interests of the veterans who are receiving attention there. I received a communication from the minister saying this matter was under review and they were trying to resolve it. They have been doing this for a long time. I want to urge the government to really become earnest about this proposition and arrive at a speedy decision so our veterans will not be placed in a position where they have to put up with less than the best in hospital care.


Robert Carman Coates: I want to make one observation. We might as well be accurate and change the calendar to April 3, because that is what it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: I regret that I have to remind hon. members there is still an item that we considered some hours ago and which was held over, 33d for external affairs.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I had occasion to speak to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and it is my understanding he is now content to leave 33d as amended. I further understand that any further amendment would render ineffectual the amendment already proposed by the right hon. gentleman and agreed upon by this committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that 33d is readopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
['Agreed.']
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, the sum of $345,781,048 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-151, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1965.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
['Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, the sum of $345,781,048 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we have a copy of the bill, even if it is incomplete?


Lucien Lamoureux: We are distributing copies but it should be brought to the attention of hon. members that they are not exact inasmuch as six $1 items were deleted, and so there is a reduction in the amount from $54 to $48, eliminating the millions.


George Clyde Nowlan: The most substantial this committee has ever made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may I have consent to revert to motions for the purpose of filing the first part of the report of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., the counsel retained to investigate the allegation that certain aliens have been unlawfully detained, and other allegations relative thereto.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is asking for consent to revert to motions. That consent is given for this express purpose, and this only.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe there is some other business which was delayed to this time, namely the 18th and 19th reports of the special committee on procedure. Is it desired to proceed with them now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I just consented to revert to motions, as asked by the hon. member for Fort William, for one purpose and one purpose only. To deal with the reports that you now mention would require again reverting to motions, to which I am not prepared to give consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised, could we cast our minds back to what happened at eleven o'clock this morning? As I understood you, Mr. Speaker, you stated from the chair that these two reports were stood from then until later this day. If that is the case is it necessary to revert to motions in order to deal with them? I do not believe it is.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These two motions for concurrence in the 18th and 19th reports were stood until later this day at eleven o'clock this morning. I meticulously looked into this matter to see that they were not stood until the next sitting of the house. Therefore I am sure that consent to stand the motions at eleven o'clock would not have been given if there was to be a requirement that they would stand over until another sitting, or require unanimous consent to revert to motions. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that we do not require unanimous consent at this time to take up these motions because there has already been a unanimous order given by the house that the motions would come up later this day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If hon. members are going to get very technical about it, I would not mind calling it ten o'clock.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I think when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre consented to reverting to motions for one specific purpose he did so to permit the tabling of a report, but I think that has nothing to do with the business which was adjourned from this morning, and I want to urge on the house that we should proceed with these two motions.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, when a matter is referred to be dealt with later this day, does that mean the parliamentary day or the calendar day? If it is the calendar day then the day has long since expired, and you would have no right to deal with these motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I do hope I will not interfere with the rights and privileges of hon. members, but it is my duty to point out that I made a notation that these two motions would
Business of the House be called later this day. Therefore one hon. member is certainly right in saying so.
I would like to point out that very considerable inter-party work has gone into these two reports. In particular the 18th report dealing with committees is one which we think is a great step forward in committee work, and I believe was agreed to by all the members on the committee.
Of course I am in the hands of the house and must take the decision of the house, but I do think it would be a great loss and we will not be making a forward step if we do not at least consider whether we should concur in these two reports tonight. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre if he could not shed that glow of warm feeling that we frequently feel, and assist the Chair and the house in taking what the committee at any rate feels is a real step forward in the modernization of procedures in the house, and which could prove of very material value to hon. members in the next session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not objecting to this on narrow grounds. I take a great interest in the rules, but I do object to having a committee of any size attempting to force something through the house without adequate discussion. Under the circumstances I would be prepared to discuss these motions for two or three hours.
I regret very much that the committee failed to effect a compromise with those who did not agree with their suggestions, and this is the situation they have got themselves into now. Had they been prepared to compromise, then perhaps we might have made some progress, but when people take an attitude like that-and I do not care how long they worked or who the committee is-they cannot expect to force their will on other members of the house who have just as much right to deal with rules as people on these committees. I say this from my experience in the past, having served for four years on the committee on rules. That is the reason for my stand on this occasion. The changes we desire can be made in the next session. They can be brought about by agreement and by compromise. But no attempt should be made to introduce them at ten minutes to two on April 3.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I make a suggestion which would, possibly, be a compromise? As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has just indicated, it is evidently the desire of a number of members to express views on these reports. Certainly

Business of the House no undertaking was given that they would be concurred in. The most that was done was to indicate there would be an opportunity to move at least one of them later this day. Your Honour seems to have noted that.
Perhaps we do have a little time to fill in while the hon. gentlemen in the other place are disposing of the business on which we have spent the last two days. Whatever the result, nothing would be prejudged if we were to have some debate while these other things are taking place. I am sure no one wants to ram anything down anyone else's throat, but it may just be possible that in the course of the debate the compromise which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would like to see made would be made by unanimous consent. That would be possible, as it always is in the house. If it is not possible, I am sure no one wants to force anything on the house. Certainly I would not want to be a party to doing so. There is no reason for not occupying the time we shall have to wait here by letting the hon. member move the motion and then, perhaps, recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He could explain his views, and this might be helpful in any event.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I explained my views to members of the committee the other day. They were rejected. I do not propose debating them at two o'clock in the morning. The compromise I have suggested is well known to the members of the committee. They did not accept it. I do not accept their suggestion. Consequently I propose calling it ten o'clock and bringing this session to a close.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the compromises he suggested were made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They were not made.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, they were accepted. If the hon. member would read the report he would see.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That, Mr. Speaker, is a distortion of the truth. My compromises were not accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that we seem to be slightly confused. There are two reports to consider, the 18th and the 19th. If I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) correctly he is disturbed about the 19th report, but I thought there was an agreement on the 18th report. Is that a correct statement?
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not quite correct, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I call your attention to the fact that it is past ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member takes precipitate action of that sort, may I say this: If I am correctly informed, Your Honour has a message from government house and it would perhaps be a discourtesy to the representative of the crown if we were to call it ten o'clock at this point. If there can be no agreement at this time we could perhaps do what is usual in these circumstances and suspend the sitting. I do think it would be an unprecedented thing, when all of us know that there is a message from the crown, even if it has not yet been read, to act in the way suggested. I think it would be discourteous not to receive it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: As long as they do not talk about the reports any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I could ask this question: Is there not something which could be done, some way which could be found, whereby we could have a discussion on these two reports, if not tonight, then perhaps on Monday morning? I recognize that the plan is to prorogue this session tonight, but speaking as one of the 15 members of Your Honour's committee, I would remind hon. members that these two reports have the unanimous support of the committee, and I think I can speak for all members of the committee when I say we feel it would be most unfortunate if there were no opportunity for the house to make its decision. The house may reject our work, but surely there should be an opportunity for this decision to be made. We feel that if a decision is not made in this session we shall not have an opportunity to try out in the next session the experiments which we propose. I know this upsets the plan to prorogue tonight, but we do not know how long they will be in the other place and it is almost two o'clock in the morning. What about a short recess to see if we can save the work which the committee has done?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the hon. member. I do think the suggestion that this message should be read is a correct one. Then we could probably adjourn at the call of the Chair.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, April 3, 1965
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber at 2,15 a.m. today April 3, 1965 for the purpose of proroguing the second session of the 26th parliament of Canada.
I have the honour to be, sir,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the sitting be suspended at the call of the Chair?



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2.25 a.m.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Criminal Code (Habeas
Corpus).
An act to incorporate Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
An act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
An act to amend the Companies Act.
An act respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs.
An act to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
Royal Assent
In the name of the Commons I present to Your Honour the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
To which bills I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To these bills the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the second session of the twenty sixth parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The second session of the twenty sixth parliament opened on February 18, 1964, and you have been in session for a longer time than any other parliament in our history. You have enacted much important legislation and approved many government actions of great significance for Canadians.
Canada was honoured by the presence of Her Majesty The Queen, and of His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh last October, when we commemorated the conferences held a century before which paved the way to confederation.
In the past year there was a very substantial increase in the number of people employed in Canada. Unemployment was reduced to the lowest level for many years. Economic growth has accelerated. The 1964 expansion in the gross national product was the largest percentage increase to be achieved since 1956. The incomes of Canadians have risen to new high levels. Exports have greatly improved, including particularly exports of manufactured products. Interest rates have been held at relatively low levels and monetary conditions have assisted business expansion. The government's budget deficit has been sharply reduced.
The first report of the economic council of Canada, analysing the great potentialities for the expansion of the Canadian economy between now and 1970, has been laid before you. My ministers are assessing the policies required to meet the challenge of these potentialities.
My government has agreed with the governments of all the provinces to recommend a measure whereby all amendments to the constitution of Canada will in future be enacted in Canada.
You have made an important reform by providing that independent commissions shall undertake the redistribution of electoral districts for the House of Commons, on a basis that will rectify many disparities in the representation of the people.
Following the recommendation of a special committee representative of all parties in the House of Commons, you have expressed your approval of a distinctive Canadian flag. By royal proclamation this flag, in the Canadian colours of red and white, and bearing the Canadian emblem of the
[Stage Direction]
Prorogation
maple leal, was Inaugurated on February 15, 1965. My ministers are convinced that, through the years, the flag will constitute an important contribution to Canadian unity and Canadian identity.
With Her Majesty's consent, and in accordance with your recommendation, the royal union flag will be flown on appropriate occasions to symbolize Canada's membership in the commonwealth and our devotion to the crown.
You have enacted legislation authorizing the integration ol Canada's three armed services and have approved a white paper on the reshaping of Canada's defence policy to improve the effectiveness of our contribution to peace keeping and international security.
The preliminary report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has been laid before you. My ministers have been gratified to observe the improving understanding of problems arising from the reality and importance of the dual character of our country.
In the spirit of co-operative federalism, my government has held important conferences with the governments of the provinces, and close consultation has greatly improved the co-ordination of federal and provincial policies.
You have enacted legislation whereby the abatement of federal tax on personal incomes, in favour of the provinces, will be increased during the next two fiscal years. You have also enacted legislation whereby my government may make, with provinces which so wish, alternative financial arrangements respecting certain established programs the cost of which is shared by my government.
The federal-provincial conference has established a tax structure committee which is reviewing the fiscal needs and relationships of federal and provincial governments.
You have approved an address to the Queen as a result of which the British North America Act was amended to provide that parliament may legislate concerning benefits, for disabled persons and for survivors, supplementary to old age pensions.
Following this constitutional amendment, you have enacted legislation to establish the Canada pension plan, for the comprehensive provision of retirement pensions which will be fully portable and which will be kept in line with changes in earnings and in the cost of living. In the same legislation you have provided a measure of income maintenance for contributors who become disabled and for the widows and children of contributors who die.
In the same legislation also, you have provided that the old age security pension will in future be paid from age 65 and that the basic amount of the pension will be increased if the cost of living rises.
You have enacted legislation whereby allowances of $10 a month are paid in respect of children aged 16 and 17 who are not working, either because they are unable to do so or because they are receiving full time education.
You have adopted a measure whereby my government may guarantee bank loans to university students and pay the interest on these loans during the years of study; this program is being administered in co-operation with the provinces.
You have enacted a measure to establish a labour code for industries under federal jurisdiction. The code provides for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour and for standards respecting hours of work and holidays.

The cash income of Canadian farmers rose in 1964 to a record level. Exports of wheat were the largest ever. Revisions in dairy policy were reflected in increased production, especially of cheese, better sales and prices, and the elimination of the butter surplus.
You have enacted a measure establishing a new type of farm credit, so that partnerships of farmers may borrow for the purchase of machinery to be used co-operatively.
You have enacted legislation to double the size of loans which may be made by the Farm Credit Corporation and of loans by chartered banks guaranteed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
You have adopted a measure whereby my government may provide re-insurance of the major portion of the disaster risk to any province establishing a crop insurance program.
You have approved increased assistance to farmers in eastern Canada and British Columbia purchasing feed grains.
My government is expanding the work of ARDA and has made with the provinces a new agreement respecting programs for the five years beginning 1 April, 1965.
You have approved an increase in Canada s contribution to the world food program.
In 1964 Canada's fisheries established records both in the quantities landed and the value of the catch to fishermen. A federal-provincial conference on fisheries development gave impetus to a widespread program of industrial development in the fisheries.
You have adopted a measure establishing a
12 mile fishing zone.
You have approved increases in veterans pensions and allowances, enabling their recipients to maintain their standards of living and to share in the benefits of a more buoyant economy.
By amending the National Housing Act you have broadened the range of financial assistance available for urban renewal and low rental housing.
My government has concluded an agreement with the United States respecting free trade in automobiles and their components. The agreement makes possible for the industry programs designed to achieve substantial improvements in efficiency, production and employment.
You have approved the payment of subvention assistance on the movement of Canadian coal for a period of five years from 1 April, 1965, and have authorized loans for coal production assistance for a further period of four years.
You have enacted legislation whereby divorce bills can be dealt with more expeditiously.
My government has initiated inquiries directed to the reassessment of immigration policy and procedures.
My ministers have made further progress in the study and implementation of many of the recommendations and suggestions of the royal commission on government organization.
We must note with regret that in the past year there has been little progress in reducing international tensions In recent weeks, some tensions have been heightened. My government has continued to make constructive efforts toward peace and good neighbourliness.
You have approved the participation of Canadian troops in the United Nations force in Cyprus, Though no long term solution to this problem is yet in sight, the United Nations force has been successful in controlling armed conflict.

You have approved the Columbia river treaty and its protocol, which my government subsequently ratified. These arrangements are of mutual benefit to Canada and the United States, providing this country with large supplies of low-cost power and increasing opportunities for employment.
My Prime Minister attended the conference in London of commonwealth prime ministers to discuss matters of common concern, including the establishment of a commonwealth secretariat.
My government convened a conference of experts to exchange experience on the practical and technical problems of peacekeeping. The commonwealth education conference was held in Ottawa.
In the search for international understanding and co-operation, my Prime Minister and his colleagues have visited and received a number of leaders of other countries, including the presidents of Ireland and the United States; the prime ministers of Britain, Japan, Malaysia and Trinidad and
Prorogation
Tobago; the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany; the foreign ministers of Australia, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany and Norway; and the secretaries general of the United Nations and of NATO.
Canadians recently joined with the people of Britain, the commonwealth and the world in paying final tribute to Sir Winston Churchill, to whom so much was owed by all free men.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public services in the current fiscal year.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May divine Providence continue to bless our country.
This concluded the second session of the twenty sixth parliament.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Civil service commission-
Id. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $257,975.

[Stage Direction]
B-Crown companies-
40d. Canadian Arsenals Limited-Administration and operation, $437,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Id. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates-To extend the purposes of External Affairs vote 1 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to provide, notwithstanding article XI of the agreement set out in the schedule to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission Act, for the total cost of developing, operating and maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello international park (one half thereof recoverable from the United States government) and to provide a further amount of, $726,350.
20d. Other payments to international organizations and programs as detailed in the estimates, $344,900.
[Stage Direction]
Government administrationlOd. Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $6,000,000.
16d. Government's contributions to the superannuation account, in the current and four subsequent fiscal years, as a result of the authorization of salary increases during the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years, each one of which was applicable to at least one quarter of 1 per cent of the contributors under the Public Service Superannuation Act, in such amounts as, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance are necessary to provide in each of the current and four subsequent fiscal years for one fifth of the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada for the benefits payable under that act, as a result of the said salary increases; estimated amount required for the 1964-65 fiscal year, $10,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
External aid office-
35d. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $7,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Government administration-
22d. To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $1,117,485.77. of which $451,991.49 represents 42 items that have been carried as assets in the statement of assets and liabilities, $451,992.
19d. To authorize the payment out of the superannuation account, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, of interest in respect of contributions made under section 6 of the Public Service Superannuation Act to the account that
(a)	have been on deposit in the account for at least two years from the date of their receipt, and
(b)	cannot be applied for the purpose for which they were originally paid into the account because the election pursuant to which they were made is void;
such interest to be compounded and to be calculated and paid at such rate and in respect of such period as the governor in council may prescribe, $1.
Administration-
Id. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of finance vote 1 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to include the Administration of the Canada Student Loans Act and to provide a further amount of, $280,000.
Government administration-
24d. To authorize the deletion from the accounts of Canada of $396,217,000 shown therein as the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation account and the charge of that amount to net debt as an adjustment in respect of prior years' transactions, $1.
Comptroller of the treasury-
27d. To authorize the deletion from the accounts of Canada of the balance of the cheque adjustment suspense account representing the unadjusted balance resulting from the reconciliation of payments to the chartered banks for the redemption of paid cheques with the amount of card cheques issued prior to April 1, 1962, and paper cheques issued prior to January 1, 1964, and the charging of such balance to net debt as adjustments in respect of prior years' transactions: balance at March 31, 1965 estimated to be $141,375.42, $1.
Royal Canadian Mint-
35d. Administration, operation and maintenance, $79,000.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries management and development-
15d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $200,000.
Special-
17d. Estimated amount required to recoup the fishing vessel indemnity account and the lobster trap indemnity account established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, and vote 527 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, to cover the net operating losses in the said accounts as at March 31, 1965, $81,000.
[Stage Direction]
5d. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $100,000.
General-
37d. Payment in respect of extra costs resulting from unloading the S.S. Wheat King at Quebec while en route to deliver grain at Halifax, $83,000.
[Stage Direction]
Legal and other services-
Id. Administration, $27,000.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Id. National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing

under contract-Administration, operation and maintenance, $121,000.
5d. National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing under contract-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works land and equipment, $391,000.
7d. Reimbursement of Royal Canadian Mounted Police revolving fund for the value of cloth which has become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $9,000.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Id. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates. $219,000.
5d. Payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements; payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to employers of 50 per cent of monthly wage paid or $75 per month, whichever is less, on behalf of each full time worker 45 years of age or over engaged during the period November 1. 1963 to March 31, 1964, and who is otherwise eligible under the older worker employment and training incentive program-To authorize payment in the 1965-66 fiscal year of amounts, not exceeding in the aggregate the unspent balance remaining at the conclusion of the 1964-65 fiscal year in labour vote 5, main estimates, 1964-65, to meet undischarged commitments under the older worker employment and training incentive program that might otherwise have been paid pursuant to the appropriation based on the said vote during the 1964-65 fiscal year if they had come in course of payment, $1.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
15d To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-Payments to the provinces, $34,430,000.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
30d. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including the transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $320,000.
Loans, investments and advances-*
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
L19d. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit in subsequent fiscal years, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed $50,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
5d. General administration, $107,600.
House of Commons-
10. Members of the House of Commons-Allowances in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in lieu of apartments to the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
Supply-Items Passed
20d. General administration, $640,000.
General-
27d. To authorize, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, payment of a gratuity in respect of the death of any member of the Senate or House of Commons subsequent to August 2, 1963, to the surviving spouse or the estate of the deceased member, in an amount equal to two months sessional indemnity and to ratify any such payments made during the 1963-64 fiscal year; estimated amount required for the 1964-65 fiscal year, $12,000.
[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
65d. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board. $25,000.
70d. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $7,035,000.
[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
55d. Civil pensions as detailed in the estimates, $279.
Canadian Army-
20d. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $7,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Administration-
Id. Departmental administration, $20,000.
Health services-
5d. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $100,000.
lOd. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $4,500,000.
15d. To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $2,000,000.
Welfare services-
40d. Administration, operation and maintenance, $112,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
L60d. To authorize
(a)	expenditures after the date of enactment of the act entitled the Canada pension plan in that and subsequent fiscal years that are required for the establishment of the Canada pension plan; and
(b)	the reimbursement from the Canada pension plan account during the fiscal year in which the plan is established or any subsequent fiscal year
(i)	of expenditures incurred pursuant to paragraph (a), and
(ii)	subject to the approval of the treasury board, expenditures directly related to the establishment of the plan incurred by government departments during the current or any previous or subsequent fiscal year, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
59d. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe, in the case of a contributor under any enactment of the parliament of Canada providing for the payment of pensions to members of the forces based on the length of service who, by reason of erroneous advice which he received from a member of the forces or a person employed in the public service whose normal duties included the giving of advice as to the counting of service under any such enactment, failed to elect in respect of service prior to becoming a contributor under such enactment within the time prescribed therein to pay for that service, the circumstances under which the contributor may elect to pay for that service and the terms and conditions (including conditions as to interest) upon which any such election shall be deemed to have been made by him under the applicable enactment within the time prescribed therefor by such enactment, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
15d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964, for housing research and community planning as contemplated by part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,233,106.
20d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to Section 5(5) and Section 24(b) of the Central Mortgage and Housing Act, for net losses resulting from the sale of mortgages from its portfolio during the calendar year 1964, $448,919.
25d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the calendar year 1964 as a result of the operation of public housing projects undertaken under part VI of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,478,014.
30d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for amounts loaned under Section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, to any province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, and forgiven by the corporation during the calendar year 1964, pursuant to section 36G of the act, $7,020,494.
35d. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for grants charged to the consolidated revenue fund as established by section 23E of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of contributions made during the calendar year 1964, to any province or municipality for the preparation or implementation of an urban renewal scheme or pursuant to an urban redevelopment agreement, $4,219,436.
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
L21d. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection 2 of section 36H of the National Housing Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of provinces during the calendar year 1964, $8,500,000.
L22d. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by
subsection 2 of section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of loans to any province, municipality or municipal sewage corporation, for construction or expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects during the calendar year 1964, $28,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
National parks-
15d. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1.
20d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of Northern Affairs and National Resources Vote 20 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include authority to make preliminary expenditures on the proposed new national park in the area of Kejimkujik lake in Nova Scotia, $1.
Northern administration-
45d Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $718,100.
[Stage Direction]
A-Privy council-
Privy council office-
15d. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $195,500.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Accommodation services-
15d. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Id. Postal services, $328,700.
[Stage Direction]
A-Privy council-
Privy council officelOd. General administration, $27,000.
[Stage Direction]
Northern administration-
55d. Reimbursement of the northern administration branch stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete or unserviceable, $53,439.
[Stage Direction]
C-Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition-
70d. Toward federal share of the cost of construction of an ice control structure, $1,825,000.
72d. Acquisition of land to be dealt with in accordance with the agreement between Canada,

the province of Quebec and Montreal respecting the Canadian universal and international exhibition Montreal, 1967, $150,000.
B-National capital commission-
60d. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $318,000.
A-Department-
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
30d. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1.
DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE A-Department-
Id. Departmental administration including the expenses of the committee on broadcasting-To extend the purposes of Secretary of State vote 1 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to include the expenses of the committee on election expenses and the committee on feature films and to provide a further amount of, $145,000.
5d. Companies and corporations branch, $9,400. lOd Translation bureau, $48,000.
15d Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office, $32,800.
Special-
17d Expenses pertaining to royal visit, 1964, $135,000.
18d Special grant, within the meaning of section 20 of the Canada Council Act, to the Canada council to be used for the general purposes set out in section 8 of the act, $10,000,000.
B-Atlantic development board-
20d. Administration and operation, $160,000.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
5d. Trade commissioner service-Administration, operation and maintenance, $277,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L37d. To amend vote L37a in supplementary estimates (A), 1964-65, to provide in subsequent fiscal years for stockpiling costs of uranium concentrates acquired pursuant to the contracts described in the said vote, $1.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Id. Departmental administration, $70,000.
Marine services-
5d Administration, operation and maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
Railways and steamships-
15d. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the "company") upon
Supply-Items Passed
applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits certified by the auditors of the company arising in the operations in the calendar year 1964 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland ferry and terminals; Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminal; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A. ferry service, $2,293,000.
20d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, and' of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $1.
Air services- -Civil aviation-
45d. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, $50,000.
Telecommunications and electronics-
55d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,700,000.
Railways and steamships-
27d. Canadian National Railways deficit, 1964_
Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company") upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising m the calendar year 1964, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated reveune fund, $38 -726,000.	'	'
^ Canadian maritime commission-
90d. Steamship subventions for coastal services as detailed in the estimates, $1,
A-Department-
General-
74d. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $98,800.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
85d. Administration of the commission-To extend the purposes of transport vote 85 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to include federal assistance toward the costs of ice breaking in the Miramichi river, N.B., $75,000.
A-Department-
General-
73d. To provide that section 115 of the civil service regulations shall apply to any person notwithstanding that he was not employed in the civil service on the date that the regulation was made
(a)	who ceased to be employed in the civil service at any time during the period commencing on the first day of April, 1962 and ending on the 28th day of February. 1964 and
(b)	who immediately prior to becoming employed in the civil service was employed by Canadian Marconi Corporation, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Treatment services-
30d. Operation and maintenance, $925,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
External aid office-
33d. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be credited on or after March 31, 1965.
(a)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965, set out in the sub-vote for international development assistance within external affairs vote 35 of the main estimates, 1964-65 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that vote); and
(b)	the unexpended balance on March 31, 1965 in the Colombo plan fund established by vote 566 of Appropriation Act No. 1 1952-53 (the amount so credited to be a charge to that fund);
and notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payment out of the said account in the subsequent fiscal years for economic, technical and educational assistance to developing countries, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith including authority
(c) to engage advisers or experts for service in the said developing countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council; and
(d)	to provide educational and technical training for persons from the said countries in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council. $1.
[Stage Direction]
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
107d. Payment as of January 1, 1965 to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, upon application, approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the accumulated Welland canal deficit incurred by the authority for the calendar years 1959-1964, $27,092,866.
Loans, investments and advances-
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
L47d. To authorize, upon application approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to the Minister of Finance, (a) the conversion as of January 1, 1965 of $21,800,000 of indebtedness by the authority to Her Majesty to an interest free loan repayable on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister of Finance, which represents the principal owing to Her Majesty as of January 1, 1965, in respect of certain loans made by the Minister of Finance to the authority pursuant to section 25 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and (b) loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in the amount of $13,200,000 in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $13,200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
50d. Reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council. $100.
[Stage Direction]
\